Rav Moshe Feinstein’s Strict Approach
Those who received an invitation from Rav Moshe Feinstein to his children’s weddings may have noticed that he did not mention any pesukim, such as “Kol Sasson V’kol Simchah,” on the invitation, as he records in Teshuvot Igrot Moshe (Y.D. 2:135). The basis of this ruling is the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 18b), which records the following passage from Megillat Taanit (the list of celebrations of the Bayit Sheini, Second Temple, period):
On the third of Tishrei, [there is reason to celebrate] since the rabbis succeeded in convincing everyone to refrain from mentioning Hashem’s name in secular documents. The Greek government had decreed that Jews were forbidden to mention Hashem’s name, and when the Chashmonaim defeated them, they decreed to mention Hashem’s name even in secular documents. This is how they dated documents: ‘In such and such year to Yochanan Kohen Gadol to Keil Elyon.’ When the rabbis heard of this practice, they argued, ‘The next day (in the case of a loan), [the borrower] will pay his obligation, and the document [in which Hashem’s name appears] will be thrown into the garbage (since the lender no longer requires it as proof that the loan took place)!’
Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. B’telata L’tishrei) comments that the rabbis declared the day a holiday because they thought it a miracle that the people heeded their ruling, despite the fact that it overturned accepted practice, which we may add was intended to honor Hashem.
Rav Moshe similarly is concerned that wedding invitations will eventually be discarded and that the pesukim cited will be degraded. Rav Feinstein comments that this is not merely a personal stringency, but “it is also proper for everyone to practice.” Rav Hershel Schachter fully subscribes to Rav Moshe’s view. Similarly, I received an invitation to a wedding of one of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein’s sons, and it did not contain any pesukim. We should note that the Rambam (Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 6:8) clarifies that we are forbidden from disgracing not only pesukim that contain Hashem’s name but all Pesukim and even “their commentaries and explanations.”157For this reason, Rav Feinstein emphasizes (in his aforementioned responsum) that even pesukim and brachot without Hashem's name should not be printed on materials that will likely be thrown into the garbage.
Suggestions to Defend the Common Practice to be Lenient
Despite these rulings, many observant Jews do include pesukim on wedding invitations. One could suggest that we rely on the fact that these pesukim do not have the status of kitvei kodesh (holy books), since they were merely printed, not handwritten. This is not a compelling defense, as Teshuvot Maharsham (3:357) writes that even though, technically speaking, printed books might not considered to be endowed with kedushah, it nonetheless is degrading to kitvei kodesh to carry printed pesukim into the bathroom (or, by extension, to place them into the garbage).
I suggested to Rav Hershel Schachter that perhaps one may defend this practice based on the ruling of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor (Teshuvot Ein Yitzchak O.C. 5:11) and the Netziv (Teshuvot Meishiv Davar 2:80) permitting the disposal of printing galleys, since they were not printed with the intention of endowing them with kedushah as they were meant to be a one-use document. Rav Schachter told me that this is not compelling but did not explain his reasoning. He might question Rav Spektor’s leniency, as does Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 3:1:10). Alternatively, Rav Schachter might note that galleys are clearly not intended to be preserved for the long term. Indeed, the Netziv writes, “They were created with the intention of destroying them.” Wedding invitations, however, are not necessarily meant to be discarded, as some will retain the invitation as a memento. Thus, they may have kedushah even if galleys do not.
Rav Dov Brisman’s Defense of the General Practice to be Lenient
Rav Dov Brisman (a prominent Rav and Dayan in Philadelphia) presents quite a compelling defense of this practice in Teshuvot Shalmei Chovah (Y.D. 63). Rav Brisman notes other areas in which we seem not to treat pesukim as Chazal would prefer. The issue he focuses on is the common practice to recite fragments of pesukim, such as “Vayehi erev vayehi voker yom hashishi” (Bereishit 1:31) at the start of Friday night kiddush and “Al kein beirach Hashem et yom hashabbat vayekashsheihu” (Shemot 20:10) at the start of Shabbat morning kiddush, despite the Gemara's apparent injunction against splitting a pasuk which Moshe Rabbeinu did not split in the Torah (Taanit 27b). While many, such as Mishnah Berurah (289:2) and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (Nefesh HaRav p.159), adopt a strict practice not to recite fragments of pesukim, common practice is to be lenient, as noted by the Mishnah Berurah.
Teshuvot Maharam Schick (O.C. 1:10) defends the common practice by arguing that the intention of the recitation in these circumstances (kiddush on Friday night and Shabbat morning) is to not to quote pesukim but rather:
To simply inform and publicize that Hashem blessed the Holy Shabbat and that its holiness is permanent and unbreakable. It is like a pronouncement to motivate the one reciting Kiddush and those who are listening to observe the holiness of Shabbat, which is very holy.
The basis for the Maharam Schick’s approach is the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling (Y.D. 284:2) regarding the obligation to score the paper on which pesukim are written (sirtut). The Shulchan Aruch, following Tosafot (Gittin 6b s.v. Amar Rav Yitzchak, citing Rabbeinu Tam and Rabeinu Eliyahu), does not require sirtut if the pesukim are quoted simply for tzachut (elegant writing). In such a case, one is not quoting pesukim per se; rather, he is expressing a point using words that appear in the Torah.
Rav Shlomo Kluger (Haelef Lecha Shlomo O.C. 43) similarly defends the practice to cite fragments of pesukim in our Tefillah and piyyutim (liturgical poetry such as Selichot and Kinnot). He limits the requirement to cite a complete pasuk to those situations in which “it appears that one intends to present a Pasuk of the Tanach. In such a case, one is forbidden to deviate from its arrangement.” He marshals a proof to this assertion from the fact that Chazal routinely quote fragments of pesukim throughout the Gemara as proofs for their assertions.
Rav Brisman’s Analysis of the Maharam Schick’s Ruling
Rav Brisman notes that we have a precedent for both writing and pronouncing pasuk fragments. He queries, though, as to the nature of this permission. One possibility is that these pasuk fragments are still defined as pesukim and retain their holiness, but it is nonetheless permitted to write and pronounce these pasuk fragments in certain circumstances. Alternatively, it is sometimes permitted to write and pronounce pasuk fragments because, in those circumstances, the pasuk fragments are not defined as pesukim at all. The difference between the two possibilities is that if the second approach is correct, then it is not forbidden to discard such pasuk fragments, since they do not have the status of pesukim.
Rav Brisman supports the second approach by citing the Rashba (Gittin 6b s.v. VeAmar Rav Yitzchak) who explains Rabbeinu Tam’s aforementioned ruling as follows: “This (writing a pasuk for the sake of elegance) is not considered to be writing a pasuk; rather, it is ordinary writing using the language of the Bible.” Rav Brisman also notes that Rabbeinu Eliyahu (cited in Tosafot Sotah 17b s.v. Katva) also appears to support the second approach, as he writes, “There is no concern for our writing pesukim in our letters without Sirtut, since our intention is not to write a pasuk; rather, it is to write ordinary speech to send regards in the Hebrew language or to write in an elegant manner.”
Rav Brisman’s Defense of the Common Practice
Accordingly, pasuk fragments are permitted in certain circumstances in which they do not have the halachic status of a pasuk. Based on this, Rav Brisman writes:
In light of the above, there is room to defend the common practice to cite pesukim on wedding invitations. The reason is that only portions of the pesukim are written and it is considered to be ordinary writing using the language of the Bible…The pasuk fragment is cited in the invitation only to announce the event in an elegant manner similar to reciting ‘Al kein beirach Hashem et yom hashabbbat vayekadsheihu’ during Shabbat morning Kiddush.
Rav Brisman wrote this responsum as a very young man in 1979 and sought approval from a distinguished older rabbi, Rav Meir Blumenfeld, a noted halachic authority who served as a Rav in Newark, New Jersey, during the mid-twentieth century. Rav Blumenfeld endorsed Rav Brisman’s approach, as it appears in the second volume of his work Zichron Meir.
Conclusion
The Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 345:18), in an entirely different context (defending the use of community-wide eiruvin), writes, “There is a Mitzvah and obligation to defend the practices of the Jewish People.” Rav Brisman has succeeded in doing so in regard to the common practice to cite pesukim in wedding invitations. Indeed, even Rav Moshe Feinstein did not outright forbid this practice, as he merely wrote that it is “proper” to refrain from citing pesukim on wedding invitations. Indeed, I have counseled many couples not to cause a fight over this with parents or in-laws, as one may certainly rely on Rav Brisman’s lenient approach in order to preserve sh’lom bayit (familial harmony). Nonetheless, whenever possible, one should avoid citing pesukim on a wedding invitation in accordance with the views of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Hershel Schachter. In addition, when one receives an invitation that includes pesukim, it is preferable to not discard it; rather, one should include it with the holy items that he will bury in a respectful manner (sheimot).