Ketubot – “Written” – The Mind of Dan Perlman

Ketubot – “Written” – I Do

What immediately strikes me, before reading any of this second tractate in the Book of Women, is that the laws around traditional marriage come in as a second act to the laws around levirate marriage, the previous tractate. That just seems backwards to me, and I imagine I’ll spend a little time exploring just why the Talmudic rabbis decided on that order. I’m sure they have some twisted logical reason that will seem bizarre in modern day light, but makes perfect sense for two millennia ago. A ketubah is a marriage contract, and is required in Jewish marriages. Basically it outlines both the rights and obligations of husband and wife to each other. I’m prepared to be surprised by some of what was required back then, and how it’s interpreted today.
7/8/22, Chapter 1, Page 2 – Talk about jumping in feet first. This tractate opens up with the rule that virgin women must get married on Wednesdays. Why? Because the court met on Mondays and Thursdays, so if, on the wedding night, i.e., Wednesday, the husband discovers that his new bride is not indeed a virgin, he can immediately go to the court on Thursday to have the marriage annulled. Why not Sundays prior to the court’s Monday session? Because he is obligated to provide three-days of wedding feasts prior to the ceremony – Sunday to Tuesday.
7/9/22, Page 3 – It must be a rabbinical thing, to jump ahead to exceptions and conditions and terminations rather than begin at the beginning. The old “putting the cart before the horse”. We’re onto “conditional divorce” – basically, the guy says, I’m going away, if I don’t come back in X amount of time, assume I’m gone forever, so here’s a conditional contract of divorce based on that. The primary takeaway is that any reason he doesn’t return triggers the condition, except dying, which makes her a widow, not a divorcee.
7/10/22, Page 4 – It’s approaching wedding day. Suddenly, the father of the groom, or the mother of the bride, dies. The wedding proceeds, the wedding night (wink, wink) happens, then they bury the corpse, then feast in celebration for 7 days, and then they mourn for 7 days. However, if the mother of the groom or the father of the bride dies, the corpse is buried, the 7 days of mourning are observed, and then the wedding is held, followed by a week’s celebration. Why? In the first case, those are the parents who are responsible for planning weddings, and to honor them, the wedding proceeds so their efforts are not wasted.
7/11/22, Page 5 – No intercourse with a virgin woman on the Sabbath. I should just leave it there. But the rabbis didn’t. You see, there are prohibitions against inflicting a wound and/or creating an opening (in anything) on the Sabbath. And the hymen, you know? I mean, I only know from biology classes, not from personal experience. Then there was a whole thing about accidentally preparing a chicken for dinner because you were preoccupied with thinking about sex with your virgin wife, but let’s not go there.
7/12/22, Page 6 – Continuing from yesterday, those who say that intercourse with one’s (virgin) bride on the Sabbath IS permitted, assert that men who are experts at “diverting” know how to have penetrative sex without rupturing the woman’s hymen. Further, they assert, that the vast majority of men are indeed experts in this, and therefore, no worries. I will assert, based on personal experience, hymens or not, that very few, if any, men are experts at anything related to sex.
7/13/22, Page 7 – Given that it’s the subject of this tractate, I was wondering when we’d get to the ketubah, the marriage contract. The topic, still, is whether or not it’s permitted to have intercourse with your new wife on the Sabbath. Here, the legal minds throw in a caution – as one can’t sign a contract on the Sabbath, if one marries on the Sabbath, the contract has to wait until the next day, and so technically, you’re having pre-marital sex, a no-no.
7/14/22, Page 8 – Much has been made at times of the differing stories of human creation in Genesis – man and women created simultaneously, or man first and woman from him? In the marriage celebrations, there are seven blessings recited each day for a week. Two of them praise God for creation, one for simultaneity, one for sequentiality. The rabbis address this with, more or less, “everyone knows it’s just two philosophical views of the same creation act, but just in case we’re all wrong…”. That’s Judaism in a nutshell.
7/15/22, Page 9 – Timing mattered. If a woman claimed at the time of betrothal that she was a virgin, and then on her wedding night was found not to be, the assumption was that she was an adulteress. Why? Because once the betrothal was in place, she became, in essence, promised property to her husband to be. It’s not that premarital sex was forbidden to her, just once she was betrothed. No mention, of course, is made of whether or not the man was or is a virgin.
7/16/22, Page 10 – As the rabbis discuss various ways of determining the veracity of a man’s claim that his new bride is not a virgin, they illustrate each with a story. I think my favorite has to be the one where after using the “wine barrel method” (see page 60 of Yevamot), the sage turns to the man and basically announces that his wife is a virgin, even after intercourse, and will undoubtedly stay that way. Which is possibly the politest way of telling a man he’s got a really short dick that I’ve ever read.
7/17/22, Page 11 – A woman who has sex with a boy nine years old or under is still considered a virgin, because there’s an assumption that a) no procreation could occur, and b) that it’s unlikely his dick could penetrate enough to rupture her hymen. A girl of age three or under who is raped by a man is still considered a virgin, because, well, that’s in her best interests, apparently. Three. Not nine like a boy. Not thirteen like an age of majority at the time. Three. Some days, anthropology is really confronting.
7/18/22, Page 12 – Groomsmen, historically, stayed in the house of the newlyweds to make sure that the guy didn’t change the sheets – hiding the blood-spotted one from “taking his bride’s virginity” and replacing it with a fresh one, and then claiming she wasn’t a virgin and the marriage should be annulled. Given the whole week-long feast and other wedding related stuff, that would seem like an awful lot of time, effort, and money put into just having one-time sex with a virgin.
7/19/22, Page 13 – On the surface, today’s argument is about money – the amount of the marriage contract the man puts aside for the woman in the event the marriage doesn’t work out. It’s double for a virgin versus a non-virgin. But as a half dozen cases are presented, in each case the woman claiming virginity and the man claiming she’s not, it’s clear that the argument is over whether a woman is taken at her word, or must provide proof that she’s not lying. The man, of course, is assumed to be truthful, even if mistaken.
7/20/22, Page 14 – Most of today’s discussion centers around a widow remarrying, who is suspected or known to be a mamzer or a halal (not to be confused with the Muslim dietary law). The various rules and opinions were less interesting to me than a quick dive into what those terms mean. A mamzer is the child of parents who are forbidden to marry, and is forbidden to marry anyone. A halal is the child of a priest and a woman he’s forbidden to marry, and is forbidden only to marry a priest.
7/21/22, Page 15 – A husband says his new bride turns out not to be a virgin. She claims she is, or that she was raped. There are four possibilities posed: she willingly had intercourse before betrothal; she willingly had intercourse after betrothal; she was raped before betrothal; or she was raped after betrothal. Only the second is justification for annulment, so the rabbis conclude, sans other evidence, that the probability is 3:1 that she’s telling the truth. No annulment. Probability theory at work.
7/22/22, Chapter 2, Page 16 – The Talmudic principle of “miggo” says that if someone makes an official statement, if there’s something else they could have said that would have been more to their advantage, one should believe them. Because, why wouldn’t they go all in on a lie? From the other side of that, if you’re going to lie, don’t tell the big lie, tell one that’s believable, even if what you’ll get out of it isn’t what you might have gotten from the bigger lie. I know that’s not the reasoning behind the principle, but it is a logical result.
7/23/22, Page 17 – The schools of Shammai and Hillel are at it again. Shammai says that if a guy marries an ugly or disfigured woman, you tell the truth, because one shouldn’t lie. Hillel says, open your eyes and look to see what the groom sees in his bride and comment on that. Between those, I’m solidly Team Hillel on this one. But, better yet, don’t comment, because nobody asked your opinion.
7/24/22, Page 18 – A witness who claims that their testimony was coerced by a threat against their or someone’s life or health is understood by the rabbinic court to have been acting in the interests of self preservation, or that of a family member or friend, and is allowed to correct the record and still be deemed credible. A witness who claims their testimony was coerced by payment or threat of financial loss is no longer considered credible, as they had chosen money over integrity.
7/25/22, Page 19 – Saving a life in Judaism is paramount, except for three categories, in which, the sages had opined, one should allow oneself to be killed – being forced to worship an idol, being forced to commit murder, or being forced to participate in a forbidden sexual act. Rabbi Meir wants to add violating one’s integrity by bearing false witness, falsifying evidence, lying under oath, etc. I’d almost agree with him, over and above the other three exceptions. Although, committing murder would depend on who it was….
7/26/22, Page 20 – Like digressions in past tractates of the Talmud, I assume we’ll roll around to marriage contracts at some point. For now they’re discussing fallibility of witness testimony when it’s in reference to past events. A mix of how reliable a person’s memory of events are the longer something is in the past, and how much “help” in remembering those event can be offered to jog the person’s memory. Leading the witness, and all that.
7/27/22, Page 21 – Judaism requires two independent witnesses to sign official documents along with the principals. How does one authenticate those witnesses’ signatures, years later, if one of them is no longer alive or can’t be found? Two options are offered. Either two additional witnesses who will swear that the signature on the document belongs to the missing person, or, one additional witness, and the surviving original one carves his signature into a piece of earthenware, swearing an oath that the other signature is valid.
7/28/22, Page 22 – The ninth commandment, thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor, tends to be interpreted as thou shalt not lie. But it’s not really what it says, and the Talmudic rabbis are clear to point out that there are circumstances where it is necessary to lie. For example, a woman who is receiving unwanted attention from one or more men, can use what today we might call the I already have a boyfriend excuse, in order to fend off suitors. As long as, it is admonished, they have a compelling reason to thwart such attentions!
7/29/22, Page 23 – Women need to speak up for themselves. Seems odd advice from a rabbinic council that’s noted for trying to keep women in their place. In specific, related to a woman’s purity and whether she can marry into the priestly cast. If she speaks up first and announces that despite circumstances that may appear otherwise, she’s a virgin, she is to be believed, period. If, however, others first claim that she’s not a virgin, and her claim is in protest to that, in general, she is not believed.
7/30/22, Page 24 – Continuing in this departure from the usual approach to men’s and women’s veracity, the rabbis opine that while a man requires the usual stipulated two men as witnesses to attest to their purity, a woman only requires a single other woman to testify to hers. I just know this is going somewhere I’m not going to like, but for the moment, I’m intrigued by the tangent.
7/31/22, Page 25 – In a world without social media, an internet for computer records checks, not even a telephone or telegraph to send messages, how does one establish that a person who claims to be a priest, or any position of authority, is who he says he is? In that milieu of two millennia ago, it was simple. If he acts like a priest, if he knows all the moves, if he knows all the prayers, benedictions, and lore, then he’s priest. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck….
8/1/22, Page 26 – If a wife has been kidnapped in order to coerce her husband into doing something, the question is whether to believe her if she says her captors did not rape her. The answer is to look at the government of the territory, as, if the government is Jewish, people will have learned proper morals and will not take advantage of a captive; whereas, if the government is Gentile, well, you know what those people are like.
8/2/22, Page 27 – Besides all the obvious reasons that you don’t want your city to be under siege from a hostile army, there is the matter of the purity of your womenfolk. We all know how soldiers are, and no woman could possibly be left unsullied. Therefore, no woman remaining in the city when the siege is over can marry, or remain married to, a priest, whose wife must be untouched by another man. Witnesses testifying to her purity are not credible in the face of common wisdom.
8/3/22, Page 28 – If a slave teaches himself to read, and then to read Torah, he is to be made a free man. If he teaches himself all the proper benedictions and prayers and rituals, he may even be elevated to priesthood. But, to be clear, he must have taught himself, not to have been taught, because it will show that he has the spirit and will to be free and the blessing of God.
8/4/22, Chapter 3, Page 29 – Some days, “I can’t even…”. The start of this new chapter is an enumeration of the categories of young and/or virgin women for whom a rapist must pay restitution to her father for sullying her. It includes for raping a girl under the age of three. He may, or may not, also have to go to jail. There is some discussion about screaming at him to get him to change his ways. As I said, I can’t even….
8/5/22, Page 30 – Some things for which the Torah specifies the death penalty: adultery, incest, murder, kidnapping, worshiping idols, proselytizing other religions, breaking the Sabbath. Some things for which one can be excommunicated in Judaism: heresy, playing fast and loose with kosher laws, working on sacred days, intentionally bringing yourself to erection. Rape an underage girl, if she’s not betrothed to someone? Pay a fine. Maybe.
8/6/22, Page 31 – Well, after the last couple of days’ entries it’s nice to know that there are some punishments around rape. If a man rapes his sister, his sister-in-law, his aunt, or a menstruating woman, he is punished by paying a fine and/or (though usually just or) being flogged.
8/7/22, Page 32 – What about punishment for the rape of a woman considered to be an “imbecile” (not as in stupid, as in mentally disabled)? The sages conclude that nothing done to her could be more humiliating or degrading than her innate condition, so no payment to her or her family. Just, maybe, a little light flogging of the rapist equivalent to the physical pain she might, perhaps, have felt.
8/8/22, Page 33 – Why sometimes a payment as a punishment for rape and sometimes lashes? It’s about time we got around to addressing that. So… Lashes are punishment “in kind” for having caused harm, both physical and mental. It’s nice the sages recognized that a woman could be mentally harmed by being rape. A fine is punishment as “payment” for the “pleasure” of having had sex with her. So much for progressivity. The sages just turned rape victims into prostitutes.
8/9/22, Page 34 – We’re off on a tangent about eating meat on the Sabbath from an animal that wasn’t killed in accordance with kosher laws. The debate ranges over intentionality in the slaughter, ownership of the cow, possession of the cow, theft, deceit, payment, and more. I just know from past tractates that somehow all that is going to shortly come back to our main subject and relate to the purity or propriety of a woman. Based on the previous 32 pages, it’s not going to be pretty.
8/10/22, Page 35 – Relevant to the big hot potato of current American politics, the personhood of a fetus. Yes, we’re on yet another tangent, as the rabbis debate the punishment for an assailant causing a woman to miscarry. The decision was that the assailant was liable only for a fine, determined by the woman’s husband, if only the fetus was harmed. If the woman was harmed or killed, the punishment was either lashes or execution, respectively.
8/11/22, Page 36 – I was concerned where today’s page was going, as they start to list the cases where no fine for rape is imposed – family members, underage girls, blind or deaf-mute women. But, in the first cases, a man who rapes a family member or an underage girl is subject either to the death penalty or excommunication and exile. With the disabled things get more complicated, as there’s a question of both what they could testify to and whether they could testify. It’s left somewhat unresolved.
8/12/22, Page 37 – A married woman who has been raped, or presumed to have been raped, must wait three months before having sex with her husband. To see if she might have gotten pregnant and stave off any question of paternity. A woman who converts to Judaism must wait three months before getting married and/or having sex with her Jewish husband to be. Same reason, but because we all know what promiscuous sluts those gentile women are before they convert.
8/13/22, Page 38 – Though I haven’t gone into detail on this part of the “rape fines”, one of the things noted is that if the victim is a young woman or girl, the fine is paid to her father, who is responsible for her. If it’s a married woman, the fine is paid to her husband. On today’s page the rabbis debate various situations – divorcees, women who were betrothed and then un-betrothed – basically single women who are no longer at their parents’ home, defining who gets the fine. Let’s just say it’s pretty patriarchal.
8/14/22, Page 39 – There are three types of women who are allowed to use contraceptives – a minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman. “And why?” you might credibly ask these learned souls of the Talmud. Because if a minor gets pregnant she will die. Because if a pregnant woman gets double pregnant it will squash the first fetus like a flounder (why would the second, smaller fetus dominate?). Because the milk of a nursing woman who gets pregnant will sour, potentially killing her baby.
8/15/22, Page 40 – How much is the fine for raping a woman? Well, gee folks, that’s easy, say the rabbinic folk. Assess the woman as if she were on the auction block in the marketplace – her lineage, her age, her health, her beauty – that’ll tell you how much the rapist needs to pay. That covers the “humiliation” part. For the “degradation” part, compare her value before and after the rape. If that doesn’t clearly illustrate women’s status in that period to you, nothing will.
8/16/22, Page 41 – Yesterday we saw that a seducer or rapist is fined based on an assessment of the damage done to the woman’s reputation. Check this logic, though. If he openly admits to what he did, i.e., if he seduced her into having sex with him, then he has ruined her reputation, because she’s now seen as someone who will put out, so to speak. If he raped her, he hasn’t ruined her reputation, because everyone knows it’s not her fault. We’ve seen in the past how important keeping up appearances are in the cultural milieu where this was being decided, but this is next level.
8/17/22, Chapter 4, Page 42 – I had hoped, coming into a new chapter, that we’d be done with rape fines, and defining a woman’s virginal status. I have no doubt this is leading to the tractate’s main subject, marriage contracts, it’s fascinating that there’s been zero attention on the man’s fitness to enter into it. I guess this is the “Book of Women”. Is there a ‘”Book of Men”? Today’s page discusses whether, if a woman’s father dies before collecting a rape fine on her behalf, the money goes to her or her brothers in his place. It’s left unresolved.
8/18/22, Page 43 – The rabbis continue their discussion about who receives the rape fines when a woman becomes orphaned, or, widowed. If the woman either supports herself, or is supported directly from the estate of her father or husband, the fine goes to her. If the woman is supported by the earnings of her brothers, or the heirs of her husband, then the fine goes to them. From a modern perspective, we point to that regardless, she’s the one who was raped, and ought to be due some measure of compensation.
8/19/22, Page 44 – A betrothed or married woman who committed adultery was, according to scripture, sentenced to death. The traditional method of capital punishment in Judaism was stoning, and by custom, if not dictate, this was performed at the entrance to her father’s house. However… if the woman in question was a convert, she was treated as a Gentile, and the method of choice was strangulation, and away from her family home. Why, for either method or location, is not explained.
8/20/22, Page 45 – Where did one stone an adulterous woman to death? If her father was alive, at the gate to his home. If he was not, then at the gates of the city. Unless the city was a primarily Gentile one, where they might interfere, then, in the doorway of the Court. Now, men didn’t get away scot-free. If a man falsely accused a woman of adultery, he was flogged (though, not to death) and paid her a fine. Except if she was his own wife, then he was flogged, though only if he had sex with her despite the accusation of adultery.
8/21/22, Page 46 – I am not 100% sure that I’m reading this correctly, though I’ve read it through several times. The official “test” for whether a woman is a virgin or not is whether or not her new husband finds her hymen intact and causes bleeding when he penetrate her, which is considered “typical” intercourse. So, apparently, she’s still a virgin if she has only had “non-typical” intercourse, i.e., anal (and presumably oral). In a culture preoccupied with family lineage, this, strangely, makes sense.
8/22/22, Page 47 – In modern times we think about marriage primarily in terms of interpersonal connection. Far different in ancient times. Today the rabbis define a husband’s three responsibilities to his wife and their transactional nature: he is required to provide sustenance, in exchange for her earnings; he is required to redeem or ransom her if captured, in exchange for enjoying the produce of her properties; and, he is required to provide burial on her death, in exchange for having received her dowry.
8/23/22, Page 48 – In regard to a husband’s obligation to provide a funeral and burial for his deceased wife, there is a minimum requirement of hiring two flute players and a wailing woman to attend. This would have greatly changed the character of any funeral I’ve ever been at. Also, wearing clothes while having intercourse is grounds for divorce. The Torah mandates getting naked. I wonder if the rabbis ever had to discuss “furries”?
8/24/22, Page 49 – There’s a setup for some coming weird ruling related to the marriage contract. The sages note that while it’s common wisdom and practice for a father to provide food, shelter, and clothing for his children, that it might not be an actual Torah obligation, but rather a mitzvah, a good deed, moral thing to do. In regard to a son who chooses not to study Torah, or a daughter, period, they debate whether there is a legal obligation, regardless of what’s the right thing to do.
8/25/22, Page 50 – Despite the exhortations for all good Jewish boys to study Torah, they can’t all end up being Torah scholars, unless you expect Gentiles to handle everything else in life. The Talmud recommends “force feeding” learning until a boy is six, then let him set his own course until his bar mitzvah, after which, you push for as much Torah as you can get into whatever direction he has chosen. Oh, and side note, the cure for a scorpion bite is white vulture bile mixed into beer, massaged into the skin and drunk.
8/26/22, Page 51 – The rabbis note that while there is no legal obligation for a man to sign a ketuba, a marriage contract, stipulating his various responsibilities, there are certain ones that are required by society – spousal support (food, clothing, shelter), redemption from kidnappers, and, in the case of divorce or the husband’s death, a minimum payment from him or his estate to his wife. Further, it’s noted that if a man writes a marriage contract that doesn’t include, or lessens these things, the court will enforce the minimums.
8/27/22, Page 52 – If a man must redeem his wife from kidnappers, he is only obligated to pay her fair market price. If they demand an exorbitant ransom, he can decline to pay it or, he can pay it once (up to 10x her market price) and after that is never obligated to ransom her again. If she is critically or chronically ill, he is required to pay for her treatment, but can deduct the cost from the amount he owes her in the event of divorce. It’s stuff like this that lead to external conclusions that we’re all about money.
8/28/22, Page 53 – A man makes a promise, in this case the marriage contract, and promises a certain amount, perhaps more than he can afford, base on his perception that it is expected of him by society, family, or friends. If he later finds that his perception was based on his misinterpretation of their expectations, that isn’t a valid reason for breaking his word. Inference vs intent. It’s the old “when you assume, you make an ass of u and me”.
8/29/22, Page 54 – A woman gets pregnant from a rape and has the child. The man, or his estate if he dies, owes child support. If a couple has premarital sex and she has a child, and the man dies before they are married, his estate does not owe child support. A widow, supported by the estate of her late husband, does not lose that support if she has sex, as she’s simply succumbing to temptation; unless she put on makeup and did her hair first, which indicates she intended to behave inappropriately for a widow.
8/30/22, Chapter 5, Page 55 – If a widow returns to her father’s house to live, her deceased husband’s estate continues to support her. There is a limit on that. If she continues to live in her father’s home and doesn’t remarry, the estate is only obligated to support her for twenty-five years. After that, she’s on her own.
8/31/22, Page 56 – The marriage contract, the ketubah, is written for a specific amount that is codified in the rules. We already saw that there’s an enforceable minimum. What wasn’t stated was that it’s also a maximum, though just for the ketubah. A man can choose to write a separate contract guaranteeing more to his wife, but only after they are married, and only after they have consummated the marriage with intercourse. You want to be sure she’s worth it, after all.
