Rabbi Simcha Cohen
Because a woman has a disposition toward partnership, she does not feel or think that she is doing her husband and children a favor by caring for them. She sees her efforts on behalf of the family as fulfilling her duties and takes this for granted.
But the husband does not regard his help around the house as something to be taken for granted. He considers himself a “volunteer.”
If you ask a woman on her way home from work where she is heading, she answers, “Home.” From her perspective, the word “home” indicates not only the direction in which she is traveling, but primarily the continuation of her family duties—various household responsibilities—at her second, third, or fourth job.
A man heading home from work will also answer “Home” if asked where he is going, but to him this means “to rest,” rather than “to do housework.” We can see the consequences of this difference when a wife asks her husband to do something around the house, especially something he is not accustomed to doing. He will carry out her request, but deep down he will feel that he has been disturbed during his rightful hours of rest. Intellectually, he understands that being married also places certain obligations on him: to be a partner, to care about what happens in the home, and to attend to it. Nevertheless, on an emotional level, this conclusion is nowhere near as obvious to him as it is to his wife.
The vocabulary men and women use also reveals the difference in their starting positions.
When a husband brings home things that are needed, he tells his wife, with a sense of pleasure and devotion, “I brought this for you, I bought this for you, I did this for you.” The words “I brought this for you” or “I bought this for you” reflect the pleasant feeling of a husband who sees himself as a “volunteer.” His statements about volunteering are a certificate of merit he awards himself for his good moral character and kindness: after all, he does so much for his wife and children.
They also serve as evidence of his capabilities: after all, he made an effort and did something for his wife and children of his own free will, even though, in his opinion, he was not obliged to do it. While a man enjoys considering himself a volunteer, his wife may be pleased with his participation in household affairs, but she finds the language of volunteering that accompanies his actions repellent.
So she protests: Why does he say “for you”? Isn’t this for the whole family—for you and your wife, for your children?! Her irritated tone makes it clear that his words do not merely seem illogical to her; they anger her, because she sees them as evidence that he does not feel obligated and is insufficiently attached to the family.
Let us briefly sum up the idea we are trying to convey.
A woman has a partnership-oriented mindset, so she feels a sense of obligation toward the institution of marriage in general and toward her husband and children in particular.
She feels that duty binds a person to the institution to which they are obligated, so she expects her husband to think similarly: to feel his obligations and thereby be bound to the family in general and to her in particular.
But when a husband expresses his sense of being a “volunteer” in one way or another, a woman may conclude that she alone feels a connection to him and the family, while he does not.
A volunteer, however, has certain advantages over someone who is “obligated.” After all, a volunteer does what he takes on with greater enthusiasm, because he acts out of personal motivation and an inner desire. The volunteer’s disadvantage is that he has no unbreakable bond with those for whom he acts and makes an effort, because his actions are motivated solely by his desire, rather than by duty. So when he wants to, he acts, and when he does not want to, he does not.
This reflects the fact that he is not a partner: he is less attached to his wife and family.
A wife who finds this nonbinding, voluntary approach difficult to accept therefore sees it as a lack of connection and responds with statements that mean: everything you do is for the family, and you are bound by obligations toward it just as I am.
The distinction between a volunteer and someone who is obligated allows the Maharal (Tiferet Yisrael 32) to explain why, after the people of Israel expressed their willingness to accept the Torah and said, “All that G-d has spoken, we will do and we will hear,” the Almighty nevertheless compelled the Jews to accept the Torah, and to that end “raised the mountain over them like a tub.” At first glance, what could be better than a people who accept the Torah of their own free will and on their own initiative?! After all, an action undertaken voluntarily expresses deep love, whereas an action performed under compulsion creates resistance and irritation in the heart of the person performing it.
The Maharal explains: it is wonderful when a person does something of their own free will; but there is also an advantage to a situation in which they are forced to do something, namely, a “connection” to the action being performed, since they have no option of stopping it. Volunteering does not have this advantage, because the action can be stopped. Since the Almighty wanted to create an absolute bond between the people of Israel and the Torah, a bond that could not be broken, He “raised the mountain over them like a tub” in addition to their “voluntary” acceptance: “All that G-d has spoken, we will do and we will hear.”