Sex, Marriage and Family in World Religions (12 page)

Raba further stated: A bad wife is as troublesome as a very rainy day; for it is said, “Endless dripping on a rainy day—that is what a nagging wife is like”

[Prov. 27:15]. . . .

It is written in the book of Ben Sira: A good wife is a precious gift; she will be put in the bosom of the God-fearing man. A bad wife is a plague to her
Judaism
35

husband. What remedy has he?—Let him give her a letter of divorce and be healed.

A beautiful wife is a joy to her husband; the number of his days shall be double. . . .

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer stated, He who does not engage in propagation of the race is as though he sheds blood; for it is said, “He that sheds the blood of a man, for that man his blood shall be shed” [Gen. 9:6], and this is immediately followed by the text, “But you must be fruitful and increase” [Gen. 9:7].

As though he has diminished the Divine Image; since it is said, “For in the image of God had God made man” [Gen. 9:6], and this is immediately followed by, “But you must be fruitful etc.” [Gen. 9:7]. Ben “Azzai said: As though he sheds blood
and
diminishes the Divine Image; since it is said, “But you must be fruitful and increase” [Gen. 9:7].

They said to Ben ‘Azzai: Some preach well and act well, others act well but do not preach well; you, however, preach well but do not act well! Ben ‘Azzai replied: But what shall I do, seeing that my soul is in love with the Torah; the world can be carried on by others. . . .

[
Babylonian Talmud
]

AGGADIC MIDRASH ON MARRIAGE AND FAMILY

With the Bible’s canonization in the Second Temple period, several Jewish groups began to read the sacred text more closely to derive proper practice and belief. This process, known as exegesis
(midrash),
evolved among the post-Temple Rabbis into a more formal set of interpretive strategies that yielded both legal and nonlegal insights. The latter, which expanded biblical stories, linked current and ancient events, and offered homiletical advice, came to be known as
Aggadah,
in contrast to the legal
Halakhah
. Aggadic material was continually produced and compiled into various collections through the early middle ages.

While Aggadah is not formally binding, its elegant style and profound content have gripped the Jewish imagination for centuries. In a sense, it provides the “soul” of Judaism, the sinews to the legal skeleton of the
Halakhah.

The following passages extol marriage and family, which, in the absence of a Jewish state, came to be the cornerstone of Jewish community and continuity.

Document 1–30

m i d r a s h r a b b a h , g e n e s i s 6 8 : 4

Rabbi Yehuda b. Simon began a discussion with the verse from Psalms 68: “God makes the solitary dwell in the house.”

An important lady once asked Rabbi Yose b. Chalaphta, “For how many days did God create His world?”

36

m i c h a e l s . b e r g e r

“For six days,” he replied, “As the verse says (Exodus 31) ‘For in six days God made the Heaven and the Earth.’”

“What does He do from the hour He finished to now?” she asked.

“God sits and pairs up couples: The daughter of so-and-so is for so-and-so.

The wife of so-and-so is for so-and-so. The money of so-and-so will go to so-and-so.”

“That’s His job?” she exclaimed, “Even I could do that! I have so many menservants and maidservants, in one hour I could easily pair all of them.”

To this Rabbi Yose b. Chalaphta replied, “You say that is so easy for you, for God it is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea.” And he went away. What did the woman do? She took one thousand menservants and one thousand maidservants and stood them in two lines. She told one servant to marry someone, and one maid to marry a manservant, and she paired them all off in one night. The next day they all returned to her. This one had his brain split open, this one had his eye knocked out, and this one’s leg was broken.

She asked them all, “What happened?”

One said, “That man is not for me.” Another said, “I am not fitting for that woman.” The woman immediately sent for Rabbi Yose b. Chalaphta.

When he was brought before her she said, “There is no God like your God, true is your Torah, pleasant and praiseworthy. You said well.”

He responded, “I did not say that. All I said was if it is easy in your eyes, but to God it is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea. . . .”