9/1/22, Page 57 – A woman can agree to a lower amount for a marriage contract than the legal stipulation, which I’m sure happened, particularly within families in the lower economic sectors of society. On today’s page the rabbis argue over the form of that agreement (verbal or written) and when it must be done – which seems to come down to “before the end of the wedding ceremony, which is the beginning of the permitted intercourse phase”. Good to know they don’t overlap. It would make for an awkward service.
9/2/22, Page 58 – One of a husband’s obligations is to provide his wife with sustenance, and in exchange he’s entitled to a share of her earnings. The rules of the road don’t allow for her to withhold her earnings from her husband any more than he can withhold providing for her and family, as it would cause resentment. However, she is allowed to declare herself self-supporting, and keep all her earnings, if she agrees that he doesn’t have to provide for her. Doesn’t sound like much of a marriage partnership though.
9/3/22, Page 59 – Women need to work. Whether it’s household chores like cleaning and cooking and raising children, or work outside the home, whatever it may be, they need to be doing something active and productive. Because, you know, idle women are prone to licentious behavior and idiocy.
9/4/22, Page 60 – Until the very end of this page, we were on a discussion of weaning a child off of breast-feeding, which all, in the end, agree should be done by two years of age. That led to a discussion, unresolved, of whether mother’s milk is kosher, since a human, a biped, does not fit the definition of a kosher, milk-producing animal. I was going to leave it there with some pithy thought, but then I hit the last paragraph and I’m just going to copy it here, intact: “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 will have tearful children; one who eats fish brine 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 will have corpulent children; and one who eats etrogim will have sweet-smelling children.”
9/5/22, Page 61 – Never eat in front of someone and not offer them some of what you’re eating. That includes family, friends, strangers, and serving staff. The provocation caused by smelling delicious food is so great that if a person isn’t offered any, it puts their life in danger. This, apparently, also works for guys trying to pick up gals – eat in front of them until they’re so hungry they’re going to faint, and then offer them some on the condition that they go out with you. Yes, I can see that working out well.
9/6/22, Page 62 – How often should a husband and wife engage in sexual relations? Well obviously that depends on his profession! A man of leisure and his wife should have sex every day. But a man who is on the road – a camel or donkey driver, or a sailor, will of course only have daily sex during the interludes when they aren’t away. A Torah scholar who goes away for a month at a time to study, should spend at least the same amount of time in pleasurable activities at home, perhaps double!
9/7/22, Page 63 – If a woman refuses to have intercourse with her husband, her marriage contract amount is reduced by a set fine every week, until it reaches zero, at which point the man is supposed to divorce her, owing her nothing. If they don’t divorce until later, the fine accrues in his favor, and she owes him. Plus, weekly public announcements are made, shaming her for not fulfilling her wifely responsibilities. If a man refuses to have intercourse, he too is fined, though at less than half the amount, accruing in her favor, but no shaming and no divorce required. Of course, she can gossip and word will get around….
9/8/22, Page 64 – There’s a minimum wage for being a wife. Yes indeed, the Talmudic rabbis have a list of the bare minimum that the poorest of poor men must provide for their wives that includes a list of food, seasonally appropriate clothing, shelter, furniture, and a stipend for her personal expenses. And, it’s noted, that the amounts and quality of each are proportionally raised if the man is not poor. There is, of course, a comparable list of the expectations on what the woman will provide to home and hearth.
9/9/22, Page 65 – If a woman is not with her husband, she should only be allowed one glass of wine. Because after two glasses, she will disgrace herself, after three she will become lustful and demand sex with any man around, and after four, well, it might not even be a man, it could be a random donkey in the marketplace! If, however, she’s with her husband, she can drink as much as she wants, because he’s present to handle her sexual urges.
9/10/22, Chapter 6, Page 66 – One topic touched on on today’s page is that of a dowry promise from a father to a future son-in-law. If the boy dies before the couple gets married, while they are just betrothed, the whole levirate marriage thing comes into effect, apparently. I don’t recall that from the last tractate, I thought levirate marriage only came into play if they were actually married. Regardless, the dowry promise does not extend to the brother obliged to marry the young woman. The father can withdraw part or all of the dowry at his whim.
9/11/22, Page 67 – The Talmud sets a minimum that a father, or family, gives for a bride’s dowry, regardless of the income level of her family. Even in the case of an orphan girl, the orphanage is required to provide a dowry when she is married off. That minimum was 50 dinars. A dinar was the rough equivalent of a day’s wages for an unskilled laborer – some peg that at about $50, leaving aside current debates on minimum wage. If that’s an accurate translation to modern economy, a dowry should run, at a minimum, $2500.
9/12/22, Page 68 – Appreciate the swindlers, grifters, and cheats you encounter, because without them, we wouldn’t recognize the truly poor. That’s the rabbinical opinion, though I question its accuracy. Especially when it’s followed by a definition of what constitutes being poor and deserving of charity. That definition intentionally does not include an assessment of real property, fixtures, furniture, clothing, or other tangible assets, but only asks, “how much cash does the person have on hand?”
9/13/22, Page 69 – Although a series of disparate discussions and stories, the gist of today’s page is the showing of proper respect for others. Whether it’s a senior rabbi, an accredited teacher, or a woman directing her own finances, they have the right, based on community standards and Talmudic tradition, to expect respect for what they say and do.
9/14/22, Chapter 7, Page 70 – Once a couple is betrothed, a more formal version of becoming fiancés, the woman is prohibited from sexual activity with other men. Since the man’s obligations to support her don’t take effect until the actual marriage, some men may drag their feet on the actual ceremony, deriving benefit of her company without cost. Today’s page is convoluted, as many are, but seems to indicate that if it’s obvious that’s what he’s doing, he needs to start either supporting her, or make arrangements for her to be supported.
9/15/22, Page 71 – While there are reasons that the Talmud and the society at that time accepted that a husband might ban his wife from a particular social or charitable activity, it was both required that he prove it was necessary, and the ban had to be limited to a reasonable period. Of paramount concern was preventing a woman from experiencing social isolation that would affect the rest of her life. If he could not both prove and limit his ban, he was required to divorce her and pay her marriage contract in full.
9/16/22, Page 72 – There are reasons for a husband to divorce his wife without payment: if she violates the laws of Moses (left vague – ten commandments? all of Leviticus?); if she violates the norms for Jewish women; if she feeds him untithed food; if she goes out in public without a head covering; if she curses his parents; if she doesn’t tell her husband she’s menstruating and has sex with him; if she’s loud (defined as neighbors being able to hear her between homes).
9/17/22, Page 73 – As with many pages of Talmud, I am left confused at the end of today’s page. The discussion revolves around whether or not marriage contract payment on divorce is required in the case of errors of betrothal, marriage, and vows. At most what I can glean is once again that intent matters – if both husband and wife intended marriage, and didn’t hide any existing other marriages or vows, then if they divorce, the payment is required. If she hid stuff from him, then it’s not. Maybe.
9/18/22, Page 74 – Annulment versus divorce. Ofttimes a man’s preference, as a) he doesn’t have to pay the marriage contract amount, and b) in a divorce, the ex-wife’s family becomes off-limits to him, and if they’re important, he might want to maintain ties to them. Many potential reasons for annulment seem lumped under blemishes “discovered” on the woman’s body after marriage, such as hairy moles, large moles, hidden moles, large breasts, breasts too far apart or too close together, scars, or a deep voice.
9/19/22, Page 75 – Men want to marry women who are their equal or better in life’s station, because it maintains or elevates their position in the community. Women just want to be married, and it doesn’t matter to them if the man comes from a lofty or humble family, because all that’s important to a woman is that she can say she’s married. And besides, being married to a lowly man might just give her cover for her secret, licentious lifestyle. Who knew?
9/20/22, Page 76 – If you ever needed written evidence for women having been considered property of their fathers and then their husbands, you’d only need this page, as the condition of the bride, as to whether her blemishes that justify divorce or not based on whether they were evident before the marriage ceremony, or not, is compared to blemishes on an animal sold to a butcher and when they were evident, to determine if it’s status is kosher or treif.
9/21/22, Page 77 – Finally, we address men’s blemishes and whether a woman can demand a divorce because of them. And yes, she can. And not just boils and moles, but also if he has chronic bad breath, smells foul because of his job, is blind in one or both eyes, is one-handed, or is crippled. Further, she can demand it even if these blemishes existed before the marriage, claiming she thought she could abide it, but has, as is a woman’s prerogative, changed her mind. Also, there’s a gruesome description of brain surgery to remove insects that have burrowed into a man’s head.
9/22/22, Chapter 8, Page 78 – It’s not unusual to separate the property and things one acquires before and after one is married when it comes to what’s considered jointly owned “stuff”. Of course, back in the day, this was one-sided. What a woman acquired before marriage was hers and hers alone, what she acquired after marriage was jointly owned by her husband. His property, of course, was just his. Only Rabbi Gamliel seems to dissent, declaring this inequity shameful.
9/23/22, Page 79 – I learned a new English word today, obviously the translation of the original Hebrew. Usufruct. The temporary right to use and/or enjoy someone else’s property without rights to sell or destroy it. On today’s page it’s applied to property brought into a marriage by a woman, and her husband’s rights to it. Note that it’s a temporary right, there’s a built in “it’s not ours, it’s mine” approach – meant to protect the woman’s ownership rights.
9/24/22, Page 80 – It’s time for yet another argument between Shammai and HIllel. If a wife dies, what becomes of her “usufruct” property (see yesterday’s post)? Shammai says to split it equally between her and her husband’s family. Hillel says it all goes to her family. Neither, of course, considers what she might have wanted. I’m assuming that at some point coming up we have a tractate on inheritance rules. That ought to be interesting in this regard.
9/25/22, Page 81 – If a man suspected his wife of adultery, but had no witnesses nor proof, he would take her to the Temple priest, make a sacrificial offering, and the priest would administer a potion of bitter waters. If she swelled up and died, or close to it, she was guilty, if not, she was innocent. If her husband died after accusing her, but before the test, she is automatically presumed innocent, because he’s not there to witness the test nor make a sacrifice, and, key to this tractate, his estate owes her her marriage contract amount.
9/26/22, Page 82 – Today’s page harkens back to the previous tractate and levirate marriage. The sages, recognizing that such a marriage, of a widow to her dead husband’s brother, was an act of Torah, not of choice, ruled that her new husband was not personally responsible for her original marriage contract in the event of either halitsa (declining the levirate marriage) or divorce. That amount was to be paid from the dead brother’s estate, if there were sufficient funds.
9/27/22, Chapter 9, Page 83 – In a society where a husband was automatically granted rights not only of use and enjoyment of his wife’s property, but the inheritance of it, how would a wealthy woman protect her and her family’s possessions. Why, a pre-nup, of course! A man could (generally at the insistence of his fiancé’s family) renounce his rights to use, enjoyment, and/or inheritance, before getting married. But only then. Once married, the rules didn’t allow for him to renounce his rights.
9/28/22, Page 84 – If a man dies while in debt, the question arises as to how his estate is distributed among his widow, his children, and his creditors. The two principal arguers in this debate are Rabbi Tarfon, who advocates starting with whomever is most in need, and working your way towards the one least in need, paying them off. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, says that need, being poor, shouldn’t be a consideration, and the estate should go to the children first, then his widow, and whatever’s left split between his creditors.
9/29/22, Page 85 – As we grow up, and grow older, we often move apart from our biological families. There will always be a certain amount of shared experience and connection that will never be replicated by friends and neighbors. At the same time, those friends and neighbors become our day to day families, in some ways closer than those we’re actually related to. The rabbis explore honoring the wishes of someone who dies in regard to inheritance, concluding that a good friend is often better than a distant relative.
9/30/22, Page 86 – There’s a side comment on today’s page that struck me. Rav Nahman looks back at some of his rulings over the years, particularly in regard to women’s inheritance and financial rights, and laments that he and his colleagues, over the years, have begun to act as one-man judicial shows – defense, prosecution, judge, and jury wrapped up in one, rather than as teachers, guides, and advisors, as rabbis were meant to be. Of course, they just move on from there. Nothing changes.
10/1/22, Page 87 – A person who pays a debt is more likely to be accurate as to how much was paid than a person who receives the debt. So opine the sages as they discuss cases where a man claims he has paid his now divorced wife’s marriage contract and she claims it has either not been paid or only partially paid. Funny, that seems exactly the opposite of the way reality in these situations tends to work.
10/2/22, Page 88 – I’ve been struck by something over recent pages of this tractate, with inheritances being divided between creditors, the widow, and the “orphans”. At first I just thought it was poetic license, but as it continued, I realized how intentional it was. And, a bit of an internet dive, “orphan”, in modern day means “parentless”, but that’s apparently a very recent re-definition. Throughout most of human history, patriarchal society has defined “orphan” as “fatherless”, regardless of the existence of a mother or not. Side note, the UN considers one an orphan if either parent has died; while biologists consider animals to be orphans if their mother has died.
10/3/22, Page 89 – This page goes on and on about the possibilities of a woman trying to collect on either her bill of divorce or her marriage contract, more than once. It gets all twisted as the rabbis consider multiple possibilities for how she might go about this. But it all boils down to one thing for the husband… get a receipt.
10/4/22, Chapter 10, Page 90 – In case you had any concerns, second wives’ inheritance percentage comes in after first wives’, children, and creditors.
10/5/22, Page 91 – You don’t even want to know from third wives when it comes to inheritance. On the other hand, from the male side of things, it’s not so bad for the sons of second or third wives. Instead of dividing up the amount owed for each individual marriage contract among the “orphans”, all the marriage contracts are added up and divided equally. Since first wives usually have a bigger contract, good for the second wife’s sons, not so good for the first wife’s sons. Though, still, that only applies to the marriage contract amounts, not the rest of the estate.
10/6/22, Page 92 – If there’s a lien on your property when you sell it to someone else, your creditors have the right to repossess that land if you default, even at the expense of the buyer. Back in the day before computer searches to do your due diligence, knowing if there was a lien on a property wasn’t easy. Buyers were advised to get a guarantee of compensation from the Seller for just this sort of reason. Of course, if the Seller defaulted to his creditors, what are the chances he’s going to pay you, guarantee or not?
10/7/22, Page 93 – I’m not going to go into a game theory explanation here as the rabbis discuss how to split up an estate between three wives that has a lesser value than what they are owed. On the face of it, their decisions seem odd, but something about the distribution seemed familiar. Almost like a prisoner’s dilemma sort of puzzle. And, it turns out I’m not the first to think of this, as some game theorists actually worked this all out to show that the rabbis were mathematically ahead of their times.
10/8/22, Page 94 – In what has to be the ultimate “possession is 9/10 of the law” example, the sages determine that if a messenger is dispatched, carrying a payout on a debt, and the person who he’s delivering the payout to dies before the messenger arrives, that the payout becomes the property of the messenger to do with as he wishes. Bizarrely, for a group who like to argue every obscure possibility, they’re dismissive of considering him looking for the recipient’s heir, or even just returning the payout to the sender.
10/9/22, Page 95 – A man is married to two women. His primary asset is land, which also therefore is the guarantee to pay their marriage contracts on divorce, or his death. He sells the property, and his first wife signs off on it, figuring it will be okay down the line. The second wife doesn’t or isn’t consulted. The man dies, and the estate doesn’t have sufficient money to pay their marriage contracts. The second wife repossesses the property from the buyer; but now, the first wife has first claim on assets, and repossesses it from the second wife; but since she gave up her claim, the purchaser reclaims it from her. Rinse and repeat – the ultimate round-robin. The sages advise making sure all your wives are in agreement when you sell things.
10/10/22, Chapter 11, Page 96 – The last chapter leads into this one, as we find that a widow who “finds” property from her deceased husband is allowed to keep it. Though not spelled out clearly, I gather that found property in this case is pretty much anything that wasn’t listed as part of the inheritance estate to her, the children, or any creditors. If she’s wealthy, she has up to three years to claim said property, as it’s assumed she can support herself for up to three; if she’s poor, two years, as it’s assumed she can’t support herself as long.
10/11/22, Page 97 – Talk about “buyer beware”. The rabbis run through situations where a seller changes their mind after the sale of property, and it’s decided that the ethical thing is that the sale be reversed. Most of it is centered around situations where a seller was facing looming economic circumstances that in the end didn’t come to pass. But still…. Further, on theme for this tractate, widows and divorcees, in many situations, get their sold property back because not doing so would damage their desirability in the marriage market.
10/12/22, Page 98 – Once again, intent rears its head. Various situations where a widow sells part or all of a property from her deceased husband’s estate, sometimes for more than it’s worth, sometimes for less, sometimes selling it piecemeal in order to get an overall better price. Her intent matters in the determination of whether the sale if valid or void. It also matters who she’s selling to – as one is not allowed to cheat or charge interest to fellow Jews, but, for Gentiles, all bets are off. And we wonder where some of the ideas about Jews and money come from?
10/13/22, Page 99 – Why, continuing from yesterday, would a widow’s sale of a property at a reduced price be considered invalid? After all, isn’t she entitled to just simply sell it off and move on with her life? No, reason the sages – because her sale of the property at a lower than market price brings down the value of the estate as a whole. Since inheritance laws were written such that each party to it got a percentage of the estate – be they the widow, the children, or the creditors, it reduced the amount that those entitled to a share received.
10/14/22, Page 100 – The sale of property is generally a matter of public record, and when selling something like land or a house, it’s usually put on the market in order to garner the best sale price, rather than sold quietly, behind the scenes. Three types of property, however, are sold… silently, so to speak. Slaves, movable items, and contracts. Why? Because a slave who knows he or she is about to be sold, might right away. Movable items and contracts might be of interest to a third party, who would abscond with the item or contract rather than see it sold to someone else.
10/15/22, Page 101 – A minor girl who is married off by her family has the right of refusal when she reaches her age of majority to annul the marriage. Generally, I gather, it wasn’t done much, because of the social impact on her and her family, but it was allowed. It did come at the cost of her losing the right to her marriage contract payment, since she was declaring the marriage as non-existent. Sounds like Leonard DiCaprio’s dream relationship.
10/16/22, Chapter 12, Page 102 – If you see a friend being strangled by a creditor, and you rush over and promise that if the creditor stops strangling your friend, you’ll pay his debt, you’re not actually obligated to pay the debt, according to the rabbinic set. After all, you weren’t party to the original loan, and you only made the promise under duress. Nothing is mentioned about consequences of not paying.
10/17/22, Page 103 – We have the case of two (or more) men, each of whom is obligated to support a young girl who still lives at home. Now, based on past readings, the only reason I can see for this arising is that both men have had intercourse with her, but she’s too young to marry, or is betrothed to someone else. They cannot, according to the rabbis, split the costs of supporting her, but must each pay and/or provide for her in full. Consequences for men who sleep with underage women, and perhaps, occasionally, a bit of a racket for underage girls (possibly with parental approval), to seduce older men.
10/18/22, Page 104 – Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the principal editor of the Mishnah, the laying out of each rule in the Talmud. Extremely ill at the end of his life, the other rabbis gathered together in a prayer vigil for his survival, going so far as to threaten death to anyone who reported him dying. His caretaker, seeing how much suffering he was going through, interrupted the prayer vigil by tossing a clay jug off the roof – as it shattered, the rabbis stopped praying, and HaNasi died. This passage is currently being used by some Orthodox in arguments for compassionate termination of life.
10/19/22, Chapter 13, Page 105 – Judges shouldn’t take bribes. In any form, be it monetary compensation, assistance, favors, or even simple courtesies, from anyone who is appearing before them with a case. I assume we’ll shortly get to relating this to decision making in regard to marriage contracts.
10/20/22, Page 106 – It is clear that these rabbis have never organized a catered event. When confronted with instructions (that were all related to the mystical prophet Elijah) to place 22 loaves of bread in front of 100 sages to provide them sustenance while they study, they decide that this requires 2200 sages to study, because each loaf of bread should be set in front of 100 sages. Trust me, you’re going to have a lot of very hangry scholars on hand.
10/21/22, Page 107 – While most of this page is about spousal support while a man goes overseas, I am, of course, drawn to a tangent about the kosher use of earthenware vessels. The meat vs. milk thing requires that you have separate vessels for those foods, as clay may absorb one and impart its essence to the other. Today’s page provides a very specific exemption. Earthenware vessels that are glazed in either white or black glaze, and the glaze is uncracked, are fine to use for both foods. But just the white or black ones. No reasoning is given for the color choice, and green ones are singled out as forbidden.
10/22/22, Page 108 – We will, apparently, get to the intricate details of inheritance law in a future tractate, Batra, but for the moment, today’s page takes on one small area. If a man dies, leaving both sons and daughters, it is customary that his sons inherit his property, and from the estate, provide support for their sisters until they marry. However, if the estate is insufficient to support all of them, the daughters take precedence, and are supported until marriage, while the sons are obligated to take to the streets and beg for their own sustenance.
10/23/22, Page 109 – A woman is betrothed to a man and her father promises a dowry. But, he either goes bankrupt, or has another reason he cannot, or will not, pay the dowry. The potential groom is under no obligation to marry her without the dowry, and at the same time, under no obligation to annul the betrothal. He can go out and get married to someone else, leaving her to sit, unmarried, “until her hair turns white”. Once again, women subject to the wiles of men.
10/24/22, Page 110 – The rabbis turn their attention to the marriage homestead. A husband can require a wife to move to another town within the same region, but cannot require her to move to another region, allowng her to stay close to her family… unless, he is moving to Israel, and even more, to Jerusalem, his entire immediate family can be required to move with him. He can require her to move to a better quality property and home, but cannot require her to downgrade to a lesser quality one. Always trade up!
10/25/22, Page 111 – Uhhh… Anyone who as walked a distance of six feet within Israel will, after death, some day, be resurrected in Israel, whole, healthy, and in the clothes they were buried in. And if they’ve walked there, but died and been buried outside of Israel, their body and spirit will pass through specially designed tunnels in order to reach Israel and be resurrected there. This will also apply to Torah scholars and those who marry Torah scholars, but who lived outside of Israel. Tunnels? Really?
10/26/22, Page 112 – The ending of this tractate is an homage to the land of Israel, a litany of imagined fertility, abundance, and wonders of crops and livestock. It seems a strange way to end a book on marriage laws, though at the same time, these last few pages have all been about the bond of Jews to the land of Israel, almost like a marriage itself. The imagery used, particularly an ode to a giant peach, puts me in mind of Roald Dahl’s James and the Giant Peach, and I find myself wondering if this is where he drew his inspiration for this story.

Go back to Yevamot/Brother’s Wife

Go forward to Nedarim/Vows

Go back to Main Page