Meir’s responsa as well as in his backup off a great responsum of the R
Rabbi Meir b. Baruch away from Rothenburg (Maharam, c.1215–1293) writes you to definitely “Good Jew need honor their spouse more than he remembers themselves. If one strikes your partner, you should end up being penalized a lot more honestly compared to hitting another individual. For just one are enjoined in order to honor one’s wife it is not enjoined so you can honor each other. . If the he continues from inside the hitting their particular, he are going to be excommunicated, lashed, and you will suffer this new severest punishments, actually towards extent off amputating his sleeve. If their spouse was willing to undertake a breakup, the guy have to separation their and you will pay their particular brand new ketubbah” (Actually ha-Ezer #297). He says you to definitely a female that is strike because of the their unique partner is permitted a primary divorce or separation and to receive the currency owed their unique inside her wedding payment. His information to cut off of the hand out-of a habitual beater of his fellow echoes the law when you look at the Deut. –twelve, where the strange abuse from cutting off a give is actually used to help you a lady whom attempts to cut her partner from inside the good method in which shames the latest beater.
In order to justify his viewpoint, R. Meir uses biblical and talmudic situation so you can legitimize their feedback. At the conclusion of which responsum the guy covers the new legal precedents for this decision on Talmud (B. Gittin 88b). Hence he ends that “despite the scenario where she is actually willing to undertake [periodic beatings], she never undertake beatings instead a finish in sight.” The guy factors to the truth that a little finger has got the potential so you can kill and therefore in the event that tranquility was impossible, this new rabbis need to persuade your to help you breakup their own from “his very own totally free usually,” however if one to shows impossible, force your to breakup their own (as is welcome legally [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.
Yet not, these were overturned of the very rabbis when you look at the later years, starting with R
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 https://brightwomen.net/tr/turk-kadinlari/ 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).