Sex, Nudity and Lingerie

Written by Sender Rozesz. Sender Rozesz is a practicing attorney with a background in Jewish pluralistic education for adults. Sender Rozesz is Jewrotica’s resident Double Mitzvah columnist. The views reflected in his writing represent his own personal views, and are not intended to reflect the views of any organizations, institutes or associations with whom he may be affiliated.

There is a fascinating commentary in this week’s Parshah, Parshat Mishpatim.

The context for the commentary is an odd one; it is one of those Biblical passages that makes one slightly uncomfortable — which is I suspect this commentary is often overlooked — yet there are wonderful gems buried within it. Here are the relevant verses:

“If a man sells his daughter as a maidservant (huh?) . . . if [her master] designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the law of the daughters [of Israel]. If he takes another [wife] for himself, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations.”^[1]

Once we get past the parts about the father selling his daughter as a slave, and the forced marriage, things get interesting. The Torah, recognizing that the then-common practice of polygamy might result in the master’s son marrying a second wife, commands that he nonetheless not neglect his first wife’s needs in three specific categories.

The Talmud understands that these needs are the basic obligations that any man has to his wife — not only a Jewish slave girl whose husband takes a second wife. Rather, the Torah makes the point that even under circumstances in which one might expect the man to have lost interest in his first wife — she was only a maidservant to start with, she was given to him by his father, and now he has married a second wife of his choice — even then he must be sure not to neglect the needs of his first wife.

Indeed, a man who fails to meet these obligations, or who takes an oath foreswearing his fulfillment of any of these three obligations, is obligated to divorce his wife and to pay to her her full ketubah — an indication that he was one unsuited for marriage.

So what are these categories?

In the above translation, they are: Food, Clothing, and Sex. Thus, a man has a basic obligation to feed his wife, to clothe her, and to give her sex. This is the interpretation found in Rashi’s commentary based upon an opinion in the Midrash and Talmud.^[2] Even this is a fairly profound statement: that sex is more important even than other big-ticket items such as, for example, shelter, which is not among the three things that a man must biblically provide his wife.

The Hebrew words for these categories, however, lend themselves to an alternative interpretation — all of which have to do with sex.

In Hebrew, the three things that a man must give his wife are: (1) she’erah, (2) k’sutah, and (3) onatah. “Onatah” definitely means sex. Whether from the word “onah,” meaning “her time,” or from the sexual connotations in the word “inui” (as we discussed here and here),^[3] everyone is in agreement that “onatah” refers to having sex at regular intervals. “Ksutah” also definitely means clothing, although the precise nature of the clothing is not specified. According to one opinion in the Talmud, the proximity of the word Ksutah to Onatah tells us that a husband must buy his wife seasonally-appropriate or timely clothing. Winter clothes in the winter. Summer clothes in the summer.

But what is “she’erah”? This is the first word of the set, and the one that provides the context for the others.

According to Rashi and other commentaries, “she’erah” means food. However, Ramban notes that there is virtually no legitimate support for any etymological relationship between the root word “she’er” and food, and that, had the Torah intended to refer to food, it would have utilized the word “lechem,” which literally means bread, but which more generally includes all food within its scope. Ramban also notes that the Talmud concludes that the obligation for a man to provide his wife with nourishment is only a Rabbinical enactment, and not a Biblical mandate.^[4] Which all means that “she’erah” can’t mean food.

Instead, Ramban assembles a string of textual proofs demonstrating that “she’er” means “flesh close and near to one’s own.” And with this, he explains a man’s three obligations to his wife as follows:

“She’erah” means that a man must not deprive his wife of “the closeness of flesh.” His sex with her must not be a casual affair, and “he should not behave toward her as is the custom among the Persians, who perform their marital rights in their clothes.”^[5] So sex must involve a naked physical closeness, flesh on flesh. In fact, one who says “I only want to have sex when we are both dressed” is required to divorce his wife and to pay her full ketubah. Notwithstanding the urban legends of a hole in the sheet, Jewish law absolutely requires that a husband and wife regularly connect naked, flesh to flesh.

“Ksutah,” in this context doesn’t mean ordinary clothes — it means “bedclothes,” or . . . lingerie. Special clothing that enhance the sexual experience in the bedroom. If anyone ever asks you for a source for lingerie in the Torah, this would be it.

Finally, “Onatah.” This means those special “times of love,” those times when a woman most craves sexual closeness. Typically, this would coincide with ovulation, and the conclusion of her menstrual period and the period of her separation from her husband. Halachically, this is, at a minimum, the night each month that a woman immerses in the mikvah, the ritual bath. More specifically, this means being attentive to one’s wife’s sexual needs as frequently as she may desire, as discussed here.

The more mundane stuff — regular clothes, and food — they were obvious, and did not need to be specified in the Torah; until the Rabbis decided that they needed to be legally mandated (and perhaps that is the Torah source for deadbeat husbands, *sigh*), and so enacted a law that the husband must provide clothing and nourishment as well.

(As an interesting aside, the Talmud discusses a situation in which a husband takes an extended business trip, but for some reason does not leave his wife with access to his money or other assets. The Talmud instructs the Jewish court of law to reach into the husband’s assets and to provide her with support until her husband returns. Significantly, it is only her support that may be paid from her absentee husband’s assets — not even his children may receive their support from his assets in his absence. And, according to one opinion, the nourishment to which a wife is exclusively entitled includes perfume and cosmetics, as the Talmud assumes that her husband would wish his wife to maintain her attractiveness — even in his absence.^[6] So, perfume for the wife before food for the kids!)

But the Torah, in this week’s Parshah, was primarily concerned with a woman’s sexual satisfaction.

Shabbat shalom!

^[1] Exodus, 21:7-10.

^[2] Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 47b.

^[3] See Id., and Tosfot.

^[4] Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 47b.

^[5] Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 48a, quoting Rav Yosef.

^[6] Id.