Raboyseyee and Ladies,
This week’s parsha post is dedicated to the memory of my father, Reb Yaakov ben Chaim Yitzchok Halevi Grossman, OBM, whose yurtzeit – the 22nd- will be observed in Jerusalem this coming Sunday, the 25th of Shvat. May his neshomo have continued aliyos. I have a feeling he would be happily surprised to see what his son turns out weekly for the past 15 years.
Welcome to Parshas Mishpotim, where the newly minted and married Yiddin are about to hear the details of their wedding vows. Such details include 53 different mitzvis they must observe. Amongst those is the commandment for the man not to withhold sexual favors from one’s wife. Does a man need to be told not to withhold sex? Isn’t the man always asking? Shouldn’t this commandment have been given to the Jewish women instead? What’s pshat here? Aren’t men ready for sex all the time? Does this require a written rule?
Though we have previously touched upon this topic, the Ois is back with mamish new materials never covered before in the past 15 years. The bottom line: A man is obligated to give his wife sex; lots of it and specifically so when the wife demands it. Let’s read the relevant pisukim for the heylige Toirah (Shmois 21:10) and also from the script of the kisuva (ketubah) document every man gives his Jewish wife under the chuppah.
ם־אַחֶ֖רֶת יִֽקַּֽח־ל֑וֹ שְׁאֵרָ֛הּ כְּסוּתָ֥הּ וְעֹנָתָ֖הּ לֹ֥א יִגְרָֽע׃
If he takes another [into the household as his wife], he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
The bottom line: If a man purchases a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself or his son, and then wishes to take a second wife, the heylige Toirah specifically requires him to continue to fulfill his marital obligations to the maidservant:
שׁמות כא:י אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע.
“If he marries another, he [the husband] must not withhold her [his wife’s] food, clothing, or onah.”
What do those last three words mean? In plain English or Hebrew: it means sex, conjugal relations. This translation is the classical rabbinic understanding of the term “conjugal rights.” The language of the husband’s declaration in the traditional kesuva [marriage contract] reflects these three duties:
מזונייכי וכסותייכי וספוקייכי ומיעל לותיכי כאורח כל ארעא
[I will provide] your food, clothing and necessities, and I will approach you [sexually] in the standard manner.
So happens that were you to poll most of your friends, you would quickly find out that most women -specifically Jewish ones and more specifically, those in the frum world -once married with children- have little interest in sex with their husbands. Shoin, I said it; so, shoot me but it’s sadly emes! That’s just how it is. Most, doesn’t of course mean all, ober for most -as they say in Gemora parlance, ruba d’ruba- them are the facts. Yikes! Eventually the husbands give up, take matters into their own hands, if you chap, or take their business elsewhere. All that being stated with a degree of certitude, let’s check in on what the heylige Toirah teaches us this week mamish and chap why most men are not Toirah observant and why the fault lies with the women.
According to the heylige Toirah, a husband must provide his wife with food, clothing and sex; if he fails to, she is entitled to a divorce. Kimat all ancient translations and our sages understood the Hebrew term oinah to refer to a woman’s conjugal rights. And if the printed versions of what we read and study are correct -avada they are- this would be the only instance in the laws of the ancient Near East that stipulates that a wife is entitled to sexual gratification. Says Rashi (with the heylige Ois translating, azoy): It seems to me that the duty of satisfying the conjugal rights of a wife is not the same for every male, but rather defined by the labor that he is engaged in. What’s pshat?
If the husband is a ‘ladegayer,’ a lazy bum without a job, he must deliver more sex to his wife. On the other hand, if he’s busy, or on the road often, things that tire him out, his obligations to his wife are dramatically lessened. In this case, she will have to rely on herself -self-service, if you chap. What’s pshat? Says Rashi, this is the point of “one he-goat for every ten she-goats” and also “one ram” etc., because they are free of work and indulge in a lot of mating and thus can easily impregnate ten she-goats. Similarly with cattle that work, he gave only four females to each male, or with donkeys that travel far, just two females per male, or with camels that go even greater distances, one female per male (translations are mine). What the hec is Rashi talking about? He goats, she goats, what’s going on here? For that we turn to the medrish (Bereishis Rabbah, 76:7) where the man’s obligations are further defined; it’s amazing. How often should a men have sex with his wife? Says the medrish first quoting the heylige Toirah and then adding its own commentary, azoy:
“He stayed there that night; he took from that which was in his possession a gift for Esau his brother.” Two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams. Thirty nursing camels and their offspring, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys.”
Rabbi Elazar said: From here one derives the period of conjugal rights of a woman that is stated in the Toirah: The men of leisure – every day; the laborers – twice a week; the seafarers – once in six months. “Two hundred female goats” that need “twenty male goats,” “two hundred ewes” that require “twenty rams.” “Thirty nursing camels and their offspring [uvneihem]” and their males [boneihem] thirty; Rabbi Berechya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel: Because it is modest in its sexual relations, the verse did not publicize it, but just, “thirty nursing camels and their offspring.” “Forty cows and ten bulls,” as they need ten bulls. Twenty female donkeys and they need ten male donkeys – why did it place the camels in the middle? It is, rather, as though he [Jacob] was saying to him [Esau]: ‘Consider yourself as though you are sitting on the platform and judging, and I am being judged before you, and you become filled with mercy over me.’
