Our Gemara on Amud Aleph describes various situations where a wife may be bashful to ask for payments or property promised to her, even though it rightfully belongs to her. While in some ways, female and male patterns of behavior have changed in modern times, it is important to respect that there are also patterns of behavior that remain feminine or masculine for many people. These patterns need to be respected and not ignored.

Men and women have different tendencies and emotional defenses. Often, when men are frustrated, they may turn to aggression. When women are frustrated, they may turn to more passive forms of aggression. This is not always true, but it is a pattern of masculine and feminine behavior. Thus, if a woman feels angry or trapped, she is less likely to respond with aggression and more likely to take covert action, such as lying. The idea that women under pressure are more prone to evade the truth is not a criticism. It is an observation that the sages had, most likely coming from compassionately taking into account the fact that they often feel physically overwhelmed and threatened, and tend to react less aggressively than men do in a similar situation. This has to, in some way, affect how one behaves. It is just as much the man who contributes to the pattern as the woman, but nevertheless, it is a pattern that is important to recognize in a realistic manner.

We find a ruling in Bava Basra (49) that operates off a similar assessment of male and female patterns of behavior:

The mishna teaches that a husband does not establish the presumption of ownership of his wife’s field by enjoying its profits. The Gemara suggests: By inference, the husband has the ability to bring proof that he purchased the field from his wife or received it as a gift from her and consequently be regarded as the owner of the field. The Gemara asks: Why is this proof decisive? Let her say: I did it, i.e., I gave or sold the field to my husband, only to please my husband, but I did not mean it.

In fact, it is described within the Torah with both Sarah outright opting to lie out of fear (Bereishis 18:15), and Rivka engaging in subterfuge and manipulation of Yitschok in pursuit of obtaining a blessing for Yaakov (see the beginning of Bereishis 27), as well as hiding the real reason that Yaakov had to run away (Esau’s murderous rage) by making it about Shidduchim (End of Bereishis 27 and the beginning of 28). It is notable that there is not much commentary from the sages on their behavior, even though typically when a patriarch or matriarch is described by the Torah as sinning, it is mitigated with contextual explanations and justifications, such as by Reuven or Dovid Hamelech (see Shabbos 55b-56a). Yet, when it comes to Sarah’s or Rivka’s behavior, we are met with silence. I believe the reason is that it does not require justification; it is simply the way between men and women.

There are practical relational applications to this principle. As the person in the relationship who naturally tends to more aggression, it is incumbent upon the man to check and double-check if his wife truly agrees to something or is just feeling intimidated. Rabbi Shlomo Hoffman (שיחות על שידוכים ושלום בית עמוד 147-148) tells over that one Erev Yom Kippur, Rav Isaac Sher did not let him daven at the Yeshiva because he said, "You did not get permission from your wife." Rav Hoffman objected, “But I did ask her, and she said yes.” Rabbi Sher said, “That’s not mechilla! Any good wife would say yes under those circumstances! You need to ask her with real options, such as, “Should I go daven at yeshiva, or maybe I’ll daven vasikin and then I’ll watch the children while you go daven.” Rabbi Sher did not let me daven at the Yeshiva until I traveled back home and obtained "real permission."

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?)