by R. Gil Student

I got engaged during my last semester of college, in which I was taking a Hebrew Literature course. After missing two classes in a row, I explained to the professor, “Hishtadakhti (I got engaged).” He looked at me funny and asked, “Hitarasta?,” ostensibly correcting my Hebrew, at which point I switched to English to clarify my intent. The confusion is a combination of historical development and my occasional pedantry. In Modern Hebrew, engagement is called Eirusin. However, in halakhic terminology, Eirusin means betrothal, the first stage of marriage, and Shidukhin means engagement. I refused to call my engagement an Eirusin because that would be halakhically imprecise. However, this confusion of terminology is not a modern phenomenon but the product of a long historical progression.

I. Two Parts to a Wedding

The familiar Jewish wedding ceremony we see today is very different than it was in Talmudic times. Certainly the music, dancing and food are very different. But even the core religious acts have changed. The Mishnah (Kesubos 48b) explains that first Eirusin was done in which the groom and bride are betrothed, officially married but unable to live together. Up to a year later, the Nissu’in was held, which is the final stage of marriage. The delay allowed the families time to prepare food, clothing and housing for the celebration and afterward. At some point, we know that Shidukhin, engagement, preceded any part of the wedding. Without Shidukhin two people could quickly marry when feeling attracted to each other, without proper forethought. Rav, the Talmudic scholar, went so far as to excommunicate people who married without Shidukhin (Kiddushin 12b).

Today, Jews almost universally undergo Eirusin and Nissu’in one immediately after the other, under the chupah at the wedding ceremony. The groom gives the bride a wedding ring, reciting the proper formulation, and the presiding rabbi recites the blessings over the Eirusin. Another rabbi then reads the kesubah and perhaps someone speaks about the couple. Then the Nissu’in begins with the seven blessings and the couple going to a Yichud room.

The Eirusin and Nissu’in used to be separated by months. Now they are done together. When and why did this change? I set out to investigate this and found some very interesting answers. After a good deal of my research, I was fortunate to be directed by a friend to an extensive study, Seder Kiddushin Ve-Nissu’in by AH Freiman. Many of the sources I quote below are from his book.

One thing to keep in mind as we go through the sources is that an alternate custom developed called second Kiddushin (or second Eirusin). When Eirusin and Nissu’in were separated by long periods of time, a second, symbolic Eirusin was performed at the Nissu’in. In some places, only the blessings on the Eirusin were recited but not a second betrothal. It is not always clear whether sources are referring to the complete joining of the Eirusin and Nissu’in ceremonies or merely a repetition of the Eirusin. We will see what we can determine and what remains ambiguous. Another issue is that there were always exceptional circumstances, such as betrothal of a minor or someone who lived far away. I can envision a historical custom that the entire wedding take place on one day except in those unusual cases. If so, responsa about those cases are not entirely relevant to our question.

II. Ge’onim

A problem arises when the blessings on Eirusin and Nissu’in are recited in quick succession. For both, we recite the borei peri ha-gafen blessing on wine. But if we recite it once, why do we need to repeat it just a few minutes later? And if we repeat it, do we need a new cup or can we perform two mitzvos on one cup?

R. Natronai Gaon (Otzar Ha-Ge’onim, Kesubos 82) rules that you should preferably recite a blessing on two separate cups of wine. If there is not enough wine, then you may recite single borei peri ha-gafen for both ceremonies.

Clearly, already in R. Natronai Gaon’s time–the ninth century–the blessings on both Eirusin and Nissu’in were at least sometimes recited at the same time. However, it remains uncertain whether this was a repetition of Eirusin, a delay of the blessings on Eirusin, or the unification of Eirusin and Nissui’in into a single unit of ceremonies.

III. France and Ashkenaz

People who attend contemporary Jewish weddings are familiar with the reading of the Aramaic text of the kesubah, the wedding contract, in the middle of the ceremony. Rashi instituted this practice. The Mordekhai (Kesubos, first page) quotes a responsum of Rashi in which he states that we read the kesubah in between Eirusin and Nissu’in to serve as a break between the two. For both, we recite a blessing on a cup of wine. The break of the reading of the kesubah resolves the problem of repeating the same blessing in quick succession. Rashi’s grandson, Rabbenu Tam, and a correspondent, R. Meshulam, state explicitly that Rashi instituted this reading (Sefer Ha-Yashar, nos. 660-661). However, it is unclear whether Rashi meant that the two units of the wedding ceremony both took place on one day or that this was a delay of the Eirusin blessings or repetition of the ceremony.

Three other responsa of Rashi are relevant and offer a different picture of weddings in his time. In Teshuvos Rashi (no. 192), he discusses whether the blessings on Eirusin should be recited at all at the time of Nissu’in. This implies that the two ceremonies were performed separately. Rashi’s institution of the reading of the kesubah could have been only for occasions in which the Eirusin and Nissu’in were performed together.

Teshuvos Rashi (no. 193) addresses a case in which both Eirusin and Nissu’in were performed on the same day but the witnesses signed the kesubah improperly. The mention at the beginning of the question that both ceremonies were performed on the same day suggests that this was not always the case. If it was standard practice, the questioner would not need to mention it.

The third responsum (Teshuvos Rashi, no. 194) is the most interesting and important for our purposes. Rashi officiated at, or at least attended, a wedding in which both Eirusin and Nissu’in were performed in succession but only one borei peri ha-gafen was (accidentally) recited. Rashi insisted they go back and recite the second borei peri ha-gafen. People asked him why he insisted on this, which prompted his responsum.

In his answer, Rashi explicitly addresses the joining of the two ceremonies with an explanation that resonates well today. The reason people perform Eirusin and Nissu’in at the same time is that you have to make celebratory feasts at each. If the feast for the Eirusin is too small, the groom and his family will be offended. Therefore, presumably because of the expense (Rashi only implies this aspect), the two ceremonies were effectively combined so the families need only pay for one feast.

However, the question still implies that this was not a universal practice. If it was, there would have been no need to mention that the Eirusin and Nissu’in were done together. But it also implies that otherwise the blessings on the Eirusin would not have been recited at the time of the Nissu’in.

It seems that in Rashi’s time, people were starting to combine the two ceremonies for economic reasons.

Let us continue our discussion of wedding practices in what we call Ashkenazic communities (France, Germany and Poland). By the time of the Maharam of Rothenburg, it was standard practice to recite the blessings of Eirusin, read the kesubah and then recite the blessings on the Nissu’in. The book of customs from his school records this as the universal practice (Sefer Minhagim Dei-Vei Maharam b”r Barukh Mi-Rothenburg, p. 82). Similarly, Maharam Mintz (Responsa, no. 109) describes the wedding ceremony with the Eirusin followed by the Nissu’in on the same day. However, neither specify whether Eirusin was only performed at that time or possibly earlier, as well.

The Terumas Ha-Deshen (1:207) is clear, though. He writes that, in the overwhelming number of cases (he approximates 99%), Eirusin and Nissu’in were performed together. He says that separating the ceremonies is considered an improper practice, only done by those attempting to somehow trick a woman into marrying him.

IV. Provence (Southern France)

Southern France was a separate community from France and Germany, with significantly different customs. The Sefer Ha-Ittur (Hilkhos Birkas Chasanim) writes that the custom in his place was to perform Eirusin a year or two before Nissu’in but in other places the ceremonies were performed at the same time. It appears that in his time, practices differed throughout Provence. The Sefer Ha-Manhig (Hilkhos Eirusin, no. 107) testifies that, during his travels, he saw differing practices in France and Provence.

However, the Meiri (Magen Avos, no. 5) states that in his day in Provence, Eirusin and Nissu’in were exclusively performed together. He offers a surprising and explanation for this practice. He suggests that it harks back to a time, mentioned in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Kesubos 1:5), when the gentile lord would demand to spend the wedding night with every new bride. If the lord insisted on that right the night of Eirusin while the husband would only live with his wife a year later after Nissu’in, there would be a long gap during which the bride had been only with the lord. Therefore, the Meiri claims, Eirusin and Nissu’in are performed on the same night, so the bride and groom can be together before the lord intervenes.

