In our Gemara’s analysis of responsibility to fulfill a wedding date pledge, they discuss different scenarios of unexpected delays. Depending on whose fault or fate the delay is attributed, it makes a difference in if the man becomes obligated in supporting his wife even prior to the wedding. Thus, if the wedding is delayed due to her becoming ill, the Gemara considers that he may still have to pay her support as if he was the one who became ill. Why? Because of the principle of נסתחפה שדהו which literally means, his field was flooded. In other words, since she is to become his wife and he is financially responsible for her, it is seen as his bad luck.

I recall learning this Gemara early on as a newly wed some 34 years ago, and it hits me now the same way it did then. When you marry, you have a shared fate. If something goes wrong for your wife and your urge is to blame her, the Torah perspective is to blame yourself and consider why this so-called bad luck is happening to you.

It is common sense that sacrifice is necessary in order to maintain a stable relationship. How can two people co-exist if they each need all their needs to come first begin the other? This is known as an interdependence dilemma, whereby the immediate self-interest to you is in conflict with what could be in the best interest of the relationship. What does current social and psychological research say about sacrifice and responsibility in marriage? 

According to researchers Melissa Hall and Joshua Hall ( Hall, M. (2011). Sacrifice and marital satisfaction. Retrieved from http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas11/Article_20.pdf ) :

“There must be some leaning towards pro-relationship transformation of motivation, which produces increased willingness to sacrifice (Van Lange et al., 1997). Transformation of motivation can become habitual and routine in couples. Some dilemmas or problems may be encountered regularly, and the couple may begin to respond to the problem in a habitual way. Some couples may get into the habit of behaving in a pro-relationship transformation, and other couples may have gotten into the habit of more selfish behaviors.”

How do these sacrifices impact the overall relationship? Does it increase overall satisfaction on both sides? Does it create resentment?

Hall and Hall report: “According to a study conducted by Van Lange et al. (1997), willingness to sacrifice is linked with high levels of satisfaction, couple functioning, commitment, and investments.”

In another study conducted, some of the results were:

• Higher satisfaction with sacrifice early in marriage predicted both that a couple would remain non-distressed over time and that individuals would maintain marital adjustment one to two years later” (Stanley et al., 2006, p. 297).”

• Sacrifice was correlated with higher commitment levels in the relationship.

Hall and Hall suggest that the reasons for this are that the more you commit, the more you are invested in the relationship and the more you have to lose if it fails. Secondly, this commitment leads to reciprocity, where each person anticipates similar sacrifices on the other person’s part. And finally, the commitment and reciprocity leads to more emotional attachment, with empathy incentivizing even more identification with the other’s needs and even more sacrifice. Not surprisingly, like many relationship and behavioral dynamics, the feedback loop becomes reinforcing where positive feelings and results encourage more positive feelings and results.

Trust and sacrifice affect each other in a circular manner. Trust is defined as a sense of reliability, honesty and consistency in the other. Sacrifice brings more trust, and trust brings more sacrifice.

Another interesting idea proposed by the authors is that sacrifice may come from either “approach” or “avoidance”. Approach is a wish for more attachment and love. Avoidance is more about preventing undesirable moods and responses. In Jewish philosophical terms think Ahava versus Yirah, worshipping from love versus fear. Not surprisingly, sacrifices made from a perspective of approach produced positive feelings, while those made out of avoidance provided temporary relief but led to resentment over the long run.