Yosé ben-Yoĥanan from Jerusalem says: Let your home be wide open and let the poor be members of your household; and do not converse overly with your wife. This was said regarding one's wife: all the more must it be so regarding someone else's wife. Hence the sages say that whenever a man converses overly with a woman he causes harm to himself, neglects Torah learning and ultimately will inherit hell.
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
9:
Having clarified, hopefully, the psychological aspects that must be considered in our discussion we can now turn our attention to what actually has been said. First we must note that our mishnah may be divided into two parts: firstly there is the original statement attributed to Yosé ben-Yoĥanan and then there follows an elaboration on his statement by the editor, an elaboration which includes yet a further development by 'the sages'.
10:
The original statement reads as follows:
Let you home be wide open and let the poor be members of your household; and do not converse overly with your wife.
We have already discussed the implications of the first two parts of this statement [see Avot028]. At first glance the third element, "do not converse overly with your wife", seems to be unconnected with the two preceding elements. However, it may well be that all three elements are interconnected. One of the most important social duties that are incumbent upon a Jew is hospitality. There is a baraita [Shabbat 127a] which declares this duty to be among the most important that there are:
Rav Yehudah bar-Shela quotes Rabbi Assi as quoting Rabbi Yoĥanan: there are six things whose profits a person enjoys in this world while the capital remains for him in the world to come: hospitality, visiting the sick, concentration at prayer, timely attendance in the House of Study morning and evening, educating one's children to study Torah, and always giving another the benefit of the doubt.
When it comes to a question of fulfilling the duty of hospitality the mistress of the home is also involved. There is a rabbinic opinion according to which the mistress of the house is less favourable to offering hospitality (probably because of the extra work involved). If we accept that the statement of Yosé ben-Yoĥanan is to be understood in connection with the general topic of hospitality then it would seem that he is saying that when guests arrive do not start a discussion with your wife on this matter, but just tell her briefly to prepare for them. The biblical example would be the way Abraham deals with just such a situation [Genesis 18]. Three guests arrive; Abraham begs them to accept his hospitality and then
Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, "Quick, three seahs of choice flour! Knead and make cakes!" Then Abraham ran to the herd, took a calf, tender and choice … and set these before them; and he waited on them under the tree as they ate.
Note how briefly Abraham speaks with Sarah on this matter.
11:
However, most of our sources do not make such a connection with hospitality, and they see our mishnah as making a blanket statement against chatting with women. Today we would consider most of these comments to be derogatory (but bear in mind the psychological considerations that we mentioned in the previous shiur). For example, Rambam comments that "it is well known that most conversations with women are about sex". When the commentator comes from a matrist background he will try to find a less derogatory explanation. For example, Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro suggests that the objection to chatting with one's wife might only apply when she is menstruating. But even the most matrist of commentators cannot evade or avoid the original patrist comment.
12:
One delightful incident is reported in the Gemara [Eruvin 53b] in which a woman turns the tables on a rabbi in this very matter:
Rabbi Yosé ha-Gelili once met Beruryah, the wife of Rabbi Me'ir, on the road, and asked her, "Which way is it to go to Lod?" She responded, "Foolish Galilean, didn't the sages say that you should not engage overly much in idle speech with a woman? You should have said, 'Which to Lod?!'"
13:
One last comment of the general attitude of the sages in patristic times to women. In a discussion in the Gemara [Shabbat 62a] one Babylonian sage, Ulla, says that "women are a separate people"! Even though he clearly means that as regards the topic there under discussion women are a law unto themselves, his choice of words is clearly patristic. There are, of course, myriads of alternative comments from sages living in a matristic ambience, comments which are speak very highly of women, but they are not the subject of our present shiur.
