When Is A Woman Like A Valued Pot?

When she is governed by Jewish law – especially when that Jewish law is administered by haredim.

 

The translation below was made by Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn. I added all the material in square brackets [  ], added some punctuation, changed other punctuation and grammar, changed one "an" to an "a," and broke what was one long paragraph into several smaller paragraphs to make it easier to read:

Sefer HaChinuch #579: Divorce requires a document. The basis of this mitzva is that since a woman was created to help her husband and she is to him like a desirable utensil.

A similar idea is expressed in Sanhedrin (22b). A woman does not make a covenant except with one who makes her into a utensil.

Since a woman is there to serve a purpose, it is the will of God that when he is disgusted with this utensil he should remove it from his house.

Because of this reason there are some of our Sages who say in Gittin (90a) that even if she burns his food he is able to divorce her, i.e. [even] for a trivial matter, since she is nothing but a valued utensil in his house.

However other Sages say that since she is [created] in God’s form and image and God prepared her for her husband’s needs and [his] honor – with [her] eyes to see and [her] ears to hear and [her] intelligence – it is not right to reject her and send out of his house except for a major reason. This is as the [biblical] verse says, “Because he found in her ervas davar (something disgusting).”

Nevertheless according to all the Sages, if he finds some major problem with her it is correct to divorce her.

That is because of the reason I mentioned, that she was only created for his sake. And since she is causing him upset and he is disgusted with her there is no necessity for him to remain with her.

The Jewish approach is not that of some of the non-Jews who make a strong binding commitment to marriage that is only ended by death. A man should not be afraid to divorce his wife if she does something repellent and destroys all that is in the house and burns down all of his possessions.

However the Torah commands that when she is sent away, it shouldn’t be done by words alone, because this can lead to much trouble and immorality in our society. Because a wife who is committing adultery could simply claim that she was already divorced. In addition if divorce is too easy to do then it becomes very common.

Consequently the Torah requires that a divorce be based on a written document and that there be witnesses who testify, and that all those who claim to be divorced can show it.

An additional advantage of a complicated written procedure over an oral agreement is that the delay and effort can cause the man’s anger to dissipate sometimes and he will decide not to divorce his wife, and great is peace…

It's important to understand several things about what you have just read.

First of all, there are two opinions cited, one allowing capricious divorce and one allowing divorce only for serious matters.

Secondly, Sefer HaChinuch was written in the 13th Century CE, about 750 years ago. It reflects the views of its time.

What is problematic, of course, is that for many haredi rabbis, it still reflects their views – even though we can show historically that Jewish women – at least upper class Jewish women – were treated better than this late in Second Temple period and that many great Jewish sages – like Rashi, for example, rejected the Chinuch's harsh view.

And when haredi rabbis can find active harsh opinions to hold by, they often do or, at least, they give those harsh opinions weight and, in the case of divorce, time. So a harsh opinion can bind a woman to a horrible, even violent marriage even though it is by far outnumbered by moderate and lenient ones.

And behind the Kiryas Joel Satmar Rebbe's attack on the child victim of Rabbi Nechemya Weberman as a "whore" is the idea that women are, in the end, only vessels for men's enjoyment, vessels that fill a need, vessels that are often enticing when they should not be, that lure men to sin, that are filled, as the Talmud says, with filth and vomit, whose blood brings impurity and distances all who come in contact with it from holiness.

The awful truth of the Sefer HaChinuch is that a woman is not much more than a high end blow up doll in parts of halakha, a sex toy/maid/cook/nanny/wet nurse/laundress who saves men from sin by spreading her legs and taking it.

But any time a man wants a new cook or a better maid or a later model sex toy, a legitimate strain in halakha is right there to allow him to get one while throwing the original out on the doorstep first. Because a woman is only a vessel – all the rabbis agree on that. She may be a $150 pot or she may be a diamond encrusted 24 carat gold and platinum tea service, but she's still an a vessel, an object, a purchase.

And you can almost always return her if you find a better deal.

[Hat Tip: Louis.]

Comments

[Avi]

any time a man wants a new cook or a better maid or a later model sex toy, a legitimate strain in halakha is right there to allow him to get one while throwing the original out on the doorstep first.

But what about the children.

Do they come into the equation at all?

Marriage is more than getting a cook or a sex toy.

[S M L]

There's much that's repellent in the dogma and in the liturgical and canon writings of centuries past. It runs counter to the course of the evolution and development of human society to adhere to and to use such antiquated primitive nonsense as the basis for the governance of a reiligious community in the 21st century. This is equally the case in other fundamentalist / reactionary religious groups; the most conservative Muslims, certain Protestant sects, the more extreme Mormons; the list goes on on and on. The Haredim don't have an exclusive on this but then those others aren't members of our tribe and are less our concern.

