17 Nov YOU NEED A COMPETENT RABBI FOR A WEDDING
I. What A
Rabbi Does
Most of us
have been to
enough Jewish
weddings that
we know how
they work. We
can easily officiate. Even without
a big crowd, all a man has to do
is give a woman a ring in front of
two witnesses and say the “harei
at” formula. Who needs a rabbi?
If you really want an officiant,
have your friend, teacher or barber
perform the ceremony. Maybe
have a singer or a chazzan do it,
instead of a rabbi. Looking through
the responsa literature, we see that
some people have done it that
way — or have used incompetent
rabbis — with disastrous results.
You need a rabbi to officiate to
ensure that the man and woman
are permitted to marry and that the
wedding is performed according to
the necessary requirements. That is
the rabbi’s primary responsibility
at a wedding. Rav Yosef Zechariah
Stern (Zeicher Yehosef, Even Ha-
Ezer 10) discusses a wedding at
which an incompetent rabbi — a
local teacher — officiated without
the knowledge of the town’s rabbi.
Not only were the couple forbidden
to marry, the ring was borrowed.
When the teacher learned about the
ring, he had the couple divorce and
remarry. The rabbi asked Rav Stern
whether the couple may remain
together after the second wedding,
since technically they should
never have been allowed to marry.
Throughout the centuries, the
responsa literature records many
similar questions in which inexpert
officiants failed to ensure that the
ring or witnesses
met halachic
standards or were
unaware that
the couple may
not be allowed
to wed. This is
why the Gemara
( K i d d u s h i n
6a) warns that
anyone who
does not fully
u n d e r s t a n d
marriages and
divorces may not
officiate at them. You need to be
trained to perform a wedding.
II. Local Enactments
Mischievous teenagers cause an
additional problem of rabbi-less
weddings. If a boy gives a girl
anything of sufficient value and says
“harei at…” in front of witnesses
and she accepts, they need a
divorce. To avoid this problem,
communities have attempted to
issue enactments that render such
weddings invalid. Throughout the
Middle Ages, we see mentions of
local excommunications (cherem)
issued on anyone who marries
a woman (kiddushin) without
a minyan, a formal officiant or
otherwise planned and controlled
(eg Responsa Rashba 1:550; Ritva
quoted in Beis Yosef, Even Ha-
Ezer 45 sv. ve-chasav od; Responsa
Rashbatz 1:133; Responsa
Maharik 83-84). These enactments
and excommunications can serve
to deter people from marrying in
this fashion and punish those who
do so. The question is whether
these enactments can invalidate
a wedding, thereby avoiding the
need for a get which can be very
difficult and costly.
We see three views on this matter
in the 16th century. Rav Eliyahu
Mizrachi (Responsa, no. 17)
points out that a wedding of two
people rabbinically forbidden can
be effective, even if prohibited. If
so, how can a wedding prohibited
only by a cherem be less effective
than one rabbinically forbidden?
Therefore, he does not allow for
the invalidation of these marriages.
However, his argument assumes
that the cherem merely forbids the
marriage. The rabbinic genius can
find other ways to invalidate the
marriage.
Rav Moshe
( M a h a r a m )
A l a s h k a r
(Responsa, no.
48) discusses
enactments that
not only forbid
the marriage
but explicitly
r e m o v e
ownership of
the ring (or
other item) used
to effect the
marriage. Since the groom must
own the ring and rabbis (even
today) have the ability to render
property ownerless, they can
prevent the marriage from taking
effect by declaring in advance
that the ring is ownerless under
specific circumstances. However,
Maharam Alashkar cautions that
a single community inside a large
city cannot make this enactment on
its own. Otherwise, a couple can
just go down the street and have
their marriage recognized. Only
the joint communities of a city or
region can invalidate marriages in
this way.
Rav Shmuel De Medina
(Maharshdam; Responsa, Even
Ha-Ezer 12, 21, 30) discusses
a different type of cherem.
Communities can excommunicate
people who witness a wedding that
lacks a rabbi or minyan. Since a
wedding needs two witnesses, by
excommunicating the witnesses
the rabbis effectively nullify the
wedding. This was challenged
by the Maharshach, whose case
was taken up by the Ketzos Ha-
Choshen (52:1). Witnesses are
only invalidated after the fact, for
future weddings. Additionally,
people can witness a wedding
by accident, if they happen to be
where it takes place. In such a case,
they do not violate the cherem and
remain qualified to testify.
III. Conclusion
In practice, the Rema (Shulchan
Aruch, Even Ha-Ezer 28:21) rules
that even if a community issues
an enactment against marriages
without a minyan or the like, in
such situations we require a get
out of doubt. Where there is no
enactment to the contrary, the Taz
(Even Ha-Ezer 49:1) allows anyone
to officiate at a wedding as long
as he does not rule on anything. I
assume that means that a rabbi has
to approve the marriage in advance
and the officiant needs at least
basic training to avoid problems.
Indeed, many communities issued
an enactment that the rabbi had to
approve the marriage but did not
have to officiate at the wedding.
This is so despite the reality that
some communities failed to pay
their rabbi a living wage and
assumed that he would supplement
his income with fees for life cycle
events. However, the Pischei
Teshuvah (ad loc., 2) quotes Rav
Ya’akov Reischer (Shevus Ya’akov
3:116) who rules that a wedding
officiant must be fully proficient in
all the laws to avoid problems.
Rav Moshe Sofer (Responsa
Chasam Sofer, Even Ha-Ezer
108-109) adds an important
footnote to the above discussion.
The annulment under debate
only refers to the first stage of
marriage, the kiddushin. Since
reckless teenagers would only do
the kiddushin, these enactments
could prevent such problems.
However, no cherem can
undo a marriage that has been
consummated.