Siman 34

One who betroths a woman must recite a blessing, just as all mitzvot require a blessing, and this is its blessing: Blessed are You, Hashem, our G-d, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us regarding forbidden relations, and prohibited to us those who are betrothed, and permitted to us those who are married to us through chuppah and kiddushin; Blessed are You, Hashem, who sanctifies His people Israel through chuppah and kiddushin. And why do we not recite a short blessing, "who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to betroth the woman," as with all mitzvot? Furthermore, where have we found such a blessing where we recite a blessing over what the Holy One, Blessed be He, prohibited to us? For we do not recite a blessing that He prohibited to us a limb from a living animal and permitted to us the slaughtered animal. Furthermore, what is the relevance of mentioning forbidden relations here? Furthermore, why must we mention chuppah here, for we recite the blessing of erusin in the house of erusin and without a chuppah, as was the custom in the time of the Talmud to betroth first and after a period of time to bring her into the chuppah, and even today they practice thus in the Eastern lands.

However, the essence of the matter is this: certainly this blessing is not a blessing of the commandment in the literal sense, for it is impossible to bless as is appropriate for the blessing of the commandments. For one does not bless at the time of the kiddushin, "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us regarding kiddushin," because one does not bless over a commandment whose performance is not its completion, as it still lacks the delivery to the chuppah. And at the time of entry into the chuppah, it is also impossible to bless over kiddushin and chuppah since he already performed kiddushin a long time ago. And when he comes to perform kiddushin and enter the chuppah at once, they also did not see fit to institute a separate blessing for him, so that the form of the blessing would be equal for everyone [Ran]. Furthermore, perforce this blessing is not a blessing for the performance of the commandment, for procreation is the fulfillment of the commandment, and if he took a concubine and fulfilled procreation, he is not obligated to perform kiddushin with a woman. So too, one who marries an old woman, or a barren woman, or an aylonit, and likewise a congenital eunuch who married, we bless the blessing of the grooms, yet there is no obligation in this commandment as there is no fulfillment of the commandment of procreation therein [Rosh]. And even regarding one who marries a woman for the sake of procreation, since it is possible to fulfill procreation without kiddushin—and it is not similar to slaughtering, where he is not obligated to slaughter and eat and even so when he slaughters to eat he blesses, for there it is impossible for him to eat without slaughtering, but here it is possible to fulfill procreation without kiddushin [ibid.].

But because our Sages, of blessed memory, did not want to leave this mitzvah without any blessing at all, they therefore instituted a blessing over the sanctity of the collective of Israel; specifically, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, chose them and sanctified them in the matter of pairing, and to give Him praise, "Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and separated us from the nations and commanded us to sanctify a woman permitted to us and not one of the forbidden relations." And they mentioned therein the prohibition of betrothed women and the permission of those married through chuppah and kiddushin, so that a person should not err to say that the blessing of kiddushin was instituted to permit her to him; therefore they mentioned chuppah to say that only the blessing of chuppah is what permits the bride. And for this reason as well, they preceded chuppah to kiddushin, to say "and permitted to us those married" by means of chuppah which follows the blessing of kiddushin [ibid.]. And some say that the primary version of the text is "chuppah with kiddushin" (chuppah be-kiddushin), meaning chuppah with kiddushin preceding the chuppah, only because the letter bet is soft according to the rules of grammar as is the law of beged kefat following the letters aleph, heh, vav, yud; therefore the scribes erred and wrote "and kiddushin" (ve-kiddushin) with a vav [Ran]. Furthermore, because the custom among us is to perform erusin and nisuin as one and we bring them under the chuppah and afterwards recite the blessing of erusin, it is therefore appropriate to also precede the word chuppah to the kiddushin; and furthermore, because the completion of the permission is by means of the chuppah, they therefore preceded the chuppah [Shitah Mekubetzet].

