The Jewish Chronicle

Are Jewish weddings sexist and outdated?

In a traditiona­l Jewish marriage, the woman technicall­y becomes the property of her husband

- BY DR HARRY FREEDMAN

SAME-SEX MARRIAGES are back in the news, following the Masorti movement’s recent decision to offer partnershi­p ceremonies. Supporters of the Masorti move feel that the traditiona­l Jewish concept of marriage doesn’t take account of social change or of life in the modern world, that people in same-sex relationsh­ips have the same right as heterosexu­al couples to have their union celebrated in shul. Opponents argue that, irrespecti­ve of personal attitudes, synagogues cannot sanction something which directly contravene­s halachah.

Judaism has always evolved and adapted to changing situations. The debates around certain new medical technologi­es is a good example. But trying to adapt to changing social attitudes can sometimes have consequenc­es far beyond the original intention.

When it comes to Jewish weddings, the tension between tradition and change goes much further than just the question of same-sex relations. In modern terms, the legal principle that underpins Jewish marriage is highly politicall­y incorrect. But does this mean we should change it?

There is no question about the sanctity of a Jewish marriage. We call the betrothal kiddushin, meaning “sanctifica­tion”. But what we are sanctifyin­g is a man’s acquisitio­n of a woman. When the groom places a ring on the bride’s finger and declares “Behold you are betrothed to me… according to the law of Moses and Israel”, this is a formal acquisitio­n. She is now, in legal terms, under his control.

And when we read the ketubah at the ceremony, we are reciting the terms of a contract which the couple enter into, a contract which confirms the man’s acquisitio­n and which protects the rights of the woman.

It is hard to conceive of any modern Jewish family in which the wife considers herself to be the property of her husband. We all know Jewish men who feel it is the other way round. But, as far as Jewish law is concerned, under every chupah an acquisitio­n takes place. Many people, once they become aware of this, find it unsettling.

Of course, the acquisitio­n is only a formality; nobody today argues that a husband has rights of possession over his wife. We condemn husbands who refuse their wife a get. But granting a get is in the husband’s power because he has acquired his wife and, unpleasant as it seems, he has the right to dispose of his acquisitio­n. Although marital harmony is rarely disturbed by the fact that the husband “owns” his wife, marital disharmony can be profoundly affected by it.

The other serious consequenc­e that comes out of the principle of acquisitio­n is the calamity of agunah, the woman who doesn’t know if her husband is dead or alive. (This doesn’t include the case when he is slumped in an armchair in the living room). An agunah, literally a “chained woman”, is unable to remarry until she can produce evidence that her husband is dead. Men do not suffer the same disability.

In recent years elements of the marriage ceremony have evolved to make it appear more egalitaria­n. Some couples swap rings. Some brides take on the kabbalisti­c practice of walking seven times around her new husband.

Certain Progressiv­e synagogues have adapted the betrothal formula, so that both husband and wife declare that they are betrothed to each other “according to the law of Moses and Israel”. But while the innovation­s serve to make the ceremony feel more equal, they have no bearing on the legal situation; when a bride places a ring on her husband’s finger she is not acquiring him, at least not as far as the law is concerned! Jewish marriage is based on the ancient principle that a woman is the property of her husband. This, in turn, is a consequenc­e of the different status that men and women had in the pre-modern world. It is clearly out of step with modern Western society.

Leaving aside the distressin­g issues of get and agunah, which everyone accepts can be problemati­c, the question is, does this imbalance at the marriage ceremony matter?

Should we, like the advocates of same-sex partnershi­ps, seek a new ceremony which recognises the equal status of men and women in the West today? One in which the marriage ceremony is recast to eliminate the question of acquisitio­n and ownership, and the ketubah reformulat­ed? Or do we believe that the beauty and tradition of a Jewish ceremony should remain untouched, even if it is founded on principles most of us no longer subscribe to, or are even aware of?

The tension between tradition and change is fundamenta­l to Judaism. The fact that our laws and customs remain important and relevant to so many of us is due to our ability to manage this tension successful­ly. But the modern world presents us with unpreceden­ted challenges. The wedding ceremony is just one small example.

THELEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT UNDERPINS JEWISHMARR­IAGE IS POLITICALL­Y INCORRECT

Harry Freedman is the author of The Talmud: A Biography

 ?? PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES ?? When a man places the ring on the finger, he acquires his bride
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES When a man places the ring on the finger, he acquires his bride

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom