1. The [obligation of] conjugal rights¹The very word onah - and its translation as "conjugal rights" - conveys a fundamental conception with regard to the Torah's conception of marital intimacy. Marital intimacy is not for the husband's sake, but rather for his wife's. Onah also means "respond." A man should be responding to his wife's desires and satisfying her wishes for closeness. as prescribed by the Torah [is individual in nature], depending on the strength of each particular man and the [type of] work that he performs.

What is implied? Healthy men who are pampered and indulged, and who are not employed in labor that weakens their strength - but rather eat, drink and spend [the majority of their day] at home - should fulfill their conjugal duties every night.

[The following rules apply to] workers - e.g., tailors, weavers, construction workers and the like. If they work in the city [in which they live], they should fulfill their conjugal duties twice a week. If they work in another city, they should fulfill their conjugal duties once a week.

Donkey-drivers should fulfill their conjugal duties once a week. Camel-drivers should fulfill their conjugal duties once every thirty days. Seamen should fulfill their conjugal duties once every six months.

Students of the Torah should fulfill their conjugal duties once a week. [Their obligation is limited,] because the Torah weakens their strength. It is the practice of Torah scholars to engage in marital relations on Friday night.²See Hilchot Shabbat 30:14, where the Rambam states that marital relations are one of the expressions of oneg Shabbat, "Sabbath delight." (See also Hilchot De'ot 4:19, 5:4.)

2. A wife has the right to prevent her husband from making business trips except to close places, so that he will not be prevented from fulfilling his conjugal duties. He may make such journeys only with her permission.

Similarly, she has the prerogative of preventing him from changing from a profession that grants her more frequent conjugal rights to one that grants her less frequent rights - e.g., a donkey-driver who wishes to become a camel-driver, or a camel-driver who wishes to become a seaman.³Ketubot 62b states that even if the other profession is more profitable, the prerogative is granted to the woman, for a woman values intimacy with her husband more than financial advancement.

Students of the Torah may, however, depart for Torah study for two or three years without their wives' permission. Similarly, a wife cannot prevent a husband who is pampered and indulged from becoming a student of the Torah.

3. A man [has the prerogative of] marrying several wives⁴Yevamot 65a states that if it is the local custom for a man to have only one wife, a man may not deviate from that custom. In the Ashkenazic community, as ordained by the ban of Rabbenu Gershom, it is forbidden for a man to marry more than one wife. (See Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 1:9-10).) - even 100, whether at one time or one after the other. His wife may not object to this, provided he has the means to provide each [wife] with her subsistence, clothing and conjugal rights as befits her. He may not, however, compel his wives to live in the same courtyard. Instead, each one is entitled to her own household.⁵The commentaries draw support for this law from the Biblical narrative (Genesis 31:33 , which mentions that Jacob had separate tents for Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. (See also Chapter 13, Halachah 14.)

4. What are [his obligations with regard to his wives'] conjugal rights? [They are determined according to] the number [of wives he has.]

What is implied? If a worker has two wives, he is obligated to fulfill his duties towards each one once a week. If he has four wives, he is obligated to fulfill his duties towards each one once every two weeks. Similarly, a seaman who has four wives is obligated to fulfill his duties towards each one once every two years.

Therefore, our Sages⁶Yevamot 65a. commanded that a person should not marry more than four wives, although he has ample financial resources, so that he will be able to fulfill his conjugal obligations towards each one once a month.⁷From this, it appears that the custom of engaging in sexual relations once a week was not the practice of Torah scholars alone.

5. When a man makes a vow requiring his wife to tell other people what he told her - or what she told him - of the jests and frivolities that a man and his wife will [occasionally] speak [in preparation for] marital relations, he must divorce [his wife] and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah. For a woman may not [be compelled] to speak brazenly and tell others lascivious things.

Similarly, if a man makes a vow requiring his wife to take actions during marital relations to prevent conception, or if he makes a vow requiring her to act foolishly, [performing] acts that have no meaning and are merely foolishness,⁸To fill up pitchers of water and dump them down the drain (Ketubot 7:3; Even HaEzer 76:12). he must divorce [his wife] and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah.

6. When a man makes a vow causing marital relations with his wife to be forbidden, he is given a respite of one week.⁹In this time, it is hoped that he will change his mind and retract his vow. After that time, he must divorce [his wife] and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah, or absolve his vow. [This ruling applies even if the man] is a seaman whose obligation towards conjugal duties is once every six months. [The rationale is that] since he took a vow, he has caused his wife distress, and she despairs [of ever resuming intimacy].

How can such a vow be effective? If he tells her: "Marital relations with me are forbidden for you," or he takes an oath not to engage in marital relations, his vow is of no consequence, and by taking an oath he violates the prohibition against taking a false oath, for he is obligated [by the Torah to engage in relations with her].¹⁰As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, a husband is obligated by the Torah to give his wife conjugal rights. Once an obligation is imposed on a person by the Torah, he may not free himself of it by taking a vow or an oath. If, however, he tells her, "The satisfaction of engaging in relations with you is forbidden to me," it is a [binding] vow, and he is forbidden to engage in relations with her.¹¹Since this vow does not forbid anything to the woman, but states instead, that her husband is prohibited from appreciating pleasure that results from relations with her, it can be effective. For a person should not be fed food that is forbidden to him.

7. It is forbidden for a man to deprive his wife of her conjugal rights. If he transgresses and deprives her of these rights in order to cause her distress, he violates one of the Torah's negative commandments, as [Exodus 21:10] states: "Do not deprive [her] of her sustenance, garments or conjugal rights."¹²Rav Kapach notes that although this prohibition involves three rights, the Rambam mentions its violation only with regard to the denial of conjugal rights. He explains that with regard to her sustenance and garments, a woman can take legal recourse and sue for the money due. This, however, is not possible with regard to conjugal rights.

If he becomes sick or his virility is weakened, and he is unable to engage in sexual relations, he is given a period of six months¹³The later authorities (Chelkat Mechokek 76:18; Beit Shmuel 76:17) quote the opinion in the Shiltei HaGiborim that states that if a man is afflicted with an ailment that will heal, his wife is required to remain married to him, despite the fact that the treatment will last longer than six months.- for [a woman is never required to wait] longer for her conjugal rights than this - in the hope that he recovers. Afterwards, the prerogative is hers [whether to remain married] or whether he must divorce her and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah.

8. A woman who withholds marital intimacy from her husband is called a moredet ("a rebel"). She is asked why she has rebelled. If she answers: "Because I am repulsed by him and I cannot voluntarily engage in relations with him," her husband should be compelled to divorce her immediately. For she is not like a captive, [to be forced] to engage in relations with one she loathes.¹⁴The Maggid Mishneh and many other authorities differ with the Rambam on this point and maintain that a man should not be forced to divorce his wife even in such a situation. This view is followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 77:2). Even those opinions that favor the Rambam's ruling emphasize that the court should seek to clarify that the woman is not making her statements because she fell in love with another man and seeks to end her previous marriage because of him.

[In such an instance, as part of] the divorce [settlement], she does not receive any of the money promised her in her ketubah.¹⁵For, as implied by the Rambam's statements below, this money was promised to her only on the condition that she maintain the marriage relationship. She is entitled to whatever remains of the possessions she brought into the marriage arrangement, both those for which her husband assumed responsibility and those for which he did not assume responsibility - i.e., nichsei m'log.¹⁶Those authorities who differ with the Rambam regarding whether the husband is compelled to divorce his wife also differ with regard to this point. They maintain that even with regard to the possessions for which her husband accepted responsibility, the woman is granted only what she takes possession of. (See Maggid Mishneh; Ramah (Even HaEzer, loc. cit.).

She is not entitled to anything that belongs to her husband. She should remove even the shoe on her foot and her head-covering that he gave her and return them to him. [Similarly,] she should return to him any presents that he gave her. For he did not give them to her with the intent that she take them and [leave his home].

9. [Different rules apply, however,] if she rebelled against her husband with the intent of causing him distress,¹⁷I.e., she is not necessarily interested in terminating the marriage, but rather in withholding marital relations as a means to communicate her position to her husband. saying: "I intend to cause him distress this way, because he did this or this to me," "...because he cursed me," "...because he has caused me strife," or the like, she is sent a messenger from the court, [who] tells her: "Take note. If you continue your rebellious conduct, you will forfeit your ketubah, even if it is worth one hundred maneh."¹⁸A maneh is equivalent to 100 dinarim.

Afterwards, announcements are made concerning her in the synagogues and the houses of study each day for four consecutive weeks,¹⁹The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 77:2) quotes the Rambam's wording. The Ramah, however, differs, stating that the announcement need be made only on four consecutive Sabbaths. saying: "So and so has rebelled against her husband."²⁰The purpose of these announcements is obviously to shame her and to cause her to reconsider her course of behavior.

