Symbolism of Badeken

I’m sure you’ll get all kinds of creative answers, but one should note that bedeken has no source. It is a waste of time. Since there’s nothing halachically wrong with it, though, I know of no one who has made a m’choh against it.

The “source” is from the Torah (Bereishis 24:65), where Rivka Imanu covered her face when meeting Yitzchok Avinu. It is also brought down in the Gemorah (Ketubos 17b, Rashi ad loc).

This is incorrect. To see this, note that nowadays the choson bedeckts the kallah. However, as you wrote, Rivka Imanu was bedeckt herself. So if this were true, as most people beleive, then the kallah should bedeckt herself.

Neither the gemorah nor Rashi say that the choson bedeckts the kallah. All that is said is that the kallah wears a veil.

As you noted, the Tur and Tosefos hold that today’s bedecken would actually be the chupah. The Bach does state the we try to be yotzei all shittos, but note that bedecken today wouldn’t be yotzei the Tur or Tosefos’ shitah.

To see this, note that nisuin can take place only after kiddushin. Since at the time of bedecken, kiddushin has not yet taken place, it would be an invalid nisuin.

I apologize, however, in that I should have been more clear. The gemorah IS the source for wearing a veil, and you correctly stated the opinions of the rishonim. What I was trying to say was that the custom of bedecken as it is performed today is baseless. It couldn’t accomplish nisuin, so it is ineffective.

I retract. Apparently Rashi proved that nisuin can precede kiddushin. He brings the following case: The arranged marriage of an orphaned ketana by her mother must be repeated after she is a gedola, but her chuppah need not be repeated. It’s like people say: you learn something everyday or you don’t. I had been told by a former maggid shiur that bedecken was pointless, but I can no longer find a limud z’chus to that in light of this teshuva from Rashi (I believe it’s from a Hagahot Mordechai that was maybe quoted in the Kehillas Yaakov)

I once asked R’ Schachter how a Chuppas Niddah can work Bizman Hazeh. Because we do the Badeken first, we would consider her a Safek N’suah. But putting the ring on her finger would then be Assur because of Harchakas Niddah. He replied that Nisuin cannot be accomplished before Kiddushinin. If you didn’t start the process, you can’t finish it. However, if you did a Ma’aseh Nisuin before the Kiddushin then as soon as you do the Ma’aseh Kiddushin both the Kiddushin and Nisuin are Chal Miyad.

557: I have heard that R’ Rosensweig (the main Lamdan of the YU Roshei Yeshivah), combining the Shittah in Tos’fos and the Rambam (I think) says that you need Eidus L’kiyum Hadavar for the Badeken because it is an Eidus on a Davar Sheb’erva (you are changing her status from a P’nuyah to a N’suah; you could contrast this with what I said from R’ Schachter above but I think the resolution is fairly obvious). And since we are Choshesh (at least Lechatchilah) for the opinions in the Rishonim that any Passul witnesses seeing something Passel the whole Eidus on it, he therefore makes the Chassan be Meyached Eidim for the Badeken.

557: Firstly, i heard a shiur from Rabbi Shraga Kallus at a chasuna last week, and he listed some sources for bedeken – none of them halachical but more symbolical. But he bought the rishonim that it is nissuin – and why can that not work ???? ???

“To see this, note that nisuin can take place only after kiddushin”

???? ??? ?’… ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????????. The ???? ?????? notes that Chuppa comes before Kiddushin in the Brocho – and he says the reason is because we do bedeken first, that is already a nissuin.

I didn’t quite follow what you wrote before, but I know i also thought that it was impossible until i saw a Rashi in Kesuvos ?? ?? [if i remember correctly], by the inyan of ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? — it is clear there that a kiddushin preceded by a nessuin is fine. [It did have a ?????? to ?????]