Punishment That Can Change a Man (And Some Thoughts on Divorce)

Parshat Ki Tetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In our post feminist world, a case in Devarim 22 is very troubling.

It concerns a man who marries and after consummating his marriage finds that he hates his wife. Instead of following the Torah's instruction for how to absolve a marriage through divorce (as is described in Devarim 24), he chooses to invent charges against her that she was unfaithful.

The most likely reason he invents the charges is to get himself out of having to pay her Ketubah – or whatever contractual agreement he entered in the marriage. In other words, he makes up a story to save a few shekels.

Of course her parents get all up in arms and do all they can to produce evidence to prove their daughter's innocence. If the evidence is accepted, "The city elders shall then take the man and flog him. They shall fine him 100 [shekels] of silver [as a penalty] for defaming an Israelite virgin, and give it to the girl's father. [The man] must then keep [the girl] as his wife, and may not send her away as long as he lives." (22:18-19)

Wait a minute. Did you catch that? He may not send her away as long as he lives? Isn't this supposed to be his punishment? What about her? Must she be condemned to live with this ingrate, this despicable individual who clearly doesn't like her, and who will go so far as to make up stories about her rather than go through the proper channels of either reconciliation, or, if need be, divorce, just in order to save himself some money? Why must she be stuck to this low-life? What about her life?

The Talmud (Ketubot 40a) explains that in cases similar to this (and if the parallel is not clear in the Talmud, the Torah Temimah assures us that it should be clear), the girl has every right, and is even instructed, to say "I don't want him." Her refusal, as the Malbim explains, gives her an easy out, and rids her of this nuisance of a man who doesn't deserve her, who tried to destroy her life. If she doesn't want him, there is no longer a positive commandment that he must marry her.

Let us assume for a moment that after whatever thought process, the girl decides she wants to stay with him. Maybe she thinks no one else will want her. After the accusation, anyone who Googles her name (even after she is proven innocent) will see the accusation at the top of every internet search of her name. She will really have no shot at a life other than with this man.

How is his inability to ever get rid of her a punishment to him, while at the same time being in some way to her benefit?

Certainly once upon a time, being married was automatically beneficial to a woman, as she was supported by her husband. And in Biblical and Talmudic times, any of the following scenarios would not present an out for him – absolution from responsibility.

Even if he somehow succeeded in divorcing her, he had to take her back (Yerushalmi Ketubot 3:6). Even if he discovers a real flaw in her, which could have absolved him of his marriage responsibilities – she becomes blind or lame, etc. - he is stuck. He must maintain and support her. (Sifrei) Even if she is barren for ten years, a condition which is viewed in some circles as grounds for divorce, he must maintain her (Malbim).

All of these indicate that even were she to become an undesirable for whatever reason, she must still be taken care of by her husband or his estate. This is an incredible guarantee which has no precedent anywhere else. Obviously most people who marry for the long haul, will be in tune to take care of one another no matter what conditions come up.

Equally obvious is that the man who fabricates a story to save a little money will not hesitate to jump ship when the going gets a little rougher. And so he needs an incentive to change who he is.

It must be understood that the Torah's rules only work for people who are committed to following them, who accept the ruling of a court and who do their best to follow the law. Every person tries to cut corners here and there, but when the judge in a court says to follow a ruling based on Torah principles, the devout person becomes grounded and does his best to comply.

The Torah says, "She must be a wife to him. He may not send her all of his days." Pay careful attention to the nuance. The onus is now on he who was careless about another person's feelings and reputation to now recognize that he must grow up and embrace another person in his life.

"She must be a wife to him" is reminding him how he must always view her. She is his wife. He must raise her up, must cherish her, and must find ways to honor and appreciate her. He may never shirk this responsibility.

It forces him to change his entire approach to females and to this woman in particular. Since she will now be with him for the long haul, if he does not want to have a miserable life, he must be the most amazing husband, doting, pampering, respectful, loving. In short, his bond is meant to turn him into a real mentsch.

           

Our communities (and faith communities in general) are the biggest proponents for marriage. And while divorce rates are rising, and are, in some cases, absolutely necessary, it is only through the method described in the Torah – that the man must write for and give his wife a divorce document – that marriages must end. The concept of the present-day "Agunah crisis" is so anti-Torah, it is a stain on any community that supports the use of a Get as a tool of extortion or preventing a woman from being able to move on with her life. Property and custody battles not withstanding. (Fight if you must, but without using the Get as a bargaining tool.)

           

The message given through this obnoxious husband is that the marriage union must be respected, and that a man must do what he can to see his woman as "his wife," who is to be honored and respected (see Rambam Hilchot Ishut 15:19). And while divorce is sometimes an option, if it is done through the prism of respecting another human being and the Torah's instruction, it is taken care of through the proper channels – with a divorce document that frees both people to move on with their lives.

