Parallel kiddushin
Some have chosen to make kiddushin egalitarian by having both partners “acquire” the other by sequentially saying the traditional kiddushin declaration to each other.
Jeremy & Michael: I don’t remember who went first for rings, I think we left it open to whichever ring our Mesader Kiddushin took out first. We both said “harei attah mekudash li b’taba’at zoh kedat moshe v’yisrael.” The same text as the original but swapping in “attah mekudash” [conjugated to say to a male].
Ben & David: Owing a debt to the teaching of Rabbi Jason Rubenstein, we understand each act of kiddushin as acquiring a (non-gendered) set of commitments, including exclusivity and fidelity; thus the two acts are both possible and non-duplicative. In belt-and-suspenders fashion, to the extent that the theory of parallel egalitarian kiddushin between gay men is unpersuasive, these kiddushin acts can be understood, alternatively, as a form of public vow and thus binding in that sense.
However, many authorities do argue that parallel declarations are either redundant or, worse, counterproductive. These critiques date back to proposals from the mid-20th century to make halachic weddings more egalitarian.
Rabbi Rachel Adler: Whether it is valid for a couple to exchange rings is a matter of controversy. Both the Orthodox decisor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and the Conservative Rabbi Isaac Klein believe that the marriage is valid once the husband has given a ring even if the bride reciprocates with a ring and a statement. Rabbi Feinstein forbids the practice, and Rabbi Klein permits it.
Cheryl Beckerman: According to normative halakhic opinion, what the woman says in the ceremony, even if she addresses the man with language identical to his and gives him a ring, has no effect on the one-way acquisition that takes place through his agency. Some Orthodox authorities forbid a double-ring ceremony outright, while others, notably the prominent [posek, or] decisor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, merely dismiss it as hevel v’shtut [vanity and foolishness]. For some Conservative and liberal Orthodox rabbis, the halakhic irrelevance of the woman’s participation provides the latitude to permit double-ring ceremonies with the bride speaking right after the groom. Others take care not to give the appearance of two-way acquisition, and the bride recites scriptural verses to the groom only later in the ceremony. … In the context of its mishnaic origins, neither Joel nor I believed that in kiddushin a two-way acquisition is possible, no matter how the ceremony is done. Furthermore, we came to realize that mutual acquisition was not our goal. The whole concept of acquisition imposes monogamy as a condition of ownership, rather than as an expression of the commitment of two loving partners.
Rabbi Amichai Lau-Lavi: An exchange of rings is problematic as it is commonly perceived as undoing any transfer of value and thus voiding the acquisition.
Dr. Aryeh Cohen agrees that a dual ring exchange nullifies the kinyan, but for him that’s exactly the point:
Dr. Aryeh Cohen: The ring exchange obviates the possibility that there is kinyan in the kiddushin formula and then all that is left in the formula is the statement of dedication to each other. This semantic option is already present in the gemara (de-asar a-kula alma kehekdesh) (and implicitly in the mishnah beginning of the second perek). So I would say that the kiddushin are valid though not a kinyan (or to my mind valid and not a kinyan…
Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg: Dr. Aryeh Cohen points out that in Baba Kama 84a, Abaye (or the stam) says, “ben horin eyn lo damim,” aka “a free person has no price.” In its context, this statement is discussing the estimation of damages and is suggesting, effectively, that the free offender in question should be estimated as though he were a slave, so that it might be known how much money he owes for bodily damages to another. And yet, he suggests, whether understood aggadically (homiletically) or halakhically, it’s a powerful statement. Free people have no price. If so, then they can’t be bought. … Which means that any kinyan attempted under kiddushin would not be able to be effected–it would perhaps be understood as a symbolic gesture of binding between the couple, but it could by definition not be an actual acquisition of a person. This also would mean that innovations aimed at giving the bride more agency or at creating a more egalitarian ceremony could not threaten the underlying kinyan, because there is none.
Hitkadshut – Self-consecration /
kinyan hadadi – mutual acquisition
Instead of the historic construction where the groom consecrates the bride with Harei at mekudeshet, these proposals have each partner consecrate themselves to the other with Harei ani mitkadesh/mitkadeshet.
Ayelet Cohen: For most couples who are familiar with the Jewish wedding ceremony, “harei at mekudeshet li” is powerfully resonant. I have found that for many couples it is emotionally significant to say those words – it makes them “feel” married. Offering an alternate statement feels “less than.” If we truly believe that LGBTQ unions are of equal status, there is no problem using the same word for them.
Obviously, the halakhic issues are more complicated. But, if we practice a truly egalitarian Judaism, and believe that men and women are of equal halakhic status and that marriages between a man and man, woman and woman, and woman and man are of equal status, then kiddushin poses a real challenge.
Many scholars and rabbis have persuasively argued that we must abandon language of kiddushin if we are to achieve true egalitarianism in wedding ceremonies. I agree that we need to reframe the ritual. Two equal people cannot acquire one another. A partnership ritual, such as that suggested by Rachel Adler, seems much more appropriate for an egalitarian couple of any sex in this age. Yet the formula of “harei at” continues to feel like the “real thing.” I believe that the emotional resonance of these words is significant. So much of the significance of weddings lies in symbolism and emotion. This is why we craft elaborate public rituals rather than perfunctory business transactions.
