Eruvin 41
שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵין רוֹאִין פְּנֵי גֵיהִנָּם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: דִּקְדּוּקֵי עֲנִיּוּת, וְחוֹלֵי מֵעַיִין, וְהָרְשׁוּת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה רָעָה.
The Gemara cites a related teaching: Three classes of people do not see the face of Gehenna, because the suffering that they bear in this world atones for their sins, and they are: Those suffering the depths of extreme poverty, those afflicted with intestinal disease, and those oppressed by creditors. And some say: Even one who has an evil wife who constantly harasses him.
וְאִידָּךְ? אִשָּׁה רָעָה מִצְוָה לְגָרְשָׁהּ.
The Gemara asks: And why don’t the other Sages include one with an evil wife among those who will not be punished in Gehenna? The Gemara answers: They maintain that it is a mitzva to divorce an evil wife. Therefore, that source of distress can be remedied.
וְאִידָּךְ? זִימְנִין דִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ מְרוּבָּה. אִי נָמֵי, אִית לֵיהּ בָּנִים מִינַּהּ, וְלָא מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ.
And why do the other Sages include an evil wife? The Gemara answers: Sometimes payment of her marriage contract is very large, and consequently he cannot divorce her since he cannot afford to pay it. Alternatively, he has children from her, and he cannot raise them himself, and therefore he cannot divorce her.
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְקַבּוֹלֵי מֵאַהֲבָה.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to accept those afflictions with love, knowing that they will exempt him from the punishment of Gehenna.
יבמות סג, ב
אמר רבא אשה רעה מצוה לגרשה דכתיב (משלי כב, י) גרש לץ ויצא מדון וישבות דין וקלון Rava said: It is a mitzva to divorce a bad wife, as it is written: “Cast out the scorner and contention will depart; strife and shame will cease” (Proverbs 22:10
ועוד שם סג, ב
היכי דמי אשה רעה אמר אביי מקשטא ליה תכא ומקשטא ליה פומא רבא אמר מקשטא ליה תכא ומהדרא ליה גבא
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances when a woman is considered a bad wife? Abaye said: She arranges a table for him and arranges her mouth for him at the same time. In other words, although she prepares food for him, she verbally abuses him while he eats. Rava said: She arranges a table for him and then turns her back to him, displaying her lack of interest in his company.
בן יהוידע שם, ועוד עיין בן יהוידע על שבת יא, א
רָבָא אָמַר: מְקַשְּׁטָא לֵיהּ תַּכָּא וּמְהַדְּרָא לֵיהּ גַּבָּהּ. פירש רש"י שלא לאכול עמו. וקשה מה אכפת לו בזה תבטל במיעוטה ולא תאכל עמו?
ונראה לי בס"ד דהאשה אינה תובעת תשמיש בפה ורק ברמז והיה דרכם מקודם שהאשה מקשטת השלחן של אכילה במינים המרבים הזרע ומחממים את הגוף שתביאם עם מיני התבשיל על השלחן וזהו הרמז שלה שרומזת לבעלה על התשמיש וכמו שתיקן אדונינו עזרא הסופר ע"ה לישראל לאכול שום בליל שבת שהוא סימן ורמז על התשמיש בליל שבת כי השום מרבה הזרע. וזאת האשה הרעה מקשטא ליה השלחן במאכלים ומשקין המרבים הזרע ומחממים הגוף כדי לעורר בקרבו תאות המשגל ובעת שכיבתם במטה מהדרא ליה גבה שאינה רוצה שישמש עמה ולכן נקראת אשה רעה כי גורמת לו בזה שיראה קרי בר מינן שהבעירה בו התאוה ומונעת התשמיש!
Seems to learn it to be a metaphor for weaponizing sexuality and using it to tease and torture her husband.
