By Rabbi Avi Heller
The Ra?avad (R. Avraham ibn Daud, 13th c.) was one of Provence?s great Jewish scholars. In the introduction to his book Ba?alei Nefesh (which is about the relationship between a husband and wife) he describes the motivation for God?s creation of man and woman. The Torah clearly describes that God created two independent genders in all other animal species, but ? regarding human beings ? it describes that woman (Chava/Eve) was uniquely created from a piece of Adam?s body that was ?surgically? removed .
Ra?avad suggests that this describes something special about the relationship between a husband and wife in distinction to the mating relationships of all other animals. Man and woman are of the same flesh (as Adam himself describes it in Gen 2:23), they yearn to be unified in a way that is so intimate that it is as if they are one person. The Talmud gives this idea legal legs by the statement ?ishto k?gufo damya?, or ?his wife is like his own body ?. Ra?avad concludes by saying:
?– this is to say that it is proper for her to be with me always and I with her so that ?we shall become one flesh?. Therefore, it is appropriate for a man to love his wife like his own body and to honor her and to be compassionate to her and to guard her as he would guard one of his own limbs, and thus she is required to help him and to honor him and to love him like her own soul, for she was taken from him. ?
He then goes on to reference our Torah portion, Mishpatim, where it says:
?If he will designate her (minor Jewish maidservant) for his son, he shall treat her according to the statute of daughters [of Israel]. If he will take another [wife], he may not diminish her sh?er, her k?sut or her ona.? (Exodus 21:9-10)
The ?statute of daughters? is a certain protocol for how Jewish women must be treated by their husbands. Though the Torah is receptive to the idea of a man having more than one wife, it is explicit that the new wife?s arrival cannot infringe upon the first wife?s privileges or life with her husband. What does this mean?
Some commentators suggest that these three Hebrew words ? she?er, k?sut, ona – refer to a husband?s responsibility to provide food, clothing and shelter to his wife. Others subsume shelter under clothing and substitute sexual relations, which are the responsibility of the husband and the privilege of the wife. These obligations, however, are discrete and limited. Marriages can be profoundly dysfunctional even when one?s material needs are met.
Ramban ? against almost everyone else ? views these three as all related to emotional and sexual tenderness. Rather than food, he believes that the Torah mandates physical closeness. Rather than clothing, he believes that the Torah mandates an intimate environment. These all describe the setting in which a husband ought to set the tone for their physical (and sexual) relationship. It is an environment not only of transactional obligation, but of love and care.
Although Jewish law has left the Ramban behind (as a matter of law), it has not done so philosophically. The following is still the traditional text of part of the ketuba, or Jewish marriage contract:
?– Be my wife according to the religious tradition of Moshe and Israel and I will cherish, honor, support and maintain you according to the custom of Jewish men who honestly cherish, honor, support and maintain their wives etc.?
Later commentators have suggested (see Otzar ha-Poskim, Even ha-Ezer 10) that one of the reasons why polygamy has been expunged from modern Jewish life is this very idea. Sure, says the Torah, you can marry as many wives as you like, provided that you emotionally (not just physically) provide for their needs so that the first wife?s honor and love are not diminished by the subsequent wives and so that the other wives are given what they deserve and are accorded by ?the custom of Jewish men.? I can tell you that it is certainly challenging enough to provide emotionally for one woman (and my wife is truly an eshet chayil) such that it would be virtually unthinkable to achieve that same level for another. I too believe that we are capable of tremendous amounts of love (as I learn from each new child we have) but it does not seem likely or practical ? certainly in our culture ? that most men would succeed in this endeavor. Even monogamous relationships are confronted by serious challenges in our exceptionally fast-paced and emotionally insensitive world. ?Big Love? may be good drama, but it wouldn?t be a good life for most men and women.
I do find it heartening that ideas of love and cherishing that appeal to me (as a product of 21st century America) are so boldly and clearly stated in ancient Jewish sources.
But I realize that te theory of loving and cherishing is much easier than the practice. It?s simialrlyt easy to say that ?we should all just egt along?. The practice of love is an exercise that requires constant attention and the best way to lover and cherish those around us is to siply do it evry day.