Sunday, August 09, 2009

Separate Seating at Weddings

So over Shabbat I read Volume 2 of The Modest Way. It is entitled Woman & The Mitzvot and is written by Rabbi Getsel Ellinson. Dana leant it to me. The best part about it is that it actually has the sources (so you see where everything comes from.) That's great!

Some of it was fascinating, while other parts simply disturbed me. For instance, do any of you really not hug and kiss your brothers and sisters? I can't imagine coming home to Chicago and not being able to hug Taran and Urchin.

One of the parts I found most interesting had to do with separate seating at a wedding (or as he titles it, 'Controversy Over Separate Seating at Seudat Mitzva.') Here are the sources (with the understanding that there are footnotes I'm not typing up, so you should take out the book if you want to learn more.) This covers pages 21-24.

Sefer Hassidim 393:

Whoever recites she-ha-Simhah be-Meono must discern whether those present fulfilled "Rejoice with trembling" (Psalms 2:11). If either the bride or groom is disreputable, if such vulgarity reigns that the bride and groom speak obscene language, or if the women invite lewd thought by sitting among the men, the blessing cannot be recited.

Any mitzvah performed at the cost of a sin is best omitted. Here, if he knows that gladdening the bride and groom will necessarily be accompanied by lewdness, or that he, himself, will be unable to avoid unseemly thought or the sight of women, he should not attend.

Bayyit Haddash (Bah) on Tur Even ha-Ezer 62:

In Cracow, as the dinner held the evening following a wedding, Asher Bara is customarily recited, but not she-ha-Simhah be-Meono, and I can only venture the following explanation: These are small affairs with males and females seated in the same room, and the Sefer ha-Minhagim writes that she-ha-Simhah be-Meono is omitted wherever there is any risk of lewd thought.

Kitzur Shulhan Arukh 149:1:

Men and women must not eat in one room. If they do so, she-ha-Simhah be-Meono must be omitted, for there is no joy when the Evil Impulse holds sway.

Levush ha-Hur, Likutei Minhagim 36:

We are not particular about this now, perhaps because the presence of women among men is so common that it no longer so invites unseemly thought. Having become habituated to it, it no longer affects them.

Igrot Moshe, Orah Hayyim 41:

At optional gatherings, including weddings, I am uncertain whether the prohibition applies where there is no fear of yihud, but I tend to think not. Men and women used to consume the Pesah offering in the same home. Each offering was consumed by several families together- all groups held more than ten men (Tractate Pesahim). If a partition had divided men from women they would have constituted two groups. The Mishnah also teaches that groups cannot be formed of just women and slaves, and Rava explains, "lest it lead to sin." Hence we derive that for women to form a group with Jewish men is permissible.

~

So I thought that was very interesting. It seems odd to me that people are basically relying upon Sefer Hassidim (which has lots of stuff we don't do anymore/ is generally not seen as straight-up halakha l'maasa) for this. After all, people are not really following the Kitzur Shulhan Arukh (the men and women generally eat in the same room, just with a partition between- or does the partition somehow make it two rooms?) The Levush says we're not particular about this and R' Moshe says it's permissible (the point about the Pesach offering was stunning; I loved that) so hurrah for mixed weddings. *smile*

51 comments:

Gavi said...

I must quote the (in)famous lecture by Rav Rakeffet given at Gruss a number of years ago. It can be found on the Internet, or I can send a PDF transcription.

Chana said...

What's the title of the lecture?

The Talmid said...

Are Getsel Ellinson's books available for purchase somewhere? I came across "kiddushin shelo kedas Moshe veYisrael" and it seems there's a volume 2 out there somewhere, but they don't seem to be for sale even on the internet, unless some obscure place has them.

Anonymous said...

Here is a transcript of Rabbi Rakeffet's lecture

Chana said...

Talmid,

The three in this series appear to be on Feldheim so I don't know why you seem not to be able to find them...Alternatively, just come to Gottesman; YU has them all.

Anonymous,
That lecture by Rabbi Rakeffet is brilliant! I've heard the same from other Rabbanim I respect- one of the only times they get to spend time with their wives is at other people's weddings. ;)

The Talmid said...

The available books of R. Getsel Ellinson are the ones that relate to women and mitzvot. Nisuin shelo kedas Moshe Veyisrael (I love that title!!!!!) is not available.

Anonymous said...

tehre r other rishonim besides for sefer chassidim that say nom avi haezri and others-all halachic works, the fact that the levush had to come up with a defense proves that this was taken as halacha- r moshe is something else re a chiyuv mechitza, which is learned out from a pasuk in the gem in succah, and not directly related to these rishonim at all-r moshe says a mechitza must be a certain height, even the sefer chasidim and the others would agree one does not need a legal mechitza rather they cannot be together which would not work in a shul non mechitza and mixed r 2 dif things

Anonymous said...

as the rmbm says, on ymtv when there is a spirit of gaiety beis din must make sure women and men dont party together-
כא] חייבין בית דין להעמיד שוטרים ברגלים, שיהיו מסבבין ומחפשין בגינות ובפרדסים ועל הנהרות, כדי שלא יתקבצו לאכול ולשתות שם אנשים ונשים, ויבואו לידי עבירה. וכן יזהירו על דבר זה לכל העם, כדי שלא יתערבו אנשים ונשים בבתים לשמחה, ולא יימשכו ביין, שמא יבואו לידי עבירה.

Anonymous said...

and ya teh point bout korban pesach is "vintage" r moshe, whose unique brilliance lies (to me at least) in taking brillinat proofs out of gemaras that everyone knows..one can learn the same gemara a million times and never see it

Anonymous said...

the levush is what there is to rely on

Anonymous said...

there is another school of thought-that the levush is defending being able to *see* the other gender ad he says explicitly.......as far ad sitting together-thats where that rmbm comes in- seperate seating...but yes mechitza would only be to satisfy sefer chasidim which many ppl (ibncluding the chassidic master the bnei yissaschar) say we are not careful about

Chana said...

Anon,

Just a second while I process all of that. I just got back from Brooklyn and the 1 train had issues because the signal was down in Dyckman so now I need to return to thinking- so hold one moment. ;)

Chana said...

Anon,

Who is Nom? (You cited him in your list of Nom, Avi HaEzri and others.)

"The fact that the Levush had to come up with a defense proves that this was taken as halacha." - Really? If it were straight-up halakha, doesn't that mean it couldn't change with the times- wouldn't it simply have been minhag of some sort, a custom, which had been discontinued due to habituation (as the Levush states)?

Your next point is really interesting; you've made a distinction between having a mechitza and not sitting together. So theoretically if all the men sit on one side of the room and all the women sit on the other side (assuming there is no dancing/ nothing provocative), that's what the others were discussing? (So the mechitzah has nothing to do with anything? I assumed a mechitzah because all my friends' separate-seating weddings have them.)

Re: the Rambam- can one really compare the spirit of gaiety by the Regalim/ Simchat beit HaShoeva to that at a wedding? Also, he seems to be saying you have to appoint policemen/ guards to make sure no one gets up to anything unsuitable, but he doesn't say anything about the fact that these people actually have to be separated (or is that assumed/ implied...)

Okay, and your last point is: There is a point of view that the Levush says it's okay for the men and women to *see* one another because they are habituated to this, hence there is no need for a mechitzah. However Rambam brings up this idea of appointing guards/ policement, watchmen, from here we see separate seating is necessary. But the need for a mechitzah is only to satisfy Sefer Chassidim.

So yeah, back to Rambam- he says there should be guards; can you learn out from that there must be separate seating? There should just be chaperones/ people who make sure nothing gets too crazy.

So at most weddings, theoretically those who think the Rambam is to be interpreted as suggesting separate seating (and/or this Avi HaEzri you cited) people could eat on separate sides of a room but the mechitzah is only really necessary for dancing. Interesting. I still don't think you have to interpret Rambam that way necessarily, and re: R' Moshe- it doesn't sound like he thought that the men and women sat at totally different sides of the room when they were eating the Pesach offering (what he says re: groups, etc and how they were only one group) but how does he understand the Rambam if it means what you say?

Chana said...

And hold on, a random thought occurred to me- do people have separate seating at Sheva Berachos due to this? Does that include the bride and groom? (And if it doesn't, how come the bride and groom get the leeway to sit together but nobody else is allowed to- it's not consistent- it's either halakha or it isn't, no?)

Anonymous said...

so all good questions
now point by point

this sefer chasidim was never "just minhag" -remember the poskim bring it as a reason (see beis shemuel-not just bach) *not* to say a beracha which one is mechuyav to make-this is not a chumra but a kula-on not saying an otherwise obligatory beracha

re avi ezri and other rishonim (what I meant to write) even avi ezrri not sure about-i was/am writing from memory

the rmbm (also brought in sa last halach in hilchos yom tov says to make sure they don't mix in the houses as well ..saying that is the job of the "police"

the levush specifically says "we make the beracha even though we *see* each other" r moshe as well writes that from korban pesach we see they ate in one *house* (again-iirc-ill verify when I get to some seforim)
the rmbm is not speaking about simchas beish hashoeva rather a reg ymtv meal and even afternoon-if one does not wish that their wedding have the same amount of gaiety as a ymtv afternoon meal...well that is their perogative

next comment I will continue regarding ur (astute) point re sheva brachos

Anonymous said...

so all good questions
now point by point

this sefer chasidim was never "just minhag" -remember the poskim bring it as a reason (see beis shemuel-not just bach) *not* to say a beracha which one is mechuyav to make-this is not a chumra but a kula-on not saying an otherwise obligatory beracha

re avi ezri and other rishonim (what I meant to write) even avi ezrri not sure about-i was/am writing from memory

the rmbm (also brought in sa last halach in hilchos yom tov says to make sure they don't mix in the houses as well ..saying that is the job of the "police"

the levush specifically says "we make the beracha even though we *see* each other" r moshe as well writes that from korban pesach we see they ate in one *house* (again-iirc-ill verify when I get to some seforim)
the rmbm is not speaking about simchas beish hashoeva rather a reg ymtv meal and even afternoon-if one does not wish that their wedding have the same amount of gaiety as a ymtv afternoon meal...well that is their perogative

next comment I will continue regarding ur (astute) point re sheva brachos

Chana said...

"if one does not wish that their wedding have the same amount of gaiety as a ymtv afternoon meal...well that is their perogative"

Just wanted to say that made me die laughing. Thanks for that, really, thanks.

Anonymous said...

re r moshe-all he says is that we see that there was no mechitzs bet them as they saw each other which he proves
so
a.-all that proves is that they saw each other
b.he is speaking eegarding the din of needing a mechitza which r moshe happens to famously hold is for seperation -not to block visual contact but at the same time he might agree that for tznius concerns men and woman shoukd not party together-for example if there is a need for mechitza based on a derasha of chazal as in a shul then even if every congregant was an invalid who couldn't move from their spot and gd frbd...we would still need a mechitza but if its for concerns of not mixing as in that rmbm (the gra learns that rmbm woud require a mechitza as in a shul which would def mean that one needs a real mechitza by every party but the kesef mishna doesn't seem to learn that way) or even simpler-on shul one needs a mechitza even if they sit apart...not by parties ...and btw the rmbm is based on a gmra in kidyshin 81a which says clearly to keep the men and woman apart...so no two ways of reading the rmbm

Chana said...

Btw, in Bava Metziah 84a, it says that after Reish Lakish passed away, R' Yochanan lost his mind. (And this is the R' Yochanan who had his ten sons die in his lifetime, but it was when his chavrusa passed away that he couldn't bear to live.) L'havdil elef havdalos, I'm not R' Yochanan, but it makes me very happy to have my chavrusa back.

Chana said...

Okay, so let me get this right. On the question of why we have a mechitza to begin with there are various viewpoints:

1. For physical separation
2. To block visual contact (so that the people should not see one another)

I don't understand the example where theoretically every single person in the shul is an invalid and cannot move- why is there a need for a mechitza in that case? For reason 1 or 2 of the ones I mentioned above?

The Rambam re: the policement-you said:

1. The Gra learns Rambam means there should be a mechitza in that case, so that means there should be mechitzot by parties

2. Kesef Mishna doesn't learn that way (what does he learn, then?)

Now I'll go look up Kiddushin 81a.

Anonymous said...

re sheva brachos kallah and seperate seatingw/o a mechitza

so yes seemingly many would hold there is no need for a mechitza except by dancing-just seperate seating as there is by many sheva brachos' as rhe main proof that e r not really makpid on sefr chasidim is that I dont know of any rav (and I know many) who would not make a shehasimcha bemono at a non religous wedding where many of them officiate and to have a totally mixed sheva brachis with not just family members ...and to make sure mechitza by wedding....i have no answer for that
re bride-next comment

Chana said...

"and to make sure mechitza by wedding....i have no answer for that" - I don't know what this means.

Wait, so there are really sheva berachos where people's own families sit totally separated? The father and sons at one table and the mother and daughters at a different table? I cannot even imagine that. Wow. Guess I'll put that down on the list of things that I'll never do. Interesting nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

why would we need.? good question
that's the point even though its for a reason (either block men from seeing or mingling-hence the machlokes r moshe/satmar rav if a mechitza must be high enough to block vision)its a din deoraysa that men and women must be seperated in shul- now I think that woukd be the pesak but even if not I just said that to make a point which can be brought out from the next example about men women sitting seperately w/o a mechitza in shul which noone allows

re gra-yup it would seem so and since noone does it that's why I'm goin with other explanation

Anonymous said...

I specifically wrote non family-gamilies sit together on ymtv (cept by yerushalmis and some chassidim) and by sheva berachos

it means that ya -i think they should be makpid by sb too if there r strangers there...if they r not I have no idea why

Chana said...

Well, but I would think a shul has different rules since it is basically like a mini-Temple, no? Out of curiosity how did shuls come about (who created them after the destruction of the Mikdash?)

Also, I was wondering (on a different topic)- why exactly does Rabbeinu Gershom have the authority to make these takanos that everyone listens to? For instance, that people only have one wife nowadays? (Not that I want to change this law- I'm just curious about why that happened that way. I know it did happen but not why/ the details.) Maybe you could recommend something for me to read on that.

Anonymous said...

gra brings a ssource for rmbm kiddushin 81 and gemara in succah re mechitza.
kesef mishna brings just gemara in kiddushin so seemingly there is an argument whether mechitza applies here

Chana said...

Pardon, sometimes what you write is too cryptic for me to understand. So I'll repeat to make sure I got it right:

1. Lots of religious people have guests over for Shabbat/ Yom Tov and have mixed meals where the men and women and guests are interspersed. Why is that okay there but not at a Sheva Brachos? (Or are you saying you don't know why it's okay and people should be makpid at their Shabbat meals?)

2. Can the bride and groom sit together at Sheva Brachos/ their wedding and why yes if they can?

Anonymous said...

sorry must run now-will finish my comments later hopefully thanks for the ideas

Chana said...

enjoy running, take care- on the contrary, thank you

Chana said...

Okay, so I looked up Kiddushin 81a. I assume the part you are referring to is:

אנא נעביד לחומרא אביי דייר גולפי רבא דייר קנה

which translates literally as: Said Abaye: Now that R. Kahana ruled thus, while the Baraitha taught the reverse, let us19 act stringently. Abaye made a partition of jugs;20 Raba made
a partition of canes.

I don't understand what that means- partition of jugs or canes. Can you clarify it for me? Also, in context, it seems like they are speaking about different rooms/ chambers, not one room in which both are together, so I don't understand how we apply this to a mechitzah in one room.

Anonymous said...

running......see rashi its like alarms and not 2 rooms...again see rashi

Chana said...

alarms? don't have the rashi accessible to me (sadness of living in an apartment and not a dorm with a beit midrash right there although I suppose I could get up and go over to Gottesman...actually hold five seconds, i'm an idiot, e-daf has rashi- i'll go check now)

so you're a running machine now, eh? ;)

Chana said...

Okay, what does Beis Ha'Chitzon mean in this context? (Maybe I'm insane, but I somehow thought that term usually had something to do with niddah...like I said, I'm probably just misremembering.)

Also, I totally don't understand this- it translates in my mind to something like: And the women are within. We don't suspect them (the women) of yichud, because the ones who are outside (men) have no path inside and how could the last man be in yichud with the women? But the ones who are within, they have a way outside. Therefore if the men are inside, we suspect them that one of them will go out and be in yichud with one of the women.

It still seems to me like there are two places- inside and outside. When the party of women are inside, we assume that the men (who are the active ones in both these scenarios- no one seems to surmise the women would go out- which is odd, considering that "Leah went out" and "Dinah went out"- so why wouldn't the women go out? But anyway...) wouldn't have a way inside. But if the men are inside, then they could potentially go outside to the women.

Am I totally not getting it? (And BTW, why *are* the women seen as totally passive?)

The Talmid said...

different beis hachitzon than hilchos niddah. this means an outer room and an inner room. the sugya there discusses that it's not enough for men & women to be in diff rooms, but one group must be in the inner room and tho other ( I think it;s the men but I didn't check it up) must be in the outer room)

(i'm not anon)

The Talmid said...

btw the strick types from bnei brak hold even cousins need a mechitza, only a nuclear family can sit together without mechitza.

Anonymous said...

ok sorry for delay-notmuch time on my hands

see kaf hachaim at the end of siman 529 where he says specifically that the rmbm applies to weddings and shabbos mea so ya great question)

but but....there is a raavad in shut tamim deim where he says that the gemars is specifically talking about ymtv because the "spirit of gaiety is in the air as well as the feeling of renewal" (sort of?) so according to him the rmbm has no place by weddings and that would not be a source at all for seperate seating

Chana said...

No problem re: not much time- I *know* you have *plenty* to do. And thank you for having any time at all for me. I would totally understand if you didn't.

Interesting, so in that case what would be the source?

And for those who think the Rambam *does* apply by Shabbos in addition to weddings- do they have separate seating by Shabbos tables?

Also: Can you answer re bride & groom sitting together and also what beit ha'chitzon means and also the jugs/ canes stuff that I don't understand?

Anonymous said...

ok gem starts off saying that men outside and women inside we dont worry bout yichud as the halacha is that one women 2 men is not yichud but i man 2 women is-so since the pl on the outside are not going inside on their way but the only prob would be women on the inside going outside which is not a problem at all since there is more than 1 man there
then the gem says that we learned the opposite that when the men are on the outside we worry maybe one of them will go inside unnoticed and theres a problem of yichud but if the men are on teh inside we dont worry about them going outside bythe women bec since the men go back and forth maybe a different man will come behind him so he is afraid to do anything improper
so teh gem then says that rava and abaya used to make diff forms of mechitza when women and men used to get together, they were seperated by either reeds or jugs as alarms that idf men or women would go to the other, they would make noise (rashi actually says like by a chups..seems he held they were seperated then as the gemara seems that they were also otherwise just sit together and no prob of yichud?) abin (or abbaye) then says that the worst times of year are ymtvm , rashi says bec men and woman see and interact with each other when they come to hear the derashos, tosfos says same thing and that is where the minhag of fasting behab comes from after ytv..bec of all the aveiros done

more to come in a moment

Chana said...

Hey, you know what that's like? That's like the Meil by the Kohanim and how it tinkles to let the angels know that he is coming in (or lets the people know that he is coming in.)

So this whole concept of 'alarms'- reeds or jugs- to make noise is kind of taken from there, in a way- the bells on the Meil. (I mean, that's what comes to my mind anyway)- how cool is that?!

And THANK YOU for explaining that; I didn't get it at all.

Chana said...

"tosfos says same thing and that is where the minhag of fasting behab comes from after ytv..bec of all the aveiros done"- hold on, wait, what minhag of fasting are you referring to? I don't know about this. There's a minhag of fasting after Yom Tov?

Chana said...

Also, then these 'mechitzas' weren't really mechitzas, now were they? They were there in order to make noise so that people would know you were coming, but this wasn't actually a full-high mechitzah that was a separate partition or something so that the men couldn't see the women (so visual) so where does our idea nowadays of a mechitza come from, exactly (since you said the source was this gemara?)

Anonymous said...

there is a minhag to fast teh monday/thursday /monday after succos/pesach many ppl also/just say selichos

re the kallah
the besi meir http://www.hershfeld.com/family/individual.php?pid=I293&ged=Hershfeld.ged&tab=0

wants to say that there cannot be a problem of sitting women there bec "why should 1 be dif then many?"

on teh other hand some claim (tiferes naftali- a recent chassidc posek) that even teh levush was only refering to teh kallah being there and since she needs her family and friends they used to come too but even she came just for bentching (just quoting not agreing) and the mahari asad (student of chsm sofer) says that the kallah should not come in before bentching

interestingly enough the great kabbalist and chasid the (b 1806 )kamarna rebbe writes that the minhag is for the chasan to sit by the women for a while as well

the simple reasoning i believe is that the same way she can be there for dancing and on teh contrary its a mitzvah to dance for her, one cannot say she cant eat there

mixed shabbos meals-i dunno and dont have a good explanation why there shouldnt be seperate seating if non family is there-a few thoughts nothing concrete so i wont say anything

Anonymous said...

;like i said i believe the main idea is seperate seating and mechitza just for dancing ive been by many very frum weddings where one can easily see the womens tables....def not as good of a mechitza as a shul..

teh sefer chasidim would be the souurce to say one should not see the women

Anonymous said...

and as many pp point out that if the women are not dressed in accord with halacha then a mechitza for not seing is def a good idea or even a must (remember the r moshe abou chasunas is the same r moshe who writes one shoul dlook down whie walking in the street as not to see pritzus)

Chana said...

Glad you qualified that by saying you weren't agreeing re: the kallah only showing up for bentching on the men's side by her own wedding!

I suppose it'd be scandalous to think the Kallah would be able to give a Dvar Torah at her own wedding? (Something I'm going to do at mine, for the record...ha.) Then you'd have the issue of women speaking in public to complicate everything else, the mechitzas and dancing and whatnot etc.

Out of curiosity- what's the story with dancing? I mean, the women are just going around and around in circles; it's not even provocative- is the assumption that any sort of dancing is provocative? Also, is it diff by Sephardim? I saw my grandmother did a dance by my uncle's wedding (and my grandmother/ grandfather were/are the creme de la creme of religious folks from Uzbekistan) where they throw money at her for the couple that is getting married- and if I'm not mistaken (I have to look this up) the men may have seen it. I have to double check that.

Anonymous said...

again quoting w/o agreeing see r hnkin who has quite a lenient view re dancing and brings many sources there r moshe has opp view dont remember the exact source... also see what the chofetz chaim writes in his biur halacha 339 and the various pesukim brought there

Chana said...

okay, I had a question re: a diff topic namely the takana of r' gershom that we only take one wife now. why did that come about?

(out of curiosity, actually, why did people take two wives in the first place? after all, adam only had one and that's how god created us to be- unless you're getting midrashic and theoretically counting lilith/ the other wife- but why would anyone have permitted two wives to begin with when god only gave adam one?)

Anonymous said...

i started this so i figured im gonna finish it...cant leave anyone hanging no matter what but not the greatest idea... and all i can say is it fine do not worry about anything u say...u r super kind for even being half nice....and thank u for portraying "ner hashem nishmas adam"

and ya i have a quick eye so re ch dr gershom-its not jsut rabeinu gershom any cherem made by a beis din (or gadol) that is acceopted becomes din why and how srong is a fascinating discusion but waaay too long in short-its a takana of teh sages which they have a right to enact (and many rishonim cal it gzeiras beis din drabenu gershom) what status it has nowasays might be more lenient or less as it was onlyfor a thousand years so it might be we were mekabel it like a vow now that its not a cherem or not see encyclopedia talmudis cherem and cherem drabeinu gershom all fascinating..one thing ill add is that r akiva yosef schlesinger the famous ultra orthodox hungarian zionist rabbi wanted to do away eith it its in his sefer "beis yosef hachadas" for the same reasoning some say in teh name of teh vilna gaon..based on the gemara that moshiach will not come till all neshamos are brought down so we need as many wives/babies as possibe (teh fact is even before the cherem most ppl had one wife i believe theres an article at some point sent to "the list" about this

re shuls the sanctity of teh shul as a mikdash miat is a derasha in teh sifri (es mikdashai tirau)... would even apply whenv teh beis hamikdash was standing more than that i dont know (im sure many ppl will tell you that the derasha was bec of churban...def not my speed)

Anonymous said...

many ppk question how r gershom could assur it if the pasuk says explicitly its muttar (and many hold if the passuk says explicitly the rabanan cannot answer it) in ki seitzei "one hated wife etc"

Anonymous said...

add the fact that r yaakov emden said that it was made based on non jewish influencs and teh discussion as whu gets fascinating but all i know is teh tip of teh iceberg see the encyclopedia there

plug said...

Fasting after Yom Tov- see here

http://shasdaf.blogspot.com/2009/06/81a-tosfos-sv-sakva-behab.html

About I saw my grandmother did a dance by my uncle's wedding
chasidim to a "mitzvah tantz" (yiddish for mitzva dance) where the kallah holds one end of a long gartel, the Rebbe holds the second end, then her father, then the chosson's father, grandfathers if they're there, then the chosson. I only saw it once (now I walk out before it starts, not for halachik reasons, just because my misnagdishe mind can't fathom its purpose)and the kallah wasn't instructed on what to do, so she didn't do much.