Thursday, February 11, 2010

Duping Women In Marriage (Bava Batra 174b)

I am currently in the middle of writing a paper on Rachel Adler's theology and her book Engendering Judaism.  The book has been a wonderful window into Jewish feminist thought. But more importantly, it has opened my eyes to the power plays of the Rabbis as they choose where to give women a voice and where to ignore them. 

Today's Daf (Bava Batra 174b) is a great example of this. Here we learn that if someone agrees to be a guarantor for a Ketubah we ignore this (the Ketubah is the marriage document that provides money for the wife if a divorce happens) . This means that a guarantor can agree in writing that if my Ketubah says that I will pay my wife 200 zuzim if we divorce, he will make sure she gets her money whether or not I can pay.  However, this agreement means nothing. No matter what (whether I am wealthy when he agrees or poor) his statement is a sign of good faith but not binding. 

So why go through this song and dance if nothing happens with this agreement? Because the guarantor is doing a "mitzvah." According to tradition, it is a commandment for a man and a women to marry and procreate. By putting his name on the Ketubah as a guarantor, the husband is easing any fears the women may have about marrying. She is never told that she may not be guaranteed her divorce money. Rather she is ushered into a marriage with a false sense of security. When the Rabbis look further at the rationale of this law we read: 

לאו מידי חסרה
He is not costing her anything

I would argue that he indeed costing her something, power and autonomy. As Adler explains, often when the Rabbis create laws that subjugate women it is to protect themselves and make themselves feel more powerful. Here it is no different. We are to dupe women into marriages that have a facade of a support structure in order to save the (male) guarantor the burden of following through with his promise. 

The beauty of reading texts through a liberal lens is that we don't have to take them at face value. This is a sexist and unfair law that we don't have to follow. Nevertheless, it is important because it provides a mirror for men (like me) to question the times when we act similarly out of insecurity, fear, and a need to feel more powerful at the expense of women. 

No comments:

Post a Comment