Halakhah su Gioele 2:78

And now I will begin mentioning each and every commandment, and I will explain their designation - as we set our goal at the beginning of our essay - for this is the intention of the book. Behold that I find it proper to add an addition to this intention: And that is that when I mention the commandment for which one receives a punishment - whether it be a positive or a negative commandment - I will mention its punishment. And I will say, "One who transgresses it will be liable for death, or excision, or a certain sacrifice, or lashes, or one of the death penalties of the court or payments." And you should know that that about which we do not mention any punishment: If it is a negative commandment, it is like that which they said, "It is like he is transgressing the commandment of the King," such that it is not for us to punish him. However with all positive commandments - whenever one is obligated to do one of them, we should give lashes to the one who refrains from doing it until he dies or does it. But if the time [for it] has passed, we refrain from this. Like, for instance, with one who transgressed and did not dwell in a sukkah - we do not give him lashes after Sukkot for his transgression. And know this. And also when I mention commandments for which women are not obligated - both positive and negative commandments - I will say this: "And women are not obligated in it." However it is well known that women do not judge, or testify, or bring sacrifices on their own or fight optional wars. So for all commandments that are contingent upon the court, or witnesses, or the Temple service or optional wars, I do not need to say, "And women are not obligated in this." For this [would be] extraneous speech and there is no need for it. Moreover, when I mention commandments that are only practiced in the Land of Israel or in the presence of the Temple - be they positive or negative commandments - I will say, "These are only obligated in the Land of Israel or in the presence of the Temple." However, it is also well known that all of the sacrifices are only done in the Temple and that the Temple service is only permitted in [its] courtyard; and likewise that capital punishments are only judged when the Temple is standing. And the language of the Mekhilta is, "From where [do we know] that we only sentence to death in the presence of the Temple? [Hence] we learn to say, 'from My altar you will take him to die' (Exodus 21:14) - behold, if you have the Temple you put him to death, if you don't have the Temple you do not put him to death." And there it also says, "From where do we know that the Sanhedrin needs to be close to the altar? As it is stated, 'from My altar.'" And it is also known that both prophecy and monarchy have departed from us until we refrain from our constant transgressions. And then He will atone for us and be merciful to us - as He set out - and bring them back, as it is stated (Joel 2:28), "And it will be after that, I will pour My spirit on all flesh, your sons and your daughters will prophesy." And regarding the return of the monarchy, He said, "On that day I will restore the fallen sukkah of David, and I will repair its breaches, etc., I will build it as in the days of old" (Amos 9:11). And it is well known that war and conquering of the cities cannot be without a king and without the counsel of the Great Sanhedrin and without a high priest, as it is stated (Numbers 27:21), "And he shall present himself in front of Elazar the Priest." And hence all of these are well-known to most people - all the positive or negative commandments that are contingent upon sacrifices, Temple rituals, capital punishments, the Sanhedrin, a prophet, a king or optional wars - so that I will not need to say about it, "This is only obligated in the presence of the Temple," since it is [already] clear, as we explained. But, with God's help, I will draw attention to that about which it is possible to have a doubt and about which some would err. And now I will begin the mentioning of each and every commandment of the Omnipresent.

Know that the Chaldeans do not have a second Adar, because their months are not lunar months.¹⁰⁸ See Evans (p. 187) where he describes the Babylonian calendar as also a lunisolar calendar with a second Adar. Also see Otto Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, p. 102. Instead they divide the solar year into twelve parts. The meaning of the verse “In the first month, the month of Nisan” (Esther 3:7), is that in that specific year it was so, for in an intercalated year the first month would have been Iyar. Therefore, it is not correct to translate “in the first” (Joel 2:23) as “ in Nisan.” ¹⁰⁹ This is how the term is rendered in the Aramaic translation of Jonathan ben Uziel. This was done so that people at that time would understand.

The Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, wrote (Chapter 2 of Tractate Sukkah, paragraph 8):
It must be examined (exactly) what constitutes the “ḥupah”; is it a place where one recites the marriage benedictions, meaning (only that it is) the first stage of marriage and hence called the “ḥupah”? It is impossible to say this, for somethimes they recite the benedictions in the city street while the people are crowding about. Rather, the main dwelling place of the groom and bride is what is called “ḥupah”. It is not a place used (lit. made) by mere chance. And there (the fomer place) they recite the benedictions for seven days.
The custom in Ashkenaz (Germany) is to make a litter and place the groom and bride (on it), and this is called the “ḥupah”.
This is in accordance with an ancient view (custom) and it has Biblical support: “A groom will go out of his chamber, and a bride from her canopy (‘ḥupah’)” (Joel 2:16).
Behold, there is an established (fixed) place that, for this time (the marriage ceremony), is called a “ḥupah”, as it is written: “He is like a groom going out from his canopy (‘ḥupah’)” (Psalms 19:6), meaning (he goes out) from the tent wherein is the “ḥupah”, as it is written in the previous verse: “He placed in them a tent for the sun”³⁴It is possible that the author is basing his proof-text on a now reading of verse 5; changing the vocalization of two words leads to the translation: “to serve there as a tent for them.” (Psalms 19:5).

In my humble opinion, the Halakhic authorities do not differ at all, for behold, it is true that the word “ḥupah” is not written in the Torah, only the word (for) marriage, as it is written: “(In the case of) one who betrothes a woman but has not (yet) taken her…”
[illegible] marriage, since, according to Torah law proper, when he has intercourse with her for the sake of marriage, she is (considered) his wife completely and she is (considered) married. So wrote the Rambam.
However, it is not the way for Israelites to have this intercourse in public, and therefore, we would require witnesses to the “yiḥud” for intercourse. And even if it was possible that there was no need for witnesses to this (“yiḥud”), as it is written in paragraph 5, in every instance the matter would be in public (in reality) - for behold, (we) must bless them with the seven benedictions immediately before the marriage (ceremony). Therefore, our rabbis, may their memories be for a blessing, established that the “ḥupah” will be (can be) in place of the “nisuin” (i.e. the two terms can be used synonymously). It has always been this way; even in the time of the prophets, as it is written: “like a groom going out from his ‘ḥupah’ ” (Psalm 19:6), and, it says: “and a bride from her ‘ḥupah’ ” (Joel 2:16). (Cf. VIII) Obviously (then), thus did Moses our Rabbi instruct (lead) Israel.