2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

Red, red wine goes to my head . . .

On today’s daf, the rabbis talk about how wine not only makes a woman lose her inhibitions, but makes her . . . ripe?

It was taught in a baraita: One cup of wine is good for a woman; two cups is a disgrace, as she will start to become drunk; after three cups, she will become lustful and verbally request sexual intercourse, which is unseemly; after four cups of wine, she will even request intercourse from a donkey in the marketplace, as at this stage she is so drunk that she is not particular about with whom she has relations. Rava said: They taught that a woman should not drink much wine only if her husband is not with her. However, if her husband is with her, we have no problem with it. If she feels an urge for intercourse her husband is available.

Ummmm, binge drinking is a real problem and it’s currently ruining the lives of countless college students as consent issues are blurred. In 2012 50% of college students had had a blackout with over 30% saying they had blacked out that month. And it’s getting worse (I just don’t have the numbers, but Malcom Gladwell reported on it if you want to dig it up)! But these rabbis seem to read the situation much like frat boys and think that a girl drinking that much is “DTF”.

But is it really the woman who has so much problem controlling her urges?

Abaye’s wife, Ḥoma, came before Rava after Abaye died, as Rava was the local judge. She said to him: Apportion sustenance for me, as I am entitled to be sustained by Abaye’s heirs. Rava apportioned sustenance for her. She subsequently said to him: Apportion wine for me as well. Rava said to her: I know that Naḥmani, i.e., Abaye, did not drink wine. Since you were not accustomed to drinking wine during your husband’s lifetime, you are not entitled to it after his death. She said to him: By the Master’s life, this is not correct. In fact, he would give me wine to drink in cups [shufrazei] as large as this. She gestured with her hands to show how large the cups were. While she was showing him the size of the cups, her arm became uncovered, and she was so beautiful that it was as though a light had shined in the courtroom.

So, this widow is requesting wine from her dead husband’s estate when her wrist becomes uncovered! Scandal.

Rava arose, went home, and requested intercourse from his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda. The daughter of Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who was just now in the courtroom? Noticing his unusual behavior, she suspected that there must have been a woman in the court. He said to her: Ḥoma, Abaye’s wife, was there. Upon hearing this, Rava’s wife went after Ḥoma and struck her with the lock of a chest [kulpei deshida] until she drove her out of the entire city of Meḥoza, saying to her: You have already killed three men, as Abaye was your third husband, and now you come to kill another one, my husband Rava? Since you showed him your beauty, he will want to marry you.

Dang girl! I love this story for its humor, but also in that the story seems to be saying that it is not women who can’t control their urges, it is men.

While my over long (sorry) post from yesterday covered today, I wouldn’t be surprised if ya’ll gave up reading after the first paragraph or two. And today has good stuff!

Today, the daf discusses a rebellious husband and wonders if a widow awaiting her yavam or a betrothed woman could really claim she had a rebellious husband. This section is dealing with a statement by Shmuel that the Talmud reads as Shmuel referring to a case where the man, not the woman, is rebellious. If he rebels against his betrothed wife, he is a rebelling husband. But not if he rebels against the woman awaiting levirate marriage.

Teach the statement instead this way: For a betrothed woman.

So, now it’s the man who is rebelling against the betrothed woman.

The Gemara asks: What is different about a widow awaiting her yavam, for whom a letter of rebellion is not written against her husband? Because we say to her: Go away; you are not commanded to procreate.

Ha! He is trying to use the argument that women aren’t commanded to procreate to say that he doesn’t have to have sex with her! While the command is on men, and therefore, they need a partner who is willing to have kids, the same may not hold for a woman. But, the Gemara challenges this answer: If this is the reasoning, then in the case of a betrothed woman, too, let us say to her: Go away; you are not commanded to every woman as no woman is commanded to procreate. Rather, the case where a letter of rebellion is issued must be referring to a woman who comes with a claim, saying: I want a staff in my hand and a hoe for burial.

Love this line. While a woman may not be required to procreate, she may very well still want to! The “staff in her hand” is a child to take care of her in her old age. The “hoe for burial” is someone who will outlive her.

By the way, the Talmud determines that the rebellious husband is a brother in law who asks the widow to perform halitzah instead of marrying him (this means, he doesn’t want to marry her) but she refuses! Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If the yavam asked her to perform ḥalitza and she refused, the court responds to him.

The Talmud upholds that a woman is not obligated to procreate, but that if she wants to then that is her right. If she wants a baby and her husband does not, then the court will force them to divorce. It gives the woman some power in a time when that was rare.

Welcome to the longest post I will ever have on this blog! Why? I wrote an entire chapter of my rabbinic thesis on today’s day. So, enjoy!

Chapter 2:  The Rebellious Wife

There are many reasons why parents cry at their children’s Bar/Bat Mitzvah.  The primary reason is that they know their child is growing up, and maybe mixed in with this is the knowledge and fear that it is only a matter of time before their child enters the dreaded rebellious phase.  In the Talmud, rebellion is not reserved for teenagers; in fact, rebellion is primarily discussed as an issue within marriage itself. 

The rebellious spouse is a man or woman who refuses to be intimate with their wife or husband. This chapter will focus on a passage from the Babylonian Talmud, Ketubbot 63a-64a, which deals with the proper course of action to take when dealing with the “rebellious wife.” This passage struggles with defining the Mishnaic term “rebellious wife,” while exhibiting many different rationales for legal change.   This material, while demonstrating the emphasis placed on physical intimacy within the marital relationship, also teaches us some rhetorical terms used to describe legal change.  Thus, it is an excellent text for teaching how laws change in Judaism and emphasizing the importance of sex within the marriage.   As we shall see later, this text may also be used as source for the legitimacy of marital counseling. 

תלמוד בבלי מסכת כתובות דף סג עמוד א

המורדת על בעלה – פוחתין לה מכתובתה שבעה דינרין בשבת, ר’ יהודה אומר: שבעה טרפעיקין. עד מתי הוא פוחת? עד כנגד כתובתה, ר’ יוסי אומר: לעולם הוא פוחת והולך, עד שאם תפול לה ירושה ממקום אחר גובה הימנה. וכן המורד על אשתו – מוסיפין על כתובתה שלשה דינרין בשבת, ר’ יהודה אומר: שלשה טרפעיקין.

MISHNAH:  The wife who rebels against her husband – take from [the worth of] her ketubah seven dinari each week.  Rabbi Yehudah said: seven tropaics.

For how long may this reduction be made?  Until it is equal to [the worth of] her ketubah. Rabbi Yose said:  Continually the reductions can be made, even until if an inheritance should fall to her from elsewhere, [her husband] will be able to collect from her. 

And similarly, for the husband who rebels against his wife – add onto her ketubah three dinari each week.  Rabbi Yehudah said:  Three tropaics.[1] 

            The Mishnah above introduces the idea that rebellious spouses must somehow be penalized for their rebellion.  The Mishnah, while arguing a bit over whether the sum should be in dinari or tropaics, clearly states that the penalty should be a financial penalty, and that the guilty party should be penalized every week that the undesirable behavior continues.   While our text goes on to focus on the rebellious wife, it does recognize that husbands too can be rebellious and subject to penalty.

The question of how long this penalty should go on is also addressed in the Mishnah.  The anonymous author suggests that, for a woman, this penalty continue until her ketubah is rendered valueless.  This would allow the husband to divorce his wife with out suffering any financial consequences.  However, Rabbi Yose takes this one step further; he says the reductions can be made even beyond the value of her ketubah so that, if the woman were to ever come into any money through an inheritance, the husband would be able to continue to collect from her.    While we cannot know the precise reasoning of Rabbi Yose, we can see that this arrangement may give the husband incentive to stay married to his wife even beyond the point that he would be able to divorce her without financial consequence.  As we will see in further analysis of this topic, the Rabbis seem to want to give these marital relationships every possible chance to succeed.  Here we see the first way the Rabbis try to insure a healthy, happy home.  They say if a man or a woman is not fulfilling the marital duties and has earned the title of being a rebellious spouse, he or she will receive a financial penalty, thus giving the rebellious partner an incentive to stop their unacceptable behavior. 

The Talmud picks up this conversation by struggling with the Mishnaic term “mored/moredet.”  The Rabbis attempt to define what it means to be a “rebellious” spouse before they turn to discuss the consequences of this rebellion.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת כתובות דף סג עמוד א

מורדת ממאי? רב הונא אמר: מתשמיש המטה, ר’ יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר: ממלאכה. תנן: וכן המורד על אשתו; בשלמא למ”ד מתשמיש – לחיי, אלא למאן דאמר ממלאכה – מי משועבד לה?

GEMARA:  “Rebellious,” from what?  Rav Huna said:  From the business of the bed [conjugal relations].  Rabbi Yose the son of Rabbi Hanina said:  From work.  We learned (from the Mishnah), “And similarly, for the husband who rebels against his wife . . .” According to him who said “From [conjugal] business”- it is logical.  But according to him who said “From work,” must he work for her?

Yes, [rebellion is possible] if he says, “I will not sustain or support [her].” 

But didn’t Rav say:  “If he says ‘I will not sustain or support [her]’ – he must divorce her and give her ketubah to her?”  – Is it not necessary to consult him?

            We see here various arguments over the meaning of “rebellious.”  In the Babylonian Talmud, Ketubbot 61a we are told that the woman is obligated in three aspects towards her husband: 1) to pour his wine; 2) to make the bed; and 3) wash his hands and feet.  Refraining from any of these three acts might place the woman in the category of a “rebellious wife.”  In our Gemara passage, Rav Huna argues that the rebellion is that she refrains from her duties towards the marital bed.  Rav Huna, like the modern day reader of Ketubbot 61a, may have noted that her required responsibilities are all acts that may lead to a conjugal union.  We also know that one of the man’s obligations to his wife is to fulfill her sexually.  The Stamma states that Rav Huna’s argument is logical because both are obligated towards the other for sex.  While Rabbi Jose son of Rabbi Hanina attempts to make an argument that work is the defining characteristic of a rebellious spouse, this argument is overturned by noting the argument put forth by Rav, that a man cannot rebel against his wife by saying he will not support her because she would then be awarded her ketubah and he would be forced to divorce her and, if this were the case, the entire institution of a rebellious spouse would be worthless.

Now that the rebellion has been defined as sexual refusal, the Gemara goes on to discuss how to suppress these types of rebellions.  Looking further in the passage, the Rabbis turn to a discussion of how to penalize a rebellious wife.  Here, we see our first change in the law beginning with the word “gufa” used to introduce a new tangent related to a text cited above (meaning – now that we have finished what we were talking about, let’s return to the case at hand).

תלמוד בבלי מסכת כתובות דף סג עמוד ב

גופא: המורדת על בעלה – פוחתין לה מכתובתה שבעה דינרים בשבת, רבי יהודה אומר: שבעה טרפעיקין. רבותינו חזרו ונמנו, שיהו מכריזין עליה ארבע שבתות זו אחר זו, ושולחין לה ב”ד: הוי יודעת, שאפי’ כתובתיך מאה מנה הפסדת. אחת לי ארוסה ונשואה, אפילו נדה, אפי’ חולה, ואפי’ שומרת יבם. אמר ליה ר’ חייא בר יוסף לשמואל: נדה בת תשמיש היא? אמר ליה: אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו. אמר רמי בר חמא: אין מכריזין עליה אלא בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות. אמר רבא: דיקא נמי, דקתני: ארבע שבתות זו אחר זו, ש”מ.

 [To return to] the main text, (this is now the quote from the Mishnah) the wife who rebels against her husband – take from [the worth of] her ketubah seven dinari each week.  Rabbi Yehudah said: Seven tropaics.

Our Masters, returned and voted that an announcement shall be made about her on four Shabbatot, one after the other and the court shall send to her (this message):  “Let it be known to you that even if your ketubah is for a hundred maneh, you have forfeited it.”  The same law is for a betrothed woman, a married woman, or even to a menstruating woman, even to a sick woman, and even to one who is awaiting her levirate marriage.

Said Rabbis Hiyya ben Yoseph to Samuel:  “Can a menstruating woman have conjugal relations?” – He said to him:  “One who has bread in his basket is not like one who has no bread in his basket.”[2]

Rami son of Hama said:  “The announcement concerning her is made in the synagogues and the houses of study.  Said Rava:  This may be proved by a deduction; as it was taught, “four Shabbatot, one after the other” learn from this.

Ketubbot 63b

            Here we see our first legal change introduced by a rhetorical term utilized by our Rabbis to describe a legal change; “hazru v’nimnu,” they returned and voted.  “Hazru” is a commonly used term to show a change in legal position.  “Nimnu” shows how the new law was created, by a vote.  The law thus moved from one phase to another.   Phase 1) the law previously stated that the amount of the ketubah would be lessened until the ketubah was rendered worthless, this would then carry on for an indeterminate amount of time.  Phase 2) the law has now changed so that the longest the rebellion can take place is for up to four Shabbatot – one month.  The woman will then lose her ketubah completely.  In addition to speeding up the financial penalty for her rebellion, an additional penalty was added, a social penalty.  With the second formation of the law, we see that the rebellion has an additional consequence of public humiliation.  Word of the unhappy standing of their home life will be announced at both the synagogue and the house of study.  As these were the gathering places for everyone in the Jewish community, her rebellious behavior would become the talk of the town.  We can imagine in today’s world, that an announcement in the synagogue that so-and-so was refusing to have conjugal relations with her husband would spread like wild-fire, giving the woman every incentive to try and prevent such an embarrassing event from taking place; all the more so, in the 5^th century when the synagogue served as a community center and therefore a place for public gathering and announcements, a woman would want to avoid this type of embarrassing disclosure from occurring. 

            In this case, the change was rendered by a vote.  The Rabbis do not give a reason for the change, just that the majority felt that a time limitation should be set so that the unhappy state of the marriage would not drag on for years and years.  They are able to make this change because it is a rabbinic law to have a ketubah, not a biblical law, and therefore it may be altered.   Perhaps the point of divergence that was the impetus for this change in law was a result of an increase in wealth.  Perhaps more women were acquiring wealth, or were entering marriage with more valuable ketubbot than previous generations, or perhaps the dinar and tropaic had gone down in value.  It would not be hard to imagine that a reduction of seven dinari or tropaics may not seem like that much of a penalty to a very wealthy woman.  If a woman’s ketubah was worth 1000 tropaics, for example, she could continue this rebellious behavior for up to 143 weeks, or about 2.75 years before her husband would divorce her.  When the life expectancy was only that someone would live into his or her 30’s or 40’s you can imagine that this amount of time would be much too long to stay in an unhealthy marital situation.  

There are also probably some sociological and psychological reasons for shortening of the length of time until divorce is necessary.  As Karen Jean Prager describes in The Psychology of Intimacy, if issues are not addressed and, instead, are allowed to fester, they can escalate, resulting in much larger problems.[3] Going for years without any sexual intimacy within the marriage will no doubt lead to even greater problems in the relationship.  For it is not just that sex is not taking place, as we see with the additional argument made about betrothed wives and menstruating women, it is that these women are telling their husbands that they never plan on being intimate with them again.  And so the man feels as if he “has no bread in his basket.”

            Financial penalties would be very extreme for a woman living in this patriarchal society.  However, there may be cases in which a woman’s family would have enough money to be able to take her back and support her in her divorced state.  This woman may be perfectly willing to forgo her ketubah in order to prove to her husband that she truly has no desire for him, or that whatever it was they began fighting about that has led to this situation, she does not have to talk to him about it because she has the means to support herself. The public humiliation that this type of an announcement would bring may be enough for a woman to rethink her actions.  For a wealthy woman from a wealthy family, it is easy to imagine that the money might not be enough to push her to work things out with her husband, but the public humiliation, which would embarrass both her and her family by extension, may have enough social consequences to give her pause.  Her family, hearing the announcement, might be inclined to talk to her and make her try and work things out with her husband.  Bringing the issue into the public arena adds a whole layer of social embarrassment and a cadre of people thinking that this is now their business and that they are allowed to give their opinion on the matter. 

            A final note on the shortening of the length from indefinite to one month is that this may also be an illustration of the importance that the Rabbis placed on sex within the marriage.  As we will see in future chapters, the Rabbis will permit the use of birth control for those women who might be placed in danger by becoming pregnant rather than have a couple abstain from the conjugal act.  While one month of celibacy may not seem like that long, the Rabbis are aware that this is a sign of an unhealthy sex life and note that if this lack of intimacy is not a result of sickness or menstruation, but a matter of outright refusal by the partner to ever be intimate with their spouse, then the relationship should be terminated.  There is also no requirement to report a rebellious spouse; therefore, if the problem has escalated to the point of needing to involve others, it may have been going on for quite some time. 

            Continuing on in Kettubot 63b:

אמר רמי בר חמא: פעמים שולחין לה מבית דין, אחת קודם הכרזה ואחת לאחר הכרזה. דרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא: הלכה כרבותינו. אמר רבא: האי בורכא! אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק: מאי בורכתיה? אנא אמריתה ניהליה, ומשמיה דגברא רבה אמריתה ניהליה, ומנו? רבי יוסי בר’ חנינא. ואיהו כמאן סבר? כי הא דאתמר רבא אמר רב ששת, הלכה: נמלכין בה; רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רב ששת, הלכה: אין נמלכין בה

Said Rami son of Hama:  “Twice the Beit Din sends [the warning] to her, once before the announcement is announced and once after the announcement.”

Rav Nahman son of Rav Hisda explained:  The halakhah is in agreement with our Masters. 

Rava said:  “This is senseless.” 

Rav Nahman son of Isaac said to him:  “Why is it senseless?  I told it to him, and it was in the name of a very great man that I told it to him.”  And who is it?  Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Hanina.  And whose view is he holding?  The first of the mentioned.  Rava said in the name of Rav Sheshet, “The halakhah is that she is to be consulted.”  Rav Huna son of Yehudah said in the name of Rav Sheshet, “The halakhah is that she is not consulted.”       

While this part of the text does not deal directly with a legal change, it does discuss a change in the treatment and approach used with the rebellious wife.  The discussion here is concerning warning the woman that she is about to be publicly humiliated when the announcement goes out in both the house of study and the synagogue.  The woman will then have time to reconsider.  If the practice was in accordance with the wishes of Rami son of Hama, then someone would be sent to talk with the woman both before and after the announcement.  It is possible that this indicates a very advanced way of thinking; it gives the woman time to reconsider her actions, a chance to protect herself from public embarrassment, but it may also be the first chance that the woman has to discuss what is going on in her relationship.[4]  It is possible that the court appointed shaliach served as a counselor for her.  This person may have allowed the woman to discuss the problems in her marriage, let her air out some of her issues, and certainly would have wanted to persuade her to try and talk and reconnect with her husband.  This shaliach would then come again after the message was sent to see if she had changed her ways. Again, it is easy to imagine that the sheliach would want to rehash the experience with the woman, and that she would share the embarrassment she felt when her private issues were made public. 

The frequency and timing of this consultation is debated in the passage above.  We learn that Rami son of Hama wants the woman to be consulted once before and once after each of the four announcements,[5] but then it is stated that the law should follow our Masters – this would mean that there would not be the two meetings with the wife before and after the announcement.  However, we are told that when Rava heard this he said it was “senseless.”  Rava argues that we should go back each week to speak with the woman and he attributes his ruling to Rav Sheshet; thereby hanging his opinion on a “big tree,” meaning he attributes his opinion to someone others would be reluctant to oppose.

            So, the second stage of law is that when there is a case of a rebellious wife, there is a four-week time period allotted to resolve the issue.  During this time, an announcement is made in the synagogue and in the house of study, but the Beit Din sends a representative to discuss the issue with the woman during this month-long process.  She may at any point stop her rebellious behavior.  However, if, at the end of the month, she still refuses her husband, than she forfeits her ketubah.  This stage shows an attempt at marriage counseling via some engagement with the aggravated party.  It also shows that the Rabbis would exert both economic and social pressures on a couple to try and ensure Shalom Bayit.    From a pragmatic point of view, this policy towards a rebellious wife reflects the higher moral principle of Shalom Bayit.

            The Gemara, after proving that the situation is not one in which the woman is not attracted to her husband,[6] further defines a rebellious wife as one who wants to remain married but is deliberately trying to torture her husband by refusing him.  The rebellion then is very intentional and it is not so much what she is physically doing that is wrong, it is how she is doing it – by playing mind games.   She is intentionally harming their marital relationship in order to gain the upper hand.[7]

            Finally, the discussion goes on to a tangent in which the Rabbis are discussing property rights for a woman who is divorced as a result of her rebellious behavior.  While this is not of interest to the topic of this chapter, the end of the discussion gives a third phase of the law.  In brief, following a decision that if a woman has in her possession some of the worn-out items from her dowry she does not have to forfeit those items to her husband, the Gemara states:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת כתובות דף סד עמוד א

משום דרב זביד גברא רבה הוא אפכיתו ליה לדינא עילויה? האמר רב כהנא: מיבעיא בעי לה רבא ולא פשיט. השתא דלא אתמר לא הכי ולא הכי, תפסה – לא מפקינן מינה, לא תפסה – לא יהבינן לה, ומשהינן לה תריסר ירחי שתא אגיטא, ובהנך תריסר ירחי שתא לית לה מזוני מבעל.

“Is it because Rav Zebid is such a great man that you turn the law against him?  Surely,” Rav Kahana said, “Rava has raised the question but has not resolved it.”  Since it has not been stated what the law is, [the items in question] are not to be taken away from her if she has already taken them, but if she hasn’t taken them we do not give them to her. 

We also make her wait twelve months, a year, for her divorce, and during these twelve months she receives no maintenance from her husband.

Ketubbot 64a

            We now get our third stage of the law, an adjustment tagged onto the end of what seemed to be a tangential discussion.  In this third phase, the woman waits twelve months before receiving her get.  This gives the couple more time to work on the relationship.  One month is not a long period of time, and divorce at the end of one month may be a bit hasty.  Extending the deadline to one year both prevents the problem found in the first phase of the law – that the fight and negative situation could continue indefinitely – while allowing enough time for the couple to work through things.  However, the Rabbis felt they still needed incentive for the woman to come around before the one-year time limit expired, and so they added the penalty that the husband would not have to provide for his wife’s maintenance during this year.  For a woman of little means, this would be a great penalty.  While some women did work during the 4^th and 5^th century, and other women may have been able to get support from relatives, the majority of women would be reliant on their husbands for maintenance and this kind of penalty would make resolution of the problem very pressing. 

            Throughout the three phases of the law, we see that the Rabbis remain concerned over shalom bayit, peace within the home.  The laws are given in order to promote resolution of marital problems.  While in today’s world, we tend to keep our private lives very private, and would not necessarily welcome the rabbi weighing in on the situation of our marital sex lives, our Masters before us felt that this issue was so important that something had to be done to make sure that sexual manipulation would not be present in a marriage for years and years with no resolution. 

While a woman is not obligated to have sex with her husband by law and can refuse him, the discussion here demonstrates that there is a clear difference between saying “not right now” and using sex as a tool to control your spouse.  The laws also show that the Rabbis took into consideration financial penalties and their benefits and deficiencies, as well as social penalties (and their benefits and deficiencies) in persuading a rebellious wife to change her ways.

            In Ketubbot 63a-64a, we see that the law concerning a rebellious wife changes three times.  First, the law states that we simply take a financial penalty from the value of her ketubah every week that she continues to rebel, meaning the time to divorce would be dependant on the worth of her ketubah.  Second, after a vote, the law changes so that the wife loses her ketubah entirely after only one month, and then is divorced, and that a social penalty is added, in which her rebellious status will be announced in both the synagogue and the house of study.  One may argue that a further change in the law is enacted when the Rabbis decide that the Beit Din will also send someone to discuss the situation with the woman before and after the announcement.  Yet, a definitive change, the third state of the law, adjusts the time limit to one year before divorcing, and changes the financial incentive for resolution to one in which the woman is receiving no sustenance from her husband.  While a woman with independent means may not need to receive aid from her husband, the one-year time limit ensures an end to the conflict. 

            Another text that emphasizes the fact that neither spouse is allowed to make a vow of abstinence is provided by Seder Eduyot of the Mishnah, chapter 4 Mishnah 10 which states: “If one abstains by vow from sexual intercourse with his wife, he is allowed by Beth Shamai to keep the vow for two weeks, by Beth Hillel for but one.”  This is reinforced by later rulings and is codified by the Rambam in Hilchot Ishut 14:7 where he states:

רמב”ם הלכות אישות פרק יד הלכה ז

אסור לאדם למנוע אשתו מעונתה ואם מנע כדי לצערה עבר בלא תעשה שבתורה שנאמר שארה כסותה ועונתה לא יגרע.

It is forbidden for a man to refrain from satisfying his wife’s needs for intimacy.  And if he transgressed and refrained in order to afflict her – he has transgressed a Torah prohibition, as it says “. . . he may not diminish her allowance, clothing, or conjugal rights.”

In this way, our tradition ensures that both man and woman do not use sex to control one another within the relationship, aspiring towards the Jewish ideal of Shalom Bayit.

---

[1] Please note that all Talmudic translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own with a heavy reliance on The Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud, (Mesorah Publications, 2005); The Soncino Talmud, Isidore Epstein, (Soncino Press) The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation, Jacob Neusner, Tzvee Zahavy, others. Atlanta: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies, 1984-1995); and for transliteration help The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition Adin Steinsaltz, (Random House).

[2] This is a euphemism.  A man with bread in his basket knows that later he will be able to eat.  Therefore, while a menstruant is not available for sex, in a happy marriage, the man knows that when she is rendered pure again there will be the option of intercourse.  The man who does not have bread in his basket would not know when, if ever, he will eat again, so too, a man with a wife who refuses to be intimate, even if she were menstruating and therefore rendered not fit for intercourse, would still not know if they will ever be intimate again.

[3] Karen Jean Prager.  The Psychology of Intimacy. (New York:  The Guilford Press, 1995) 275-276.

[4] Therefore, this text may be one that a rabbi might use with a couple in counseling.

[5] The Hebrew might be read as saying that one consults the woman once before the first announcement and then only returns after the four announcements on the successive Shabbatot, however, I believe the correct reading is that the shaliach consults her each of the four times sense she may not continue her “rebellious’ behavior after the first announcement is made and the proper people would need to be informed of this in order for the announcements to cease. 

[6] We learn in the Mishnah of the Talmud Bavli Tractate Ketubbot 77a that certain men can be compelled by the court to give their wives a divorce should she demand one: “A man who is afflicted with boils, or has a polypus, or gathers [objectionable matter] or is a copper smith or a tanner, whether they were such before they married or whether they arose after the had married.  And concerning all these R. Meir said:  Although the man made a condition with her she may nevertheless plead. ‘I thought I could endure him, but now I cannot endure him.’”

[7] This additional nuance makes the discussion very relevant to the modern couple.  Every couple has disagreements from time to time, but the law here is showing that purposefully hurting your spouse is unacceptable behavior.  We see that we should not use sex to control our partners, that this is unhealthy and that the partner who does such a thing should be punished.

I used so much of today’s daf my rabbinical thesis on Rabbinic approaches to birth control! Why? It cements that sex is not only for procreation, but for marital intimacy. It discusses a man’s responsibility, based on his occupation, to be available to his wife FOR SEX. (Who ever thought the Talmud was boring?) At the end of the daf, we get some sad/hilarious/tragic stories about rabbis who failed to return home when their wives were expecting them.

Enjoy!

The mishna said that men of leisure must engage in marital relations with their wives every day. The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term men of leisure? Rava said: These are students of Torah who go daily to review their lectures at a local study hall and return home each evening. . . Rather, Abaye said: The mishna should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as Rav said: This is referring to a man such as Rabbi Shmuel bar Sheilat, who ate his own food, drank his own drinks, slept in the shade of his own house, and the king’s tax collector [peristaka] did not pass by his door, as they did not know that he was a man of means. A man like this, who has a steady income and no worries, is called a man of leisure. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said: For example, the wealthy, pampered men in the West, Eretz Yisrael, are called men of leisure. Due to the time they have available and the richness of their diet, they have the ability to satisfy their wives every night.

Ha! Who is a man of leisure? A day student, an independently wealthy man, or – you guys in the west (who have it so easy)!

Next, we learn that while sailors only have to “service” their wives once every 6 months (as they are out at sea) – that same sailor still can’t make a vow not to be intimate with his wife even for a week.

He asked him: But with regard to a sailor it said that the set interval for conjugal relations is six months; why, then, should he have to divorce her if he vowed to forbid these relations for only a week? He answered him: It is well known that one who has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket.

This “bread in the basket” term shows up in conversation where either the man is withholding sex, or when the woman is. The idea is that, even if you’re not having sex ith your partner, it’s a completely different abstinence if your partner would have sex (and your just not for whatever reason) that if they wouldn’t.

Why does all this matter? According to our rabbis, a woman can ask a man for a divorce if he was in one category and switches to another. So, if her husband was a day student and she was used to having him come home every night, and then he gets a job as a sailor where she will only see him once every 6 months, she can ask the court for a divorce. That’s how important intimacy is!

Rabba bar Rav Hanan said to Abaye: If a donkey driver who is already married wants to become a camel driver, what is the halakha? Is he permitted to change his profession in order to earn more money from his work, even though this will mean he reduces the frequency with which he engages in conjugal relations with his wife? He answered him: A woman prefers a kav, i.e., modest means, with conjugal relations to ten kav with abstinence. Consequently, he is not allowed to change his profession without her permission.

That’s right! they make it up to the wife. Wow, would a lot of marriages be saved if this kind of conversation was had. Don’t take that promotion honey, I know it’s more money but having you here is more important . . .

Now we hear of rabbis (and pretty great ones at that) who fail to uphold this mitzvah.

This is as it is related about Rav Reḥumi, who would commonly study before Rava in Meḥoza: He was accustomed to come back to his home every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he was particularly engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and so he remained in the study hall and did not go home. His wife was expecting him that day and continually said to herself: Now he is coming, now he is coming. But in the end, he did not come. She was distressed by this and a tear fell from her eye. At that exact moment, Rav Reḥumi was sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died. This teaches how much one must be careful, as he was punished severely for causing anguish to his wife, even inadvertently.

You can just see her waiting for him and seeing the sun set losing all hope. Only on eday a year she saw her husband! And he couldn’t remember her even for the day? Ah! So powerful.

But what about rabbis who came home more frequently?

It is related further that Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya and son-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, would go and sit in the study hall, and every Shabbat eve at twilight he would come to his house. When he would come, Rabbi Yannai would see a pillar of fire preceding him due to his sanctity. One day he was engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and he stayed in the study hall and did not return home. When Rabbi Yannai did not see that sign preceding him, he said to the family: Turn his bed over, as one does at times of mourning, since he must have died, reasoning that if Yehuda were alive he would not have missed his set interval for conjugal relations and would certainly have come home. What he said became “like an error that proceeds from a ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, died.

The message is strong – don’t neglect your marital duties – even for the sake of learning Torah! But there are two more stories that I can’t resist including. They make these men who missed Shabbat and Yom Kippur seem like present husbands in comparison.

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai went to the study hall at the end of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s wedding feast. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Wait for me until I can come with you, after my days of celebration are over. However, since he wanted to learn Torah, he did not wait and went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back, all the paths of his city had changed and he did not know how to go to his home.

He went and sat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. (Notice that she is being called by her grandfather’s name as her dad was absentee!) He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter. He followed her to his house. His wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw him and recognized him, and her heart fluttered with agitation and she passed away from the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥananya said before God: Master of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived.

12 years! 12 years he stayed away! His story became known. The next story is of a rabbi who also stays away for 12 years and then tries to not have his wife die, even momentarily, from the shock of his return.

Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house, he said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai, who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, did. He went and sat in the study hall in his hometown, and sent a message to his house that he had arrived. While he was sitting there his son Rabbi Oshaya, whom he did not recognize, came and sat before him. Rabbi Oshaya asked him questions about halakha, and Rabbi Ḥama saw that the halakhot of Rabbi Oshaya were incisive, i.e., he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama was distressed and said: If I had been here and had taught my son I would have had a child like this.

Rabbi Ḥama went in to his house and his son went in with him. Rabbi Ḥama then stood up before him to honor a Torah scholar, since he thought that he wanted to ask him a matter of halakha. His wife said to him: Is there a father who stands up before his son?

Wow! These men do not know their own children. Their waives are broken hearted and raising their families alone. how is this reflective of Torah?

Again and again we see that it’s not just studying Torah that matters, but living it’s values. And, those values include being there, for your children and your wife regularly and in a way where they can depend on you (for sex and everything else).

Today’s lesson – if you don’t have enough for the whole class, don’t bring treats to school! On today’s daf, we are shown that those serving food, or in the presence of food, should be given that same food that is being served so that they don’t suffer.

Rav Anan bar Taḥalifa said: I was once standing before Mar Shmuel, and they brought him a cooked dish of mushrooms, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered due to the craving that I suffered. Rav Ashi said: I was once standing before Rav Kahana, and they brought him slices [gargelidei] of turnip in vinegar, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered. Rav Pappa said: Even a fragrant date should be offered to the waiter. The Gemara concludes: The principle of the matter is: One should offer some of everything that either has an aroma or that has a sharp taste to whomever is present when it is served, so that no one suffer by being unable to partake of these foods.

So, if someone can smell that delicious food – you need to share it with them. But, there is more which tells us when and what we should share with our wait staff (I want a wait staff!).

It is related about two Sages, Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi, that one of them was accustomed to give his waiter from every type of food that he ate, while the other one would give him only one of the types of food that he ate. The Gemara says: Elijah spoke with this Sage, but Elijah did not speak with that Sage, since he did not act with piety and caused his waiter to suffer.

Similarly, the Gemara relates an incident with regard to two pious men, and some say they were Rav Mari and Rav Pineḥas, the sons of Rav Ḥisda: One Sage would give the waiter something to eat before the meal, and the other Sage would give the waiter something to eat after the guests had eaten. With regard to the one who gave it to him earlier, Elijah spoke with him. But with regard to the one who gave it to him later, Elijah did not speak with him.

So, these wise sages would only be visited by Elijah is they lived the value of hesed – kindness! You can be smart, but if you are unkind you aren’t understanding Torah!

And now to the magical:

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to this matter: Ameimar and Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting at the entrance to the house of King Izgur. The king’s chief butler was passing by with various foods. Rav Ashi saw Mar Zutra’s face blanch because he craved the food, so he took some of the food with his finger and put it in Mar Zutra’s mouth. The chief butler said to him: You have spoiled the king’s meal, as now he will not eat from it. The king’s soldiers who were there said to him: Why did you do this? He said to them: The one who makes such awful dishes is the one who actually spoiled the king’s food. They said to him: Why do you say this? He said to them: I saw something else, i.e., a leprous infection, in this meat. They checked and didn’t find anything. He took his finger and placed it on the food and said to them: Did you check here? They then checked that spot and found the infection. The Sages said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason that you relied on a miracle and assumed that leprosy would in fact be found there? He said to them: I saw a leprous spirit hovering over the food and realized that it had this defect.

And now to the . . . romantic?

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to a similar subject: A certain Roman said to a certain woman: Will you marry me? She said to him: No. In order to convince her, he went and brought pomegranates and peeled them and ate them in front of her and did not give her any of them. The aroma of the pomegranates caused her mouth to water, so she swallowed all of the saliva that caused her anguish, but he did not give her any until she became ill and bloated. Ultimately, he said to her: If I cure you, will you marry me? She said to him: Yes. He went and brought pomegranates, peeled them and ate them in front of her. He said to her: All of the saliva that causes you anguish, spit it out, spit it out. She did this until something like a green leaf came out of her, and then she was cured.

So, share your food with your servants, with those visiting, give them food before you eat and of everything they desire. And, if you’re a Roman and want to land a hottie, eat some pomegranates in front of her. Works like a charm!

Sharing food is a mitzvah. Later stories tell of Elijah visiting poor individuals and couples who share the scraps of their table and miracles happening. The message? When we are generous, miracles do happen. And for today: You can be smart, but if you are unkind you aren’t understanding Torah!

Ohhwee! Today’s daf could be a mommy-and-me favorite. It discusses how long is appropriate to breast feed (24 months? 5 years? Until the child is carrying heavy loads on his shoulder!?) How early on a baby might recognize their mother (I am pasting the heartless scene). When and if a nursing woman is permitted become pregnant (remember, nursing moms are one of the 3 categories of women who are required to use birth control). And last – how what we eat and do while pregnant affects the fetus! It’s a schmorgusborg of gems! I will share the scene of the mom who is trying to deny her child and the hilarious do’s and don’ts of what to do/not do while pregnant.

The Gemara relates: A certain divorcée came before Shmuel, as she did not wish to nurse her son. He said to Rav Dimi bar Yosef: Go and check her, i.e., verify whether the child recognizes his mother. He went, placed her in a row of women, and took her son in his arms and passed him near them to see how the child would react. When the child reached her, he looked at her face with joy, and she averted her eyes from him, as she did not want to look at him. He said to her: Lift up your eyes, get up and take your son, as it is obvious that he knows you. The Gemara asks: If this is so, then how does a blind baby know and recognize his mother? Rav Ashi said: Through smell and through the taste of her milk.

I remember that when I was nursing, my babies could tell if I was in the room immediately. A nursing coach said – imagine you’re starving and someone walks in with pizza – that’s what it’s like. It was like a sonar – through smell. Babies tend to know their mommies and it was little to do with sight. Izzy would cry in anyone’s arms until it was me holding him. Funny enough, my sister and I must smell alike because when she had her babies, they both would stop crying for me in the same way they would for her (and we don’t live close by so it was not familiarity).

Anyway – the daf does bring up questions about nursing, about if it’s enjoyable or terrible for the mother and why she might want to hire a wet-nurse. It talks about what’s healthy for a baby and how mothers-milk is only kosher for nursing babies and not anyone else. It talks about weaning and pregnancy. (I could not get pregnant while nursing whereas my good friend got pregnant right away despite her nursing.)

And then we get this ridiculous little section which any pregnant person would look at and either laugh or add it to the list of prohibited behaviors. While the list is ridiculous, women are given a quite ridiculous list of things not to do and things to do while pregnant. I know I ate many omega-3 vitamins and microwaved my deli meats and avoided lox – although I craved it fiercely. I tried to sleep only on the side that the books told me to and work out some but not too much. I thought I had it had – but look at these women on the daf!

The Gemara cites other possible consequences of a mother’s behavior that could affect her children: A woman who engages in intercourse in a mill will have epileptic children; one who engages in intercourse on the ground will have long-necked children; one who steps on a donkey’s dung when pregnant will have bald children; one who eats mustard during pregnancy will have gluttonous children; one who eats garden cress [taḥlei] will have tearful children; one who eats fish brine [moninei] will have children with blinking eyes; one who eats soil will have ugly children; one who drinks intoxicating liquor will have black children; one who eats meat and drinks wine during pregnancy will have children who are healthy; one who eats eggs will have large-eyed children; one who eats fish will have graceful children; one who eats celery will have beautiful children; one who eats coriander [kusbarta] will have corpulent children; and one who eats etrogim will have sweet-smelling children. It is related with regard to the daughter of King Shapur of Persia, that her mother ate etrogim while pregnant with her and they used to place her in front of her father on top of all the spices, as she was so fragrant.

Now we all know what to do with the etrog after Sukkot! Give it to a pregnant woman. 🙂

Did Rabbi Ḥiyya have a trophy wife?

Our Mishna teaches that, while a man is required to sustain his wife, the wife does the household work. (Is this the 550s or the 1950s?)

MISHNA:And these are tasks that a wife must perform for her husband: She grinds wheat into flour, and bakes, and washes clothes, cooks, and nurses her child, makes her husband’s bed, and makes thread from wool by spinning it. If she brought him one maidservant, i.e., brought the maidservant with her into the marriage, the maidservant will perform some of these tasks. Consequently, the wife does not need to grind, and does not need to bake, and does not need to wash clothes. If she brought him two maidservants, she does not need to cook and does not need to nurse her child if she does not want to, but instead may give the child to a wet nurse. If she brought him three maidservants, she does not need to make his bed and does not need to make thread from wool. If she brought him four maidservants, she may sit in a chair [katedra] like a queen and not do anything, as her maidservants do all of her work for her.

The woman has household requirements, but if she brings servants in with her, the servants can do that work for her. (Although some disagree. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought him a hundred maidservants, he can compel her to make thread from wool, since idleness leads to licentiousness.)

But, in the Gemara, Rabbi Ḥiyya disagrees!

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A wife is only for beauty, and a wife is only for children, but not for household tasks. And Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A wife is only for wearing a woman’s finery. And Rabbi Ḥiyya similarly teaches: One who wishes to beautify his wife should clothe her in linen garments. . .

