Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the payment requirements of someone who hit a woman causing an unborn child to miscarry. The perpetrator must pay the father of the unborn compensation for loss. The Netziv (Shu”t Meishiv Davar 4:35) makes an important observation that has implications for the philosophy of marriage.

Netziv says, you might wonder how the Gemara assumed it was obvious that the father was entitled to damages, even if he never married the mother. The simple reading of the verses imply a husband and not just the biological father. The answer is that the rabbis had no pre-existing notion that a married woman was “owned” by her husband. Unlike a slave whose earnings and children automatically go to the master, a wife is not like that at all. Netziv says this is also why it is only a rabbinic requirement that a woman render her earnings to her husband when she agrees that he will support her. But technically he’s not entitled to her earnings because he does not own her. Any mandated obligations of marriage stem from Biblical or rabbinic delineations of responsibilities, but not ownership, be they intimate or financial.  A commitment or obligation is not ownership. Therefore, when the Torah mandated that the financial payment for loss of the baby goes to the father, there was no reason to believe it was specifically stemming from rights as a husband, and thus was seen as a Torah mandate about fatherhood, not about husband-hood.

There are cultures throughout the world that have treated women like property.  Perhaps this also explains why the Rabbis deliberately changed the Hebrew word for marriage from something that connotes acquisition to a word that connotes consecration.  As Gemara Kiddushin 2b states:

מֵעִיקָּרָא תָּנֵי לִישָּׁנָא דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּלְבַסּוֹף תָּנֵי לִישָּׁנָא דְרַבָּנַן, וּמַאי לִישָּׁנָא דְרַבָּנַן? – דְּאָסַר לַהּ אַכּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

Initially, the mishna taught using the language of the Torah, in which betrothal is called taking. And ultimately, in the next chapter, it was taught using the language of the Sages. And what is the reason that betrothal is called kiddushin, literally, consecration, in the language of the Sages? The reason is that through betrothal the husband renders her forbidden to everyone like consecrated property. Therefore, this act is referred to as consecration

It is also noteworthy that tzaddikim consulted with their wives before making important life decisions.  For example, though Yaakov was already instructed by God in a prophetic vision that it was time to leave the house of Lavan, he nonetheless consults with his wives (see Bereishis 31:4-16).  Even when God tells you to do something, you still must discuss it with your wife. We also find in Berachos (27b) that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah consults with his wife prior to his accepting the position of Nasi.

This is related to a term coined by the famous marriage researcher John Gottman, known as Influenceability. As explained by clinician Jeff Pincus:

Research by Dr. John Gottman has shown that relationships are much more successful when men allow themselves to be influenced by their partner. It’s important for women to accept influence too, but the research has shown that the majority of women already do this.

Being open to influence requires a man to let go of avoidant strategies like distancing, attacking, and defensiveness. This doesn’t mean adopting an inferior position, but rather allowing his partner’s needs to be of primary importance in his life.  (https://www.gottman.com/blog/husband-can-influential-accept-influence/ )

It is important to counter this idea that many might subtly hold, that could be reinforced by misinterpreted Torah ideas of marital obligation.  Obligation and commitment is not ownership. 

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)