Therefore, we conclude it with a blessing even though it is a short blessing, just as it is with kiddush, which we conclude with a blessing because it is somewhat long even though it contains only one subject; so too with this blessing, even though it contains only one subject, nevertheless since it is somewhat long, we therefore conclude it with a blessing. It was also instituted with the language of holiness like the kiddush of Shabbat and Yom Tov, and just as in kiddush two matters are mentioned, the act of creation and the exodus from Egypt, and it is considered long, so too this blessing, which contains the holiness of the collective of Israel and the holiness of the union, and this is considered like a long blessing. The explanation of "Who sanctifies His people Israel through huppah and kiddushin" is also as I have written, and some say that this refers to the huppah and kiddushin of the collective of Israel who were sanctified to the Holy One, Blessed be He, at the time of the giving of the Torah, and the huppah is Mount Sinai, where He overturned the mountain upon us like a vat and we stood beneath the mountain as if beneath a huppah, and the kiddushin is the giving of the Torah [Ramban]. It is true that since then we have been sanctified, and this union also comes in holiness and pertains to the blessing of erusin of this union, and according to this, it works well that they preceded the huppah, for the overturning of the mountain was prior to the giving of the Torah, as is explicit in the Torah.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 3, law 23: Anyone who betroths a woman, whether by himself or by means of a messenger, must recite the blessing before the kiddushin—either he or his messenger—in the manner that one recites a blessing over all mitzvot, and afterwards he betroths. And if he betrothed and did not recite the blessing, he should not recite the blessing after the kiddushin, for this would be a blessing in vain; what has been done is done. Thus far his words. And some say that we recite the blessing after the kiddushin, because perhaps the woman will retract and it will be a blessing in vain [Ra'avad], and that which we require reciting the blessing prior to their performance is when the mitzvah is entirely in the hand of the one reciting the blessing [Hagahot Maimoniot]. However, regarding the law, the primary view in this is like the words of the Rambam to recite the blessing beforehand [Rabbi Hayyim Shabbetai in a responsum], and so all of Israel have practiced. But regarding that which he ruled that if he did not recite the blessing beforehand he does not recite the blessing afterwards, we do not hold like him and he recites the blessing even afterwards. And this is not like "after their performance," for the primary completion is the chuppah and it is still like "prior to their performance." Furthermore, according to what I wrote, the primary blessing is not over the kiddushin but rather over the sanctity of the collective of Israel, and "prior to their performance" is not applicable to this. And particularly according to our custom that another person recites the blessing, it is simple that he can recite the blessing even afterwards [Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel].

Even when one betrothes her through intercourse, he recites the blessing initially prior to their performance; that is, he recites the blessing before the witnesses of seclusion and in the presence of ten according to the opinion of those who require ten for the blessing of erusin as will be explained, and afterward he secludes himself with her and has intercourse with her. And even though it is not fitting to recite a blessing over a mitzvah except when it is prepared before him to perform it, and at that time when he is with her in bed it is impossible for him to recite the blessing because of "and He shall not see among you an unseemly thing" (Deuteronomy 23:15), and indeed for this reason it is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot, that regarding betrothal through intercourse one does not recite the blessing prior to their performance, nevertheless, since in our Talmud it is not so, we do not rule like the Jerusalem Talmud. Furthermore, in the Jerusalem Talmud itself there is a dispute regarding this, see there, and this is called "prior to their performance" since it is impossible in any other manner.

Regarding the conclusion of the blessing, it is stated in the Rambam: "Blessed are You, Hashem, Who sanctifies Israel" and no more, for since it is not currently the time of the huppah according to their custom, how could he conclude with the huppah? Nevertheless, many of our teachers wrote to conclude "Who sanctifies His people Israel by means of huppah and kiddushin," and so they practice in the entire Diaspora; for since he previously says "and permitted to us... by means of huppah and kiddushin," he must also conclude the signature accordingly. And one should not challenge the matter even when the kiddushin is a long time before the huppah, for behold, the blessing stands upon the sanctity of the collective of Israel as has been written, and also regarding this union, since the kiddushin without the huppah is not effective, it is necessary to mention it. And the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that such was the custom.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote that the chatan himself must recite the blessing, and if he betroths her by means of a shaliach, the shaliach must recite the blessing; and so it stands to reason, for the mitzvah is his and he must recite the blessing over it. However, some say that another recites the blessing so as not to embarrass one who does not know how to recite the blessing, just as they instituted regarding the reading of the Torah that another reads and not the one who ascends to the Torah for this reason. So too it was in the Mikdash regarding the bringing of bikkurim, where one must read the passage of "A wandering Aramean was my father," and they instituted that they should prompt even one who knows how to read for this reason. And here it is even more preferable, since the blessing is over the sanctity of the collective of Israel, all are equal in it. However, if there is no other who knows the blessing, the chatan himself recites the blessing. And also regarding Rivkah we find that others recited the blessing and not Eliezer, who was a shaliach from Yitzchak, as it is written: "And they blessed Rivkah" (Genesis 24:60), for in Masekhet Kallah (1:1) it expounds this regarding the blessing of erusin; however, the plain meaning of the verse does not deal with the blessing of erusin and it is a mere asmachta.