200 she goats get serviced by 20 he-goats? How interesting? Ober, where have we seen this ratio before? Shoin, let us harken back to Sefer Bereishes and set the scene. Yaakov is preparing to meet Eisav. He is under the impression that Eisav wants to kil him. Amongst other strategies, he also prepares a huge gift offering for Eisav. Let’s read from the heylige Toirah (Bereishis 32:14-16):
And what do we learn from the size of his gift? First that Yaakov was a rich man. What else? That the medrish, on the sexual needs of a women -how often a man must service his wife- as quoted by Rashi, takes Yaakov’s git list in a startlingly unexpected direction. What triggers it is the observation that the list seems to stress not only the inclusion of males and females in each species but a distinct ratio between them. Two hundred she-goats come with twenty he-goats. Thus, beneath the surface of the text at issue is also the question of the conjugal obligations a man owes toward his wife. It does epes appear that man’s appetite can only be sated by multiple women! And for that reason alone, raboyseyee, the Ois loves medrish!
Taken together, the medrish and Rashi add up to a bold exegetical move. Conjugal relations are neither a begrudging concession to human weakness -horny men and women- nor is sexual activity restricted to procreation. The wife’s right to intimacy does not lapse after a husband has fulfilled the commandment of fathering at least one son and one daughter, he must be on call to deliver the goods. Sex on demand!
Moreover, the Mishneh confirms that our medrish is not an isolated view; it’s normative. It asserts categorically that a husband is forbidden to deny his wife sex for more than two weeks, so say the good people of school of Shammai, or for only one week according to the school of Hillel (Kesuvis 5:6).
Is that so? Ober says the Rambam (Mishneh Toirah, Hilchot De’os 5:4), azoy: “He should not frequent his wife like a rooster. Rather, [he should limit his relations to once a week] from shabbis evening to shabbis evening, if he has the physical stamina.” Oib azoy, if that’s the case, how does square up with what we learned above? What did we learn above? Shoin, already you forget that we learned that a man of leisure must perform daily if the wife so desires. What’s pshat? Is it once weekly, or more often? The Ois has two answers: The first is brought down in the Gemora and elsewhere, and one, his own. Let’s begin wit the Ois’s pshat. These two ideas are not in conflict because there has never been a case in real life where a Jewish frum wife demanded sex from her husband daily. And if there was, mistama she was born a shiksa, or unless she was once a guy! As to the Rambam and others, let’s reconcile azoy: Each source is speaking from a different perspective – that of the wife and the husband, respectively.
The bottom line is azoy: if a wife is married to a man of independent means, she can taka request conjugal relations every day if she so desires, but a man should limit his requests to once a week. Preferably on Shabbis? Indeed! You got it. That being said, this is but an explanation of the conflicting sources. Ober in today’s real world, the Ois has been told by a few rabbis that most modern poskim (rabbis who rule on these questions) caution that although once a week on the heylige Shabbis is the ideal, it is for the very few and not the many. That is, in our times of heightened sexual immodesty and bombardment from Instagram and TikTok, they caution men to not limit themselves The usual advice is that couples should be sensitive to each other’s sexual needs and be together as many times in a week that both parties are willing.
The bottom line: The Rambam rules in favor of Hillel and requires a divorce if the husband persists in withholding sex from his wife (Mishneh Toirah, Hilkhot Ishus 14:6). Wait, there’s more: The heylige Toirah grants a wife the right to prevent her husband from switching jobs if his new livelihood should increase their time apart. Check it out in the heylige Gemora Kesuvis 62b. The bottom line: as far as the Gemora is concerned, both men and women need sex in their lives; Shami and Hiller argue over just how mush. As well, in the matter of conjugal relations, the RBSO grants legitimacy to stam azoy sex, just because she wants it. The heylige Mishneh, which clearly underlies the quoted medrish sets forth the expectations that accompany each line of work including students of Toirah, who are not permitted to absent themselves for more than thirty days without the consent of their wives. The bottom line: Conjugal rights for the wife constitutes an inviolable principle. That’s the law! Ober in real life, as mentioned above, this law is not being followed very often by too many women! Why not? Ver veyst? And the final bottom line: Most men would live to be more Toirah observant; the problem is that the women, with their mood swings, headaches, and anger issues, are preventing the men from fulfilling their obligations.
More bottom lines? It does epes appear that sex is the woman’s right, not the mans. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman’s right to sexual intercourse is referred to as oinah, and it is one of a wife’s three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. Some say that jewelry is just as good; some say better. The heylige Gemora specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband’s occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband’s consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halachic obligation to procreate.
Next: Although sex is the woman’s right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the marriage contract. That’s the law; in real life, it’s mamish farkert!
And we close with one piece of good news: Although some sources take a more narrow view, the general view of halacho is that any sexual act that does not involve destruction of seed, that is, ejaculation outside the vagina, is permissible. Says the heylige Gemora (Nedorim 20b) that “a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife.” It gets better: There are passages in the heylige Gemora that encourage foreplay to arouse the woman and in case you’re wondering, any stories you may have heard about Jewish sex occurring through a hole in a sheet are purely an urban legend.
And now you know!
A gittin Shabbis!
The Heylige Oisvorfer Ruv
Yitz Grossman
