Siman 64

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 10: The sages enacted that anyone who marries a virgin shall rejoice with her for seven days; he does not engage in his craft nor does he conduct business in the marketplace, but rather eats, drinks, and rejoices, whether he was a young man or a widower. And if she was a woman who had previously had relations—it is not less than three days, for it is an enactment of the sages for the daughters of Israel that he shall rejoice with a woman who had previously had relations for three days, whether he is a young man or a widower. Thus far his words. And he holds that the celebration is not dependent on the marriage blessings, for regarding the marriage blessings, one recites the blessings all seven days when he is a young man even if she is a widow, as was written in siman 62, but regarding the celebration, it depends only on her. And the reason is that the seven blessings are for the matter of the union, therefore when one of them has never yet married, they have seven blessings all seven days; however, celebration is only for the sake of the woman, that he shall gladden her, for he is the primary and she is secondary to him, therefore he is required to gladden her, and therefore the time of celebration depends only on her. For if she is a virgin, her celebration is seven days, and when she is a widow or a divorcee from marriage who has had relations, her celebration is only three days, for the celebration of a virgin is greater than that of one who has had relations, as a woman only carves a covenant with the one who made her a vessel.

But there are some of our teachers who hold that while it is true that the joy is because of the woman, nevertheless, if he is a bachelor, even if she is a widow, nevertheless their joy is all seven days; for how is it possible that they should recite the seven blessings for them and he should rise early for his work? Therefore, the days of joy are not fewer than the days of blessing. And even if they do not recite the seven blessings—for example, where there are no new faces, and they also do not recite "asher bara," such as when only the members of the household are eating—nevertheless, since these days are the days of the blessings when others are present at their joy, it is impossible that they should not be days of joy. And such is the custom [see Chelkat Mechokek subsection 4].

Regarding that which the Rambam wrote, that he does not engage in his craft nor in his commerce, this is not found explicitly in the Shas, but in the Midrashim it is explicitly stated so: A chatan is compared to a king; just as a king does not perform craft—so too a chatan does not perform craft; just as a king does not go out to the shuk alone—so too a chatan does not go out to the shuk alone. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote similarly, that a chatan is forbidden from performing craft and is forbidden from going out alone to the shuk. Thus far his words. And it appears that the Rambam interprets that the concern is not regarding going out, but rather regarding matters of business; and so it appears, for if it were regarding going out alone, what is the difference between a shuk and any other streets? And if you ask, if it is regarding business, what is the meaning of the phrasing "that he should not go out to the shuk alone," certainly it is so: that if he has some partnership in a business, the partners may engage in it, and only he alone shall not engage in craft and in commerce. However, several of the Rishonim interpreted that even going out alone without business is a prohibition for a chatan in the shuk, and not specifically a shuk but any place where many people are found, so that they should not see him solitary and alone. And also in the Gemara, the sages of blessed memory said that a chatan requires guarding, and since he requires guarding, it follows that he should not go out alone. And so it is implied in the Shas that he should not perform craft; although it is not explained there explicitly that it is forbidden, nevertheless it is implied so. And the phrasing of the Shas that he requires guarding implies that even in his house he should not sit alone, and even during the day he requires guarding. See there. And they further said in the Aggadah that the chatan shall wear honorable garments all seven days of the feast, and everyone shall praise him all seven days of the feast and his face shall shine, as it is written, "And he is like a chatan coming out of his chamber," and feasting and joy are before him all seven days of the feast. And the kallah also requires guarding.

That which is written in the Torah, "When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, nor shall any matter pass upon him; he shall be free for his home for one year and shall gladden his wife" etc. (Deuteronomy 24:5), this is not actual rejoicing, for that is only during the seven days of feasting, and for a widow three days; rather, this is regarding the battle lines of war, as it is written, "he shall not go out in the army, nor shall any matter pass upon him," for he also does not supply water and food, as is explained in Sotah [44a]. And "he shall be free for his home" includes one who builds a house and dedicates it, or plants a vineyard and redeems it, that he is exempt. "And shall gladden his wife whom he has taken" includes his yevamah, that he is exempt from all these [ibid. 43a]. And also according to the plain meaning of the verse, the rejoicing in this verse is not the rejoicing of feasts and the cessation of labor, but rather to give her pleasure and fulfill her will in everything he can. And so wrote the Sefer Yereim, mitzvah 190. This is his wording: We have learned that in the first year that a man marries a woman, he is obligated to gladden her, as it is said, "and shall gladden his wife," with anything he knows brings her joy; and this mitzvah applies both in the Land and outside the Land, as it is a personal obligation, etc. Thus far his words. And the nature of this rejoicing is like the matter written, "And you shall rejoice in all the good" (Deuteronomy 26:11) and similar to this. And there is one who wishes to say that in the first year he should not go out for trade to another country, but there is no basis for these words except as I have written. And this applies whether to a virgin or to a widow, except for one who takes back his divorcee, as she is not "new" [also, all the poskim did not cite the words of the Yereim, and it is possible they hold that it only refers to the battle lines of the army, and it requires further study].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the woman can waive her simcha. Thus far his words. The commentators on the Shulchan Aruch explained that this is only regarding eating, drinking, and rejoicing with her, but regarding the cessation of labor, her waiver is not effective. There is one who says that according to the Rambam, for whom the simcha is only for her sake, her waiver is effective; but according to those who hold that even a bachelor who marries a widow, their simcha is seven days, a waiver is not effective [Beit Shmuel]. This is not implied by the words of our teacher, the Rema. The primary view appears to be like that which one of the great authorities wrote: that regarding a virgin, the prohibition of labor is intrinsic and her waiver is not effective, but regarding a widow, the enactment is for her sake, as is proven from the language of the Gemara, "The sages were diligent regarding the enactment for the daughters of Israel, that he should rejoice with her for three days" — in this case, her waiver is effective. This is why our teacher, the Rema, in section 1 regarding a virgin, wrote that a chatan is prohibited from performing labor, and in section 2 regarding a beulah, he wrote that she can waive [Makneh]. And know, that "beulah" mentioned by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch refers to a widow from marriage, for from betrothal she is still a virgin; but from marriage she is under the presumption of having had intercourse, and even if it is known that she did not have intercourse, it appears that from marriage her law is like a beulah. And a virgin who gave birth through zenut, or became pregnant and miscarried, or it was clarified by witnesses that she committed zenut — there is a doubt whether her simcha and her blessing are like a virgin since she has never yet been married, or since she is not a virgin her law is like a widow; and so it is implied from the term "beulah" written by the poskim, and the law requires further study.

The sages taught in the Mishnah at the beginning of Ketubot: A virgin is married on the fourth day and a widow on the fifth day. And the reason regarding a virgin is because the beit din sits on the second and fifth days; therefore she is married on the fourth day and the first intercourse occurs at night, and if he does not find her to have virginity, he will go early to the beit din, for perhaps it will be clarified that she committed adultery while under him after erusin and is forbidden to him. But if a day or two passes from the intercourse, his mind will cool and he will not come to the beit din, and a stumbling block will result from this. Therefore they said in the Gemara that in a place where the beit din sits every day, a woman may be married on any day. And so too for us, where the claim of virginity is not relevant at all regarding a prohibition since the kiddushin and the nishuim are as one, she may also be married on any day. And as for why the Mishnah did not also permit the first day, so that on the second day he could go early to the beit din, they explained in the Gemara that this is for another reason—so that he will have a period of three days after the Shabbat to prepare the needs of the feast, and on the fourth day he will bring her in. However, if he already prepared, he may bring her in even on the first day according to the law of the Mishnah, and according to our practice, on any day. And regarding a widow, the Mishnah did not explain the reason, and they explained two reasons in the Gemara. One—since her rejoicing is three days, the sages feared that he would go early the next morning to his craft; therefore they commanded that he should marry her on the fifth day, and automatically he will be in his house also on the next day and the day after it because of Erev Shabbat and Shabbat, and he will rejoice with her for three days. And another reason is so that he will have intercourse on the night of the sixth day, upon which a blessing was said to man, for man was created on the sixth and the Holy One, Blessed be He, blessed him "be fruitful and multiply." And the virgin, her intercourse is on the night of the fifth day, and then too a blessing was said to the fish which were created on the fifth, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, blessed them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters," etc. (Genesis 1:22).

Our teachers, the Rishonim, were precise: since the Mishnah only specified the reason for a virgin, and regarding the virgin herself it only specified the reason pertaining to a prohibition, we learn from this that for the sake of the other reasons they would not have established a specific day for marriage. For the reason of blessing is nothing more than good advice, and the reason of preparing the feast, although it is a requirement, nevertheless if he has already prepared it, he is permitted to marry whenever he wishes. Therefore, our sages of blessed memory said that in a place where the beit din sits every day, a woman may be married on any day if he prepared the needs of the feast and is not concerned about the day of blessing. However, nevertheless, regarding a widow it appears from the discussion of the Shas that one who is a craftsman or a merchant should only marry on the fifth day because of the reason so that he may rejoice with her on the fifth day of the week, and see there, and the Sabbath [and so it appears from Tosafot 3a, s.v. "isha," see there]. However, the poskim did not mention that there is a prohibition for a widow to be married other than on the fifth day, and also it is a daily occurrence that she is married on any day.

However, from the words of the Rambam it is explained that even this reason is not primary, as he wrote there in Halacha 15: In a place where the beit din does not sit except on Monday and Thursday only, a virgin is married on Wednesday, so that if he had a claim regarding her virginity, he would go early to the beit din; and it is the custom of the sages that one who marries a woman who is not a virgin should marry her on Thursday so that he will be with her Thursday, and the eve of Shabbat, and Shabbat, and go out to his work on Sunday. Thus far his words. He dependent this matter on the custom of the sages and not on the primary law, and therefore the Mishnah did not specify the reason for a widow. Furthermore, the Gemara, which permitted marrying on any day in a place where the beit din sits every day, did not intend this for a virgin alone, for they said "a woman is married on any day" and they did not say "a virgin is married on any day" — learn from this that it refers to all women [and so wrote the Ran and the Ritva, that because of "they were diligent" and the blessing they would not establish a day, and so wrote the Shita Mekubetzet].

And one must explain the reason for this, for in truth why were the sages concerned that he would rise early to his craft, is he not forbidden from labor? And if it is because perhaps he will not obey—what shall we do regarding one who marries a virgin, who is forbidden from labor for seven days? However, the essence of the matter is this: for certainly, Heaven forbid, one should not suspect any son of Israel that he would transgress the words of our sages of blessed memory; but in truth, the essence of the marriage of a widower and a widow is only one day, and just as their blessing is only for one day, so too their joy is only for one day, and it is permitted by the law to rise early to his craft the next day. And the sages were concerned for her distress and enacted that he should rejoice with her for three days, and because it was a new enactment, they therefore established the custom that he should marry her on the fifth day, and automatically he would rejoice with her for three days as has been written. And automatically, after they established this custom and the prohibition of labor was fixed for three days, therefore afterwards, regardless of which day he marries, they became accustomed to this, not to perform labor for three days [and perhaps this is the intention of Rashi, of blessed memory, page 5a, s.v. "the next day," see there and in the Shita Mekubetzet, and examine it closely].

All this we have written according to the opinion of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, but the Tur wrote: The sages ordained that a widow should be married on the fifth day and have the first marital act on the night of the sixth day so that he will rejoice with her for three days—the fifth day of the week, the sixth day of the week, and Shabbat; in what case does this apply? To a laborer, but an idle person for whom there is no concern that he will go to his work may marry on any day, and for a virgin they did not ordain a specific day for marriage for this reason, as there is no concern lest he leave her and go to his work. Thus far his words. And the reason is because his joy is great and he will not go to work for all seven days. And according to this opinion, it is forbidden for a widow being married to a widower when he is a laborer or a businessman to marry except on the fifth day, and this is also the opinion of the Tosafot and the Rosh. And there is wonderment regarding our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch and the Acharonim, that they brought only the opinion of the Rambam, and also regarding our custom that we marry on any day, how they were not concerned for this opinion. And perhaps according to what has been explained that her waiver is effective, if so there is no concern in this, for even if he rises early for work she will presumably waive it for him, for it is far-fetched that he would act against her will, as presumably if she does not give him permission he will not do so. And even though the sages, of blessed memory, were concerned for this, that he would act against her will, nevertheless since according to the opinion of the Rambam it is a complete permission and also according to the opinion of the Tur it is a distant reality, therefore they were not concerned in this. And nevertheless, it requires further study for practical application. However, if before the marriage they spoke between themselves that immediately after the marriage he would travel from here—it is simple that it is permitted, for she is like one who waives and relinquishes her joy, which has been explained is permitted.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote: One may not marry women neither on Erev Shabbat nor on the first day of the week, as a decree lest he come to desecrate Shabbat in the preparation of the meal, for the groom is preoccupied with the meal. Thus far his words. And the Tur and the Rosh permit it, for according to the conclusion of the sugya we are not concerned about the desecration of Shabbat, as presumably they prepare beforehand everything that is needed for the meal. And the Tur wrote that upon this we rely to make meals whether on Shabbat or on Motzaei Shabbat, see there. And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote that such is the widespread custom to marry women on Erev Shabbat, provided that he labors over the wedding meal three days before the wedding. Thus far their words. And now we are not accustomed to be exacting even in this, and it appears to me that the reason is that while it is true that Chazal said "the sages were diligent for the benefit of the daughters of Israel that he should labor over the meal for three days" – this was all in their time when the groom would make the meal. But now our custom is that the bride makes the meal, we are not concerned about the desecration of Shabbat; for specifically regarding the groom we are concerned that he will want to satisfy the bride by increasing the portions because women are particular about this, but since the bride makes the meal we are not concerned about the desecration of Shabbat because the groom is not particular about this. And so it is explained from the wording of the Rambam who concludes "for the groom is preoccupied with the meal," meaning that since the groom is preoccupied with the meal for its improvement we are concerned about the desecration of Shabbat. According to this, our custom is correct even according to the opinion of the Rambam. Nevertheless, our eyes see that in the winter days it is very correct not to perform a chuppah on Erev Shabbat because the days are short and they delay the chuppah, but we do not have the power to protest. [Regarding what the Rambam wrote about the first day, in the Gemara it is proven even according to his approach that the prohibition is only on Motzaei Shabbat, see there page 5a in Rashi, beginning with the words "it has space," and perhaps he grasped the first resolution there that for himself etc., and according to this resolution one must say that what was taught regarding Motzaei Shabbat refers to the entire first day, for if not so, what is the difficulty from Yom Kippur, see there. And in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of Ketubot it is explained that one may not marry women neither on Erev Shabbat nor on Motzaei Shabbat because of the honor of Shabbat, see there, and this is the source of the Rambam, and I wonder that they did not cite this, and it requires great study].

If the groom does not want to make a feast and the relatives of the bride want him to make a feast – they compel him to make a feast according to his honor and according to her honor; so ruled all the poskim. And "according to his honor" means that if his family is wealthier than her family and they make feasts more expansively than the members of her family – he is obligated to act like his family. And "according to her honor" means the opposite, for the general rule is: she rises with him and does not descend with him. And it is explained from this that not only is the bride herself able to compel him to this, but even her relatives, such as when she remains silent. But if she says that she does not mind, it is not logical that the relatives would have the power to compel him; yet it is possible that even in such a case they can compel him, for they can say that even though she does not mind, nevertheless there is a slight to the members of the family. However, nowadays when the bride makes the feast, it is of no concern to us. And it appears that according to our custom, the groom and the members of his family can compel the bride to make the feast according to his honor and according to her honor, for if they are particular about this, why should they not have the power to compel her just as her family has the power to compel him? And so appears the primary halachic ruling. And so too regarding all matters of the customary wedding celebrations of groom and bride, if one side wants to protest against doing them – he does not have the power. And so too when she is a virgin and he is a widower and she wants to do for herself according to the custom of virgins, such as musical instruments and the like, and he does not want to – she can compel him. And so too the opposite, when he is a bachelor and she is a widow or divorcee, he can compel her to do for him according to the custom of bachelors.

It is the custom not to marry women except during the first half of the month when the moon is continually increasing, and not during its waning. This is not divination, but merely a good omen, in the manner that they anoint kings by a spring so that their kingdom shall be prolonged, and just as they flow wine through pipes before grooms; this too is for a good omen that the union shall increase. There is no concern of the "ways of the Amorite" in this, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 179. There are months where the custom is not to be particular about this—in Elul, Tishrei, and Adar. It is better not to be particular about this at all, as it is said: "You shall be wholehearted with Hashem your G-d" (Deuteronomy 18:13). Behold, regarding the sign of blessing for fish and for man, they are not particular even though this is mentioned in the Gemara; certainly regarding this, which is not mentioned in the Gemara at all. It is possible that because Israel counts by the moon and is compared to the moon, they therefore practiced being particular. Furthermore, the particularity is not against establishing it during its waning, but rather for a good omen to establish it during its fullness. Nevertheless, it is better to be particular about that which is stated in the Gemara.

It has already been explained in Orach Chaim siman 339 that it is forbidden to betroth a woman on Shabbat, and even if he betrothed her on a weekday, it is forbidden to bring her into the chuppah on Shabbat; and even though through the kiddushin she is already his wife, nevertheless, since through the nisuin he acquires her findings and the work of her hands, it is like one who acquires a possession on Shabbat. Therefore, he should bring her into the chuppah while it is still day, and he may have first intercourse with her on Shabbat, as written in siman 63. And even though she acquires the additional ketubah from the time of intercourse, we do not say that she is like one who acquires a possession on Shabbat, for the husband is not the possession of the wife, but rather the wife is the possession of the husband, and he already acquired her from the time of the chuppah. However, when it was a chuppah of a niddah and she afterwards immersed, it is possible that according to the opinion of the Rambam—that a chuppah of a niddah is not a chuppah and his acquisition is through the first intercourse—one should not have intercourse with her on Shabbat. However, it has already been explained that most of the poskim disagree with the Rambam, and in siman 55 we explained that it can be said that even the Rambam agrees with the poskim; see there [see Beit Shmuel subsection 5].

Many of our teachers wrote that this concept of chuppah effecting acquisition applies only to a virgin, but regarding a widow, chuppah does not effect acquisition; rather, through the yichud of intercourse he acquires her findings and the work of her hands. Therefore, he must sequester himself with her before Shabbat so that it should not be like one who acquires an acquisition on Shabbat. Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, ruled similarly without qualification in this siman and in Orach Chaim siman 339. In truth, this is not found at all in the Shas, that there should be a distinction between a widow and a virgin regarding the acquisition of chuppah, and also the Rambam did not mention this. However, these words of our teachers are founded upon the words of the Yerushalmi at the beginning of Ketubot, where we learn there: Those who marry widows must marry them while it is still day on the eve of Shabbat. It is clear from this that the law of a widow differs from the law of a virgin, and this is the explanation: regarding a virgin, chuppah effects acquisition, and since the chuppah was on the eve of Shabbat, he may cohabit with her on Shabbat; but regarding a widow, it is necessary that he "bring her in," meaning that he must sequester himself with her while it is still day because she is not subject to chuppah. According to this, for the one who holds that chuppah for a virgin is also yichud suitable for intercourse, as written in siman 55, it must be said that for a widow even this is not effective because that is chuppah, and there is no chuppah for a widow; therefore, actual intercourse is required while it is still day, and "marry them" which the Yerushalmi said refers to actual intercourse.

And even though there is no proof at all from the Yerushalmi, as it is not because there is no huppah for a widow, but because the Yerushalmi holds there that it is forbidden to have initial intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat because of a wound, and therefore that which it said "those who marry widows" refers to the essence of the huppah, meaning that he brings her into the huppah, and the same would apply to a virgin, except that for a virgin they do not make the huppah on Friday anyway since she is not fit for intercourse on Shabbat, and there is never a distinction between a widow and a virgin [the Gra, and so wrote the Maharit], nevertheless, since our teachers the Rishonim adopted the interpretation of the Yerushalmi to distinguish between a virgin and a widow, we must not deviate from their words.

