Marriage III: Nissuin

A Jewish marriage is created in two stages, beginning with kiddushin (halachic betrothal, which we discuss here). The marriage process reaches completion with nissuin. The term nissuin encompasses both the formation of a marriage and the ongoing state of marriage.

In this piece, we explore the nature of nissuin and how it is accomplished, and the respective obligations of husband and wife. (We discuss nissuin as a stage of the wedding cermony here.)

As a stage in the formation of marriage, nissuin is the point at which the couple form a joint household as husband and wife and become sexually permitted to each other. As an ongoing state, nissuin describes the couple building on the halachic bond formed through kiddushin, actualizing the marital relationship, and fulfilling their halachic obligations to each other.

A Joint Household

We find a first, important source for understanding nissuin in the Torah’s discussion of the laws of vows (Bemidbar 30:2-17). The verses distinguish between different stages of a woman’s life: in her youth in her father’s home, as a very young woman following kiddushin, and finally as a married woman in her husband’s home (beit ishah):

Though the Mishna clarifies that no one can annul the vow of an adult, unmarried woman,¹ the verses don’t directly address that case. Rather, they seem to presume that most women would marry very young and thus move straight from the father’s home to a husband’s.

Indeed, halachic sources on nissuin often describe the establishment of the marital household as a wife exiting her father’s domain and entering her husband’s for the purpose of marriage.

A husband generally acquires the ability to annul his wife’s vows only once she is considered part of his household, expounded here as nissuin:²

The husband’s capacity to annul vows derives from the marital bond. Thus, he can only annul those of his wife’s vows that are a form of self-affliction (which could potentially affect the household or the marriage) or that pertain directly to the couple’s relationship.³

Being a member of the household is similarly important with respect to a woman’s eligibility to partake in her husband’s teruma (a priestly gift, permitted only to kohanim and members of their household). On a Torah level, a woman who marries a kohen is entitled to eat from teruma as of kiddushin. Our sages decreed, however, that this entitlement take effect only as of nissuin, when a woman actually joins her husband’s household:

The assumption that the kalla joins the chatan‘s household may also reflect the halachic obligation of a husband to provide his wife with housing (which we’ll see below).

With nissuin, the couple establish a home life together. Their joint household becomes a framework for pursuing the central aspirations of marriage, whether sexual, procreative, or emotional. Ideally, nissuin brings to fruition a powerful intimacy between husband and wife.

An Intimate Relationship

The relationship formed by nissuin is so strong that the couple are thereafter considered close relatives. For example, a kohen is usually prohibited from coming into contact with a dead body, but a kohen following nissuin is commanded to tend to his wife’s burial:

The halachic understanding of “his relative” in this context is “his wife,” as expounded in Sifra.

The Sifra explicitly rejects the possibility that a couple would experience this level of relationship as of kiddushin alone. This notion of the marital relationship as intimate to the point of familial also arises in discussions of additional halachic aspects of death and mourning, and extends even to inheritance.

According to Rashi, the sexual aspect of nissuin in particular generates the level of familial intimacy enjoyed by a couple.

We’ve seen that nissuin is the point at which certain halachot relating to the marital household or to the couple’s intimacy begin to take effect. But when, exactly, does married life officially begin? In Halacha, the point at which a couple make the transition from kiddushin to nissuin is known as chuppa.

Our sages never definitively explain the term “chuppa.” Among its many possible definitions is ‘wedding canopy’ (discussed here). However, the meaning of chuppa as a halachic concept is broader and more complex.

Chuppa has halachic force as initiating nissuin, even when the couple have not yet had sexual relations, something the Talmud identifies as a key difference between Jewish and non-Jewish marriage:⁴

The Talmud infers from the Torah’s description of a young woman’s betrothal that nissuin is a distinct stage, one which takes place as of chuppa and does not depend on relations:

Defining Chuppa

What, exactly, is the wedding chuppa? We first encounter it in Tanach. A verse in Tehillim compares God revealing Divine glory to a groom’s exuberant emergence from his chuppa:

Conversely, the navi Yoel describes a situation of such gravity that a groom would need to exit his chamber and a bride, in parallel, her chuppa:

The root chet.peh.heh means to cover. From these verses we can infer that the Biblical chuppa refers to a private space for chatan and kalla.

Early halachic authorities offer a range of views on how to understand chuppa. These generally fall into one of two categories, each representing one of the essential features of marriage that we identified above, joining the household or inaugurating the intimate relationship (here, through yichud, often translated as seclusion or being set aside).

I. Joining the Household

In one of a few comments regarding chuppa, Rashi explains that entering the chuppa represents the kalla’s transition to the chatan’s domain. This may suggest a completion of the legal procedure and change of status (kinyan) that began with kiddushin.

This understanding of chuppa represents the kalla’s move to share a home with her chatan. Accordingly, Ran cites authorities who maintain that chuppa is accomplished in practice simply as a kalla entering her husband’s household:

Building on this view, chuppa could also be a space for chatan and kalla that functions as a symbolic home for them and thus represents their permanent home.

II. Yichud: Establishing Intimate Space

Chuppa can also be understood as anticipating or symbolizing marital relations, as Rashi notes in another comment:

This understanding of chuppa resonates with the view that chuppa is a couple’s seclusion, yichud, which is a preliminary to relations.

The question of chuppa during nidda (menstrual impurity) arises in this context because intimacy, whether sexual relations or even just seclusion, would be prohibited during nidda to a new couple.

Ri Migash rejects the possibility of chuppa taking effect during nidda. Ramban likewise prefers for chuppa to occur at non-nidda times, but he ultimately rules that chuppa can take effect during nidda. (We address the practical ramifications of this view here and here.)

For his part, Rambam takes this conception of chuppa a bit farther, integrating it with the view of chuppa as a shared household. He defines chuppa as the wife both entering the husband’s household and being secluded together with him, and stipulates that the seclusion takes effect only if relations would be possible.

Rambam adds that bedi’avad, after the fact, a couple can also effect nissuin by engaging in sexual relations for that purpose. In this case, he uses the term “kinyan” to refer to the halachic change wrought.

He seems simply to understand chuppa as the beginning of married life,⁵ including the expectation of relations. For this reason, a chuppa during nidda is a greater impediment for him than for Ramban.

Rambam’s acknowledgment of relations themselves as a valid alternative to chuppa seems to echo assumptions of another Talmudic passage:

The passage intimates that guests in a wedding share the tacit understanding that a bride’s entry into the chuppa represents her broader move towards sexual relations with her spouse. Aruch Hashulchan draws on this passage to explain the development and halachic force of chuppa in general:

For Aruch Ha-shulchan, nissuin could simply begin with the couple’s first act of relations. But since the marriage ritual entails a public component, chuppa stands in. Any type of symbolic act or ritual communally understood as representing the couple’s officially beginning to live together in an intimate marital relationship suffices. (We discuss more of the potential understandings of chuppa and the role of the berachot here.)

Whether the chuppa is understood simply as establishing that married life has begun or more formally as kinyan, whether independent or simply a completion of kinyan kiddushin can have implications for how it is performed.

Many halachic authorities, however, including Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (following an approach developed by his grandfather), view chuppa as the actual practical commencement of the marital state, and not as an independent, symbolic act (kinyan).

Rav Soloveitchik mentions one possible practical implication of his outlook: witnesses would not be required for nissuin to take effect, because it is more functional than formal. Even so, witnesses to chuppa are favored in practice, to cover all halachic views.

Nissuin is simultaneously a very personal emotional and sexual relationship, and a very functional arrangement for running a joint household. In this section, we’ll see how Halacha sets up a system of complementary rights and responsibilities, through which the couple actualize their personal and practical commitments to each other.

Some halachic marital obligations are eternal and unchanging. Others depend on societal factors, personal finances, or even the couple’s preferences. By exploring key sources, we can understand both the basic halachot and their application in various contexts, including our own society.

A Husband’s Core Obligations

The main source for a husband’s essential obligations to his wife is a Torah verse enjoining a man who marries a second wife not to neglect the first:

What are she’ar, kesut, and ona? All agree that ona, literally “season” or “interval” refers to the wife’s rights to sexual relations with her husband at regular intervals. This verse establishes on a Torah level that a wife has sexual rights to her husband, complementing a husband’s sexual rights to his wife.

There are two main interpretations of the rest of the verse:

I. Three Aspects of Obligation According to this understanding, the verse enumerates three distinct aspects of a husband’s obligation to his wife: sustenance, clothing (or shelter), and marital relations. In other words, he is obligated to continually provide for both a marital home and a sexual bond, obligations which echo the central features of nissuin.

On this reading, she’ar means flesh in the sense of meat, as a type of food, and kesut follows its literal meaning of “covering” or “clothing.” Rambam explains that kesut refers not only to clothing, but also to a place to live and its accoutrements:

Following this passage, some authorities maintain that a man who fails to fulfil any of these obligations to his wife violates a Torah-level prohibition:⁶

We translate mezonot (an explanation of she’ar) as sustenance, rather than just food, because it includes other forms of sustenance, such as a husband’s responsibility to pay for his wife’s medical expenses.

II. Intimate Obligations Alternatively, all three words might relate to intimacy. She’ar here would thus be connected to the term for relative (a different type of one’s flesh) that we saw earlier, she’eiro.

Ramban takes this approach and understands each of the three items in this list as referring to aspects of marital intimacy:

To Ramban, reading the verse as referring exclusively to the sexual obligations of husband to wife accurately reflects the view that a husband providing his wife with sustenance (mezonot) and clothing is a rabbinic enactment.

This reading of the verse emphasizes the centrality of marital intimacy to nissuin. ⁷ (We plan to discuss the husband and wife’s sexual obligations to each other in more detail in a future piece.)

In Family Redeemed, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik describes important facets of the marriage covenant. Three of them—sacrifice, pleasure, and procreation—find expression in the couple’s sexual relationship within the boundaries of Halacha. (An example of sacrifice would be abstaining during nidda.) Another two—cooperation and affectionate appreciation—come to the fore in their forming a joint household. We now turn our attention to them (leaving a closer look at the couple’s intimate relationship for a future piece.)

Cooperation between the couple is expressed by their fulfilling complementary duties. Rav Soloveitchik explains why this is significant:

According to Rav Soloveitchik, the couple’s assumption of halachic responsibilities to each other allows them to become a single economic unit.⁸ This undertaking has significant implications for their relationship, spurring them to move from a self-centered orientation to a cooperative one, uniting them as an existential community.

Moving forward, we will look at each spouse’s halachic rights and responsibilities, at how these halachot are understood today, and at their broader implications.

Let’s begin with a mishna listing some of the husband’s additional rights and obligations:

This mishna mentions the husband’s rights as well as his obligations, implying a sort of exchange. He receives the usufruct (fruits or profits, not including the principal) on his wife’s personal property⁹ in return for specific commitments. These obligations extend beyond maintaining a wife’s sustenance and include insuring that she is redeemed if taken captive and receives a proper burial. (A husband also has obligations to sustain his young children,¹⁰ and his estate bears some responsibilities after his demise.¹¹)

We saw above that early halachic authorities dispute whether the husband’s obligation to provide his wife with mezonot is rabbinic, or on a Torah level. If it’s a Torah obligation, it is fundamentally independent of her giving anything in return, and that connection is secondary. On the other hand, the mishna’s framing works well with the view that the husband’s obligation in mezonot is solely rabbinic.

The Talmud details a number of exchanges of this sort, whereby a husband gains certain property rights from his wife in exchange for his financial commitments to her:

A husband is also responsible for his wife’s ongoing personal expenses, which are likewise presented as an exchange—this time for a husband’s right to additional income brought in by his wife.¹² (We’ll look at her basic income when we get to discussing a wife’s obligations.)

These trade-offs are logical. If the husband bears the brunt of financing the household, then it stands to reason that his wife’s income should go toward the household treasury. If he assumes responsibilities for unlikely expenses, such as redemption from kidnapping, then it is reasonable to offset them with rights to less standard sources of income from his wife’s work or assets.

Though these exchanges might sound like a simple economic balance sheet, there is more to it. Their validity does not depend on each side contributing equal monetary value (e.g., on a woman’s handiwork covering mezonot expenses). More than that, the distribution of rights and obligations affects the general dynamics of a marriage, and not just its finances, as each partner contributes toward the greater whole of their cooperative economic union.

A Talmudic passage notes that assuming responsibilities without gaining rights to balance them could undermine the marital relationship. This same passage presents a way for the wife to opt out of this arrangement.

Is such a stipulation always necessary? Maharit, of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, raises the question of how marital property rights work when a woman’s income may far exceed her husband’s.

Maharit concludes that if a husband began married life by providing mezonot, then a wife who is the main breadwinner indeed must explicitly stipulate that she is waiving mezonot in order to keep her rights to her income.

The implication is that no such stipulation is necessary if she covers her expenses from the beginning of the marriage. When, in reality, she hasn’t been supported, she maintains rights to her own income.

In Practice

A couple interested in keeping their finances more separate during marriage should consult their mesader kiddushin before the wedding to explore the options, their scope, and implications.¹³

Couples generally do not pursue this course of action, however, because it is common nowadays for husband and wife to pool the bulk of their funds in a joint account. In this way, these issues can remain theoretical as long as the marriage is healthy, and the couple’s financial relationship can reflect and cultivate a broader spirit of interdependence.¹⁴

Halachot to ensure the wife’s sustenance were constructed with the woman’s financial security and “healthy family life” in mind, and some modern secular laws can promote those goals. The general halachic rule is that, whenever feasible, the wife’s material standard of living should improve with marriage, and not deteriorate:

We’ve focused on the obligations and rights of a husband upon nissuin. What about the obligations of a wife? The enactments giving a husband the rights to his wife’s handiwork or to her excess income presuppose that she produces things with her hands, or at least has an income. Does that mean that her labor is a marital obligation?

A mishna lays the groundwork for addressing these issues. It lists labors that a woman performs “for her husband,” but then goes on to note exemptions.

The labors that appear in this mishna are, for the most part, types of housework. Particularly striking is the inclusion of nursing a baby in the list, recognizing breastfeeding for the challenging and valuable labor that it is. (Elsewhere, the Talmud presents breastfeeding also as a wife’s right,¹⁵ and we plan to address this topic in a future piece.)

According to a simple reading of the mishna, when a woman can provide for household staff to handle these labors, she can be relieved of all of them. Even with servants, though, she should continue to work with wool, out of concern lest, as the adage goes, “the devil make work for idle hands.” A husband thus also is not permitted to prevent his wife from working altogether.¹⁶

We’ll see later that working with wool is more than a form of housework. It also represents a wife’s handiwork, which is counted as her basic, expected income. We’ll first explore the halachot related to women and housework and then return to discuss handiwork and income.

Housework

What is the significance of a woman performing housework? The Talmud Bavli connects her role with the Torah’s description of Chava as a helpmate to Adam:

On this view, a woman’s role as helper has religious value, reflecting the Torah’s ideal of marital cooperation. The prophet Eliyahu describes housework – producing bread and cloth – as one aspect of this help. Husband and wife pool resources to provide for the household, with complementary roles. He brings home the raw goods, and she adapts them for the household’s needs, forming economic union with deeper effects.

On the other hand, in its discussion of our mishna, the Talmud Yerushalmi sees no intrinsic religious value in a wife personally performing housework. Rabbi Bun suggests that the mishna allows for a woman to bring in workers to perform labors in her stead because these tasks can be degrading:

On this understanding, what matters is simply that the work gets done. Husband and wife can potentially complement and help each other in other ways.

Ramban explicitly rejects the idea that women performing household labor is a critical element of marriage. Rather, he views these tasks as a monetary matter, which explains why a woman can pay her way out of them:

Even when servants are not hired, the wife may be exempt from performing labor. Rather, “her being fit” to hire them suffices:

Rambam rules that this is not just a matter of the wife’s entering the marriage with significant assets or income.¹⁷ A wife is relieved of performing these labors as long as either spouse can afford to cover the cost of household workers, again, regardless of whether they actually hire them:

Regardless of whether household finances can cover these labors, the Tosefta maintains that a wife is only compelled to do them when they are customary for women in the couple’s locale:

That is to say, a woman’s responsibility for household labor from a halachic perspective is largely a function of the couple’s finances and of local custom.

Handiwork and Income

We’ve seen that a woman is expected to bring in income through her handiwork. So, for example, a mishna stipulates a minimum amount that a woman who must live apart from her husband would be expected to produce.

The minimum income is adjusted down if a woman is nursing. Rabbeinu Asher argues that any type of labor a woman might perform for the household lowers the amount of income she is expected to earn:

In modern terms, this would be like saying that a woman who has a large share of home and parenting responsibilities would be expected to earn less income. The amounts are no longer clearly set, but the interests of the couple’s overall cooperative economic union can still be served.

This flexibility about a wife’s income gibes well with the mishna enumerating a wife’s labors that we saw earlier. That mishna exempts a wife from working with wool if the couple had sufficient means, leaving it obligatory only as a measure to prevent her from sitting idle, and not as a matter of income.

What, aside from working wool, is a relevant form of handiwork? Rambam presents a full list, though he singles out spinning wool as the archetypal woman’s work.

A Woman’s Work

Rambam (and Shulchan Aruch,¹⁸who follows him) lays the groundwork for important rulings today concerning a married woman’s work and income. He establishes that where women’s drawing an income from traditional handicrafts is no longer customary (as in most of today’s industrialized world), a husband may not compel his wife to do any labor other than to spin wool.

