WEDDING BEFORE THE OPEN ARK

QUESTION:

A couple about to be married in the synagogue asked that during the ceremony the doors of the Ark be opened. Should this request be granted? (Asked by Vigdor Kavaler, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.)

ANSWER:

NOWADAYS MANY young couples about to be married feel

very independent-minded about the wedding service. They seem to be of the opinion that since it is their

wedding, they have the right to dictate, to a considerable degree, the form of the ceremony. In these days of increased mixed marriages, rabbis are naturally inclined to be concessive to the requests of any couple that wishes to be married by a rabbi. Of course, some of these special requests are of no important consequence and can be granted readily, but some are of such a nature that they cannot be granted at all. Some couples will ask that the

rabbi officiate with a Christian minister. This will, of course, occur in mixed marriages, not when both groom

and bride are Jews. Some couples seem to wish to write the entire service themselves. Other couples insist upon having certain poetry or certain loving paragraphs that they have written to each other included in the traditional ceremony. This limited request is generally granted because it does not involve any omission of the traditional essentials of the service but is merely an addition which is of no special consequence.

But a request has come recently that during the wedding ceremony the doors of the Holy Ark be open so that the Torahs be visible. Should this request be among those which the rabbi can readily grant?

It is necessary, first of all, to make clear the Halachic status of our present custom, in all Reform and most Conservative congregations (and now in some Orthodox congregations), to have the wedding ceremony in the synagogue auditorium itself. This is an important and a controversial question. Large sections of Jewry, primarily Orthodox, consider it quite wrong to hold the ceremony indoors. I have been informed that in certain Chassidic marriages in New York, when the marriage takes place in a hired hall, the ceremony is conducted under an open skylight. The preference for marriages to take place in the open air is based upon a statement by Moses Isserles in Shulchan Aruch, Even Hoezer 61:1, in which he says, “Some say that a marriage should take place under the open sky as a good omen [simmon tov] to symbolize God’s blessing to Abraham that his descendants shall be as numerous as the stars of the heaven.” Moses Sofer, the great Hungarian authority, in his responsa (Even Hoezer 98) insists that this suggestion of Isserles be strictly followed, and he says, further, that those who do not follow it are merely imitating the Christian custom of having marriages in the church.

However, in spite of the suggestion of Isserles and the insistence of Moses Sofer, it cannot be said that it is an actual law that the marriage must take place out of doors. As a matter of fact, Maharil, the great Rhenish authority (especially in the field of our Ashkenazic minhagim), always conducted marriages within the synagogue. There was indeed a preliminary ritual outside of the synagogue in the courtyard, but the marriage itself, with the blessings, took place in the synagogue itself (Maharil, Hil. Chasuna).

An interesting modern discussion as to whether marriages may or may not take place in the synagogue is found in the responsa of the modern Orthodox authority, Moses Feinstein (Even Hoezer # 9 3) . He was asked the following question: A rabbi of an Orthodox congregation was required by the congregation to attend (if not to participate in) all the marriages of the congregation members. In this Orthodox congregation, the marriages take place in the synagogue. Therefore this rabbi asks Moses Feinstein whether, because of the statements of Isserles and Moses Sofer, he should refuse to attend the weddings in the synagogue even though, if he does refuse to attend, he may lose his position. Moses Feinstein (while he did not quote the actual practice of Maharil, who conducted marriages in the synagogue) says that Isserles’ statement is not law—it is only good advice for a good omen (simmon tov) for those who wish to follow it; and as for the prohibition against synagogue marriages by Moses Sofer, that was stated under special circumstances. Moses Sofer was fighting the custom of the Reformers, whom he accused of imitating the practices of Gentile church weddings by having the weddings in the synagogue. But actually, says Moses Feinstein, the rabbi may attend the marriages in the synagogue, and in fact, he is in duty bound to attend to see that they are conducted according to Jewish law. So it is clear that our present general custom of having the marriages in the synagogue, while contrary to the rather widespread practice of having them in the open air, is nevertheless fully in accord with Jewish legal tradition.