The Rambam wrote that it is the custom to arrange this blessing over a cup of wine or beer, and one recites the blessing over the cup first and afterward recites this blessing, and if there is no wine or beer there, one recites it by itself. Thus far his words. For by the letter of the law, a cup is not required for the blessing of erusin, as the obligation of a cup is only for the blessing of nisuin, and regarding erusin the people followed the custom as they did with the blessing of milah, as the Tur wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 265, because song is only uttered over wine and it causes a blessing for itself [Berakhot 42a], for in several places it comes and we recite a blessing over it even though its drinking is not required [Rashi, and see there in Tosafot]. And they give the chatan and the kallah to drink a little and the one who recites the blessing fulfills the obligation through this, and even though regarding the blessing of enjoyment the one who recites the blessing must taste it, nevertheless, since it was instituted over the cup, it is like kiddush and havdalah where one fulfills the obligation for others regarding the blessing over the wine as well, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote regarding the matter of milah there [it appears to me]. And it seems that if the one who recites the blessing wishes to drink it, they do not prevent him and it is perfectly fine, except that they did not practice this way, and even though it would be better since the cup is not indispensable, nevertheless, since they established it as an obligation to bless over the cup, it is like kiddush and havdalah [it appears to me], and it is not necessary to drink all of it or the majority of it, for a tasting is sufficient, as its obligation with a cup is not by the letter of the law like kiddush and havdalah that we would require drinking all of it or the majority of it.

The birkat erusin requires ten ab initio, and that is to say that besides the witnesses of the kiddushin, one needs another eight or seven, for the groom is also included in the count as in the birkat nisuin [see Chelkat Mechokek subsection 7, and it requires further study], and even relatives join the ten when they are adults. And if there are not ten, it is not a hindrance because it is not found explicitly in the Gemara that ten are required for erusin, but in the Sheiltot of Rav Achai Gaon [Parshat Chayei Sarah] it is explicit that ten are required, and from the Rambam it is implied that they are not required [what is written in the Tur "Rav Hai Gaon" is a printing error, and it should be Rav Achai Gaon, and see Beit Yosef].

If one did not recite the birkat erusin at the time of the kiddushin and the nisuin take place at a later time, he has missed the blessing and does not recite it at the time of the nisuin, for its time has already passed. Even according to what we have written, that if one did not recite the blessing before the kiddushin he recites it afterward—this refers to immediately on the spot, and as in our countries where the erusin and nisuin are as one; but when the erusin are at an earlier time, it is not relevant to the blessing at the time of nisuin. Nevertheless, there are Geonim who instructed that if they forgot to recite the blessing at the time of erusin, they should recite it together with the birkot hanisuin, for since we conclude it with "and has permitted to us those who are married," it also pertains to the nisuin [Mordechai]. Furthermore, just as we establish that one who did not recite the blessing after the meal may recite the blessing as long as the food has not been digested, so too in this case, even though a long time has passed, as long as the permission has not been completed, he may recite the blessing. And since the permission is not completed except through the huppah, they may say the blessing at the time of the nisuin [the Rosh in the name of the Ri]. And some say that this is the custom even ab initio, not to recite the blessing at the time of erusin but only at the time of the nisuin under the huppah [Mordechai, and this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, in section 3 in what he wrote "and so we practice etc.", and so wrote the Gra in subsection 10, and see Helkat Mehoqeq subsection 4, and in the Mordechai it is explicit as I have written, see there].

If they did not recite the blessing at the time of the erusin and they recite the blessing at the time of the chuppah, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say he should return and betroth her again under the chuppah so that the kiddushin will be adjacent to the blessing. Thus far his words. And even though we rule in siman 36 regarding an agent who betrothed that the sender should not betroth her a second time so that they do not say that the first kiddushin were not kiddushin and come to cause a mishap, here they were not concerned for this; specifically when it was through an agent is there a concern that they will say that kiddushin through an agent is not effective, but not when he betrothed her himself [Beit Shmuel], and see what I wrote in siman 36, section 10.

And even in a place where one already recited the birkat erusin at the time of the kiddushin, nevertheless, some say that they return and recite the blessing under the chuppah without the mention of the Name and Sovereignty. And he should say, "Blessed are You, Hashem, Who has sanctified us," etc., and he should not articulate the Name as it is read. This law only applies in a place where everyone performs kiddushin under the chuppah, as is the custom among us, and he performed kiddushin and recited the blessing beforehand and now performs kiddushin again under the chuppah according to the custom; therefore, he recites the blessing once more because of those watching, so they do not say that he performed kiddushin without a blessing. But in places where everyone performs kiddushin beforehand and he performed kiddushin and recited the blessing, why should he bless again? Therefore, in our provinces, when it happens that one performed kiddushin with a woman before the chuppah, he should also perform kiddushin with her under the chuppah; and if they did not recite the birkat erusin beforehand, they should recite it under the chuppah with the Name and Sovereignty; and even if they recited the blessing beforehand, they should recite the blessing under the chuppah without the Name, as has been written.