Siman 61

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 10, law 2: Once the betrothed woman enters the chuppah, she is permitted to be cohabited with at any time he desires, and she is his complete wife in every regard. From the time she enters the chuppah she is called "married" even if she has not had relations—provided that she is fit for relations. However, if she was a niddah, even though she entered the chuppah and was secluded with him, the marriage is not finalized, and she is still like a betrothed woman. Thus far his words. And in law 6 he wrote: If he betrothed and brought her into the chuppah but did not recite the birkat chatanim, she is a complete wife, and he goes back and recites the blessing even after several days. A niddah shall not be married until she becomes pure, and one does not recite birkat chatanim for her until she becomes pure. If he transgressed and married and recited the blessing, he does not go back and recite the blessing. Thus far his words.

It is clear from his words that a hupat niddah does not effect marriage, and in the Gemara [Ketubot 56a] it is an inquiry: Rav Ashi inquired, if she entered the hupah and became a niddah, what is the law? If you say that the affection of the hupah effects acquisition—a hupah that is fit for intercourse, but a hupah that is not fit for intercourse, no; or perhaps it makes no difference? It remains unresolved [teiku], see there. Therefore, he ruled stringently, and according to this, the Rambam should have written that it is a doubt. And granted that regarding the prohibition there is no practical difference in this, nevertheless regarding monetary matters, such as to inherit from her, there would be a practical difference if he seized [property], for we do not extract it from his hand as in every legal doubt. And behold, the Rambam holds regarding every teiku in the Shas that seizure is effective, as he wrote in Choshen Mishpat in several places [and so wrote the author of Sefer Tekufo Kohen siman 8, and so wrote the Urim VeTumim there]. And more than this, if the husband is in possession of the dowry, the heirs of the wife do not extract it from his hand, and from his words it does not imply so, since he ruled that it is not marriage in a hupat niddah. And it is possible to say that regarding inheritance there is no practical difference in this, for he certainly inherits from her according to what he wrote in siman 57, that if the father delivered her to the messengers of the husband, he inherits from her even if she is not fit for intercourse, as he wrote there in section 5. And all the more so in a hupat niddah, which is no worse than this, for behold, he brought her into his domain. And according to this, also regarding vows and that her death is by strangulation, her law is also as a married woman, as he wrote there in section 1, but it does not imply so from his wording. And the Maggid Mishneh wrote explicitly that he does not inherit from her, see there. And some say that the Rambam follows his reasoning in the first chapter of Hilkhot Nachalot, that in a doubt of divorce the husband does not inherit from her, and all the more so in a doubt of kiddushin [Sha'ar HaMelekh]. And there is no proof, for certainly even there seizure is effective, and from where do we know that seizure is not effective? And behold, many of the poskim disagreed with his primary ruling, as he wrote in siman 90, and all the more so that in any case, even according to the Rambam, seizure is effective; for it is obvious that if he seized, a doubt of divorce is no worse than "the house fell upon him and upon his wife," which will be explained there [and so wrote the Beit Shmuel there subsection 20, that as a matter of law seizure is effective, and the Chelkat Mechokek there subsection 14 compared this to "the house fell," see there].

And it appears to me when we examine his wording in law 6, where he wrote: And a niddah shall not be married until she becomes pure, and one does not recite the blessings until she becomes pure, and if he transgressed and married and recited the blessings, he does not go back and recite the blessings, thus far his words; why did he write that she shall not be married until she becomes pure, for he already wrote this in law 1, as here he is only dealing with the law of the blessing? Furthermore, why did he change his wording from chuppah to marriage (nissuim), when he should have said: and she shall not enter the chuppah until she becomes pure? Furthermore, why indeed did he rule that he does not go back and recite the blessings, since the chuppah of a niddah is nothing and she is like a betrothed woman (arusah), and it is as if he recited the blessings of marriage for a betrothed woman; are these not blessings in vain, and why should he not go back and recite the blessings later upon her purification? And see what I wrote in section 20.

And the truth is that according to what I wrote in siman 55, the essence of the matter of nesuim is that he takes her into his domain, to his house, and lives with her as man and wife, as it is written: "And what man is there that has betrothed a wife and has not taken her" (Deuteronomy 20:7) etc., and the taking is into his domain, and this is the nesuim. However, the chuppah was established such that from then on she is completely married, for even if she separated for several days from his domain, nevertheless, since it is after the chuppah, behold she is completely married. Therefore, according to the opinion of the Rambam that the chuppah is the cohabitation for the sake of nesuim or seclusion for the sake of cohabitation for the sake of nesuim, as I wrote there, and the Rambam is dealing with this chuppah—consequently, when she is a niddah and is not fit for cohabitation, even her seclusion is nothing and is not called chuppah. However, this is specifically if one of them died immediately or they separated from one another; but if he took her into his domain, though the chuppah was not a chuppah, nevertheless she is necessarily completely married since he took her into his domain, for this is the essence of nesuim from the Torah.

And according to this, the words of the Rambam are well explained, for in law 1 he wrote that if she entered the chuppah while in her state of niddah, the marriage is not completed by this regarding the matter of whether one of them died immediately or they separated from one another; and in law 6 he wrote another law, that she should not be married until she becomes pure, meaning that he should not take her into his domain until she becomes pure, and one does not recite the blessings for her until she becomes pure. However, if he transgressed and married and recited the blessing, he does not return and recite the blessing, because perforce she is married since he takes her into his domain, which is the essence of the marriage. And the doubt in the Gemara is only whether the chuppah is called a chuppah, but afterwards when he brought her into his domain, perforce she is married. And according to this, there is no practical difference regarding the matter of inheritance except in a remote case, such as if she died at the moment of the chuppah, and this matter is not common at all. Therefore, the Rambam wrote that the chuppah of a niddah is nothing, for with this the marriage was not completed, and consequently, in any case, if they separated from one another by their will, they have revealed their intent that they nullified what they imagined to do as a chuppah, and this too is not common; and if he took her into his domain and afterwards she died before she became pure, it is obvious that he inherits from her by reason of being married [and from the Beit Shmuel at the end of subsection 2 it is explained that seizing is effective, but it does not appear so to me as I have written].

Many of our teachers disagreed with him and hold that the chuppah of a niddah is a complete chuppah, and the inquiry in the Gemara is only regarding the additional ketubah that we are dealing with there, for the assessment is that he only wrote it for the affection of intercourse or for a chuppah fit for intercourse and not for a chuppah that is not fit for this, or that even this is like the affection of intercourse; but for all acquisitions of marriage, the chuppah of a niddah is a complete chuppah and with this the marriage is finalized. For behold, we maintain that even for those disqualified, such as those subject to negative commandments, they have a chuppah [Yevamot 57b] even though there is always a transgression in their intercourse, and all the more so the chuppah of a niddah which is fit after a few days, that it is a chuppah [Ran, chapter 5 of Ketubot]. However, for the Rambam there is no difficulty from there, for behold, the Rambam explains that there is a chuppah for those disqualified even without kiddushin, as he wrote at the end of chapter 7 of Terumot: A widow who was betrothed to a Kohen Gadol or a divorcee to an ordinary Kohen, since they are guarded for disqualified intercourse, they shall not eat terumah; and likewise if they entered the chuppah without erusin they do not eat, for the chuppah disqualifies them from eating. Thus far his words. And behold, a chuppah without erusin is certainly nothing, for the Rambam did not count chuppah among the acquisitions of kiddushin, but rather there it is for another reason, that since they were secluded in the chuppah it is like intercourse and she is disqualified from eating terumah [for he explains like Rashi there, and so wrote the Rashba there, that since a chuppah stands for intercourse they decreed by rabbinic law, see there].

Furthermore, there is no comparison between them, for the Torah stated explicitly that there is marriage among those liable for violating a negative commandment, and since there is marriage, there is consequently huppah [and this is well-settled even according to the explanation of the Tosafot there] as the huppah is the marriage. But in permitted marriages, just as the acts of intercourse are permitted, so too the huppah, which is a necessity for intercourse, must be for a permitted purpose; the huppah, which is a preparation for intercourse, is no better than the intercourse itself. However, regarding disqualified women, just as the acts of intercourse are in transgression and yet the Torah stated that they have marriage, so too they have huppah. And one cannot say that perhaps the Torah did not actually state that there is marriage among those liable for violating a negative commandment, and if it is because kiddushin is effective for them, from where do we know that they also have marriage? However, this is explicit in the Torah regarding the war ranks, as it is written: "And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house" (Deuteronomy 20:7), and the "taking" is marriage as has been written. And we expound [Sotah 44a]: "and hath not taken her" – to exclude a widow to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or a halutzah to a common Kohen, that they do not return. Behold, it is explicit that they have marriage, but because they are marriages of transgression, they do not return from the rank. And one cannot say that in truth the Torah excluded them from this very point because they have no marriage, for it does not imply so [and so it appears from Rashi there, and so it appears explicitly from the Rambam, chapter 7 of Kings, halacha 8, who included them with one who takes back his divorcee; and with this, all that the Lechem Mishneh questioned is well-settled, as he was very pressed, see there in chapter 10 of Ishut, and see Sha'ar HaMelech there, and according to what I have written, it is well-settled with the help of Heaven].

They further questioned him, for in the Yerushalmi, the first chapter of Yoma, it says regarding a Kohen Gadol for whom they prepare another wife lest his wife die, that they permitted him a rabbinic prohibition to marry her on Yom Kippur; yet on Yom Kippur she is not fit for cohabitation. This too is not a difficulty at all, for aside from the fact that one cannot compare a peripheral prohibition caused by the day to an inherent prohibition of the body such as a niddah [and so wrote the Sha'ar HaMelekh], aside from this, it is simple that he would not bring her into the chuppah on Yom Kippur as he had no time to leave the Beit HaMikdash. Rather, they established it upon the essential marriage of the Torah which we wrote in siman 55, which is that he brought her into his house and into his domain. And if because this too is forbidden according to the opinion of the Rambam when she is not fit for cohabitation, as he wrote in law 6 which we cited, nevertheless, this is certainly only a rabbinic prohibition. Therefore, just as they permitted him for the sake of the atonement of all of Israel to marry her on Yom Kippur, so too they permitted him to take her in even at a time when she is not fit for cohabitation, as it is impossible otherwise. And in truth, in our Gemara in the first chapter of Yoma [13a], they said that he takes her in before Yom Kippur and gives a conditional divorce to one of them, see there. Furthermore, from the Yerushalmi it appears that it is sufficient if he betrothed her and there is no need for marriage [and so wrote the Tosafot in Yoma ibid. s.v. u-le-chada, see there].

And according to the opinion of the Rambam, even when there is an impediment to bringing her that is only a rabbinic prohibition, one also may not perform the chuppah. Therefore, he wrote there that one must write the ketubah before entry into the chuppah and afterwards he will be permitted to his wife. Thus far his words. According to this, even when she is temeiah due to the finding of a stain, or if she is within her days of purification and immersed before the completion of the days of purification—where the prohibition is only rabbinic—nevertheless, it is forbidden to perform the chuppah. And it is possible that regarding a rabbinic prohibition, if he brought her into the chuppah, even according to the Rambam it is considered a chuppah [and so it appears from the Maggid Mishneh, who wrote that we require ab initio etc. that nothing should be lacking, even of their words].

But many of our teachers disagree with him and hold that the inquiry in the Gemara is only regarding the additional ketubah that he wrote for her due to the affection of cohabitation—for this she is still like a betrothed woman, but for all other matters she is completely married. And some say further that even regarding the addition, the doubt in the Gemara is only if he brought her into the huppah in her state of purity and in the middle of the huppah she began her menstruation, as the language of the Talmud implies, "she entered the huppah and began her menstruation," which implies that she began her menstruation after the start of the huppah. And in this case, it is certainly possible that for all matters it is not a huppah, for it is in error, since he intended for a pure huppah and she was found to be impure. Therefore, according to this opinion, if the bride is impure, one must inform the groom that she is impure, for if not, it would be a huppah in error. But if she was impure beforehand and the groom knows of this and brings her into the huppah, in this case there is no doubt at all in the Gemara [Mordechai in the name of the Ri]. But some say the opposite, that the doubt in the Gemara must be when she began her menstruation beforehand, for if not, since she entered the huppah pure, he has already acquired her at the beginning of the huppah, for the end of the huppah is the beginning of cohabitation and the huppah acquires at its beginning [the Rosh]. And according to the first opinion, one could say that this is what it means: that he invited her to enter the huppah and she was pure, and when she prepared herself and began to enter, she began her menstruation, such that there is not even a beginning of a huppah. And furthermore, granted that the end of the huppah is the beginning of cohabitation, nevertheless, from where do we know that the huppah acquires at its very beginning? Perhaps it acquires in its middle, prior to its end. And in all the communities of Israel, they have adopted the view of our teachers who disagree with the Rambam, of blessed memory, and they bring them into the huppah not in her state of purity, except for individuals who are concerned for the opinion of the Rambam. And even they are unable to coordinate this if she should actually begin her menstruation immediately before the huppah. However, according to what I wrote in section 5, even according to the Rambam she is completely married even if the huppah was not in purity, since he brings her afterwards into his home and this is the essence of marriage; and the sheva brachot count for them even though they committed a prohibition according to the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, see there.