10. After the announcement has been made, the court sends her a messenger a second time. He tells her: "If you continue your rebellious conduct, you have forfeited your ketubah." If, nevertheless, she continues this conduct and does not retract, she is consulted by the court. [If she does not change her mind,] she then forfeits her ketubah and has no rights to a ketubah at all.²¹I.e., she does not receive the fundamental requirement of the ketubah, nor any additional amount that her husband promised her (tos'fot ketubah).

She is not given a divorce until twelve months pass.²²The Maggid Mishneh explains that, as a favor, the court requests the husband not to divorce his wife until this time has passed, for it is disgraceful for a Jewish couple to part because of strife. It is hoped that during the twelve months they are required to wait, they will resolve their differences.

There are opinions that state that in the present age, the husband is not required to wait an entire year and may instead divorce his wife immediately. Nevertheless, the majority of authorities do not accept this view (Ramah, loc. cit.).

According to the Rambam, during these twelve months, the husband has no financial responsibilities to his wife whatsoever. If she is held captive, he is not required to redeem her, and if he dies, she does not inherit her ketubah from his estate. Rabbenu Asher (as interpreted by the Tur, Even HaEzer 77) differs and maintains that during these twelve months, the woman's ketubah is still in effect. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 77:2) cites the Rambam's view, while the Ramah follows that of Rabbenu Asher. During these twelve months, [her husband is] not [required] to provide for her subsistence. If she dies before being divorced, her husband inherits her [property].

11. This is the sequence followed with regard to a woman who rebels [against her husband] in order to cause him distress. These laws apply even when the woman is in the niddah state or when she is ill and is not fit to engage in sexual relations. Similarly, they apply even when her husband is a seaman whose conjugal duties are only once in six months, and even when [her husband] has another wife.²³In all the instances mentioned in this halachah, the governing principle is that the fact that a woman makes a categorical statement refusing to engage in marital relations in the future is sufficient to warrant her being placed in this category, despite the fact that her conduct is of no immediate consequence.

12. Similarly, when the time comes for an arusah to enter nisu'in,²⁴One year, for a na'arah, one month for a bogeret, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 17. and she refuses to do so, rebelling in order to cause [her husband] distress, she is considered to be one who rebels [and refuses to engage] in marital relations. Similarly, the above sequence is followed when a yevamah refuses to undergo yibbum in order to cause [her yavam] distress.²⁵Yibbum refers to the marriage of the widow (the yevamah) of a childless man by his brother (the yavam). The Rambam's ruling is dependent on his decision that even in the present age, the mitzvah of yibbum takes precedence over the mitzvah of chalitzah (Hilchot Yibbum 1:2). The latter decision is not accepted in the Ashkenazic community, and therefore, the ruling in our halachah is also a matter of dispute. (See Ramah, Even HaEzer 165:1.)

13. When this woman who rebels is divorced after twelve months without receiving [any of the money due her because of] her ketubah, she must also return everything that belongs to her husband.

With regard to the property that she brought to [the marriage arrangement] and what remains [of her trousseau, different rules apply].²⁶I.e., the laws governing a woman who rebels against her husband differ from those governing a woman who claims that she is repulsed by her husband, as described in Halachah 8. If she takes physical possession of these articles, they are not taken from her, but if her husband takes physical possession of them,²⁷In both the Kessef Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 77:3), Rav Yosef Karo states that the husband does not have to take physical possession of this property. As long as the wife does not take possession of it, it is considered to be his. they are not taken from him. Similarly, her husband is not held liable for anything that has been lost from her possessions for which he accepted responsibility.²⁸This refers to nichsei tzon barzel, property whose full value must ordinarily be returned to the woman. In contrast, nichsei m'log - property for which the husband did not accept responsibility and is returned to the woman in whatever condition it is, regardless of its worth - must be returned to her, even if she rebels against him. (See Ramah, Even HaEzer 77:2.)

The rationale for this distinction is that since he takes responsibility for the nichsei tzon barzel, these articles are considered to be possessed by him unless she takes physical possession of them. With regard to the nichsei m'log, by contrast, since the husband does not take responsibility, they are not considered to be in his possession. This is the law prescribed by the Talmud with regard to a woman who rebels [against her husband].

14. There are geonim who say that in Babylonia different customs were followed with regard to a woman who rebels [against her husband].²⁹The customs of these geonim are quoted in the Halachot of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi. They are far more considerate of the woman's position and interests. The Ramah (Even HaEzer 77:3) states that if the woman gives a reasonable explanation for her conduct, these customs should be followed. These customs have not, however, spread throughout the majority of the Jewish community, and in most places within the Jewish community, there are many sages of stature who differ with them. [Therefore,] it is proper to follow the laws prescribed by the Talmud.

