Jewish Affairs

Menu

Synagogal Weddings from a Halachic Standpoint

Author: Published on: Published in: Religion, Arts & Culture

(Author: David Sher, Vol. 71, No. 1, Pesach 2016)

 

One of the foremost Anglo-Jewish customs is the convention of performing weddings in synagogues, often with both floral and choral complements. The custom has proliferated wherever the British Empire has extended and is the prevalent minhag (custom) in former imperial strongholds such as Johannesburg, South Africa. Indeed, Rule 73 adopted in the 1915 Bye-Laws of the United Hebrew Congregations of Johannesburg, located at the much-loved Great Synagogue on Wolmarans Street, declared: “The solemnisation of Marriage shall take place in the Synagogue unless application be made that it shall take place elsewhere…” To this day the wording of the latest edition of the celebrated Singer’s Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth reflects the prevailing Anglo-Jewish custom of synagogal weddings. It cites the tradition of singing Baruch HaBa (‘Blessed is one who cometh’) 1 – “As the bride enters”, which intimates as she enters the synagogue as opposed to her arrival at an al fresco location. The same prayer book also recalls the custom “for words of blessing to be addressed to the couple” under the bridal canopy (Chupah) and that afterward “the officiant pronounces the blessing”2 of the Priestly Benediction.3 Earlier editions of Rev. Simeon Singer’s (1846 – 1906) eponymous Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the British Empire recall that at ‘choral’ weddings Psalm 150 is intoned to mark the termination of the service.4 Conversely, the indoor wedding custom is not accepted by many strictly-Orthodox communities worldwide, yet is tenaciously adhered to in the Germanic Haredi communities. The clash has meant that some individuals, whose ancestors have long had the custom of an indoor wedding, are in certain cases, in fits of (somewhat meretricious) fastidiousness, deleteriously opting to forego this solemnisation practice. Why do such diverging viewpoints exist?

To address this issue, it would be prudent to follow the lead of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1833 – 1904), who opined that in Torah study one must always “learn the Torah out of itself” by reviewing the original sources.5 The sources in this article have been translated on an almost word-for-word basis by the present writer, with the caveat that fully rendering some abstruse terms from Hebrew into the vernacular is well-nigh impossible and that readers should consult both an ecclesiastical halachic authority and the original Hebrew text for a final ruling on the matter. Where necessary, I have inserted a word or phrase to make the meaning of the literal translation of the florid old Hebrew easier to comprehend. Such additions have been demarcated with parentheses. Unless otherwise indicated, the italicisation of certain passages, for purposes of emphasis, is also by this writer.

Sources against having a Synagogal Wedding

There are three primary sources against having a wedding in a synagogue:

  1.  The first, most widely touted one, is the gloss of Rabbi Moshe Isserles (c1520-1572, known, by his acronym, as the Re’ma) on the Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha Ezer61:1), which declares “there are those that say to make a Chupah beneath the heavens for a good sign (siman tov).”
  2. The next is the Chatham Sofer (1762-1839), who wrote in his commentary on Even Haezer (Siman 98), “and those who do not desire blessing and wish to distance themselves from it, who intend to learn from the way of the nations of the world who are not blessed with the stars and wed themselves in their house of prayer, shall be like them”.
  3. Finally, there is an objection raised by, inter alia, Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog (1888—1959), Chief Rabbi of Ireland and afterwards of Israel. It is worth quoting his fascinating responsum dealing with the subject in full. It appears in Volume 7 of his Pesakim Uktavim, Siman 83.6 Rabbi Herzog commences thus his response to the Sephardi Chief Rabbi (known as the Rishon LeZion) Rabbi Ben-Zion Meir Chai Uziel (1880-1953):

Behold in Poland, land of my birth, and in Lithuania and according to what is known to me in all the nations which were included in Russian rule until World War I, they had the custom to make the Chupah under the canopy of the heavens and there was no room for this question, only generally they would beautify [the mitzvah] by having it in the synagogue courtyard or near the synagogue. And when my father, my enlightener, of blessed memory, came to the country of England, and brought me with him, there we found that they have the Chupah in the synagogue. Nonetheless, his opinion was not entirely happy with this, yet it was not within his power to alter [the custom], for they had already abided by this custom for many years. And also I, after him, may I be distinguished from him for a good and long life, when I was appointed to my first Rabbinate in the city of Belfast I found the same custom in Ireland and I was unable to change it in any way; however, I did not allow them to acclimate themselves to play during the Chupah with a ‘pas harmonium’ or even a piano.

Yet here in our Holy Land…we do not have this bad minhag and whosoever changes [from the status quo], he has the bottom-most hand. Not only the Ashkenazim should not change from their minhag to have the Chupah beneath the cover of the heavens but even among the Sephardim who are not particular about this and make the Chupah in the house; it is definitely upon us [and them] to be against any innovations to make the Chupah in our small Beth haMikdash[term to denote a synagogue].

Here the Chief Rabbi quotes the Sde Chemed (1833 – 1904), who provides several reasons not to have an indoor wedding.7 He continues:

And I add, that it is prohibited to kiss even small children in the synagogue (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, Siman95, Re’ma, Se’if 1) and with a Chupahit is impossible to prevent degrading kissing [from occurring]; that not only the bridegroom and bride kiss but even relatives and friends, men and women, and enough disgrace and wrath [Hebrew: ketzef] and a literal prohibition of closeness to immoral relationships and Nidda in a house hallowed for worship of the L-rd. And I constantly warned in the Diaspora in written and spoken word [for them] not to kiss and on occasion they listened to me, but numerous times they did not listen and I was aggrieved due to this.

And so too [was present] the great transgression in that men and women mixed and although in the earlier days which were better than these it was possible to arrange that only the mother[s] of the bridegroom and bride entered [the synagogue], or the marriage attendants [shoshvinim] in their place, as is brought [i.e. stated] in the Maharil [Rabbi Jacob Ben Moses Moellin, one of the earliest and foremost Rabbinic authorities c1360–1427], nonetheless today it is impossible to set boundaries in this [of only attendants entering the main sanctuary], and annulled is the great rectification that they instituted at that period, already in the times of the Temple, and our small Beth haMikdashhas been desecrated by this.

Blessed be the L-rd that I have merited to come to our Holy Land and my eyes have ceased seeing these desecrations, at least in holy venues. And we are pained by the former ones [i.e. former desecrations] and now they have come to initiate innovations. It is certain that we need to stand by any means against these innovations. For “out of Zion shalt go forth the Torah”,8 and it is for the Diaspora to learn from the Land of Israel, and not that we [in the Holy Land] learn from innovations that were done in the lands of Western Europe, of which our hearts were sickened over them and we lacked the wherewithal to prevent them.

And if their intention is to add to the wedding ceremony the addition of “holiness of the surrounds” it is fitting for them to institute to hold it [the Chupah] in the synagogue courtyard. And it is also possible to erect a variety of structure in the synagogue courtyard that will open above the location of the Chupah in a way that it will be under the covering of the heavens. And it will be done with the addition of the ambiance of a holy surrounding and the Sephardim are not concerned with it being open above [i.e. under the heavens] but nonetheless [it is fitting] that there should be in the unique structure – in the “courtyards of the House of the L-rd”9 – a variety of the wedding halls which were previously found in all Jewish cities, as is found in Choshen Mishpat, Siman 163, but under no circumstances [are we to permit] to have the Chupah inside the actual synagogue. And He who sanctifies His nation Israel may He sanctify us with a heavenly holiness and purify our hearts to serve Him in truth.

The responsum of Chief Rabbi Herzog ends here. We now turn towards the issues he and the other authorities presented, particularly how other sages of towering stature and influence assuaged some of these concerns.

Responses to concerns over Synagogal Weddings

  • 40JEWISH AFFAIRSPesach 2016 assuaged some of these concerns.Responses to concerns over Synagogal Weddingsa) The saintly Rabbi S R Hirsch addressed the first point regarding the Re’ma’s suggestion of an outdoor wedding in Siman [section] 80, where he declares (after opening salutations and comments to his correspondent) that he would be forthright “regarding my custom from the time of my appointment to minister in holiness, to orchestrate the weddings in the synagogue as I have seen it to be the custom in many districts of Germany [lit. Ashkenaz] and this custom is founded in holiness in days of yore. And although the Re’ma writes in Even HaEzer, Siman 61:1, ‘there are those that say to have a Chupah under the heavens for a positive sign [siman tov]’, nonetheless he does not write ‘for thus is the custom’ or ‘thus it is to have the custom’, and au contraire, now that you have commented on this….in Yoreh Deah, Siman 391:3 it appears incontrovertible that also in the days of the Re’ma it was the custom to have the Chupahin the synagogue…”

Rabbi Hirsch goes on to bring several other sources proving the ancient halachic provenance of holding weddings in synagogues; we shall return to these shortly.

It is worthwhile examining the section of the Re’ma that Rabbi Hirsch refers to, which conclusively proves that even in the Re’ma’s days there was a custom to hold synagogal solemnisation of marriages. The Re’ma (Yoreh Deah, Siman 391:3) discusses the prohibition of mourners entering houses filled with joy due to weddings and the like; and he declares:

“…however, he should not enter the house at all” when they are preoccupied with wedding issues of a bridegroom and bride, “and thus is the custom in Germany [Ashkenaz] and in these [i.e. Poland and surrounding areas] countries, and all this [applies] in a house where they make the chathuna [wedding], for they eat and drink and rejoice there, however with a Chupah which they have in a synagogue where they bless there the betrothal and wedding blessings [birchath erusin v’nisuin] and there is no rejoicing at all, there it is permitted [for the mourner] immediately after the shivah[mourning period]…and there are places where they are stringent for the mourner to stand all twelve months outside the synagogue to hear the benedictions and nonetheless it appears that the mourner is allowed to bless the betrothal and wedding benedictions beneath the Chupah which is inside the synagogue….” Here we have indisputable proof that a (if not the) prevalent custom in the days of the Re’ma was to have a wedding within a synagogue sanctuary.

  • b) The second issue of the Chatham Sofer’s pronouncement regarding the holding of weddings indoors is addressed by the greatly revered Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), a product of Lithuanian Jewry who later immigrated to the USA. In his responsa on EvenHaEzer (Volume 1, Siman 93), Rabbi Feinstein addresses a responsum to Rabbi Samuel HaKohen Roth, who inquired if it was permitted for a rabbi to officiate at a wedding in a synagogue and also if it was allowed due to the possibility that the synagogue’s wardens would dismiss the rabbi for not doing so. Responding in Hebrew, he wrote, “it is obvious and clear that even without the possibility that they would dismiss him, not only is it permitted to go, rather it is even an obligation to go for upon him rests [the duty] to oversee that the marriage is conducted according to Torah Law and also because of his obligation to his congregation, for this is of the obligations [incumbent upon] a rabbi to his congregation. And thus did great Rabbis and Geonim [great sages], also in New York, [where] also there are those that make the Chupah in houses and they [the esteemed rabbis] went there to conduct the marriage and also for [attendance at weddings] of relatives and friends.”

Rabbi Feinstein continues:

[F]or to have a Chupah under the heavens is only something that was a custom for a siman [sign] of blessing and this is not an institution of the sages and also not a custom due to any Din, or possibility of prohibition, or a subject of mitzvahthat you will consider someone who goes against this – and makes the Chupahin a house – to be a transgressor. And the custom [of an outdoor wedding for a ‘sign of blessing’] is no better than the blessing the sages instituted to marry on Wednesday….and it is clear at the commencement of Tractate Kesuboth in the Tosafoth [a Talmudic commentary] that [for not following an activity advised ‘for blessing’] one is not considered a transgressor. For it is merely general good advice and all the more so are custom(s) which are only advised for blessing and [of which] there is no source from our sages; it is certain that they are only an entity of good advisement and [refusing to follow them is] not called a transgression. And also that which is written regarding an outdoor wedding being a siman of blessing, this is the same status of blessing of which the Re’ma writes in Siman 64:3 and also the Mechaber [Rabbi Joseph Karo, 1488-1575, compiler of the Code of Jewish Law] in Yoreh Deah 179 to only marry at the commencement of the month, that virtually the entire world are not cautious in this, only individuals are [particular to follow this point], and so Heaven forefend to consider them [those holding synagogal weddings] as transgressors! So it is permitted to go to such a Chupah even without considering the possibility of monetary loss by dismissal [of the Rabbi who refuses to attend].