Rambam’s position leaves open the possibility that if something else becomes accepted as women’s work, a wife who receives mezonot might be compelled to do it. Alternatively, he can be understood as ruling that a woman can never be compelled to perform any form of work aside from working with wool. The Rashba moves in this direction:

Following Rashba, in an era like ours, when women do not typically work with wool, but are otherwise occupied (often outside the home) and not idle, does a wife have a responsibility to earn income for her husband and household? Rav Meir Posner, in his 18th-century commentary to the Shulchan Aruch, argues that she does not:

Indeed, a ruling by the Israeli Supreme Rabbinic Court in 1958, drafted by prominent rabbis including Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and Rav Yaakov Betzalel Zolty, maintained that a husband nowadays cannot demand that his wife do other work aside from spinning wool, and noted that spinning wool is no longer customary:

Early authorities debate whether a woman’s earnings from work that she is not obligated to perform belong to her. Rashba places them in the halachic category of ha’adafa al yedei ha-dechak, ‘extra income earned through excess labor’, where, in his view, the funds belong to the husband. Ran disagrees, and maintains that the income does not fall into that category and unquestionably belongs to the wife:

A number of modern rulings, including this one from the Tel Aviv Beit Din in 1953, have supported Ran’s position:

To summarize what we’ve seen, a woman is no longer expected to work with wool, though she should not sit idle. A woman’s income can be seen as her own or as joint marital property, rather than being at her husband’s disposal as it once was. It is up to the couple to find their path to economic union within this changed landscape.

Rav Yaakov Ariel argues that accepted custom determines the usual disposition of marital property, but that, fundamentally, the husband’s obligation in mezonot remains in place, and that a couple reverts to it if the woman ceases to work outside the home:

Even where practical Halacha has changed, the fundamentals have not been uprooted, and a couple can arrange their marriage more closely along our sages’ original lines.

The shifts in women’s professional and familial roles, as well as in expectations at home from men raise serious questions. How do they affect a couple’s overall commitment to cooperation, and each other? Abby Lerner argues that educational frameworks must address the effects of these shifts on marriage, from the details of who does what, to the broader question of how to maintain a sense of a cooperative union that puts the relationship first.¹⁹

Labors of Affection

We began this piece by presenting living together and the couple’s intimate relationship as keys to nissuin. With the exception of ona, the rights and responsibilities that we’ve discussed so far seem focused on setting up on the couple’s cooperative union as expressed by establishing and maintaining their basic living arrangement. A special set of household labors assigned to a woman, however, seem to bring us back to more intimate aspects of their relationship.

Not even a woman with sufficient means to enjoy a life of leisure while others take care of the housework is exempt from these three labors. Nevertheless, a wife does not perform them when in nidda, which suggests that they reflect a special degree of intimacy for the couple.

The Talmud Yerushalmi questions whether a wife’s performing these labors is an obligation for her, or if they just fall upon her because it would be inappropriate for another female to perform them. The practical difference would be a case in which a male servant would be available for these duties:

The Yerushalmi resolves that a woman is obligated to perform these tasks as part of her marital duties, perhaps because these specific intimacies are important to the marital relationship.

Preparing someone’s drink (in today’s terms, their cocktail—or perhaps their coffee) exactly to their specifications, or setting up the marital bed, or affectionately cleaning off their skin (or running their bath) could be affectionate and intimate actions.

Rashi views these acts as a means through which a woman builds marital connection and cultivates intimacy. Nevertheless, he presents them as an eitza tova, good advice, and not as strictly obligatory:

Along the way, Rashi explains why the mishna enables a woman to be exempt from making a bed while the Talmud here describes it as something from which maidservants do not exempt her: the harder aspects of making a bed fall under the category of general housework, while the niceties of smoothing or turning over a blanket are considered acts of affection.

Tur and Perisha follow Rashi, and do not obligate a woman in these labors:

However, Shulchan Aruch rules that these tasks, as well as a wife’s performing other small services for her husband, are, in fact, obligatory:

In many of our communities, it is unusual for wives to perform these acts consistently for husbands. Rav Yaakov Ariel has articulated how distant these specific acts may seem to the modern couple, how rarely they are practiced, and how modern mores can align with our understanding of them:

Rav Ariel suggests that nowadays there are new obligations reflecting newer ways of showing marital affection, but he does not spell them out. Certainly, couples for whom it is meaningful for the wife to make their beds or to prepare the husband’s morning coffee—or the reverse—can continue this practice. The questions of what counts as affectionate labor today and how it should enter into a couple’s life remain unresolved.

Concluding Thoughts

The core elements of nissuin are eternally relevant. A couple create a life together, establishing a joint household and entering a sexual relationship.

The marital household forms a cooperative economic unit, within which the couple take responsibility for each other—for earning a livelihood and for the functioning of their joint home. Halacha prescribes specific, complementary, obligations for husband and wife, but also leaves significant room for flexibility depending on societal factors, the couple’s economic situation, and personal preferences for financing and running their home and cultivating intimacy within it. These rights and responsibilities point to, and can help to foster, a deeply interdependent relationship: