אישות a la Rambam

The following draws attention to a nuanced formulation in the MT which sheds light on Rambams idea of the halachic implications of marriage 

When spouses forbid themselves (via a neder) to each other as it relates to marital relations, the gemara says that it only works if they forbid their spouse's pleasure to themselves (with the consequence of אין מאכילין לאדם דבר האסור לו), however if they forbid themselves to each other it's a no-go as they are obligated to engage in relations with each other. 

In the two places that bavli nedarim discusses this (15b and 81b) it phrases it as the wife being obligated in relations (מְשֻׁעְבֶּדֶת), hence precluding the neder from taking effect. 

Ditto for Tur and SA (YD 234). SA's language is as follows (se'if 67): הָא דְּחָל נֶדֶר מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ, דַּוְקָא שֶׁאָמְרָה: הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישְׁךָ עָלַי, אֲבָל אָמְרָה: הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישִׁי עָלֶיךָ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר, שֶׁהִיא מְשֻׁעְבֶּדֶת לוֹ. וְכֵן הוּא שֶׁאָמַר: (הֲנָאַת) תַּשְׁמִישִׁי עָלַיִךְ, אֵינוֹ נֶדֶר, אֲבָל אִם אָמַר: הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישֵׁךְ עָלַי, הָוֵי נֶדֶר. 

Rambam, however, changes it up, writing (nedarim 12:9) הָאִשָּׁה שֶּׁאֲמָרָהּ לְבַעְלָהּ הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישִׁי אֲסוּרָה עָלֶיךָ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְאוֹסֵר פֵּרוֹת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל בַּעַל הַפֵּרוֹת. וְכֵן הוּא שֶׁאוֹמֵר לָהּ הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישִׁי אֲסוּרָה עָלַיִךְ לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְשֻׁעְבָּד לָהּ בִּשְׁאֵר כְּסוּת וְעוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת providing different rationales for the wife and husband.

Rambam seems to be of the the opinion that the implication of marriage is such that the husband legally acquires the rights to her body with regard to intercourse, if she tries to forbid herself to him, it is akin to trying to proscribe someone's possessions to them, which obviously has no effect. 

In contradistinction to the other direction, when it comes to the husband forbidding himself to her, the reason it doesn't work is because he is legally obligated to engage in intercourse with her (just as he need provide food and clothing), but not that he is actually hers for intimacy. 

In other words, contra the Talmud, Tur and SA, Rambam holds that the reason she cant forbid herself to him isnt merely because shes obligated to him for intimacy, but rather it is due to נישואין providing him with legal "ownership" of her for ביאה purposes, thus precluding her from forbidding herself to him as she is "his" vis a vis relations.

In the above scenarios the neder doesn't even get off the ground, however even where it does (where she forbids him to herself) the Torah makes a provision for the husband to unilaterally cancel such a vow, should he be so inclined. 

Ultimately, whichever way she tries to disallow herself to him, it either doesn't even get started (when she forbids herself to him), as she is either obligated to engage in relations with him (Tur/SA) or he "owns" her vis a vis intimacy (Rambam), or (where she forbids him to herself) the Torah gives him the ability to invalidate her vows of this nature.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sukkos: Pesach in the fall

This piece attempts to uncover an entirely new way of looking at the significance of Sukkos in what essentially amounts to a paradigm shift about the chag Vayikra 23:42-43 בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כׇּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת. לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. There is no other biblical record of our forefathers ever having stayed in booths, certainly not immediately after the exodus. The rishonim (ad loc) quote a disagreement (bavli sukkah 11b) between R Eliezer and R Akiva as to the identity of the pasuk's obscure referent: כי בסכות הושבתי – איזו סכות היו, ר' אליעזר אומר ענני כבוד היו, ר' עקיבא אומר, סכות ממש then saying that it works out acc to R Eliezer but acc to R Akiva what exactly are we celebrating?; see there for various solutions. The rishonim have in common an understanding that the holiday is somehow related to hitherto un
Read more

Are Jews innately unique

This write up attempts to explain why Haman planned for genocide whereas the Greeks opted for religious suppression As reflected in the differing formulations of al hanissim for Purim and Chanuka respectively, Haman was out for Jewish blood whereas Antiochus was for eradicating Jewish rites and rituals.  Practically speaking, Judaism would have been a relic of the past had either of them had their way.  That different approaches were employed may have been a function of most Jews having been religiously observant during the Purim story as opposed to during the Chanukah story when most were already hellenized—easier to annihilate a people than to get them all to change their ways as opposed to by the Chanukah where only a minority were still practicing it made more sense to just stamp out what remaining observance there was than to exterminate an already mostly hellenized nation.   Perhaps a more philosophical approach can be suggested: There's a well known divide amongst Jewish thi
Read more

Zionism done right

This piece attempts to provide some color to a comment of Chazal regarding the Bnos Tzelafchad's חיבת הארץ as well as explain away an apparent inconsistency in a specific Amora's approach to it Bamidbar 27 opens with the daughters of Tzelafchad making their case to share in the distribution of EY by inheriting their sonless father Tzelafachad's portion instead of his brothers. Chazal posit a love for the land of Israel as their motivation, explaining that the reason this narrative is juxtaposed with the previous chapter owes to it being illustrative of an inferred contrast therein that only the men died out in the midbar as only they had cast aspersions on the land (to the extent of wanting to return to Egypt) as opposed to the women that were lovers of the land and wanted to proceed apace even after the report of the spies. Namely, ibid 26:64: וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי with Rash
Read more