15. [The following ruling applies when] a man rebels against his wife and says, "I will support her and provide her with her subsistence, but I will not be intimate with her, because she has become loathsome to me." He must increase her ketubah by the equivalent of 36 barleycorns worth of [pure] silver³⁰I.e., three dinarim of the currency employed during the Talmudic period. each week. They may remain married without engaging in relations for as long as she desires.³¹If she does not desire to remain married, she may ask the court to compel him to grant her a divorce, as stated in Halachah 7.

Although her ketubah continues to increase, [her husband] also transgresses a negative commandment, for [Exodus 21:10] states: "Do not deprive [her of her... conjugal rights]." If the husband hates her, let him divorce her; causing her anguish, however, is forbidden.

Why is he not punished by lashes for [violating] this negative commandment? Because its [violation] does not involve a deed.³²And lashes are given only for a transgression that involves a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2).

16. [The following rules apply when] a man and his wife come to court and he claims that his wife refuses to engage in marital relations, and she replies: "I follow the way of the world with him," or if she claims that he deprives her of her conjugal rights, and he replies that he "follows the way of the world with her." At first, a ban of ostracism is issued against anyone who denies his or her spouse marital intimacy and refuses to acknowledge the matter before the court.³³Although the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, it is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 77:4).

Afterwards, if acknowledgement is [still] not made, the couple are asked to enter into privacy in the presence of witnesses. If they do this, and yet the claims continue as before, a request is made of the defendant, and a compromise is made [as just] as the judge can make. It is, however, forbidden to engage in relations in the presence of others. For it is forbidden to engage in relations in the presence of any living being.

17. When a woman becomes ill, [her husband] is obligated [to provide] medical treatment for her until she recovers. If the husband sees that her illness is prolonged, and he will be forced to spend much money treating her, he may tell her: "Here is the money due you by virtue of your ketubah. Either pay for your treatment from this money, or I will divorce you and pay you what is due you and abandon you." [Although] he is given this prerogative, it is not ethical to act in this manner.³⁴As mentioned by the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh, there are authorities who maintain that there is an explicit prohibition preventing a husband from divorcing a wife who is too ill to care for herself. The later authorities, however, follow the Rambam's view.

In the Ashkenazic community, there is a question if the Rambam's ruling applies in the present age, after the ban of Rabbenu Gershom, which prevents divorcing a woman against her will. (See the Chelkat Mechokek 79:3, which quotes an opinion that states that as long as the husband is prepared to meet all the financial obligations of the divorce, he has the prerogative to divorce a woman against her will, even when she is ill.)

18. [When a man's wife] is taken captive, he is obligated to redeem her. If he is a priest, [although] she has become forbidden to him,³⁵As mentioned in Chapter 24, Halachah 21, a priest is forbidden to have relations with a woman who engaged in sexual relations with a gentile, even when she was raped. Our Sages assumed that women taken captive by gentiles were raped by them, and therefore prohibited a priest from remaining married to such a woman. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:17-30.) he must redeem her and have her returned to her father's home. If he was in another city, he must still provide for her until she is returned to her native locale. [Then] he must divorce her and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah.

If her husband was an Israelite - who is permitted to remain married to a woman who was held captive³⁶The Ramah (Even HaEzer 78:6) notes that even an Israelite is forbidden to remain married to a woman who is held captive by gentiles if she willingly engaged in relations with one of them. In such instances, he is not obligated to redeem her. - he must return her to her station as his wife, as she was previously.³⁷I.e., he may not merely redeem her and send her a divorce. Afterwards, if he desires,³⁸I.e., out of suspicion that she willingly engaged in relations with her captors, or because he does not want to live with a woman who had relations with others (Ma'aseh Rokeach). he may divorce her, [provided] he pays her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah.

19. A husband is not obligated to redeem his wife for more than her worth. Instead, [the laws applying] to her [redemption] are the same as with regard to others held captive.³⁹As explained in Hilchot Matnot Ani'yim 8:12, our Sages decreed that captives should not be redeemed for more than their worth, so that the gentiles will not be overwhelmingly encouraged to seize Jews as captives.

The Rambam's wording has aroused the attention of the later authorities (Chelkat Mechokek 78:2; Beit Shmuel 78:2), for it implies that if the husband desires to redeem her for more than her worth, he may, while with regard to other captives it is forbidden to do so. They interpret the Rambam's words as applying this prohibition to the husband as well. The Beit Shmuel interprets the ruling of the Ramah (Even HaEzer 78:2) as meaning that a husband is required to redeem his wife even though her captors demand more than her worth.

When her ransom exceeds [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, her husband is not given the prerogative of saying: "I will divorce her. Here is [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. Let her redeem herself." Instead, [if necessary,] he should be compelled to redeem her, even if her ransom is ten times [the value of] her ketubah - even if it is equivalent to all of his assets.

When does the above apply? On the first occasion [that she is held captive]. If, however, he redeems her and she is taken captive again, if he desires to divorce her he may divorce her, pay [her the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, and [then] she must redeem herself.⁴⁰In both the Kessef Mishneh and in the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 78), Rav Yosef Karo states that the husband is not obligated to redeem his wife a second time. If he desires, he may remain married to her without redeeming her. Many, however, differ with this as the interpretation of the Rambam's words. (See Chelkat Mechokek 78:4; Beit Shmuel 78:4.)

20. When a man's wife is taken captive and he is abroad, the court expropriates his assets and sells them after announcements have been made,⁴¹See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 12:8-11, which states that an announcement is made regarding the sale of the person's property so that he will receive the best price. and redeems his wife as he would be required to.

21. When a person causes his wife to be bound by a vow that requires him to divorce her⁴²E.g., the vows mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 8ff. and pay her [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, and she is taken captive after he causes her to be bound by this vow, he is not required to redeem her. For from the time he caused her to be bound by the vow, he was obligated to divorce her and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah.⁴³The obligation for a husband to redeem his wife stems from her ketubah, which states: "If you are taken captive, I will redeem you and take you back as my wife." Since he is already obligated to divorce her, he is not bound by this clause.

22. When a woman who is forbidden to [engage in relations] with her husband because of one of the Torah's prohibitions is taken captive, he is not obligated to redeem her.⁴⁴The rationale for this ruling is that the obligation to redeem one's wife involves returning her to her status as a wife, and this is forbidden in this instance. Nevertheless, although this is the rationale, the same ruling applies with regard to a High Priest who married a widow, or an ordinary priest who married a divorcee.

In these instances, the obligation of the woman's ketubah - that she be redeemed and returned to her native land - could be fulfilled without transgressing a prohibition of the Torah. Nevertheless, since relations with her were forbidden previously, her husband is not obligated to redeem her (Ketubot 52a). Instead, he must provide her with [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, and she must redeem herself.

[One might ask: Why is this instance different from the wife of a priest who is taken captive?] A woman who has been taken captive is forbidden to a priest, and yet he is obligated to redeem [his wife in such an instance]. [There is, however, a difference between the two instances. The priest's wife] was not forbidden to him beforehand. It is the prohibition stemming from her being taken captive that causes [their relationship to be forbidden].⁴⁵With regard to a woman forbidden to her husband by virtue of a Torah prohibition, by contrast, the prohibition existed before she was taken captive.

23. When a man's wife dies, he is obligated to bury her and to have eulogies and lamentations performed as is the local custom. Even a poor Jewish man should provide at least two flutes⁴⁶Flutes have a mournful tone that arouses tears (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 23:4). and one woman to lament. If [her husband] is rich, [the funeral should be carried out] in a manner appropriate to his wealth.

If the social standing of [a man's wife] exceeded his own, he must have her buried in a manner appropriate to her social standing. For [when she marries,] a woman ascends to her husband's social standing [if his is higher than hers], but does not descend [to his, if her social standing surpasses his].⁴⁷This principle applies to many aspects of the financial relationship of the marriage bond - e.g., the woman's subsistence, her garments and her lodging. It is curious that this instance is the first time the Rambam mentions it explicitly. [This principle applies] even after death.

24. If a husband does not desire [to pay for] the burial of his wife, and another person voluntarily takes the initiative and has her buried, [the costs of the burial] should be expropriated from her husband against his will and given to the person [who arranged the burial].⁴⁸Although the Rambam makes a distinction between this instance and a similar situation mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachah 19, the Rashba and others do not. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 89:2) quotes the Rambam's view, but the Beit Shmuel 89:2 states that because of the other views, the husband's property may not be expropriated against his will. [The rationale is to prevent the body of a Jew] from being thrown to the dogs.

If a man is in another city when his wife dies, the court should expropriate his property and sell it without an announcement.⁴⁹Although usually announcements are made for 30 days prior to the sale of property by the court, an exception is made in this instance, so that the woman's burial will not be delayed (Ketubot 100b). The woman should be buried as appropriate to her husband's financial resources and his social standing or her social standing.