And in my humble opinion, it appears that all the poskim do not disagree at all according to what I wrote in siman 55, that there are many types of chuppah, and from the Torah they are all considered chuppot according to what the people have established as the custom in that place. Even the Rambam admits to this, as I wrote there. And behold, it is certain that if they established the custom that the chuppah is yichud fit for cohabitation, as the Rambam wrote, this chuppah also applies to a widow, for why should we distinguish between them? However, if the chuppah is sitting in a canopy for all seven days of the feast, as the Rosh wrote in Sukkah [chapter 2] and as the Tosafot wrote there [25b, s.v. ein], and similarly if the chuppah is bringing her to his house for the sake of marriage, or spreading a cloth over the head of the bride, or the hinuma, or according to our custom with a sheet spread over poles in the courtyard of the beit knesset, where they seat the bride and loosen the hair of her head and the groom throws the covering over her and they lead them to the chuppah, and upon returning from the chuppah to the house of the groom with the celebrations of groom and bride—certainly these chuppot do not exist for widows. As our eyes see, even though they set up poles and spread a sheet, they do so modestly in the house, and the couple comes and stands under the poles without attendants and without the celebrations of groom and bride, and they only arrange the kiddushin and the blessings and immediately depart; this is not in the category of a chuppah that would constitute a kinyan. For with a widow and a widower, it is not the way to make preparations and celebrations, and certainly her chuppah is nothing other than yichud fit for cohabitation. And this is what the Yerushalmi says regarding widows: for the chuppot of virgins, it is obvious that they perform them by day, for behold they have many preparations, as our eyes see; but for widows, whose chuppah is a brief moment of yichud fit for cohabitation and it is possible to do this at night, therefore the Yerushalmi warned to do this while it is still day. Therefore, the Rambam, of blessed memory, who holds that chuppah is yichud fit for cohabitation, did not mention a distinction between a widow and a virgin. But our teachers the authors of the Tosafot, and the Rosh, and the rest of the Rishonim who hold that chuppah is a canopy for all seven days of the feast—and so the Yerushalmi holds because such is the way of the world—therefore wrote that there is a distinction between a widow and a virgin. And they also admit that yichud fit for cohabitation is sufficient for a widow, for this is her chuppah. And that which they wrote, that there is no chuppah for a widow, means the chuppah that they perform for a virgin does not exist for a widow, as we see even now. Therefore, as a matter of law, certainly if he wishes to cohabit with her on Shabbat, she must sequester with him while it is still day in a yichud fit for cohabitation. But if he does not wish to cohabit with her on Shabbat, or if she is impure, this is not necessary, and the kinyan of her chuppah will be when he cohabits with her after Shabbat. And all this is as a matter of law, but one of the earlier authorities has already written that there is a danger in cohabiting with a widow for the first time on Shabbat [Magen Avraham there in the name of the Maharil], even if they sequestered while it was still day. Therefore, there are some of the great authorities who commanded that he cohabit with her while it is still day, and an initial contact alone is sufficient. And it has already become the custom to warn not to cohabit with a widow for the first time on Shabbat because of the danger. And an incident already occurred regarding this in the generation before us with a certain great authority who ruled permissively in the matter and afterwards regretted it greatly. And thus I received a tradition in my youth from the mouth of one of the great authorities [see Be'er Heitev what he wrote in the name of the Taz and rejected, and his reason is that there is no preparation for her].

One may not marry women on Chol HaMoed, neither virgins nor widows, and one may not perform yibbum, as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:14), "And you shall rejoice in your festival" – and not with your wife, and one may not mix one joy with another joy. For just as one does not perform mitzvot in bundles so that his heart may be free for a single mitzvah, so too his heart must be free for a single joy. We learn this from Solomon, who, when he finished the building of the Beit HaMikdash, made a celebration for seven days prior to the festival so as not to mix this joy with the joy of the festival. And in the Yerushalmi, it is learned from that which is written, "Complete the week of this one," etc. (Genesis 29:27). A practical legal difference resulting from the reasoning of the Yerushalmi is that even with the same type of joy, such as marrying two women at once, one may not mix them, as I wrote in siman 62; see there. However, it is permitted on Chol HaMoed to remarry one's divorced wife when he divorced her from marriage, because there is not such great joy in this, and therefore even "that the joy is in His abode" is not recited for all three days. But when he divorced her from betrothal, it is forbidden to marry on Chol HaMoed because this is a complete joy since he had not yet married her. But on the eve of the festival, it is permitted to marry even a virgin; even though her joy lasts seven days, nevertheless the primary joy is one day. And regarding the matter of making the feast on the festival, some forbid and some permit, as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 546, and therefore the custom is not to marry at all on the eve of the festival.