"Waiter, There's a Fly in My Drink": Considering Rabbi Meir's Metaphor of Women, Flies, and Drinks

§ It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 5:9) that Rabbi Meir would say: Just as there are different attitudes with regard to food, so too, there are different attitudes with regard to women. With regard to food, you have a person who, when a fly falls into his cup, he throws out the wine with the fly and does not drink it. And this is comparable to the demeanor of Pappos ben Yehuda with regard to his wife, as he would lock the door before his wife and leave so that she would not see any other man.

And you have a person who, when a fly falls into his cup, he throws out the fly and drinks the wine. And this is comparable to the demeanor of any common man, whose wife speaks with her siblings and relatives, and he lets her do so.

And you have a man who, when a fly falls into his serving bowl, he sucks the fly and eats the food. This is the demeanor of a bad man, who sees his wife going out into the street with her head uncovered, and spinning in the marketplace immodestly,

and with her garment open from both sides, and bathing with men, and ignores it.

The baraita continues: With regard to this kind of wife, it is a mitzva by Torah law to divorce her, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and he sends her out of his house…And she goes and becomes another [aḥer] man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1–2). The verse called the second husband aḥer, other, to state that this man is not a peer of the first husband. They are morally distinct, as that first husband evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second man introduced a wicked woman into his house.

If the second man merits, he will send her out, as it is stated in the following verse: “And the latter husband hates her…and he sends her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:3). And if not, she will bury him, as it is stated in the same verse: “Or if the latter husband dies.” It is appropriate for him to receive the punishment of death, as that first man evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second husband introduced a wicked woman into his house.

Rabbi Meir would say: "Just as there are different attitudes in consumption of food, so are there different attitudes with regards to women:

Some men, if a fly [merely] passes over his cup, he sets it aside and does not taste it. That [fly in the cup refers to] corrupted women, when he wishes to divorce his wife [but has not done it yet].

Some men, if a fly falls into his cup, he throws it out and does not drink it. And this is the trait of Papus ben Yehuda, who would lock [the door of the house] before his wife, and would leave.

And there is a man where, if a fly falls in his cup, he throws [the fly] out and then drinks it. This is the trait of any man who sees her speak to her neighbors and relatives, and leaves her be.

And there is a man where, if a fly falls into the plate, he crushes it and eats it. And this is the trait of a corrupted man who sees his wife go out with her head uncovered, her heart warmed for her servants and maidservants, and spins cloth in the marketplace, and [whose shirt is] open on both sides, and bathes and plays around with the men. This is the command from the Torah to divorce her, for it is stated [Deuteronomy 24:1-2] "[When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it comes to pass, if she find no favor in his eyes,] because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, [that he writes her a bill of divorce, and gives it in her hand,] and sends her out of his house... [and she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife.]" The text calls him 'another', implying that he is not of similar constitution to the first, [for] the first one sent her away because of sin, and the second came and was lenient toward her. If he merits, the heavens will cause him to send her away from his possession, and if not, she will ultimately bury him, as it says [Deuteronomy 24:2] "or if the latter man dies." It is appropriate for this [type of] man dies, because of the woman he brought into his household. One who wishes his wife to die [so he can] inherit her, or that she should die so he can marry her sister, she will ultimately bury him. Similarly, if she wishes he would die so she can marry another, he will bury her."

Rabbi Meir would say: "Just as there are different attitudes toward food, so too there are different attitudes toward women:

There is a man over whose cup a fly merely passes, and he sets it aside and does not taste it. This is the type of man who has a bad disposition toward women, for he sets his eyes on his wife to divorce her.

There is a man in whose cup a fly rests; he throws it out, and does not drink it. This is like Papus ben Yehuda, who would lock the door before his wife and go out.

There is a man into whose cup a fly falls; he throws it out, and then drinks it. This is the way of most men, who see their wives speaking with their neighbors and relatives, and they leave them be.

There is a man into whose dish a fly falls; he takes it, sucks it, throws it away, and eats what remains. This is the way of a wicked man, who sees his wife going out with her hair uncovered, with her sides exposed, her heart arrogant toward her servants and toward her maidservants, going out and spinning in the marketplace, bathing, and playing with everyone. For such a wife, it is a commandment to divorce her, as it is said: 'When a man takes a wife and marries her … and she leaves him …' (Deut. 24:1–2), and it is written: 'And another man marries her' - meaning one who is not her true match. The first sent her away because of transgression, and this one came and stumbled upon her. The second husband - if he is meritorious, Heaven causes him to send her away from his hand; but, if not, in the end she buries him, as it is said: 'Or if the last man dies …' (Deut. 24:3). This man is worthy of death, for he brought such a woman into his house."

“Differences in food” – This teaches that people differ in their sensitivities regarding food and drink. Some are highly fastidious and recoil even from a slight impurity or repulsiveness; others are somewhat particular but not to that degree; while still others are not particular at all. In the same way, people differ in their sensitivity toward matters of sexual impropriety: some are disturbed even by a small breach of modesty, others are less concerned, and still others show no concern whatsoever.

“Papus ben Yehuda” – He was the husband of Miriam Magdalene. Whenever he went out from his home to the marketplace, he would lock the door before her so that she could not speak with anyone. This, however, was an improper practice, for such excessive restriction breeds resentment between them, and in the end it leads her to be unfaithful to him.

Although divorce is generally regarded as distant and undesirable when there is no cause, nevertheless, whenever a man sees in his wife conduct of immodesty—behaviors that serve as agents of licentiousness—it is a mitzvah for him to divorce her. One who does not take such matters seriously is likened, by way of parable, to a person who finds a fly in his dish, sucks it off, and continues eating. This is the trait of a corrupt and base individual. Such a man sees his wife going out and spinning in the marketplace with her head uncovered, her garment torn on both sides, conversing freely with men in the street, nursing her child in public, or bathing where men bathe, and yet he pays no mind. Concerning such a case, it was said: “It is a commandment to divorce a wicked wife" (Yevamot 63b).

There are some men who are excessively exacting, and about them the Sages spoke metaphorically: they are like those who, upon seeing a fly fall into their cup, throw out the entire contents. Such men conduct themselves so that whenever they see their wives merely conversing with their brothers, relatives, or even in ordinary business dealings, they immediately suspect them. To this end, when they leave their homes, they lock the doors upon them.

The balanced way in these matters is like a person who finds a fly in his cup, removes the fly, and continues to drink what remains. So too, the way of most men: if they see their wives speaking with their brothers or relatives, they do not object; and if they notice something inappropriate beyond that, they admonish and rebuke them, and the wives accept correction.

But a man who divorces his wife without a fitting cause is despised, loathsome, and abominable. Indeed, from ancient times the heads of the academies and the great rabbis placed a ban upon anyone who would divorce his wife against her will, unless it were with the agreement of the leading citizens of the community. In many places, the leaders even sought the cooperation of kings and governing authorities to impose heavy fines upon any man who divorced his wife without her consent or without the sanction of the community elders—so that the door should not be left open for anyone who wishes [to cast off his wife capriciously].

“A fly falls into his cup, and he throws it out but does not drink…” — This requires closer consideration. For in the earlier parable, where the man throws out the fly and then drinks, it is easy to interpret: the “fly” represents his wife’s dealings and conversations with her relatives, which he disregards, “casting out the fly” and drinking his cup without concern. But in this case, where the parable says he throws the fly out and does not drink at all—what does that mean in the lesson? Since he clearly does suspect her, how does “casting it out” apply?

It must be that in this parable, “throwing it out” means discarding the entire cup, refusing to drink from it altogether. By contrast, in the third parable, the imagery shifts from a drinking cup to food in a dish. For indeed, no one would ever consume a fly whole if it fell into his cup; that case corresponds to one who actually sees his wife committing adultery, and every man would take offense. But when the fly falls into a dish, it becomes mixed with the food, and one who is corrupt might suck it out and continue eating, showing no concern for the impurity.

These parables therefore teach us that just as in matters of food the middle path is the best—removing the fly and then drinking, but not actually consuming the fly itself—so too in matters concerning one’s wife: the balanced approach is proper. A husband should indeed be concerned if his wife converses freely with every man, but he should not be overly severe if she speaks with her relatives. To be extreme, like Papus ben Yehuda who locked his wife away on account of any conversation, is not the proper way. (As Rashi makes explicit in Ketubot, “her husband was Papus…,” see there.)