נישואין Marriage III: Nissuin

A woman when she makes a vow to God or binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house while in her youth ….If she is [betrothed] to a man and her vows are upon her, or the expression of her lips that she bound upon herself….If in her husband’s house she vowed or bound herself by an obligation with an oath….Every vow and every oath of obligation to afflict herself, her husband can uphold it and her husband can annul it.

She is always in the domain of the father until she enters the domain of the husband for nissuin.

Initially, they would say that a daughter of Israel betrothed [to a kohen] eats from teruma…And what can I do, for they said that a woman never eats from teruma until she enters the chuppa, and they supported this with a verse, as it is said [Bemidbar 18:13], “every pure [person] in your household shall eat of it.”

And God said to Moshe, ‘Say to the kohanim, the sons of Aharon, and you shall say to them, he shall not become impure for a [dead] person among his people. Except for his relative [she’eiro] who is close to him, for his mother and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother.

For only to his relative who is close to him, “his relative” means only his wife, for it is said, “she is the relative of your father” [Vayikra 18:12]. “Who is close” and not the betrothed woman. “To him,” and not the divorced woman.

As Rav Chiyya son of Ami said in the name of Ulla: His wife who is [only] betrothed, he does not become an onen [mourner before she is buried], and he does not become impure for her [to attend to her burial], and so she is not an onenet, and does not become impure for him [to attend to his burial]. If she dies, he does not inherit her…Their [in the cases Rav Chiyya discusses] God made the matter depend on being “his relative,” and she [the betrothed woman] is not yet his relative.

For his relative, that is his wife, and this [betrothed woman] is not his relative, for they have not yet come to physical intimacy.

For Rabbi Chanina taught: A woman who has become married through relations they [non-Jews] have. Who has entered the chuppa and not had relations, they do not have.

Rava said: Ami said to me: Chuppa is written clearly. “When there is a virginal young woman [na’ara] betrothed to a man” (Devarim 22:23). A “young woman”, and not a mature woman [bogeret]. “Virginal” and not one who has had marital relations. “Betrothed” and not married [nesua]. What is married [nesua, that the young woman in the verse is not]? If you say fully nesua, that is the same as specifying that [the young woman in the verse] is a virgin and has not had relations. Rather no, [the term “married” here refers to a woman who] entered the chuppa and did not have relations.

And it is like a chatan emerging from his chuppa, it rejoices like a champion to run his course.

Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children and the nursing ones, let the chatan leave his chamber and the kalla her chuppa.

From her chuppa – this is place of the kalla’s seclusion with the chatan, and it is the chamber that he [Yoel] mentioned.

…That she enter the chuppa for the purpose of nissuin, that she be transferred to the domain of the husband…

Others say that a chuppa…is wherever the husband brought her from her father’s home to his home for the purpose of nissuin, and we learn it from it being written “and if in her husband’s house she vowed” which sounds as though all the time that she is in her husband’s house, behold she is in his domain….

These are the chuppot of grooms, embroidered sheets and gold-embroidered ribbons hung inside them.

…For the significance of chuppa is only because it is a preliminary to sexual relations…

The betrothed is prohibited to her husband rabbinically as long as she is in her father’s house…until he [the husband] brings her into his house and secludes himself with her and designates her to him, and this seclusion is what is called entering into the chuppa, and this is what is always referred to as nissuin. And one who has relations with his betrothed for the purpose of nissuin, after he has been mekadesh her, once he begins to penetrate her [sexually] has made a kinyan on her and she becomes nesua, and behold she is his wife in all respects….And once she enters the chuppa, she is called nesua even though she has not had relations, and that is when she is fit for relations, but if she was nidda, even though she entered the chuppa and he was secluded with her, the nissuin are not complete…

Rav Chanan son of Rav said: Everyone knows why she [the kalla] enters the chuppa, but anyone who debases his mouth and says something debasing, even if a decree of seventy good years had been sealed for him, it is turned for him to bad.

However, it is not the way of the Children of Israel to have relations in public…And the matter was established to make a chuppa of honor and to recite seven berachot over them, and with this she is fully nesua, and marital relations are not required for it to take effect. And everyone knows why a kalla enters the chuppa, but we don’t require witnesses of seclusion and ten men for the berachot of nissuin and that then he immediately would have relations with her, which would be an ugly matter…And every type of chuppa that they had the practice of making, this is the kinyan of nissuin since their intent is for nissuin and they are separate from others, for the two of them stand in one place for the purpose of nissuin as if he brings her into his home and is secluded with her as Rambam wrote…The principle of the matter is that, according to the fundamental law of the Torah nissuin is sexual relations for the purpose of nissuin or preparation for this, and chuppa is the preparation for it. And what type of preparation depends on custom. For since we call this matter chuppa and recite the berachot, the nissuin are complete. And the purpose of the preparations of all the chuppot is that from this moment and onward she has entered his domain and he is prepared to live with her as husband and wife.

