The beginning of the Megillah describes Achashverosh hosting a massive celebration for all those in Shushan, and at the height of the festivities, when the king was more than a little inebriated, he ordered his advisors “to bring Queen Vashti before the king wearing a royal crown, to display her beauty to the peoples and the officials.”1 Vashti’s refusal is seen as an act of rebellion against the king, immediately sparking fear it may inspire a feminist revolution throughout Persia. As a result, Acheshverus declares that she is to be banned from his presence. Another will be made queen in her place, and he goes so far as to issue a royal decree that wives are to submit to their husband’s authority.
In this regard, ancient Persian law differs dramatically from halacha, which would not necessarily have viewed Vashti as doing something wrong.2 The concept of moredet (a rebellious wife) has played a significant role in Jewish marital law for centuries. Rooted in the Mishnah and Talmud, this halachic principle was initially used to address the marital status and financial entitlements of a wife who refuses to have relations with her husband. Over time, rabbinic authorities debated and refined the legal framework surrounding it, and whether or not a husband would be required to divorce his wife if she acts in such a fashion.
The earliest discussions of moredet appear in the mishnah of Ketubot, which states that financial penalties are to be imposed on a wife who refuses to have relations with her husband:
A wife who rebels against her husband has deducted from her ketubah seven dinars per week, according to Rabbi Yehuda, or seven terapa’ikin per week, until her ketubah is depleted.3
At the level of the mishnah, it appears the financial penalties are intended to change the wife’s behavior and encourage her to have relations with her husband once again. It makes no mention of any obligation to divorce. However, the Talmud expands upon the mishnah by explaining there are two types of moredet. The first is a wife who refuses to have marital relations with her husband in order to cause him suffering but still wants to remain married to him, whereas the second is a wife who refuses marital relations because she finds her husband repulsive (mais alai).4 Whereas the mishnah clearly describes the consequences for the first type, it’s unclear whether they would also apply to the second.
The Talmud goes on to cite a debate between Amimar and Mar Zutra regarding what should happen to a woman who claims mais alai. Amimar says she is not forced to stay with her husband, while Mar Zutra requires her to do so. A story is then cited that seemingly proves the position of Mar Zutra. He once forced a woman who claimed mais alai to stay with her husband. She not only had relations with him once again but eventually gave birth to Rabbi Hanina of Sura. However, the Talmud ultimately dismisses the story by noting that the positive outcome was brought about by Divine providence, which could not be relied upon as a general rule.
The Talmud eventually states the following regarding a woman who claims mais alai:
We delay her gett for twelve months, and during those twelve months of the year, she does not receive sustenance from her husband.5
While the Talmud never fully explains the implications of the statement, “We delay her gett for twelve months,” the Geonim understood it to mean that after this time, the husband is obligated to give his wife a gett and can even be coerced to do so. In their eyes, it was clear that no woman should be trapped in a marriage to a man she finds repulsive. However, even this approach was not seen as sufficient when Jewish women, who did not want to wait the twelve months, began going to the non-Jewish authorities, claiming they desired to convert and leave their marriage. In response, the non-Jewish authorities compelled the husbands to give a gett, contrary to halacha, or simply freed the wife from the marriage. To prevent this, the Geonim made a takkanah regarding a woman who claimed mais alai, such that she would not have to wait twelve months to receive her gett. Her husband would be required to divorce her immediately and could be compelled to do so.6
The takkanah of the Geonim would continue in practice for centuries and was cited approvingly by early Sefardic and Ashkenazic authorities such as the Rif and Rabbeinu Gershom.7 Even those who didn’t necessarily accept the takkanah, like the Rambam, still ruled that a claim of mais alai could compel a woman’s husband to give her a gett. He writes:
A woman who withholds marital relations from her husband is called a moredet. She is asked why she has rebelled, and if she answers, “Because I am repulsed by him and I cannot willingly engage in relations with him,” her husband should be compelled to divorce her immediately, for she is not like a captive woman forced to engage in relations with one that she loathes.8
This was the practice throughout large segments of the Jewish world until Rabbeinu Tam (1100-1171) tried to put an end to it. In a strident teshuvah, he vehemently argues that the Geonim erred when they compelled a husband to give a gett when his wife claimed mais alai.9 He cites several proofs from the Talmud to argue his position, and declares that going forward, the practice of the Geonim should be rejected. Even though Rabbeinu Tam’s position disagreed with that of his older brother Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (also known as Rashbam) and possibly his grandfather, Rashi, who followed the approach of the Geonim, it would go on to significantly impact the halacha of moredet.10 In the centuries that followed, most Rishonim rejected the practice of the Geonim.11 The Shulchan Aruch explicitly follows in the path of Rabbeinu Tam and other similar Rishonim when it states explicitly that if a woman claims mais alai, her husband has no obligation to divorce her. The only consequence of the claim is that if he chooses to divorce her, she will lose her ketubah.12 As a result, the general practice has been that a husband is neither obligated nor compelled to give his wife a gett if she claims mais alai.
Nevertheless, over the last few decades, a shift has occurred in Israeli Batei Din regarding the claim of mais alai, in part due to teshuvot by leading authorities such as Rav Isaac Halevi Herzog, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, and Rav Ovadia Yosef.13 While batei din remain hesitant to coerce a husband to give a gett if his wife claims mais alai, they regularly rule that he is obligated to give her a gett. This approach has even been described as the minhag of many, if not most, Israeli batei din.14 However, it comes with one caveat. The claim is only viewed as valid if the woman can offer clear justification (amatla mevoreret) that convinces the beit din she does indeed find her husband disgusting and is not lying about it. Without a clear justification for her claim, there is concern that it may not be truthful and that she is offering it only because she desires another man. Under these conditions, requiring the husband to divorce his wife would, in a sense, be facilitating adultery.
To better understand the logic of mais alai, it is helpful to turn to Tosafot Rid, who offers a conceptual analysis of the issue. First and foremost, he notes that a woman who claims mais alai is not actually considered a moredet. Though she refuses to have relations with her husband, she is not doing so to punish him and, therefore, shouldn’t be seen as rebellious. Rather, there is something about him or the way he acts towards her that repels her. In a sense, she has no choice in the matter, and she shouldn’t be held responsible for it. If the situation were to change, she might want to be with him. Furthermore, Tosafot Rid argues that the reason a wife finds her husband repulsive need not be something all others might agree upon. He explains:
Many times, a woman finds her husband disgusting even though there is no obviously recognizable blemish. This is similar to one who cannot eat a food they hate and find disgusting. There is no way to force her.15
Just as a person may not choose what foods they find appetizing or disgusting, so too the same applies to sexual attraction. When a woman claims mais alai, all that is important is that she is able to convince the beit din her claim is sincere. Even if her husband disputes her claim, this does not automatically disprove it. Instead, it is up to the beit din to determine whether they find it believable. As a result, claims of mais alai can vary. While ongoing physical or emotional abuse would be clear grounds for obligating or even coercing the gett, she can even make the claim when the behaviors exhibited are far less problematic. For example, a wife might claim mais alai if her husband has refused to show her any affection or emotional support over a significant period of time leading to a total breakdown in the marital relationship.
In situations where the beit din views the claim as valid, it can impose a series of social sanctions intended to encourage the husband to give the gett without engaging in outright coercion. These sanctions, also known as the harchakot of Rabbeinu Tam, derive their name from being mentioned in Rabbeinu Tam’s original teshuvah on the issue of moredet. Though he ruled the husband cannot be compelled to give the gett, he suggested the alternative of social sanctions. Instead of applying direct physical or financial pressure to the husband, they would consist of isolating him from the broader community.
Because the Rema does not explicitly mention the use of sanctions when a woman claims mais alai, some later authorities hesitate to impose them. However, Israeli halachic authorities have repeatedly argued that there is no reason they cannot be applied even if the beit din does not explicitly rule that the husband must give his wife a gett.16 In fact, the Levush states this explicitly and is worth citing in full:
If the beit din sees that it would be to the benefit of the woman, such as in a case where she claims mais alai, and it is clear to them that the marriage is bad, even though the husband is not one of those who can be coerced to give the gett, the beit din is still able to place sanctions between them… to declare on every person that none are permitted to to speak with him, do business with him, to give him food or water, to accompany him, or visit him when he is sick, and other strictures as they see fit if he will not divorce and free his wife with a proper gett.17
Though the sanctions may be comprehensive, the Levush goes on to explain that they are not considered coercion because the husband can always move to a different community where they would not be in effect. In addition, they are not being targeted at him, rather they are directed at others and affect how they act with him.
While it is unusual for a claim of mais alai to be made in American batei din, that doesn’t mean it’s illegitimate or that it reflects poorly on a woman who makes it. Technically, a woman who claims mais alai is not even considered to be a moredet, a rebellious wife, because if her claim is sincere, there is little she can do about it, as she no longer feels she can have relations with her husband. Even if a beit din does not rule that the husband is obligated to give the gett, if the wife’s claim is believable, there are clear grounds to impose social sanctions on the husband until he gives the gett.
While it is the case that some midrashim portray Vashti in a negative light, we should try to have sympathy for her actions. As the Rambam wrote, no wife deserves to be treated as a “captive woman forced to engage in relations with one that she loathes.”