Whereas the transaction of kiddushin feels outdated and inherently unequal, the idea of using language of kedushah to sanctify the ritual and infuse the marriage with holiness is compelling. Combining the partnership ritual that Rachel Adler describes in her brit ahuvim, placing the rings in a pouch and raising them, with the traditional formula of “harei at/harei ata”, achieves an egalitarian ritual with deeply resonant language. Some couples, like Tamara Cohen and Gwynn Kessler, have suggested coining a new phrase: hitkadshut, to retain the language of holiness while maintaining a greater agency: “I sanctify myself to you,” rather than “you are sanctified to me.” Many couples, less versed in the intricacies of rabbinic language but intent on having a “real Jewish wedding” prefer the traditional formula, and I encourage them to use it.
Eyal Levinson: I wish to offer a way in which we can renew our understanding of kinyan and its use in our ceremonies. I also advocate the position that the act of exchanging rings, which establishes the kinyan should be present in same-sex marriages to reinforce the equal status with the heterosexual ceremony of kidushin ve’nisuin.
In the Tanach we find several places where kinyan is understood differently from exchanging goods for the purpose of acquisition and therefore gaining control over the object. In Genesis (14:9) koneh appears as- ‘making or creating’. El Elyon, a manifestation of the Divine, is the “Creator of heaven and earth”- ‘koneh shamaim va’aretz’.
A similar use of this verb we discover in Deuteronomy (32:6), Proverbs (8:22), and Psalms (78:54 and 139:13). In Proverbs (16: 16 and 23: 23) we find a related interpretation of the verb kanah. “Acquire wisdom and gain knowledge, don’t forget and don’t turn away from My words. Do not forsake her and she will guard you, love her and she will shape you. The beginning of wisdom is to acquire wisdom and in all your acquisitions acquire knowledge.” (4: 5-7)
In the above example kanah is used as both acquiring and gaining through the process of accepting. If one accepts wisdom into her life, then wisdom will shape and form that person. In a similar manner we can acquire a person by the process of accepting this person into our life. By substituting the word wisdom with the word lover for instance, the above sentence becomes: “Acquire a lover and gain a friend, don’t forget and don’t turn away from him. Do not forsake him and he will guard you, love him and he will shape you. The beginning of wisdom is to acquire a lover and in all your acquisitions acquire him.”
Through love we shape each other’s soul, through accepting each other into our lives we become unified. The Maharal of Prague elaborates on this idea: “Well, acquire a friend: in a friendship we use the term ‘acquire’ because a friend is his friend’s acquisition.”
As in Proverbs, the Maharal uses kanah as accepting a friend into one’s life. The person becomes a friend and hence one’s kinyan, not through exchange of money or other material goods, but rather through the act of accepting one another and the friendship. The same understanding we find in Archot Tzadikim: “Acquire a friend who tells you when you do wrong, who teaches you how to do good, and helps you with his soul and his money – this is a loyal friend.” (Gate 5, Sha’ar Ha’Ahavah)
Another example we find with Chavah, Eve, mother of all living, who, after giving birth to her first son, Cain, finally accepts her partnership with Adam, and declares: “… I acquired a man with YHVH” (Gen. 4: 1)
Above, Chavah is the one to acquire her man not the other way around. This kinyan is a result of a collaboration, a mutual creation, becoming unified in the newborn. Rashi reminds us that this kind of partnership is not a regular collaboration between two earthly subjects and rather a threeway: “The saying ‘I acquired’: YHVH. It is like – with YHVH. When YHVH created me and my man, all by himself He created us. But in this process of creation we are all partners.” (Rashi on Genesis 4: 1)
Sifri tells us about this unique partnership between two people and God: “When a person acquires a friend to himself he gains – reading with him, studying with him, eating with him, drinking with him, revealing to him all his secrets. And he also says (Ecclesiastes 4) and the threefold cord is not quickly broken.”
The ‘threefold cord’ is the Divine cord keeping the friendship from falling apart. This kind of ‘threefold relationship’ we encounter in our first recorded same-sex covenant, when Yehonatan reminds his lover David that the Divine is forever a part of what they have between them: “And Yehonatan told David: Go in peace, for we have sworn both of us in the name of YHVH saying, YHVH will be between me and you and between my seed and yours for eternity.” (I Sam. 20: 42)
I suggest calling this special kinyan by the name – kinyan hadadi, a mutual acquisition/acceptance, with which we may choose to recognize our weddings. Kinyan hadadi is not a ba’alut, ownership, of one over the other, but instead it is a joint acknowledgment and a mutual embracement of the union. And like God creating heaven and earth in Genesis this kinyan is also a new creation forming a new reality. …
Trying to bring the ceremony closer to how we understand an egalitarian marriage to be, the couple exchanges rings. This exchange of rings should be part of a same-sex marriage. But due to our new understanding of kinyan, as kinyan hadadi, I suggest a reversal of roles. The person receiving the ring should say: “Behold, I hereby sanctify myself to you with this ring.” And then continue to say: “According to our understanding of the Law of Moses, Miriam, and Israel.”
| Harei ani mitkadesh l’cha (mitkadeshet lach) betabaat zo k’havanateinu et dat Moshe Miriam v’Yisrael. | Behold, I hereby sanctify myself to you with this ring. According to our understanding of the Law of Moses, Miriam, and Israel. |
The roles are then reversed between the lovers.
This formulation also makes kinyan a voluntary act that the parties are each taking affirmatively, not something happening to them passively by the other.
Rabbi Gabriel Botnick takes this idea a step further. The above construction could still be taken unilaterally, with one partner making the kinyan statement and the other backing out at the last minute. He proposes making the kiddushin contingent on the partner’s acceptance of the ring:
| Harei ani etkadesh lecha kesheata tekabel tabaat zo… | Behold, I will sanctify myself to you when you take this ring … |
Derech Kiddushin
Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg: R. Meir Simchah Feldblum proposes a ceremony called “derech kiddushin” (in the manner of kiddushin) which, he notes, has Talmudic roots as a way to sanctify and permit cohabitation without requiring a get (“Ba’ayot Agunot uMamzerim” in Dine Yisra’el, XIX (5757-5758). … R. Feldblum suggests that any relationship that’s in “the manner of marriage,” even if it’s not actually 100% fully kosher kiddushin, is sanctified yet does not require a get. As J. David Bleich (“Can There Be Marriage Without Marriage?” Tradition, I think 33/1, 1998), articulates it,
“According to Rosh’s own categorization… of derekh kiddushin, [it is] a situation in which the parties seek to establish a matrimonial relationship but fail to realize their intention because of a technicality in the form of a lack of halakhic capacity to contract a valid marriage. Since the parties genuinely desire to effect a marital relationship, a woman entering into such a relationship suffers no social stigma.”
The core case of Feldblum’s argument comes from a discussion of the status of a minor female whose father traveled abroad and thus effectively abandoned his obligations to his daughter—a father can contract marriage on behalf of his daughter, but a minor female cannot contract her own marriage (back in the day, this was intended to protect her from sexual predators). In a case where such a girl attempts to take her fate in her own hands, the Rosh, in Kiddushin 2:8, asserts that though she cannot contract a kosher marriage on her own (she’s still too young), “nevertheless, she cannot be forbidden [such a relationship] because she is to be considered an unmarried girl who engages in a licentious relationship [with her consort] for, since she is with him is the manner of marriage (derekh kiddushin hi ezlo), it is not licentiousness.” The relationship isn’t full Rabbinic marriage because the partners weren’t technically eligible to marry, but it’s not licentiousness either—it doesn’t require a get, but it’s something more than concubinage. This, then, is derech kiddushin. (This position is mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, Even ha-Ezer 37:14.)
R. Haviva Ner-David suggests that the way to enact this today is to issue a formula similar to (in the manner of) traditional kiddushin, however, in a form that would not be construed as traditional kiddushin, such as,
| Harei ani miyuchad lecha/miyuchedet lach bitaba’at zu. | Behold, I am made exclusively yours with this ring. |
ADVANTAGES: Creates a bond that fits within the halakhic framework, does not require a get, is same-sex friendly, nobody gets bought, is arguably the closest thing to kiddushin available today (depending on how you regard the consent issue.) DISADVANTAGES: Is not kosher kiddushin, is possibly non-applicable to situations in which traditional kiddushin is possible, has a “lower” status than traditional kiddushin.
R. Haviva Ner David: The benefit of this ceremony is that it is mentioned in the Talmud but also is completely egalitarian. But because there is no halakhic way mentioned in the Talmud to dissolve such a marriage, if the couple lives outside of Israel, they can rely on the civil courts. But if they are in Israel, or if they want to work a “Jewish” way of divorcing into the ceremony itself, they can draw up a contract based on the laws of shutafut (partnership).
Non-acquisitional Kiddushin
Rabbi Elliot Kukla: Kiddushin, which literally means holiness or “setting apart”, is the heart of the Jewish wedding service and signifies the sanctity of this moment. However, in traditional Jewish law the words of kiddushin lead to the legal acquisition of the bride by the groom. Modern egalitarian communities have tried to redefine these words, however I feel like the formula itself is inherently problematic. I have changed the liturgy to reflect the idea that no acquisition is taking place in an egalitarian wedding. Instead of saying: “Behold I am making you holy/set apart!” I suggest that couples say: “Behold, you are holy/set apart for me.” This change in the language shifts the beloved from the object to the subject of the sentence, hence avoiding any implication of objectification! Partners exchange an item of value and each says to the other:
| Harai ata kudesh li! / Harai at kudeshet li! | Behold, you are holy to me! |
Some couples may choose to add the traditional words: K’dat Moshe v’Israel (according to the religion of Moses and Israel). [See discussion on that phrase here.]