We have been learning about whether or not a vow not to bathe creates such suffering that a husband should nullify his wife's vow to this end. The rabbis continue with their thoughts about what should be done carefully: leaving grime unlaundered/unwashed, because it causes disease, studying Torah alone, either because one loses full learning or because one's study group might be ignorant, and the Torah study of the sons of paupers, because we have been taught that Torah will be learned through them and because of the arrogance of the sons of Torah scholars.
This discussion is a welcome change from the more frequently read discussions about the superiority of Torah scholars. Included in these discussions is the assumption that Torah scholars are not paupers. In our daf, the rabbis admit their privileged place in society and bemoan the effects that this has had on their children.
Back to their conversations regarding the nullification of women's vows, the rabbis wonder what constitutes affliction and what affects the relationship between a husband and wife. It is argued that a husband will continue to have intercourse with his wife whether or not she bathes. Further, we learn that a wife's vows regarding feeding the cattle or helping her father cannot be nullified by her husband - those vows do not cause her suffering nor do they damage the marital relationship.
A woman's vows regarding refusal to wear eye makeup or rouge and refusal to have sexual intercourse with her husband should be nullified by her husband. All of these affect the marital relationship. It seems that makeup and sex were extremely important to the marital relationship in antiquity. Interesting that these things are mentioned equally; her plain face will somehow affect the marital relationship more than a refusal to have intercourse?
However, if a woman vows not to do her wifely responsibilities: make her husband's bed, prepare his cup, or wash his face, hands or feet, he does not need to nullify these vows. This is because she cannot take such a vow; these actions are commanded of her by Torah law.
Sexual intercourse is a special case, however. It is the reason that rabbis wish to preserve the marital relationship - we could argue that intercourse is specifically "the marital relationship" that the rabbis are speaking about. Rabbi Kehana speaks of this in some detail. If a woman says that benefiting from intercourse is konam to her husband, then he can compel her to have intercourse with him - it is her obligation. But if she says that benefiting from intercourse is konam to herself, then he has the option of nullifying her vow. Although she is obliged to have intercourse with him, if she is vowing not to derive pleasure from that act, she cannot be forced to break her personal vow. If he does not nullify her vow, they cannot have intercourse. And even if he were to divorce her, that vow would remain in effect after the divorce unless he nullified it on the day he heard her vow.
A person is not permitted to "profane his word" (Numbers 30:3); to break one's own vow. This means that a halachic authority is required to dissolve a vow, even if one is himself a halachic authority.
Our daf ends with a new dilemma regarding a wife's vow that intercourse is konam for her. Perhaps she was taking a vow to abstain from intercourse with every Jew other than her husband, who will nullify her vow regarding only himself. This would leave her unable to remarry should their relationship end, however.
There is much thought going into the question of whether avoiding intercourse is an affliction or simply a potential marital disruption. The rabbis seem to believe that women found intercourse very pleasurable. Was this true? Was this what the rabbis told each other? Were women pleased to make babies? Or were they happy to follow their Torah obligations? Or were the rabbis good lovers, and their wives found intercourse itself very enjoyable? It is altogether possible that rabbis were afraid that their wives were not enjoying sexual relations and that these rules were defined in order to ensure that getting out of intercourse was not an option?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment