In this week’s parsha we have the pasuk: ויברכו את רבקה ויאמרו אחתנו את היי לאלפי רבבה ויירש זרעך את שער שנאיו – “They blessed Rivkah and said to her, “Our sister, may you come to be thousands of myriads, and may your offspring inherit the gate of its foes” (Bereishis 24:60). Those who have recently made a chasunah, or have recently attended a badeken (the ceremony that takes place just before the chuppah, where the chosan places a veil over the face of the kallah) may remember that the above pasuk is recited when one blesses his daughter before she goes down to the chuppah (see below in the dvar Torah section for why we quote Lavan harosha at this auspicious time.) Consequently, we will take this week’s opportunity to talk all about the badeken. What exactly is the bedeken? Is it a type of chuppah? Is it for tznius reasons? What happens if the veil is to thin? What happens if the veil is to thick? What exactly is the machlokes between chasidim and litvaks? And much more. Read on and be enlightened.
We will see below that there are at least two concepts behind what the badeken achieves. But before we get there, it’s important to define what exactly chuppah is.
What is a Chuppah?
Most people when asked what chuppah is, are likely to respond that it’s a type of canopy under which the chosan and kallah stand, and they get married underneath it. We will see, however, that it’s not so simple and there are at least four different opinions as to what chuppah is.
The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 10:1) writes: An arusah [a women who has received kiddushin i.e. a ring] is forbidden to live with her chosan until the chosan brings her into his own home and is nisyachad [is alone] with her. The Rambam continues: וייחד זה הוא הנקרא כניסה לחופה והוא הנקרא נישואין בכל מקום – “this being alone with her, is called bringing her into chuppah, and is referred to as nisuin in all places”. The Achronim (Lechem Mishnah 10:6, Drisha, Even HaEzer 1:1) are medayek [make an implication] from the Rambam, that both bringing the kallah into the chosan’s own home, and being alone together are needed. If there is yichud but not in the chosan’s house, or she is in the chosan’s house but there is no yichud, it’s not enough. According to the Rambam, a woman who is a niddah can’t get married, as yichud is needed for chuppah, and a chosan isn’t allowed to be nisyachad with a niddah.
According to the Rambam, chuppah means, bringing a kallah into one’s own home and being nisyachad with her. The Mechaber (Even HaEzer 55:1) cites the Rambam and rules accordingly.
However, the Rema cites a number of different opinions, which understand chuppah differently. The first opinion he cites is the opinion of the Tur and the Ran, he argue on the Rambam and maintain chuppah is simply bringing the kallah into the husbands domain, without the need for yichud. As long as the kallah enters into the chosan’s domain, even if there is no yichud it’s enough to be considered chuppah. The Drisha points out, that according to this opinion, a chuppas niddah [chuppah with a woman who is a niddah] is perfectly ok.
The Rema then cites a third opinion, that chuppah refers to the canopy which is spread over the chosan and kallah under which the berachos that take place at the chuppah are made (this is the act that most people understand chuppah to mean. The Rema himself concludes, that this is what people commonly refer to when they say a chuppah).
Finally, the Rema cites a fourth opinion based on a Tosfos in Yoma (13b d.h. lechado):דחופת בתולה משיצאה בהינומא ואלמנה משנתייחדו – “For a woman who has never been married before, chuppah is when a kallah goes out wearing a veil. And for a widow, chuppah is when she is alone with her chosan”.
The Mishnah at the beginning of the second Perek of Kesubos (15b) discusses a case where a woman is either divorced or widowed and a fight breaks out as to how much money she is entitled to for her kesubah. She argues that she is a besulah [was never married before] and is therefore entitled to 200 zuz, her husband, or his relatives argue that she was married before and therefore she is only entitled to 100 zuz. The Mishnah says:אם יש עדים שיצאת בהינומא וראשה פרוע כתובתה מאתים – “If she has witnesses that when she went down to the chuppah she was covered with a veil and had her hair uncovered, she is entitled to 200”.
The above Mishnah fits well with Tosfos in Yoma who understands that for a woman who has never been married before, chuppah is when she goes out wearing a veil.
Why the Veil is Referred to as a Hinuma
The Aruch HaShulchan (55:10) explains why in the Mishnah a veil is referred to as a “hinuma”. He writes: וההינומא היא הצעיף שעל ראשה משורבב על עיניה ופעמים שמנמנמת בתוכו מתוך שאין עיניה מגולין ולכך נקרא הינומא על שם תנומה – “A ‘hinuma’ is a type of head covering that goes on a woman’s head, and it covers her eyes, sometimes she dozes off under it as her eyes are covered. Therefore, it is called a hinuma which comes from the expression of ‘sleep’”.
According the Rema’s final explanation, putting the veil over a kallah’s face is what constitutes the chuppah, not the going into the chosan’s domain, not the being alone with the chosan and not the fancy canopy on poles.
