Women were considered 'rebellious' if they refused conjugal relations with their husbands. They were also considered 'rebellious' if they refused to perform their obliged tasks. Women who were disgusted by their husbands were not considered 'rebellious'. Their husbands were permitted but not forced to divorce them immediately in cases of disgust. The husbands of the 'rebellious' women were not permitted to divorce their wives for a year. During that time rebellious wives would receive no sustenance from their husbands.
Special circumstances, like a betrothed woman or a yevama, create questions for our rabbis. Are they treated similarly to each other? To other women? The rabbis note that cases of yibum, levirate marriage (where a childless husband dies and his widow is bound to his brother) force everyone to consider further complexities. Is the bond of levirate marriage stronger than other bonds or mitzvot, including that of chalitza (the process that releases a couple from that bond)? Certainly the requirements regarding refusal, divorce, social pressure, etc. were different regarding these very special cases. Steinsaltz's notes are quick to remind us that this practice was rare; chalitza was - and is - performed much more regularly than is yibum.
In looking at how much money is subtracted from the ketubah of a rebellious woman, the rabbis discuss different relative amounts. They note that Shabbat wages are not accounted for, as no-one should be working - or should be encouraged to be working - on Shabbat.
In one short but particularly interesting conversation, the rabbis wonder how the consequences of 'rebellion' are different for men and for women. They note that men's desire for conjugal relations is stronger than that of women, and thus that consequence is more severe for men. However, that opinion is countered. Men experience both shame and pain when their sexual desire is declined, for their arousal can be seen on the outside. But women's arousal is on the inside, and so she may be suffering but she need not experience added shame as no-one knows how much she suffers.
A new Mishna lists what a husband must provide for his wife through a third party if he is not living with her. Theses items include the following:
- two kav of wheat or four kav of barley
- half a kav of legumes
- half a log of oil
- one kav of figs or one maneh of fig cakes (or the equivalent)
- one bed
- one soft mat
- one hard mat
- a belt for the waist
- a cap (covering the hair, adorned with scarves)
- shoes at each Festival
- fifty dinars for clothing each rainy seasons (the clothing will become worn and can be used in the hot summer as well)
- one silver ma'a coin each week (if he cannot do this, she keeps her own earnings)
- the promise that husband and wife will eat their meals together on Shabbat
A woman is obliged to give her husband her weekly earnings, which are described as the wages for weaving and sewing. If she is nursing, the woman is require to reduce the amount that she gives to her husband. He is to increase the amount that he gives to her by an equal proportion of money.
Finally, this Mishna teaches that these amounts are relevant only to the poorest people. Those men with more means are required to give more to their wives according to their wealth.
Our text notes different measures and their equivalents. They wonder what should be the size of each meal. If a woman is provided with enough sustenance for a week, does that mean that she is given enough to support two meals a day plus three or four meals on Shabbat? Or should she have more available for visitors and 'wayfarers'? And how much is enough for a meal? One rabbi argues that the surplus paid to the grocer is not taken into account when allotting money to one's wife, which seems to be a cruel interpretation.
Our Sages are making a concerted effort to protect the needs of women. However, the taste of a relationship that is financially based is running beneath each consideration.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment