2021/5781

Understanding the Minhag as a Manifestation of Hope for Personal and National Ge’ulah

Despite all of the evidence surveyed herein, still another approach to the Minhag of breaking the glass may be found among the Rishonim and Poskim which is different than either of those mentioned so far. This third approach constitutes a compound perspective, insofar as it incorporates both the personal dimension inherent in the understanding of this Minhag as a demonstration of Hitmatnut HaSimchah as well the national dimension inherent in the understanding of this Minhag as a demonstration of Aveilut over the Churban. Proponents of this compound approach understand that the breaking of a vessel at a wedding—and, specifically, the breaking of a cup made of glass— symbolizes the concept of the fragile standing of human beings and their ability to transcend their nature in order to cleave to their Creator. As we will see, this understanding is articulated in a variety of ways, but seems to find expression first through the writings of the Maharsha and Maharit, and later by the Tzlach, the Pri Megadim, the Seifer Mo’eid LeKol Chai of Rav Chayim Falaji, and the thought of Rav Soloveitchik.

In his Chidushei Agadot, the Maharsha formulates this approach in the following terms: “‘Kasa Demukra Chu’. Porsche Bo HaRemez SheHu Kli Chashuv Me’od Ve’Ikar Yetzirato Va’Asiyato Mei’Afar UShvirato Zehu Mitato. Kein Ha’Adam Notzar Mei’Afar Ve’Omeid LaMitah Tamid Lashuv Lehyot Afar VeKayma Lan,” “‘A Precious Goblet.’ Its significance has been interpreted to mean a very valuable vessel, the primary constitution of which is from earth, such that its breaking constitutes its death. So too is man created from earth and stands to die and return to be earth, and thus do we accept” (Maharsha Chidushei Agadot Masechet Berachot 31b).

It emerges that according to the Maharsha, there is an important symbolic aspect inherent in breaking glassware in particular, seeing as glass symbolizes the fragile nature and transient standing of the human being. In a similar vein, the Maharit in his work Tzafnat Panei’ach expresses the optimistic flipside of this approach: 

“Ve’Achshav Nahagu Leshabeir HaKos Shel Zechuchit Shel Birkat Eirusin MiShum Agamat Nefesh Zeicher LeChurban, VeRomzim BeTikvah SheKeShem SheZechuchit SheNishberah Yeish Lah Takanah… Lomar She’Atid HaKadosh Baruch Hu Lashuv Lesos Aleinu LaTov, Kemo SheKatuv ‘Ve’Eirastich Li Be’Emunah VeYada’at Et HaShem,’” “And presently the custom is to break the glass cup used for the Eirusin blessings out of anguish in commemoration of the destruction of the Temple, and we imply through this the hope that just as broken glass may be repaired... so too do we express that the Holy One Blessed Be He will return to rejoice over us for good, as it is written, ‘And I will betroth you to me in faith, and you shall know Hashem’” (Maharit in Tzafnat Panei’ach, Derashah LeParashat Matot).

The Maharit suggests that, just as it is possible to melt down broken glass and reshape it anew, so too do we concretize our belief that the special relationship between HaKadosh Baruch Hu and Am Yisrael will soon be repaired with the coming of the Ge’ulah HaShleimah. Although the Maharit expresses the optimistic aspect of this perspective only in national terms, the Tzlach in his Peirush to the Chidushei HaMaharsha broadens this notion of the symbolism of glass even further, expressing the optimistic aspect of this approach in individualized terms with respect to the transcendent potential of Teshuvah: “VeHaNir’eh Le’Aniyut Da’ati SheHa’Adam Domeh BeChol Davar LeKli Zechuchit, SheYetzirato Min He’Afar Kamohu, VeChi Neshtabru Yeish LaHem Takanah, Gam Ha’Adam Ki Neshtabeir Al Yedei Pesha’av Yeish Lo Takanah BeTeshuvah, VeGam Ein LaHem Shum Taharah Im Netme’u Rak BeShvirah SheShviratan Hi Taharatan She’Ein LaHem Taharah BaMikvah… Kach Ha’Adam Ein Lo Taharah Im Netamei Ba’Avonotav Ein Lo Shum Taharah Rak Shevirat Rucho, Kemo SheKatuv ‘Leiv Nishbar VeNidcheh, Elokim Lo Tevazeh,’” “And it appears in my humble opinion that a person is similar in all respects to a glass vessel, whose constitution is of earth like him, and when it is broken it may be repaired – so too the person who becomes broken through his sins may be repaired through repentance. Nor may [glass vessels] be purified if they become impure other than through breaking, for breaking is their only method of purification seeing as they cannot be purified through immersion… so too man has no purification if he becomes defiled by his sins except through the breaking of his spirit, as it is written, "A broken and dejected heart, God shall not reject" (Tzlach, Masechet Berachot 31b, s.v. “Ve’Aiti”).

