DIRECT PDF LINK >>

Click here to view an updated version of this shiur with additional features on the Deracheha website. 
Did you know there’s more to Deracheha than our shiurim? Sign up for our newsletter here and get all our content! 
Have some feedback for us? Please click here!

By Laurie Novick 
Rav Ezra Bick, Ilana Elzufon, and Shayna Goldberg, eds.

Understanding Nissuin

A Jewish marriage is created in two stages, beginning with kiddushin (halachic betrothal, which we discuss here). The marriage process reaches completion with nissuin. The term nissuin encompasses both the formation of a marriage and the ongoing state of marriage.

In this piece, we explore the nature of nissuin and how it is accomplished, and the respective obligations of husband and wife. (We discuss the marriage ceremony in a future piece.)

As a stage in the formation of marriage, nissuin is the point at which the couple form a joint household as husband and wife and become sexually permitted to each other. As an ongoing state, nissuin describes the couple building on the halachic bond formed through kiddushin, actualizing the marital relationship, and fulfilling their halachic obligations to each other.

A Joint Household

We find a first, important source for understanding nissuin in the Torah’s discussion of the laws of vows (Bemidbar 30:2-17). The verses distinguish between different stages of a woman’s life: in her youth in her father’s home, as a very young woman following kiddushin, and finally as a married woman in her husband’s home (beit ishah):

Bemidbar 30:4, 7, 11, 14

A woman when she makes a vow to God or binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house while in her youth….If she is [betrothed] to a man and her vows are upon her, or the expression of her lips that she bound upon herself….If in her husband’s house she vowed or bound herself by an obligation with an oath….Every vow and every oath of obligation to afflict herself, her husband can uphold it and her husband can annul it.

Though the Mishna clarifies that no one can annul the vow of an adult, unmarried woman, [1] the verses don’t directly address that case. Rather, they seem to presume that most women would marry very young and thus move straight from the father’s home to a husband’s.

Indeed, halachic sources on nissuin often describe the establishment of the marital household as a wife exiting her father’s domain and entering her husband’s for the purpose of marriage.

Mishna Ketubot 4:5

She is always in the domain of the father until she enters the domain of the husband for nissuin.

A husband generally acquires the ability to annul his wife’s vows only once she is considered part of his household, expounded here as nissuin:[2]

Sifri Bemidbar, Matot 154

What does “if in her husband’s house she vowed” come to teach us? This is a married woman (nesua), the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

The husband’s capacity to annul vows derives from the marital bond. Thus, he can only annul those of his wife’s vows that are a form of self-affliction (which could potentially affect the household or the marriage) or that pertain directly to the couple’s relationship.[3]

Being a member of the household is similarly important with respect to a woman’s eligibility to partake in her husband’s teruma (a priestly gift, permitted only to kohanim and members of their household). On a Torah level, a woman who marries a kohen is entitled to eat from teruma as of kiddushin. Our sages decreed, however, that this entitlement take effect only as of nissuin, when a woman actually joins her husband’s household:

Yerushalmi Ketubot 5:4

Initially, they would say that a daughter of Israel betrothed [to a kohen] eats from teruma…And what can I do, for they said that a woman never eats from teruma until she enters the chuppa, and they supported this with a verse, as it is said [Bemidbar 18:13], “every pure [person] in your household shall eat of it.”

The assumption that the kalla joins the chatan's household may also reflect the halachic obligation of a husband to provide his wife with housing (which we'll see below).

With nissuin, the couple establish a home life together. Their joint household becomes a framework for pursuing the central aspirations of marriage, whether sexual, procreative, or emotional. Ideally, nissuin brings to fruition a powerful intimacy between husband and wife.

An Intimate Relationship

The relationship formed by nissuin is so strong that the couple are thereafter considered close relatives. For example, a kohen is usually prohibited from coming into contact with a dead body, but a kohen following nissuin is commanded to tend to his wife’s burial:

Vayikra 21:1-2

And God said to Moshe, ‘Say to the kohanim, the sons of Aharon, and you shall say to them, he shall not become impure for a [dead] person among his people. Except for his relative [she’eiro] who is close to him, for his mother and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother.

The halachic understanding of “his relative” in this context is “his wife,” as expounded in Sifra.

Sifra Emor  81 74 1:4

For only to his relative who is close to him, “his relative” means only his wife, for it is said, “she is the relative of your father” [Vayikra 18:12]. “Who is close” and not the betrothed woman. “To him,” and not the divorced woman.

The Sifra explicitly rejects the possibility that a couple would experience this level of relationship as of kiddushin alone. This notion of the marital relationship as intimate to the point of familial also arises in discussions of additional halachic aspects of death and mourning, and extends even to inheritance.

Sanhedrin 28b

As Rav Chiyya son of Ami said in the name of Ulla: His wife who is [only] betrothed, he does not become an onen [mourner before she is buried], and he does not become impure for her [to attend to her burial], and so she is not an onenet, and does not become impure for him [to attend to his burial]. If she dies, he does not inherit her…Their [in the cases Rav Chiyya discusses] God made the matter depend on being “his relative,” and she [the betrothed woman] is not yet his relative.

According to Rashi, the sexual aspect of nissuin in particular generates the level of familial intimacy enjoyed by a couple.

Rashi Bava Metzia 18a s.v. ve-lo mitamei lah

For his relative, that is his wife, and this [betrothed woman] is not his relative, for they have not yet come to physical intimacy.

Effectuating Nissuin

We’ve seen that nissuin is the point at which certain halachot relating to the marital household or to the couple’s intimacy begin to take effect. But when, exactly, does married life officially begin? In Halacha, the point at which a couple make the transition from kiddushin to nissuin is known as chuppa.

Our sages never definitively explain the term “chuppa.” Among its many possible definitions is ‘wedding canopy’ (discussed in our upcoming piece on the wedding ceremony). However, the meaning of chuppa as a halachic concept is broader and more complex. 

Chuppa has halachic force as initiating nissuin, even when the couple have not yet had sexual relations, something the Talmud identifies as a key difference between Jewish and non-Jewish marriage:[4]

Sanhedrin 57b

For Rabbi Chanina taught: A woman who has become married through relations they [non-Jews] have. Who has entered the chuppa and not had relations, they do not have.