[
Aggadic Midrash,
in Soncino Classics Collection [electronic]

(Brooklyn: Judaica, 2001)]

Document 1–31

p i r k e i d ’ r a b b i e l i e z e r , 1 6

A groom is similar to a king. Just like a king does not go out into the marketplace alone, also a groom should not go to the marketplace alone. Just like a king wears clothes of honor, a groom should also wear clothes of honor all his seven days of feasting. Just like a king’s face shines like the light of the sun, a groom’s face shines like sunlight, as it says in Psalms, “And he is like a groom going out from his wedding canopy” (Psalms 19).

[
Aggadic Midrash
]

Document 1–32

p i r k e i d ’ r a b b i e l i e z e r , 1 7

Solomon saw that the trait of kindness is held highly before God. When he built the temple he built two special gates: one for grooms and one for mourners. Jews would go on the Sabbath and sit between these two gates, and when one would enter the gate of grooms they would know that he was a groom and
Judaism
37

they would say to him, “May the One who dwells in this house make you happy with sons and daughters.” Once the temple was destroyed the rabbis established that grooms and mourners should enter the synagogues and the study halls, and the people of the place will see them and rejoice with them. This was done in order that all Jews will be easily able to fulfill their obligation to do kindness.

On this it was said, “Blessed are You God who pays reward to those who do kindness.”

[
Aggadic Midrash
]

Document 1–33

t a n n a d ’ b e i e l i y a h u z u t a , 3

One who marries a woman for immorality, the end result will come out a rebellious son. One who marries a woman for the sake of heaven will result in having children who will save Israel in their time of trouble, and will increase Torah and religious observance in Israel. One who marries for money will end up needing others. One who marries a woman for greatness, someone from her family will rise up and ultimately reduce his descendants.

[
Aggadic Midrash
]

Document 1–34

p i r k e i d ’ r a b b i e l i e z e r , 3 6

“And Laban said to Jacob, ‘Because you are my brother. . . .’” (Genesis 29:15).

Was he his brother? Was he not his nephew? To teach that the son of one’s sister is called his son and the nephew of someone is like his brother. From where do we learn it—from Abraham, who said to Lot, “Because we are brothers” (Genesis 13:8). And where do we see that one’s grandchildren are like his children—from Jacob, who said, “Ephraim and Menasha are like Reuben and Simeon to me” (Genesis 48:5). Aren’t Ephraim and Menasha Jacob’s grandchildren? To teach that one’s son’s sons are like his children. And where do we see that one’s daughter’s sons are also like his sons—from Laban, who said to Jacob, “The sons are my sons, and the daughters are my daughters” (Genesis 31). . . . Are they his children, aren’t they his daughter’s children? To teach that one’s daughter’s children are like one’s own children.

[
Aggadic Midrash
]

Document 1–35

m i d r a s h h a g a d o l , l e v i t i c u s 2 5 : 3 5

[“The merciful man does good to his own soul; but he that is cruel troubles his own flesh” (Proverbs 11:17).] Alternatively, [“The merciful man] does good to his own soul,” means one who brings close his relatives and does kindness 38

m i c h a e l s . b e r g e r

for his relatives, is as if he did kindness for himself, because a person’s relatives are seen as a part of himself. “But he that is cruel troubles his own flesh,” this refers to one who does not attach himself to his family. From here we derive that one should always involve oneself in acts of kindness with all people, and even more so with one’s relatives even if they do not need it.

[
Aggadic Midrash
]

THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD ON MARITAL SEX

This Talmudic passage is the locus classicus of the Rabbis’ view of marital sex.

Several features of the text are striking. First, the Rabbis’ permissive attitude is grounded not in a modern appreciation of sexuality but in the more contrac-tarian view of marriage whereby a husband acquires rights to intercourse with his wife. Nevertheless, the passage ends by warning against abusing this right, manifesting a concern that sex express genuine emotional bonds.

Second, Talmudic culture was comfortable with multiple standards of behavior. Conjugal relations, while a requirement, had to be placed in the broader context of one’s religious development, and so Rabbinic scholars were expected to behave differently.

Finally, we must acknowledge the passage’s frustrating use of euphemism, a longstanding tradition of Hebrew literature. Unclear phrases required subse-quent interpretation, producing debate among medieval jurists.

While the text’s thrust is permissive, later commentators, particularly in pietistic circles, circumscribed marital sex—a view that came to dominate medieval legal literature.