Oh Rabbi Ḥiyya! While the Mishna pictures marriage as a business transaction where there is an economy of family, Rabbi Hiyya pictures marriage as fulfilling other goals, emphasizing a wife’s beauty and her childbearing abilities. A trophy wife? Maybe. Maybe not. Nowhere does Rabbi Ḥiyya say a woman cannot or should not work – only that you don’t marry a woman for the sole purpose of running the house – there are other reasons to marry as well!

Today’s daf song – Bon Jovi’s “Dead of Alive.” Why? Well, we get an interesting scenario on the daf where someone purchased a slave only to find out that he’s a wanted man! And what’s the impetus for this conversation? The question of whether a woman should be able to eat terumah during the year of her betrothal to a priest. A man’s household, including his slaves, can eat terumah if he is a priest. So, they ask about other household members – like a slave. Let’s read this strange story which begins on the bottom of 57.

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then according to this rationale, a priest’s slave whom the priest purchased from an Israelite should not partake of teruma, due to concern of abrogation. Perhaps the priest will discover a defect in the slave, resulting in the retroactive cancellation of the acquisition and causing the slave to return to his Israelite master after he had mistakenly eaten teruma. The Gemara answers: There is no abrogation with regard to slaves, since no type of defect could cause the cancellation of the transaction. The reason for this is that if the defect is external, then he sees it at the point of sale and accepts it. And if the defect is internal, since he needs him for labor, concealed defects do not concern him.

Now, reading that there is no scenareo where a defect might be found to cancel the purchase – it’s like the daf is daring the rabbis to find a case. So, they try.

With regard to other types of defects, e.g., if he was discovered to be a thief or a gambler [kuvyustus], it has come to him, meaning that the seller has caught the buyer in a binding transaction, and he cannot annul the sale due to this kind of defect, as these characteristics are common in slaves.

So! He has a gambling problem? Not a good enough excuse. You get what you get an you don’t get upset.

What is the halakha if it was discovered that the slave was an armed bandit or that the king had signed his death warrant, and there is a danger that the government will catch him and execute him? These are serious and uncommon defects that in principle could invalidate a sale. However, these defects generate publicity. In such unusual and severe circumstances, everyone is aware of them. Therefore, it is assumed that the buyer knew about them as well and nevertheless acquiesced to buy the slave. Consequently, there is no reason to revoke the sale of a slave.

So, no mercy for the ignorant.

So, now I am thinking of all the people roaming free out there who are on “wanted” lists and how most of us have no idea who they are or what they look like. Good thing we’re not purchasing slaves! However, we should take this as a cautionary tale to investigate who we are doing business with.

When I got engaged, I went onto a website called “the knot” which gave me a time line for when I needed to get everything done. I got on the website around 9 months before the wedding only to find I was already months late on many items on the list. Apparently, I was supposed to be planning at least a year before the nuptials. I was warned that if I didn’t immediately find my wedding dress, I would be in trouble. This summer, I presided over a wedding for a couple that was engaged for 5 years. The Knot would have liked them.

But what does the Talmud say?

One gives a virgin twelve months from the time the husband asked to marry her after having betrothed her, in order to prepare herself with clothes and jewelry for the marriage. And just as one gives a woman this amount of time, so too does one give a man an equivalent period of time to prepare himself, as he too needs time to prepare for the marriage.

A year! Yep, this popular rule of thumb has been a rule for at least 1500 years.

But, not for everyone:

However, in the case of a widow, she is given only thirty days to prepare.

And Rav Huna thinks:

Rav Huna said: If she has reached her majority, even for just one day, and then she is betrothed, she is given her thirty days to prepare for her wedding, like a widow, since prior to reaching adulthood she presumably had already prepared everything needed for her marriage. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If she grew up, she is similar to a betrothed woman who has been asked to marry her betrothed. What, is it not that she is similar to a virgin who has been asked to marry, and she has twelve months to prepare? The Gemara answers: No, it means that she is similar to a widow who has been asked to marry her betrothed, who gets only thirty days to prepare. (This is debated. Later on the daf we read If she has reached her majority for one day, and she is then betrothed, she is given twelve months from the day of her betrothal, because it is the same as the day of her majority. One who was already a betrothed woman when she reached majority is given thirty days. Therefore, the refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is a conclusive refutation.)

The Talmud suggests that we need time to prepare for our weddings, but if you’re older or this isn’t your first rodeo and you want to marry sooner, then at least give yourself 30 days.

No eloping, and no engagements longer than a year. Now, I know certain venues need to be booked many years in advance – but our rabbis did not live in that world, and I wonder if we should either.

(This reminds me of a 2012 move called “the Five Year Engagement” where, you can guess how long the engagement lasted.)

Another daf smack down. I love when we see the rabbis lose their cool with one another – we are all so human.

Rav Ḥanina, who was known for teaching biblical verses, sat before Rabbi Yannai and said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go out and read your verses outside, as the halakha is actually not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

Slam! Hey bible boy, don’t talk about what you don’t know.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said in the name of our teacher, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

Wait! Hey may be a bible boy, but Rav Yitzhak is saying the top dog, Yehuda HaNasi, agrees!

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

Shmuel is also on his side – but not Nahman as we shall see:

And Rav Naḥman also said his own statement: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. And the Sages of Neharde’a say in the name of Rav Naḥman: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

Wait, which is it?

The Gemara comments: And although Rav Naḥman cursed them and said: Any judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, such and such unspecified misfortune will happen to him, even so the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

So, Nahman thinks anyone who agrees with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya should get their comeuppance. He wishes an ill fate.

So, who’s right? Do we agree with Rabbi Yannai and Nahman? Or do we agree with Shmuel, Yehuda HaNasi, and bible boy a.k.a. Hanina? The Gemara concludes: And the practical halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

Fun to read about the rabbis picking sides and calling the other side idiots . . . only it would be more fun if it didn’t hit so close to home and how polarized our world has become. Maybe we can learn to disagree without calling names and wishing ill fortune.