And the Chatham Sofer in Siman 98 also did not say over there to prohibit [synagogal weddings] only if it was their intention to learn from the ways of the nations and also on them he did not say it is prohibited rather he said upon them “and those who do not desire blessing and wish to distance themselves from it, who intend to learn from the way of the nations of the world who are not blessed with the stars and wed themselves in their house of prayer shall be like them”, for this wording is not a prohibition, rather [it indicates] that the sages’ opinion is not pleased with them. And the matter is logical that the Chatham Sofer did not write this only in his place where there began the evil entitled Reform to uproot all customs of Israel and many primary matters of the Torah and because of this they wanted to customise to [hold weddings] in synagogues and to change the custom [to conduct a wedding] under the heavens. Therefore he wrote upon them “and those who do not desire blessing.” However if   [the reason one] does not wish [to hold his wedding] beneath the heavens is not with reformist intentions he did not say this. And thus we do not find it that he says this on those who marry at the end of the month that “he does not desire blessing”: au contraire; surely even a siman [sign] of blessing that the Sages instituted we lack in our time and also [lacked] in the time of the Rishonim…for surely a woman is wed in our time on any day as it says in the Code of Jewish Law Siman 64, and ‘for blessing’ it should [according to this reasoning] be upon us to marry on Wednesday. The Pne Yehoshua [Rabbi Jacob Joshua Falk Katz, 1680-1755] stood firm on this and Pithche Teshuva [Rabbi Abraham Zvi Hirsch Eisenstadt, 1812–1868] Siman 106 brings….that we are not particular even for a blessing instituted by the sages and if so, all the more so for Simanim [signs] of blessing which were customised a great deal of time after the Geonim for in the days of Tosafoth and the Rosh [Rabbenu Asher ben Jehiel c1250 – 1328, both primary Medieval commentators on the Talmud] there was no such custom [of a wedding to be held under the heavens] since in the Tosafoth and the Rosh, Tractate Sukka, Folio 25, they write that only on occasion, even in a city square – when the people are numerous and unable to enter the house – [only then] we may bless the wedding benedictions. And it is an astonishment on the Chatham Sofer for writing that the Tosafists [1100-1328] had this custom [of outdoor weddings] and perhaps his intention was for their disciples’ students. And so, one should not prohibit holding [a wedding] in a synagogue because the gentiles have their weddings in their house of prayer because this is not like them, as this is our synagogue and the main services [held in the synagogue] prove this [that it is no imitation of gentiles]. As we have seen, the kadmonim [great sages, lit. ‘ancients’] held their main wedding solemnisations in a synagogue i.e. a Chupah with blessings on the bimah [elevated reading desk] as the Chatham Sofer himself brings. All in all, even according to the Chatham Sofer there is no prohibition for the Rabbi to arrange a wedding with a Chupah in a synagogue. Only in his time, in his location where there was a slight concern of Reform he mentioned only a withholding of blessing on the bridegroom and bride and parents. And in our times this does not apply and so the rabbi is obligated to go and arrange the marriage for he is obligated from the side of his obligations and on the side of overseeing it is done according to Law. And [attendance] even for [weddings of] relatives and friends there is no prohibition and no saintly conduct not to go. From your friend, Moshe Feinstein.10

Rabbi Feinstein’s response renders nugatory the notion that a contemporary synagogue wedding conducted with people with no reformist predilections is included in the excoriation of the Chatham Sofer. Rather, as he makes clear, it was a measure elicited due to the extreme exigency facing the Chatham Sofer with volatile and heretical reformists and was applicable “only in his time, in his location.”

