Our Gemara on amud aleph records a spirited dispute between Rav Beivai bar Abaye and Rav Pappi. In the middle of the argument, Rav Pappi seems to have insulted Rav Beivai bar Abaye, implying that he makes faulty (short-lived) arguments because he stems from the House of Eli, who were cursed to die early.

 

The Shalah (Torah Sheb’al Peh, Kellal Peh Kadosh) tries to answer how such language could be appropriate. Regarding this particular insult, he says it was actually clever and pointed mussar, and not just angry rhetoric.  Since the descendants of Eli were cursed with shortened lives, and one of the known antidotes was studying Torah (Rosh Hashanah 18a), Rav Pappi was saying, “You, above all people, should be extra scrupulous in your studies in order to provide you with life saving counter blessings to overcome the curse.”

 

Once in the discussion of Talmudic insults, the Shalah also discusses a number of situations where the Gemara seems to gratuitously report unflattering events and behaviors of sages. The most notable example was Gemara Kesuvos (23a) reporting the capture and disgrace of the daughters of the great amora, Shmuel. The Shalah says, and I will try to translate it precisely because of sensitive and surprising nature of his position:

 

“The Gemara does not engage in flattery. It was for some sin that caused Shmuel’s daughters to be subjected to this, such as not giving them enough rebuke and moral guidance, and similar matters. It was meant as a punishment for Shmuel for this to be recorded in the Gemara for posterity. Because it was intended for that purpose, is not a sin, nor is it forbidden to discuss what happened. This is no different than Beis Din making a public ruling against a sinner.”

 

But, what then was Shmuel’s sin?  Shalah does not say anything specific and alludes to the possibility that Shmuel was lax in his chinuch.  Given that the Shalah gave us license to accept that there was some sin on Shmuel’s part, I believe the preceding daf in kesuvos (22) gives us a hint as to a specific sin:

 

The Gemara there discusses a situation where a woman told her husband that she was a niddah, and then later retracted.  The issue is, can we believe her retraction or must she go through a process of counting and Mikvah, as if she really was a niddah.  The basic halacha is that if she gives a credible explanation for why she falsely claimed to be a niddah, she is believed.  Notably, an actual incident occurred with the great amora, Shmuel, and his wife.  Despite her offering a good reason for falsely stating that she was a niddah, and it being permitted to believe her retraction, Shmuel was stringent on himself and required that she go through the purification process as if she were a niddah.  These halachos are codified in Shulkhan Arukh YD:185:3, including Shmuel’s middas chassidus.)

 

What was Shmuel’s wife’s reason for falsely claiming she was a niddah?  Tosafos (“Veafilu”) says she was physically weak and unable to be sexual. The Shittah Mukebetzes incredulously wonders, “Shall we believe that Shmuel would have forced his wife to be intimate if she was not feeling up to it?”  The Shittah offers a different explanation having to do with them being around relatives, and her rebuffing Shmuel’s amorous hints by using one of their secret signs that she was a niddah.  In other words, since she was in front of people she had a limited vocabulary to express that she was not comfortable to respond well to any slight romantic gestures, so she falsely gave him the secret signal that she was niddah.

 

Regardless of the Shitta’s interpretation, we see from Tosafos that Shmuel’s wife was reluctant to decline sex in a straightforward manner out of some fear.  As Shitta rightfully wonders, we should not believe that Shmuel would have forced her into anything, but we also know that sometimes sexual coercion and guilt is subtle.  Apparently, whether this was his wife’s imagination and insecurity, or if it was unconscious resentment on shmuel’s part, his wife was afraid to decline sex even if she was not feeling well.

 

I have seen couples who have suffered with years of sexual dysfunction due to trauma inflicted unwittingly.  Some women suffer from extreme pain during intercourse, which requires various forms of physical and psychotherapy once the nature of the problem is determined.  However, if a young newly married woman believes it is her duty to have sex and submits to many episodes of painful intercourse, she remain stuck with a traumatically induced aversion to sexuality, even years after the physical pain is gone. Through operant conditioning, a person can learn to hate anything, even the most fundamentally pleasurable experiences.  If you love chocolate ice cream, but every time you eat it, someone stabs you with a pin when you least expect it, you will soon develop anxiety and aversion toward your favorite food. Sex is no different.

 

Getting back to Shmuel.  I am going to cautiously and respectfully offer an interpretation, with supporting evidence.  If Tosafos’ understanding of why Shmuel’s wife lied is correct, we can surmise that there is some degree of culpability on Shmuel’s part for not being sensitive or attuned enough to her feelings.  He should have picked up on her fears so she would feel more comfortable being honest.  The Gemara and commentaries hint at this.  The very next daf (23) discusses how Shmuel was somewhat insensitive to the plight and dignity of women who were captives, and the Gemara implies that as a result and punishment, his own daughters were ransomed.  The events in Shmuel’s life described in these two dappim show the Gemara’s criticism of Shmuel’s lack of sensitivity, which for a man of such stature and middos, was considered deficient.  While I cannot prove that this was the Gemara’s point, the Shalah is clear that those incidents were a punishment upon Shmuel and recorded for us to know about and discuss.  To my thinking, these incidents in Shmuel’s life speak of the importance of recognizing that sexual coercion for women can result innocently from their shyness and a husband’s lack of attunement.