In the portion of Behukotai, we find an unsettling description of women baking bread: “When I break your staff of bread, 10 women shall bake your bread in a single oven; they shall dole out your bread by weight and though you eat, you shall not be satisfied.”
While clearly this is meant to be a curse, the text provides some insight into the division of labor in the ancient Israelite household. Women were responsible for overseeing the tasks necessary to sustain and support the household, particularly the cooking.
This is reminiscent of a mishna in Ketubot 59b which enumerates the many responsibilities of a wife:
“And these are tasks that a wife perform for her husband: She grinds and bakes, and washes clothes, cooks, and nurses her child, makes her husband’s bed, and makes thread from wool” (Sefaria).
“And these are tasks that a wife perform for her husband: She grinds and bakes, and washes clothes, cooks, and nurses her child, makes her husband’s bed, and makes thread from wool”
Ketubot 59b
A wife was also assumed to oversee religious practices within the household. Later, in tractate Ketubot 72a, the mishna describes a woman who is to be divorced without ketubah (marriage contract) for violating Dat Moshe (the Law of Moses). This is considered to be a serious consequence (note: a man who behaves in an overly controlling manner must divorce his wife with ketubah).
(Note: The ketuba is the marriage contract that has within it the financial remuneration a woman collects upon divorce or death of her husband. The focus is whether she will collect what is legally her right or it will be denied her because of her behavior.)
Three examples given are that the wife deceives her husband into thinking that she has tithed the grain, immersed in a mivkeh (ritual bath), and separated the challah dough. In this way, she has betrayed his trust and caused him to inadvertently transgress. The foundation of the marriage is crumbling.
The broader rabbinic conversation on women and relationships
The broader rabbinic conversation is even more interesting. For one, the Talmud determines that even such indiscretions cannot lead to immediate divorce without ketubah. He has to warn her in front of others that he is aware of her indiscretion so that she can repent and change her ways.
Without such a warning, she is entitled to ketubah, despite her behavior. Second, this ability to divorce without ketubah does not extend to private violation of other laws such as Shabbat. (To clarify, he can divorce her for shunning religious practice, but not without ketubah.)
To summarize, if he is aware that his wife is remiss in ensuring that certain halachic requirements have been upheld, he should refrain from partaking of the food or, as the Talmud will state, he should rectify the matter himself.
Not every misdemeanor, despite the mishna’s seemingly unequivocal position, requires immediate consequence. The husband can be proactive when his wife is remiss in carrying out certain religious duties. Nor is there always malice reflected in the specific behavior. Furthermore, there is an understanding that he may never know, since much of the household work goes on without his awareness. Only when he catches her in an outright lie does the web of deception that she has woven threaten to ruin the marriage.
THE THIRD example brought in the mishna and discussed in the Talmud emphasizes the foundation of trust necessary in the marital relationship, most importantly whether she engages in sexual intercourse with him as a menstruating woman. What are the circumstances? If he knows about her status, he should abstain. But if he does not know, then he should rely on her judgment.
As Rav Hinnana bar Kahana said, a menstruating woman can count for herself.
As it is stated: “Then she shall count to herself seven days” (Leviticus 15:28). “To herself” means by herself.
The Talmud states that if the husband does not know her status, he should rely on her, based on a scriptural interpretation giving her the agency to count the days of impurity for herself. She has complete control over the determination of her status, and he is not meant to question her, unless he catches her in an outright lie.
Several Rishonim ask the following: Perhaps the halachic trustworthiness of women is limited to the determination of their menstruant status and would not apply anywhere else!
The conclusion is that this verse serves as the foundation for broader trust between husband and wife, particularly in the home, where women are relied upon to prepare meat in a way that will render it fit for consumption, bake matzah, and carry out many more rituals and laws that are part of the daily running of the Jewish household.
What is astonishing is that there is unequivocal agreement that even if the husband finds his wife’s clothing stained with blood, rather he can assume that she walked through a butcher’s market or slaughtered a chicken.
Finally, there is even room for a woman to make a statement about her status and take it back. Over the course of several hundred years, the post-Talmudic discussion enumerates four scenarios in which a woman could have a legitimate reason for proclaiming her status as impure (sexually prohibited) despite being pure (permitted), and in all of them she is to be deemed trustworthy.
For instance, if she did not feel well or have the strength for relations when her husband initiated them, or if his mother and sister were close enough to hear their intimacy. Another example given is that she made a mistake, and the blood was not of uterine origin. Finally, in the course of a marital dispute, she shouted that she was prohibited. Later, as they reconciled, she explained that she was not
I FIND this conversation fascinating on many levels. First and foremost, the woman is believed. The entirety of halachic discussion rejects direct intervention or supervision of the husband over a woman’s body, despite the severity of the transgression of these laws.
Furthermore, there is an insightful awareness that women might “use” their niddah (female purity) status to avoid or prevent sexual intimacy at inopportune moments. Yet, rather than punishing them, the halachic discourse seems to show an understanding that it is not always easy to say no to one’s spouse.
Her ability to halachicly control her sexual status gives her an agency that precludes arguments over whether or not to have sexual relations, providing her with a stopgap measure before explaining herself. Off script, I can only hope such conversations both then and now open up nuanced discussions about healthier sexual expectations in the relationship!
We began this column with a chilling description of many women baking a small amount of bread as a symbol of punishment for our faithlessness toward God. In the Talmudic discussion, we saw how central trust is to the functioning of a household and a marriage. As we approach the holiday of Shavuot – which reminds us of the committed relationship to Torah and mitzvot that began at Mount Sinai and is frequently compared to a marriage between the children of Israel and God – it is an opportunity to think about fidelity as a hallmark of a relationship, whether to God, in marriage, or to those that we love and trust in our daily lives.■
The writer teaches Talmudic Personalities at Matan in Jerusalem, Talmud at Pardes along with courses on women and halacha and sexuality in the Jewish tradition.