Meir’s responsa as well as in their content out-of an excellent responsum from the Roentgen
Rabbi Meir b. Baruch out of Rothenburg (Maharam, c.1215–1293) writes that “A Jew have to award his spouse more the guy honors themselves. If one strikes an individual’s spouse, you should getting punished alot more severely than for striking another person. For starters is actually enjoined to prize a person’s spouse it is maybe not enjoined so you’re able to award one another. . If the guy lasts in the hitting their own, the guy would be excommunicated, lashed, and you may endure the newest severest punishments, even toward the quantity off amputating his sleeve. In the event that their partner are ready to accept a splitting up, the guy have to separation their particular and you may pay their this new ketubbah” (Also ha-Ezer #297). He states you to a woman who is strike because of the their particular spouse try eligible to a primary separation and divorce and also to get the currency due her in her own relationships settlement. Their suggestions to chop off the hand from a habitual beater of their fellow echoes regulations inside Deut. –twelve, where the unusual punishment away from cutting off a hands try applied to a woman whom attempts to save yourself their own spouse in a manner in which shames brand new beater.
To validate ukrainian sД±cak kД±zlar his opinion, Roentgen. Meir uses biblical and talmudic issue to legitimize their feedback. At the end of so it responsum he covers the brand new court precedents because of it choice regarding Talmud (B. Gittin 88b). For this reason he stops one to “even in the truth where she are happy to undertake [unexpected beatings], she don’t accept beatings in place of an-end in sight.” The guy things to the reality that a thumb gets the potential to destroy and this if the comfort try impossible, the newest rabbis should try in order to encourage him to divorce their unique regarding “his own totally free have a tendency to,” but if one shows impossible, push your so you’re able to divorce proceedings her (as it is invited by law [ka-torah]).
This responsum is found in a collection of R. Simhah b. Samuel of Speyer (d. 1225–1230). By freely copying it in its entirety, it is clear that R. Meir endorses R. Simhah’s opinions. R. Simhah, using an aggadic approach, wrote that a man has to honor his wife more than himself and that is why his wife-and not his fellow man-should be his greater concern. R. Simhah stresses her status as wife rather than simply as another individual. His argument is that, like Eve, “the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20), she was given for living, not for suffering. She trusts him and thus it is worse if he hits her than if he hits a stranger.
But not, they were overturned because of the very rabbis within the later generations, beginning with Roentgen
R. Simhah lists all the possible sanctions. If these are of no avail, he takes the daring leap and not only allows a compelled divorce but allows one that is forced on the husband by gentile authorities. It is rare that rabbis tolerate forcing a man to divorce his wife and it is even rarer that they suggested that the non-Jewish community adjudicate their internal affairs. He is one of the few rabbis who authorized a compelled divorce as a sanction. Many Ashkenazi rabbis quote his opinions with approval. Israel b. Petahiah Isserlein (1390–1460) and R. David b. Solomon Ibn Abi Zimra (Radbaz, 1479–1573). In his responsum, Radbaz wrote that Simhah “exaggerated on the measures to be taken when writing that [the wifebeater] should be forced by non-Jews (akum) to divorce his wife . because [if she remarries] this could result in the offspring [of the illegal marriage, according to Radbaz] being declared illegitimate ( Lit. “bastard.” Offspring of a relationship forbidden in the Torah, e.g., between a married woman and a man other than her husband or by incest. mamzer )” (part 4, 157).
Leave A Comment