THE PICTURE THAT EMERGES from many Talmudic passages is that society in the rabbinic period was both sex-segregated and patriarchal. Was it permissible, in such a society, for men and women to engage in social and intellectual exchange of ideas? The answer is no.
A close reading of the key texts on the subject of relations between the sexes will show that the reason for this ban was that men found themselves easily aroused in the presence of women and therefore did not trust themselves to be alone with them. It is hard to say whether such a low threshold of sexual arousal is the result of living in a society in which dealing with women was sufficiently rare that it heightened their sexual attraction for men, or whether just the opposite obtained: Because of men’s sexual nature, it was necessary for them to live their lives, not with women, but parallel to them.
As much as we will try to understand what these texts have to say on the subject, we must recognize that the conditions of life in the rabbinic period were so different from those of today, the lack of privacy being just one example, that we cannot be sure that we are properly understanding the nature of men’s and women’s relationships. Even today, relationships between the sexes differ so greatly in the West and East that it is hard for someone in one culture to understand properly human relations in another.
The theory proposed—that men recognized that their own sexual nature makes social interchange with women impossible—is at odds with much current thinking on gender relations in rabbinic culture. Jacob Neusner suggests that men view women as anomalous, dangerous, dirty, and polluting, and in possession of an unruly sexual potential that is lying there just below the surface.1Jacob Neusner, Method and Meaning in Ancient Judaism, Brown Judaica Series, no. 10 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979), 97. Judith Wegner says that rabbis ascribe to women moral laxity.2Wegner, Chattel or Person? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 159–162. David Biale writes that according to the rabbis, women are “incapable of willed sexual restraint.”3David Biale, Eros and the Jews (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 57. Leonie Archer claims that the rabbis consider women to be insatiable sexual aggressors.4Leonie Archer, Her Price Is Beyond Rubies: The Jewish Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Series, 60 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 105. Michael Satlow says that although men and women were both thought to be sexually desirous, only men were thought capable of controlling their desire.5Michael Satlow, Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 158. According to all of these authors, men, rather than accepting responsibility for their own sexual misbehavior, blame women for instigating it. These theories fit in with, or are the consequence of, these authors’ general sense that men viewed women as Other.
I have no quarrel with the fact that men in ancient societies, and even today, view women as Other. But that does not necessarily imply that they impute evil or depravity to women. On the contrary, I find in the Talmudic sources three general principles or observations that recognize the complexity of sexuality: (1) as already noted, men are easily aroused sexually by being in the presence of women, looking at them, dressed or undressed, or even just thinking about them; (2) women, in general, do not actively try to entice men; (3) sexual attraction in and of itself is considered to be normal and natural but, because it demands resolution, can easily lead to violation of social and religious norms.6It does seem to be the case, though, that over time, some rabbis began to display a negative attitude to the sexual urge, particularly in that it competed with the desire to study Torah. See further discussion. I will try in the course of this chapter to show that these principles emerge when we read in entirety a rabbinic unit on sexual relations between men and women and compare the views of the Mishnah, Tosefta, Bavli, and Yerushalmi to each other. Only when these materials are examined out of context does it become possible to reach other conclusions. To their credit, the rabbis seem to be aware of some aspects of their own psychological makeup.
The subject not addressed in these passages is what women feel about sex. Although women are central to this material in that they are the source of sexual tension for men, their own opinions are not recorded. Nor do men have much to say about women’s sexuality except to acknowledge that women, too, have a need for sexual satisfaction. The halakhic corollary is that since women are subordinate to their husbands and hence not free openly to seek satisfaction, the rabbis require men to meet their wives’ sexual needs.
One other point to keep in mind as we read through this material is that just as the chapters in the Bible on forbidden sexual liaisons (Leviticus 18 and 20) place a man at the center and proceed to list the women with whom he may not enter into sexual contact, the Mishnah too, when discussing sexual matters, looks at the world with a man’s eyes. Similarly, just as laws affecting women in the Bible are, for the most part, a derivative of laws affecting men, so too in the Mishnah rules affecting women must be derived from those affecting men.
Men and Women Alone Together
The key set of statements on the topic of relations between the sexes appears in chapter 4 of Tractate Kiddushin. After dealing with lineage and with appropriate and inappropriate marital unions, the Mishnah moves on to another topic altogether, relationships between men and women who are not married to each other.
A man may not be alone with two women [neither of whom is married to him], but a woman may be alone with two men [neither of whom is married to her].
R. Simon says: A man may even be alone with two women, as long as his wife is with him, and he may sleep with them at an inn, because his wife watches over him [and will not allow him to engage either of the two women who are not married to him in sexual relations].7See Albeck (415) for a slightly different interpretation of this mishnah. See Tosafot, s.v. R. Simon.
He [i.e., any male] may be alone with his mother and his daughter and lie in bed with them in physical contact. Once they grow up [the boy who lies in bed with his mother or the girl who lies in bed with her father], she must sleep in her garment [כסותה] and he in his [but they may still lie in the same bed]. (M Kiddushin 4:12)
The first part of the mishnah states the well-known rule that men and women may not be alone together, but it distinguishes between prohibiting one man from being alone with several women and permitting one woman to be alone with several men. If we read this part of the mishnah independently of its context, at least two reasons for the distinction come to mind: Either men need to be protected from being seduced by women, or women need to be protected from being seduced by men. In order to find out which of these explanations is right, we need to read these rules in the context of those that follow.
The second clause of the mishnah, about relations between family members, makes the assumption that a father is not aroused sexually by sleeping naked in the same bed as his young daughter, with their bodies touching, that a young boy is not aroused by sleeping together with his mother, nor, we may assume, is a mother aroused by her young son. That is, immature bodies do not bring about sexual arousal in others or experience it themselves. But once a man matures physically, he will experience involuntary sexual arousal if he is in close physical contact with either his mother or a physically mature daughter. Therefore, although they may still sleep in the same bed, they may not do so naked, but each wrapped in his or her own garment.
This second part of the mishnah sheds light on the first. In this second case, the father, mother, son, or daughter is not intent on enticing anyone to engage in a sexual act. The mishnah is dealing with a situation, in this case a family bed, in which a man will, without intending to, find himself sexually aroused by sleeping in bodily contact with a naked woman, even his own mother or daughter. The mishnah’s law offers advice on how to avoid such arousal: Have each of them wrap themselves in his or her own blanket-like garment.
It follows that the first part of the mishnah, men and women finding themselves alone with each other, is also describing a situation in which men are not actively trying to entice women, nor are women actively trying to entice men. Even so, men will find themselves aroused sexually simply by being secluded with women. To guard a man from interacting sexually with an unattended woman, a likely outcome of their being alone together, the mishnah recommends that he make sure another man or else his own wife is present. The juxtaposition of these two sections within one mishnah makes it very unlikely that in the first part women are actively trying to seduce men whereas in the second men are trying to contend with involuntary sexual arousal. Since, in addition, the second part of the mishnah uses the same key term as the first part—“to be alone with” [להתיחד עם]—they constitute one literary unit on the topic of seclusion, involuntary sexual arousal and its routine consequence, illicit sexual activity.
Note that this mishnah is written with a man’s concerns in view. It is he who will find himself unable to resist sexual temptation when in the presence of an unattended woman or women. For the mishnah, sexual arousal in these circumstances is natural, uncomplicated, involuntary, and perceived of as bad only if it leads a man into sexual transgression. To prevent him from engaging in a sexual act when alone with a woman, the mishnah forbids a man from allowing himself to be found in such a situation.8Since the Mishnah allows no seclusion of men with any women at all, even unmarried, it is concerned not just about the violation of Jewish law by men with married or consanguineous women but also about promiscuous behavior of men with unmarried women.
The reason that two men may be alone with one woman but two women may not be alone with one man has to do with a man’s controlling his instincts: In both cases a female presence excites a man, but in the first instance, the presence of someone else like himself will inhibit him from pursuing gratification, whereas in the second, in the presence of women only, he will not be embarrassed to carry out his sexual design. We will return to this subject later.
The next mishnah continues to deal with the subject of involuntary sexual arousal:
A bachelor may not train to become a Bible teacher for children nor may a woman train to become one. R. Eliezer says: Even a man who does not have a wife [living with him] may not train to become such a teacher.9See Albeck (415) for an analysis of the phrase yilmad soferim. See also Tosefta AZ 3:2 (and next note). (M Kiddushin 4:13)
No reason is given for why an unmarried man may not teach young children. The simple explanation, raised and then immediately rejected by both Talmuds (BT Kiddushin 82a; PT Kiddushin 4:11; 66c), is that an unmarried man’s pent-up libido may lead him to molest the students sexually.10T AZ 3:2 fears such sexual molestation if a gentile teacher is hired for a Jewish child. Kutheans are not suspected of such behavior (Tosefta AZ 3:1). As close to the meaning of the words as this explanation is—exploitation of schoolchildren is a problem to this very day—it would force us to say, in parallel fashion, that a woman, unmarried or even married, is similarly suspect. Since no statistics support the notion that women are more frequent sexual offenders of children than men, that is not likely to be the view of women’s sexual nature that the rabbis are expressing in these texts.
The two Talmuds propose instead that unmarried men may not serve as teachers because of the mothers who accompany young students to school, and women, unmarried or even married, may not serve as teachers because of the fathers who accompany young students to school.11BT Kiddushin 82a; PT Kiddushin 4:11; 66c. The Bavli offers symmetrical explanations for male and female teachers; the Yerushalmi only explains why men may not serve as teachers. This possibly means that the Yerushalmi discounted the notion of women not teaching children. This means that an unmarried man may not be a teacher of young children because he will come into contact with a student’s mother, become aroused by her, and commit a sexual violation. Overpowered by him, she will be unable to say no. The rule about women serving as teachers does not make reference to marital status because the rabbis think that any woman, married or unmarried, will arouse a man. They are not saying, therefore, that the female teacher will attempt to seduce the student’s father but only that he will attempt to seduce her. This alternate interpretation, which focuses on adults and not children, is reasonable in light of the topic of the entire section—a man’s low threshold of arousal and lack of control in subduing it. If a man does not have a sexual outlet, the chances of involuntary arousal followed by sexual transgression are even higher. I think it possible that the mishnah at some point in time referred to child abuse, in at least the first clause about men. But from the time of the Talmud and on—and maybe even earlier—the interpreters saw it as referring only to the behavior of adults among themselves.12Wegner (Chattel or Person? 160) cites BT Kiddushin 82a and says that the presence of a child will not discourage a woman or a man from fornicating with each other. Because women are viewed as morally lax, the mishnah does not distinguish between married and unmarried women. Ilan (Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995], 193) also interprets the mishnah according to the Talmud (PT Kiddushin 4:11; 66c).
R. Judah says: A bachelor may not pasture cattle nor may two bachelors sleep in one tallit [a blanket-like garment]; but the Sages allow [these activities]. (M Kiddushin 4:14)
In this next mishnah, R. Judah seems to be worried about involuntary sexual arousal or illicit sexual activity when an unmarried man is in close physical contact with another man or even, as offensive as this sounds to us today, with cattle. The rabbis disagree with him, apparently because they think that such behavior is not prevalent among Jews, as they say explicitly in Tosefta Kiddushin 5:10 (לא נחשדו ישראל על כך, Jews are not suspected of that).
The mishnah continues:
Anyone whose business is with women should not let himself be alone with them [לא יתיחד עם הנשים]. And a man should not teach his son a trade that will make him go among women.
This passage again suggests that when a man spends time alone with women, he will be sexually aroused, leading him to engage in forbidden sexual acts. As noted above, she is likely to be overpowered by him and unable to resist. I do not see any suggestion here that the women are actively tempting him or that women are to be looked upon as evil and conniving or even morally lax. Rather, this mishnah is a straightforward and almost matter-of-fact presentation of the pitfalls of men’s physical responses to being with women, and for some men to being with other men or even cattle, in the event that a man does not have a licit sexual outlet. By mentioning that he is a bachelor, the mishnah puts the onus on him. It is he who, because of his suppressed libido, finds himself more easily aroused involuntarily by close contact with women, other men, or even animals.
The mishnah here accepts what it perceives as men’s sexual nature and tries to restrain it. Just as the rabbis tell people to avoid any actions that may lead them to violate the Sabbath,13An example would be reading by the light of an oil lamp, which may lead someone inadvertently to tilt the lamp to get it to burn more brightly and thereby kindle a flame on the Sabbath. See Tosefta Shabbat 1:12, 13. so too do they tell men to stay away from women because of the likelihood of attraction, arousal, and the likely result, sexual activity. There is no suggestion here that the women themselves are deliberately trying to entice men, as the Mishnah elsewhere suggests about women who bare their arms in the marketplace, engage men in conversation, and bathe publicly with them, all activities the Mishnah perceives to be clearly designed to lure men into sexual activity (M Ketubot 7:6 and Tosefta Sotah 5:9). Here it is the men who seem unable to control themselves in the presence of women and who need other men to inhibit them from unacceptable sexual activity.
It is remarkable that the Mishnah considers a wife to be an appropriate guardian of her husband’s chastity, since, in most cases, she could not restrain him physically. But the assumption seems to be that she has a vested interest in keeping him away from sexual encounters with other women. Therefore, she will see to it, probably in subtle or morally admonishing ways, that he will not find himself aroused or, at least, not able to act on such arousal.
The parallel passages in the Tosefta sharpen our understanding of these mishnahs.
A woman may be alone with two men, even if both of them are Kutheans, even if both are slaves, even if one is a Kuthean and one is a slave, except [if one of the two is] a minor, because she is not embarrassed to engage in sexual relations in the presence [of a minor, שאינה בושה לשמש כנגדו].…
But she may not be alone with pagans, even if one hundred of them are present. (Tosefta Kiddushin 5:9, 10b)
According to the beginning of this statement, even men who are not fully Jewish, such as Kutheans and pagan slaves,14Pagan slaves are regarded by the rabbis as individuals who are on their way to becoming Jewish. The rabbis required the owners of slaves to circumcise the males and obligated all slaves to observe all mitzvot except for the time-bound positive ones. Upon manumission a slave attained not just freedom but also Jewish status. Kutheans are people whose Samaritan ancestors converted to Judaism not on principle but out of fear. See 2 Kings 17:24ff. They are regarded by the rabbis as neither fully Jewish nor fully pagan. may be alone with a Jewish woman. From this we can conclude that the rabbis did not fear that women would seduce men, for if they did, why would they distinguish between one man, fully Jewish, and another, not fully Jewish—all would be equally vulnerable to her initiatives. On the contrary, this statement implies that as long as a man has some connection to Judaism, he can be trusted not to force himself on her in the presence of another man. As for mature pagan men, she cannot be alone even with one hundred. Why? I do not think the rabbis fear that she would seduce one after the other of these more seducible pagan men. More likely, the rabbis’ concern is that no matter how many of them there are, they will shamelessly engage in sexual activity with her, even in the presence of ninety-nine others, without a single one of them interfering with the seduction or, more accurately, the rape.
The above passage also says that a woman may not be alone with one man and a minor because she would not be embarrassed to have sexual relations with the mature man in the presence of a minor. This can be understood as saying that it is not men who actively seduce women but women who actively seduce men.15Wegner (Chattel or Person? 160) comments: “The sages’ androcentric perspective blames the dangers of private encounters between the sexes on women’s moral laxity rather than on men’s greater susceptibility to arousal.” I disagree. But given the immediately preceding and following statements about men who either can or cannot restrain themselves from engaging an unattended woman in sexual activity, I think such an interpretation is not likely. What the passage may be saying is that a grown man will become sexually aroused when with a woman and that the presence of a minor will not deter him or even her the way the presence of an adult male would. Minors do not count. According to this interpretation, the passage assumes that she engages in sex consensually.
His sister, his mother-in-law, and all the other women forbidden on the basis of consanguinity, as mentioned in the Torah, he should not be alone with them except if two [i.e., at least one other] are present. (Tosefta Kiddushin 5:10a)
It goes without saying that a man may not be secluded with only one woman because of the opportunity they would have to engage in sexual relations, but one might still think that he could be alone with a female relative. However, the Tosefta says that seclusion with any female relative is not allowed. Another adult must be present. This law could be seen as a direct contradiction of the mishnah that says that he may be alone with his mother when he is young, or with his daughter when she is young, and even sleep with them in the same bed. But there is no necessary conflict. Either this rule already assumes and accepts the exceptions listed in the mishnah and talks about other female relations, not mentioned in the mishnah, or else this rule is older than the related mishnah and the mishnah comes to relax its restrictions somewhat. The mishnah’s rationale seems to be, as noted above, that it is hard to imagine sexual arousal between a father and a young daughter and a mother and a young son. Furthermore, it would be hard to prohibit parents and children from being alone together, given that they live under the same roof.16Samuel, as quoted later in the Gemara, does not make any exceptions to the rule of men not being alone with women, even relatives. He may derive his view from a literal understanding of this passage in the Tosefta.
The Tosefta continues:
R. Judah says, a bachelor may not pasture small cattle [e.g., sheep, goats], nor may two bachelors sleep in one tallit.
But the Sages say, Jews are not suspected of that.
If we assume that these passages from the Tosefta were known to the redactor of the mishnah we looked at above (4:14), we can see that he changed these statements slightly. He simply said that the Sages allow such seclusion, thereby implying, without saying so explicitly, that, according to them, Jews do not engage in homosexual behavior or bestiality.17M AZ 2:1 says, “One may not leave cattle in the inns of pagans because they are suspected of bestiality. Similarly, a woman may not be alone with non-Jews because they are suspected of sexual transgression.” See also Tosefta AZ 3:2.
But note that what we are talking about here, it seems, is involuntary arousal. The mishnah’s statement that the Sages allow two unmarried men, those with no licit sexual outlet, to sleep together in one tallit implies that the Sages do not fear involuntary homosexual arousal and, its likely consequence, homosexual relations.18The possibility of self-gratification by means of masturbation is not raised here or anywhere else. The rabbis banned such behavior. See M Niddah 2:1, BT Niddah 13a-b, and PT Niddah 2:1; 49d. See a full discussion of this matter by Michael L. Satlow, “‘Wasted Seed,’ The History of a Rabbinic Idea,” HUCA 65 (1994). R. Judah disagrees: Whether the two men chose to sleep this way for warmth or for sexual arousal, it is not allowed because of the possible outcome of sexual relations. The Tosefta’s wording of the Sages’ statement—that Jews are not suspected of “that,” of homosexual or even homoerotic behavior—means that according to the Tosefta the Sages recognize the possibility that the reason that two pagan men may choose to sleep in one tallit is to arouse themselves sexually; Jewish men, they feel, would not do so and hence may sleep in close physical contact.19See Satlow, Tasting the Dish, 208–209.
The Tosefta’s last statement on the subject of relations between the sexes upholds the points made above.
Whoever plies a trade among women should not be alone with them. Such as the net makers, the men who sell combed wool and flax, the weavers, the peddlers, the tailors, the barbers, the launderers, the mill repairmen. (T 5:14)
To stray from the subject for a moment, this passage of the Tosefta, which also appears in the Bavli (Kiddushin 82a), paints an interesting picture of a woman’s life in Talmudic times, similar in many ways to that of the Roman matron. This passage presents a list of the kind of men who went from house to house to peddle their services or their wares.20Susan Treggiari, in Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 421, says that the Roman matrona could receive visitors during the day in the atrium, where she sat in a chair and supervised the work of the household. These visitors included tradesmen to whom she had given commissions, peddlers who laid their wares at her feet, men and women asking for favors, her own servants, and so on. Were these men in a fixed place of business, one would not say that their business was with women; if they sold flax and wool in the marketplace, they would sell to all. Rather, it seems that many of these people performed their work at the home of the client or else made a series of visits to the home to check on the progress of their handiwork. For that reason, that they could find themselves in a woman’s home alone with her, the Tosefta issues a warning that they should avoid doing so.
This source suggests that the concepts of private and public domains were blurred in those days.21See the comments on this issue by Miriam Peskowitz, in her forthcoming book Spinning Fantasies. See also my chapter “Feminist Perspectives on Rabbinic Texts,” in Feminist Perspectives on Jewish Studies, ed. Lynn Davidman and Shelly Tanenbaum (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 45. The home was not a private place in which a woman was sequestered. There appears to have been a constant stream of people passing through.22Tal Ilan, in “A Window onto the Public Domain—Jewish Women in the Time of the Second Temple,” in Eshnav Lehayeihen Shel Nashim B’Hevrot Yehudiot, ed. Yael Azmon (Jerusalem: Mercaz Shazar, 1995), 47–62, says that rabbinic literature prescribes absolute separation of the sexes but that the picture that emerges from historical texts is different and is class based. Upper-class women behaved according to their own set of more-secluding norms, and poor women according to more-relaxed norms. There is thus much variety in the lives of Jewish women in the land of Israel at that period of time. In addition, male and female servants worked in the home and were supervised by the mistress of the household. With respect to the public sphere, many sources indicate that women shopped in the market, went to the baths, visited friends and relatives,23Supporting this notion are the mishnahs in the sixth chapter of Shabbat that talk about jewelry and related items that a woman may and may not wear out into the street on the Sabbath. This implies that women dressed up and walked about in the public domain on the Sabbath. and showed up at court and public lectures.24Treggiari, Roman Marriage (423), says that the social activities of an upperclass matron included frequenting galleries, colonnades, temples, synagogues, theaters, the circus, the games, triumphs, and resorts outside Rome. Women played dice. Married women went out to visit their friends, met them at the baths, strolled with them in places of public resort, and so on. I am not suggesting that men and women engaged in the same kind of work—women were more domestic and men were engaged in agriculture or commerce, and, of course, there were significant differences resulting from social class—but that women’s work, although at home, did not isolate them in the way a woman who works at home today is isolated. The distinction between public and private meant something different in Talmudic times than it does today. It is therefore incorrect to talk about women’s private role as opposed to men’s public one, a favorite theme of much recent literature on life in the Talmudic period.
To return to the topic at hand: What emerges from all of this material is a sense that men are easily aroused by women and that they will follow through with sexual activity, even engage in forbidden sexual liaisons, unless restrained by the presence of others. We can generalize and say that men are not calm in women’s presence; that there is always a degree of sexual tension. It is for this reason that the rabbis decided to legislate against their being alone together.
We will now turn to the Talmudic commentary on these tannaitic passages. Following the halakhic discussion, a string of anecdotes will draw connections between law and life, thus further supporting the conclusions we reached above.
==What is the reason [that according to the mishnah a man may not be alone with two women]?
Tanna d’vei Elijah: Because women are light-minded [דעתן קלות עליהן הואיל ונשים]. (BT Kiddushin 80b)
The light-mindedness referred to here is not intellectual but sexual. This statement, ostensibly a tannaitic source,25The collection Seder Elijah is actually post-Talmudic. Individual passages like this one were probably circulating in the Talmudic period. is saying that each of the two women will allow herself to be seduced by the man with whom she finds herself, despite the presence of another woman. It does not mean that each of them will attempt to seduce him, as the later discussion makes clear. Unfortunately, this statement has been widely quoted as evidence that the rabbis disparaged a woman’s intellectual capabilities. Although the words themselves may suggest that, and it would be hard to argue that this quote could not aptly be put to that use, for the record, one should note that in this context its meaning is sexual. “Light-mindedness” here means lacking a strong enough will to resist that which one is being pressed into doing.26In its one other usage in the Bavli, this phrase makes reference to the belief that women, when tortured, will reveal secret information (BT Shabbat 33b). The phrase kalei da’at, with the two Hebrew words reversed, also appears in Sifrei Bemidbar, 103 (p. 102, Horowitz ed.), in association with the term hedyotot, simple people. It thus seems to have had two related but different meanings. Kalut rosh, also light-headedness, is a term that appears in BT Succah 51b, to describe the immodest behavior of women and men in the Temple on the holiday of Succot, during the feast of the water libation. Cf. Rashi (BT AZ 18b, s.v. v’ikka d’amrei), who says that Beruriah ridiculed the rabbis for saying that women were light-headed, in the sexually seducible sense. See also M Avot 3:13. She did not say no, in their opinion, because of her own shortcomings, not because of the hard-to-withstand pressure a man placed on her.
Even if this passage does not mean that women actively entice men, as I argue, it does seem to represent a partial shifting of responsibility from men to women for sexual misadventure. That is possibly an expression of men’s sentiment, or wishful thinking, that they would not have sinned had the women only resisted the advances.
The Gemara continues with a scriptural derivation in support of sex segregation:
==From where in Scripture does this principle emerge?
––Said R. Yohanan in the name of R. Ishmael: A hint of the prohibition of being alone with a woman is found in the Torah. Where? “If your brother, the son of your mother, should entice you [to sin]” [Deuteronomy 13:7]—Does a brother on the mother’s side entice, but not a brother on the father’s side? [Since both are likely to do so in equal measure, this verse must have something else in mind.] It comes to teach that a son may be alone with his mother but not with any of the other women who are forbidden to him.27The Gemara itself recognizes that this is far from the simple meaning of the verse.
This statement of R. Ishmael contradicts the mishnah that allows a man to be alone not just with his mother but also his daughter, and even to sleep together with them, in physical contact, until the time of physical maturation (of the boy who sleeps together his mother or the girl who sleeps together with her father). The existence of a tannaitic dispute on this subject suggests that it was undergoing debate and change.
Starting with the following text, the Gemara openly subscribes to the notion that men’s ease of involuntary sexual arousal is the primary reason for the social separation of the sexes.
We learned in a baraita: For the first thirty days [after birth, if a child dies] it is carried out in its mother’s bosom and buried by one woman and two men. But not with one man and two women. Abba Saul says: even with one man and two women.
==One can even say that the mishnah agrees with Abba Saul, for when a man is in deep mourning his sexual inclination is subdued.…
“But a woman may be alone with two men.”
––Said R. Judah said Rav: They only spoke of fit men [that she may be alone with two of them]; as for promiscuous men, she may not be alone even with ten of them. [This same point has already been made in the Tosefta, if we understand that pagans are in the category of promiscuous men. R. Judah is here expanding the rule to include all promiscuous men, not just pagan ones.]
––There was an instance in which ten men carried out a woman on a bier [and then each had sexual relations with her].
––Said R. Joseph: One should note that ten [men] join to steal a beam and are not ashamed [to do so] in the presence of each other.
R. Joseph’s remark about men as partners in crime suggests, yet again, that it is men’s shame in the presence of each other that restrains them from having sexual relations with the women among them. For certain transgressions, such as stealing, the shame can be suppressed. “Fit” men, however, will refrain from engaging in sexual relations in the presence of another man. Note that it is not a man’s sense of violation of Jewish law that stops him from committing the act, but his sense of shame in front of someone else. Were he totally alone with the woman, nothing, probably not even her saying no, would stop him. A social-status argument can be suggested even here: The reason for the difference in ruling in the two clauses of the mishnah—that one man may not be alone with two women but one woman may be alone with two men—is that a man is embarrassed to breach conventions of proper behavior in the presence of fit men, his social equals, but not in the presence of women, his social inferiors.
Let me point out once more that these observations could only be made if we read these sources in context. If we examine the first two clauses of the mishnah independently, we could conclude that the reason for the differential ruling is that women actively seek to entice men; it is only when another man is present that each can protect the other from her sexual advances. As absurd as I think such fear of women sounds in a patriarchal setting, nevertheless, one cannot properly refute the notion until one reviews the broad literary and legal context of this mishnah. Such a reading shows that the rabbis are not worried about active enticement on anyone’s part; rather, they are worried about men’s inability to control themselves once they are aroused involuntarily.
The Gemara continues with a series of anecdotes about rabbis and sexual arousal.
––Rav and R. Judah were walking on a road and there was a woman walking in front of them. Said Rav to R. Judah: Step lively before Gehenna, [i.e., let us pass her and not be sexually aroused—consumed by Gehenna—by looking at her body from behind]. Said R. Judah: But you are the very one who said that a woman alone with fit men [כשרים] is all right! Said Rav: I did not mean fit men like you and me.
==But like whom?
==Like R. Hanina bar Pappi and his colleagues [who withstood the sexual advances of a Roman matron (BT Kiddushin 39b)].28Rav could not have known about R. Hanina b. Pappi, who lived several generations later. This appears to be a later addition. See discussion of this kind of heroic behavior further on in the chapter. (81a)
This story, like the others that will follow, makes it abundantly clear that ordinary men and even rabbis, who are ordinary men but are assumed to be more in control of themselves because of their commitment to mitzvot, are not immune to visual stimulation. They, too, need to remove themselves from the situation in which they find themselves, even if Jewish law allows it. Despite the mishnah’s ruling, the presence of a second man seems to be no guarantee that the first will not attempt to pursue and seduce an unattended woman, even if he is an individual who takes the rules seriously, such as the very rabbi who formulated them. Sexual temptation and arousal overtake even men like that. The best advice, they say about themselves, is to avoid compromising circumstances. Note that the woman in this story is not paying them any attention but merely going on her way. It is they who inadvertently approach her from behind and find themselves vulnerable to sexual arousal.
After some discussion of related matters, the Gemara continues:
––There were a number of women captives who, upon being redeemed, came to Nehardea and were housed [in an upper chamber at the home of] R. Amram the Pious.29Note that his honorific was most likely conferred after, not before, this event. Cf. the story about (Rabbi) Elazar b. Durdaia, who lived his entire life dissolutely but repented at the end and was awarded the title Rabbi after he died (BT AZ 17a). They30It is not clear who did so—household attendants or the people who brought the women to R. Amram’s home. removed the ladder [to deny access to the women. It happened that] when one of them passed by [the opening to the lower story], light fell from the opening [and R. Amram found himself sexually aroused]. He took the ladder, which was so heavy that ten men could not lift it and, all by himself, positioned it below the upper chamber and began climbing. When he was halfway up, he stopped himself and cried out: Fire at R. Amram’s! The rabbis came [running but, upon realizing the sexual nature of the fire, chided him, saying] you have shamed us. He said to them, better that you are shamed by me in this world than in the world-to-come. He then adjured [Satan, the embodiment of the sexual urge] to leave him. And Satan issued forth in the shape of a pillar of fire. R. Amram said to him: You are fire and I am flesh and yet I am stronger than you.
In this story, as in the others, a rabbi who is loyal to Jewish law finds himself sexually aroused, burning with passion, simply by seeing the shadow of one of the women in his upper chamber. His desire is so overpowering that he is able to execute a superhuman feat in seeking to satisfy it. But in attempting to regain control of himself when halfway to his destination, he summons help. The presence of others stops him from sexual transgression. This point merits attention. As strong as sexual desire is, it is immediately extinguished, or at least suppressed, when others appear. It was not knowledge of the law, respect for it, or fear of punishment in the world-to-come that enabled him to accept frustration of desire. He required the presence of other men to do so.
Note that this story demonizes the sexual urge, portraying it as an independent being that has invaded the body of the rabbi and is later forced to leave. Rather than view his sexuality as a natural part of himself, to be satisfied in appropriate circumstances, he fears it and wants to be rid of it.31Is this story a turning point in terms of how people view their innate sexual nature? Can we say that in the tannaitic period they accepted their sexual selves as a normal part of their being but that later, in the amoraic period, they were beginning to fight against and suppress their sexuality?
Two stories about Tannaim follow. The issue in these is not the seclusion of men with women but the ease with which men are sexually stimulated and goaded into action. This unit of commentary opened with the statement that women are easily seduced, but the anecdotal material that follows ironically indicates just the opposite, that it is men who are easily aroused and single-minded in pursuing release.
R. Meir used to make fun of sinners. One day Satan appeared to him as a woman on the other side of the river. There was no ferry [at the time]. So he seized the rope and began to cross [on his own]. When he was halfway there, he [Satan] let him go, saying: Had they not announced in Heaven, beware of R. Meir and his Torah, I would have valued your life at [only] two ma’ahs [small coins; i.e., I would have allowed you to sin and thus made your life worthless].
R. Akiva used to make fun of sinners. One day Satan appeared to him as a woman at the top of a palm tree. He took hold of the palm and began to climb. When he was halfway up, Satan let him go, saying: Had they not announced in Heaven, beware of R. Akiva and his Torah, I would have valued your life at two ma’ahs.
Written in Aramaic, these two stories are probably an amoraic retelling or reshaping of older, tannaitic material. As in the story about R. Amram, here, too, rabbis are easily aroused by the sight of a woman and unable to withstand temptation. But in these instances the rabbi is stayed, not by his own hand, but by Satan’s. Once Satan shows them that they are like all men in their inability to resist, he does not let them break the rules but merely chastises them for having succumbed. He teaches the rabbis that rather than mock others for their inability to avoid sin, they should be sympathetic because they themselves are no different.
These anecdotes have far-reaching implications. That Satan stops tormenting the two men because of their amassed merit of Torah study implies that such study has cumulative protective power. This notion allows us to return to a mishnah treated in Chapter 1 and interpret it differently. M Sotah 3:5 says that if a woman who drank the bitter waters possessed accumulated “merit,” then that merit would postpone the onset of punishment. We can now suggest that the merit in question is that of Torah study: Just as here it protected the two rabbis from sexual sin and punishment, so too, with respect to the sotah, the mishnah is saying that if she studied Torah, that fact would postpone the onset of the punishment (if she had, in fact, sinned). There does not seem to be any reason that the protective powers of Torah study would be limited to men.32The Gemara (BT Sotah 21a) actually raises but then rejects this interpretation. Now we can understand Ben Azzai’s statement that follows, obligating a father to teach his daughters Torah, so that they know that if they ever have to drink the bitter waters their “merit” will postpone punishment. Ben Azzai must mean that their accumulated merit of Torah study will protect them.33Some say that Ben Azzai wants them to learn Torah, i.e., to learn that merit protects an unfaithful wife, so that should they sin and drink and not immediately suffer punishment, they will understand that it is not that the waters are not effective but that their own accumulated merits are giving them a period of grace. See Kiddushin 30b, where the study of Torah is the antidote to the evil inclination. Torah, here, is not just knowledge but knowing that knowledge protects. In both of these cases—M Sotah and the anecdotes here—the (purported) sin is sexual and the protection from sin or from punishment comes from the study of Torah. For men such an opportunity exists, according to these anecdotes in tractate Kiddushin; for women, only according to Ben Azzai in tractate Sotah.34See Daniel Boyarin’s fascinating analysis of this mishnah and its associated interpretation in the Bavli and Yerushalmi, in Carnal Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 174–180).
The next page of Talmud (81b) presents yet another story about men’s complacency. It too mocks men who believe themselves to be above temptation.
––R. Hiyya bar Ashi made it a practice that when he fell down prostrate [at the end of the morning prayers], he would ask God to save him from his evil inclination [a reference to the sexual urge]. One day his wife overheard him and mused, but it is already several years that he has separated himself from me; why, then, does he find it necessary to keep making this supplication? Once, when he was studying in the garden, she disguised herself as a prostitute and paraded back and forth in front of him. He asked her: Who are you? She answered: I am Haruta and have returned today. He propositioned her. She said to him: First bring me the pomegranate from the top of the tree. He jumped up and went and got it for her. When he came home [after his sexual encounter], his wife was lighting the oven. He went and sat inside [or on] it [in order to punish himself]. She said to him: What is this? He told her what had happened. She said to him: But it was I. He paid her no attention until she brought [him] proof [the pomegranate]. [But he refused to be comforted] because he said that his intent, nonetheless, had been to commit a prohibited act. He tormented himself and fasted regularly until he died.
This story, more than the others, drives home the point that even the most pious and learned of men are involuntarily aroused when they gaze upon a woman. It also shows that the Talmud strenuously objects to sexual asceticism. This particular sage, who seemed to think that sexual relations in and of themselves were bad, had ceased sexual activity with his wife. But when a prostitute showed an interest in him, he immediately succumbed, even, remarkably, abandoning the Torah that he was studying. That is, what distracts men from Torah study is sexual thoughts or fantasies. This association, again, helps us understand why the discussion of women and the study of Torah appears in the context of a discussion of women and sexual transgression (M Sotah 3:5). We may now conclude that, according to most Tannaim, it is not knowledge of Torah that will lead a woman astray, as claimed by R. Eliezer—who says that teaching a woman Torah is teaching her lewdness—but rather the opposite: that Torah offers those who study it a refuge and respite from their consuming sexual drives.35See BT Yoma 35b. The question addressed to an evil man, when he comes to judgment after death, is: Why didn’t you spend time studying Torah? The Gemara answers that if he says, “Because I was handsome and had to attend to my sexual needs [נאה הייתי וטרוד ביצרי] [and this left me no time for Torah study],” then say to him, “Were you more handsome than Joseph? … ” And also, as noted above in the stories about R. Akiva and R. Meir, the very study of Torah will protect them in the future from contemplated sexual misadventure.
This story is different from the others in that a woman speaks up about her sexual desires and needs. R. Hiyya bar Ashi’s wife says, apparently in a tone of regret and wistfulness, that he has not engaged in sexual activity with her for several years. She then devises a way to satisfy herself and also, at the same time, find out if he still possesses the sexual impulses from which he keeps asking God to protect him. In addition to saying that women want sex, this story also teaches that women are not, for the most part, evil temptresses, but devoted, long-suffering wives, and even wise, resolute, and appropriately assertive women. In the course of praising women, the Talmud, as is its wont, discredits a man, in particular, his renunciation of sexual activity. R. Hiyya is a hypocrite: He shuns sexual activity for a long period of time, thus ignoring his wife’s needs and rights; he throws himself on the ground each day to ask for God’s protection from sexual sin, implying that he was sexually active even though he was not; as soon as a woman shows interest in him, he falls prey to temptation. This story is thus about vanity just as much as it is about sexual desire.
Note also the biblical echoes of this episode. In Genesis 38, after Judah refuses to arrange a levirate marriage with his third son for Tamar, his twice widowed, childless daughter-in-law, he himself engages in sexual relations with her, thinking her a prostitute. She first secures from him several personal items for future use. When her resulting pregnancy becomes known, he orders her burnt at the stake. She then sends him back his seal and cord to show him that it was he who impregnated her. This biblical narrative is possibly a sophisticated spoof of the biased sex laws of the Ancient Near East: Men may engage with impunity in sexual encounters with women to whom they are not married, but women may not do the same with men to whom they are (apparently) not married. Tamar has clearly outsmarted Judah tactically, and he praises her for her clever and resolute action. In the Talmud account, R. Hiyya bar Ashi’s wife outsmarts him tactically,36A standard Talmudic technique is to use a smart woman to shame a silly man. See my chapter, “Images of Women in the Talmud,” in Religion and Sexism, ed. Rosemary Ruether (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 202–203. but he never regains equanimity after having his hypocrisy exposed. The fact that women test men in these two episodes does not suggest that women, in general, are temptresses. In each of these cases a woman chastises a man for unethical behavior: Judah, in that he let Tamar languish, and R. Hiyya, in that he denied his wife sexual satisfaction.
I also suspect an element of male fantasy. Many men are likely to dream that a sexually exciting woman will appear from nowhere, take a fancy to them, and satisfy them in ways that they have not been satisfied before. In this story, the shame at being caught in the realization of such a fantasy, even though, ironically, the prostitute was none other than his own wife, consumed this man to such an extent that he ultimately died. In another well-known Talmudic anecdote, a man who paid a prostitute her steep fee in advance, changes his mind about securing her services at the last moment, when already in bed with her. She is so impressed with his selfrestraint that she follows him back to the land of Israel, converts to Judaism, and marries him (BT Menahot 44a). It is hard to imagine a better example of male sexual wish fulfillment.
Having completed its discussion of the first part of M 4:12, the Gemara now cites the second part, on the subject of a man and his female relatives, and proceeds to discuss it.
“A man may be alone with his mother.”
––Said R. Judah said R. Assi: A man may spend time alone [מתיחד] with his sister but even live [alone] with his mother and his daughter [but not with his sister].
––When he recited this in the presence of Samuel, he said: It is forbidden for a man to be alone with any of the consanguineous women.…
==But we learned in the Mishnah that a man may be alone with his mother and daughter and sleep with them in physical contact.
==This is a challenge to Samuel.… (BT Kiddushin 81b)
This section of Talmud bears out what we saw above: There is a wide range of views on the subject of being alone with one’s female relatives. These are the women with whom a man was likely to find himself alone and, therefore, the women by whom he would be sexually aroused. The many views on this topic and the plethora of anecdotes—not all cited here—lead me to believe, as stated above, that sexual arousal by female relatives was a controversial and real issue for the rabbis.
The Talmud then defines the mishnah’s statement that a child who matures physically may no longer sleep in bodily contact with a parent of the opposite sex.
==And at what age [does this prohibition take effect]?
––Said R. Adda b. R. Azza said R. Assi: a girl, nine years and a day; a boy, twelve years and a day. Some say: a girl, twelve years and a day; a boy, thirteen years and a day. For the following must be true: breasts have appeared and [pubic] hair has grown … [Ezekiel 16:7].…
The discussion of sexual arousal by female relatives ends with an anecdote:
––R. Aha b. Abba visited his son-in-law R. Hisda and took his young granddaughter to bed with him. [Alternate version: put her on his lap.37The expression in the Talmud is, he put her in his kanaf. In the Bible, this term has sexual connotations, e.g., in Deut. 23:1. The context of the story clearly dictates that the grandfather’s action should be interpreted sexually, but the commentators, apparently unable to address that rather unpleasant possibility, suggest it means his bosom or lap. Rashi is silent. Tosafot R’Y Hazaken, ad locum, says: He slept with her in bodily contact, meaning he put her inside his bedclothes [שהניחה תחת בגדי מטתו]. See also BT BB 12b “R. Hisda put his daughter in his kanaf.”]
––He [R. Hisda] said to him [his father-in-law]: Does it not occur to you that she may be betrothed [and therefore taking her to bed is inappropriate]?
––He said: But then you have violated Rav’s dictum, that one should not betroth a young girl until she is old enough to say, “He is the man I want.”
––But, sir, you have violated Samuel’s dictum, one may not make use of a woman.
––I agree with Samuel’s other dictum, all may be done for the sake of Heaven [Rashi, I have no sexual intentions; I only mean to show her affection].
We see here an amoraic move away from the permission the mishnah gives to sleep in the same bed as young female relatives. R. Aha b. Abba’s action is permitted by the mishnah38I am assuming that this permission extends to young granddaughters, too. if we assume that his granddaughter had not yet matured physically, and yet it deeply disturbs her father, R. Hisda. R. Hisda, in fact, expresses this concern elsewhere, saying that a man is no longer allowed to sleep in physical contact with his daughter once she reaches three years and one day.39R. Hisda’s statement is in BT Berakhot 24a: “If his children were still small, it is permitted [to recite Shema in bed with them naked, without a tallit separating them].
==“Until what age?
––“Said R. Hisda: a girl, until three years and a day and a boy until nine years and a day.
––“Some say: a girl, eleven years and a day and a boy, twelve years and a day.” See also the section “Sex with a Minor,” in Chapter 4. He politely criticizes his father-in-law but to no avail. The parallel discussion in the Yerushalmi (later in this chapter) similarly lowers the age of children sleeping with parents naked.
When read independently of context, this anecdote seems to say that someone accused of inappropriate behavior can gamely deflect all charges against him by finding a reasonably relevant tradition or text. The old rabbi has the last word, and also, it would seem, his granddaughter in bed with him. But when read in context, it makes the almost frightening point that the grandfather is sexually exploiting or abusing the little granddaughter, using her to “warm himself up,” as did Abishag the Shunamite for King David in his old age (1 Kings 1:1–4). R. Hisda—who says elsewhere that he prefers daughters to sons (BT BB 141a), and he had both—is agitated, it seems, and rightfully so. It is hard to say whether the narrator sides with R. Hisda or not. He appears to be portraying the grandfather in negative terms, but one cannot be sure. It would seem, however, that with the passage of time the need arose to restrict the mishnah, to lower the age of permitting children and parents to sleep in the same bed naked. Since the discussion of family sleeping habits ends with this anecdote, the narrator seems to endorse restricting the mishnah, which would mean he agrees with R. Hisda and disapproves of the father-in-law’s behavior.
The disagreement here and elsewhere about the age at which a young person’s body can create involuntary arousal, with a total of four different views expressed, again suggests that the rabbis were actively dealing with the subject. The mishnah, in its simple presentation, considers puberty to be the limit. But the rabbis in Babylonia and Palestine, with the exception of one anonymous view, lower it. This legal change probably reflects a shift in social standards, a move from a more relaxed attitude about nakedness and physical contact to a less relaxed one. This redefinition can also be seen, certainly in terms of results and maybe even in terms of intention, as an attempt to legislate protection for children—for girls from grown men and also for boys from grown women.
The Yerushalmi commentary on this mishnah is much more limited than that of the Bavli.
“A man should not be alone with two women….”
––Said R. Abun: To what does this refer? To fit men. As for promiscuous men, she should not be alone with even one hundred. (PT Kiddushin 4:11; 66c)
This same statement appeared in the Bavli in the name of R. Judah, who said it in the name of Rav. Although it is similar to the Tosefta’s statement that she may not be alone even with one hundred pagans, it is different in that it refers to Jewish men who, like the stereotypical pagan,40MAZ 2:1, 2. are promiscuous and know no shame.
Like the Bavli, the Yerushalmi cites the baraita in which Abba Saul and the Sages disagree about whether two women and one man may bury an infant, as well as the comment that one need not fear sexual arousal in a cemetery. It then talks about sexual arousal within the family unit.
A man may be alone with his mother and live with her. [He may be alone] with his daughter and live with her. [He may be alone] with his sister but may not live with her.
“And he may sleep with them in physical contact.”
It was taught by Tannaim: R. Halafta b. Saul [said], a daughter may [sleep] with a father until three years and one day. A son may [sleep] with a mother until nine years and one day.
“Once they grow up, each sleeps in his or her own garment.”
It was taught by Tannaim: If two were sleeping in one bed, each covers himself with his own garment and reads Shema. If his son and daughter were still small, it is all right [to be in bodily contact and even so to read Shema].
In this passage the Yerushalmi presents views like those in the Bavli but at variance with those in the Mishnah and Tosefta. The Mishnah stated that a man may be alone with his mother and daughter and, we may surmise, live with them. By implication, the mishnah forbids him to seclude himself with other female relatives. The Yerushalmi, however, comments that he may spend time alone with a sister, although he may not live with her. This rule is more lenient than the Mishnah and Tosefta, which explicitly forbade even being alone with a sister. The Yerushalmi then restricts a father to sleeping in physical contact with his daughter until she reaches the age of three, and a mother with her son until he is nine, even though the simple meaning of “higdilu,” as used in the Mishnah, is puberty. This is an example of an amoraic stringency, found in both the Bavli and Yerushalmi. As already noted several times, the appearance of this topic in both Talmuds, as well as in the Mishnah and Tosefta with variations in each of these major rabbinic works, creates the impression that it was very much a live issue at the time.
Before I summarize all these materials, it should be noted that throughout this entire discussion, beginning with the Mishnah and ending with the Yerushalmi, the matter of sexual arousal is looked at from a man’s perspective only. It is men who find themselves sexually aroused when seeing or being with women. Whether there is reciprocal arousal on the part of women is not openly considered.
The message of this extended Talmudic discussion is that men and women were not allowed, in contemporary parlance, to develop friendships, enter into social contact with each other, or engage in exchange of ideas because men are understood, first, to be sexually aroused just by the sight of a woman and, second, to be unable to hold themselves back from seeking release. The men most criticized are those who place themselves above others, claiming that they are able to withstand temptation. The only successful strategy is to avoid putting oneself at risk, and that means to avoid the company of women.
Note that this material does not imply that men fall prey to their sexual urges because women deliberately excite them. I find it important to dwell on this point because one can all too easily make the woman the culprit in these situations, in that she entices him to sin. That is precisely what many have written about the rabbinic perception of women, as we have noted.41See the views cited in the opening paragraphs of this chapter. But I think that this extensive commentary makes it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that, according to the Gemara, women do not seek to snare men, but rather men, in the presence of women, lose control of themselves, even or especially if they are generally pious rabbis, and even if the women are close relatives. Taking the attitudes of someone like Ben Sira or Philo, who describe women as deliberately trying to entrap men, and reading their misogyny into this text would be incorrect.42See Amy-Jill Levine, Introduction, “Women like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, ed. Amy-Jill Levine (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 22. Levine writes that Ben Sira’s belief about the indiscriminate sexuality of women is typical of men in Mediterranean culture. See also Judith Wegner’s “Philo’s Portrayal of Women—Hebraic or Hellenic?” in the same volume. Rabbinic patriarchy had common features with the other patriarchal cultures of the times, but it was not necessarily identical to them.
I also do not think that these texts portray men as sexual predators. These passages reflect the rabbis’ attitude toward human nature: It is good when restrained. It should also be noted that the outcome of separation is beneficial not only to men but also to women. To the extent that in the ancient patriarchal world women are socially and physically more vulnerable than men, they would, if these rules became normative, find themselves less harassed. Of course, separation from men also disadvantaged women by limiting their opportunities for active participation in so many matters that affected them.
We find earlier in Kiddushin, 39b–40a, a set of three anecdotes that portray men very differently from the way they are portrayed above. In all three stories, a woman called a matrona, suggesting perhaps that she is a non-Jewish woman of the aristocracy, summons a man to engage in sexual relations with her. In all three cases, the men successfully resist her advances, one preferring to attempt suicide rather than succumb. He is saved by Elijah.
The context of these stories is being rewarded, even with a miracle, for keeping the mitzvot of the Torah. Unlike the men in the other set of stories, who cannot resist temptation, these men actively attempt to extricate themselves from the sexual situation in which they find themselves, even at serious risk to their lives. As a reward, they are saved from the matrona’s overtures and, in the last case, also from the poverty that had initially placed the man at risk.
How can one reconcile these stories with the others? The mishnah in chapter 1 of Kiddushin talks about people who do good deeds and receive rewards for them, and the associated gemara brings the above set of stories in which men are portrayed as morally strong. The mishnah in chapter 4 of Kiddushin talks about men who should not be alone with women, implying that men cannot control their libido, and the gemara brings stories about men who succumbed to sexual temptation. Where, then, does the truth lie? Are men weak or strong in resisting sexual temptation? It seems to me that the mishnah that addresses the topic of relationships between the sexes, and its associated commentary, is the material to which we should turn for the rabbis’ perception of men. The other set of passages describes unusual, heroic men. They are not to be confused with the majority.
Attitudes to Sexual Sin
R. Simon bar Rebbe says: Behold it says, “Restrain yourselves and do not eat the blood because the blood is the life …” (Deuteronomy 12:23). Just as in an instance of refraining from eating the blood, which a man finds repulsive, if he abstains he is rewarded, so too in an instance of appropriating the property of others and engaging in illicit sexual acts, which a man is attracted to and lusts after [מחמדתן], if he abstains—how much the more so should he merit [a reward] for generations to come! (M Makkot 3:15)
This source, which does not address relationships between men and women in a direct fashion, as does Kiddushin chapter 4, but is instead providing moral preaching at the end of a tractate, incidentally reveals social and psychological truths. Misappropriating the property of others and having sexual relations with the women forbidden to a man by the Torah are tempting acts because they speak to his deepest instincts. These are the activities that a man craves. The term meHaMDatan reminds us of the last of the ten commandments: “Do not lust (lo taHMoD) after a woman … or any [other] property belonging to someone else” (Exodus 20:17). Although rewards are usually given for actions that we take, in this case, simply not yielding to the ever-present desire to commit these illicit acts is grounds for reward, according to this rabbi. This moralistic mishnah, I think, sums up the rabbis’ attitudes to relations between the sexes: No social relations between men and women are possible because men are preoccupied with sex. A man who seeks the companionship of women will merely be putting himself in a trying situation.
This passage accords well with the statements in Pirkei Avot and BT Nedarim, quoted in the discussion of the Sotah, that men should not talk much with women because it leads, unavoidably, to forbidden sexual liaisons. Sihah, which means banter or friendly chitchat, will lead to friendly feelings, which will lead, ultimately, to sexual activity. It seems to me that women’s exclusion from the study of Torah with men is not linked to their intellectual level or their educational background or their penchant for sin. Rather, in a sex-segregated society, permitting women to interact freely with men would surely lead to sexual intimacy.43As we see elsewhere (BT Ketubot 13a), speaking with a woman can serve as a euphemism for sexual relations with her. Still, in this case, the verb “to speak” seems to have been intended literally.
Another telling text appears in the Tosefta.
… R. Yosseh said in the name of Rabban Gamliel: Any man who has a trade, to what may he be compared? To a woman who has a husband: Whether she dresses herself up or not, no one will gaze upon her; and if she does not dress herself up, she should be cursed. A man who does not have a trade, to what may he be compared? To a woman without a husband: Whether she dresses herself up or not, everyone will gaze upon her; and if she does dress herself up, she should be cursed.44This is the reading of the text that Lieberman prefers (Tosefta Kiddushin, 280), as it appears in the Erfurt ms. (Tosefta Kiddushin 1:11)
This statement, uttered incidentally in the context of a legal obligation, also gives us a sense of the social realities of the times. A woman was considered fair game if she did not have a man to protect her. Her behavior, modest or immodest, did not much matter. She would be gazed upon and would likely fall prey to sexual exploitation by men, regardless of her manner of dress, if she did not have a husband. It is not what is right or wrong that matters to men but what is possible and what is not, according to the rabbis here. Theirs is a rather pessimistic evaluation of men’s predispositions. Only the protective presence of another man, the woman’s husband, will stop men from acting on their base instincts. Note, also, the touch of irony: Despite the possible pitfalls involved—drawing the attention of other men—a husband expects his wife to dress up, to make herself as attractive as possible in order to maintain his sexual interest in her. This theme repeats itself in so many rabbinic texts that its general acceptance in those days is beyond question.45See, for example, BT Ta’anait 23b, the statement by Abba Hilkiah and the discussion between R. Mani and R. Yitzhak b. Elyashiv. See also “Self-examination and Sexual Relations” and “R. Akiva’s Intentional Leniencies,” in Chapter 7. It seems to be a standard feature of a patriarchal culture: Those who are dependent on the patriarch must seek to please and satisfy him. Note the underlying message that the rabbis view marital sexual activity positively.
Men’s Perception of Women’s Sexuality
And the following women leave their husbands but are not given their marriage settlement: the ones who violate Mosaic or Jewish practice.
What constitutes [violation of] Mosaic practice? Feeding her husband untithed food, having sex with him while a niddah [a menstruant], not separating hallah, and taking a vow but not keeping her word.
What constitutes [violation of] Jewish practice? A woman who goes out to the market with her head uncovered, who spins in the marketplace, who engages in conversation with any man.… (M Ketubot 7:6)
The parallel passage in the Tosefta elaborates on this behavior:
If a husband took a vow that his wife give everyone a taste of the food [that she burnt],46Lieberman, Tosefta Ketubot, 80. or that she fill up and spill out on the dunghill [apparently a reference to nonprocreative sex], or that she speak to everyone of intimate matters between him and her, he must divorce her and pay the marriage settlement, because he has not treated her according to Mosaic and Jewish practice.
And similarly, if she goes out with her head uncovered, or goes out with her clothing baring [parts of her body], if she has no modesty in the presence of her male and female47Lieberman prefers the Erfurt manuscript’s version of this line that does not include “female servants” (ibid.). servants or her neighbors, if she goes and spins in the marketplace, or if she bathes herself and others48The Erfurt ms. does not include the word “marhezet” (she bathes others). [רוחצת ומרחצת במרחץ עם כל אדם] in the baths, she must leave without a ketubah because she has not behaved toward him according to Mosaic and Jewish practice. (Tosefta Ketubot 7:6)
These passages accuse a woman of immodest, even sexually provocative behavior, of deliberately trying to entice men to become sexually involved with her. But such a woman is portrayed as one who strays from the right path, who is not like most others. Considering her behavior egregious and calling for divorce imply that most women, in the opinion of the rabbis, do not behave in this way, despite their need for sexual satisfaction.
The passage from the Tosefta is remarkable in that it creates a symmetry between men and women. Both of them can be accused of violating Jewish practice, “dat moshe v’yisrael,” although the mishnah calls it “dat moshe v’yehudit,” an older version of the same term. And each list of violations, for him and for her, involves sexual misbehavior. His is forcing her, by means of a vow, to share sexual intimacies with others, apparently in order to heighten his sexual pleasure or to deliberately avoid procreative sex.49It seems to me that having others taste her food is also a sexual reference. The common thread of most violations in the Tosefta is sexual. Lieberman (Tosefta Ketubot, 80) holds otherwise. Hers, as already mentioned, is immodest dress and behavior, bordering on deliberate enticement.50The Tosefta makes it clear that men and women alike can behave immodestly. When the Mishnah redacted this same halakhah, however, it did not call the men’s actions a violation of sexual norms, as it did women’s provocative behavior, but simply listed two out of three of these items, ruling that in such cases he must divorce her and pay the marriage settlement (M 7:5). That is, the Mishnah does not make the point that men, too, can violate “dat moshe v’yisrael” or “yehudit”: Even though it does not legally tolerate these same behaviors, it does not call them by the name that it calls women’s sexual immodesty. The Mishnah also redefines “dat moshe v’yehudit” for women, separating it into two types of behavior, with the first being a new category of unacceptable behavior: She deceives him regarding her performance of mitzvot that he relies on her to perform, when he has no way of knowing whether she did what was expected of her or not. The second is sexually provocative behavior, as already described by the Tosefta. This phrase is part of the ancient betrothal formula. It is appropriated by the Tannaim as a behavioral standard. See Chapter 5, note 23.
Elsewhere the Mishnah talks about the sexual needs of the average woman:
If a husband takes a vow that he will not have sex with his wife: Bet Shammai says, two weeks; Bet Hillel says, one week. (M Ketubot 5:6)
This passage says that if a man vows to deny his wife sexual activity for one week, according to Bet Hillel, or two, according to Bet Shammai, he must divorce her. This clear statement that women have conjugal rights in marriage indicates that the rabbis recognized that women too, and not just men, are desirous of sex.
The mishnah goes on to prescribe conjugal frequency for men engaged in a variety of occupations.
Students may leave home without permission of their wives for up to thirty days. Workers may leave for up to one week.
The conjugal duties prescribed by the Torah are: men of leisure, every day; workers, twice a week; donkey drivers, once a week; camel drivers, once in thirty days; and sailors, once in six months. This is the opinion of R. Eliezer.
This passage is hard to understand. Were it not for men’s expending energy on the job, and sometimes having to leave home for a period of time, the mishnah suggests that they would be sexually obligated to their wives every single day. But the Bavli interprets part of this passage from the mishnah in a way that virtually empties it of meaning. Saying that this view is R. Eliezer’s only, as the mishnah itself states, the Bavli goes on to present the view of the Sages that a Torah scholar may leave his wife, without permission, for up to two or three years. The stories that follow, however, suggest that he will be sorry if he takes advantage of this leniency.51See Shulamit Valler, Women and Womanhood in the Babylonian Talmud (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1993), 56–80, for an analysis of this entire section. See the rest of her book for other examples of the discrepancies between prescriptive law and rabbinic decisions in specific cases.
––Said Rava: Any scholar who makes use of this ruling takes his life in his hands. Like the case of R. Rehumi, a student of Rava’s in Mehoza, who used to come home [from a long stay away] on the eve of Yom Kippur. One such day, he found himself very engrossed in his studies. His wife, looking forward to his return, kept saying, “Now he is coming, now he is coming.” But he did not come. She lost hope and began to cry. He was sitting at that moment on a balcony. It collapsed from under him, he fell down, and he died. (BT Ketubot 62b)
Although R. Rehumi had permission to stay away for long periods of time, his absence was still considered by the rabbis to be abusive of his wife. When he reached the point of not even going home for a brief stay over the holidays, he gave up his right to life. This anecdote is perhaps more sympathetic to women than almost any other found in the Talmud: Even though the majority of rabbis give a scholar permission to favor the study of Torah over affording his wife (or even himself) sexual gratification, he will pay with his life if he chooses to ignore her human needs. Although not formally obligated to engage her sexually for years at a time, he is encouraged to do so as a decent and sensitive human being. He is in control of her: Although he can leave her to study and either come back or not, she has to stay at home. When in this dominant position, says Rava, he had better not forget about her or favor Torah study over her company.52See Boyarin’s analysis of this episode, Carnal Israel, 146ff. See also Yonah Frankel, Iyyunim Be-olamo Ha-ruhani Shel Sippur Ha-aggadah (Tel Aviv, 1981), pp. 99–115.
What is the difference, then, between men’s and women’s sexual nature and behavior in these rabbinic portrayals? The argument from silence is that women, in general, are not easily aroused by looking at men or being in their company; the sources indicate men are easily aroused by looking at women or being in their company. A woman will not, according to the rabbis, find herself involuntarily drawn to sexual transgression and fail to stop herself from seeking gratification. Women, as Samuel says (BT Ketubot 64b), keep their sexual urges within themselves, whereas men cannot contain them. All of the cited material indicates that only the unusual woman solicits a man for a sexual encounter. One should not assume that the rabbis thought that women lacked libido, however, simply because they did not imagine most women actively seeking sexual gratification. Women are, indeed, understood to possess libido, but given their subordination to men, they are not allowed the freedom to exercise it. In a patriarchal society, men could satisfy themselves as they saw fit, but women, whom they controlled and over whom they had a sexual monopoly, could not. That is, what may in fact be biological differences between men and women are aggravated by men’s control over women. Note that these are men’s views about what women want and how they behave; they do not, necessarily, reflect rabbinic reality.
Conclusions
The sources we have considered were written by men and for men. They make a very simple point: Seeing and being with women arouses men sexually. Often, the woman who arouses a man is forbidden to him. Since his arousal demands resolution, it is better for him not to put himself in circumstances in which arousal is likely. To that end, he should not spend time talking to women or being alone with them, even female members of his own family. This last category, which includes mothers, sisters, and daughters, leads the reader to believe that the Mishnah speaks of involuntary sexual arousal. It is hard to imagine, even in circumstances very different from our own, that a normal man would solicit his mother or daughter for sexual activity or that she would solicit him. We should also note that the effect of separation in a patriarchal social configuration was to protect women and children from sexual exploitation.
Nowhere have we seen a sense of women, in general, as responsible, through deliberate actions that they took, of tempting men to sin. It is only individual women about whom such reports appear. But note that it is men, in general, who succumb to sexual arousal with ease. This conclusion challenges those scholars who picture women as temptresses; they reach their conclusion by weaving together scattered aggadic passages, not by reading key halakhic passages in context.
Women’s sexual arousal does not receive much commentary, although women’s right to sexual gratification is dealt with extensively. The rabbis understood that women have sexual needs, dependent for satisfaction on the men who marry and control them. Recognizing the power that a husband has over his subordinate wife, the rabbis spell out in detail his obligations to her, above and beyond sex for the sake of procreation. There is no frequency of obligation on her part to him, most likely because initiating sexual activity was considered his prerogative. Even if she was also an initiator, his sexual rights did not need the same kind of protection that hers did.
Although we see here an accepting attitude toward sex, with the passage of time and possibly under the influence of foreign ideas, we can trace a less accepting attitude toward sex creeping into the rabbinic mind, as evidenced by some of the later stories. However, even when we look at the texts that view sex favorably, we find them demanding very modest public behavior. The rabbis expected women to cover themselves when they went out in public. A woman who bared her head or her arm was considered to be engaging in sexually provocative behavior, as was a woman who conversed freely with men, or who, in an even more extreme case, sported with them in the public baths.
And, finally, the linkage of sex and Torah came up once again: Sex is seen as a distracting force from Torah study, and conversely, Torah study is seen as a means of taking one’s mind off sexual impulses. All these sources lead to the conclusion that the rabbis, like ordinary men, were engaged in a continuous battle with their libido. They were hoping that the intellectual and spiritual side of them would triumph over the physical. The material above does not lead us to think that they fully accomplished this goal.