Makes me cringe to read material like this.

[Gefilte Fish]

Avi,

The same people who hold by this view also hold that the children are the "property" of the father and that the mother is just needed to give birth to them and to care for them until the child is weaned. So, you can have a situation in which a Jewish woman is the breadwinner in the family, as well as the mother to a large number of children, but if she wants to leave an abusive husband or if said husband wants to trade her in for a hot Chani, the mother forfeits all property and her rights to her children. Also, these same religious authorities seem to find any pretext not to award ketubah money to the wife (the moredet, or "rebellious woman" label seems to be a particular favorite).

[SkepticalYid]

Silly Haredim. Everyone knows that kitchen utensils were built to last in days gone by. Nowadays, they're so flimsy!

[Lubavitchers are Christians]

Shocking

[Runner1983]

The views expressed in this article are repugnant. Just because someone wrote this drivel hundreds or thousands of years ago doesn't mean that it is to be followed today. They do not represent Jewish values, and those haredi who espouse these values are not practicing Judaism, but something else. They are only using Judaism as a platform for the twisted culture of their cult.

[In the Know]

Please. It is SECULAR marriages that fall apart because a man wants a newer model. No one normal follows this in the Torah world.

[ah-pee-chorus]

They do not represent Jewish values, and those haredi who espouse these values are not practicing Judaism, but something else...Posted by: Runner1983

sadly, this really IS judaism. its at least "torah judaism". the torah itself is clear that a wife is one of the items owned by a man.

[SkepticalYid]

Posted by: In the Know | December 27, 2012 at 07:59 PM

Yes, one never ever ever hears of divorce in the Torah world. Men never solicit prostitutes, take a mistress or screw little boys.

[Expatriate Owl]

In the Know says:

"Yes, one never ever ever hears of divorce in the Torah world. Men never solicit prostitutes, take a mistress or screw little boys."

And neither do any men in the Torah world ever cheat on their taxes, defraud banks and insurance companies, swindle the welfare and Social Security system or or tell falsehoods.

[Runner1983]

Those who literally practice Torah Judaism are those that do not use their own common sense and critical judgment. They are trapped in a dark world and never see the light. Very unfortunate.

[Jeff]

"Posted by: In the Know | December 27, 2012 at 07:59 PM"

Your screen name illustrates something I say all the time: fundamentalists have no sense of irony.

[Account Deleted]

@ S M L | December 27, 2012 at 07:31 PM

You hit the nail on the head, let me add salt to injury, not the 21st century, but the 58th century according to our calendar.

Sad isn't it?

[Account Deleted]

"sadly, this really IS judaism. its at least "torah judaism". the torah itself is clear that a wife is one of the items owned by a man."

Posted by: ah-pee-chorus

Yes, and there are still fools that believe G-d gave them the book to sanction this shameful behavior. Let me go heretic here, if that is what G-d is all about, I will take my chances in oblivion.

[Isaac]

You all are fast to judge the frum community harshly. Frumkite can make people better or not. Either way it isnt the fault of the religion that some men are pigs. But more often it is the irreligious or secular that looks at a woman as just a collection of body parts where a Torah Yid looks at a woman as a hole. This is why frum Jews have closer relationships with each other.

[No_Light]

it is the irreligious or secular that looks at a woman as just a collection of body parts where a Torah Yid looks at a woman as a hole.

Well, you said it!

This is why frum Jews have closer relationships with each other.

You should be on the stage, you're hilarious.

[PulpitRabbi]

While I agree with your evaluation that the Chinuch's isn't the best explanation of the Laws of Divorce among our sources, nonetheless, I take issue with your translation, which is at the heart of your article (and right in the title). Saying that a woman is like a pot is actually a mistranslation of the word kli (of course, that means I take issue with Rabbi Eidensohn's translation, too).

When the Talmud makes the statement that is at the root of this piece, it means to say that since a woman cannot become pregnant as long as she is a virgin (please, let's keep biology out for a moment, that is what sources do say, that a woman will [generally] not become pregnant from her first sexual encounter), and since childbearing is an important part of female destiny and desire, therefore, her husband made her into what she desired/was destined to become. And once he can't stand her, for whatever reason, he will evidently not have sex with her and thus she will no longer be able to fulfil her destiny/desire for motherhood, hence he should release her from the bond of marriage.

I believe (off the bat) that the words used are kli chemda, which is the same term used to describe Israel being most beloved among nations, so it's not a degrading "like a beautiful pot," but a much more treasured expression, best translated as "a treasure" or "a jewel."

The Chinuch is also obviously trying to polemicize against Christians and suggests a reasonable in between approach between no divorce at all and between no need for divorce.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

PulpitRabbi, welcome to the 11th century...
It has only been in the last millennium that rape has come to be regarded as an offense against women in most Western legal systems. The common law (and US law) is not many centuries removed from when rape was treated as a property crime. Charges had to be brought by a father or husband of the injured "property" (not so valued jewel anymore).
So when it comes to women for the frumma like the Satmar,it's just more Livin la Vida Medieval, funny hats included.

[Atheodox Jew]

Sefer HaChinuch...reflects the views of its time. What is problematic, of course, is that for many haredi rabbis, it still reflects their views

Precisely. I'm glad you make this distinction. Often either you hear people gratuitously hammer the tradition, or you hear them justify holding by the same view today.

Of course it's not just a "haredi" mindset, and it's definitely not just "rabbis".

Because a woman is only a vessel – all the rabbis agree on that.

By the same token, a man is only something to put inside a vessel. Only the vessel has shape - the thing that goes in it has to conform to the vessel's shape, and direction. So you can look at it both ways.

But that's all conceptual fodder. The main thing is people need to treat each other like proper human beings, and I agree it's a problem not to explicitly disavow certain parts of the tradition if they're used to harm or exploit people.

[Concerned Yid]

I don't know if what they are saying holds today because the orthodox women I know, and my friends wifes, are all Queens and we are the VESSELS, ROBOTS, SEXTOYS! They are the bosses, whatever they say we do,
And whenever they decide to have sex is when we get our licks!

[Ari]

Posted by: Concerned Yid

Sounds like feminist Western style marriage. i.e. slavery of the husband to the entitled princess.

"whatever they say we do"
You sound like a pushover.

[Barry]

The full quote from Sanhedrin is:

'R. Samuel b. Unya said in the name of Rab: A woman [before marriage] is a shapeless lump, and concludes a covenant only with him who transforms her into a utensil useful to him, as it is written: For thy maker is thy husband; the Lord of Hosts is his name.'

A utensil is something which has a purpose useful to its owner. The implication is that a woman is something that a man makes useful for his own use. She is not a jewel which exists without the man's input but rather a lump of base metal which needs to be fashioned to be of some use.

Of course this idea is in conflict with modern morality which follows Kant's categorical imperative that one should "act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."

For Kant and anyone with enlightenment values, it is always immoral to regard a person as a utensil. Haredim unfortunately being cut off from modern thought do not understand why Kant's views are preferable and the consequences of not following his idea.

[ruthie]

wait! what?

what?
lol

[ruthie]

barry,
i enjoyed what you wrote...
i'm just rendered speechless...
a utensil...
so funny

[S M L]

a utensil...
so funny

Yeah - just like the ones you can buy at Williams-Sonoma. A good quality one will last for decades.....

[disgusted]

doniel and dovid eidensohn are woman-hating sex obsessed crazies, all they talk abt is sex and women- there position on divorce is well documented that the woman isnt allowed to ask to leave-dovid eidensohn feels that tamar epstein should never get a get and that her husband can remarry without giving a get bec she wont give her crazy hubby split custody and other demands. O and dovid eidensohn has repeatdley stalked tamar- what a pair of psychos

[mimi]

"Samuel b. Unya said in the name of Rab: A woman [before marriage] is a shapeless lump, and concludes a covenant only with him who transforms her into a utensil useful to him, as it is written:"

Funny, I became a shapeless lump AFTER I got married! Badum Tish...

[No_Light]

Ari - piss off back to the Bronze Age if you love it so much. Chazer.

[Feminista]

"Sounds like feminist Western style marriage. i.e. slavery of the husband to the entitled princess."
Spoken like a person who can't understand an equal partnership and true compatibility among spouses. Too bad for you Ari, you must be pretty disgusting if the only way you can stay married is to be in a master-slave relationship. I can't think much of your wife if she puts up with you, either.

[Ynot]

Any mention of a woman as a utensil has nothing to do with Judaism. Women are spiritual human beings and "must" at all times be treated with love and respect. Women should be treated as above the male in priority as they make children and continue the species.

Women were created after the man, and therefore in the hierarchy of creation women are above the male. Note (warning this was created for teen-age girls and may be dangerous for adults viewing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLfZ2tmM3vY&list=UURJiZAJgqIE-29sq30m_fvA

In modern academic theory (another PhD?) there is much research that shows that men are an expense to society. Note:

"Men are not cost effective" by June Stephenson, PhD

There is also a belief among women that men are a utensil that may be turned on or off for the needs of women.

[spacedout BT]

Wrong. See later writings by ReMa and other acharonim about the concept of choshuve nashim as including all women in this generation and the general view of Shass that one can be a menuval b'rshus ha Torah.