רRambam, Clearly
Aa
Hilchos Ishus · Perek 14Ishus · Ch. 14
24 left0% read24 halachos left

·

Marital intimacy, care, and responsibility

Chapter 14 explains the obligation of marital intimacy, vows and refusal within marriage, and a husband’s responsibilities for medical care, ransom, and burial.

פרק יד24 halachosThursday, September 10, 2026כ״ח באלול תשפ״ו◷ Estimated study time: 65–85 min

אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.

Chapter progress 0 of 24 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
Halachah 10% through
הלכה א

Marital Intimacy According to Strength and Occupation

-

The marital obligation of intimacy stated in the is determined for each man according to his strength and his occupation.

How does this apply? Healthy men who live comfortably and enjoy leisure, whose work does not weaken them,

-

but instead eat, drink, and remain at home—their obligation of intimacy is every night.

Laborers, such as tailors, weavers, builders, and others engaged in comparable work, have the following obligations:

if they work in their own city, their obligation is twice each week;

if they work in another city, their obligation is once each week.

The distinction is between working in his own city and working elsewhere. Here, “each week” translates as a unit of time; it does not mean that relations must occur specifically on .

Donkey drivers are obligated once each week; camel drivers, once every thirty days;

and sailors, once every six months.

These occupations ordinarily involve different periods away from home. Their schedules therefore differ, even though the underlying obligation toward the wife remains the same.

-

scholars are obligated once each week, because intensive study drains their strength.

scholars customarily fulfill this obligation each Friday night.

Unlike the earlier references to a weekly interval, this phrase specifies Friday night. The describes marital intimacy as an expression of , the enjoyment of .

Synopsis

The required frequency of marital intimacy depends on the husband’s strength and occupation, including the demands of his work and his customary periods away from home.

הלכה ב

Protecting a Wife’s Right to Regular Intimacy

A wife may object to her husband’s leaving on business except to a nearby place,

so that he will not withhold her marital intimacy; he may not leave without her permission.

Her right to object concerns business travel that would prevent him from fulfilling the marital obligation due to her. He needs her permission for such an absence; the nearby travel permitted here must allow him to maintain the required schedule.

She may likewise prevent him from changing an occupation that requires more frequent intimacy to one that requires it less often,

such as a donkey driver who wishes to become a camel driver, or a camel driver who wishes to become a sailor.

The occupational schedules in the preceding do not allow a husband to reduce his wife’s existing rights simply by choosing a different profession. She may object to a change that would lengthen the interval between their times of intimacy.

scholars, however, may leave to study for two or three years without their wives’ permission.

Similarly, if a man accustomed to comfort and leisure becomes a scholar, his wife cannot prevent him.

The treats departure for study and entry into the life of a scholar as exceptions to the preceding restrictions. The latter change reduces the stated schedule from every night to once a week, yet her objection does not prevent it.

Synopsis

A wife may prevent business travel or an occupational change that reduces the intimacy due to her. The makes exceptions for extended study and for becoming a scholar.

🔎Dig DeeperProtecting a Wife’s Right to Regular Intimacy

Protecting a Wife’s Right to Regular Intimacy

62b explains that a wife may object to an occupational change even when the new work would bring greater income. Increased earnings do not automatically compensate for reduced companionship and intimacy. The choice to accept that tradeoff belongs to her; her husband cannot make it for her merely because he considers the financial gain worthwhile.

Sources: 62b.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ג

Multiple Wives and Each Wife’s Individual Rights

A man may marry several wives—even one hundred—whether he marries them together or marries additional wives one after another,

and his wife cannot prevent him.

This presents the underlying law permitting multiple wives. An established local practice of monogamy and the ban of restrict that permission, as discussed below.

This is provided that he can supply food, clothing, and marital intimacy as appropriate for each wife individually.

The permission does not remove any wife’s entitlements. He must be able to meet the obligations owed to every wife; the next explains how the frequency of intimacy is apportioned.

He cannot compel them to live in a single courtyard; each wife is entitled to live separately.

The right to separate living arrangements remains even when he can support all the wives financially. Providing their material needs does not entitle him to insist that they share one courtyard.

Synopsis

Where marriage to multiple wives is permitted, the husband must meet each wife’s individual entitlements and may not compel the wives to share one courtyard.

🔎Dig DeeperMultiple Wives and Each Wife’s Individual Rights

Multiple Wives and Each Wife’s Individual Rights

65a limits the underlying permission where the established local practice is to marry only one wife. A husband may not depart from that practice by taking an additional wife.

The ban of prohibits taking more than one wife in the community. The , 1:9–10, records these restrictions. The ’s statement must therefore be understood together with the communal rules that govern the marriage; financial ability alone does not establish permission to marry another wife.

Sources: 65a; Rabbenu Gershom; , 1:9–10.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ד

Dividing Marital Intimacy Among Multiple Wives

How often is intimacy due to them? The interval depends on the number of wives.

The husband’s occupational schedule is divided among his wives. The examples show how the frequency due to each wife changes as their number increases.

-

How does this work? If a laborer has two wives, intimacy is due to each wife once a week.

This example uses the laborer’s twice-weekly schedule stated earlier. Those two occasions are divided between his two wives.

-

If he has four wives, intimacy is consequently due to each one once every two weeks.

Similarly, if a sailor has four wives, intimacy is due to each one once every two years.

A sailor’s basic interval is six months. Dividing that schedule among four wives gives each wife one occasion in a two-year period.

The Sages therefore directed that a man should marry no more than four wives, even if he possesses great wealth,

so that intimacy will be due to each wife once a month.

The monthly calculation fits a husband whose underlying obligation is once a week: with four wives, each receives one turn in approximately a month. It is not a universal monthly schedule, since the has just given a different calculation for a sailor.

Synopsis

The husband’s schedule of marital intimacy is divided among his wives. The Sages directed that he marry no more than four, even when he can afford to support more.

הלכה ה

Vows That Subject a Wife to Humiliation

If a husband imposes a vow upon his wife requiring her to tell others what he said to her or what she said to him

-

of the playful and lighthearted words that a husband exchanges with his wife concerning marital intimacy—

“Imposing a vow” is shorthand for creating a prohibition through a vow whose terms place such a demand upon her. It does not mean that a husband can make any command binding merely by expressing it as a vow.

he must divorce her and pay her .

A helpful concept

Here, means the financial payment due to the wife upon divorce under the marriage settlement. The husband’s conduct does not deprive her of that entitlement.

For she cannot be expected to cast aside her modesty and repeat embarrassing matters to others.

The demand concerns private exchanges between husband and wife. She is not required to expose those intimate conversations to others in order to preserve the marriage.

The same applies if he imposes a vow requiring her to take action during marital relations to prevent conception,

This ruling concerns the coercive vow described here; it does not present a general ruling about contraception.

-

or requires her by a vow to perform foolish acts—things that amount to nothing but folly—

An example is repeatedly filling pitchers with water and pouring the water away. Such a demand serves no useful purpose and subjects her to senseless, degrading activity.

He must divorce her and pay her .

Synopsis

When a husband imposes a vow demanding disclosure of private intimate conversation, action during intimacy to prevent conception, or senseless degrading conduct, he must divorce his wife and pay her .

הלכה ו

A Vow That Forbids Marital Intimacy

If a husband makes a vow forbidding marital intimacy with his wife, he is given one week to resolve the matter.

The week gives him an opportunity to reconsider and seek release from his vow. A change of mind alone does not remove the prohibition.

-

Beyond that time, he must divorce her and pay her , or have his vow released.

This applies even if he is a sailor whose obligation of intimacy occurs once every six months,

because his vow has caused her distress and made her lose hope.

An ordinary absence leaves her expecting that intimacy will resume at its appointed time. The vow introduces a deliberate prohibition, undermining that expectation. She therefore need not wait six months merely because that is his usual occupational schedule.

How can he make such a vow binding?

-

If he tells her, “Intimacy with me is forbidden to you,” or swears that he will not engage in marital relations, he has established no binding vow.

-

If he took an oath, it is an oath taken in vain, because he is already obligated to her.

His wife already possesses a right to marital intimacy. He cannot cancel that right by declaring his intimacy forbidden to her, nor can an oath release him from his existing obligation. The oath is itself wrongful, even though it does not remove his duty.

-

But if he tells her, “The pleasure of intimacy with you is forbidden to me,” this is a binding vow, and he may not engage in marital relations.

For a person may not be fed something forbidden to him.

Here, he prohibits the pleasure to himself rather than attempting to remove her right by imposing a prohibition upon her. That formulation takes effect. The comparison to forbidden food means that his obligation toward her does not permit him to partake of something now forbidden to him. He must therefore resolve the vow or divorce her under the rule stated above.

Synopsis

A binding vow against marital intimacy must be resolved within one week, or the husband must divorce his wife and pay her . Whether the vow takes effect depends on whether he attempts to prohibit his intimacy to her or prohibits her intimacy to himself.

הלכה ז

Withholding Intimacy and Inability Caused by Illness

A man may not deprive his wife of the marital intimacy due to her.

-

If he withholds it in order to distress her, he violates a prohibition,

as it states: “He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital intimacy” (Exodus 21:10).

-

If, however, he becomes ill or loses his strength and cannot engage in marital relations,

he is given six months to recover, since no interval for the obligation of intimacy is longer than this.

Illness creates an inability to fulfill the obligation, rather than a deliberate refusal. Six months is the longest basic occupational interval listed earlier, before that schedule is divided among multiple wives. It is the sailor’s ordinary interval and serves here as the period allowed for recovery.

Afterward, he must either obtain her consent or divorce her and pay her .

Her consent here means agreeing to remain married despite the continued inability to have marital relations. Once the waiting period ends, he cannot require her to accept that situation without her agreement.

Synopsis

Deliberately withholding marital intimacy to cause distress violates a prohibition. A husband unable to fulfill this obligation because of illness or weakness is given six months to recover; afterward, continued marriage under those circumstances requires his wife’s consent.

🔎Dig DeeperWithholding Intimacy and Inability Caused by Illness

Withholding Intimacy and Inability Caused by Illness

The (76:18) and (76:17) cite the , which qualifies the six-month limit when the husband has an illness that will heal. According to that view, his wife must remain married while he undergoes treatment, even when recovery will take longer than six months.

The qualification makes the prospect of recovery significant: a known course of treatment may justify a longer waiting period than the general limit stated here.

Sources: Chelkat Mechokek, 76:18; Beit Shmuel, 76:17, citing .

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ח

Refusal of Intimacy Because of Aversion

A wife who withholds marital intimacy from her husband is called a ,

and she is asked why she has refused.

A helpful concept

, literally “a rebellious woman,” is the legal designation used here for a wife who refuses marital intimacy. The reason for her refusal determines which rules apply. This addresses aversion to her husband; the following address refusal intended to cause him distress.

-

If she says, “I find him repulsive, and I cannot willingly have marital relations with him,”

he is compelled to divorce her immediately,

because she is not a captive who must submit to relations with someone she loathes.

The ’s ruling requires the husband to grant a divorce; it does not permit forcing her to have relations. Whether a court may compel the divorce in this situation is disputed by other authorities, as discussed below.

She leaves without any payment.

Under this ruling, she receives no payment when she leaves because of the aversion described here. This financial consequence applies to this particular case; it is not a general rule that a wife loses her whenever she seeks a divorce.

She does, however, take the items of her property that still remain,

whether they came from property she brought into the marriage for which her husband accepted responsibility, or from property for which he did not accept responsibility.

A helpful concept

Property brought into a marriage can fall into two categories. For , the husband accepts financial responsibility for an assessed value, which he ordinarily must repay when the marriage ends. For , the property remains hers, and he does not guarantee its value; she receives it in its existing condition. Here, the permits her to recover the surviving items from either category. This does not mean that she receives reimbursement for everything originally brought into the marriage.

She takes nothing belonging to her husband.

Even the shoe on her foot and the covering on her head that he purchased for her must be removed and returned to him.

She likewise returns whatever he gave her as a gift,

because he did not give it to her on the understanding that she would take it and leave.

The distinction is between her own property brought into the marriage and what she received from her husband. In this case, the gifts are treated as having been given for the continuation of their marriage.

Synopsis

According to the , a wife who cannot willingly have relations because she finds her husband repulsive is entitled to an immediate compelled divorce. She receives no payment, retains her surviving property, and returns what she received from her husband.

🔎Dig DeeperRefusal of Intimacy Because of Aversion

Refusal of Intimacy Because of Aversion

The and many other authorities disagree with compelling the husband to divorce solely because his wife declares that she finds him repulsive. The ( 77:2) follows that opposing position. The dispute concerns whether the court may compel a divorce; it does not authorize forcing the wife to have marital relations.

Even authorities who support the ’s ruling require the court to investigate whether her claim is genuine, rather than a means of ending the marriage because she wishes to marry someone else.

The Maggid Mishneh and the also record a different rule concerning surviving property for which the husband accepted financial responsibility: she retains what she has taken into her possession, but does not automatically recover all such items. Thus, the disagreement affects both the court’s power to compel divorce and the division of property.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh, 14:8; and Rema, 77:2.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ט

Warning a Wife Who Withholds Intimacy to Cause Distress

If, however, she refuses marital intimacy in order to distress her husband,

-

and says, “I am distressing him this way because he did such-and-such to me,” or “because he cursed me,” or “because he quarreled with me,” or gives a similar explanation,

Here, her stated purpose is to cause him distress through withholding intimacy. She is not necessarily seeking to end the marriage, and she has not presented the claim of aversion described in the preceding . A different procedure therefore applies.

the court sends word to her, saying:

“Be aware that if you persist in your refusal, you will forfeit your , even if it amounts to one hundred .”

A helpful concept

A is a monetary unit equal to one hundred . One hundred therefore means ten thousand . The unusually large sum emphasizes that the warning applies to the entire , however substantial it may be. This is advance notice of the consequence of persisting. The forfeiture follows the further procedure described here and in the next ; it does not occur merely upon this first warning.

Afterward, announcements concerning her are made in synagogues and houses of study every day for four consecutive weeks,

declaring, “So-and-so has refused marital intimacy with her husband.”

The announcements make the matter public in order to press her to reconsider. In the ’s wording, they are made daily over four weeks; “four weeks” does not mean only four individual announcement days.

Synopsis

A wife who withholds intimacy to distress her husband first receives a warning that she risks losing her entire . Public announcements then follow for four consecutive weeks to encourage her to reconsider.

הלכה י

Continued Refusal and the Waiting Period Before Divorce

After the announcements, the court sends word to her a second time,

telling her, “If you persist in your refusal, you forfeit your .”

-

If she continues to refuse and does not retract, the court consults with her once more,

and she forfeits her , with no entitlement remaining.

She is given another opportunity to reconsider before the loss becomes final. If she persists, the forfeiture includes both the basic payment and any additional amount her husband promised.

She is not given a until twelve months have passed,

A helpful concept

A is the document that effects a Jewish divorce. Losing her financial entitlement under the does not itself dissolve the marriage. The explains that the court asks the husband to allow this waiting period in the hope that the couple will resolve their conflict and avoid ending the marriage through strife. The passage of twelve months does not itself dissolve the marriage; a is still required.

Throughout those twelve months, she is not entitled to support.

If she dies before the divorce, her husband inherits her.

Although she has lost her payment and support, the marriage remains in effect until the divorce. Her husband’s inheritance right therefore continues during this period.

Synopsis

If she persists after the warnings and final consultation, she loses her entire entitlement. Divorce is delayed for twelve months, during which she receives no support, but the marriage—and her husband’s inheritance right—continues.

הלכה יא

Refusal That Applies Even When Intimacy Is Not Presently Due

-

This procedure is followed when she refuses marital intimacy in order to distress her husband—

The procedure consists of the warnings, public announcements, forfeiture of the , and waiting period described in the preceding .

even if she is a or is ill and unable to engage in marital relations,

A helpful concept

A is a woman whose status under the laws of menstrual impurity prohibits marital relations until the required purification process is completed. Her inability to have relations during that period is not itself an act of refusal. Here, the issue is her declaration that she will withhold intimacy to distress him, including when relations become permissible or possible again. The procedure addresses that continuing refusal, even though she cannot presently have relations.

and even if her husband is a sailor whose obligation of intimacy occurs once every six months,

and even if he has another wife.

Neither a long interval before intimacy is due nor the existence of another wife removes the significance of her refusal. Her stated intention to withhold their marital relationship is sufficient for the procedure to apply.

Synopsis

The procedure for refusal intended to distress the husband applies even when intimacy is not presently possible or due, and even when he has another wife.

הלכה יב

Refusal to Enter Marriage or Perform

Similarly, if an has reached the appointed time to enter marriage,

A helpful concept

An is a woman whose , the first stage of Jewish marriage, have already taken effect, but who has not yet entered , the stage that completes the marriage. The “appointed time” here refers to the end of the preparation period discussed earlier.

-

and she refuses to enter marriage in order to distress him, she is considered a who withholds marital intimacy.

Although they have not yet begun married life together, her refusal prevents the marital relationship from beginning when it is due to begin. The stated purpose of causing him distress places her within the same legal category.

-

Similarly, if a refuses to enter in order to distress the surviving brother—

A helpful concept

is the marriage of a man’s widow to his brother when the deceased left no surviving descendants and the other conditions apply. The widow is called the , and the surviving brother is the . is the procedure that releases the bond when is not performed. This ruling follows the ’s position that takes precedence over . The refusal described here is specifically intended to distress the .

the same procedure is followed for these women.

The warnings and subsequent steps described earlier apply both to the and to the in the circumstances stated here.

Synopsis

An who refuses to enter marriage when the appointed time arrives, or a who refuses , is subject to the same procedure when her refusal is intended to cause distress.

הלכה יג

Property Rights After Continued Refusal

-

When this leaves the marriage after twelve months without a payment,

she must return everything belonging to her husband.

