אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר מְזוֹנוֹת מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״שְׁאֵרָהּ״ — אֵלּוּ מְזוֹנוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַאֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ שְׁאֵר עַמִּי״. ״כְּסוּתָהּ״ — כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. ״עוֹנָתָהּ״ — זוֹ עוֹנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִם תְּעַנֶּה אֶת בְּנוֹתַי״. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: ״שְׁאֵרָהּ״ — זוֹ עוֹנָה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ אֶל כׇּל שְׁאֵר בְּשָׂרוֹ לֹא תִקְרְבוּ לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה״. ״כְּסוּתָהּ״ — כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. ״עוֹנָתָהּ״ — אֵלּוּ מְזוֹנוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְעַנְּךָ וְיַרְעִיבֶךָ״. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: ״שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ״ — לְפוּם שְׁאֵרָהּ תֵּן כְּסוּתָהּ, שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן לָהּ לֹא שֶׁל יַלְדָּה לִזְקֵינָהּ, וְלֹא שֶׁל זְקֵינָה לְיַלְדָּה. ״כְּסוּתָהּ וְעוֹנָתָהּ״ — לְפוּם עוֹנָתָהּ תֵּן כְּסוּתָהּ, שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן חֲדָשִׁים בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, וְלֹא שְׁחָקִים בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״שְׁאֵרָהּ״ — זוֹ קֵרוּב בָּשָׂר, שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהַג בָּהּ מִנְהַג פָּרְסִיִּים שֶׁמְּשַׁמְּשִׁין מִטּוֹתֵיהֶן בִּלְבוּשֵׁיהֶן. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי אֶלָּא אֲנִי בְּבִגְדִּי וְהִיא בְּבִגְדָּהּ״ — יוֹצִיא וְנוֹתֵן כְּתוּבָּה.
§ Rava said: This tanna, maintains that the obligation of sustenance is from Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita: “She’era”; this is sustenance, and it likewise states: “Who also eat the flesh [she’er] of my people” (Micah 3:3). “Kesuta” is understood in its literal sense as referring to clothing. “Onata”; this is her conjugal rights, which is stated in the Torah, and so it says: “If you shall afflict [te’aneh] my daughters” (Genesis 31:50) [teaching that deprivation of intercourse is afflicting one's spouse]. Rabbi Elazar says: “She’era”; this is her conjugal rights, and so it says: “None of you shall approach to any who is near [she’er] of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6). “Kesuta” is understood in its literal sense as referring to clothing. “Onata”; this is sustenance, and so it says: “And He afflicted you [vayanekha], and made you suffer hunger, and fed you with manna” (Deuteronomy 8:3). Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that she’era and kesuta should be interpreted as follows: In accordance with her flesh [she’era], i.e., her age, give her clothing [kesuta]. This means that he should not give the garments of a young girl to an elderly woman, nor those of an elderly woman to a young girl. Similarly, kesuta and onata are linked: In accordance with the time of year [onata], give her clothing [kesuta], meaning that he should not give new, heavy clothes in the summer, nor worn-out garments in the rainy season. Rav Yosef taught: “She’era,” this is referring to closeness of flesh during intercourse, which teaches that he should not treat her in the manner of Persians, who have conjugal relations in their clothes. This supports Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: If someone says: I do not want to sleep with my wife unless I am in my clothes and she is in her clothes, he must divorce his wife and give her the payment for her ketubbah.
Questions
-What is the nature of the marital financial obligations in this sugya? What assumptions (financial and otherwise) does this model make?
-What obligations are not articulated?
אִם אָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אֵינִי נִזּוֹנִית וְאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ וְאֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הַבַּעַל אֵינִי זָנֵךְ וְאֵינִי נוֹטֵל כְּלוּם מִמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדַיִךְ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא לֹא יְסַפְּקוּ לָהּ מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. וּמִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנָה זוֹ יֵחָשְׁבוּ הַמְּזוֹנוֹת מִתְּנָאֵי הַכְּתֻבָּה:
If a woman says: "I am not your dependent, but I will not work," she is given this option, and she cannot be compelled to work. If, however, her husband says: "I will not provide for your subsistence, and I will not receive the right to the fruits of your labor," he is not given this option, lest the woman be unable to earn her subsistence.
Questions
-What does this option for a financial arrangment suggest about Rabbinic attitudes toward marriage?
-Are all financial arrangements between a couple created equal?
Partnership law, hilkhot shutafut, form the legal basis for the contractual aspects of the b'rit ahuvim. The model of a partnership reflects the undeniable fact that marriage is not only a social but an economic institution... In classical halakhah, a partnership is not an independent legal entity as a corporation is in modern Western law, nor are the identities of the partners submerged in it. They remain individually accountable. Because the laws of partnership developed out of the laws of joint ownership, the partnership is regarded as a kind of property in which the partners have invested. Consequently, each partner acquires legal obligations for maintaining the partnership and its projects.
Adler's Brit Ahuvim proposal - which I will clarify - has been criticized for replacing the kiddushin model of marriage with one of the few things less romantic than "acquiring" a spouse: forming a joint business venture with your spouse! How is this framework as a foundation for marriage sitting with you?