The Talmud infers from the Torah’s description of a young woman’s betrothal that nissuin is a distinct stage, one which takes place as of chuppa and does not depend on relations:

Ketubot 48b

Rava said: Ami said to me: Chuppa is written clearly. “When there is a virginal young woman [na’ara] betrothed to a man” (Devarim 22:23). A “young woman”, and not a mature woman [bogeret]. “Virginal” and not one who has had marital relations. “Betrothed” and not married [nesua]. What is married [nesua, that the young woman in the verse is not]? If you say fully nesua, that is the same as specifying that [the young woman in the verse] is a virgin and has not had relations. Rather no, [the term “married” here refers to a woman who] entered the chuppa and did not have relations.

Defining Chuppa

What, exactly, is the wedding chuppa? We first encounter it in Tanach. A verse in Tehillim compares God revealing Divine glory to a groom’s exuberant emergence from his chuppa:

Tehillim 19:6

And it is like a chatan emerging from his chuppa, it rejoices like a champion to run his course.

Conversely, the navi Yoel describes a situation of such gravity that a groom would need to exit his chamber and a bride, in parallel, her chuppa:

Yoel 2:16

Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children and the nursing ones, let the chatan leave his chamber and the kalla her chuppa.

The root chet.peh.heh means to cover. From these verses we can infer that the Biblical chuppa refers to a private space for chatan and kalla.

Metzudat David Yoel 2:16

From her chuppa – this is place of the kalla’s seclusion with the chatan, and it is the chamber that he [Yoel] mentioned.

Early halachic authorities offer a range of views on how to understand chuppa. These generally fall into one of two categories, each representing one of the essential features of marriage that we identified above, joining the household or inaugurating the intimate relationship (here, through yichud, often translated as seclusion or being set aside).

I. Joining the Household

In one of a few comments regarding chuppa, Rashi explains that entering the chuppa represents the kalla’s transition to the chatan’s domain. This may suggest a completion of the legal procedure and change of status (kinyan) that began with kiddushin.

Rashi Ketubot 48b s.v. lirshut ha-ba’al le-nissuin

…That she enter the chuppa for the purpose of nissuin, that she be transferred to the domain of the husband…

This understanding of chuppa represents the kalla’s move to share a home with her chatan. Accordingly, Ran cites authorities who maintain that chuppa is accomplished in practice simply as a kalla entering her husband’s household:

Ran Ketubot 1a (Rif Pagination)

Others say that a chuppa…is wherever the husband brought her from her father’s home to his home for the purpose of nissuin, and we learn it from it being written “and if in her husband’s house she vowed” which sounds as though all the time that she is in her husband’s house, behold she is in his domain….

Building on this view, chuppa could also be a space for chatan and kalla that functions as a symbolic home for them and thus represents their permanent home.

Talmud Yerushalmi Sota 9:15

These are the chuppot of grooms, embroidered sheets and gold-embroidered ribbons hung inside them.

II. Yichud: Establishing Intimate Space

Chuppa can also be understood as anticipating or symbolizing marital relations, as Rashi notes in another comment:

Rashi Yevamot 57b s.v. Af

…For the significance of chuppa is only because it is a preliminary to sexual relations…

This understanding of chuppa resonates with the view that chuppa is a couple’s seclusion, yichud, which is a preliminary to relations.

The question of chuppa during nidda (menstrual impurity) arises in this context because intimacy, whether sexual relations or even just seclusion, would be prohibited during nidda to a new couple.

Ramban Ketubot 4a

The Rav Yehosef Ha-Levi [Ri Migash] said in the name of Rav Yitzchak son Rav Reuven [Rif]…that chuppa means seclusion of chatan and kalla for the purpose of nissuin, and a woman in nidda is prohibited to be in seclusion [for chuppa]…and this is not the halacha…Rather that from the outset, certainly a nidda is not eligible for chuppa, and so wrote the Ge’onim, nevertheless, bedi’avad…..this is also no worse than them [other problematic cases that are permitted], so it seems to me.

Ri Migash rejects the possibility of chuppa taking effect during nidda. Ramban likewise prefers for chuppa to occur at non-nidda times, but he ultimately rules that chuppa can take effect during nidda. (We’ll address the practical ramifications of this view in our piece on the wedding ceremony.)

For his part, Rambam takes this conception of chuppa a bit farther, integrating it with the view of chuppa as a shared household. He defines chuppa as the wife both entering the husband’s household and being secluded together with him, and stipulates that the seclusion takes effect only if relations would be possible.

Rambam, Laws of Marriage 10:1-2

The betrothed is prohibited to her husband rabbinically as long as she is in her father’s house…until he [the husband] brings her into his house and secludes himself with her and designates her to him, and this seclusion is what is called entering into the chuppa, and this is what is always referred to as nissuin. And one who has relations with his betrothed for the purpose of nissuin, after he has been mekadesh her, once he begins to penetrate her [sexually] has made a kinyan on her and she becomes nesua, and behold she is his wife in all respects….And once she enters the chuppa, she is called nesua even though she has not had relations, and that is when she is fit for relations, but if she was nidda, even though she entered the chuppa and he was secluded with her, the nissuin are not complete…

Rambam adds that bedi’avad, after the fact, a couple can also effect nissuin by engaging in sexual relations for that purpose. In this case, he uses the term “kinyan” to refer to the halachic change wrought.

He seems simply to understand chuppa as the beginning of married life,[5] including the expectation of relations. For this reason, a chuppa during nidda is a greater impediment for him than for Ramban.

Rambam’s acknowledgment of relations themselves as a valid alternative to chuppa seems to echo assumptions of another Talmudic passage:

Ketubot 8b

Rav Chanan son of Rav said: Everyone knows why she [the kalla] enters the chuppa, but anyone who debases his mouth and says something debasing, even if a decree of seventy good years had been sealed for him, it is turned for him to bad.

The passage intimates that guests in a wedding share the tacit understanding that a bride’s entry into the chuppa represents her broader move towards sexual relations with her spouse. Aruch Hashulchan draws on this passage to explain the development and halachic force of chuppa in general:

Aruch Ha-Shulchan EH 55:14-15, 17

However, it is not the way of the Children of Israel to have relations in public…And the matter was established to make a chuppa of honor and to recite seven berachot over them, and with this she is fully nesua, and marital relations are not required for it to take effect. And everyone knows why a kalla enters the chuppa, but we don’t require witnesses of seclusion and ten men for the berachot of nissuin and that then he immediately would have relations with her, which would be an ugly matter…And every type of chuppa that they had the practice of making, this is the kinyan of nissuin since their intent is for nissuin and they are separate from others, for the two of them stand in one place for the purpose of nissuin as if he brings her into his home and is secluded with her as Rambam wrote…The principle of the matter is that, according to the fundamental law of the Torah nissuin is sexual relations for the purpose of nissuin or preparation for this, and chuppa is the preparation for it. And what type of preparation depends on custom. For since we call this matter chuppa and recite the berachot, the nissuin are complete. And the purpose of the preparations of all the chuppot is that from this moment and onward she has entered his domain and he is prepared to live with her as husband and wife.

For Aruch Ha-shulchan, nissuin could simply begin with the couple’s first act of relations. But since the marriage ritual entails a public component, chuppa stands in. Any type of symbolic act or ritual communally understood as representing the couple’s officially beginning to live together in an intimate marital relationship suffices. (We’ll discuss more of the potential understandings of chuppa and the role of the berachot in our upcoming piece on the marriage ceremony.)

Whether the chuppa is understood simply as establishing that married life has begun or more formally as kinyan, whether independent or simply a completion of kinyan kiddushin can have implications for how it is performed.

Many halachic authorities, however, including Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (following an approach developed by his grandfather), view chuppa as the actual practical commencement of the marital state, and not as an independent, symbolic act (kinyan).

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Ma Dodech Mi-dod, Divrei Hagut Ve-ha’aracha, p. 72-73

Eirusin and nissuin are two stages in the process of the instantiation of marriage. They emphasize two distinct forms of the ancient connection created between man and woman…Eirusin are based on kinyan…the bond is related to kinyan and prohibition…In nissuin, the horizon of marriage widens and deepens. The realization of nissuin comes through yichud-chuppa. Rav Chayyim maintained that nissuin do not require intent of one putting something up for acquisition, nor establishing witnesses. Only intention is needed. There is no specific act of nissuin at all. The attainment comes on its own. There is no act of kinyan entailed in nissuin…What is the essence of yichud-chuppa? The betrother and the betrothed intertwine their lives into one existence.

Rav Soloveitchik mentions one possible practical implication of his outlook: witnesses would not be required for nissuin to take effect, because it is more functional than formal. Even so, witnesses to chuppa are favored in practice, to cover all halachic views.

Halachot of Married Life

Nissuin is simultaneously a very personal emotional and sexual relationship, and a very functional arrangement for running a joint household. In this section, we’ll see how Halacha sets up a system of complementary rights and responsibilities, through which the couple actualize their personal and practical commitments to each other.

Some halachic marital obligations are eternal and unchanging. Others depend on societal factors, personal finances, or even the couple’s preferences. By exploring key sources, we can understand both the basic halachot and their application in various contexts, including our own society.

A Husband’s Core Obligations

The main source for a husband’s essential obligations to his wife is a Torah verse enjoining a man who marries a second wife not to neglect the first:

Shemot 21:11

If he takes for himself another, he shall not diminish her she’ar, her kesut, and her ona.

What are she’ar, kesut, and ona? All agree that ona, literally “season” or “interval” refers to the wife’s rights to sexual relations with her husband at regular intervals. This verse establishes on a Torah level that a wife has sexual rights to her husband, complementing a husband’s sexual rights to his wife.

There are two main interpretations of the rest of the verse:

I. Three Aspects of Obligation According to this understanding, the verse enumerates three distinct aspects of a husband’s obligation to his wife: sustenance, clothing (or shelter), and marital relations. In other words, he is obligated to continually provide for both a marital home and a sexual bond, obligations which echo the central features of nissuin.  

Ketubot 47b

Rava said: This tanna maintained that [providing her with] sustenance [mezonot] is a Torah-level obligation, as it is taught: she’erah – this is sustenance. And thus, it says, “who ate the flesh [she’ar] of My people” [Micha 3:3]. Her kesut – according to its literal meaning [i.e., clothing]. Her onah – this is the interval [of marital relations] stated in the Torah, and so it says: “if you afflict [te’aneh] my daughters” [Bereishit 31:50]

On this reading, she’ar means flesh in the sense of meat, as a type of food, and kesut follows its literal meaning of “covering” or “clothing.” Rambam explains that kesut refers not only to clothing, but also to a place to live and its accoutrements:

Rambam, Laws of Marriage 13:3

Included in kesut is that he is obligated to [provide] her [with] household articles and housing in which she dwells.

Following this passage, some authorities maintain that a man who fails to fulfil any of these obligations to his wife violates a Torah-level prohibition:[6]

Sefer Ha-mitzvot of Rambam, Prohibitions 262

…This prohibition itself includes anyone who marries a daughter of Israel, that he not oppress her in one of these three things, inflicting pain and distress…For the law of the daughters is that he not withhold from them she’ar, kesut, and ona…They [the sages] said she’arah this is her sustenance [mezonot], kesutah according to its literal meaning, onatah this is marital relations:

We translate mezonot (an explanation of she’ar) as sustenance, rather than just food, because it includes other forms of sustenance, such as a husband’s responsibility to pay for his wife’s medical expenses.

Mishna Ketubot 4:9

If she is afflicted, he is obligated to heal her.

Rashi Ketubot 51a

He is obligated to heal her- For medical treatment is like mezonot.

II. Intimate Obligations Alternatively, all three words might relate to intimacy. She’ar here would thus be connected to the term for relative (a different type of one’s flesh) that we saw earlier, she’eiro.

Ketubot 48a

Rav Yosef taught; she’arah this is physical intimacy…

Ramban takes this approach and understands each of the three items in this list as referring to aspects of marital intimacy:

Ramban Shemot 21:9

…I say that the meaning of she’ar in every place is flesh that cleaves and is close to a person’s flesh…and relatives are called she’ar…and the woman is called the she’ar of her husband, as they expounded “except for his she’ar,” his she’ar is his wife. And this is from the matter that it said, “And he cleaves to his wife and they will be as one flesh.” And behold she’arah is physical intimacy. And kesutah is the covering of her bed, as it is said, “for it is his only covering [kesuto], with what will he lie down?” And onatah is the interval that he comes to her for marital intimacy…For the way of Scripture in every place is to mention lying together in clean language and with brevity, and therefore it said these with a hint “she’arah, kesutah, ve-onatah, regarding the three matters that a man has with his wife in their union. And this comes rightly as a halachic law [from the Torah] and the sustenance and clothing of the wife are a rabbinic enactment.

To Ramban, reading the verse as referring exclusively to the sexual obligations of husband to wife accurately reflects the view that a husband providing his wife with sustenance (mezonot) and clothing is a rabbinic enactment.

This reading of the verse emphasizes the centrality of marital intimacy to nissuin.[7] (We plan to discuss the husband and wife’s sexual obligations to each other in more detail in a future piece.)

Complementary Obligations

In "Family Redeemed," Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik describes important facets of the marriage covenant. Three of them—sacrifice, pleasure, and procreation—find expression in the couple's sexual relationship within the boundaries of Halacha. (An example of sacrifice would be abstaining during nidda.) Another two—cooperation and affectionate appreciation—come to the fore in their forming a joint household. We now turn our attention to them (leaving a closer look at the couple's intimate relationship for a future piece.)

Cooperation between the couple is expressed by their fulfilling complementary duties. Rav Soloveitchik explains why this is significant:

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, "Marriage," in Family Redeemed: Essays on Family Relationships, ed. David Shatz and Joel B. Wolowelsky (New York: Toras HoRav Foundation, 2000), 52-53.

A covenantal marriage is a cooperative community. Husband and wife are bound by mutual civil and economic duties. They form an economic unit. Usually, human separateness and selfishness are demonstrated by one's economic activity and acquisitive efforts, by the ruthlessness of the competitive temper, by placing emphasis upon the possessive pronoun...If man and woman join an existential community and are eager to live in fellowship, the precondition for such a life is the abandonment of the economic barriers separating the individuals. A joint economy, or a household, is essential for the liberation of the individual from his insane seclusion as a separate being shut in within his goods and possessions....This economic community is very important for the success of the marriage. What is important psychologically is the fact that the family constitutes an economic unit in which both are dependent upon each other.

According to Rav Soloveitchik, the couple’s assumption of halachic responsibilities to each other allows them to become a single economic unit.[8] This undertaking has significant implications for their relationship, spurring them to move from a self-centered orientation to a cooperative one, uniting them as an existential community.

Moving forward, we will look at each spouse's halachic rights and responsibilities, at how these halachot are understood today, and at their broader implications.

Let’s begin with a mishna listing some of the husband’s additional rights and obligations:

Mishna Ketubot 4:4

…The husband, who consumes her [property’s] fruits [usufruct] during her lifetime and is obligated in sustaining her, redeeming her, and burying her.

This mishna mentions the husband’s rights as well as his obligations, implying a sort of exchange. He receives the usufruct (fruits or profits, not including the principal) on his wife’s personal property[9] in return for specific commitments. These obligations extend beyond maintaining a wife’s sustenance and include insuring that she is redeemed if taken captive and receives a proper burial. (A husband also has obligations to sustain his young children,[10] and his estate bears some responsibilities after his demise.[11])

We saw above that early halachic authorities dispute whether the husband’s obligation to provide his wife with mezonot is rabbinic, or on a Torah level. If it’s a Torah obligation, it is fundamentally independent of her giving anything in return, and that connection is secondary. On the other hand, the mishna’s framing works well with the view that the husband’s obligation in mezonot is solely rabbinic.

The Talmud details a number of exchanges of this sort, whereby a husband gains certain property rights from his wife in exchange for his financial commitments to her:

Ketubot 47b

…Thus [the tanna] teaches: They enacted her sustenance in exchange for [his rights to income from] her handiwork, and her redemption [from captivity] in exchange for [his rights to her property’s] usufruct, and her burial in exchange for [inheriting the dowry listed in] her ketuba….

A husband is also responsible for his wife’s ongoing personal expenses, which are likewise presented as an exchange—this time for a husband’s right to additional income brought in by his wife.[12] (We’ll look at her basic income when we get to discussing a wife’s obligations.)

Mishna Ketubot 5:9

He gives her a ma’a [unit of currency] of silver for her needs.

Ketubot 58b

Rav and Shemuel thought that they [the sages] enacted mezonot in exchange for her handiwork and the ma’a of silver in exchange for excess income.

These trade-offs are logical. If the husband bears the brunt of financing the household, then it stands to reason that his wife’s income should go toward the household treasury. If he assumes responsibilities for unlikely expenses, such as redemption from kidnapping, then it is reasonable to offset them with rights to less standard sources of income from his wife’s work or assets.

Though these exchanges might sound like a simple economic balance sheet, there is more to it. Their validity does not depend on each side contributing equal monetary value (e.g., on a woman’s handiwork covering mezonot expenses). More than that, the distribution of rights and obligations affects the general dynamics of a marriage, and not just its finances, as each partner contributes toward the greater whole of their cooperative economic union.

A Talmudic passage notes that assuming responsibilities without gaining rights to balance them could undermine the marital relationship. This same passage presents a way for the wife to opt out of this arrangement.

Ketubot 58b

Rav Huna said Rav said: A woman can say to her husband, I am not receiving mezonot and I do not produce [handiwork]. He reasoned that our Rabbis enacted mezonot as primary, and her handiwork [was enacted for her husband] on account of [preventing] animosity. And when she says I am not receiving mezonot and I do not produce, she has the authority to do so.

Is such a stipulation always necessary? Maharit, of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, raises the question of how marital property rights work when a woman’s income may far exceed her husband’s.

Responsa Maharit II CM 67

What I am in doubt about regarding these women, who are gentlewomen and enter the courtyards of princes and their palaces, and they are “like merchant ships to bring goods to her home” and they financially support their husbands, this some years and from the fruits of their hands they produced and also grew in valor, wealth, and properties. If we say that, for a woman like this, her husband has no rights in any of the wealth that she has built up, for since he is not providing mezonot for her, on the contrary she financially supports her husband and her children and everything is in the home, the husband is presumed not to have rights to her handiwork. And she need not explicitly say ‘I am not receiving mezonot and I don’t produce,’ for whenever the husband does not sustain her, through what should he have rights to her handiwork?…but it’s possible to say that those women who when they began to work at this occupation, the husband still toiled for mezonot and when she profits and gives generously expenses of the home, as long as she hasn’t said, ‘I am not receiving mezonot,’ since she has the wherewithal to sustain the home from her earnings, but [originally] from his hand she ate and from his hand she drank, all that she was continuing to earn was relinquished bit by bit to the husband….

Maharit concludes that if a husband began married life by providing mezonot, then a wife who is the main breadwinner indeed must explicitly stipulate that she is waiving mezonot in order to keep her rights to her income.

The implication is that no such stipulation is necessary if she covers her expenses from the beginning of the marriage. When, in reality, she hasn’t been supported, she maintains rights to her own income.

In Practice

A couple interested in keeping their finances more separate during marriage should consult their mesader kiddushin before the wedding to explore the options, their scope, and implications.[13]

Couples generally do not pursue this course of action, however, because it is common nowadays for husband and wife to pool the bulk of their funds in a joint account. In this way, these issues can remain theoretical as long as the marriage is healthy, and the couple’s financial relationship can reflect and cultivate a broader spirit of interdependence.[14]

Halachot to ensure the wife’s sustenance were constructed with the woman’s financial security and “healthy family life” in mind, and some modern secular laws can promote those goals. The general halachic rule is that, whenever feasible, the wife’s material standard of living should improve with marriage, and not deteriorate:

Ketubot 61a

She rises up with him and does not go down with him…Rabbi Elazar said: [it is derived] from here: “For she was mother of all life.” She [a wife] was given for life, and she was not given for sorrow.

A Wife’s Obligations

We’ve focused on the obligations and rights of a husband upon nissuin. What about the obligations of a wife? The enactments giving a husband the rights to his wife’s handiwork or to her excess income presuppose that she produces things with her hands, or at least has an income. Does that mean that her labor is a marital obligation?

A mishna lays the groundwork for addressing these issues. It lists labors that a woman performs “for her husband,” but then goes on to note exemptions.

Mishna Ketubot 5:5

These are the labors that a woman does for her husband: she grinds [flour] and bakes and launders, cooks and nurses her son, makes his bed and works with wool. If she brought in for him a single maidservant, she doesn’t grind and doesn’t bake and doesn’t launder. Two—she doesn’t cook and doesn’t nurse her son. Three—she doesn’t make his bed and doesn’t work with wool. Four—she sits in a chair. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought in for him a hundred maidservants, he compels her to work with wool, for idleness leads to impropriety. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who makes a vow that his wife not do labor must divorce her and give her her ketuba [marriage settlement], for idleness leads to dullness.

The labors that appear in this mishna are, for the most part, types of housework. Particularly striking is the inclusion of nursing a baby in the list, recognizing breastfeeding for the challenging and valuable labor that it is. (Elsewhere, the Talmud presents breastfeeding also as a wife’s right,[15] and we plan to address this topic in a future piece.)

According to a simple reading of the mishna, when a woman can provide for household staff to handle these labors, she can be relieved of all of them. Even with servants, though, she should continue to work with wool, out of concern lest, as the adage goes, “the devil make work for idle hands.” A husband thus also is not permitted to prevent his wife from working altogether.[16]

We’ll see later that working with wool is more than a form of housework. It also represents a wife’s handiwork, which is counted as her basic, expected income. We’ll first explore the halachot related to women and housework and then return to discuss handiwork and income.

Housework

What is the significance of a woman performing housework? The Talmud Bavli connects her role with the Torah’s description of Chava as a helpmate to Adam:

Yevamot 63a

Rabbi Elazar said: What is that which is written: “I will make for him a helpmate [ezer] corresponding to him”? If he merits, she helps him; if he doesn’t merit, she is against him…Rabbi Yossei found Eliyahu. He said to him: It is written “I will make him a helpmate.” In what respect does a woman help a man? He [Eliyahu] said to him [Rabbi Yossei]: A man brings [home] wheat. Does he chew wheat? Flax. Does he wear flax? Is she not found to light up his eyes and set him on his feet?

On this view, a woman’s role as helper has religious value, reflecting the Torah’s ideal of marital cooperation. The prophet Eliyahu describes housework – producing bread and cloth – as one aspect of this help. Husband and wife pool resources to provide for the household, with complementary roles. He brings home the raw goods, and she adapts them for the household’s needs, forming economic union with deeper effects.

On the other hand, in its discussion of our mishna, the Talmud Yerushalmi sees no intrinsic religious value in a wife personally performing housework. Rabbi Bun suggests that the mishna allows for a woman to bring in workers to perform labors in her stead because these tasks can be degrading:

Talmud Yerushalmi Ketubot 5:6

Rabbi Bun said: Through these matters being degrading, therefore they made them dependent on a maidservant[’s availability].

On this understanding, what matters is simply that the work gets done. Husband and wife can potentially complement and help each other in other ways.

Ramban explicitly rejects the idea that women performing household labor is a critical element of marriage. Rather, he views these tasks as a monetary matter, which explains why a woman can pay her way out of them:

Ramban, Sefer Ha-zechut, Ketubot 26b

For these labors are a financial matter that the sages obligated her in with respect to the husband, and they are not among the conditions of marriage, that wouldn’t be subject to compensation, rather she pays what is upon her in accordance with any monetary matter, for if she brought in for him maidservants, she sits in a chair…

Even when servants are not hired, the wife may be exempt from performing labor. Rather, “her being fit” to hire them suffices:

Ketubot 61a

Rav Chana, and if you say Rav Shemuel bar Nachmani, said: Not that she actually brought in for him [maidservants], but rather, since she is fit to bring [them in], even though she did not bring them in.

Rambam rules that this is not just a matter of the wife’s entering the marriage with significant assets or income.[17] A wife is relieved of performing these labors as long as either spouse can afford to cover the cost of household workers, again, regardless of whether they actually hire them:

Rambam, Laws of Marriage 21:6

With regard to what were the matters said? Regarding the poor. But if she brought in for him a single maidservant, or assets that are fit to buy from them a single maidservant, or he had a single maidservant, or he had sufficient money with which to buy a single maidservant, she does not grind and does not bake and does not launder and does not place straw before his animal…

Regardless of whether household finances can cover these labors, the Tosefta maintains that a wife is only compelled to do them when they are customary for women in the couple’s locale:

Tosefta (Lieberman) Ketubot 5:4

A place where they had the custom not to do one of all these, he cannot compel her [to do it]…

That is to say, a woman’s responsibility for household labor from a halachic perspective is largely a function of the couple’s finances and of local custom.

Handiwork and Income

We’ve seen that a woman is expected to bring in income through her handiwork. So, for example, a mishna stipulates a minimum amount that a woman who must live apart from her husband would be expected to produce.

Mishna Ketubot 5:8-9

One who supports his wife through a middleman…what does she produce for him [in handiwork]? The weight of five sela’im of warp in Yehuda, which are ten sela’im in the Galilee, or the weight of ten sela’im of weft in Yehuda, which are twenty sela’im in the Galilee. But if she was nursing, we reduce for her from her [expected] handiwork…

The minimum income is adjusted down if a woman is nursing. Rabbeinu Asher argues that any type of labor a woman might perform for the household lowers the amount of income she is expected to earn:

Rabbeinu Asher, Ketubot 5:31

For we learn later in a mishna (64a), “If she was nursing, we reduce for her from her [expected] handiwork. And [the mishna] mentioned nursing not as a specification, but rather this is also the law for grinding and baking and all other labors, that we reduce for her [expected handiwork]. And it mentioned nursing because it is dealing with one who sustains his wife through a middleman, where she does not grind and does not bake, for since she is not in the home [with him] how can she do the housework? Rather, they certainly said that a woman makes five sela’im only regarding one who supports his wife through a middleman, where she doesn’t do any [household] labor.

In modern terms, this would be like saying that a woman who has a large share of home and parenting responsibilities would be expected to earn less income. The amounts are no longer clearly set, but the interests of the couple’s overall cooperative economic union can still be served.

This flexibility about a wife’s income gibes well with the mishna enumerating a wife’s labors that we saw earlier. That mishna exempts a wife from working with wool if the couple had sufficient means, leaving it obligatory only as a measure to prevent her from sitting idle, and not as a matter of income.

What, aside from working wool, is a relevant form of handiwork? Rambam presents a full list, though he singles out spinning wool as the archetypal woman’s work.

Rambam, Laws of Marriage, 21:1

What a woman finds and her handiwork belong to her husband. And what does she produce for him? Everything is in accordance with the custom of the land. In a place where their [women’s] way is to weave, she weaves; to embroider, she embroiders; to spin wool or flax, she spins; and if it was not the way of the women of the city to do all these labors, he can only compel [her] to spin wool, for flax damages the mouth and the lips, and spinning is the labor set aside for women, as it is said “And every woman wise of heart spun with her hands” (Shemot 35:25).

A Woman’s Work

Rambam (and Shulchan Aruch,[18] who follows him) lays the groundwork for important rulings today concerning a married woman’s work and income.  He establishes that where women’s drawing an income from traditional handicrafts is no longer customary (as in most of today’s industrialized world), a husband may not compel his wife to do any labor other than to spin wool.

Rambam’s position leaves open the possibility that if something else becomes accepted as women’s work, a wife who receives mezonot might be compelled to do it. Alternatively, he can be understood as ruling that a woman can never be compelled to perform any form of work aside from working with wool. The Rashba moves in this direction:

Responsa Rashba 4:152

For a woman is not obligated to toil to destroy or to build or to uproot or to plant, nor to rent anything out or to get involved with interest, but to work with wool at the rate taught in our mishna. And if the husband wants to transfer her to a different labor, he is not permitted.

Following Rashba, in an era like ours, when women do not typically work with wool, but are otherwise occupied (often outside the home) and not idle, does a wife have a responsibility to earn income for her husband and household? Rav Meir Posner, in his 18^th-century commentary to the Shulchan Aruch, argues that she does not:

Beit Meir EH 80:1

For if their manner is not to do these labors at all, but others…as in our time with business dealings, and all the more so to travel to markets, even though they are accustomed to so from their own goodwill, nevertheless, he can only compel her to spin with wool…And so is explained from the responsum of Rashba…”and if the husband wishes to transfer her to another [labor] he is not permitted” and its simple implication is that even when the custom of the women of this land is [the other labor], even with these [he cannot compel her]…

Indeed, a ruling by the Israeli Supreme Rabbinic Court in 1958, drafted by prominent rabbis including Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and Rav Yaakov Betzalel Zolty, maintained that a husband nowadays cannot demand that his wife do other work aside from spinning wool, and noted that spinning wool is no longer customary:

Rabbinic Court Rulings of Israel III p. 208

The honorable judges: The Rabbis Y. Hadas, Y. S. Elyashiv, B. Zolty…Conclusions: I. (a) Types of labor – labors of the home and the work of spinning wool, in which a woman is obligated according to the law, are in accordance with the custom of the land and in accordance with the [social] standing of the parties. (b) According to the custom of our time, the way of women of the city is not to spin wool. (c) A husband has no right to demand from his wife to work at other types of work. (d) In a case that the woman has no obligation to perform any household labor, as when she brought in for him several maidservants or when the custom is that she not do any labor, then she is obligated to work at spinning wool because idleness leads to impropriety, but if the woman is obligated to take care of other household labors, it is impossible to compel her to work with wool…

Early authorities debate whether a woman’s earnings from work that she is not obligated to perform belong to her. Rashba places them in the halachic category of ha’adafa al yedei ha-dechak, ‘extra income earned through excess labor’, where, in his view, the funds belong to the husband. Ran disagrees, and maintains that the income does not fall into that category and unquestionably belongs to the wife:

Ran, Ketubot 25b (Rif Pagination)

There are those who say that her labor is hers, for since we obligate her only so that she not come to impropriety, as long as she does something, whether for others or for herself, this reason is irrelevant. But Rashba wrote that it stands to reason that [her income] is no better than extra income earned through excess labor [h’adafa al yedei ha-dechak], which is the husband’s even though she does it of her own will and not out of obligation. And I (Ran) don’t know what this [argument] is….

A number of modern rulings, including this one from the Tel Aviv Beit Din in 1953, have supported Ran’s position:

Rabbinic Court Rulings in Israel, I, pp. 90-92

Case 4553, 5713 in the Tel Aviv-Yaffo Beit Din before the honorable judges: Rabbis A Goldschmidt, S. S. Karelitz, Y Beblicky…And a doubt arises, to whom this income belongs, whether to the husband according to the rule that her handiwork belongs to the husband, or that this rule is only for labors in which a woman is obligated, but labor in which she is not obligated, her handiwork is for herself…This question, that is, of income from labors in which a woman is not obligated, the early authorities already discussed…Since according to most of the halachic authorities, income of this type belongs to the woman, the matter is simple that in any case one may not take it away from the woman if she has hold of it.

To summarize what we’ve seen, a woman is no longer expected to work with wool, though she should not sit idle. A woman’s income can be seen as her own or as joint marital property, rather than being at her husband’s disposal as it once was. It is up to the couple to find their path to economic union within this changed landscape.

Rav Yaakov Ariel argues that accepted custom determines the usual disposition of marital property, but that, fundamentally, the husband’s obligation in mezonot remains in place, and that a couple reverts to it if the woman ceases to work outside the home:

Rav Yaakov Ariel, "The Structure of the Modern Family: Halachic Implications," Techumin 22 (5762): 137.

…Anyone with sense knows that the wife entered the chuppa with this in mind, that if she financially supports her husband, she is not obligated to give him what she produces…In a society in which the custom is that the wife works and the husband learns [Torah]—as long as the wife supports her husband, she can claim that what she produces is hers. But if in the course of time the wife claims that she can no longer support the family, and demands that her husband be the main breadwinner, the husband cannot demand that his wife continue to support the family forever on the basis of the existing custom, for as was said, a custom cannot entirely undermine the structure of the family.

Even where practical Halacha has changed, the fundamentals have not been uprooted, and a couple can arrange their marriage more closely along our sages’ original lines.

The shifts in women’s professional and familial roles, as well as in expectations at home from men raise serious questions. How do they affect a couple’s overall commitment to cooperation, and each other? Abby Lerner argues that educational frameworks must address the effects of these shifts on marriage, from the details of who does what, to the broader question of how to maintain a sense of a cooperative union that puts the relationship first.[19]

Abby Lerner, “Aishes Chayil: Lost or Found?” Klal Perspectives Journal, Winter 2012.

...Women have gained tremendously by the changes that have occurred in the last several decades. Our housework is easier, and we feel better about ourselves because we are making serious contributions to the world at large, to the economic well-being of our families, and to the world of Torah...There is no question that the culture has changed. There is no doubt, for example, that fathering is different today than it used to be...In our high schools, seminaries and kollelim, we must begin to educate our young people about the realities of marriage, money and parenting...Post-high school Torah-study programs for single young men should address realistic expectations from marriage in a serious, organized and pedagogically sound way. Young men need to be prepared to contribute to housework if their wives are working (and even if they are not). They need to learn that a young wife who works is tired and needs help. They need to be taught even about cooking and certainly about helping with children. Young men have to learn what their obligations are – as listed in the kesubah....Young couples need to be taught that their relationship comes above all else, even if some preconceived ideas regarding roles have to be sacrificed to preserve that relationship....Together as a community, we must find a way to restore a balance that will create healthy households even in these very complicated times.

Labors of Affection

We began this piece by presenting living together and the couple's intimate relationship as keys to nissuin. With the exception of ona, the rights and responsibilities that we've discussed so far seem focused on setting up on the couple’s cooperative union as expressed by establishing and maintaining their basic living arrangement. A special set of household labors assigned to a woman, however, seem to bring us back to more intimate aspects of their relationship.

Ketubot 61a

Rabbi Yitzchak son of Chananya said Rav Huna said: Even though they said “she sits in a chair,” but she mixes him a drink and makes the bed for him, and washes his face, hands, and feet. Rav Yitzchak son of Chananya said Rav Huna said: All labors that a woman does for her husband, a woman in nidda does for her husband except for mixing the drink and making the bed and washing his face, hands, and feet.

Not even a woman with sufficient means to enjoy a life of leisure while others take care of the housework is exempt from these three labors. Nevertheless, a wife does not perform them when in nidda, which suggests that they reflect a special degree of intimacy for the couple.

The Talmud Yerushalmi questions whether a wife’s performing these labors is an obligation for her, or if they just fall upon her because it would be inappropriate for another female to perform them. The practical difference would be a case in which a male servant would be available for these duties:

Yerushalmi Ketubot 5:6

Rav Huna said: Even if she brought in for him a hundred maidservants, he compels her to do personal things for him. What are personal things? She anoints his body for him, and washes his feet for him, and mixes his drink for him. Why? Because she is obligated to do this for him, or because they are inappropriate for a maidservant to do for him? What is the practical difference between them? If she brought in for him bondsmen. If you say that it’s because they are inappropriate for a maidservant to do for him, behold, she has brought in for him bondsmen. That is not effective for the rationale that she is obligated in them. Rav Avudima in Tzipporin asked before Rav Mana: Doesn’t it make sense that it’s because she is obligated to him? He said to him: I also think so.

The Yerushalmi resolves that a woman is obligated to perform these tasks as part of her marital duties, perhaps because these specific intimacies are important to the marital relationship.

Preparing someone’s drink (in today’s terms, their cocktail—or perhaps their coffee) exactly to their specifications, or setting up the marital bed, or affectionately cleaning off their skin (or running their bath) could be affectionate and intimate actions.

Rashi views these acts as a means through which a woman builds marital connection and cultivates intimacy. Nevertheless, he presents them as an eitza tova, good advice, and not as strictly obligatory:

Rashi Ketubot 61a

But she mixes him a drink and makes the bed for him- to lay out the sheet and blanket, a matter which is not burdensome, and since these are matters of affection in order that she become endeared to him, and it is not similar to making a bed in our mishna, for that is a burdensome matter and compelled. These she is not compelled to do, but rather the sages gave her good advice to make this the custom in Israel.

Along the way, Rashi explains why the mishna enables a woman to be exempt from making a bed while the Talmud here describes it as something from which maidservants do not exempt her: the harder aspects of making a bed fall under the category of general housework, while the niceties of smoothing or turning over a blanket are considered acts of affection.

Tur and Perisha follow Rashi, and do not obligate a woman in these labors:

Tur EH 80

But she spreads the sheet and arranges the bed, which is the way of endearment, and it is fitting for every woman to do this for her husband even if she has several maidservants, and so to mix his drink and to wash his face, hands and feet.

Perisha EH 80:18

It is fitting for every woman to do this thing for her husband, etc. But we do not compel her to do it…

However, Shulchan Aruch rules that these tasks, as well as a wife’s performing other small services for her husband, are, in fact, obligatory:

Shulchan Aruch EH 80:4

So, every woman washes her husband’s face, hands, and feet and mixes his drink and makes the bed for him. (Rema: And there are those who say she is obligated to make all the beds in the house. Maggid Mishna 21 and Ran Ketubot 5). And she stands and serves before of her husband, as by giving him water or a vessel, or that she clears it from before him, and matters similar to these.

In many of our communities, it is unusual for wives to perform these acts consistently for husbands. Rav Yaakov Ariel has articulated how distant these specific acts may seem to the modern couple, how rarely they are practiced, and how modern mores can align with our understanding of them:

Rav Yaakov Ariel, "The Structure of the Modern Family: Halachic Implications," Techumin 22 (5762): 133-134.

There are obligations that, despite their being part of the ketuba agreement, in any case no man today will obligate a woman to fulfill them, such as: washing the husband’s face, hands, and feet, or working with wool and the like (see Shulchan Aruch EH 80 and Beit Meir 1 there). All these have passed and gone out of the world, and no woman is obligated in them today. On the other hand, there are other things that women have taken upon themselves. For example, most women work nowadays outside the home. Certainly a woman's work outside of her home exempts her from the labors that she was obligated in in the past within the home...Indeed, washing his face, hands, and feet and mixing the drink seem not to be dependent on a woman's other work, for even one who brings in several maidservants is obligated in it (there, 4), and if so, even a contemporary working woman should be obligated in them. Nevertheless, it is not accepted today that a woman does these labors for her husband. On the other hand, there are other acts of affection in which a woman should be obligated. There is no doubt that the relationship framework between husband and wife has changed, and every couple enters the chuppa having in mind that they will act in accordance with the custom of the land. Halacha recognizes this custom and obligates husband and wife to act in accordance with it. 

Rav Ariel suggests that nowadays there are new obligations reflecting newer ways of showing marital affection, but he does not spell them out. Certainly, couples for whom it is meaningful for the wife to make their beds or to prepare the husband’s morning coffee—or the reverse—can continue this practice. The questions of what counts as affectionate labor today and how it should enter into a couple’s life remain unresolved.

Should marriage entail a wife serving her husband?

In a song from Fiddler on the Roof, Golda is flummoxed when Tevye asks her, "Do You Love Me?" She responds:

Sheldon Harnick, 'Do You Love Me?" Fiddler on the Roof

"For twenty-five years I've washed your clothes,/Cooked your meals, cleaned your house,/Given you children, milked the cow./After twenty-five years, why talk about love right now?...For twenty-five years I've lived with him,/Fought him, starved with him./Twenty-five years, my bed is his./If that's not love, what is?"

The intimate bond between a couple isn't all attributable to romance. The steady, day-in-day-out ways in which spouses fulfill responsibilities to each other should not be overlooked as a building block of intimacy. As Radbaz notes (Responsum I 238), having a livelihood is a prerequisite for marital bliss. But helping each other and running a household together can get to be dry, and that is why it is striking that our sages emphasized so strongly the husband's sexual responsibilities to his wife as well as a wife's intimate labors on behalf of her husband.

Though not in vogue, acts of service to someone we love are a type of "love language." So, while a woman who has other things to occupy her time can make a strong halachic claim to be relieved of doing housework (or at least of doing any more of it than her fair share), the idea that she should perform a select few, simple acts to make her husband feel cared for and cultivate intimacy has some appeal.

Chazal seem to assume that specifically a wife’s showing love through acts of service for her husband carries special significance. This is likely because the tenor of home life has been so closely associated with women. (See more here.) Of course, it is wonderful for a husband to show love through acts of service as well.

However it is structured, giving is at the heart of a loving marital relationship. Israeli psychotherapist and kalla teacher Naomi Wolfson writes:

Naomi Wolfson, Ki-msos Chatan al Kalla (Jerusalem: Erez, 200), 86

…That love, first of all, is giving. Giving does not necessarily originate with concession, and certainly not with effacing one’s personality. On the contrary, when a person gives of themselves to another, they intensify their own strengths. Giving flows from the recognition that each member of the couple was created with their own unique talents, and from mutual recognition that each needs the other.

It is so easy to lose sight of intimacy as the bigger household tasks accumulate. Small, ritualized acts that build warmth can serve as reminders that marriage is more than a co-living arrangement.

Concluding Thoughts

The core elements of nissuin are eternally relevant. A couple create a life together, establishing a joint household and entering a sexual relationship.

The marital household forms a cooperative economic unit, within which the couple take responsibility for each other—for earning a livelihood and for the functioning of their joint home. Halacha prescribes specific, complementary, obligations for husband and wife, but also leaves significant room for flexibility depending on societal factors, the couple’s economic situation, and personal preferences for financing and running their home and cultivating intimacy within it. These rights and responsibilities point to, and can help to foster, a deeply interdependent relationship:

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, "Marriage," in Family Redeemed: Essays on Family Relationships, ed. David Shatz and Joel B. Wolowelsky (New York: Toras HoRav Foundation, 2000), 46.

…The mutual relationship of the two partners is of an absolute nature that encompasses not only property rights, but existential rights as well. The partners belong to each other in a peculiar way; they are united by a personal bond which reaches deeply into the most hidden spheres of the human personality.