However, there is one significant difference between Reform marriages in the synagogue and Orthodox marriages besides, of course, the variations in ritual. The difference relevant to our discussion is the location within the synagogue where the wedding takes place.

When Maharil conducted the wedding ceremony in the synagogue in Mainz, the ceremony took place on the bimah (he calls it migdal), i.e., the reading desk and enclosure which, in all Orthodox synagogues, is in the center of the synagogue, about equidistant between the Ark and the exit doors. So today in Orthodox synagogues, when the ceremony does take place in the synagogue, it likewise takes place upon the bimah, the reading enclosure in the center of the synagogue. But in Reform congregations and in most Conservative congregations, the bimah, the center of the synagogue, has long since been omitted. The seating now is solid from the Ark to the door. Therefore, when marriages take place in a Reform or Conservative congregation, they take place on the platform right in front of and close to the Ark. Thus these marriages already are in the most sacred part of the synagogue, which is not at all inappropriate since marriage is a sacred institution and the ceremony is called Kid-dushin, “sacredness.” The Ark, too, is considered tashmishey kedusha, “the appurtenances of the holy,” so it is quite appropriate that the wedding ceremony, called Kiddushin, should take place right in front of the Ark, which is tashmishey kedusha.

Even when the Ark is closed, it must be understood that the precinct is considered sacred. If so, then why may a preacher stand with his back to the Ark during the sermon? The answer given is that when the Ark doors are closed, the Ark is considered a separate enclosure. Besides, the preacher stands there for only a limited time. It would be considered wrong, however, for people so to be seated in the synagogue that their backs are toward the closed Ark. In fact, those pious people who would spend a whole night of Yom Kippur in the synagogue are expected to be very careful that when they fall asleep, they are seated as far as possible from the Ark. It is even said that when people leave the synagogue, they should not turn their backs completely on the Ark, but rather sidle out through the door. (All the above laws and customs are described in the Encyclopedia Talmudit under the heading “Aron Ha-Kodesh.”) So it is clear that even when the Ark is closed, we must be aware and considerate of its sanctity. Nevertheless, for the brief time of the wedding ceremony, it is permissible that the rabbi or the married couple will have their backs toward the Ark, since the closed Ark is considered a separate enclosure.

But now comes the additional request—which seems to be based on the feeling that the sanctity of the closed Ark is insufficient—that the doors of the Ark be opened and the sacred scrolls be visible to all during the wedding ceremony.

This suggestion raises certain difficulties, if not in law, at least in custom. Many authorities and many communities insist that whenever the Ark is open, the congregation must stand. Therefore, during the service on Sabbath and holidays, when the Torah is taken out to be read, all communities follow the rule that people stand while the Torah is moved from the Ark to the reading desk; but some communities will stand as long as the Ark is open (see the authorities cited in Contemporary Reform Re-sponsa, pp. 37-39). Therefore, the custom has developed in some communities, for the sake of the congregation, not to keep the Ark open after the Torahs are taken out. Therefore, keeping the Ark open during a wedding ceremony might lead many to feel that the sacredness of the visible Sefer Torahs would require them to stand all through the wedding ceremony, which would certainly be a hardship for many.

Furthermore, on certain special occasions of worship, such as Yom Kippur, the Ark doors are solemnly opened. Is it wise, then, to destroy the uniqueness and the special impressiveness of those worship occasions by making the open Ark a frequent and, therefore, commonplace event?

To sum up, it cannot be said that there is a definite law against having the doors of the Ark open during a wedding ceremony, but sentiment and general good sense would be opposed to such a practice. If a couple insists on it, and if the circumstances are such that it is better to give in to their request, that may be done. But, in general, there is a danger that if it is permitted for one couple, others will deem it a privilege which they are entitled to also, and soon it would become common practice. It is this danger that must be avoided. Let the couple understand that having their ceremony on the platform right by the Holy Ark is certainly sacredness enough, and the request to open the Ark should, for the sake of the convenience of the congregation and retaining the solemnity of the special religious services, be discouraged as much as possible.