“This ” refers to the wife who withheld intimacy to distress her husband and persisted through the procedure described above. In Halachah 8, the allowed the wife who claimed aversion to recover her surviving property from both categories. Here, surviving property for which the husband accepted financial responsibility is subject to the possession rules that follow.

But regarding property she brought into the marriage whose items still remain:

if she has taken possession of them, they are not taken from her;

and if her husband has taken possession of them, they are not taken from him.

The two categories of property brought into marriage receive different treatment. This rule concerns , property for whose assessed value the husband accepted responsibility. , for which he did not accept that responsibility, remain hers and must be returned to her.

Likewise, for anything lost from her property for which the husband had accepted responsibility,

he pays her nothing.

Ordinarily, his acceptance of responsibility would require him to account for the guaranteed value. In this case, she cannot collect compensation for those lost assets. The distinction is therefore between retaining surviving property under the rule above and demanding payment for property that no longer remains.

This is the law of the concerning a .

Synopsis

A wife who persists in refusal intended to distress her husband returns his property and loses compensation for missing assets whose value he guaranteed. Rights to surviving guaranteed property depend on possession, while property that remained hers must be returned to her.

🔎Dig DeeperProperty Rights After Continued Refusal

Property Rights After Continued Refusal

In the and the ( 77:3), Rabbi Yosef Caro explains that the husband need not perform a new act of taking possession. If the wife has not taken possession of the property, it is already treated as being in his possession.

The ( 77:2) distinguishes this guaranteed property, , from . The husband’s acceptance of financial responsibility gives the former a different legal standing for purposes of possession. The latter remain the wife’s property and must be returned to her even in this case.

The practical question is therefore not simply where an item happens to be located. Its property category—and whether the wife has taken possession where that matters—determines the result.

Sources: Kessef Mishneh, 14:13; , 77:3; Rema, 77:2.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה יד

Talmudic Law and Different Practices

The reported that they had other practices in Babylonia concerning a .

A helpful concept

The were the leading rabbinic authorities of the Babylonian academies in the period after the completion of the . The practices mentioned here provided a different way of handling the case from the Talmudic procedure just described.

Those practices did not spread throughout the majority of the Jewish people,

and many eminent authorities in most places disagreed with them.

The existence of a practice in the Babylonian academies did not mean that Jewish communities generally had accepted it. The points both to its limited acceptance and to substantial rabbinic opposition.

It is therefore proper to adhere to the law of the and decide cases accordingly.

Synopsis

Because the alternative practices were not widely accepted and faced substantial opposition, the directs courts to follow the Talmudic law concerning a .

🔎Dig DeeperTalmudic Law and Different Practices

Talmudic Law and Different Practices

The alternative practices are recorded in the of . These practices are more favorable to the woman’s financial position than the procedure presented here.

The ( 77:3) states that these practices should be followed when the woman provides a reasonable explanation for her conduct. Thus, although the directs courts to follow the Talmudic procedure, the Rema recognizes circumstances in which the alternative approach applies.

Sources: of Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi, ; Rema, 77:3.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה טו

A Husband Who Refuses Marital Intimacy

-

If a husband refuses marital intimacy with his wife and says, “I will provide food and support, but I will not have relations with her because I hate her”—

the weight of thirty-six barley grains in silver is added to her every week.

A helpful concept

Barley grains are used here as a unit of weight: the addition consists of silver weighing as much as thirty-six barley grains. This amount is three of the currency used in the Talmudic period. It is added to the amount owed under her , rather than described here as an immediate weekly payment.

They remain married without marital relations for as long as she wishes to remain.

The decision to continue the marriage under these circumstances belongs to her. If she does not wish to remain, she may ask the court to compel him to divorce her.

-

Although her continues to increase, he nevertheless violates a prohibition,

as it states: “He shall not diminish” (Exodus 21:10).

The added financial obligation does not give him permission to withhold intimacy. Her decision not to seek divorce is not, by itself, a waiver of the intimacy due to her. In the case described here, he continues refusing her while the debt increases and the prohibition continues.

If he hates her, he should divorce her; he may not, however, cause her suffering.

Why is he not lashed for violating this prohibition?

Because its violation involves no deed.

His violation consists of withholding what he owes rather than performing a prohibited physical act. That distinction explains why lashes are not imposed; it does not lessen the prohibition or remove his obligations toward her.

Synopsis

A husband who refuses intimacy while continuing financial support incurs a weekly addition to his wife’s . She may seek divorce, and his growing financial liability does not permit him to continue causing her distress.

הלכה טז

Resolving Conflicting Claims About Marital Intimacy

-

If a husband and wife come before the court—

he says, “She refuses marital intimacy,” while she says, “That is not so; I maintain normal marital relations with him,”

-

or she claims, “He refuses marital intimacy,” while he says, “That is not so; I maintain normal marital relations with her”—

the court first pronounces a ban against whichever spouse is refusing intimacy and will not acknowledge it before the court.

The ban is directed conditionally at the person concealing the truth. It does not mean that the court has accepted either spouse’s accusation as proven. Its purpose is to bring about an admission in a matter that ordinarily occurs in private.

-

Afterward, if neither makes an admission, the court tells them, “Enter seclusion together in the presence of .”

The observe that the couple enters seclusion together; they do not remain present during marital intimacy. The final clause of this expressly rules out observing the relations themselves.

If they have been secluded together and still maintain their conflicting claims,

the court appeals to the accused spouse and works toward a compromise to the best of the judge’s ability.

“The accused spouse” means whichever spouse is alleged to be withholding intimacy. Since the private facts remain unresolved, the court seeks cooperation and a workable settlement rather than treating the accusation itself as proof.

Having marital relations in another person’s presence, however, is not an option,

because relations in the presence of any creature are forbidden.

Synopsis

When spouses make conflicting claims about withholding intimacy, the court seeks an admission, arranges witnessed entry into seclusion, and then pursues a settlement if necessary. It may not resolve the dispute by having others observe marital relations.

הלכה יז

Medical Care for an Ill Wife

-

If a wife becomes ill, her husband must provide for her treatment until she recovers.

If he sees that the illness is prolonged and that her treatment will consume a great deal of money,

and tells her, “Your payment is set aside,” or “Pay for your treatment from your ,”

–

or “I am divorcing you, paying your , and leaving,” his request is accepted.

The option described here concerns settling the obligation and ending the marriage rather than continuing to bear the expense of the prolonged illness. Setting money aside does not itself effect a divorce. The passage should therefore not be understood as allowing him simply to stop paying for treatment while otherwise continuing the marriage unchanged.

Other authorities prohibit divorcing a wife who is too ill to care for herself. ’s prohibition against divorce without the wife’s consent raises a further question about exercising this option. The ruling here therefore does not establish an unrestricted right to end the marriage unilaterally.

Nevertheless, proper conduct requires that he not act this way.

The distinction is between what the law permits him to do and how he ought to treat his wife. Recognizing this legal option does not make abandoning her during illness appropriate.

Synopsis

A husband must provide medical care until his wife recovers. In a prolonged, costly illness, the recognizes the option of paying her and ending the marriage, while expressly stating that acting this way is improper.

הלכה יח

Redeeming a Wife Who Has Been Taken Captive

If she is taken captive, her husband must redeem her.

-

If he is a , to whom she has now become forbidden,

he must redeem her and return her to her father’s home.

A helpful concept

A is subject to additional restrictions concerning whom he may marry or remain married to. The Sages applied a legal presumption concerning sexual assault to women taken captive by non-Jewish captors. On that basis, the captive wife in this ruling becomes forbidden to her husband, even though an assault has not necessarily been established by direct evidence. Forced relations with a non-Jew prohibit a woman to a , although they do not prohibit her to a husband who is not a . Although the captivity creates a prohibition against continuing their marriage, it does not remove his obligation to redeem her.

Even if they were in another city,

he must attend to her needs until he returns her to her own locality,

and he must divorce her and pay her entire .

His responsibility includes caring for her return, not merely paying the ransom and leaving her where she is.

If her husband is an Israelite, to whom a woman who has been held captive is permitted,

he must restore her to her place as his wife, as before.

“Israelite” here distinguishes a husband who is not a . The concern that she suffered forced relations does not prohibit her to such a husband. The distinguishes a case in which she willingly engaged in adulterous relations with a captor. In that case, she becomes forbidden even to a husband who is not a , and he is not obligated to redeem her.

His obligation is to redeem her and take her back as his wife. He cannot fulfill it merely by paying the ransom and immediately sending her away with a divorce.

If he subsequently wishes to divorce her, he may do so and pay her .

Synopsis

A husband must redeem his captive wife. A must care for her return and then divorce her with full payment; a husband to whom she remains permitted must first restore her to married life.

הלכה יט

The Extent of a Husband’s Ransom Obligation

A husband is not required to ransom his wife for more than her assessed value,

but only for her value, as with other captive women.

The general ransom limit was instituted to avoid encouraging further kidnappings through excessive payments. The measure discussed here is a legal limit on ransom; it is not a judgment of the value of a human life.

If her assessed value exceeds the amount of her ,

-

and he says, “I am divorcing her; here is her payment. Let her go and ransom herself”—

his request is rejected.

Two different amounts are being compared. The general ransom limit is based on her assessed value, while the is the amount owed under the marriage settlement. A smaller does not reduce his ransom obligation or allow him to escape it through divorce.

Instead, he is compelled to redeem her,

even if her assessed value is ten times her ,

and even if he possesses only enough to pay her ransom.

The obligation can therefore consume all his available assets. This does not override the opening limit: the ransom remains within her assessed value, even though it greatly exceeds the .

When does this apply? On the first occasion.

-

But if he redeemed her and she was taken captive a second time, and he wishes to divorce her—

he may divorce her and pay her , and she must arrange her own redemption.

The distinguishes the first captivity from a second captivity after the husband has already redeemed her. On the second occasion, he permits divorce with payment as an alternative to another redemption. Whether the husband can decline a second redemption while remaining married is the dispute discussed below.

Synopsis

On the first occasion, a husband must redeem his wife within the general ransom limit, even if the cost exceeds her or consumes all his assets. After redeeming her once, he may respond to a second captivity by divorcing her and paying her .

🔎Dig DeeperThe Extent of a Husband’s Ransom Obligation

The Extent of a Husband’s Ransom Obligation

In the and the Beit Yosef ( 78), Rabbi Yosef Caro understands the husband’s obligation to redeem his wife as applying only once. On that understanding, after a second captivity he may remain married without redeeming her; divorce is an available option, rather than a condition for being free of a second ransom obligation.

The (78:4) and (78:4) challenge this interpretation of the . The practical question is whether the second captivity removes the ransom obligation altogether, or whether he must divorce her and pay the if he does not redeem her.

Sources: Kessef Mishneh, 14:19; Beit Yosef, 78; Chelkat Mechokek 78:4; Beit Shmuel 78:4.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה כ

Redeeming a Captive Wife When Her Husband Is Away

-

If a man’s wife is taken captive while he is abroad,

the court takes control of his property and sells it after publicly announcing the sale,

The announcements give prospective buyers notice of the sale so that the property can obtain the best price. His absence does not leave his wife without access to the funds that he is obligated to provide for her redemption.

and redeems her according to the same rules that govern her husband’s obligation.

The court acts in his place. It applies the extent and limits of his ransom obligation, including the distinctions in the preceding .

Synopsis

When the husband is abroad, the court sells his property after announcing the sale and uses the proceeds to redeem his wife under the same rules that would bind him.

הלכה כא

Captivity After a Vow That Requires Divorce

If a husband imposes a vow upon his wife that obligates him to divorce her and pay her ,

-

and she is taken captive after he imposed the vow, he is not obligated to redeem her,

because from the time he imposed the vow, he became obligated to divorce her and pay her .

The redemption obligation includes taking her back as his wife. Here, the obligation to end the marriage arose before she was captured, so that undertaking no longer requires him to redeem her. He still owes her the payment.

The timing is essential: this ruling concerns captivity that occurs after a vow has already obligated him to divorce her.

Synopsis

When a vow has already obligated the husband to divorce his wife and pay her , a subsequent captivity does not obligate him to redeem her.

הלכה כב

Captivity During a Prohibited Marriage

-

If a wife was forbidden to her husband by one of the ’s negative commandments and was then taken captive,

he is not obligated to redeem her.

A helpful concept

are prohibitions expressed as negative commandments. The examples supplied here include a married to a divorced woman and a , the High Priest, married to a widow. Such marriages are prohibited even though can take effect.

Instead, he pays her , and she must arrange her own redemption.

The obligation to redeem a wife ordinarily includes restoring her to married life. Here, continuing the marital relationship was already prohibited before the captivity.

But is a captive woman not forbidden to a , who nevertheless must redeem his wife?

That is because she was not forbidden to him beforehand,

and it was the prohibition arising from captivity that caused her to become forbidden.

The distinction is when the prohibition arose. In the ordinary case of a whose wife is captured, their marriage was permitted until the captivity itself created the prohibition. His obligation therefore includes redeeming her and returning her to her family, even though he cannot resume married life with her.

If she was already forbidden to him before captivity, he is not obligated to redeem her. This applies even to a , whose redemption obligation could otherwise be fulfilled by returning her to her own locality without resuming married life. The decisive distinction here is that the prohibition existed before she was captured.

Synopsis

A husband need not redeem a wife who was already forbidden to him before her captivity, but must pay her . A must redeem a wife whose prohibition arose from the captivity itself.

הלכה כג

Burial and Funeral Honor According to Her Standing

-

If his wife dies, her husband must provide for her burial,

and arrange a eulogy and lamentations according to local custom.

Even for a poor Jewish husband, the provision must include no fewer than two flutes and a woman who leads the lamentation.

The flutes and the woman leading the lamentation were elements of the funeral practice described here. In his (Shabbat 23:4), the explains that the mournful sound of the flutes aroused tears. These details should be read together with the opening requirement to provide funeral honors according to local custom.

If he is wealthy, everything must accord with his standing.

The minimum provision for a poor husband does not set the standard for a wealthy one. The funeral honor must reflect his circumstances.

If her standing was higher than his, she is buried in a manner appropriate to her standing,

because a wife rises with her husband’s standing but does not descend, even after death.

A helpful concept

For the standard of provision discussed here, marriage gives a wife the benefit of her husband’s higher standing without requiring her to surrender her own higher standing. The funeral must therefore reflect whichever standing is greater. The principle continues to protect her honor after death.

Synopsis

A husband must provide burial and customary funeral honors for his wife. The standard follows the higher of their respective standings, since marriage raises her standing without lowering it, even after death.

הלכה כד

Providing Burial When the Husband Refuses or Is Away

If a husband refuses to bury his wife,

-

and someone else acts on his own initiative and buries her,

the burial expense is collected from her husband against his will and paid to that person,

so that she will not be left cast out for the dogs.

The person who arranged the burial acted without the husband’s authorization. Nevertheless, the requires reimbursement so that the husband’s refusal will not leave her body abandoned and without burial.

-

If the husband was in another city when his wife died,

the court takes control of his property and sells it without publicly announcing the sale,

Announcements ordinarily allow time to attract buyers before a court sells property. Here, that process is omitted so that her burial will not be delayed. This differs from the announced sale for ransom described in Halachah 20.

and arranges her burial according to the husband’s financial means,

and according to his standing or hers.

The court applies the standard established in the preceding : her burial honors follow his standing when it is higher, and hers when her standing is higher.

Synopsis

If the husband refuses burial, the requires him to reimburse someone who provides it. If he is away, the court sells his property without the usual announcements so that burial can proceed promptly and with the appropriate honor.

🔎Dig DeeperProviding Burial When the Husband Refuses or Is Away

Providing Burial When the Husband Refuses or Is Away

The distinguishes burial from the case in Chapter 12 of someone who voluntarily supports another man’s wife without being asked. In that case, the husband is not required to reimburse the volunteer. Here, the need to prevent the body from remaining unburied supports compulsory reimbursement.

The and other authorities do not accept this distinction. Although the ( 89:2) records the Rambam’s ruling, the (89:2) concludes that the opposing opinions prevent collecting the expense from the husband against his will. The dispute concerns compulsory reimbursement after someone else has arranged the burial.

Sources: Rambam, 12:19 and 14:24; Rashba; , 89:2; Beit Shmuel 89:2.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
Sources & editorial method

Hebrew text: Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ishus, Chapter 14. The Hebrew is preserved as the primary text and divided into short learning units.

Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.

Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.

Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.

Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.

Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.

Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.

Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.

The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.

Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.

Chapter 14 at a glance

Intimacy, medical care, ransom, and burial

The obligation of intimacy depends on strength and occupation. The chapter distinguishes inability, vows, aversion, and deliberate refusal, with different consequences for divorce and property. It then defines the husband’s duties when his wife becomes ill, is taken captive, or dies.

  • The required frequency of marital intimacy depends on the husband’s strength and occupation, including the demands of his work and his customary periods away from home.
  • A binding vow against marital intimacy must be resolved within one week, or the husband must divorce his wife and pay her . Whether the vow takes effect depends on whether he attempts to prohibit his intimacy to her or prohibits her intimacy to himself.
  • According to the , a wife who cannot willingly have relations because she finds her husband repulsive is entitled to an immediate compelled divorce. She receives no payment, retains her surviving property, and returns what she received from her husband.
  • A husband who refuses intimacy while continuing financial support incurs a weekly addition to his wife’s . She may seek divorce, and his growing financial liability does not permit him to continue causing her distress.
  • On the first occasion, a husband must redeem his wife within the general ransom limit, even if the cost exceeds her or consumes all his assets. After redeeming her once, he may respond to a second captivity by divorcing her and paying her .
  • If the husband refuses burial, the requires him to reimburse someone who provides it. If he is away, the court sells his property without the usual announcements so that burial can proceed promptly and with the appropriate honor.
פרק יד

End of chapter.

You have reached the end of all twenty-four halachos.