Hamas War

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

What Makes a Jewish Wedding?

I've been wondering on which blog to blog about the Clinton wedding, yes, Chelsea's marriage to a Jew. 


I was thinking of asking you to "count the sins," which you can still do and send them via comments.  And then I figured that maybe I missed the boat, but today, when my computer was acting rejuvenated, I visited some blogs and saw that Risa had mentioned it.  In my comment I wrote:




"A faux rabbi and tallit don't make it kosher."

From what I've seen on blogs like Bima Ima, who has a rabbinic position is that Shabbat is important to her.  And although her Shabbat observance and mine aren't identical, she does distinguish between Shabbat and the weekdays.  I don't know if she performs weddings on Shabbat.


For many decades, mid-twentieth century, an aunt of mine was secretary to the rabbi of an enormous Conservative shul, the East Midwood Jewish Center, Brooklyn, NY.  They also had some large halls for weddings and other festive events.  Sunday was the big wedding day.  I once spent a Sunday with her as she ran the ceremony rehearsals and took care of all sorts of details like a stage director.  As I remember, there were about four weddings that day.  Have things changed?


Chelsea Clinton's wedding to Marc Mezvinsky isn't the first intermarriage in public life.  Caroline Kennedy married a Jew, but in a church.  Mezvinsky seems to care more about his Judaism than Edwin Schlossberg.

The superficial trappings of tallit (prayer shawl,) ketuba (marriage contract, which I presume is the mounted certificate in the picture) and the saying of the Sheva Brachot (Seven Blessings) don't make it acceptable as a Jewish wedding.  I don't know how much of this was Ponet's idea.

First of all, or before I go any further, to make things clear there is lots of intermarriage in my family, even in my close family.  Some of the non-Jews who have entered the family are extraordinarily wonderful people.  That doesn't cancel the fact that intermarriage increases the risks to the continuation of the Jewish People.  Just read the Bible and you'll know that Jews have always intermarried and it has caused problems.

The Clinton-Mezvinskys appear to be intelligent, sincere and very much in love.  Religion must mean something to them or they would have had a different type of wedding ceremony.  What religion will they give their children?  Do they understand that the children will not be Jewish?  Will one's religious identity get stronger at the expense of the other's?  Or will they find it most comfortable to opt out of religion entirely?  Or will one convert to the religion of the other?

Nowadays there are enough surprises, contention and stresses when two Jews get married, intermarried couples can have enven more trouble.

12 comments:

Ariella's blog said...

You notice that most of this marriages are between Jewish men and nonJewish women. I wonder if they all really believe that Jewish men make the best husbands. Do you consider the chillul Shabbos worse than the intermarriage?

Batya said...

Ariella, the Shabbat reference is to show how Ponet doesn't care about Jewish Law, therefore isn't much of a "rabbi."

Keli Ata said...

There's a local reform shul where I live which not only marries gay people but has an assisant rabbi. In their announcement in the paper and on their web site they refer to the rabbi and her "wife."


Most of these interfaith rabbis and ministers are just in it for the money. They don't care about religion or their respective faiths.

Chelsea and her husband may have had an interfaith wedding but I doubt either will be serious about religion. Sure, they can celebrate Chanukah and Christmas etc. But if they're both serious about their faith let's see what happens when their first child is born.

If a boy...let's see if they can find a rabbi to perform a bris and a priest to perform a baptism all at the same time.

They won't find a rabbi or minister to perform a Bristism.

Sigh. Hopefully if either of them converts it will be Chelsea, and for all the right reasons.

Keli Ata said...

OT but isn't the ketuba supposed to be signed in private just before the wedding, and not on display?

Shtuey said...

K.A. the ketubah doesn't have to be signed privately, as in a closed room, but must be done in the presence of two witnesses who are shomer Shabbat before the chupah. The ketubah is read under the chupah as part of the ceremony.

K. Shoshana said...

What will happen is at least one of the children will grow up and decide to be 'Jewish' and go to a reform shul. At some point the now grown child will decide an Israeli wedding is the right to do. When the Rabbinate demands proof of Jewishness there will be a huge international hue and outcry against the charedim's control of the rabbinate.

Anonymous said...

What reason does a secular Jew who is liberal first and Jew maybe tenth have to marry Jewish. Obviously, as an observant Jew I have reason, but I dont blame seculars

Batya said...

Keli, when one of my female cousins married a non-Jew they had some Reform rabbi perform the ceremony, and afterwards my aunt was outraged to discover that he charged them more than he would have for a two Jews wedding. Actually that cousin made every effort, with her husband's cooperation, to raise raise their children Jewish, including proper Brit for the boys.

Shtuey, yes, and displaying the Ketuba is getting more popular.

Shoshanna Exiled, no Torah loyal Jew would consider the Mark and Chelsea's kids Jewish without proper Torah (orthodox) conversions.

a, there are non-observant Jews who are still proud and loyal and want a similarly Jewish spouse.

Unknown said...

Another point is if the "rabbi" had him say "Harei at mekudeshes li k'das Moshe v'Yisrael", he has actually declared that the wedding is invalid.

The translation says this explicitly. It means the wedding is being done "according to the law of Moshe" (the Torah) and Yisroel (all applicable rabbinic enactments). Since all the laws explicitly forbid this and say that it is invalid in any sense, he has actually gotten up in front of everyone and declared it a mock "wedding".

Similarly, taking an "oath" with the Methodist Minister means that they have declared that what they did with the "Rabbi" is meaningless and vice versa. Thus, the "rabbi" being there declares that what the minister said is not to be considered and was invalid.

It is "interesting" that with the two of them there, ther committed sins in both religions.

Batya said...

Sabba HIllel, yes, that wedding makes me very sad for so many reasons.

Anonymous said...

"a, there are non-observant Jews who are still proud and loyal and want a similarly Jewish spouse."

I dont disagree, but that demographic is disappearing faster than the Javan Rhino.
Only the frumies will survive

Batya said...

a, it's harder for them to pass onto their kids, but there will always be people like that. Some substitute their versions of Jewish identity for religious observance, so there will always be Jews of that stripe.