TFN no.5751.14 119-121

CCAR RESPONSA

Video Camera Affixed to Chuppah

5751.14

She’elah

Is it permissible to affix a video camera to a chuppah for the purposes of taping the wedding ceremony?

 

Teshuvah

Those who would allow the arrangement might draw on the tradition that it is a mitzvah to rejoice with bride and groom, and that the requested installation of a video camera could be seen as enlarging the couple’s enjoyment. Those who might oppose the installation would draw on the tradition that a religious celebration has certain limits, which render intrusive devices inappropriate.

 

1. The mitzvah to rejoice with bride and groom. It is a mitzvah derabbanan (instituted by the Rabbis) to accompany the couple to the chuppah and to rejoice with them.1 Already in medieval times it became a custom to dance at weddings to the accompaniment of music2—even though such music making was otherwise still prohibited, as a remembrance of the Temple’s destruction.3

 

By analogy, the photographing as well as audio and video taping of the ceremony have become generally acceptable as activities which, by providing happy memories of the event, enhance the wedding joy.

 

It is assumed that the camera is installed in such a way that it does not detract from the chuppah and its symbolism.

 

2. Standards of propriety. Already in ages past, certain limitations were placed upon merry making at weddings.4 The custom of breaking a glass at the conclusion of the ceremony may also be seen as introducing a sober note, as was the earlier habit of placing ashes on the head of the groom, in the spot where he would normally wear his tefillin.5

 

There was also considerable discussion on matters of propriety, as for instance with regard to the lavishness of the wedding and the difficulties encountered when the community’s leaders tried to enforce sumptuary standards.6 In the nineteenth century, the Hatam Sofer expressed the fear that, if the wedding were held in the synagogue, the customary dignity accorded to it might be diminished by excessive gaiety and the possible mingling of the sexes.7 However, R. Moshe Feinstein ruled that the conditions on which the Hatam Sofer had based his decision no longer applied in the contemporary world, and that therefore certain customs and restrictions need no longer be observed.8

 

3. Recording the ceremony. This has become a custom not only in Reform but also in all other synagogues, though one objection to this practice has been raised on halakhic grounds by R. Yitzhak Rudnick. He argues that tapes are frequently erased, and if blessings are recorded on them the Divine Name too is erased, which is forbidden.9 R. Feinstein disagrees and maintains the common practice, because no actual letters are being erased; still he suggests that if erasing does take place, it be done by some automated procedure (akin to the running of Shabbat elevators, etc.).10

4. Affixing the video camera. How do these various arguments apply to our she’elah?

Applying the rules of rejoicing and limits depend on many variables. Usually the rabbi and the congregation arrive at certain standards, especially when the ceremony takes place in the sanctuary.

 

Since such weddings are quite common in the Reform movement it may be assumed that each synagogue has some rules for the participants themselves as well as for decorators, photographers and the like. In many if not most instances, the popping of flash bulbs during the ceremony is forbidden during the ceremony, so that in this regard an unobtrusively affixed camera in the chuppah is an improvement.

 

Still, some are cautious about a blanket permission. They point out that a chuppah, like a kiddush cup, is not just another thing, but an item which partakes of the holiness of the ritual, and that therefore its integrity should be especially safeguarded. In this view, affixing a camera to the chuppah for convenience’s sake is seen as undesirable. Yet others would point to the analogous practice of many Reform (and Conservative) synagogues which place a microphone inside the Ark.

 

A final consideration is privacy. There are moments in life which are unsuitable for recording even though the media frequently offend against ordinary sensitivities as, for instance, when the sorrow of bereaved persons is pictured for all to see. This caution could well apply to the question at issue. The couple are usually turned toward the Ark, away from the congregation, and only those under the chuppah can observe their intimate reactions during the ceremony. To record these may initially be thought of as a good idea, but the couple, when apprised of the implications of such procedures, will frequently opt for greater privacy and agree that some moments are best preserved in memory only.

 

In sum, the rabbi who asks the she-‘elah will have to consider his/her own sense of propriety, as well as the custom of the congregation and the community. Last but not least, the question ought to be raised with the bride and groom. We see no objection per seto the proposed practice.

 

Notes

Rambam, Yad . Hil. ‘Avel 14:1. He derives this from the commandment to love one’s neighbor and, following Hillel (BT, Shabbat 31a), concludes that we should extend this principle to making a wedding a happy occasion. Various commentaries enlarge on this ruling (see, e.g., the Vilna Gaon in his commentary on Sh.A. Even Ha-Ezer 65:1), and include it in the mitzvah of hakhnasat kallah (arranging for a wedding and rejoicing with bride and groom), which the prayer book mentions as a mitzvah that accompanies us into the world-to-come (see. for instance, Gates of Prayer, p.235). See Tur, Orach Chayyim 338: “There is no wedding joy without musical instruments.” The ban is found in TB Gittin. 7a and Sota 48a; Rambam, Yad , Hil. Ta’aniyot 5:14. For a full discussion of musical instruments in the Halakhah, see R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Resp. Tzitz ‘Eliezer, vol. 15, no. 33. See e.g. the comment of Magen Avraham on Sh.A. Orach Chayyim 560:11. For a full discussion, see Prof. Jacob Zvi Lauterbach, “The Ceremony of Breaking a Glass at Weddings,” in HUCA vol.II., pp.351-380; and R. Solomon B. Freehof, Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 182-188. See R. Jacob R. Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World, pp. 193-197. See especially Resp. Hatam Sofer, Even Ha-ezer, no .98, whose ruling was most likely motivated by his desire to counter-act the spreading custom of Reformers to hold weddings in the synagogue. R. Isaac Halevy Herzog, Resp. Heikhal Yitzhak , ‘Even Ha-‘Ezer II, no 27, decided similarly. Resp. Iggerot Moshe , Even Ha-Ezer, no. 93. Resp. Sedeh Yitzhak, no. 5. Resp. Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh De’ah, I no. 173, and II no. 142.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.