This seems like a historically dubious and generally implausible explanation, since joining the ceremonies had only recently become standard at the time of his writing. However, it does testify to the practice in Provence. Additionally, the Meiri’s goal in Magen Avos was to defend the customs of Provence against those of Spain. From his words, it seems that the only objection from Spain was that in Provence they only recited one borei peri ha-gafen for both Eirusin and Nissu’in. The Spanish scholars did not object to the combining of the two into a single unit of ceremonies.

V. Spain

The Ramban (Kesubos 7a sv. ve-tzivanu) explains that we recite separate blessings on the mitzvos of Eirusin and Nissu’in because we perform them at separate times. However, Talmidei Rabbenu Yonah (Shitah Mekubbetzes, Kesubos 7b sv. tanya idakh) implies that there were places where the two were performed together. Similarly, Ritva (Responsa, no. 19) wrote to a community where Eirusin and Nissu’in were joined into one unit of ceremonies.

The Rivash (Responsa, 82) states that the reason for second Eirusin in the unusual case in which Eirusin was performed in advance through a messenger is that the standard practice is to join the two ceremonies into a single unit. If the groom failed to perform Eirusin at the wedding, guests may think that he had skipped it entirely. Apparently, by the late fourteenth century, the universal practice in Spain was to perform both Eirusin and Nissu’in at the same time which would lead to surprise if it was omitted.

VI. Other Communities

The Tur (Even Ha-Ezer 62), writing as a German immigrant in Spain, states that the standard practice was to join Eirusin and Nissu’in into one unit. R. Yosef Karo (Beis Yosef, ad loc.), writing in Israel, disagrees. He states that this was only true in the Tur‘s place but customs differ by community. R. Moshe Isserles (Darkhei Moshe 34:5), writing in Poland, states that the practice in his time was like the Tur stated, to perform Eirusin and Nissu’in together.

In Jerusalem, there was an enactment to only perform Eirusin and Nissu’in together, apparently in the seventeenth century. In the mid-eighteenth century, R. Raphael Meyuchas, the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, wrote that those who wished to perform Nissu’in earlier did so outside the city limits (Peri Ha-Adamah, vol. 4 p. 22 col. 3, quoted in Freiman, p. 280). This is also mentioned in Minhagei Yerushalayim (Dinei Kiddushin, no. 2; Freiman, p. 281).

The practice in Yemen followed the Rambam throughout the ages. R. Ya’akov Sapir (Even Sapir, vol. 1 p. 60b; Freiman, pp. 305-306), following a visit to Yemen in 1858, reported that they performed Eirusin at the time of engagement (Shidukhin) and the Nissu’in only after all the preparations were made, i.e. at the wedding.

This led to a small crisis in Jerusalem in 1885. A Yemenite immigrant performed Eirusin according to the Yemenite tradition and contrary to the enactment in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem rabbis sent a delegation to the leaders of the Yemenite community, asking them whether they are Ashkenazim, Sephardim or their own separate community. The working assumption was that Ashkenazim were not bound by the enactment of Sephardic rabbis in Jerusalem. After a good deal of debate, the Yemenites agreed to follow the customs of the Sephardim in Israel (Freiman, p. 282).

In Iraq, they performed Eirusin at, or not long after, the engagement well into the twentieth century (Responsa Rav Pe’alim, vol. 4, Even Ha-Ezer, no. 3). An 1892 booklet of Iraqi wedding customs, Tzorkhei Chupah, does not even list the blessing on Eirusin (Freiman, p. 294).

VII. Language Confusion

With all this development of customs over the centuries, with the shift of Eirusin from a betrothal that served as an engagement to a part of the final wedding ceremony, it should not be surprising that people confused the terminology. R. Ya’akov Bassan (Responsa, no. 36) writes people frequently called an engaged woman an “Arusah,” a betrothed woman. Freiman (p. 218) cites three responsa that he claims involve uncertainties about whether a term means betrothal or engagement, although I did not see it in my review of the first responsum he mentions (Responsa Mahari Mintz, no. 12).

Be that as it may, it seems that usage of the term “Eirusin” in Modern Hebrew for engagement reflects this historical shift in practice. What was once a pre-wedding betrothal is now part of the wedding ceremony. Yet the pre-wedding engagement is still called, at least in Modern Hebrew, Eirusin. Although, I still maintain my stubborn refusal to use the halakhically imprecise term.