           

An even better option, however, when divorce isn't absolutely necessary, is for people to view their marriage as sacrosanct, and to work very hard to do what is possible to raise the other person up. People who view their responsibilities in marriage as givers and supporters, rather than as takers and selfish individuals, have a much better chance of living out the blessing of the mitzvah here: "He can not send her away for the rest of his life" because he loves her so much and treats her so well, he cannot imagine a life without her as the center of his universe.

Sotah-So-Good For Marriage?

Parshat Naso

by Rabbi Avi Billet

R. Shalom Isaac Mizrachi (Divrei Shalom Responsa YD 9) was asked a question: If a person slaughtered an animal but did not cover the blood, is the meat of the animal permitted to be eaten?

He begins his answer quoting the Shulchan Arukh, who says there is a mitzvah to cover the blood (based on Vayikra 17:13), and the Rama who says that mitzvah is separate from the valid slaughtering which is still good even if he deliberately did not cover the blood.

            

As in any good responsa where the Shulchan Arukh is the tip of the iceberg, he goes on for pages and pages. He distinguishes between this case and circumstances which arise in the Torah in which an antidote is prescribed for a problem.

            

A slaughtered animal is permitted to be eaten regardless of whether one followed or violated the mitzvah to cover the blood. However, a person would remain 'tameh' forever had we not had a mitzvah of the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer). He goes on to say that if we did not have the mitzvah of the Sotah drink (Bamidbar 5 – our parsha), peace would never be attainable for a husband and wife living under a cloud of suspicion and jealousy. The doubts of faithlessness would be enough to force a mandated separation.

            

As he develops the comparison between covering the blood of the slaughtered animal against the Parah Adumah equation and the Sotah, he further distinguishes between the former and the latter two cases. Without the covering of the blood, one can still derive benefit from the slaughtered animal. But it is only with the ashes of the Red Heifer that one derives the benefit of becoming 'tahor.' It is only with the Sotah drink that one derives the benefit of achieving the peace in the home that comes from the divine clarification that leads to a clear conscience.

            

In explaining how he derives these comparisons from the words of Rashi, the Divrei Shalom says, "Had we not been commanded about the Sotah drink (literally 'the dirt of Sotah' which is dissolved in the drink) there would not be peace between husband and wife."

            

This final formulation is a little different than before. Earlier he suggested that peace would not be attainable under the circumstance of suspicion, and now he is suggesting that peace would be impossible in general, were the mitzvah of Sotah not in the books.

            

Is he suggesting that the possibility of undergoing the Sotah embarrassment is meant to be a deterrent? That knowing that "a mere suspicion of faithlessness could be enough to possibly end a marriage" would cause people to be scrupulously attentive to their spouses and to behave in a manner that is, at all times, above suspicion?

Was Sotah, like the mitzvah of the rebellious son (Devarim 21:18-21), which the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) claims never happened, a ritual placed in the Torah as a warning and deterrent, simply for us to learn the lesson of how to and how not to behave?

Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai abolished the Sotah ritual (Sotah 47a) because, as the Talmud suggests, it did not serve very well as a deterrent during his time.

Nowadays, the idea of Sotah seems so anachronistic, on the one hand, and so chauvinistic on the other. And yet I wonder what such a deterrent would do for marriages today.

There are different ways people look at marriage. Some go into it and are committed to stick with it through thick and thin. Some have a very special relationship built on a mutual respect, a shared vision of a life, and the ability to communicate well with one another. Some view it as a commitment that will last as long as it feels right. Some might even assume that they will one day become a statistic.

We don't have the Sotah ritual, but we live in a world in which faithlessness can't hide forever, only to be exposed in some divine ritual. It eventually comes out. And the inevitable exposé doesn't stop those (men or women) who will not respect their marriages.

But maybe there is something to a deterrent of some kind. If Rabbi Mizrachi is correct that peace would be impossible for husbands and wives to achieve without the Sotah ritual being "out there," there are grounds to say that a good number of people will heed the "warning" and will view their marriage commitment as sacred. The "Shalom Bayit" – peace in the home – they will achieve will be elevated by their efforts to renew their love and kinship on a regular basis. They will see only one another, and will never even be tempted to see if there's someone better out there. And any attempt of the yetzer hara (Evil Inclination) will be scornfully turned aside, because "There is none more beautiful in my eyes, or more appropriate for me than the one to whom I am married."

May we merit to think of the Sotah ritual in this way, as an encouragement to find and bring out the best in our spouses so that our marriages can be elevated in the Bayit Neeman B'Yisrael we are all blessed at our weddings to build until we reach the age of 120.