Ishut - Chapter Ten

Indeed, the two are forbidden to remain in privacy together. For the prohibition against yichud, being alone with a woman other than one’s wife, applies until the marriage is consummated (Rama, Even HaEzer 55:1).

This is alluded to by the wording of the blessing recited before consecrating a woman (Chapter 3, Halachah 24), which praises God ‘‘Who has forbidden the arusot to us, and permitted to us those who are married by [the rites of] chuppah and kiddushin’’ (Kessef Mishneh).

Popularly, the term chuppah is understood to refer to the wedding canopy. Nevertheless, the common practice is to follow the Rambam’s view as well. For this reason, after the ceremony under the wedding canopy, the bride and groom go to a private room, the cheder yichud. This constitutes the halachic definition of chuppah.

In Jewish law, marriage is a two-stage process involving erusin and nisu’in. Erusin (also referred to as kiddushin) is the stage that causes a woman to be designated as a man’s wife and causes her to be forbidden to other men. It is not until nisu’in, however, that the couple begins living together as man and wife. At present, nisu’in follows directly after erusin; under the wedding canopy the groom consecrates the bride, and afterwards they go to a private room.

I.e., all the privileges and obligations of the ketubah (marriage contract) apply. He alone nullifies her vows, and if he is a priest, should his wife die, he must become impure when burying her.

This ruling is not accepted by Rabbenu Asher and other authorities. They maintain that a chuppah conducted with a niddah is binding, despite the fact that the couple are forbidden to engage in intimate relations. (See Tur and Shulchan Aruch 61:1.) At present, every effort is made to schedule a wedding so that the woman will not be in the niddah state at that time. If, however, that is not possible, the wedding is held and is considered binding, despite the woman’s condition.

This applied when the wedding celebrations were held in the groom’s home. The intent is that the blessings be recited before the complete establishment of the marriage bond.

Rashi (Ketubot 7b) explains that this blessing is in praise of the creation of Adam, the first man.
In Hilchot Berachot 10:11, where the text of the wedding blessings is mentioned, this blessing precedes the blessing ‘‘Who has created all things for His glory.’’ The order mentioned in these halachot is the sequence in which these blessings are recited today. It appears more appropriate, particularly according to Rashi’s commentary (ibid.), which explains that the blessing ‘‘Who has created all things...’’ is not directly connected to the wedding itself, but rather is recited in appreciation of the guests who have come to celebrate together with the new couple.

Despite the fact that this blessing follows two (or three) blessings that begin with ‘‘Blessed...’’ it also begins with ‘‘Blessed....’’ Among the explanations offered is that the first blessings are short, and if the phrase ‘‘Blessed...’’ were not mentioned, they would appear to be a single blessing (Tosafot, Ketubot, ibid.).

Rashi (ibid.) interprets this as a reference to the creation of woman, who was created from man (‘‘his own self’’), and gives him the potential for reproduction (‘‘a structure that will last for all time’’).

‘‘The barren one’’ refers to Jerusalem. Psalms 137:6 states: ‘‘Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not place Jerusalem above my highest joy.’’ Thus, at the height of the wedding celebration, we recall the holy city and pray that it be rebuilt.

This is a prayer that the bride and groom enjoy the happiness experienced by Adam and Eve before the first sin.

Cf. Jeremiah 33:11. This blessing joins our wishes for the happiness of the particular couple with our hope for the Messianic redemption and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The ultimate marriage relationship is the bond between God and the Jewish people, which will be realized in the Messianic age. Thus, the two themes, marriage and redemption, share an intrinsic link.

Rashi, Ketubot 8a, explains the difference between the last two blessings. The fifth of the blessings concludes with a request that the bride and groom enjoy a lifetime of happiness and success together. The sixth and final blessing concludes with a request that they find happiness in each other and that their wedding joy be extended throughout their lives. Alternatively, the final blessing is a blessing for the Jewish people as a whole, who find fulfillment in married life.

These seven blessings are also recited after grace at the festive meals held during the seven days of celebration after a couple’s marriage. (See Hilchot Berachot 2:9-11.)

Ketubot 7b derives this from Ruth 4:2, ‘‘And he took ten men from the elders of the city,’’ which is interpreted to refer to the marriage between Boaz and Ruth.
In the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 49, the Rambam explains that our Sages required ten men to be present to publicize all weddings, so that a man will live together with a woman only after their marriage has become public knowledge. Their intent was to make it socially unacceptable for couples to live together without marriage.

As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 2, although all efforts are made not to schedule a marriage when the woman is in the niddah state, if this is unavoidable the wedding may be held and the blessings recited. Nevertheless, the consummation of the marriage is possible only when the woman is purified.

This is the sum of money required for a person to support himself for one year (Bertinuro, Pe’ah 8:8).

This point is a matter of debate, for there are certain opinions (among them that of Rabbenu Tam) that maintain that the obligation to pay the fundamental requirement of the ketubah stems from Scriptural Law. Support for the latter opinion may be drawn from the wording commonly used in most Ashkenazic ketubot ‘‘200 silver zuz that are rightfully yours [as required by] the Torah.’’ [Significantly, even the text of the ketubah in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Yibbum VaChalitzah 4:34) includes this phrase. Nevertheless, many authorities maintain that this is a printer’s addition and not the Rambam’s own words.]
Most authorities (including Rabbenu Asher) agree that the obligation to pay the fundamental requirement of the ketubah is Rabbinic in origin. Nevertheless, the abovementioned phrase is traditionally included in the ketubah to teach us the value of the silver to which we are referring, as is explained in the notes on the following halachah.

I.e., when the man understands that divorcing his wife will cost him a significant sum of money, he will think twice before doing so.