משלי י״ז:טו
דֶּ֣לֶף ט֭וֹרֵד בְּי֣וֹם סַגְרִ֑יר וְאֵ֥שֶׁת מדונים [מִ֝דְיָנִ֗ים] נִשְׁתָּוָֽה׃
An endless dripping on a rainy day And a contentious wife are alike;
מהרש״א שם
קשה אשה רעה כיום סגריר שנאמר כו' משום דלכאורה בקרא מדמה אשה רעה לדלף הטורד ויום סגריר לא נקט אלא דאז הדלף טורד בבית ואמר דאינו כן אלא דעיקר הדמיון ליום סגריר שא"א לצאת לחוץ ביום ברד ורוח ולהנצל מו הדלף הטורדו בבית כן האשה רעה א"א להנצל ממנה ולצאת מחוץ לבית כל שעה כדלקמן אשר לא יוכלו לצאת ממנה זו אשה רעה וכיוצא בו אמר טוב לשבת על פנת גג מאשת מדנים וגו' דהיינו בבית א"א להנצל ממנה אם לא על פנת הגג
ערוך השולחן קי״ט:ז
וכן אשה רעה לבעלה כגון שמקללת אותו או מצערת אותו שלא לאכול עמו וכיוצא בזה שמקבל צער ממנה גם בזיוג ראשון מצוה לגרשה שנאמר (משלי כ״ב:י׳) גרש לץ ויצא מדון וקשה אשה רעה כיום סגריר (יבמות ס"ג:) והוא יום ברד ורוח שנאמר (שם כ"ז) דלף טורד ביום סגריר ואשת מדנים נשתוה וכל אלו הדברים לכתחלה
A couple of points:
- It seems Ben Yehoyada defines an אשה רעה as someone who weaponizes sex.
- It seems that there are circumstances where one is permitted to divorce or even should divorce, but must stay due to financial considerations or child care.
I think it is important to analyze and generalize some of these ideas expressed by these Gemaras because it is easy to use or misuse general statements of chazal to reinforce self-rationalization. After all, let’s get one thing clear and out of the way, the Torah is described as דְּרָכֶ֥יהָ דַרְכֵי־נֹ֑עַם וְֽכָל־נְתִ֖יבוֹתֶ֣יהָ שָׁלֽוֹם׃ Her ways are pleasant ways, And all her paths, peaceful.(משלי ג:י״ז) so the upshot of any teaching cannot be to cause misery and suffering.
The challenge here is that the Gemara is not coincidentally in the same position as a couples therapist. If you try to bring out the side of one party with the best of intentions, often the other party feels like you are biased against them. Any Gemara about Middos and human nature is subject to many qualifications and circumstances. Having said this Introduction, let us try to understand what this Gemara might be saying and what it probably is not saying.
There is a relationship where a person uses withholding sexuality as a form of emotional blackmail. Obviously this is an unhealthy relationship and needs a resolution. At the same time, there are many circumstances where a person is traumatized, hurt or feels unsafe emotionally and that being sexual is damaging. The rabbis were obviously not referring to such a situation. And, even in the scenario where there is spite, there might be history behind that behavior. It doesn’t excuse the behavior but it does mean that every effort needs to be made to get to the bottom of the problem.
Regarding item number two, where the Gemara discusses both the imperative to get divorced and the situation that might compel a person to stay, it would seem that we can extract some universal principles from it. It also is reasonable to say that if the principles sees universal than they may apply to both genders, despite being expressed according to one gender’s viewpoint.
The two universal principles seem to be: (1) If an impossible and intractably cruel situation cannot be resolved, even if it does not involve physical abuse, it is not considered improper to divorce. (2) If there are substantial financial needs or emotional needs of the children, and one feels compelled to stay the correct attitude is to consider it a form of suffering and penance.
I would like to add a psychological footnote to item number two: There are times when encounter spouses who see themselves as “righteous” and “suffering under the tyranny of an immature or difficult spouse.” Now, I am not saying such scenarios aren’t possible, they obviously are and the Gemara is referring to such as case. However, in my experience the majority of the situations such as this involve a spouse whose own behavior is a significant factor in the difficulty, and instead of looking inward at the causes, takes on his or her suffering like a martyr. It is far easier to live an entire life suffering as a martyr than it is to experience one painful moment of self-honesty and introspection. It is easier to die al piy kiddush Hashem than it is live that way, and it is easier to be miserable with mesiras nefesh than it is to be happy or honest with mesiras nefesh.
for Video Shiur click here to listen: Psychology of the DAF Eruvin 41
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)