2

This question already has an answer here:

Hypothetical situation: A Sheva Brachos meal is set up for the new couple. However, only the Kallah is there (for example, the Chosson is sick and the meal is right next door, so the Kallah can pop in without leaving the Chosson too far behind). There are 10 adult males there. Would there be some variation of a Sheva Brachos said during Bentching?

marked as duplicate by Shmuel Brin, DonielF, mevaqesh, Danny Schoemann, Isaac Moses Mar 23 '17 at 14:01

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • There are a few more details and sources I plan on editing in later, but I'm keeping this bare-bones for the time being since I'm typing this on my phone in the middle of abovementioned hypothetical situation :P – Salmononius2 Feb 12 '17 at 17:33
  • 2
    Remember that we can offer general information but not a personal pesaq for the case at hand. Enjoy the situation. – mevaqesh Feb 12 '17 at 18:15
  • @mevaqesh Of course. I intended to add that I would of course not rely on this for actual Pesak, but for informational purposes only. Besides, this was all (hypothetically) moot, as the Kallah didn't show up either ;) We were discussing what we would do if she did show, and had our LOR ready on speed dial just in case. – Salmononius2 Feb 12 '17 at 18:43
  • related judaism.stackexchange.com/q/75816/759 – Double AA Mar 1 '17 at 18:25
3

The Yam Shel Shelomo (Kesuvos 1:20) writes that the brachos are primarily directed towards the chosson, and so if the bride is not present then they may still make all seven brachos, as long as the groom is there. The China v'Chisda on Kesubos (vol. 1, p. 113b) agrees, though he quotes the Ritva as holding that both the bride and groom must be present. He also quotes (later, vol. 3 p. 272b) from others that even if the groom was not present for some reason, but the meal was still prepared in honor of the couple, some say that Sheva Brachos can be made, and apparently that was the custom in Salonica.

Rav Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer 6:9:1-2 brings many sources (כדרכו) as to what to do in such a case, and concludes that the Shulchan Aruch appears to hold like the aforementioned Ritva. Therefore, both the bride and groom must at least participate in the meal, and although strictly speaking the bride can be in a different room, it is best for her to be brought in for the brachos (see also Yalkut Yosef Sova Semachos 1, 16:3, 16:8)

Apparently such a case occurred in 19th Century Nikolsburg, where the groom left for a business trip into his Sheva Brachos week. This case is discussed in both Teshuvas Mahari Asad (no. 12) and Maharam Shik (no. 90), who both believe that Sheva Brachos should not be made in such a case.

0

Yes the Chatan is required.

Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 62, 7:

במה דברים אמורים, כשהיו האוכלים הם שעמדו בברכת הנשואין ושמעו הברכות, אבל אם היו האוכלים אחרים, ולא שמעו ברכת נשואין בשעת נשואין, מברכין בשבילם אחר ברכת המזון שבע ברכות, כדרך שמברכין בשעת נשואין, והוא שיהיו עשרה, וחתן מן המנין.‏

The Choson needs to be present as one of the conditions that generate a duty of 7 bearchot after Birkat Hamazon.

May (may be only) be that this is an explanation for an apparent redundancy in SA, in Sayf 4 he said that the chatan is counted as one of the ten needed men, and here apparently he repeated this. But in the Birkat Hamazon the presence of the chatan is not obvious. (see Chelkat Mechokek)

But the more probable answer is that there has no sense to make the Berachot without the chatan, because there is no Simcha. The Gemara Ketubot 8b compare chatanim and mourners. I takes this as obvious that the chatan is required and has only an hava amina to require ten men in addition to the chatan (at least 11 counting the chatan as 11 counting the avel). E. g. for the mourning blessing and the shura. The mourners are not counted and are obviously required.

כי תניא ההיא בברכת המזון כי קאמר רבי יוחנן בשורה ואלא הא דאמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן מברכים ברכת חתנים בעשרה וחתנים מן המנין וברכת אבלים בעשרה ואין אבלים מן המנין

However, when Rabbi Yoḥanan says that mourners are not included in the tally, it is with regard to the quorum of ten men required to form a line to comfort the mourners following the burial. And the Gemara raises an objection: However, that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites the blessing of the grooms in a quorum of ten, and the grooms are included in the tally, and one recites the blessing of the mourners in a quorum of ten, and the mourners are not included in the tally.

The two possibilities are 10 + chatan or 10 including chatan. the lack of chatan is even not an hava amina.

  • 3
    I'm not entirely sure we can make that deduction from that quote. The way I understood it, the "Chosson Min Haminyan" part is only talking about how we could reach the total of 10 men. Based on how you're reading it, you should be able to infer that you don't need the Kallah there (which, as an aside, I don't think you do, but it isn't learnt from there). – Salmononius2 Feb 12 '17 at 17:55
  • see note @Salmonius – kouty Feb 12 '17 at 18:02
  • The gemara specifically CONTRASTS the mourning process with that of the simchat nesuin, so paralleling them may not be appropriate. We find that the presence of a chatan precludes saying tachanun, but there is no correlating status for the kallah AFAIK because she, by definition, isn't part of the minyan! Conversely, by a meal she WOULD be included as a member (since she herself would still have an obligation to respond to the zimun), so why WOULDN'T the obligation due to HER simcha hold? – Isaac Kotlicky Feb 13 '17 at 14:24
  • @IsaacKotlicky Very good dyuk, but the Simcha is to be together, there is no Simcha for a kalla without chatan and vice versa – kouty Feb 13 '17 at 14:36
  • 1
    @kouty Then why do we omit tachanun when ONLY the chosson is attending the minyan? We do not say, for instance, that someone who only dances for one of the two fails to fulfil their obligation because the other isn't present. The simcha exists by the meal because there is an obligation to be misameach chatan v'kallah, which still holds if only one of the two is present. – Isaac Kotlicky Feb 14 '17 at 17:51

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .