Conference taveng::bagels

    There is an excellent book on the subject of marriage by Rabbi Lamm
    (don't remember if it is Maurice or Norman) called -
    
       The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage

    Reference Made in Heaven by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim Publishing
    Corpr., NY/Jerusalem 1983.  Page 22-30, Engagement.
    
    Proposal is called Shidukhin, which must proceed marriage.  That
    is, both parties must give their consent, though marriage may be
    arranged.
    
    It is customary for couple to meet with both sets of parents and
    have parents meet each other.It is important, though not obligatory
    to get the blessings of both sets of parents.
    
    It is customary for the groom to give the bride an engagement present,
    usually a diamond ring these days.  It should not be given in the
    presence of witnesses, as this would be considered a marriage. 
    To break it would then require a 'get'.
    
    It is customary to have a formal party to announce the engagement.
     Originally it was customary to make 'tenaim', and still prevalant
    in some circles today.  This is a formal ceremony where a contract
    was signed, setting the wedding date and stipulating various prenuptial
    agreements.  {Book then details this]
    
    The breaking of a formal tenaim is considered very reprehensible.
     So since WWII they are now customarily made just before the wedding.
    
    If no tenaim are mode, it is customary to have a "word".  It is
    considered a formal engagement, but not as immutable as tenaim.
     At a meal, the rabbi makes a 'kinyan' with the bride, groom and
    parents, this is a formal acceptance of obligation.  [book details
    this]  
    
    For some people, even this is too legalistic, and should not be
    broken except in the direst circumstance.  Therefore in some circles
    the "word" or 'vort' (Yiddish) is just a party with a 'lechaim'.
    
    Where families announce with a 'vort' it is custom to make 'tenaim'
    at the reception just before the wedding ceremony.

   re .1:
	It's Rabbi Maurice Lamm.  I highly recommend both his book and
	Rabbi Kaplan's.

   re .0:
	.2 describes what's generally referred to as "engagement."

	There's a different concept, called "erusin" or "kedushin",
	usually translated as "betrothal," that used to be done a
	month to a year (or more) before the actual marriage ("nesuin").
	A "get" (divorce) is required to break an erusin.

	This presented a problem in bad times, when one of the couple
	could be kidnapped, or otherwise become unavailable, so
	the custom developed that the erusin was done just before
	the nesuin.

	At a traditional Jewish wedding, the erusin is the part
	where the groom gives the bride the ring.  The part with
	the sheva brachot (7 blessings) and the breaking of the
	glass is the nesuin.  The two parts are	separated by the
	reading of the ketubah (marriage contract).

    re: -1
    
    Actually today the cermony is a little backwards since we have the 2
    blessings that start the Nesuin before the ring is put on her finger. 
    Thus we have the erusin second, not first.
    
    yoseff
    

re .4:

    The first two blessings are part of nesuin, not kedushin?
    Do you have a source for this statement?

    I just  finished  "The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage" by Maurice
    Lamm,  and  can  not  recommend it. While the jacket says that the
    author    has    served   Orthodox,   Conservative,   and   Reform
    congregations,  the  book presents only the orthodox view, without
    noting where the Conservative position is different. (For example,
    he  talks about a man first wearing a tallis at his wedding, while
    the  conservatives start at the Bar Mitzvah.) He is bitterly angry
    at   Reform   Judaism   to  a  degree  that  is  really  unseemly,
    particularly  when  he  talks about how desireable compasion is. I
    also  found  his postion rather to orthodox for my tastes. He says
    that  a Jew cannot attend a non-Jewish wedding (giving an argument
    which  would  prevent  a  goy  from  attending a Jewish wedding as
    well.)  I'm  not willing to be that seperate, and I will attend my
    friend's weddings, regardless of what religion they are.

    There are factual errors (actually wishful thinking). For example,
    he  says  that  the  incidence of homosexuality in Judaism is very
    low.  Nonsense.  It's 10% in every culture that I know. The number
    of  people who admit their homosexuality does differ by culture. I
    also  found intellectual dishonesty, where he reports only part of
    a  study,  and  not  the  part  that  argues against his point. An
    example is when he quotes some studies saying that married men are
    happier  than single men, but fails to quote the other part of the
    same  studies  which  say  that  married women are less happy than
    single  women.  I  realize  that  he  is  arguing for marriage and
    against homosexuality, but his omitting facts that he wishes would
    go  away  (or  simply  making  false  statements)  has no place in
    scholarship of any kind.

