3d. But all the time these religious and civil acts are being performed, the young couple have likewise before their eyes and above their heads the emblem of the moral act _Hhupah_, cohabitation or living together by themselves under one roof. This is the purpose for which the canopy is raised over them; beneath which they ought, by right, to stand quite alone--though generally the minister and parents or nearest friends also find room under it. These three distinct acts--religious, civil and domestic--to constitute marriage according to the regular form _Hhupa ve kidushin_, require ten adult male witnesses. But so binding is the act of consecration, that if it were performed privately, without the knowledge of parents or assistance of minister and solely in the presence of two competent witnesses who hear the man pronounce the formula “Behold thou art consecrated unto me,” etc., and see the woman accept the ring, this proceeding, however irregular and reprehensible, constitutes a marriage perfectly valid in the eyes of the law. Larpent, writing from France, but imbued with an ordinary English prejudice, which is apt to ridicule unfamiliar things and lose sight of reasons for customs, blurts out this: “I have been to the Jew’s wedding. The ceremony consists principally of singing and drinking and blessing in Hebrew. There must be something Jewish, however, as usual, and that is concerning the ring, which, as soon as produced, is shown round to all the rabbis near and some elders, etc., and to the sponsors, to be sure it is really gold or otherwise the marriage is void; and the true old clothesman-like way in which they all spied at the ring was very amusing. Nearly the last ceremony is the bridegroom’s smashing a wine-glass in a plate on the floor, with an idea that he and his spouse are then as difficult to separate as it would be to re-unite the glass. The gentleman showed gallantry by exerting all his force and looking most fiercely as he broke the glass.”[352]