- Shutafut – partnership
- Nedarim and Shevuot – Vows and Oaths
- Brit – covenant
- Mix and match
- Rings without kiddushin and additional texts
Rabbi Steve Greenberg: According to Rachel Adler, the unilateral nature of the kiddushin is not the only problem. The problem of kiddushin rests as well in its fundamental legal ground as a purchase. If Adler is right, then the double-ring ceremony, well-meaning as it may be, does not solve the problem.
Rabbi Aaron Weininger: One could argue the wedding ceremony in general tells the story of a marriage that is not based on equal partnership, gay or straight, and should be altered dramatically to reflect a more current story. For me the power of wedding ritual (like other Jewish ritual) is holding the uniqueness of the people in the frame of what we’ve inherited beyond this moment. I also understand the possible discomfort of some using kiddushin for same-sex couples.
So, rather than try to adapt kiddushin for partners of the same status, whether by both partners performing a kinyan on each other or by a model of kiddushin without kinyan, some couples choose to utilize other legal mechanisms within halacha to bind themselves together. The legal power in these other mechanisms may lie in the written document or in the verbal declarations enacting the union. If a ceremony using one of these mechanisms includes both a document and declarations, the non-operative element could be purely symbolic or cleverly constructed to play a role in the effectuation of the mechanism. Rings may or may not play a role.
Shutafut – partnership
Rabbi Amichai Lau-Lavi: Based on business dealings, Shtar Shutafut, is a Partnership Contract, which becomes the equivalent of a ketubah. This document, signed by witnesses, is a document that describes the legal process that the couple undertakes during the ceremony and outlines the terms of the agreement and obligations that the couple takes upon itself. In accordance with the Talmudic prescription for formalizing a partnership, both parties raise an object acquired together, thus symbolizing the shared commitment. (recent examples include, for example, a jointly bought Mezuza).
Rabbi Steve Greenberg: Whether heterosexual couples find the patriarchal sex-role divisions problematic or not, gay couples simply do not have such gender distinctions to address, nor any long history of traditional ritual to honor. So if gay Jews choose not to use the ketubah, should another sort of document replace it? How should same-sex couples specify the duties and expectations of their relationships?
We could just dispense with the ketubah and its delineation of specifics altogether. It is common for marrying couples today to structure their own vows, which serves a similar purpose. Personal vows of love and commitment can be romantic and powerful, even if they are legally inconsequential. No one could take an ordinary wedding vow to court to prosecute for satisfaction of the terms, claiming the party of the first part did not fulfill “to have and to hold.” Contemporary weddings are highly melodramatic affairs that speak grandiosely about romantic love, but whose formal commitments are vague—calling parties “to love, protect, and cherish” each other “till death do us part.” The question that rarely gets answered at weddings is “What exactly are these two people committing to?”
Now, it may be that vagueness is an unavoidable element, or even a necessary feature of marital commitment. Marriage is the sort of commitment that grounds itself in persons rather than in a set of well-defined contracted duties, and for good reason. The full set of obligations that will ensue over a lifetime following the “I do” can never be anticipated, much less delineated. Love commits us to duties whose specifications we cannot know in advance. However true it is that a vow of love cannot be fully quantified into a set of actions, the modern penchant for sentiment over content may still be a disingenuous way to avoid the fact that duties contracted must be fulfilled no matter what one happens to be feeling. Feelings inaugurate our commitment to action; we do not commit to feel, we commit to do. If so, then what sort of marriage contract ought we to draw up? How do we formally articulate what we mean by marriage?
Of course, we may well need to invent totally new ways of contracting our love relationships. Rachel Adler has suggested the use of a legally binding relation described in the halakhah that is fully mutual and beyond gender, that of legal partnership. Partners in an economic enterprise are shutafim in Hebrew. They are bound to each other in a mutual fashion and can obligate themselves in specific ways as determined by their agreement. Such a contract, a shtar shutafut, could replace the ketubah. It would mark the establishment of the partnership and stipulate the duties that both enjoined upon each other. Partnership was traditionally accomplished by each party putting assets into a bag and lifting it together, symbolizing the joining together of their individual properties into a single enterprise. This ritual might be added to the giving of rings as a formal way to mark the joining of two households into one and not the adoption of a woman into the household of a man. The text would stipulate the duties and obligations of each partner to the other that emerge from their shared love. Both would sign it along with witnesses. It would provide couples an opportunity to discuss in advance many sensitive concerns and allow them to construct a partnership to fit their unique circumstances. As well, the document ought to stipulate how the relationship may be terminated and under what conditions.
Shutafut is a model of formally and legally delineating what, in fact, a union demands of each partner. It marks a full disclosure of assets and sets up a clear set of commitments for two parties to join their resources together for the purpose of creating a shared home. Interestingly, the sages considered partnership to be more than the giving over of financial resources toward a shared endeavor. A medieval halakhic authority, Rabbi Abraham ben David Zimri (referred to as the Ra’avad), uses astonishing language to describe business partnership. Each party in a partnership, he suggests, becomes an eved ivri, a Jewish slave, to the other. Conceptually, Jewish slavery was a world apart from its harsh Roman counterpart or from the brutality of the European colonial slavery of Africans. For example, the halakhah obligated a master to give a slave food and lodging that was qualitatively similar to his or her own. Even so, the notion of partnership as slavery is surely jarring. However, here again, the mutuality of servitude transforms the very notion of slavery into something very different. Similar to the double-ring ceremony of erusin, the mutuality of slavery makes both parties slave and master, transforming a hierarchical relationship into a relationship with a profound union of rights and obligations. Each party enters into such a relationship knowing that he or she will serve and be served in love. Perhaps this is the deeper meaning of “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine” (Song of Sol. 6:3).
It is customary in the establishment of a partnership (shutafut) that each party put something of value into a bag and then both lift the bag to inaugurate their joining together in a shared enterprise. This ritual marks the fact that the resources of two people are being pooled in the service of their new partnership. In order to situate this ritual in a more personal rather than merely businesslike context, it may be helpful to ask each partner to recite the line “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine” from the Song of Sol. 6:3, which captures the ideas of partnership, mutual belonging, sexual exclusivity, and love, all in one.
H&J: We opted not to do anything resembling a traditional shtar ketuba, since for various reasons we didn’t think it applied to us (no unilateral kinyan, no need for a get, and the financial stuff in a shtar ketuba is unenforceable anyway). We preferred the model of shutafut, where our marriage is in essence a joint venture agreement with us as equal shareholders. We also appreciated the evocation of the kinyan model with shutafut’s roots in a business framework. (We recognize that some couples may instead choose to emphatically distance themselves from a union based in a business framework.) We cobbled together the language in our shtar using snippets from the CJLS, R. Adler, and acquaintances who wrote their shtar with the help of R. Steve Greenberg, with additions of our own. After the opening (from CJLS) that on the stated date we “make a holy declaration,” our shtar lists what are essentially our vows to each other. It closes with a legal device:
| הם יוצרים שותפות זו בששון ובשמחה ומקבלים עליהם את תנאיה. | They enter into this partnership in joy and happiness and solemnly accept its obligations. |
And then is endorsed by witnesses using the wording from CJLS.
We wanted the rings to have legal significance in the context of the ceremony, like the ring does when a man uses it in the kinyan of a bride. We liked Rachel Adler’s proposal that each party places an object that they have individually purchased into a pouch and raise it together, an action that traditionally signifies entering into a partnership. We used our rings so the rings become the vehicle through which the partnership is enacted and through which we accept upon ourselves the language in our legal document. To that end, we said this as we each placed our ring into the ring box:
| הֲרֵי אֲנִי אֶשְׁתַּתֵּף בְךָ בְטַבַּעַת זוֹ לִפְנֵי עֲדָת יִשְׂרָאֵל. | With this I will be a partner with you, before the congregation of Israel. |
As Rabbi Gabriel Botnick proposed, the use of the future tense would enact the partnership simultaneously upon both us despite each saying the verse in turn. This statement acknowledges that we are entering a partnership, as did the erusin construction we used earlier in the ceremony.
Critique
Rabbi Eyal Levinson: A shutfut still requires the act of kinyan but in this case it is of the partnership and not of the persons involved. My beloved partner, Amnon, pointed out that the problem of such a solution is that such a partnership is an entity separated from the people involved in it. He explains that what two people, who choose to walk through life together, establish between them, is far more than a partnership, it is a union.
Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg: [S]hutafut [is] a traditional model for partnership (usually business partnerships) rather than the traditional model of marriage. It’s not clear to me whether a couple using her ceremony would be legally obligated as a business partnership (and what that might entail). I don’t know enough about hilchot shutafut to know how, halakhically, one might end a partnership.
ADVANTAGES: Does not require a get, is fully egalitarian, is same-sex marriage friendly, has a historical connection to Jewish ritual history (ie, it’s not a ceremony invented whole-cloth). Is possibly binding legally.
DISADVANTAGES: It’s not kiddushin, so halakhically one is not fully married (I recognize that, re: the get issue, this is a plus for some people), it doesn’t “feel” like the traditional ceremony.
Nedarim and Shevuot – Vows and Oaths
There are two models for vow-based unions: contingent vows, where one’s vow is reliant on the other’s action, and bilateral vows, where each pledges adherence to a shared set of actions. Vows have a deep history in Jewish tradition and carry significant weight. As such, it can be an attractive way to formalize commitments within a marriage. But there are inherent problems in both models. Contingent vows don’t imbue the kind of parallelism a couple may desire. Bilateral vows may avoid the issue of a recalcitrant spouse, but an individual could theoretically void their own vow independently without the other’s knowledge. There is also the issue of Kol Nidre’s impact on vows generally (the prayer on Yom Kippur voiding vows), which was instituted out of a larger uneasiness toward vows.
Using vows can involve rings as inherent part of the ritual, but does not create a necessity for any additional legal document. As such, a ketuba for a vow-based marriage could take any form, including a binding form like shutafut or a purely sentimental form like a poetic statement of love and commitment. Here are a few proposals.
Rabbi Amichai Lau-Lavi: Instead of Kiddushin, this approach favors Shutafot—a rabbinic model of partnership that is based on business deals but can be reformulated to include a modern couple’s bilateral approach to a shared life. Taking on a neder does not have the same status as Kiddushin—but is also an easier bond to dissolve—via the ceremony of Hatarat Nedarim. In some cases, two rings are exchanged with vows/nedarim instead of the traditional formula of Kiddushin. This is one such example:
| הרי אני נודר שמרגע שאקבל ממך טבעת אקדיש את עצמי, רוחי וגופי לשיתופינו זיווגינו וחיינו ביחד. | Behold I vow that from the moment I receive from you a ring, I will sanctify myself, body and soul, to our joint partnership and life together. |
The other will respond with the following phrase and offer a ring.
| הרי אתה מוקדש לי בקבלת טבעת זו בתוקף הנדר אשר נדרת. | Behold, with this ring, you are consecrated to me by virtue of the oath you have just made. |
Unlike the other constructions listed here which have identical phrasing said by each partner, that one is dependent on the sequence of declarations and gives each partner a distinct role.
R. Haviva Ner-David lists a variation on this exchange that further avoids the words rooted in kadesh and instead uses language of individual belonging:
There are a variety of changes a couple can make to create a more egalitarian ceremony—ranging from changes that are just cosmetic but do not affect the unilateral nature of the transaction and therefore do not solve the get issue, to changes that alter the entire basis of the transaction so it is completely bilateral so that the get issue is solved. I was fortunate enough to be the misaderet kiddushin (officiating rabbi) at a ceremony in Baltimore, Maryland that fit into the latter category. Rather than use two rings in their ceremony to make it more egalitarian, this couple chose not to use rings at all. They wrote up a contract that is binding under both Jewish and American law and that covers their obligations to each other in marriage as well as the arrangements they agree to should they divorce. This contract they signed under a traditional chuppah, albeit one that they entered together. (Traditionally, the chuppah represented the man’s home that the woman was entering into. Therefore, in a traditional Jewish wedding ceremony, the groom will enter the chuppah first and then welcome the bride to join him, symbolizing her entering his home. Today, many couples choose to enter the chuppah together, symbolizing their intension to build a home together as partners.) Moreover, the central act binding the couple together was not an act of unilateral kinyan, of one-sided acquisition, but rather of both bride and groom taking a neder/shevuah (vow) establishing bilateral exclusivity; therefore, no get was required.
| [הרי אני נודר/ת שאהיה אסור/ה ביחסי אישות לשאר בני/בנות אדם וחוה] והרי אני נשבע/ת להיות מיוחד/ת לך על פי התנאים שהתננו בפני עדים . | Behold I vow that _____. |
The other responds:
| הרי את/ה מיוחד/ת לי בתוקף השבועה אשר נשבעת. | Behold, you are solely for me by the oath you have just made. |
And this ceremonial act was followed by two sets of sheva brachot—the traditional seven blessings recited beneath the chuppah, in addition to seven poetic renditions of these blessings that the groom composed to reflect the couple’s personal values. The bride at this wedding also did not wear a veil. And the couple did not even have a traditional ketubah. Surprisingly enough, however, the wedding felt very “Jewish.” Enough of the elements were there for it to retain its Jewish character. Yet the couple did not have to compromise their egalitarian values. [Contract language in her pdf]
A much more robust ceremony by Rabbi Dan Shevitz moves the distinct commitments frequently found in the legal document to the declaratory vows themselves.
Rabbi Dan Shevitz: The ritual is based on the use of an oath to assume responsibilities between individuals. It depends on the model of the halachic understanding of another case of obligations created between individuals which duplicated those imposed by the Torah, namely, adoption. In an adoption, the adopting parents, by means of an oath (which may be implied or explicit) assume the responsibilities that the law imposes on biological parents. Here, the context and language reflect the language of mutual obligations found in the ketuba. Because the exchange of rings is not a part of the oath, I have included it as an option … so it may be included or exclude as desired.
The couple stands beneath a Chuppa. Each partner in turn holds a Torah scroll, addressing the Bet Din, and makes the following declarations:
| נִשְׁבָּע / נִשְׁבָּעָה אֲנִי בֵאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשְׁמוֹ רַחוּם וְחַנוּן, וְעַל דַעֲת בֵּית דִין זֶה, ש____ יִהְיֶה / תִהְיֶה לִי בֶן / בַת זוּגִי. אֲנִי אֲפַרְנֵס אוֹתוֹ / אוֹתָה וַאֲכַַבֵּד אוֹתוֹ / אוֹתָה וְאָזִין אוֹתוֹ/ אוֹתָה כְדֶרֶךְ כָּל מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הַעוֹלָם, כִּי אַהֲבַת נַפְשִׁי אָהַבְתִּיו / אָהַבְתִּיהָ. הִנֵה בְרִית כְּרוּתָה בֵינֵינוּ לִבְנוֹת בָּיִת נֶאֱמַן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בּוֹ יִשְׁכְּנוּ אַהֲבָה וְאַחֲוָה שָׁלוֹם וְרֵעוּת. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלִפְנֵי רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים שֶׁיִימָלֵא בֵיתֵנוּ אַהֲבַת הַשֵׁם וּכְבוֹד הַבְּרִיוֹת, אַהֲבַת הַתּוֹרָה וְיִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם. | I solemnly swear to Almighty God, whose name is Merciful and Kind, and under the aegis of this Rabbinic court, that ____ shall be my life partner. I will support him/her, honor him/her and sustain him/her in the manner of all families, for I love her/him as myself. Now, a covenant is forged between us to build a proper house among the People of Israel, in which shall dwell love and companionship, peace and friendship. May it be the will of the Master of all Worlds that our home be filled with the love of God and the honor of all creatures, love of Torah and piety. |
S/He addresses the partner. If rings are being used, either of the following passages should be recited when the ring is given:
| הֱיֵה בֶן / הֲיִי בַת זוּגִי וּבֶן / וּבַת יְעוּדִי )בְּטַבֲעַת זוּ ( כִּי נַפְשִׁי בְּנַפְשְׁךָ / בְּנַפְשֵׁךְ קְשוּרָה. יְהִי חֶלְקִי עִמְךָ / עִמֵךְ וְחֶלְקְךָ / וְחֶלְקֵךְ עִמָדִי. כַּכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: | Now, be my mate and partner in destiny, for my soul is bound up with yours. May my portion always be with you, and yours with mine. As it is written in our Torah: |
| וַתֹּאמֶר רוּת אַל תִּפְגְּעִי בִי, לְעָזְבֵךְ לָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרָיִךְ: כִּי אֶל אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ, וּבַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי, וֵאלֹהַיִךְ אֱלֹהָי. בַּאֲשֶׁר תָּמוּתִי אָמוּת, וְשָׁם אֶקָּבֵר; כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה יי לִי, וְכֹה יוֹסִיף כִּי הַמָּוֶת, יַפְרִיד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ. | Ruth said: “Do not entreat me to leave you or turn from you; where you go shall I go, where you lodge shall I lodge. Your people shall be my people and your God my God. Where you die, there shall I die and be buried. A solemn oath to God: Let only death ever part us!” (Ruth 1:16-17) |
| וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹנָתָן לְדָוִד, לֵךְ לְשָׁלוֹם: אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְנוּ שְׁנֵינוּ אֲנַחְנוּ, בְּשֵׁם יי לֵאמֹר, יי יִהְיֶה בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ וּבֵין זַרְעִי וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, עַד עוֹלָם. | Jonathan said to David: “Go in peace, for we have sworn between us in the name of God — Let God’s Presence be between us and our children after us forever.” (1Sam 20:42) |
If there is an officiant, S/He may offer words of Torah and blessing. The ceremony is concluded with a bracha said over a glass of wine: [hagafen]. Each partner drinks. A glass in placed on the ground in front of the couple; they join hands and together break it. [Note: there are no other sheva brachot, and no signed contract.]
The dissolution of an obligation made by vow, implicit or explicit, is done by and in the presence of a Bet Din, a Jewish Court of three dayanim (judges). They may all be rabbis, or only the Av (head of the court). If a rabbi is not present the court should be made up of three learned Jews unrelated to either partner. If the partners are not physically together at the time and place of the ceremony, either one may appoint an agent to act in his/her stead with appropriate changes in the language. [Full text of the dissolution ritual in the pdf.]
The dissolution of the obligations created by an oath is well documented in the literature (see the Talmudic Encyclopedia, sv hatarat nedarim for the issues regarding the difference between oaths and vows). In the accompanying commitment ceremony, the oath is taken al da’at bet din, which should leave no doubt regarding the power of the court to annul the oath in the event of a civil divorce.
Critique
Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg: The first thing to say about vows is that they’re dangerous; there’s a pretty strong Rabbinic tendency to avoid going there if one can. They’re binding, powerful, and one wants not to be in a position where one can’t fulfill what was promised.
In any case, it does offer one way out of the kiddushin dilemma. If one violates a vow, one has committed a sin d’Oraita [of Torah law, rather than rabbinic law], so it has the same level of seriousness as traditional kiddushin. One needs to go to a beit din [legal court] to undo one’s vow–so there’s a way out, and/though it involves community consent. If a marriage ritual involves two separate vows of monogamy, care, providing economically and so forth, each party can undo his/her vow without concern for the other party. This, then, avoids some of the problems that arise if a woman wants a divorce and her husband won’t grant a get.
Brit – covenant
CJLS: Our goal is to replicate the powerful imagery of the traditional wedding ceremony within a distinctive legal structure of covenant, berit, rather than kiddushin. Following the template of Rachel Adler, our ceremonies have each member of the couple perform a kinyan (acquisition) not of the other person, but of the partnership established between them as stipulated in the covenant. This is called קנין סודר in the classical sources. (B. BM 46a.)
The marriage document that we have designed is called the Covenant of Loving Partners ברית אהובות\אהובים . (Rachel Adler first used this term and developed her own ceremony and documents. While we have not used her materials directly, we share her concern at not simply adapting kiddushin for gay and lesbian couples.) A covenant is an agreement to create a lasting relationship in which each party brings certain assets and accepts specific responsibilities towards the other. This covenant establishes a mutual acceptance of sexual fidelity as well as financial responsibility for each partner’s welfare. It religiously, legally and morally binds the couple together in marriage.
In the presence of the couple, two valid witnesses and other guests, the officiating rabbi reads the Covenant and asks each party to signify acceptance of its terms through the mechanism of קבלת קנין , the lifting of a symbolic object such as a pen or kerchief. The witnesses then attest to the mutual commitment by signing the Covenant in Hebrew (and English, if using). This may take place just prior to the wedding ceremony or during the ceremony itself in the place indicated.
The complete Hebrew text and English translation of the covenant can be found in the CJLS document in the Resources section. In brief, it states that on the date of the wedding, the couple make a “holy declaration” that they will be “exclusively faithful to each other,” and “share from this day a complete partnership, joyfully and wholeheartedly establishing a household in common with moral and financial responsibilities for one another. We shall be loving partners for each other.”
The ring declaration is a statement of sacred partnership, not of acquisition. [The rings symbolize mutual devotion… so the declaration does not include kiddushin.]
(Ceremony A) The couple exchanges rings and each declares:
| הֱיִי / הֱיֵי נָא לִי לְבַת־זוּג / לְבֶן־זוּג בְּאַהֲבָה וּבְאַחֲוָה, בְּשָׁלוֹם וּבְרֵעוּת, בְּעֵינֵי אֱלֹהִים וְאָדָם. | Be my covenanted partner, in love and friendship, in peace and companionship, in the eyes of God and humanity. |
Together they say:
| יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ יי אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְכוֹנֵן אֶת בֵּית חַיֵּינוּ וּלְהָשִׁיב אֶת שְׁכִינָתוֹ בְּתוֹכֵנוּ. | May it be Your will, Adonai, our God, to establish our life-long household and to bring Your presence into our lives. |
The marriage covenant, ברית אהובים is now read, after which קנין סודר is performed with a symbolic object, and the covenant is signed by the witnesses.
(Ceremony B) Language of partnership suffuses the text… Prior to the public ceremony, the couple meets with the rabbi and with two valid Jewish witnesses to sign … the marriage covenant. The couple exchanges rings and each declares:
| הֱיִי / הֱיֵי נָא לִי שׁוּתֶפֶת / שׁוּתָף חֲיַּי, אֲהוּבָתִי וּמְיוּדַעְתִּי / אֲהוּבִי וּמְיוּדָעִי, בְּעֵינֵי אֱלֹהִים וְאָדָם. | May you be for me my life-long partner, my lover, my intimate one, in the eyes of God and human beings. |
Together they say:
| יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ יי אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְכוֹנֵן אֶת בֵּית חַיֵּינוּ וּלְהָשִׁיב אֶת שְׁכִינָתוֹ בְּתוֹכֵנוּ. | May it be Your will, Adonai, our God, to establish our life-long household and to bring Your presence into our lives. |
The marriage covenant, ברית אהובים is now read, after which קנין סודר is performed with a symbolic object, and the covenant is signed by the witnesses.
The model by Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky and Rabbi Gordon Tucker (the work of Rabbi Kalmanofsky, as modified by Rabbi Tucker) directly states that the bond is a covenantal one, which the CJLS ceremonies do not.
| הֱיֵה לִי לְבֶן זוּג וּלְבַעַל בְּרִית לִפְנֵי עַם וְעֵדָה וְלִפְנֵי קוֹנֵנוּ; וְאַתָּה אֱנוֹש כְּעֶרְכִּי, אַלּוּפִי וּמְיֻדָּעִי. | Become my spouse and my covenanted partner in the presence of the community and before our Creator; you are my equal partner, my companion who is known to me. |
Mix and match
Some proposed ceremonies incorporate multiple mechanisms. Most famously, Rabbi Rachel Adler’s Brit Ahuvim ceremony (not to be confused with the CJLS ceremony of the same name, and not technically involving an actual stated brit, rather the Brit Ahuvim refers to the covenantal relationship between the parties) involves both declaratory vows and a shtar shutafut. In these ceremonies, the declaratory statements and legal documents can operate separately or in tandem, with the couple vowing to abide by the terms of the contract, for example. Should a marriage of this type be dissolved, the dissolution process may need to undo both legal mechanisms.
[Rachel Adler’s ceremony to appear here]
Daniel & Ben: We married through a Brit Ahuvim, a lovers’ covenant, developed by Rachel Adler. Unlike kiddushin, it allows for equality. Though that model of Jewish marriage continues to hold emotional resonance for many contemporary couples, both gay and straight, we believe that a heteronormative model of acquisition that treats one party as property is not appropriate for their wedding. Instead of one person acquiring another person, we both acquired our shared and equal partnership as lovers and companions. We did this by each placing an object of value (wedding rings) into a bag and then raising the bag together over our heads. After putting on the rings, we and trusted witnesses signed a ketubah.
First D recited: “הֱיִי־נָא לִי לְבֶן־זוּג” [as in Ceremony A] and then placed the ring for B in a small velvet pouch. Then B recited the same line and put the ring for D in a small velvet pouch. Then we lifted the bag together, put on our own rings and said the following line: יְהִי רָצוֺן מִלְּפָנֶיךָּ .
One mild regret is that we didn’t place the rings on each other’s fingers. Our thinking was that we wanted to be clear that this wasn’t kiddushin, but afterwards we realized that was a silly reason for not doing it. There’s something tender about placing the ring on the other person’s finger that we missed out on in our zeal to make clear what we weren’t doing.
For the ketubah text we mostly used R. Adler’s template in Engendering Judaism, with some pieces taken from the 2012 Conservative movement teshuva on same-sex weddings. It has a poetic introduction comparing the covenant to the ancient covenants made by biblical ancestors. The ketubah then goes on to describe how we will support and care for each other in our marriage. During the ceremony under the chuppah we had two friends read it in Hebrew and in English and then had two other friends sign it as witnesses. The two of us also signed the document.
Y&R: As part of the traditional ritual, the woman is consecrated to the man through kinyan (acquisition), while the man through the ketubah (traditional wedding contract) makes certain commitments to care for the woman. …
Both of us wanted a ceremony that would be meaningful halachically and create a set of Jewish legal obligations between us. … While erusin and kedushin were immediately excluded from our ceremony, for obvious reasons of both gender and equality, we nevertheless saw tremendous power in the notion of a wedding as, in part, an acquisition of the other. The binary character of the traditional ceremony led us to consider how we might reflect this transactional framework while stressing the inherent partnership at the core of our relationship. In talking with Rabbi Greenberg, we came up with a ceremony comprised of two distinct rituals: Shutafut (Partnership) and Kinyan (Contractual Acquisition), wherein we will take oaths to sanctify ourselves to each other.
One of the basic questions that we faced early on was how to describe and name our ceremony. Within our community, the concept of Brit Ahava – a covenant bound by love – is becoming a standard reference for same‐sex Jewish unions. This notion was proposed by Professor Rachel Adler in her book, Engendering Judaism, as a new halachic approach to establishing a legal partnership between any two Jewish adults.
At the same time, we were cognizant that the biblical concept of Brit (covenant) generally expresses inherent inequality, wherein a brit was traditionally made between two non‐equal entities, such as a ruler to a vassal, or God to humanity. For this reason, we struggled with how to name our ceremony, recognizing value in a consistent term for same‐sex Jewish partnership yet also seeking to create a partnership ritual between two equal parties.
Our solution was to incorporate the language of brit while stressing the ideal of equality and partnership. As such, we are choosing to refer to our ceremony simply as a Chatunah (Wedding), thereby claiming both a simple Hebrew term and also calling attention to the inherent gendered term for Wedding, which in our case as two men getting married feels wholly appropriate. (The Hebrew word chatan means groom.) Our contractual agreement is a Shtar Shutafut (“Partnership Contract”), yet the text itself retains the language of brit as a reference point for modeling Biblical relationships of love, mutuality, caring, and kindness.
Before today’s ceremony we gathered with our immediate family for a small tisch where our close friends witnessed our agreement to be bound by a Shtar Shutafut, a Partnership Contract, which is our equivalent of a ketubah, a marriage contract. It is a document that firstly describes the legal process that we undertake during the ceremony and, secondly, outlines the terms of the agreement between us, i.e. the obligations that we take upon ourselves.
In accordance with the Talmudic prescription for formalizing a partnership, we together raised an object that we jointly purchased, in our case a mezuzah that we will affix to our home. Our shtar was then signed by our witnesses, whose signatures make the shtar binding upon us. (We’ll describe this document and ritual in more detail below.)
Although we have just committed ourselves to a relationship of partnership and co‐equality through the ceremony of Shutafut, a Jewish wedding is incomplete without a kinyan, a transactional ritual between the two parties. Historically, the types of commitments entered into through kinyan were wide‐ranging. The most common examples are commitments of partnership and commitments regarding the division of jointly‐owned assets. Kinyan is also used to create halachic wills, gifts and other contracts, and many other legal contracts between two parties. A kinyan can be enacted in a number of ways, but the most common being when one party takes of an item from the hand of the other in the presence of witnesses.
The term kinyan is familiar to many people through its connection to the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony and the language the groom uses to acquire and consecrate his wife. The enactment of the kinyan through the offering and receipt of a ring is given halachic authority though anchoring the promise to dat Moshe v’Israel, “the Law of Moses and Israel.” Recognizing that the traditional reference to the Law of Moses and Israel does not (as yet) apply to same‐sex weddings, we discussed other ways we could anchor our kinyan. Although we found numerous models of contractual and covenantal relationships within the Tanach – and indeed referenced several of them in our shtar shutafut – none possessed the legal standing on which we wanted to base our kinyan.
Jewish weddings and the exchange of rings are by tradition vow‐less. However, in the absence of another external authority and in discussion with Rabbi Greenberg, we opted for a solution wherein we would each create the anchor for the other through making a public neder (oath). Traditionally, the notion of a public neder is regarded with the utmost gravitas, for once uttered, an oath cannot be undone with a simple change of heart but must be formally dissolved through either Rabbinic or divine absolution. According to Rabbi Louis Jacobs, Judaism’s “general tendency [has been] to frown in principle on vow‐taking but to leave room for a personal decision as to whether the circumstances demand it.” Indeed, Talmudic rabbis have traditionally had an ambivalent view of oaths, with some discouraging the practice and others regarding it as practically neutral. Nevertheless, as neder does create halachic obligation, we opted to include it as the legal anchor for our kinyan.
We won’t decide who “goes first” until we are actually up under the chuppah, since the order really does not matter. However, each of us will recite the following neder to create a reality against which we may then sanctify our relationship:
| הרי אני נודר שמרגע שאקבל ממך טבעת אקדיש את עצמי, רוחי וגופי לשיתופינו זיווגינו וחיינו ביחד. | Behold I vow that from the moment I receive from you a ring, I will sanctify myself, body and soul, to our joint partnership and life together. |
The other will respond with the following phrase and offer a ring.
| הרי אתה מוקדש לי בקבלת טבעת זו בתוקף הנדר אשר נדרת. | Behold, with this ring, you are consecrated to me by virtue of the oath you have just made. |
The taking, lifting, and donning of the ring complete the act of kinyan, and we are married.
Rings without kiddushin and additional texts
If the marriage is solely effected with a legal document, then the ring exchange can be purely symbolic and can be accompanied by other recitations, whether based on historic declarative statements or based in liturgy and Torah.
One could theoretically use an adaptation of one of the earlier declarations that do not include a binding or acquisitional statement, for example, “harei atah meyuchad/at meyuchedet li betaba’at zu,” with this ring you are solely mine. Beverly Gribetz and Ed Greenstein propose language with historical precedent for a mixed-sex ceremony.
Beverly Gribetz and Ed Greenstein (as cited by Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg): We therefore chose to dust off an ancient rabbinic formula that would enable us to have the chatan, and then the kalla, say it – but with a critical reversal of the phrases. In the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Kiddushin, page 5b as well as in the major codes: Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut 3:6 and the Shulkhan Arukh, Even Ha’ezer 27:2, one finds the Aramaic formula, harei at li le’intu, “You are hereby my wife.”
For this context, the language could be further adapted to “harei atah li le’ish/at li le’isha.” This language is the same as in Kedushin 1:1. The ring exchange serves no legal purpose in the context of the declarations and are purely symbolic gestures evoking the historic wedding ritual.
The following exchanges instead use biblical verses.
E&R: The Ketubah will legally bind E and R together according to Jewish law. We put the rings on one another’s fingers while saying a verse from the book of Hoshea (2:21-22)
| וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי, לְעוֹלָם; וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי בְּצֶדֶק וּבְמִשְׁפָּט, וּבְחֶסֶד וּבְרַחֲמִים. וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי, בֶּאֱמוּנָה; וְיָדַעַתְּ, אֶת יי. | And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know God. |
R&D: We gave each other rings one after the other, and recited one pasuk each:
| שִׂימֵנִי כַחוֹתָם עַל־לִבֶּךָ כַּחוֹתָם עַל־זְרוֹעֶךָ. מַיִם רַבִּים לֹא יוּכְלוּ לְכַבּוֹת אֶת־הָאַהֲבָה וּנְהָרוֹת לֹא יִשְׁטְפוּהָ. | Let me be a seal upon your heart, like the seal upon your hand. Vast floods cannot quench love, nor rivers drown it. (Song of Songs 8:6,7) |
| וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי, לְעוֹלָם; וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי בְּצֶדֶק וּבְמִשְׁפָּט, וּבְחֶסֶד וּבְרַחֲמִים. וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי, בֶּאֱמוּנָה. | And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. |
Rabbi Aaron Weininger: Affirming their partnership in front of the community and the ongoing development of the tradition, both partners may choose to recite the following verse from Leviticus (18:5) after the exchange of rings:
| וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם אֲנִי יי. | You shall therefore keep My statutes, and My ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the LORD. |