Is Wine Required at a Jewish Wedding and Who Should Drink?

The most straightforward approach is the third option. It is what Maimonides advocated, writing (Hilkhot Ishut, 3.24): “The people are accustomed to arrange that this blessing [birkat eirusin] be said over a cup of wine or liquor (shekhar), i.e., if there is wine readily at hand . . . but if no wine or liquor is readily at hand, the celebrant himself should directly recite the betrothal blessing alone.” (This opinion is followed by Shulhan Arukh: Even ha`Ezer, 34.2.)  The logic here seems to be that inasmuch as the kiddushin is valid post factum (be-di`avad) even if birkat eirusin has not been said (but only the formula harē att mekuddeshet li was said), although according to rabbinic legislation (takkanah) it should have been said ab initio (le-khatchilah), anyway the validity of the kiddushin is not contingent on the betrothal blessing being said at all (see Magid Mishneh on Hilkhot Ishut, 3.24). All the more so, the validity of the kiddushin is not contingent on wine or its equivalent being used in the wedding ceremony altogether as it is only customary (minhag) to do so. Moreover, even before the recitation of the seven nuptial blessings (birkhot nisu’in), which like birkat eirusin must (tserikh) be said, Maimonides (Hilkhot Ishut, 10.3) stipulates the blessing over wine be said if (im) wine is readily at hand, but if wine is not readily at hand, then birkhot nisu’in too are to be said without it. In other words, the presence of wine in both ceremonies is only preferable, not obligatory (chiyyuv). As such one is not obligated to try to obtain wine for either part of the wedding ceremony (see R. Joel Sirkes, Bayit Chadash/BACH on Tur: Even ha`Ezer, 62, s.v. “katav ha-Rambam”; also, Rambam, Hilkhot Berakhot, 11.2). In fact, when the recitation of both birkat eirusin and birkhot nisu’in are prescribed in Ketubot 7b-8a, wine and its berakhah are not mentioned at all; hence it cannot be said they are rabbinically decreed (takkanah). Now Maimonides does state that those who use two cups of wine are correct (ke-halakhah asu), and that this was the practice in his native Spain, yet one needn’t be concerned if only one cup of wine happened to have been used (Teshuvot ha-Rambam, no. 288, ed. Blau, 2:540-41). That is because, as we have seen, in Maimonides’ opinion, the use of the two cups is only customary.

As far as I know, the post-talmudic tractate Kallah Rabbati (chap. 1) is the earliest source to state that bore pri ha-gefen is the first of the mandated seven nuptial blessings (sheva berakhot). That is why Rabbenu Asher (Rosh: Ketubot, 1.16) citing Rabbenu Nissim (Ran) states that a cup of wine, or if it can’t be obtained a cup of liquor, is required for birkhot nisu’in, because the blessing on wine is the first nuptial blessing. However, he sees no such mandate for using wine with its blessing before birkat eirusin, because this isn’t even a preferable act (mitsvah min ha-muvchar).

On the other hand, some have seen a mandate for using wine with its blessing before birkat eirusin in Yerushalmi: Sotah 8.5/22d, where it is stated that one may even use unfermented grape juice (yayin me-gitto), which is considered inferior wine, but still wine and not an unspecific liquid (see Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat, 29.14 re Baba Batra 97a-b, and Magid Mishneh thereon), to “betroth (u-mekaddshin) a bride” (see R. David Fraenkel, Korban ha`Edah and R. Moses Margolis, Pnei Mosheh, ed. Krotoschin). However, in my poor opinion, this text is not speaking of wine to be used for a berakhah, but wine that has enough value to fulfill the minimal value required for betrothing a woman by means of giving her an object of recognized value (see M. Kiddushin 1.1).

We don’t know when the practice of using wine in a wedding ceremony arose, so we can only speculate why it arose. It is well known that in ancient times, eirusin and nisu’in were not two parts of one ceremony. Rather, eirusin was conducted at one time in one place. Nisu’in was conducted later somewhere else. There was often a year hiatus between the two ceremonies (see M. Ketubot 5.2). Moreover, each ceremony was followed be a festive meal (se`udat mitsvah), and such festivities wouldn’t be so joyous without wine being drunk at them (Berakhot 35a re Judges 9:3). By at least the 11^th century, however, erusin and nisu’in became two parts of one ceremony. R. David ibn Zimra simply states that this is an “ancient decree” (takkanah kedumah) that ought not be changed, but without surmising why it arose. He insists one may only be exempted from it with official court approval of one’s good reasons for wanting to be exempted from it (Teshuvot ha-Radbaz, 1, no. 382). Rashi (Teshuvot Rashi, no. 194, ed. Elfenbein, p. 218), though, does state why both ceremonies were conflated, which was to alleviate people of the expense of hosting two festive meals in a rather short period of time.

Now in this conflated ceremony, eirusin is certainly not immediately followed by a festive meal but by the reading of the ketubah (which serves to differentiate it from nisu’in). And even nisu’in is not immediately followed by a festive meal. That is probably why birkhot nisu’in are said again at the wedding banquet and during the festive meals for seven days thereafter in order to increase the festivity (mishum afushei simchah; see Tosafot RID: Ketubot 7b). Nevertheless, most early mediaeval authorities (rish’onim) insist that two cups of wine be drunk, each with its own berakhah being recited under the chuppah, each in its turn (Pesahim 102b and Tosafot, s.v. “she’ein”; Rabbenu Tam, Sefer ha-Yashar: Responsa, no. 45.5; Teshuvot u-Psakim me’et Chakhmei Tsorfat v’Ashkenaz, no. 131, ed. Koffer, p. 202.) However, Rabbenu Meshulam (contrary to Rabbenu Tam) doesn’t require two separate cups of wine, probably because only one cup (the cup for birkhot nisu’in) could possibly be said to precede the festive meal immediately (Hagahot Maimoniyot to Hilkhot Ishut, 3.23, n. 60). I know of no other rish’on who follows Rabbenu Meshulam’s opinion.

At least among Ashkenazic authorities, it is assumed two cups of wine (or liquor) must be used in any wedding ceremony. The question is: who utters the blessing, and who drinks the wine? Rav Sar Shalom Gaon is quoted by R. Mordecai ben Hillel (Mordecai: Ketubot, no. 131) as ruling that if no one “fluent” (baki) enough to utter birkat eirusin or birkhot nisu’in is present under the chuppah, then the groom himself should utter them. In fact, this seems to be optimal as the blessing is the groom’s obligation, which he himself should fulfill (see Teshuvot Noda Bi-Yehudah, 2^nd ed., Even ha`Ezer, no. 1). Nevertheless, if somebody else (acher) there can do it, the groom himself should not do it as this would appear to be “boastful” (ke-yehora). (Also, the practice of somebody else other than the groom reciting birkat eirusin, and bore pri ha-gefen preceding it, is justified because we do to want to embarrass grooms who do not know how to do so. See Bet Shmuel on Shulhan Arukh: Even ha`Ezer, 34.2). Now in this version of Rav Sar Shalom’s ruling, it is unclear whether he means the recitation of these blessings with or without the blessing over wine being recited as the necessary introduction. (See M. Berakhot 8.1 and Rambam’s comment thereon; Tosefta: Berakhot 5.25; Berakhot 51b; Pesahim 106a and Tosafot, s.v. “zokhrehu.”)  However, in a fuller version of his ruling (Teshuvot Rav Sar Shalom Gaon, no. 116, ed. Weinberg, pp. 126-27), the Gaon says that the person who utters the blessing over the wine (ha-mevarekh) should taste a bit of it after uttering the blessing, i.e., if people are particular about him doing so (makpidin alav). He thinks this is actually preferable because a person who uttered the blessing should partake of what he has uttered the blessing for. If, though, people are particular about somebody drinking from a cup that somebody else has drunk from, or if somebody has taken it upon himself not to do so, then the groom and bride should drink it themselves. The Gaon concludes by citing Eruvin 40b, where in a situation when one who utters a blessing over something he is prohibited from partaking, this person may give it to a child (le-yanuka) to partake of instead.

Generalizing from the text on Eruvin 40b, Rashi (who was probably unaware of this responsum of Rav Sar Shalom) argues that the one who uttered the blessing over the wine but did not drink it is not himself considered to have taken God’s name in vain (le-vatelah), i.e., as long as the blessed wine is consumed there-and-then (l’altar). (See, also, Sefer ha`Itur: Hilkhot Milah, 3.4 quoting Rav Tzemach ibn Ghayyat; Tur: Yoreh Deah, no. 265 and Bet Yosef, s.v. “katav ha-Kolbo.”) Rashi further argues (s.v., “le-yatveih le-yanuka”) that bore pri ha-gefen is a blessing for something to be enjoyed (birkat nehenin), and the one who “enjoys” drinking the wine needn’t be the one who uttered the blessing over it (see Meiri, Bet ha-Bechirah, ed. Herschler, pp. 150-51). So, the cup of wine, both in the eirusin part of the ceremony and in the nisu’in part, may be given to the groom and the bride to drink without themselves having to utter the blessing before drinking it.