Rava said: This tanna maintained that [providing her with] sustenance [mezonot] is a Torah-level obligation, as it is taught: she’erah – this is sustenance. And thus, it says, “who ate the flesh [she’ar] of My people” [Micha 3:3]. Her kesut – according to its literal meaning [i.e., clothing]. Her onah – this is the interval [of marital relations] stated in the Torah, and so it says: “if you afflict [te’aneh] my daughters” [Bereishit 31:50]

Included in kesut is that he is obligated to [provide] her [with] household articles and housing in which she dwells.

…This prohibition itself includes anyone who marries a daughter of Israel, that he not oppress her in one of these three things, inflicting pain and distress…For the law of the daughters is that he not withhold from them she’ar, kesut, and ona…They [the sages] said she’arah this is her sustenance [mezonot], kesutah according to its literal meaning, onatah this is marital relations:

If she is afflicted, he is obligated to heal her.

He is obligated to heal her- For medical treatment is like mezonot.

Rav Yosef taught; she’arah this is physical intimacy…

…I say that the meaning of she’ar in every place is flesh that cleaves and is close to a person’s flesh…and relatives are called she’ar…and the woman is called the she’ar of her husband, as they expounded “except for his she’ar,” his she’ar is his wife. And this is from the matter that it said, “And he cleaves to his wife and they will be as one flesh.” And behold she’arah is physical intimacy. And kesutah is the covering of her bed, as it is said, “for it is his only covering [kesuto], with what will he lie down?” And onatah is the interval that he comes to her for marital intimacy…For the way of Scripture in every place is to mention lying together in clean language and with brevity, and therefore it said these with a hint “she’arah, kesutah, ve-onatah, regarding the three matters that a man has with his wife in their union. And this comes rightly as a halachic law [from the Torah] and the sustenance and clothing of the wife are a rabbinic enactment.

…The husband, who consumes her [property’s] fruits [usufruct] during her lifetime and is obligated in sustaining her, redeeming her, and burying her.

…Thus [the tanna] teaches: They enacted her sustenance in exchange for [his rights to income from] her handiwork, and her redemption [from captivity] in exchange for [his rights to her property’s] usufruct, and her burial in exchange for [inheriting the dowry listed in] her ketuba….

He gives her a ma’a [unit of currency] of silver for her needs.

Rav and Shemuel thought that they [the sages] enacted mezonot in exchange for her handiwork and the ma’a of silver in exchange for excess income.

Rav Huna said Rav said: A woman can say to her husband, I am not receiving mezonot and I do not produce [handiwork]. He reasoned that our Rabbis enacted mezonot as primary, and her handiwork [was enacted for her husband] on account of [preventing] animosity. And when she says I am not receiving mezonot and I do not produce, she has the authority to do so.

What I am in doubt about regarding these women, who are gentlewomen and enter the courtyards of princes and their palaces, and they are “like merchant ships to bring goods to her home” and they financially support their husbands, this some years and from the fruits of their hands they produced and also grew in valor, wealth, and properties. If we say that, for a woman like this, her husband has no rights in any of the wealth that she has built up, for since he is not providing mezonot for her, on the contrary she financially supports her husband and her children and everything is in the home, the husband is presumed not to have rights to her handiwork. And she need not explicitly say ‘I am not receiving mezonot and I don’t produce,’ for whenever the husband does not sustain her, through what should he have rights to her handiwork?…but it’s possible to say that those women who when they began to work at this occupation, the husband still toiled for mezonot and when she profits and gives generously expenses of the home, as long as she hasn’t said, ‘I am not receiving mezonot,’ since she has the wherewithal to sustain the home from her earnings, but [originally] from his hand she ate and from his hand she drank, all that she was continuing to earn was relinquished bit by bit to the husband….

She rises up with him and does not go down with him…Rabbi Elazar said: [it is derived] from here: “For she was mother of all life.” She [a wife] was given for life, and she was not given for sorrow.

These are the labors that a woman does for her husband: she grinds [flour] and bakes and launders, cooks and nurses her son, makes his bed and works with wool. If she brought in for him a single maidservant, she doesn’t grind and doesn’t bake and doesn’t launder. Two—she doesn’t cook and doesn’t nurse her son. Three—she doesn’t make his bed and doesn’t work with wool. Four—she sits in a chair. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought in for him a hundred maidservants, he compels her to work with wool, for idleness leads to impropriety. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who makes a vow that his wife not do labor must divorce her and give her her ketuba [marriage settlement], for idleness leads to dullness.

Rabbi Elazar said: What is that which is written: “I will make for him a helpmate [ezer] corresponding to him”? If he merits, she helps him; if he doesn’t merit, she is against him…Rabbi Yossei found Eliyahu. He said to him: It is written “I will make him a helpmate.” In what respect does a woman help a man? He [Eliyahu] said to him [Rabbi Yossei]: A man brings [home] wheat. Does he chew wheat? Flax. Does he wear flax? Is she not found to light up his eyes and set him on his feet?

Rabbi Bun said: Through these matters being degrading, therefore they made them dependent on a maidservant[’s availability].

For these labors are a financial matter that the sages obligated her in with respect to the husband, and they are not among the conditions of marriage, that wouldn’t be subject to compensation, rather she pays what is upon her in accordance with any monetary matter, for if she brought in for him maidservants, she sits in a chair…

Rav Chana, and if you say Rav Shemuel bar Nachmani, said: Not that she actually brought in for him [maidservants], but rather, since she is fit to bring [them in], even though she did not bring them in.

With regard to what were the matters said? Regarding the poor. But if she brought in for him a single maidservant, or assets that are fit to buy from them a single maidservant, or he had a single maidservant, or he had sufficient money with which to buy a single maidservant, she does not grind and does not bake and does not launder and does not place straw before his animal…

A place where they had the custom not to do one of all these, he cannot compel her [to do it]…

One who supports his wife through a middleman…what does she produce for him [in handiwork]? The weight of five sela’im of warp in Yehuda, which are ten sela’im in the Galilee, or the weight of ten sela’im of weft in Yehuda, which are twenty sela’im in the Galilee. But if she was nursing, we reduce for her from her [expected] handiwork…

For we learn later in a mishna (64a), “If she was nursing, we reduce for her from her [expected] handiwork. And [the mishna] mentioned nursing not as a specification, but rather this is also the law for grinding and baking and all other labors, that we reduce for her [expected handiwork]. And it mentioned nursing because it is dealing with one who sustains his wife through a middleman, where she does not grind and does not bake, for since she is not in the home [with him] how can she do the housework? Rather, they certainly said that a woman makes five sela’im only regarding one who supports his wife through a middleman, where she doesn’t do any [household] labor.

What a woman finds and her handiwork belong to her husband. And what does she produce for him? Everything is in accordance with the custom of the land. In a place where their [women’s] way is to weave, she weaves; to embroider, she embroiders; to spin wool or flax, she spins; and if it was not the way of the women of the city to do all these labors, he can only compel [her] to spin wool, for flax damages the mouth and the lips, and spinning is the labor set aside for women, as it is said “And every woman wise of heart spun with her hands” (Shemot 35:25).

For a woman is not obligated to toil to destroy or to build or to uproot or to plant, nor to rent anything out or to get involved with interest, but to work with wool at the rate taught in our mishna. And if the husband wants to transfer her to a different labor, he is not permitted.

For if their manner is not to do these labors at all, but others…as in our time with business dealings, and all the more so to travel to markets, even though they are accustomed to so from their own goodwill, nevertheless, he can only compel her to spin with wool…And so is explained from the responsum of Rashba…”and if the husband wishes to transfer her to another [labor] he is not permitted” and its simple implication is that even when the custom of the women of this land is [the other labor], even with these [he cannot compel her]…

There are those who say that her labor is hers, for since we obligate her only so that she not come to impropriety, as long as she does something, whether for others or for herself, this reason is irrelevant. But Rashba wrote that it stands to reason that [her income] is no better than extra income earned through excess labor [h’adafa al yedei ha-dechak], which is the husband’s even though she does it of her own will and not out of obligation. And I (Ran) don’t know what this [argument] is….

Rabbi Yitzchak son of Chananya said Rav Huna said: Even though they said “she sits in a chair,” but she mixes him a drink and makes the bed for him, and washes his face, hands, and feet. Rav Yitzchak son of Chananya said Rav Huna said: All labors that a woman does for her husband, a woman in nidda does for her husband except for mixing the drink and making the bed and washing his face, hands, and feet.

Rav Huna said: Even if she brought in for him a hundred maidservants, he compels her to do personal things for him. What are personal things? She anoints his body for him, and washes his feet for him, and mixes his drink for him. Why? Because she is obligated to do this for him, or because they are inappropriate for a maidservant to do for him? What is the practical difference between them? If she brought in bondsmen for him. If you say that it’s because they are inappropriate for a maidservant to do for him, behold, she has brought in bondsmen for him. That is not effective for the rationale that she is obligated in them. Rav Avudima in Tzipporin asked before Rav Mana: Doesn’t it make sense that it’s because she is obligated to him? He said to him: I also think so.

But she mixes him a drink and makes the bed for him- to lay out the sheet and blanket, a matter which is not burdensome, and since these are matters of affection in order that she become endeared to him, and it is not similar to making a bed in our mishna, for that is a burdensome matter and compelled. These she is not compelled to do, but rather the sages gave her good advice to make this the custom in Israel.

But she spreads the sheet and arranges the bed, which is the way of endearment, and it is fitting for every woman to do this for her husband even if she has several maidservants, and so to mix his drink and to wash his face, hands and feet.

It is fitting for every woman to do this thing for her husband, etc. But we do not compel her to do it…

So, every woman washes her husband’s face, hands, and feet and mixes his drink and makes the bed for him. (Rema: And there are those who say she is obligated to make all the beds in the house. Maggid Mishna 21 and Ran Ketubot 5). And she stands and serves before of her husband, as by giving him water or a vessel, or that she clears it from before him, and matters similar to these.