However, in my humble opinion, the poskim do not disagree at all with the Rambam, according to what I wrote in siman 55, that according to the Rambam the essence of the chuppah is intercourse for the sake of marriage or yichud for the sake of marriage. In this, it is obvious that no person would disagree, for it is not called yichud unless she is fit for intercourse; and furthermore, when she is impure, he is forbidden to be in yichud with her. And according to the other poskim, that chuppah is bringing her into his house for the sake of marriage, or a palanquin, or covering a kerchief over the head of the bride, or like our chuppot, and we do not require yichud fit for intercourse at all, if so, we are not concerned that she is impure. Therefore, according to what we explained there, that even the Rambam would concede to all the chuppot, they do not disagree at all. And furthermore, I say that regarding terumah, where we learned in the Mishnah that according to the later Mishnah she does not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah, this chuppah is certainly according to the words of the Rambam, that she must be fit for intercourse and also when he has intercourse with her. For there in the Gemara we explain that the later Mishnah holds that an external examination is not called an examination [Ketubot 58b] until he himself is in yichud with her and examines her [Rashi]. And if so, he must have intercourse with her or at the very least yichud fit for intercourse. And from this it emerged for the Rambam to interpret that the term chuppah in the Gemara is yichud fit for intercourse [and even according to Ulla there 57b, it can be said that according to the later Mishnah we require an internal examination, and so it appears from the Rambam chapter 6 of Terumot, who wrote the reason of Ulla and wrote "until she enters the chuppah," and according to him chuppah is yichud fit for intercourse. And with this, the difficulty of the Rosh there section 6 is answered, for regarding this Mishnah it is obvious that there is no query here, see there; and also the difficulty of the Korban Netanel subsection 5 is not a difficulty at all, for the term chuppah is only applied to one fit for intercourse according to his system, and if he concedes to the other chuppot it is obvious that nothing is difficult, and delve into it].

The Rambam wrote in chapter 11 of Issurei Biah regarding the law of one who was requested for marriage and consented, that she must sit seven clean days, for perhaps due to the desire she saw blood, and he wrote that she is forbidden to marry until she counts and immerses, and this is with an am ha'aretz; but with a talmid chacham she is permitted to marry immediately and shall count after the marriage and immerse, for the talmid chacham knows that she is forbidden and is careful not to approach her until she immerses. Thus far his words. And they challenged him: how can one perform a chuppah in impurity? [Ra'avad], and some answered that because this is not a Torah prohibition he was not stringent regarding it [Beit Shmuel subsection 2 in the name of the Maggid Mishneh], but it is impossible to say so, for we have already explained that according to his view even with a rabbinic prohibition one must be careful, as he himself wrote that they should write the ketubah before the chuppah as has been explained, and it is possible because he holds that this is not even a rabbinic stringency, but rather this is from the stringencies that the women took upon themselves, as is proven from his words there, that even regarding this law he wrote that all these are an extra stringency that the daughters of Israel practiced and it is not similar to all rabbinic prohibitions; however, according to what I wrote above, that the Rambam would concede that in other chuppot we are not particular about her purity, it is well understood according to its plain meaning [see there in the Kesef Mishneh and in the Beit Yosef, Tur Yoreh Deah siman 192, who questioned the Rambam why he did not write in chapter 10 of Ishut that a talmid chacham is permitted to marry a niddah, and see there what he answered, and his words are puzzling unless we say that he holds as I wrote, that he would concede regarding other chuppot, and delve into this].

However, even so, it must be understood: according to the Rambam that chuppah is yichud, how can he sequester with her? For behold, she is forbidden to him according to the stringency. There is one who permitted her in yichud since she is not a niddah and he is a Torah scholar [the Maggid Mishneh], but our teacher, the Beit Yosef, there disagreed on this and holds that it is forbidden to sequester with her, and if so, what kind of chuppah is it [Beit Shmuel]. And it is possible to say, for example, that he betrothed her through intercourse [as the Beit Shmuel wrote regarding a woman who saw blood], for then it is permitted to sequester with her since he has already had intercourse; but it is difficult to say so, since we are dealing with a Torah scholar, how could he betroth her through intercourse? For Rav would lash one who betroths through intercourse. But according to what I wrote, that the Rambam would agree to other forms of chuppah, it is simply settled.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: Once the man has brought his betrothed into the huppah, even though she has not had intercourse, she is like his wife in every regard, and she collects the principal of the ketubah and the additional amount if she is widowed or divorced. In what case is this said? When she is fit for intercourse, but if she was a niddah and he subsequently brought her into the huppah and secluded himself with her—she is not like his wife, but rather for all matters she is still like a betrothed woman since she was a niddah. And there are those who say that specifically regarding the matter that she does not collect the additional amount she is still like a betrothed woman, but for all other matters she is like a married woman. Thus far his words. And the first opinion is the view of the Rambam, and the "those who say" is the view of those who disagree as has been written, and it appears explicitly that he takes as the primary ruling the view of the Rambam [and so wrote the Chelkat Mechokek at the end of subsection 2], and in section 2 he wrote: It is a proper thing that she should not marry until she becomes pure. Thus far his words. And if so, it is a wonder, for the phrasing "it is a proper thing" implies a mere stringency and for the beautification of the matter, yet according to the Rambam it is an absolute requirement; and furthermore, regarding the huppah of the Rambam, which is seclusion fit for intercourse, how is it possible for the groom to seclude himself with her during her niddah status? For he has not yet had intercourse, and generally grooms do not sanctify through intercourse, and if so, what is the phrasing "it is a proper thing" that she should not marry until she becomes pure, for it is impossible otherwise? And more than this, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef himself in siman 55 wrote that the huppah is seclusion fit for intercourse as has been written there. And according to what I wrote, that even the Rambam would admit regarding other types of huppah, and in those we do not require that she be pure, it is well settled, and he only wrote the phrasing "it is a proper thing" for a mere beautification [and it is forced to say that it refers to the stringency of the seven clean days, and furthermore, even in this they are forbidden in seclusion].

It further appears to me to be said that even according to the opinion of the Rambam that we require her to be fit for cohabitation, nevertheless, if it is within her ability to go to the mikveh after the chuppah, such as when the time for her purification has arrived even though she has not yet immersed—it is permitted to perform the chuppah and to be secluded with her even though he did not have relations, and we do not fear a mishap during a brief period, as she will immerse immediately after the chuppah. According to this, it is possible to say that what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, "it is proper that she should not marry until she becomes pure," his intention was not when she is still in her days of niddah, but rather meaning prior to her purification [and this reasoning, that we do not fear a brief period that he will come upon her, was also written by the Noda BiYehudah, second edition, Choshen Mishpat, siman 122].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that now the custom is not to be exacting and we do not wait; nevertheless, it is good to inform the groom beforehand that she is a niddah. Thus far his words. For most of the world followed the poskim who disagree with the Rambam. And that which he wrote, that it is good to inform the groom, is not according to the opinion of the Rambam, but rather according to the opinion we explained in section 10, so that it should not be like a chuppah in error [and from the Beit Shmuel, subsection 8, it implies that this is also according to the Rambam, and it requires further study as the Be'er Mayim wrote, see there].

He further wrote in section 1 that according to the Rambam, it is necessary to write the ketubah before the chuppah so that it will be a chuppah fit for cohabitation; and according to the one who holds that the chuppah of a niddah is a valid chuppah even though it is not fit for cohabitation, the same applies if he did not write a ketubah. Nevertheless, it is given ab initio to write it beforehand. Thus far his words. And this custom is followed even not according to the opinion of the Rambam, for we interrupt with the reading of the ketubah between the betrothal blessing and the marriage blessing, as will be explained, and of necessity the ketubah must be before us.

He further wrote: A sick woman, terminally ill, even if she was brought with her bed under the chuppah so that her husband might inherit from her—it is not a chuppah at all since she is not fit at all for intercourse, and her husband does not inherit from her. Thus far his words. And this is in a place where they do not practice according to the Takkanot Shum, and nevertheless it is not effective even not according to the opinion of the Rambam, for granted that we do not require a chuppah fit for intercourse, nevertheless we require a woman fit for intercourse, for everyone knows why a bride enters the chuppah, and since she is never fit for intercourse—according to all the poskim she is not married, and it is not similar to a sick woman as was explained at the end of siman 56, for there she is fit for intercourse [see Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel subsection 4, and according to what I wrote the matters are as they appear, and therefore he wrote terminally ill, and what does the fact that most sick people recover have to do with this, since she is not currently in the category of marriage].

He further wrote: If he brought her into the chuppah and did not recite the birkat chatanim, it is a complete chuppah, for the blessings are not a prerequisite, and he may recite the blessings after several days; however, ab initio, he should recite them before he is secluded with her, and see above siman 55, and the custom now is to recite the blessings under the chuppah before he is secluded with her. Thus far his words. And he follows his reasoning in siman 55 that after the chuppah they seclude the chatan and kallah, but we have already explained that even according to our custom, the blessings are the absolute law and this is the completion of our chuppah, as I wrote in siman 55 section 19, see there. Furthermore, since he takes her immediately into his domain, this is the essence of nisuin from the Torah, as I wrote in section 4; if so, the blessings are at the time of the nisuin, and it has already been explained that there are poskim who hold that the blessings are a prerequisite, and we explained in siman 55 there that regarding our chuppah, according to everyone, the blessings are a prerequisite, see there.

He wrote further: If he betrothed in error and had a marriage with her and afterward it became known that the kiddushin were in error, even though he returns and betroths her, he does not need to bless the seven blessings a second time and the first blessings are sufficient for her. Thus far his words. And the reason is not because it is permitted for the huppah to precede the kiddushin, for certainly a huppah that precedes the kiddushin is nothing [see Mishneh LaMelech chapter 10], but rather the reason is explained in the source of the law in the Mordechai [in the glosses to Kiddushin] in the name of Rashba, the author of the Tosafot, that the fact that he will cohabit with her afterward, this will be the marriage and the previous blessings count for them. And furthermore, the blessings are not a prerequisite, just as it is for a minor who married a woman, for the sages did not institute marriage for him, and nevertheless when he grows up they do not bless the seven blessings for them, but rather when he cohabits with her in his adulthood the marriage is completed. And so Rashi, of blessed memory, instructed [ibid.], and so the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory, that we brought in section 3, incline. And nevertheless, there are those who hesitate regarding this and hold that if the kiddushin are clearly not kiddushin, one must bless other blessings after the kiddushin [Beit Shmuel subsection 7 in the name of the Maharam Mintz and the Bach], and in the source of the law where they did not require blessing there were other reasons to uphold the previous kiddushin, but the language there does not imply so, and it requires further study for the law, and a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently.

Several beautiful customs have the children of Israel instituted at the time of their weddings: They instituted to fast on the day of the chuppah, for it is stated in the Aggadah that a groom’s iniquities are forgiven [Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim], and since it is a day of forgiveness, it is proper to fast and seek mercy that he should live a life of tranquility with his partner and that a generation upright in the eyes of God and man should emerge from them; and also so that they should not become intoxicated and their minds not be settled upon them at the time of the kiddushin—and for this reason, it is not necessary to complete the fast. Similarly, a father receiving the kiddushin of his minor daughter, it is proper for him to fast for this reason. And the custom is widespread that if the chuppah is while it is still day, the groom and bride eat and drink after the chuppah, and according to this, it appears that they took the second reason as primary. And so there is proof from what they practiced, that when the chuppah extends several hours into the night, they fast until after the chuppah; according to the first reason, they should not have fasted after the emergence of the stars. And there is no need for the acceptance of the fast during the Mincha of the previous day since everyone practices this, and so it is implied in Orach Chaim siman 562. And even if the chuppah is while it is still day and they do not complete the fast, nevertheless the groom and bride shall pray "Aneinu" in Mincha as is implied there, and they also practiced to say Vidui in the Mincha prayer. And on days when one does not fast, it is not necessary to fast either; specifically days that were mentioned in the Gemara, such as Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah, and certainly Purim and Isru Chag and Tu B'Av and Tu B'Shevat. But on the days of Nisan they do fast, and see in Orach Chaim siman 573 that also on Lag BaOmer and the three days of Hagbalah and between Yom Kippur and Sukkot they fast as well, since these days are not mentioned in the Gemara. And similarly, if the fast is very difficult for them—they should not fast, and only be careful not to drink intoxicating beverages and not pursue luxuries of food and drink on that day [Beit Shmuel]. They also practiced to conduct the chuppah under the canopy of heaven as a good sign, that their offspring should be like the stars of heaven; and newcomers have recently arrived to change the customs of Israel and to emulate etc., and they do not want the blessing of placing the chuppah under the heavens—and their hand is on the bottom, while the hand of those who uphold the customs of Israel is on top. They also practiced to break a glass cup under the chuppah in memory of Jerusalem, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 65, see there.