Document 1–36

Rabbi Johanan b. Dahabai said: The Ministering Angels told me four things: People are born lame because they [that is, their parents] “overturned their table”; dumb, because they kiss “that place”; deaf, because they converse during cohabitation; blind, because they look at “that place. . . .”

Rabbi Johanan said: The above is the view of Rabbi Johanan b. Dahabai; but our Sages said: The
halachah
is not as Rabbi Johanan b. Dahabai, but a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife [at intercourse]: A parable; Meat which comes from the abattoir, may be eaten salted, roasted, cooked or seethed; so with fish from the fishmonger.4 Amemar said: Who are the “Ministering Angels”? The Rabbis. For should you maintain it literally, why did Rabbi Johanan say that the
halachah
is not as Rabbi Johanan b. Dahabai, seeing that the angels know more about the formation of the fetus than we? And why are they designated “Ministering Angels”?—Because they are as distinguished as they.

Judaism
39

A woman once came before Rabbi and said, “Rabbi! I set a table before my husband, but he overturned it.” Rabbi replied: “My daughter! the Torah has permitted you to him—what then can I do for you?” A woman once came before Rab and complained. “Rabbi! I set a table before my husband, but he overturned it.” Rab replied: Wherein does it differ from a fish?

And that ye seek not after your own heart. [Deducing] from this Rabbi taught: One may not drink out of one goblet and think of another.5 Rabina said: This is necessary only when both are his wives.

[
Baylonian Talmud
]

THE BABYLONIAN ORDINANCE FROM THE

ACADEMY ON DIVORCE

Islam’s rapid spread in the seventh and eighth centuries ce brought most of world Jewry under single rule and elevated the authority and prestige of the Babylonian academies and their heads, the
geonim
. These heads established the Babylonian Talmud as the foundation of Jewish practice and instituted ordinances to address severely changed conditions, such as in divorce law.

Talmudic tradition insisted that only the husband could divorce his wife through a unilateral and willful act; any other type of divorce was invalid.

Islamic courts, however, perceived their jurisdiction to extend to anyone who would appeal to them and would grant divorces or dissolve marriages for Jewish women who came to them seeking divorce. Fearing widespread invalid divorces, seventh-century geonim instituted that Jewish courts, under certain conditions consistent with Talmudic law, would aid a woman wishing a divorce.

The radical ordinance, explained in this tenth-century responsum, was in effect for over four centuries but was rejected by later Rabbinic authorities.

Document 1–37

t h e b a b y l o n i a n o r d i n a n c e f r o m t h e a c a d e m y o n d i v o r c e And concerning your question: In the case of a woman who is living with her husband and says to him, “Divorce me, I do not wish to live with you,” is [her husband] obligated to give her anything from the alimony provided for by the marriage contract, and is she [considered] a rebellious wife or not?

We have seen that the original requirement of the law was that the husband was not obligated to divorce his wife if she demanded a divorce except in those [cases] where the Rabbis said that they can force him to divorce [her]. And when a woman abstains from sexual relations and refuses to perform those household duties she is obligated to do for him, she is a rebellious wife, from whose alimony a weekly sum is deducted, and she requires a warning. Afterwards they enacted another decree, that they make a [public] announcement concerning her for four consecutive weeks, and they send her [a warning] from 40

m i c h a e l s . b e r g e r

the Jewish court: “Know that even if the alimony provided for you by your marriage contract is one hundred
maneh,
you shall lose it.” They [further add]

that Rami bar Hama says, “this [warning] must be sent to her twice: once before the [public] announcement and once after it.”

All [the discussion concerning the weekly reduction of alimony] pertains only to those objects which the husband obligated himself to give her but which are not now in existence, and to whatever of her dowry has been destroyed or lost. . . . Subsequently they decreed that they [publicly] announce [concerning]

her for four weeks, [at which time] she forfeits everything.

Nevertheless, they did not obligate the husband to give her a bill of divorce, and if he dies, his inheritors are freed from [those obligations] of the marriage contract for which he was responsible. But those objects which remain in existence, either from her dowry or from ornaments [received after her marriage], belong to whoever takes them. . . .