Meir’s responsa as well as in his duplicate regarding a beneficial responsum of the Roentgen
Rabbi Meir b. Baruch away from Rothenburg (Maharam, c.1215–1293) writes one to “A Jew need to award their spouse more he remembers themselves. If one affects an individual’s partner, you will need to be punished far more really than for striking someone else. For one are enjoined in order to award one’s wife it is perhaps not enjoined so you’re able to honor the other person. . In the event the the guy persists in the hitting their own, he are excommunicated, lashed, and you can sustain the newest severest punishments, even towards the the quantity out-of amputating his arm. If their wife was ready to deal with a breakup, the guy must separation and divorce their and you can spend her the new ketubbah” (Actually ha-Ezer #297). He states one to a lady who is hit by the her spouse are permitted a direct separation and get the money owed her within her relationships settlement. Their pointers to slice off of the hands away from a chronic beater from his other echoes what the law states from inside the Deut. –12, the spot where the strange discipline out of cutting-off a hands are applied to a woman just who attempts to help save their partner for the an effective method in which shames this new beater.
So you’re able to validate their view, Roentgen. Meir spends biblical and talmudic material to legitimize his viewpoints. At the end of it responsum he discusses the Finsk datingtjenester for kvinner brand new legal precedents because of it decision on Talmud (B. Gittin 88b). Thus he stops one to “even yet in the way it is in which she was ready to deal with [periodic beatings], she don’t take on beatings versus an end around the corner.” The guy items to the truth that a fist has the prospective to eliminate and therefore in the event that peace are impossible, brand new rabbis need to help you persuade your to divorce proceedings their out of “his or her own totally free often,” however, if one to demonstrates impossible, force him in order to divorce their particular (as is greet 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.
Yet not, these people were overturned by most rabbis in the after 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 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).
