Buying One’s Wife?

When studying the Talmud one is often confronted with the strangest ideas—convoluted logic, farfetched arguments, and disturbing associations. Sometimes these discussions are so troubling that one is inclined to accuse the Talmudic sages of blatant hair splitting, often resulting in what appears to be insensitivity toward their topics of debate.

One example relates to this week’s parashah, which seems to exemplify a male chauvinist slant. In discussing marriage, the Torah states that one gets married in the same way as one buys a piece of land in the land of Israel:

“Ki yikach ish isha: when a man takes a woman and marries her… (Devarim 22:13)

What does this mean? What kind of “taking” is this? Does it mean to take her into his home? To take her in the act of lovemaking?

Marriage as a business proposition

To our great astonishment we are told that this “taking” means a financial transaction! It is the purchase of one’s wife by means of money!

The Talmud comes to this conclusion by comparing the case where Avraham negotiates the purchase of the cave of Machpelah with the owner, Efron the Chitite, so that he can use it as a burial place for his wife Sarah:

“I am giving you the money for the field: take it from me (kach memeni) so that I can bury my dead there.” (Bereshit 23:13)

Since both verses—the case of marriage and that  of the Cave of Machpelah—use the same expression “Kach”, “take” the sages concluded that since the first case implies a financial payment, the second one also means a financial transaction. One needs to buy one’s wife! (See Kidushin 2a) This is all very strange since in many other cases in the Torah where it says “Kach” nobody suggest that it means a financial transaction! For example, when God places the first human being in the Garden of Eden:

The Eternal took (Vayikach) the Human and settled him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it. (Bereshit 2:15)

Or when Moshe is commanded to consecrate Aaron for the priesthood:

Take (Kach) Aaron along with his sons, and the vestments, the anointing oil, the bull of sin offering, the two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread;

Furthermore, there is something wrong about the comparison. These are two very different cases. Whan Avraham buys the Cave of Machpelah, he gives the money to the owner, Efron the Chitite. In the case of marriage, the money does not go to the parents of the bride but to the bride herself. That doesn’t represent a sale at all, but rather it seems to be a gift to the bride!

Still, the impression is that the Sages really meant a sale. They must have been motivated by the fact that the word “kach” could mean sale! In other words, they believed that despite the fact that the comparison is inexact, there must be something about a marriage that is related to money. After all why did the Torah not state: “When a man wants to marry a woman he shall tell her that he loves her and wants to marry her and if she agrees, they shall be married”. Why use the expression “kach”?

Flipping the script

I would suggest that the Sages’ comparison actually worked the other way round. Rather than comparing the case of marriage with the case of buying a piece of land, they compared buying a piece of land with that of a marriage: Just as in the way one marries one’s wife, so one should buy a piece of land in Israel!

In other words, the Sages wanted to emphasize the holiness of Israel by comparing it to a marriage. Buying land in Israel is not like buying a piece of land anywhere else in the world. In the case of Israel one marries the land!

An ancient love story

In Judaism, the Land of Israel becomes a loving partner, and one’s love for it is of a singular nature. Jews treat the Land of Israel as they would treat a living personality with whom they have a deep and emotional connection. Jews do not relate to it as a possession to use, but rather as a living entity with a neshama.

Our love for the Land of Israel is not the love described by a native of any other land. Like a marriage, it is a covenant. And a covenant is founded on the basis of duties, not of rights. It is a pledge, and one does not betray a pledge.

Just as during the marriage ceremony one gives his bride an object of value as a symbolic expression of his willingness to make sacrifices for her sake, so one pays for the land by making a financial offering.

Just as in matrimony one marries for high and noble goals, so one betroths the Holy Land to achieve kedushah (holiness), to transform oneself into a more dignified person, and to make the world a better place.

The many laws related to the land indicate that one must care for it almost as one tends to the needs of his wife. The Jews’ relationship with the Land of Israel is a love story, and that is why we were unable to divorce ourselves from this land even while spending thousands of years in exile. One does not abandon one’s wife! For other nations, this may be difficult to fathom; for the Jew, it is the air he breathes.

Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel (1883-1946), former Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, gave this idea yet another important dimension.[1] Just as giving a valued object to one’s wife at the time of the marriage ceremony is only the down payment, so is buying land in Israel only a first installment. No one should ever believe that Israel is an intrinsic inheritance simply because the Jewish people were promised it by God. One needs to merit and inherit it anew every moment. Just as no marriage will endure unless one continues to toil for its success, so the Land of Israel demands one’s constant spiritual labor to merit possessing it as well as living in it. Anything less will lead to divorce.

The ambiguous status of women in the Torah

It is very clear that Judaism never saw marriage as a purchase of one’s wife. Most impressive is the verse in this week parashah 24:5.

“When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and he shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.”

By law, a newly married man had to be free from the army for a year (in case of an optional war) in order to “give happiness to his wife.” It is most remarkable that the stated goal is to make the wife happy. For a year. By law. If women were considered property, I could imagine a law saying the husband should be happy with his wife but nowhere in Tanach is such an idea stated.

What’s more, there are many similar laws that express the requirement of the husband to provide for his wife’s wellbeing and happiness.

This does not mean that all is well with the status of women in the Torah. There are plenty of cases where it seems to discriminate against women. But whenever that was the case, the Sages of the Talmud did everything in their power to rectify this situation. Surely women were better treated in Jewish law than in other ancient legal systems. However, a great deal of work on the part of modern rabbis still needs to be done to continue with what the Sages of old began.[2]

In our case it is clear that the giving of money—today in the form of a ring—was a symbolic gift indicating that it is the first installment of an ongoing commitment by the husband to look after his wife for the rest of his and her life.[3]

This seems to be the reason the Sages made a comparison between marriage and the purchasing of the Land of Israel. They are indeed both expressions of the same type of long-term, transformative, commitment.

 Notes

[1] See Drashot El Ami, published in Hebrew by Hotzaat Shem, Jerusalem, 1936.

[2] In my book: Jewish Law as Rebellion, A Plea for Religious Authenticity and Halachic Courage Urim publications 2018 , I have dealt with this issue in great length and the remarkable courage of the Sages to “update” the law of the Torah, chapter 27. See the Hebrew translation: הלכה כמרד קריאה לדתיות מקורית והלכה נועזת Yediot Acharonot, 2024 chapter 14.

[3] This is the reason why in an orthodox marriage only the bridegroom gives a ring to his future wife: A first installment of his financial obligations to her. She has no financial obligations to him.