The Ashkenazic authorities (even those who agree with the Rambam with regard to the Rabbinic origin of the fundamental requirement of the ketubah) differ with him regarding the value the man is required to pay [Tur, Rama (Even HaEzer 66:6)]. According to these authorities, our Sages ordained that a man pay his virgin bride 200 zuz of pure silver. With regard to a bride who is not a virgin, however, they differ and maintain that the obligation is 100 zuz of the Talmudic period. In practice, however, the custom is to give such a bride half the sum given to a virgin (Beit Shmuel 66:14).

Chapter 1, Halachah 12. According to most authorities, the equivalent of a dinar in contemporary measure is 4.8 grams. According to Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Piskei Siddur), it is 5.1 grams.

I.e., a kinyan chalifin, in which the recipient gives the seller a handkerchief and thus reaffirms his commitment. After this act, the transaction is binding. (See Hilchot Mechirah 5:5.)

Implied by the Rambam’s wording is that this is only a temporary measure, and that a ketubah must be composed at the earliest possible opportunity. (See Rama, Even HaEzer 66:2.)

I.e., he does not have to give her the full value of her original ketubah. He must, however, give her a ketubah in which he obligates himself for the minimal amount required by our Sages. Note the Beit Shmuel 66:10, who questions whether he must write the ketubah for 100 or 200 zuz.

I.e., she sells the rights to her ketubah to a purchaser for a price below its face value. Should her husband die or divorce her, the purchaser receives the full value of the ketubah. If the woman dies before her husband, the purchaser does not receive anything.

I.e., after a marriage has been consummated, a woman may collect her due even from property that has been sold, for all her husband’s property is on lien to her ketubah. Before the marriage bond is consummated, however, she does not have this right (Ketubot 43b).
Rabbenu Asher and Rabbenu Nissim differ with the Rambam in this regard and maintain that the woman should be able to collect her ketubah from property that has been sold as well. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 55:6) follows the Rambam’s view.

Ketubot 54b explains that the additional amount was granted the woman in consideration of the couple’s intimate relationship.

In this matter as well, Rabbenu Asher differs with the Rambam and maintains that a woman is entitled to a ketubah from erusin onward. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) quotes the Rambam’s view. Although the Rama mentions Rabbenu Asher’s opinion, he states that it is customary to follow the Rambam’s ruling.

Halachah 11.

Hilchot Eivel 1:1 states that Moses ordained the seven days of mourning and the seven days of wedding celebrations for the Jewish people.

During these days, it is customary for the friends and family of the bride and groom to host them at celebrations referred to as sheva berachot (‘‘seven blessings’’) for the seven wedding blessings recited after the meal at these celebrations, as explained in Hilchot Berachot, Chapter 2.

The Maggid Mishneh states that if the groom was not married previously, he should celebrate with his bride for seven days even when she had been married before. He draws support from Hilchot Berachot 2:9, which states that in such an instance the seven wedding blessings are recited for the week following the wedding.

See Halachah 14, which explains the source for this ruling.

Even during Chol Hamo’ed, the intermediate days of a festival (Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 7:16).

The mourning customs of that day do not prevent one from consecrating a wife. The rationale: another man may consecrate the woman instead of him (Jerusalem Talmud, Ketubot 1:1).

Although many of the early Sephardi authorities object, the Shulchan Aruch (Even Ha- Ezer 64:3, based on the ruling of the Tur) states that in the present age, it is customary to hold weddings on Friday, provided the groom spends three days preparing for the wedding feast.
(A wedding may be held on Sunday or Monday. The fact that the Sabbath is interposed in between does not mean that three days were not spent in preparation for the wedding.)

With regard to weddings on the Sabbath, there is an additional reason for the prohibition. A wedding involves a kinyan, the acquisition of the rights of the marriage contract, and it is forbidden to make a kinyan on the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat 23:14).

Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov.

This subject is discussed in detail in the following chapter.

Our Sages desired that he take the matter to court so the matter be investigated, lest the bride had in fact committed adultery (for in the Talmudic age, erusin preceded nisu’in). If the wedding were held on another day, our Sages feared that in the time the husband was waiting for the court to hold sessions, his wife would soothe his anger (Rashi, Ketubot 2a).

Since the wedding blessings are recited for only one day when both the bride and the groom have been married before, our Sages feared that the man would ignore his wife on the day following their wedding and immediately return to work. To prevent this, they suggested that the wedding be held on Thursday. For the husband will not consider going to work on Friday and the Sabbath (ibid.).

I.e., if the husband forces the bride to agree, the wedding is binding.

Instead, the father should wait until his daughter comes of age and willingly agrees to marry her spouse. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 19.)

I.e., to buy garments and jewelry (Ketubot 57b).

I.e., even if she is not yet a bogeret. The Maggid Mishneh and others explain that the Rambam is referring to a widow who is consecrated. (Therefore, she is given only 30 days, for she had already prepared herself for her first marriage.) He uses the term ‘‘non-virgin’’ to exclude a bride who had previously been widowed after consecration, but had never wed.

I.e., to prepare for the wedding celebrations and to prepare a home and furnishings.

The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam’s wording implies that everything depends on the woman’s status. If she would be given twelve months to prepare herself, her husband is given that amount of time. The Jerusalem Talmud (Ketubot 5:3) states that it is his status that is the determining factor: if he has never been married, he is given twelve months. If he is a widower, he is given thirty days. The Tur (Even HaEzer 56) follows that position.

See Halachah 14. With regard to this and the other examples that follow, the rationale is that since he is prevented by forces beyond his control from wedding her, he is not liable. Note the Rama (Even HaEzer 56:3), who states that if the man voluntarily delays the wedding and thus, becomes obligated to support his arusah, he must continue to support her even if she falls ill, and the wedding must be postponed because of her illness.

See Halachah 2.