Controversy In Israel – Woman says Sheva Brachos

Mesorah does not suffice?

GAW: See Pitchei Teshuvah Even HaEzer 62:2, IIRC.

Besides, you would have to prove that such a Mesorah exists.

How do you prove a Mesorah – a Mesorah cannot be unwritten? Thousands of years of practice doesn’t constitute a Minhag?

ZD, for taharas hamishpachah it works, but for kiddushin, it invalidates it.

DY: I’ve heard some suggest that it is better for non-religious couples to not have a valid kiddushin. (I’m not suggesting this is a correct opinion.)

If she’ll never go again, why is there such an inyan do make her go before the wedding?

In Israel you can only have a Halachic wedding. The only way not to is to go to Cyprus , Prague or somewhere out of the country.

The Rabbi is trying to navigate to give the couple a proper jewish wedding otherwise there will be no jewish wedding, they will either live in sin or go to cyprus.

I suspect here, there was somthing similar going on, the couple might have refused to make Sheva Brochot and the Rabbi said something like fine you can both say it. In order to get at least the man to say it.

It is a chiddush that a woman wished to make the bracha under the chuppah, even her own? The wacky women of the wall, for example, are way past that. The chiddush is just how far some “orthodox rabbis” are willing to bend instead of taking a stand.

Joseph,

DY: I’ve heard some suggest that it is better for non-religious couples to not have a valid kiddushin. (I’m not suggesting this is a correct opinion.)

Should we then refrain, if given the opportunity, from helping a non-religious woman light Shabbos candles, because she might not keep the rest of Shabbos?

Avram: That comparison is off. The reasoning of the proponents of the idea I mentioned, as I understand it, is because in case of divorce of a non-religious couple they will likely not obtain a halachic get, thus causing much greater problems down the line. That, and/or because they are less likely to be faithful.

gavra_at_work,

Better off to not start with it.

So it’s better to sacrifice the souls we have before us right now because of a potential down-the-road risk to future potential souls?

Avram, she doesn’t need to light to know that it is Shabbos. And, more importantly, it is Shabbos for her whether she lights or not, and she’s still obligated in Shabbos. If she doesn’t have a halachic marriage, she isn’t an eishes ish or married, and she doesn’t have the obligations of an eishes ish.

Again, I’m not being a proponent of this idea, merely explaining it. A major problem with the idea is that if they’re not halachicly married they are sinning each time they’re together. [Though that sinning is of a lesser nature than the proponents of this are concerned may occur later if they are halachicly married.] Though, Rav Moshe (unlike Rav Henkin) holds non-Orthodox performed marriages are, indeed, not halachicly valid.

“apushatayid – I’m not convinced that an Isha making the brocha would be “bending” Halacha, and no one here has shown me otherwise.”

GAW. Why are you harping on the woman. The Chassan too. Im not an expert, but the nusach habracha indicates someone other than the chosson and/or kallah should be saying the bracha.

There is nothing wrong with either the Chassan or the Kallah making the Brachah (as far as the Brachos being about themselves; I’m not convinced by GAW yet). They are not to or about these individuals. They are third-person Brachos about the Simcha of a wedding. We’re blessing Hashem, not the couple. The couple can bless Hashem as much as the rest of us.

I always wondered what the purpose of the rabbanut is in terms of forcing a kosher marriage onto all couples in Israel. It creates a whole host of issues including being unable to ascertain the kosher status of a Jewish child. Why not let it go. Everyone who wants to keep the Halacha knows where to go.

I’m not taking a stance. I’m trying to understand the consenquences.

http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9105&st=&pgnum=359

“DY: I’ve heard some suggest that it is better for non-religious couples to not have a valid kiddushin”

I think it was already clarified that is what they do by OO weddings

I’m sure that this sort of question at least occasionally arises in chareidi communities as well — children who we know will not be shomer shabbos, kashrus, probably taharas hamishpacha, and yet are willing to take part in a frum wedding for their parents’ and families’ wishes. When this happens, and I’m sure it does, do chareidi rabbonim avoid making a proper nissuin? I would be surprised if the choices they make are any different. I am interested if those with some experience can share that.

For as long as I can remember, there have been persistent whisperings that in the earlier years of the medinah, weddings of many secular kibbutzniks were deliberately conducted using ???? ?????? so that the chuppa would be invalid. The justification was that marital morals were, how to put it delicately, not strongly observed (after marriage!). So, to avoid ????? ??? ??? the Rabbanut conducted itself in the aforementioned manner. Whether this is true or not — and whether this is da’as Torah of the gedolei Torah — I cannot say.

Regarding the matter of mesora and changing it. Some people seem to think that OK, halachic questions need a posek who is a Talmid Chacham to rule on them. But, if something seems to be a “mere” custom, well then every Tom, Dick, and Harry, any ba’al habayis, especially if he learned a bit in yeshiva once upon a time — is a qualified opinion on matters of minhag and mesora. Only Talmidei Chachamim whose entire existence is toiling in Torah, are qualified to establish new minhagim, or to change existing ones. These practices are a part of our jurisprudence no less than “explicit” (?????) halachos. WE do NOT meddle with mesora! Nor do we “make changes all the time.” Sometimes, there are differing opinions — among the poskei halacha — on certain customs. The yekkishe minhag regarding waiting between fleishigs and milchigs comes to mind. There are others as well. And please don’t counter this with cases that the gemara says ??? ??? ??? ??? ???, because those were cases where there was no definite minhag in that particular place. So, under such circumstances, there could be a decision to “go see how people conduct themselves.” And that too was a halachic ruling for that specific situation. It never meant, “if it’s ‘just’ a minhag, we can always do whatever we like.” Chas ve’shalom. It’s worth remembering that the earliest deviations of what turned into the Reform Movement began by meddling with “mere” minhagim (observing Yomtov sheini shel galuyos, reciting yekum purkan on Shabbos).

ay (and Joseph): I think you missed GAW’s point, because I’m guessing that he agrees with everything you said. I agree with everything you said. He’s just pointing out (and I agree), that if an issue never came up, it cannot be called a Minhag. We can’t call something a Minhag to/not to act in a certain way unless we can assume that a Talmid Chacham, somewhere, approved of it. That’s why it isn’t a breach of Mesorah to use indoor plumbing, or to drive a car. Sure, we never drove cars for 3000 years. But that wasn’t Al Pi Mesorah. It was Al Pi circumstance. So it might be a fair Taana to claim that women not saying Sheva Brachos is just Al Pi circumstance (women couldn’t read for most of our history) and there was minimal interest to until now, so maybe it’s fair to say that the Shaila was never asked and a Minhag was never established. I’m currently leaning no (meaning that it was feasible for a long time so we can say that the proper practice is not to), but I hear GAW’s point and it is far from an attack on our Mesorah.

Sam, the Aruch Hashulchan says that it not being the chosson is the minhag.