Dear Oriyah,



The religious and Charedi public looks at the Talmudic text as though the “holy spirit” rests upon its rulings and its arbiters. Daat Emet has come to show that this is not true, and your words strengthen our opinion. The relationship between religious and Charedi couples in our days are based on modern values and gradually the feminist outlook is taking root even in the religious society.



That is, the egalitarian relationship between a religious couple exists thanks to modern values and in spite of outdated Halachic rulings.



To illustrate, we will bring another example of how Chazal see women as chasing sex:

It is written in the Scriptures: “Now David was old, advanced in years, and though they covered him with bedclothes he never felt warm. His courtiers said to him, “Let a young virgin be sought for my lord the king, to wait upon Your Majesty and be his attendant, and let her lie in your bosom, and my lord the king will be warm.” So they looked for a beautiful girl throughout the territory of Israel. They found Abishag the Shunammite and brought her to the king. The girl was exceedingly beautiful. She became the king’s attendant and waited upon him, but the king was not intimate with her” (I Kings 1:1-4).

The Scriptures do not describe the relationship between David and Abishag, only that they did not have sex.

But Chazal, for whom “the secrets of history” were as clear as the paths of Nahardea, could say that Abishag wanted to marry David. David refused, arguing that he was already married to 18 women, and that a king is forbidden to marry more than 18 women. Abishag said to David: your “righteous” behavior reminds me of a thief, who when he has no more places to rob makes himself out to be a decent, honest man. So are you: now that you are old and spent and have no more strength for sex, you come with the “righteous” excuse that you are forbidden to marry. Then David had sex with Bathsheba 13 times to show Abishag that he still had the strength for sex (Sanhedrin 22a).



Another example of how modern judges use Chazal’s texts to issues rulings about husbands and wives, in contradiction to the general outlook common amongst the religious:

In the medrash it is written: “Rav Chanan wrote that everyone knows why the bride gets married (to have sex), but any who mentions this is villainous and speaks evilly, and though he had merited good throughout seventy years it turns to bad” (Yalkut Shimoni on Isaiah, 247, 415).

It is clear that today we do not feel what Chazal felt, and we do not see the bride as getting married primarily to have sex.

But the rabbis who serve on the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Regional Rabbinical Court ruled in favor of a woman based on this medrash. A woman sued for a divorce on the grounds that her husband was not virile, and the husband claimed that he was, but that the woman did not want to have sex with him and was avoiding him.

The rabbis ruled that the woman’s claim should be believed, because the husband’s claim that “the woman did not want to have sex with him and was avoiding him is not logical. They knew each other for two and a half years before the wedding, had planned to marry, and everyone knows why a woman gets married (to have sex). Is it then possible that after the wedding ceremony the woman would run away and not let her groom get close to her? This is not possible for a normal woman, and the woman before us certainly seems normal. We therefore find support for the woman’s words being true” (Rabbinical Court Rulings part 10, pg. 104).



Thus do the rabbinical courts rule, with the funding and support of the Israeli government, through medrashim and Halachic precedent set according to old world values.

It would be very interesting to know what you, as a religious woman, think: would a woman who refuses to have an intimate relationship after the wedding ceremony be thought abnormal?

In other words: a chasm yawns between halachic rulings which rely upon the Talmudic text and the religious sector itself, which has internalized the spirit of the enlightened world.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Dear Hoomi,



Our main target are the religious judges who bring proof from the Talmudic text, an outdated text whose standards and values do not suit our times. Therefore we have brought an example of judges in our times bringing proof of the topic under discussion from a Talmudic proof — “Everyone knows why a bride goes to the marriage canopy (to have sexual intercourse)” — which is irrelevant and is insulting and degrading. Your words justify ours. Your justification for siding with the wife’s claims stem from reasons other than the perverse claim “Everyone knows why a bride goes to the marriage canopy.” Note well the difference between your reasoning and that of the religious judges. You wrote, “A deep tie between the two which testifies to, among other things, her agreement and willingness…” meaning that sex is part of the overall relationship between the couple, while the religious judges drew their reasoning from Chazal’s statement “Everyone knows why a bride goes to the marriage canopy (to have sexual intercourse).”



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Dear Hoomi,



Let’s not stray from the topic (it is possible the example we brought is not unambiguous) — that the Halachic rulings of today’s rabbinical courts are still subjected to the Talmud, an outdated text which causes rabbis to use most of their intellectual energy to suit the Talmudic text to the renewed spirit of our days. They do not state straight out, bravely, with intellectual honesty, that the Talmud is not relevant at all. If you agree with this principle and use Chazal’s sayings merely as illustration, then we are in agreement.

A more unambiguous example is the Halachic ruling on the matter of organ transplants. See our answer on Organ transplants according to Halacha.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet