If [a
man] marries another [a second wife], he must not withhold from this one sh’eirah (her food), k’sutah (her clothing), and ona’ta (her conjugal rights) (Exodus
21:10).
I’ve tipped my hand by translating ona’ta as conjugal rights. Etz
Hayyim, reflecting on the literal meaning of onah, which is “ointment,” points out that understanding the term
to mean conjugal rights is already found in ancient translations of Torah and
certainly the Rabbis understood it this way, as well.
But perhaps that’s not what Torah had in mind? Perhaps it
means that women are entitled to the basics of food and clothing, but also a
little extra, ointment being a luxury? It has been pointed out by scholars too
numerous to count that for the Bible, marital sex is for the purpose of
procreation. This hyperbolic teaching from the Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) lacks
all subtlety:
R. Eliezer stated: One who does
not engage in propagation of the race is as
though he sheds blood, for it is said, Whoever
sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed (Genesis 9:6), and this is immediately
followed by the text, And you, be
fruitful and multiply (Genesis 9:7). R. Yaakov said: [it is] as though he has diminished the Divine
Image, since it is said, For in the
image of God made humanity (Genesis 9:6), and this is immediately followed
by, And you, be fruitful [and multiply] (Genesis 9:7). Ben Azzai
said: [it is] as though he sheds blood and diminishes the Divine Image, since
it is said, And you, be fruitful and
multiply (Genesis 9:6) [after both Whoever
sheds man’s blood… and For in the
image of God…). (b.Ketubot 63b)
Moreover, scholars tell us, permitting a woman only to her
husband ensured that a man knew for certain that he was the biological father
of the child he was raising. This has provoked many to criticize the
institution of marriage as being created for men to control the sexuality and
procreativity of women.
There’s no doubt that the Rabbis were concerned with
propagation. If the verse from Mishpatim with
which we began had had that in mind, it would have been the man whose rights were stipulated. The
verse would say that even if a man took a new wife whom he preferred, his first
wife would still owe him intimacy.
But it doesn’t say that. It says that if a man takes a new
wife, he still owes his first wife intimacy.
Women have conjugal rights, but men do not. In a world that has
consistently said “men have needs” but never that women do, as well, this is
most surprising — and refreshing. The Sages become quite specific in discussing
the matter in the Mishnah:
If a man
forbade himself by vow to have intercourse with his wife: Bet Shammai ruled
that [she must consent to the deprivation for] two weeks. Bet Hillel ruled one
week. Students may go away to study the Torah, without the permission [of their
wives for a maximum of] 30 days. Laborers: one week. The times for conjugal
duty prescribed in the Torah are [as follows]: For men of leisure: every day.
For laborers: twice a week. For donkey-drivers: once a week. For camel-drivers:
once in 30 days. For sailors: once in six months. These are the words of R.
Eliezer. (b.Ketubot 5:6, daf 61b)
In short, the Schools of Hillel and Shammai disagree about
how long a man may withhold sexual intimacy from his wife. Their assumption,
however, is that she has a right to it, and he may not utterly deny her. R.
Eliezer puts teeth on the matter, specifying times. Apparently R. Eliezer was a
keen advocate of early retirement. But the very variance between Hillel and
Shammai, and between men of different vocations, makes it clear that we are
talking about sex for pleasure and fulfillment here, not just procreation.
Women are entitled to intimacy because it gives them pleasure and happiness.
Accordingly, the Gemara goes on to chronicle in detail, the dangers of leaving
one’s wife for long periods of time, even to study Torah, and the disasters
that ensue.
Although intimacy in marriage is not only sanctioned, but
also mandated, in Jewish tradition, our experience in the broader world has had
a tremendous affect on the arc of Jewish religious attitudes toward sex and
sexuality. The Talmud already speaks of the yetzer
ra, often translation “evil inclination” but probably better translated
“aggressive life force.” The yetzer
included the sex drive, which unchecked, could wreak havoc.
In Christian Europe, the firmly entrenched Hellenistic
notion of a split between body and soul crept into Jewish views. Christianity
taught that the body was seen as a dangerous source of sin that must always be kept
under tight control, sex top on the list of behaviors that threaten the soul. Certainly
rabbinic authorities never condoned severe forms of asceticism, but they did
absorb a general sense of distrust of the body and strong preference for
spiritual endeavors over carnal pleasures.
Maimonides, whose life spanned both the Christian and Muslim
worlds, made clear in Moreh Nevuchim
2:36 (Guide for the Perplexed) his
opinion on sex. Not only is it shameful and depraved, but he also went so far
as to deny that marriage and procreation are obligatory at all. Rambam is not
alone in harboring a fundamental distrust of sexual activity. The widely circulated
Iggeret ha-Kodesh (a book on
marriage, sexual relations, and holiness) objects to Maimonides’ narrow view,
arguing that God created sexuality and the sex drive as part of the human body,
and therefore they cannot be disgraceful. Nonetheless, many authorities,
including Iggeret ha-Kodesh, counseled
fulfilling one’s duties, but no more and none that I know of applauded sexual
pleasure.
That is, until mysticism crept into the Jewish
consciousness, and Lurianic Kabbalah put sexual pleasure front and center because
sexual coupling mirrors Yichud, the
union of Male and Female aspects of the godhead. The physical pleasure of
sexual intimacy was understood to have a spiritual dimension; indeed, the
spiritual aspect was the ultimate goal. Mysticism took off like wildfire,
spreading far and wide through the Jewish world, reintroducing the notion of
pleasurable sexual intimacy, but alas, the dominant culture’s mistrust of sex
and premium on “spiritual” pursuit over “carnal” behavior held strong.
It is time — indeed past due — to consciously examine our attitudes
toward sex and sexuality and consider their source. Are they consonant with
Jewish values? Jewish tradition has held, as early as the Torah, and continuing
through the rabbinic period, that properly channeled sexuality, for both
procreation and pleasure, is a divine blessing. A simple verse — Exodus 21:10 —
opens up a world of conversation; it’s a great place to start.
No comments:
Post a Comment