Yesterday we learned some of the benefits a husband acquires when he marries his wife. Starting at the very bottom of daf TB Ketubot 47b and continues on today’s daf Ketubot 48, we learn some of the husband’s responsibilities towards his wife. Everybody agrees that the husband has to provide his wife with food, clothing, and conjugal visits. Some believe that these requirements are Torah based laws or others believe some of the 3 are rabbinic enactments.
“Rava said: This tanna, in the baraita
cited below, maintains that the obligation of a husband to provide his
wife’s sustenance applies by Torah law, as it is taught with
regard to the verse pertaining to a husband’s obligations toward his wife: “If
he takes another wife for himself, her food [she’era], her clothing [kesuta],
and her conjugal rights [onata], he shall not diminish” (Exodus 21:10). “She’era”;
this is sustenance, and it likewise states: “Who also eat the flesh [she’er]
of my people” (Micah 3:3). “Kesuta” is understood in its
literal sense as referring to clothing. “Onata”; this is her conjugal
rights, which is stated in the Torah, and so it says: “If you shall afflict [te’aneh]
my daughters” (Genesis 31:50), which indicates that a husband may not
deprive his wife of her conjugal rights.
“The baraita continues: Rabbi
Elazar says: “She’era”; this is her conjugal rights, and so it
says: “None of you shall approach to any who is near [she’er] of kin to
him, to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6), which demonstrates that
the word she’er is used in the context of sexual relations. “Kesuta”
is understood in its literal sense as referring to clothing. “Onata”;
this is sustenance, and so it says: “And He afflicted you [vayanekha],
and made you suffer hunger, and fed you with manna” (Deuteronomy 8:3).” (Sefaria.org
translation) Both Rava and Rabbi Elazar agree that these responsibilities are
Torah laws. They just disagree which word describes which responsibility.
Rambam (Moses Maimonides) holds that food, clothing, and conjugal
rights are Torah enactments. (Mishneh
Torah, Sefer Nashim, Laws of marriage, chapter 12 halakha 2,) Ramban (Moses Nachmanidies) holds that food and
clothing are rabbinic enactments. See his extended commentary of these
obligations on Exodus 21:10. The Magid Mishnah holds that clothing and conjugal
rights are Torah laws while food is a rabbinic enactment.
“Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that she’era
and kesuta should be interpreted as follows: In accordance
with her flesh [she’era], i.e., her age, give her clothing [kesuta].
This means that he should not give the garments of a young girl to an
elderly woman, nor those of an elderly woman to a young girl. Similarly, kesuta
and onata are linked: In accordance with the time of year [onata],
give her clothing [kesuta], meaning that he should not give new,
heavy clothes in the summer, nor worn-out garments in the rainy
season, i.e., the winter, when she requires heavier, warmer clothes. The
entire phrase, therefore, refers only to a husband’s obligation to provide
clothing for his wife.” (Sefaria.org translation) The
halakha demands at the husband
provide appropriate clothing to his wife. (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nashim,
Chapter 13, halakha 1; Shulkhan
Arukh, Even Ha’Ezer, 73:1)
Rav Yosef teaches that intimate relations should really be
intimate. I think what he is trying to teach us is that husband and wife should
enjoy each other’s body. “Rav Yosef taught the following baraita:
“She’era,” this is referring to closeness of flesh during intercourse,
which teaches that he should not treat her in the manner of Persians, who
have conjugal relations in their clothes.”
(Sefaria.org translation)
Finally even in
death, he must treat her in the lifestyle that she has become accustomed to. “Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Huna said:
In the case of one who went overseas and his wife died, the court
enters his property and buries her in accordance with his dignity. The
Gemara asks: Does the court act in accordance with his dignity and not in
accordance with her dignity? What if she came from a more dignified family
than her husband?
“The Gemara answers: Say that Rav
Ḥiyya bar Avin meant: Even in accordance with his dignity, i.e., if his
family was more distinguished than hers, he must bury her in accordance with
the dignity of his family. The Gemara adds: This comes to teach us
that she ascends with him to his social status and does not descend
with him, and this principle applies even after her death, in
accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the mishna.” (Sefaria.org
translation)[1]
[1] The
Mishnah concludes “Rabbi Yehuda
says: Even the poorest man of the Jewish people may not provide fewer than two
flutes and a lamenting woman for his wife’s funeral.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Check out the scenes from one my favorite plays /movies A Funny Thing Happened
on the Way to the Forum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKP3Il9R1k
and noticed the mourners in the background be willing the dead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EtA0HrUrYM
No comments:
Post a Comment