Private marriage

This page contains a concentration of materials regarding private marriages:

7 Thoughts on “Private Marriage”

  1. Rabbi Michi Shalom,

    In an article published yesterday in Vint about the couple you married, you say that you asked them to go after the wedding and register with the rabbinate because a situation where the marriage is not registered is halakhically and legally problematic.

    In other words, as far as I understand, you agree that there must be an orderly body in which all married couples in the people of Israel will be registered. When it comes to a country with 6 million Jews and not a small community in Poland - but it is natural that the same body should be an institution of the state.

    If so, the rabbinate's demand that marriage in Israel be made solely through it - makes sense, because if everyone marries privately, it is quite clear that we will reach a situation where many couples will not be registered as married anywhere (you may be careful to demand that you marry after registration , But others do not). It makes sense that a regulatory body that oversees a registration - would require that it be done initially with him and not just after the fact. Why then are you alarmed at the legal ban on holding halakhic weddings in private?

    (I do not refer at all to those who are not interested in getting married as idiots and the state forces them but only to those who are interested in an Orthodox wedding).


    1. I have now written an answer to a question on the site. See there (at the end) the matter of regulation:

      There is a presumption in your words that if I do not do this the situation will be better. And not her. The fact is that today there are quite a few couples who get married and do not register. If so, what creates the problem is precisely the policy of the rabbinate. I'm the one trying to solve it. They are not fighting for the character of the people of Israel but for their power monopoly.

      By the way, there is no difference between Cohen and a divorcee and our case. Why in a priest and a divorcee (who were married orthodox, since this applies in retrospect) do you accept the ridiculous situation in which the High Court instructs the rabbinate to register them even though they were not married in the rabbinate? Why does a couple who wants a kiddushin on condition and the rabbinate not allow it to be different from them? He too cannot marry in the rabbinate, and therefore by virtue of the same logic he should also be registered as a married couple even if he has consecrated himself privately.

    2. You are talking about the rabbinate's refusal to register those who marry privately, this refusal may be ridiculous and outrageous, but I asked about your motivation for marrying the same couples, when it is clear that those who marry couples privately cause couples not to be registered anywhere - anything I also have a problem with your method.

    3. My motive is to dismantle the monopoly of the rabbinate that is causing this damage. Beyond that, as I wrote there are already some who carry them privately, but they do not register. So what I do does not cause anyone to marry privately but at most causes (or tries to cause) those who marry privately to register.
      By the way, I have only done this once so my contribution to the cause is negligible. What I wanted was to try and get them to recognize and record such kiddushin even when they are done by others. That is, if this act will have an effect it is only with regard to the registration and not with regard to the phenomenon of private consecration.

  2. The matter here is much more general.
    If we do not accept the authority of the law, in the matter of marriage and divorce, and this is presented here as people who do not want to bring the establishment into their lives, why not in other things as well.
    Those who do not want to enlist, those who do not want to get a driver's license from the state, those who want to operate without recognition of medical certification, and more and more.
    I can very much agree with the criticism of today's rabbinate. But the direction of breaking the monopoly in this way, is nothing more than a call for anarchism. This has far wider implications than marriage and divorce.

    1. Rabbi Yuki Shalom.
      First, it is not against the law. The rabbinate is working against the law. The law does not prohibit private consecrations, but on the contrary obliges to register consecrations whether they have been made private or not. See column 3:

      Second, in this way you drop the ground beneath the possibility of civil rebellion. But in severe enough cases the right (and duty, in my opinion) is reserved for every citizen to express rebellion against the law and bear the consequences. Like conscientious objection and the like. The claims that this will lead to anarchy come to castrate the possibility of doing so, and I see them as a serious danger to democracy. By the way, in all directions (left and right, religious and secular), provided that the damage of the law to my values ​​is significant and substantial, and the damage from my revolt is not disproportionate. I also wrote about this briefly in column 67:

Leave a comment