Onah: A Husband’s Conjugal Duties?

See Mekhilta Neziqin 3; b. Ketubbot 47b. So also NJPS, “conjugal rights.” The phrase שאר כסות ועונה became common in rabbinic literature. See e.g., Maimonides, Sefer ha-mitzvot, negative commandment 262.

In Sefer ha-shetarot of Rav Hai Gaon and in Maimonides, Mishneh Torah (“Sefer Nashim,” Laws of Yibbum and Chalitzah 4:33), the ketubbah text reads מיעל עליכי כאורח כל ארעא instead of מיעל לותיכי. The phrase מיעל עלנא כאורח כל ארעא is found in Onkelos to Genesis 19:31, translating the words of Lot’s oldest daughter to her sister: לבוא עלינו כדרך כל הארץ “to consort with us in the way of all the world” (NJPS) in a context that unambiguously refers to sexual congress. I am grateful to my friend, Professor Robert Brody, for pointing this out to me.

In contrast, Onkelos simply renders the Hebrew term with the Aramaic equivalent, וְעָנְתַהּ, which tells us little about how he understood the term.

The NETS translation, Lust, Eynikel, & Hauspie’s, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, and Muraoka’s Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, all understand the term here in this way.

Nahum Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 121. An attempt to provide philological support for this interpretation was made by Ariella Deem, “The Goddess Anath and Some Biblical Hebrew Cruces,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23 (1978): 25–30. Deem’s argument was accepted by and expanded upon by Shelomo Morag, “המטפורה הגדולה של הושע: דברי הפיוס — עיון לשוני” [The ‘Great Metaphor’ of Hosea (2:4–17): The Appeasement (2:16-17) - Some Linguistic Notes], Tarbiz 68 (1998), 5–11. I am grateful to Mitchell First for pointing me to Deem’s article, and to Professor Robert Brody for pointing me to Morag’s.

The word ומדור was added by Rosin in his edition of Rashbam’s commentary, published in 1882. It is a logical emendation.

Commentary to Exodus 21:10. Before Rashbam, this explanation was offered by Menahem ibn Saruq, Machberet, s.v. ענ, as one of two possibilities (alongside the standard rabbinic explanation) and by Karaites. The “lodging” explanation was later offered by Joseph Bekhor Shor and by Menahem b. Hezekiah.

Moshe David (Umberto) Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 269 [trans. of פירוש על ספר שמות (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1942), 187]; Wolfram von Soden, “Zum hebräishen Wörterbuch” Ugarit Forschungen 13 (1981): 157–164 [159–160].

Eliyashiv Oren, לענין "שארה כסותה ועונתה" (שמות כא, י) [“Concerning ‘שארה כסותה וענתה’ (Ex. XXI, 10)”], Tarbiz 32 (1965): 317.

English from Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, SBL Writings from the Ancient World 6 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), 31.

Shalom Paul, “Exod. 21:10: A Threefold Maintenance Clause,” JNES 28 (1969): 48–53. Menahem Zevi Kaddari, A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, s.v. עֹנָה, mentions this explanation in a note.

Roth, Law Collections, 64.

English from Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973), 1.69.

Sarna, Exodus, 121. Editor’s note: Oren is aware of the philological problem, which is why he suggests that the word may derive from a scribal error for עִנֻּגָהּ, “and her pleasure,” though Shalom Paul rejects this as speculation with no textual basis. Oren was inspired to do suggest an emendation by Tur-Sinai’s own suggested emendation, עֻגָּתָהּ, “her cakes/bread.” See Naphtali Herz Tur-Sinai פשוטו של מקרא [The Simple Meaning of the Bible] (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1967), 1.114–115. Notably, both Oren’s and Tur-Sinai’s suggested emendations are included by Clines, in his Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, s.v. עֹנָה.

Jonathan Paradise, “What Did Laban Demand of Jacob? A New Reading of Genesis 31:50 and Exodus 21:10,” in Tehillah le-Moshe Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 91–98. He suggests repointing the word as עֲנֻתָהּ, and connects its use here with Laban’s threat to Jacob during their final negotiations:

^{בראשית לא:נ} אִם תְּעַנֶּה אֶת בְּנֹתַי וְאִם תִּקַּח נָשִׁים עַל בְּנֹתַי...

^{Gen 31:50} If you onah my daughters, or take wives besides my daughters…

This is generally translated—correctly in my view—“if you mistreat my daughters,” but Paradise translates it idiosyncratically as “if you remove my daughters’ support.” See there for his reasoning.

For instance, in a text from Sippar, a woman named Haliyatum established another woman named Anat-Shamash as her heir, assuming the latter supported the former in her old age. The inheritance was then challenged, since “She (Amat-Shamash) did not give clothing, ointment, her maintenance.” The third word, piqittasa, cognate with the Hebrew פ.ק.ד, is a comprehensive term for fulfilling the general needs of Haliyatum, her benefactor.

Editor’s note: An understanding along these lines may be the basis for the translation in the Samaritan Targum to the Exodus verse: עמירה כסואה ואתלבטתה לא יתבצר, “her food, her clothing, and her misery should not be withheld.” The Targum understands the third term as deriving from the root ע.נ.י/ה “suffering,” which, in this context, Abraham Tal of Tel Aviv University (A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic [Leiden: Brill, 2000] 1.424, s.v. לבט) explains, is a euphemism for “minimal support.” The second Samaritan Targum reads somewhat differently, but with the same meaning: עמירה תכסיתה ולבטה לא יבצר, “her food, her clothing, and her misery, he should not withhold.” A different interpretation of the phrase was offered by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation, “pretium pudicitiae,” meaning “price of chastity,” i.e., the bride payment she gets for marrying him.

See Jakob Barth, Etymologische Studien zum Semitischen Insbesondere zum Hebräischen Lexicon [Etymological Studies on the Semitic, Especially on the Hebrew Lexicon] (Berlin: Itzkowski, 1893), 17–18. See also the BDB, HALOT, Clines, and Kaddari dictionaries, all s.v. עֹנָה.

This is from the long commentary. He mentions this as well in his short commentary, where he also notes the alternate explanation and alternate etymology offered by Rashbam.

Kimhi’s explanation is found in his Sefer ha-shorashim, s.v. עון. Rabbinic legislation on the obligatory frequency of sexual activity is found in m. Ketubbot 5:6.

He was an expert in both traditional and contemporary Bible commentaries. While a staunch defender of tradition, he adopted some methods of modern critical Bible study. For more detail on Shadal, see Shmuel Vargon, שמואל דוד לוצאטוביקורתיות מתונה בפירוש המקרא [S.D. Luzzatto: Moderate Criticism in Biblical Exegesis] (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2013). See also the introductions to the three volumes (so far) of the English translation of Shadal’s commentary on the Torah by Daniel Klein, published by Kodesh Press. In addition, see my articles, “Peshat vs. Halakha Dilemma: Shadal and Tradition,” TheTorah (2016); “The Mitzvah to Love God: Shadal’s Polemic against the Philosophical Interpretation,” TheTorah (2016); and “Shadal: Translated, Elucidated, and Uncensored at Last,” The Lehrhaus (2021).

The translations of Shadal here are my own, based in part on Samuel David Luzzatto’s Interpretation of the Book of Shemot, ed. and trans. Daniel A. Klein (New York: Kodesh Press, 2015).

See Shadal’s commentary to Exod 15:21 where he explains that the root ע.נ.ה can refer to singing done by two different groups. He provides examples there.

Noam Sachs Zion, Sanctified Sex: The Two-Thousand-Year Jewish Debate on Marital Intimacy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2021), 28. There, Zion also articulates a modern liberal criticism of the idea of fixed times for sexual activity: “The liberal objection to the mishnah’s legislation highlights the injury to individual liberty and the law’s invasion into matters of personal taste.” It is unlikely that Shadal would subscribe to that objection.

As for why the Torah refers to this only in a case of a maidservant, Shadal explains in his commentary:

והנה התורה הזהירה את האדון שלקח את אמתו לאשה, שאף אם יקח לו עוד אשה אחרת אינו רשאי לגרוע חקה של זו, ולא מפני שאביה עני עד שהוכרח למכרה לו לאמה תהיה קלה בעיניו מהאחרת שאביה עשיר, אך ראוי לו שיזכור תמיד כי כשלקח הראשונה השתעבד לה בכל ממונו ובכל כחותיו, וקודם שיקח השניה צריך שיראה אם ממונו וכחותיו כדאי לשתי נשים, ואם לאו אין לו ליקח אשה שניה. וכל זה אמרה תורה במי שנשא את אמתו, וקל וחומר במי שנשא בת חורין, שהוא חייב בלא ספק בשארה כסותה ועונתה.

Now the Torah warns the master who takes his maidservant as a wife that even if he takes a second wife, he is not permitted to reduce what is due to his first wife. Just because her father was so poor as to force him to sell her as a maidservant, she should not be less worthy in his eyes than another woman whose father is wealthy. He should always remember that when he took the first one to wife, he became obligated to her with all his money and strength. So before he takes a second wife, he must see to it that his money and strength are enough to handle two wives, and if not, he should not take a second wife. All this the Torah said concerning someone who married his maidservant, how much more so concerning someone who married a free woman, that he must without doubt provide her with food, clothing, and conjugal rights.

Notably, Arnold Ehrlich (1848–1919), in his Mikra ki-Pheshutto (New York: Ktav, 1969 [repr. of 1899]), suggests that the rule about conjugal rights had to be mentioned by the Torah only concerning a man with two wives:

ואיש שאין לו כי אם אשה אחת, ולה כל לבו, חזקה לו שלא יגרע עונתה מפני שהיא גם עונתו, ובכגון זה לא דברה תורה.

A man who has only one wife, and his heart is directed solely to her, it is assumed that he will not minimize her conjugal rights, since they are his as well. The Torah is not speaking about a man like that.

Nor is this the only time in his Torah commentary that Shadal takes strong issue with him. See my discussion of Shadal’s critique of Maimonides’ understanding of the concept of the love of God: “The Mitzvah to Love God: Shadal’s Polemic against the Philosophical Interpretation,” TheTorah (2016).

All of the words here, except for “Maimonides Mishneh Torah,” are Shadal’s.

From the context, this term is an insulting reference to Jewish philosophers.

In most editions of MT this text is Deot 4:19. By writing “etc etc…” Shadal delicately directs us to the continuation of this text. Maimonides there gives a detailed physical description of a man who feels an urgent need for sexual release, and then writes: זה צריך לבעול ורפואה לו שיבעל—“A man like this needs to have intercourse; intercourse is a remedy for him.”

For a nuanced discussion of Maimonides’ attitude to sexuality and its connection to Aristotle, see Zion, Sanctified Sex, passim and esp. pp. 91–93.

See b. Yevamot 62b. The phrase here, שתורתו היא תורת משה—“whose Torah is the Torah of Moses,” may be an additional dig at Moses Maimonides who, in Shadal’s estimation, abandoned the Torah of the biblical Moses and followed Aristotle. In fairness to Maimonides, he too quotes the text from Yevamot about loving and honoring a wife (Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nashim, “Laws of Ishut” 15:19), but does not connect that text to the idea of satisfying a wife’s sexual needs as Shadal does.

Sarna, Exodus, 121.