The Kollel wrote-

>>The Gemara records stories about Tana'im and Amora'im who left their homes to learn Torah for twelve years. The MAHARSHA explains that the Mishnah in Avos (5:21) states that a person is enjoined to get married at the age of eighteen, and the peak of his strength is at age thirty. Since a person learns best after he is married (Yevamos 62b), the best time to set aside for learning Torah are those years between eighteen and thirty.<<

This is great in terms of his learning Torah. But what about his wife and children left without a husband and father for 12 years? Are we "somach al ha nes" that they will not be emotionally impaired by his absence? Derech hateva we know that this is not certainly not a healthy situation for a family?

Would it not be better (in terms of the overall picture ) for him to marry after the 12 years of limud?

Reuven Miller

In answer to this query, there would appear to be in fact three main issues:

1) The wife's entitlement to conjugal relations ("Onah") which includes his company and attention.

2) His Mitzvah of procreation ("P'ru u'R'vu") and its subsidiary obligations of "l'Erev Al Tanech Yadecha...."

3) His duty of Chinuch as a father ("v'Shinantem Levanecha," etc.).

As to the first issue, the Gemara (Kesuvos 61b) says that "the Talmidim may leave home to learn Torah without Reshus for thirty days.... How long is it acceptable (Orcha d'Milsa) for them to go with Reshus? Rav says one month here [in the Yeshiva] and one month at home..." (see there, and see Rashi DH Orcha and Tosfos DH Ela). See also the Gemara (62b) in which Rav Ada bar Ahavah (in the name of Rav) says that the Mishnah is the view of Rebbi Elazar, but the Chachamim say that the Talmidim may leave home for two or three years without Reshus, and see the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ishus 14:2) and SHULCHAN ARUCH (EH 76:5) who rule like Rav Ada bar Ahavah. See also the ROSH there (#29) who says that the Rif argues and rules like Rebbi Elazar (and so clearly rules the TOSFOS RID in the margin of the Gemara). The Rosh also adds in the name of the RAMAH that even though the Halachah follows the view of the Chachamim (that one may leave home for two or three years), it is not proper to leave one's wife for so long.

The logic behind this is that even though one has clear obligations to one's wife as specified in the Kesuvah and in the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 12:1 et seq.), which prevent him from neglecting her, nonetheless the centrality and paramountcy of Limud ha'Torah override this, to a limited extent, each according to his level. The rationale for this can be understood by realizing that his growth in Torah enhances his, and consequently their, marital status.

Rashi (beginning of 62a) points out (as well as the RAMAH cited by the Rosh as mentioned above) that "Orcha d'Milsa" restricts this, "Derech Eretz she'Lo Yisa Alav Chet" -- so that his departure should not contain any wrongdoing. Tosfos there explain that the cases of Rebbi Akiva and the other great figures can be distinguished, for "in those cases it was not done against their [wives'] will, but their wives were filled with joy that their husbands were going to learn Torah and to become Talmidei Chachamim, and, on the contrary -- it was only on this condition, that they go away to learn Torah, that they married them."

Those unique cases, though, are not for general imitation. They relate only to people of the highest level of spiritual development, far higher than we could possibly reach today. This refers both to the husband and to the wife, as he cannot leave her for an extended period beyond the permitted maximum (referred to above) without her complete consent willingly given.

As to the second issue of "P'ru u'R'vu," see RAMBAM (Hilchos Ishus 15:1), BEIS SHMUEL (EH 1:1 and 76:7), TAZ (1:1), and others, so that the basic rule is that if he has not had children yet his wife's permission will not release him at all. However, one whose soul yearns to learn Torah ("Nafsho Chashkah ba'Torah"), or one who fears that getting married will cause him to be burdened with providing sustenance for the family, is permitted to delay fulfilling the Mitzvah of "P'ru u'R'vu." See RAMBAM (Hilchos Ishus 15:2-3) and Lechem Mishnah there. This applies only to someone, like Ben Azai, whose Yetzer ha'Ra is not overpowering him, and this is virtually non-existent in our days.

We are not told in the cases in the Gemara whether the great Tana'im had already fulfilled the Mitzvah of "P'ru u'R'vu." Maybe they had. Certainly, Rebbi Akiva seems to have had a son from an earlier marriage, and Rebbi Chananya ben Chachinai had a daughter, and Rebbi Chama bar Bisa had a son. If they had not, perhaps they married in order to have "Pas b'Salo" so that their Yetzer would not overpower them.

As to the third issue, various possibilities exist. First, their children may have been very young and not yet required their fathers' educational impact. Second, they may have arranged with others to look after their children satisfactorily. Third, with such Tzadkaniyos as mothers, perhaps those women were perfectly capable of looking after them properly. Fourth, the Chinuch by example of sacrificing their lives for learning Torah and their Siyata d'Shmaya which goes with this, may have sufficed.

As to the final question, would it not have been better to postpone the marriage until after the twelve years, it is apparent according to the foregoing that this may not have been possible for (a) the reason of "P'ru u'R'vu" (see second issue above and references quoted), and (b) the reason of "Yitzro Misgaber Alav" and "Hirhurim," see above regarding "Pas b'Salo," etc., [and (c), the MAHARSHA himself points out that by the age of thirty, one becomes "Metupal b'Banim" (i.e. the responsibility of looking after the children becomes heavy), so he obviously assumed there were children who would need much attention then, but not so much previously. It is also apparent from the Maharsha that at least in the case of Rebbi Oshiya, the son of Rebbi Chama bar Bisa, he had his grandfather to teach him thoroughly while his father was away].

There is no problem with the neglect of the wives following what we wrote above at the end of the first issue, especially according to the Tosfos (beginning of 62a).

Kol tuv,

Joseph Pearlman

JP:ys