Other Key Responsa on Synagogal Weddings

Another key responsum of Rabbi Hirsch on the subject is addressed to Rabbi Aaron HaLevy Green, who had been approached by congregants desirous of having their wedding in the synagogue.11 The Jews were being mocked by the gentiles when they had their weddings outdoors; moreover the streets were unsanitary. Rabbi Green was loath to sanction the request. Community tension was running exceedingly high and so he contacted Rabbi Hirsch, to deliver a halachic ruling. Rabbi Hirsch declared, “according to my humble opinion there is not a trace of prohibition in it, rather, on the contrary, it is beautiful and fitting to bless [i.e. pronounce] the ‘Who createth man’ benediction in the House of the Creator of man. For surely the holding of a Chupah in the synagogue is an extremely old custom of our ancient [sages], the genii [Geonim, 589-1038] of old…”

Rabbi Hirsch also quoted from the Maharil (HilchothNisuin, Laws of Marriage, Siman 3):

And this is the wording of the Maharil in the laws of marriage: “…and they bring the bride with musical instruments until the entrance of the synagogue and she waits there until the Rabbi walks the bridegroom to the Almemar [elevated reading desk] of the synagogue etc. And afterwards the Rabbi goes, and important personages with him and brings the bride. And the Rabbi would hold [i.e. take] her by her clothes and walk her and stand her to the right of the bridegroom etc. and he would stand beyond them to the north and their faces [were turned] to the south and the mother of the bridegroom and of the bride would walk and stand next to her on the Almemar at the time of the blessing, or other relatives in [their] place.” Until here [I quote] his words. And the author of the Kerem Shlomo [published Pressburg, 1840] of blessed memory12 (Even HaEzer, Siman 61) definitely did not see the actual words of the Maharil and so he took out [i.e. mistook] the intent of his words and the words of the Beth Shmuel13[Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, 1650-?, Siman 30, Se’if Katan 9] to a different meaning, and with [begging] the pardon of his honour he erred. And so is the testimony of the Rivash14 Siman 206 in its place [supporting the notion of synagogue weddings] and so I have seen in holy congregations in Germany [Ashkenaz] and so I have conducted [lit. been accustomed] in my days.

Rabbi Hirsch then explains how the Kerem Shlomo sought to prove from a Tosafoth in Kiddushin Folio 52b that it is not correct to marry in a synagogue; the matter appeared otherwise to Rabbi Hirsch – indeed, this particular source and others across the Talmud proved that there would be no issue with conducting a wedding even in the Temple Azara [part of the Temple precincts]. He also clearly illustrates the way the halachic authority Beth Shmuel (Siman 30 Seif Katan 9) regards the synagogue as a typical venue to have a wedding. Rabbi Hirsch concludes his convincing argument thus:

[T]herefore it appears to me that it is definitely a correct minhag, a minhag of our ancients [kadmonim] to hold a Chupah in a synagogue….We should be an iron pillar and copper wall against all the transgressors in the people when there is truly an issue of sin and destruction of religion. However, with any matter where there is no trace of prohibition we should be as flexible as a reed and not stiffen our necks and then also to our reprimanding on sin…they will incline an ear…and if the sons and daughters of his congregation wish to be blessed in the synagogue, then bless the covenant of their youth with a desirable heart and you will reach blessings and fullness of happiness from the G-d of Peace.

The Situation Today

The worry about emulating the gentiles in synagogue service was not unfounded. In the commentary to the Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the British Empire (1946 edition) appears the following:

The Marriage Service proper is usually preceded by a special prayer offered by the minister or by a brief address on the sacredness of the occasion and the solemn duties of Holy Wedlock. The readiness of the bridegroom and bride to assume those duties is sufficiently indicated by their presence for the marriage ceremony. Still, there are those who desire verbally to express their consent, and their acceptance of the undertaking set forth in the Kesubah. To them the minister may put the following questions, either before or after his address:

Minister: “You (A) and (B) are about to be wedded according to the Law of Moses and Israel. Will you (A) take this woman (B) to be your wedded wife? Will you be a true and faithful husband unto her? Will you protect and support her? Will you love, honour and cherish her?
Bridegroom: I will.
Minister: Will you (B) take this man (A) to be your wedded husband? Will you be a true and faithful wife unto him?
Will you love, honour and cherish him?”
Bride:I will.15

Sceptics will almost hear the bells of Westminster Abbey chiming in the background of these marriage vows, which clearly did not carry the full support of even the Chief Rabbi who authored them, and who regarded them as superfluous. They will be incensed at how, despite the fact (as averred by the British Chief Rabbi Joseph Herman Hertz, 1872-1946)16 that Christians plagiarised virtually all of the principal concepts of marriage from Judaism, peripheral elements in the Jewish faith wanted to introduced certain suspiciously church-like customs into wedding services. Nonetheless, it may be noted that by and large, coating every aspect of the United Synagogue in severe Anglicisation was a factor historians held pivotal in ensuring that 75% of British Jewry remained, nominally at least, within an Orthodox synagogal framework. As Sharman Kadish put it, “Adlerian Orthodoxy meant traditional Jewish content dressed up in English packaging: top hats and dog collars and canonicals worn by clergy, professional cantors leading choral services in an aesthetically pleasing environment. ‘Decorum’ in the synagogue was calculated to appeal to English-born Jews. The recipe was effective; it staved off the inroads of Reform…until well into the 20th Century.”17

All the reasons to continue synagogue weddings as offered by the great Rabbi S R Hirsch would appear to be in halachic quandary should certain conditions not be met. The first condition that would have to be imposed to enable halachically compatible synagogal weddings would be that the bridegroom and bride may not kiss or hug at all in the synagogue. Chief Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits (1921-1999) insisted upon this in synagogues under his jurisdiction: “…I have always endeavoured to prevail on young couples after I solemnised their marriage to leave the show of their affections until they met privately following the ceremony. Only one expression of love belongs in the synagogue!”18 Rabbi Jakobovits was himself married in Paris’ Rue de Cadet Synagogue (that of his father-in-law Rabbi Elie Munk, 1900-1981), clad in morning dress and top-hat and seated beneath his wedding canopy in the synagogue as per Parisian custom.19

Rabbi Hirsch introduced the ancient custom of holding synagogal weddings in the Jewish community of Moravia which he served, and he also had the Rabbi address the newlyweds under the Chupah, a custom he continued in Frankfurt. To this day the Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the British Commonwealth of Nations indicates that the Rabbi is to deliver a ‘Prayer or Address’ to the couple during the marriage service. It is vital to note, however, that apart from the accompaniers of the bride or bridegroom, no women in Rabbi Hirsch’s congregation were allowed on the ground floor; the women viewed the ceremony from the well-placed women’s gallery. Indeed, on one occasion in Nikolsburg, in the middle of Rabbi Hirsch’s address under the Chupah, a group of women entered the men’s section of the synagogue, whereupon he interrupted his speech and insisted that they leave immediately.20

Hence, the second proviso for a synagogue wedding would be that the men and women (apart from those accompaniers of the bride and groom) are separated during the service and do not embrace (or similar) at any point. Indeed, even in Great Britain’s exceedingly anglicised synagogues, including Western Marble Arch, New West End (London) and Higher Crumpsall (Manchester), the men and women sit apart during the marriage service. Photographs from the Great Synagogue of Johannesburg indicate that for gatherings convened for purposes other than a wedding, the guests followed the separate custom as practiced in England.21 It is a most regrettable fact that in South Africa to this day all guests at the wedding service sit completely mixed and emotional embracing of men and women -including married to unmarried individuals – takes place, thereby contravening halacha. It would be relatively simple for the present South African Chief Rabbi and Beth Din to shore up Orthodox practice by following the institution upheld in Great Britain, for many years.

Another factor worthy of cogitation is whether Lithuanian Jews, whose ancestors did not have the custom of synagogal weddings, are obliged to have an outdoor wedding. Nonetheless, several contemporary synagogues have overcome the never prohibitive issue of the wedding taking place “beneath the heavens” altogether. In Budapest a ChabadRabbi installed a roof that opens within the synagogue to fulfil this extra opinion for directing the service. The colossal Jerusalem Great Synagogue has installed a similar device and weddings are held in the synagogue and beneath the sky to accommodate having the solemnisation underneath kipath hashemayim – the canopy of the heavens.

This article has demonstrated that those synagogues upholding the custom of a synagogue wedding, even without the skylight device, are certainly not engaging in what some misinformed individuals may regard as an “apotheosis of an anachronism”. Indeed, we have extensively documented the ineluctable fact that the custom is a rabbinic tradition that dates back to the medieval period. Given that the question involves following one’s minhag,if all halachic requirements are met it is incontrovertible that synagogal weddings will be on the scene not only in German communities but in Great Britain and countries once part of its extensive Empire for the foreseeable future.

  • The author would like to thank Jewish Heritage UK’s director, Dr Sharman Kadish, with whom he has worked on heritage matters in Britain, for reviewing and making helpful suggestions regarding this article.

David Sher, a regular contributor to Jewish Affairs, is a student at Mir Yeshiva in Israel.

 

NOTES

  1. Psalms 118:26.
  2. Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi, Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, 4th edition, London, Harper Collins Publishers, 2006, pp790-792.
  3. Numbers 6:24-26.
  4. Joseph Herman Hertz, Chief Rabbi (ed.), The Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the British Empire, London, Shapiro Vallentine & Co, 1946, p1009.
  5. Isadore Grunfeld, Dayan Dr, ‘Introduction’ in Samson Raphael Hirsch, Rabbi, Pentateuch with Translation and Commentary by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Genesis, trans. Isaac Levy, 2nd edition, Gateshead, Judaica Press, 1989, pp vii-xxx.
  6. Yitzchak Isaac Halevy Herzog,Chief Rabbi, PesakimUktavim -Responsa of Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Halevy Herzog, Jerusalem, Mossad HaRav Kook, 1996, p495.
  7. Section7, Marecheth Chathan v’Kalla, Oth 1.
  8. Isaiah 2:3.
  9. Psalms 92:14.
  10. Moshe Feinstein, Rabbi, Igroth Moshe, Responsa of Rabbi Moses Feinstein, (Hebrew), New York, Noble Book Press Corp, 5719/1959, EvenHaEzer, Volume 1, Siman 93 (English translation by author).
  11. Eliyahu Meir Klugman (ed.), ShemeshMeRapeh, Responsa of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, New York, Mesorah Publications, 1992, Siman 79 and 80, pp95-97 (English translation by author).
  12. Rabbi Shlomo Hess of Dreznitz.
  13. Incidentally, his daughter married Rabbi Aaron Hart (1670-1756), Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and spiritual leader to the London Great Synagogue.
  14. Rabbi Isaac bar Sheshet, 1326-1408.
  15. Joseph Herman Hertz, Chief Rabbi (ed.), The Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the British Empire,London, Shapiro Vallentine & Co, 1946, p1009.
  16. Joseph Herman Hertz Chief Rabbi (ed.), Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2nd edition, London, Soncino Press, 1960, p932.
  17. Sharman Kadish, The Synagogues of Britain and Ireland, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2011, p68.
  18. Meir Persoff, Immanuel Jakobovits: a Prophet in Israel, London, Vallentine Mitchell, 2002, p87.
  19. Michael Shashar, Lord Jakobovits in Conversation, London, Vallentine Mitchell, 2000, p33.
  20. Eliyahu Meir Klugman, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch – Autobiography, 3rd edition, New York, Artscroll-Mesorah Publications, 1998, p103.
  21. A photograph of what appears to be the King David School ‘Bnot Mitzva’ service held at the Great Synagogue in Wolmarans Street, Johannesburg, testifies to this fact. See photograph in Celebrating Great Park, Great Park 100, 1913-2013, dir. Andy Spitz, Johannesburg, Left-Eye Productions, 2013, [DVD].

You may also like