However, the undisputed dictum, which is consider rationally evident (sevara), namely, “it is prohibited for any person to enjoy anything (she-yeheneh) in this world without thanking God for it by uttering a blessing” (Berakhot 35a), seems to be saying that the person enjoying whatever is the one to thank God for their own enjoyment, not somebody’s else’s enjoyment. Furthermore, the case discussed on Eruvin 40b allows one person to bless the wine and another person to drink when the one who blessed the wine is prohibited there and then from drinking the wine. But the one who blessed the wine under the chuppah is not at all prohibited from drinking the wine he himself just blessed.

Writing already in the late 19^th century, R. Yechiel Michal Epstein (Arokh ha-Shulhan: Even ha`Ezer, 34.9), although basically summarizing the justifications offered much earlier for this practice, still thinks it “seems nice” (shapir dami) if the celebrant drinks from the wine, or at least tastes it, although this is not customary. He also seems to be quite aware that few if any celebrants will do what is customary for them not to do. Such is the force of popular custom.

So, after looking at all of this discussion, it still seems that Maimonides’ consistent opinion is halakhically most cogent. However, the problem with following Maimonides’ opinion in practice is that it goes against established custom, which is that two cups of wine are mandatory in a wedding ceremony, not just optional. When it comes to rites of passage like a wedding, deviations from what is usual could well be upsetting to those present at the wedding. They might even think the ceremony is invalid because of its  deviation from what seems to have always been done (see M. Pesahim 4.1; Pesahim 50b re Prov. 1:5; Baba Metsia 86b; Beresheet Rabbah  48.14; Responsa Mishpatei Uziel: Yoreh Deah, 2^nd ed., 2, no. 22.2).

There is also a problem with following Maimonides’ opinion regarding how the wedding ceremony is to be conducted when wine is readily available. Now long accepted Jewish custom is for the mesader kiddushin to utter the blessing on wine and then utter birkat eirusin, and then hand the cup over to the groom and the bride, without drinking it himself; and he does the same before uttering birkhot nisu’in. However, Maimonides writes (Teshuvot ha-Rambam, no. 288, ed. Blau, 2:541): “The great sages in our city [i.e., Cordoba in Spain] used to first utter the blessing on wine, then birkat eirusin, then taste (ve-to`em) it so as not to utter a ‘blessing in vain’ (berakhah le-vatelah, i.e., thanking God for what he is about to enjoy, but does not himself partake thereof (see Berakhot 33a re Exod. 20:7). He says the same procedure was done for the sheva berakhot.

Now the problem here is that many find it unacceptable (even loathsome), whether due to aesthetic or hygienic concerns, to drink from a cup somebody else had drunk from (as we saw above in the responsum of Rav Sar Shalom). All the more so, the principle (Hullin 10a) that “avoiding serious danger to health is more strictly prohibited than avoiding transgressing a non-health threatening prohibition” (chamira sakkanta me’isura) certainly applies now during the Covid pandemic. Maimonides, himself a physician, in many cases was quite insistent that medical considerations should dictate how various traditional practices are to be conducted (see, e.g., Hilkhot Berakhot, 6.2; Hilkhot Korban Pesach, 6.7; Hilkhot Isurei Biah, 14.5). In fact, this provides a new and stronger reason to adhere to the universal Jewish custom of not drinking from a cup somebody else has drunk from. Also, the need for maximal prophylactic measures during the Covid pandemic certainly justifies foregoing drinking wine under the chuppah altogether. This seeming innovation is supported by Maimonides’ view that the use of wine in the wedding ceremony is only optional. Such innovations should be explained to those in attendance at the wedding, who are certainly used to many other deviations from custom (such as social distancing and wearing masks during synagogue services) during this pandemic – may it soon be under control and we all can return to many normal practices that have been prohibited for good reason at this time.

I have dealt with this question at such length because a truly satisfactory answer to it requires considerable research into the reasons underlying what seems to be such a simple traditional practice when, in fact, its development is quite complex. Only such research shows how the practice developed throughout Jewish history, and when and why one may deviate from it with sound halakhic reasoning and precedent.

 

Rabbi David Novak
on behalf of the Panel of Halakhic Inquiry
Union for Traditional Judaism