Groom Not Seeing Bride

There is a prevailing custom to forbid bride and groom seeing each other on the day of the wedding before the ceremony. Is this custom based upon Jew ish law or tradition?

In Biblical and Talmudic times the marriage ceremony was divided into two parts. The first part was called Erusin; the second, some time later (often a year) was called Nissuin. The Erusin was more than an engagement (which in later times was called Shidduchin); it was actually a legal marriage except that bride and groom were not permitted to have sexual relations with each other. Therefore it was prohibited for the espoused couple (bound by Erusin) to live together in the same house. (See Mishnah Ketuboth, chap. V, 1, 2, and Shulchan Aruch, Even Hoezer 55 : 1.) Except for the prohibition of sexual relationships, and therefore of living together in the same house, the couple were considered married and could not be parted without a “Get.” In post-Talmudic times, the Erusin (espousal) and the Nissuin (the taking home) have been combined into one ceremony with two cups of wine and two sets of blessings, as we have it today. Since the espousal (Erusin) had thus virtually disappeared as a separate status, its place was taken by a betrothal or engagement (Shidduchin), which of course has not the same legal status as a marriage as the Erusin had. It is merely an engagement. However, Isserles (to Even Hoezer 55 : 1) says that we should be concerned in keeping the engaged couple apart also (i.e., as in ancient times the espoused couple were kept apart after Erusin).

But how strictly were they to be kept apart? Marriages were arranged by marriage brokers without the couple seeing each other. But the Talmud says definitely (b. Kiddushin 41a) that a man may not marry a woman until he sees her. How, then, could this Talmudic requirement be fulfilled if they are kept too strictly apart? Samuel Feibus, of Furth (seventeenth century), in his commentary “Beth Shmuel” (to Even Hoezer 35, at the end of sec. 2), says that a dinner was given the evening before the wedding and thus the groom fulfilled the Talmudic requirement to see the bride; and it was therefore no violation of the Talmudic dictum if he did not see her before that time.

But what about the period between the engagement and such a party given the night before the wedding? How strictly was the caution of Isserles to be taken when he said, “Yesh lochush” (“we must be concerned”) about them living in the same house? Many of the stricter later authorities objected strenuously to the couple seeing each other at all or going out together during their engagement. Joshua Wildberg, in his “K’doshim Tihiyu” (Jerusalem, 1933), is very indignant at couples seeing each other during the engagement period, and he quotes whatever authorities he can find to justify this strict prohibition. He cites Phineas Horowitz, of Frankfurt (eighteenth century, in “Hamikna”), who says that after the engagement the couple should not see each other until the wedding ceremony. He also quotes Jonathan Eibeschutz (in “Kereti u’Peleti,” 195, end of sec. 6), to the same effect. Also, Isaiah Horowitz (seventeenth century, in “Sh’la,” “Gate of the Letters,” ed. Amsterdam, p. 100) says: “Now, my sons, take care that before the wedding takes place, the bride should not be seated by the groom as is customary nowadays. He even embraces and kisses her. Woe to the eyes that see such things.” So too Ganzfried in his “Kitzur Shulchan Aruch” 152 : 14. Chaim Ezekiel Medini, in “S’de Chemed” (Ma’-arches Chosen vo Challo, Letter 12, p. 25a), is shocked at the fact that the engaged are often alone and converse with each other when they should not even, he says, touch each other’s hand. Buber (Anshe Shem, p. 232) gives the text of a written promise made by grooms not to visit the home of their fiancees. (Cf. also Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, p. 194; Finklestein, Jewish Self Government in the Middle Ages, pp. 185-86; Responsa of Meir of Rothenburg, Lemberg, #141.)

But actually, all these puritan restrictions are based upon a carry-over from the old Erusin and refer to a desire to keep the espoused couple apart since they were legally married but might not have sexual relations. Also, they are based upon the general prohibition in the Talmud against looking on any woman or coming into close contact with any woman at all. This Talmudic law (Avo dah Zara 20) is codified in the Shulchan Aruch, Even Hoezer 21 : 1. However, all this strictness as to bride and groom has no firm legal foundation and was not generally observed. Besides, it does not justify the present custom of the bride and groom being kept from seeing each other on the wedding day before the ceremony. It was chiefly an ascetic objection to courtship after their engagement.

As for the wedding day itself, not one of the codes mentions any prohibition against bride and groom seeing each other on that day. On the contrary, there is a well-established custom in eastern Europe whereby the groom went with the rabbi to where the bride was housed with her women attendants and participated (according to one opinion, was required to participate) in the custom of covering the bride’s head and face with the veil. (See Ezekiel Landau in “Dagul Mirvovo” to Yore Deah 342; “Ta’ame Ha’minhagim,” in the Appendix, p. 14; also Hirshowitz, “Ozar Kol Minhagey Yeshurun,” pp. 29, 34.)

There is clearly, then, no objection in the law or custom to bride and groom seeing each other on their wedding day. I have discovered, however, that for them not to do so is a widespread custom among Protestants, and perhaps in that fact lies the origin of the idea among American Jewish couples.