    He also danced around some questions, saying that one should ask a
    rabbi.  There  are  times  when this is reasonable, but I think he
    overdid  it.  He  seems  to  make  a  distinction  between a civil
    marriage,  which  he  says is "Not a Jewish Marriage" and a "cult"
    marriage (which I think means non-jewish religious marriage) which
    is  "Not  a  Marriage". He doesn't explain if those are different,
    but  hints that they are. An explanation would have been in order.

--David

re .6:

    At least as regards the tallis, Rabbi Lamm was presenting the
    prevalent custom among eastern European Ashkenazim, not saying,
    "This is the way it is, everything else is wrong."  German Jews
    wear the tallis from Bar Mitzvah.

    Maybe I don't remember this right, but where does it say a Rabbi has to
    even be present at a wedding? I thought that the bride and groom merely
    needed to sign a Ketuba and declare their marriage (before a minyan if
    possible, but not necessary). If this is the case, then almost ANY
    marriage would be considered "kosher" under Jewish law. Please correct
    me if I am wrong.

    Jack

A Rabbi is not really necessary.  What is necessary are kosher witnesses to
verify that the ketuba does not contain any mistakes, that the ring was
given and that the appropriate declarations were made.  The Rabbi usually
serves to make sure that all these steps are covered.

Gavriel

    re .8:

    The ketuba is signed by neither the bride nor the groom.  It's signed
    by two witnesses who ascertain that the groom agrees to take on the
    responsibilities listed in it.

A book that was recommended to me by a rabbi finishing his PhD 
and his wife, a director of a Boston area religious school, 
is the one by Anita Diamant.  

Her book discusses the law and basic traditions for the various 
phases of planning a wedding.  In addition, she gives examples 
of how some people translate these traditions into modern times 
or execute them in a somewhat varied manner.  For example, one 
couple actually had a "betrothal" ceremony because the woman was 
going to Israel for a year and they planned to be married right 
after that.

I have read the Orthodox book and found it did not help me to 
know how I should apply the laws and traditions in my given 
situation.  You might say, "Well, that's the rabbi's job".  But 
I wanted to be more than a Barbie Doll walking down the aisle.  
We wanted our wedding to reflect us as a couple.  The Diamant book 
helped us to have the confidence to do things the way we wanted 
and to be able to express our desires to the rabbi in a positive way.

Sara 

P.S. - Congratulations to Jim Wittenberg and Cynthia.  

RE: .11
Thanks, Sara.

    Just to  make  it  clear,  Cynthia Kagno and I have decided to get
    married. We're working on setting a date, probably spring of 1990.
    We're  also trying to learn as much as we can about the traditions
    surrounding weddings, so we can plan ours.

--David

    You might also check out Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's "Made in Heaven" (yes, I
    know the title's hokey).  My non-religious in-laws found it very useful
    and understandable when they had to deal with our orthodox wedding.

    My wife and I were married by Rabbi Cohen of the Harvard Hillel.
    In agreeing to marry us, he required that we meet him with once
    a week for a month or two to learn about Jewish wedding and, 
    more importantly, marriage traditions.  Before each of those meetings
    -- discussions actually -- we read sections from the books cited
    in Notes .6 & .13 as well as material from Maimonides (sp?) and
    from books on Christian traditions.  
    
    The whole experience was invaluable -- and has had a continuing
    impact on our lives.  I would encourage such "pre-nuptial" preparation
    for others who are about to
    get married and who may not be well versed in our traditions.
     
     
    Gene                  
    

I was under the impression (with no facts to support this) that to be married
in the eyes of the state, you must be married by a person authorized to
"perform" marriages. If a marriage is performed without a rabbi (or other
court-authorized person) present, would the marriage be valid for, say,
filing a joint income tax return?

By the way, Anita Diamont is a member of BethEl in Sudbury.

Dave

The state requires an authorized person to sign the marriage license.
This can be a clergyman, JP, or whatever.  We were married in Detroit
by a rabbi who was from New York, and so was not authorized to sign
a Michigan marriage license.  Several days later, we were "officially"
married in New York, with definitely "non-kosher" witnesses (the rabbi's
wife and son).

I've heard of older couples being married religiously, but not civilly,
in order not to lose retirement benefits.