In his Seifer Mo’Eid LeKol Chai, Rav Chayim Falaji similarly articulates both the national and individual components of the optimistic construal of this approach – namely, the potential of national renewal and repentance on the one hand, as well as the potential of personal renewal and repentance on the other: “KaYotzei BaDavar BeShevirat Kos Shel Kiddushin… Yeish Mekomot DeLokchim MiKli Cheres, VeHaYoteir Tov Hu MiZechuchit, DeNimtza Ta’amo Mefurash DeKeSheim SheYeish LeZechuchit Takanah, Kein Yihyeh LeYisrael Takanah VeTikvah Tovah, Ve’Od DeKeSheim SheHaZechuchit Tocho KeVaro Kein Nihyeh SheLo Yishlot Banu Yeitzer HaRa,” “Similarly, with respect to breaking the cup used for Kiddushin (betrothal)… there are places where an earthenware cup is taken, but the better practice is that it be of glass, as we find its significance is explained, that just as glass may be repaired, so too does Israel have the potential for repair and great hope. And moreover, just as the interior of glass is like to its exterior, so too should we be, such that the evil inclination should be unable to exercise control over us” (Mo’Eid LeKol Chai by Rav Chaim Falaji).

In an even broader extension, some Acharonim explain that this approach has another wonderful aspect related to the relationship between Matan Torah and the Jewish wedding ceremony. The Pri Megadim in his Peirush the Mishbitzot Zahav formulates the matter as follows:

“Nir’eh Lefareish DeBeMatan Torah Hayah Kidushin VeRa’ui Hayah LeNisu’in, UVeCheit Ha’Eigel UShevirat HaLuchot Ve’Achar Churban Bayit Rishon USheini SheNitbatlu HaKidushin Legamrei Chas VeShalom, Ve’Ein Banu Hashra’at Shchinato BeYichud BeGalut HaMar Rak HaShefa Yoreid VeChu’, ULe’Atid Lavo Yachazor HaKadosh Baruch Hu ViKadeish Kiddushin MeiChadash, KeDeChtiv, ‘Ve’Eirastich Li BeTzedek VeChu’’. Alma Yihyeh Kidushin Chadashim VeNisu’in, UKeDeChtiv ‘Henini Oseh Chadashah,’ VaYivra HaShem Lanu Leiv Chadash VeTahor Ve’Anu Meramzin Bazeh SheLokchin Kos Cheres LeVirkat Eirusin, VeLokchin LeVirkat Nisu’in Kos Acheir Kesef O Zechuchit ULe’Achar Kol Sheva Berachot Shovrin HaKos Cheres, Ki HaKidushin Rishonim Nitbatlu Legamrei Ve’Ein Takanah KeMah SheKatuv ‘Bnei Tzi’on HaYekarim Eichah Nechshevu LeNevlei Cheresh’ Aval Kidushin Shni’im Yihyu Kayamim Im Nisu’in, UZechuchit Tocho KeVaro SheLo Yimshol Banu HaYeitzer HaRa Klal KeDeChtiv ‘A’avir Mei’Aretz’ VeLachein Ein Shovrin Kos Birkat Nisu’in SheZeh Yihyeh Kayeim Rak Kos Cheres Shovrin, Ka’Amur,” “It seems appropriate to interpret that at the Giving of the Torah was Kidushin (betrothal), and it was worthy of constituting Nisu’in, but with the Sin of the Golden Calf and the Breaking of the Tablets, and after the destruction of the First and Second Temples, the Kidushin appears to have been completely abolished, God forbid; and we do not have the special resting of the Divine Presence upon us in this bitter exile, but rather a diminishing of this manifestation, etc. But in the future, the Holy One Blessed Be He will return and reengage His Kidushin anew, as it is written, “And I shall betroth you to me in righteousness, etc.,” hence that there shall be a new Kiddushin and Nisu’in, as it is written, “I am making heaven and earth anew,” and Hashem will create for us a new and pure heart. And we signal this in taking a cup of earthenware for the Eirusin blessing and a separate cup of silver or glass for the Nisu’in blessing, and after all of the seven blessings we break the earthenware cup, to symbolize that the earlier Kidushin were nullified entirely and irreparably, as it is written, “Dear sons of Zion, how have you become like jars of earthenware” – but the second Kidushin shall endure with the Nisu’in. And the glass [that we use] is alike inside and outside [as a symbol] so that the evil inclination should have no power over us, as it is written, “I shall remove it from the land.” And therefore we do not break the cup of the Nisu’in blessings, for this will last – rather, we only break the earthenware cup, as explained” (Pri Megadim, Mishbitzot Zahav, Orach Chaim, 560:4).

It is clear from the explanation of the Pri Megadim that the use of a glass in the Seider HaChupah – and in particular, the Minhag of using an earthenware cup for the Birkat Ha’Eirusin which is later broken, and then using a glass cup for the Birkat HaNisu’in – symbolizes Inyanim of national Galut and Ge’ulah not only in terms of the Churban and eventual rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash, but also in terms of the giving of the Luchot Rishonot which were broken and the subsequent giving of the Luchot Shniyot which lasted. According to the Pri Megadim’s explanation, the Minhag of breaking a glass at weddings acts as a powerful metaphor expressing our hope that the marriage of every Jewish couple will last and succeed alongside our hope that “Le’Atid Lavo Yachazor HaKadosh Baruch Hu ViKadeish Kiddushin MeiChadash”, that HaKadosh Baruch Hu will soon return and betroth us with a new and everlasting Kidushin – all of which we hope will be Mesugal to occur upon our remembrance of the message of the glass to be “Tocho KeVaro SheLo Yimshol Banu HaYeitzer HaRa Klal”, genuine to the point of freedom from the sway of the evil inclination.

A similar explanation to that of the Pri Megadim is elucidated by Rav Herschel Schachter in the name of the Rav, Rav Yosef. Dov Soloveitchik. Rav Schachter explains that one of the reasons for the Minhag of breaking a glass at a wedding is to recall the message inherent in the breaking the Luchot Rishonot and the persistence of the Luchot Shniyot concerning the importance of the Midah of Tzni’ut, modesty, as indicated by the comment of the Midrash Tanchuma:  “‘Pesal Lecha Vehyeih Nachon LaBoker.’ Kach BaRishonah ‘VaYehi BaYom HaShelishi BeHyot HaBoker VeGo’’, VeKan ‘VeGam Ish Al Yeira’. HaLuchot Rishonot Al SheNatnu BePumbi Lefikach Shaltah BaHem Ayin HaRa VeNishtabru, VeKan Amar Lo HaKadosh Baruch Hu Ein Lecha Yafeh Min HaTzni’ut, SheNe’emar: ‘UMah HaShem Doreish Mimcha Ki Im Aseih Mishpat Ve’Ahavat Chesed VeHatznei’a Lechet,’” “’Carve for yourself… and ready yourself for the morning’. So too at first [it was said], ‘And it was on the third day in the morning, etc.,’ whereas here [it says] ‘And also no man shall be seen.’ The first Tablets were given in a public fashion, and thus was the evil eye able to affect it such that they were broken, whereas here the Holy One Blessed Be He said to [Moshe], there is nothing better than modesty, as it is said, ‘And what does Hashem seek from you but the doing of justice, love of kindness, and modest conduct’” (Midrash Tanchuma Parashat Ki Tisa, 31).

Just as a critical difference between the Luchot Rishonot and the Luchot Shniyot was the manifestation of the Midah of Tzni’ut, we too wish to demonstrate and celebrate the critical importance of this Midah at our weddings, each of which are the crystallization of every Chatan and Kalah’s hope for an lasting bond of commitment and Kedushah.

At least two Nafka Minahs emerge between this compound approach and the other more straightforward understandings that we mentioned earlier: first with respect to the need for a cup made of a specific material, and second with respect to the need to specifically break the cup upon which the Birkot Eirusin and the Birkot Nisu’in were made. Firstly, it would apparently only make sense to understand that there is a need to break a glass cup according to a complex approach such as those of the Maharsha, Maharit, Tzlach, and Mo’eid Lekol Chai, but not according to a simpler understanding such as that of the Rishonim. Secondly, it would similarly seem only to make sense that the Minhag would specifically require the breaking of the cup over which the Birkot Eirusin or Birkot Nisu’in were made according to a compound approach like that of the Pri Megadim, pursuant to which the Minhag of breaking a glass at a wedding was established to symbolize the two instance of Netinat HaLuchot at the time of Matan Torah and the parallel hope for the return of Hashem’s Hashra’at Shechinah with the coming of the Ge’ulah HaShleimah.

An Additional Suggestion of Symbolism: The Power of Cooperation and Personal Initiative

In closing, we may offer yet another interpretation as to the significance of this Minhag in accordance with the general approach of the compound understanding above. There is, after all, an additional critical difference between the Luchot Rishonot and Luchot Shniyot – namely, the added notion of the importance of personal initiative. This concept is eloquently expressed in the words of the Netziv in his commentary Ha’Eimek Davar: “DeBeLuchot HaRishonot Lo Nitein Ko’ach HaChidush Ela Mah SheKibeil Moshe Diyukei HaMikra’ot VeHalachot HaYotzei MiZeh, Aval Lo Lechadeish Dvar Halachah Al Yedei Yud Gimmel Midot UKeDomeh Havayut HaTalmud, VeLo Hayah Torah SheBa’al Ela Devarim HeMekubalim MiPi Moshe, UMah SheLo Hayah Mekubal Hayu Medamim Milta LeMilta, Aval BeLuchot HaShniyot Nitein Ko’ach LeKol Talmid Vatik Lechadeish Halachah Al Pi HaMidot VeHaTalmud… DeBaZeh HaPrat Hayah Luchot Shniyot Mechubadim Min HaRishonot, De’Af Al Gav SheKedushat HaRishonim Haytah Na’aleh Meihem, UMemeilah Ilu Lo Nishberu Hayu No’ach Lehagi’a LeHora’ah Al Yedei Sevarah VeDamui Milta LeMilta Yoteir MiKa’Asher Nishberu, Aval Ka’Asher Nitkalkeleinu VeHinenu Nitzrachim Lehyot Yaga’im ULeshanein Charavah Shel Torah, Lazeh Mesugal Yoteir Luchot Acharonot,” “For the power of innovation was not given with the first Tablets—rather, only that which Moshe received, viz. the inferences of the Scriptures and the laws which come out of this, but not [license] to innovate any matter of law via the thirteen principles of interpretation and similar instruments of exegesis; and there was no Oral Law at all, rather only teachings received from Moses, and concerning that which was not explicitly received they could merely make simple comparative inference. But with the Second Tablets, the power was given over to every student of old for legal innovation through the principles of interpretation and exegesis... For in this particular were the Second Tablets more respected than the First Tablets: for even though the holiness of the First Tablets was superior to them—and by default, had they not been broken, it would be easier to reach practical conclusions of teaching through logic and comparison more so than after they were broken—but once we sinned [with the Golden Calf] and were required to toil in order to sharpen the sword of Torah, for this were the Second Tablets destined” (Ha’Eimek Davar, Shemot 34:1 s.v. ‘VeKaTavti’).

This beautiful idea can be expanded and linked to the symbolism of the Minhag of breaking a glass at a wedding. When forming a new marriage, we are full of joy and hope that the Chatan and Kalah will build a Bayit Ne’eman BeYisrael together: a home full of Torah, Chesed, love, and Kedushah. Precisely then, at the conclusion of the marriage ceremony, it is incumbent upon us all to recall and commemorate the fact that life is complex and full of challenges, and that in order to be successful, the bride and groom will have to toil together in an effort of cooperation. Similarly, only with genuine effort and cooperation can the community of Am Yisrael succeed in building a world full of Gemilut Chasadim, Torah, and recognition of the Divine, and ultimately in bringing about Ge’ulah Shleimah.