We Fulfill All Opinions
In short, there are four opinions as to what a chuppah is, 1) Bringing the kallah into the chosan’s domain, and being alone, 2) Bringing the kallah into the chosan’s domain, even if they are not alone, 3) The canopy spread out over chosan and kallah, 4) The veil.
The Bach (Even HaEzer 61) writes, that due to doubt we are stringent and we try and accomplish all four opinions. This is in fact what we try and do, we have a badeken, the chosan and kallah then walk down to the chuppah and stand under a canopy, and then they go into a cheder yichud, which is ideally supposed to be owned by the chosan (or at least sub rented).
Being that the badeken is according to some the chuppah it’s crucial that the chosan be at the ceremony. The Bach writes:ולכן נוהגין במדינות רוסיא להקפיד שלא לילך לכסות ראש הכלה בשחרית בלתי החתן עמהם ושהחתן יאחוז בכיסוי עם הרב והחשובים לכסות ראשה – “Therefore, the custom became in Russia to be particular that they wouldn’t place the veil over the kallah in the morning without the presence of the chosan, and the chosan would make sure to hold the veil together with the rov and other important people and cover the kallah together with them”.
It seems that they used to perform the badeken early in the morning without the presence of the chosan. However, being that according to some the badeken is the chuppah, the Bach points out that it’s important that the chossan be there.
Even today when the badeken is performed at the chasunah hall, the chosan goes in-between his father and father in law and puts the veil over the kallah’s face. Since it may be considered he chuppah the chosan must do it.
Now We Can Understand the Birchus Erusin
Under the chuppah we recite a number of berachos, one of the berachos we recite is the birchas erusin. The nussach [text] of the berachah is: ברוך אתה ה' אלקינ ו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על העריות ...והתיר לנו את הנשואות לנו על ידי חופה וקידושין – “Blessed are you Hashem our G-d King of the world, who sanctified us and commanded us against forbidden relationships ... and permitted us to live with those married to us, by performing chuppah and kiddushin”. The obvious question, which the Rishonim already ask, is that surely kiddushin proceeds chuppah, so why do we mention chuppah in the berachah first?
Based on what we mentioned above, the Drisha (65:1) explains that the nussach of the berachah is very good. Since the bedaken is considered the chuppah, chuppah does in fact proceed the kiddushin.
The Question of the Taz
The Taz (65:2) asks on the Drisha. In those days, apparently, they would have a badeken when the kallah was still in her father’s house, then they would sit down and talk about the financial details. The din is, that if the chosan is not happy, he can simply get up and walk away. Asks ,the Taz, if the badeken is considered the chuppah, then they are already married, how can the chosan just walk away? Therefore, says the Taz, the badeken is not considered chuppah, it’s merely an act to help prepare for the chuppah which will take place soon.
Defense
The Aruch HaShulchan (55:10) and Chelkas Mechokek (55:9) defend the Drisha and explain, that even if the badeken is considered the chuppah, it’s not the be all and end all of the chuppah. Rather, the badeken is the beginning of the chuppah process, and once kiddushin occurs, then retroactively from the time of the badeken the kallah is considered to be nesuah [married] . For chuppah to take effect, kiddushin must happen first, but once the kiddushin happens, then retroactively already from the time of the badeken she is considered married.
A Big Savior
The fact that the badeken is considered chuppah according to some, may be a big savior.
A very common occurrence, is that a chasunah is called for Monday the 2nd of Shevet at 6:00pm, and the kesubah is prepared well in advance and is written out for the 2nd of Shevet. However, as it is with all chasunah’s things were running late, and by the time the chuppah was ready to take place, it was already 7:30pm, with shkia being at 7:00pm. The halachah is that a kesubah must be written out for the correct date, if the date is a day early it’s a problem of a shtar mukdam [a pre-dated document]. In our case, since the chuppah only took place at 7:30pm, the chuppah is now only taking place on the 3rd of Shevet and the kesubah was made out for the 2nd, what should we do, surely it’s a shtar mukdam? A number of solutions are given, but one of them is, that since the badeken took place on the 2nd of Shevet and the badeken is considered chuppah, there is no problem of shtar mukdam.
Another Reason for the Badekan
There is another reason offered to explain what the badekan is all about. The Mechaber (Even HaEzer 31:2) brings that the custom is to perform kiddushin using a ring which has no diamonds or fancy stones attached. Sometimes a woman will think that the diamonds and stones are worth much more than they are, and it will come out that the kiddushin was carried out under mistaken assumptions and the kiddushin won’t be valid. The Rema adds, that the custom is to ask witnesses under the chuppah if the ring is worth a perutah, to show that as long as the ring is worth a perutah the kallah is happy to get married. The Rema continues:וגם נוהגין לכסות פני הכלות הצנועות ואינם מקפידות במה מקדש אותן – “the custom is also to cover the face of a modest bride, to show that she isn’t interested in seeing what the kiddushin is being carried out with”. By having her faced covered with a veil, the kallah demonstrates that she is not interested with what the kiddushin is being carried out with, and she is happy to marry the chossan whatever he gives her.
According to the second reason as to why we cover the kallah with a veil, it should come out that even in the case of an alomonah [widow] or gerusha [divorcee] who is getting a married a second time she should need to wear a veil, yet, we find that the custom is that only a woman getting married for the first time wears a veil?
Although the custom is that an almonah and gerusha don’t wear a veil, there is in fact a Teshuvas Mahari Otz which says that under the chuppah all kallah’s should wear a veil, and the only difference between a kallah getting married for the first time or second time, is that a kallah getting married for the first time wears a veil when she walks down to the chuppah as well. This fits well with the aforementioned Rema.
How Thick?
Now that we have explained what the badeken is all about, the next question that needs to be discussed, is how thick the veil should be. The above seems to be a big machlokes [dispute] between chasidim and others. Chasidim are extremely particular that one shouldn’t be able to see the kallah and they use very thick veils. Whereas, other groups of Yidden aren’t as worried and they use a much thinner veil, sometimes even translucent one’s. What it this machlokes all about?
Chiddush of the Mabit
The Pischei Teshuvah cites a Maharit who cites his father the Mabit: “That there was a man who was mekadesh a woman whose face was covered over during kiddushin and only afterward the kiddushin did the witnesses call her back to check who she was. The Mabit ruled that in such a case we are not worried for kiddushin as it is comparable to case of one getting married without any witnesses.”
The Mabit compares this to a Teshuvas HaRashbah (1:780) who talks about a case where there were two witnesses standing behind a wall, and they heard that on the other side of the wall, Reuven said to Leah “haray at mekudeshes li b’esrog zeh” [behold you are betrothed to me with this esrog] and they then saw that Leah was holding the esrog. The Rashbah rules, that even though they heard what Reuven said, and they even saw Leah holding the esrog, since they never actually saw the act of kiddushin being carried out, the testimony is nothing.
The Mabit says, that the same thing is with a veil, and if the veil is to thick and the witnesses are not able to see the face of the kallah at the time of kiddushin, even if immediately after the chuppah they remove the veil and can see who it is, it doesn’t help, as when the actual kiddushin took place the witnesses didn’t know who the kallah was.
However, the Maharit argues on Mabit and maintains that there is no comparison between the two cases. In the case of the esrog the witnesses never saw the act of kiddushin, in the case of a veil, however, they saw the act of kiddushin, they just didn’t know who it was with. Since they saw the actual act of kiddushin they can give testimony that Reuven married a women standing under a veil and such testimony is enough.
The Nesivos’s Proof That Witnesses Don’t Need to See Face of Kallah
The Nesivos (Kehillos Yaakov 31) argues on the Mabit and cites an interesting proof. If Reuven were to get married to a woman who was wearing a thick veil, and then chas vesholam immediately afterwards another man would come and live with the kallah, would they be able to give testimony that this man has lived with an eshes ish and punish him? The Nesivos writes, that certainly such a man would receive the punishment fitting for one who lives with an eshes ish [married woman]. We see, that as long eidim saw that this woman got married, whether they could see her face or not, she is considered married.
If someone wearing a mask would go around shooting people, would it not be possible to give testimony against such a person? Certainly one can. We see that even if eidim can’t see the face of the person they are giving eidus about, as long as afterwards they remove the mask or veil and it’s clear that this is the person, the testimony is valid.
The Maharsham
The Maharsham has a Teshuvah in which he discusses whether the witnesses need to see the face of the kallah. He points out, that even though in one place the Mabit writes that the witnesses have to be able to see the face of the kallah, from another Mabit it would seem that there is no need. In another place the Mabit writes: if witnesses were to hear from other people at the chasunah that under the veil is standing Miriam Goldberg, then even if during the act of kiddushin the witnesses can’t see that standing under the veil is in fact Miriam Goldberg, since there are people who can confirm that under the veil is in fact Miriam Goldberg, and she was brought to the chasunah hall etc. we can assume that it is in fact her and the kiddushin is valid.
In the case of the esrog we don’t actually know what happened, perhaps the esrog was first given to the woman and only then was “haray at mekudeshes li” recited, in the case of a veil, however, even if it’s very thick, the witnesses are able to see the act of kiddushin, and they know who is under the veil, so even if they can’t see it’s ok.
The chasidim rely on the above.
Conduct of the Gedolim
Although there may be no need to actually be able to see the face of the kallah, it’s known that the Brisker Rav was stringent and he would ensure that the witnesses would see the kallah’s faces (see Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 4:287:13). R’ Shach would also check with the witnesses that they have seen the face of the kallah (Mevakshei Torah, Inyonai Nisuin, vol. 4). Similarly, R’ Elyashiv would tell the witnesses to make sure to look at the kallah’s face when she drinks from cup of wine.
