Meir’s responsa plus their duplicate out-of good responsum by Roentgen

Rabbi Meir b. Baruch out-of Rothenburg (Maharam, c.1215–1293) writes one “Good Jew need award his partner more he remembers themselves. If one affects a person’s spouse, one should end up being penalized a great deal more honestly compared to striking someone else. For example is actually enjoined so you can award one’s wife it is not enjoined to help you honor each other. . If the the guy continues in striking their, he might be excommunicated, lashed, and you will sustain the severest punishments, also into the the total amount of amputating his arm. In the event that his spouse is actually ready to take on a splitting up, he need certainly to separation and divorce their own and you can shell out their the fresh new ketubbah” (Even ha-Ezer #297). He states one a female who’s strike by the their particular spouse try entitled to a direct separation also to have the money due their own in her matrimony settlement. Their suggestions to reduce off of the hands from a chronic beater out-of their fellow echoes regulations during the Deut. –12, the spot where the uncommon punishment out-of cutting-off a give was used in order to a lady exactly who attempts to conserve their unique husband in a beneficial method in which shames the latest beater.

So you’re able to justify his opinion, Roentgen. Meir uses biblical and you can talmudic issue to legitimize his viewpoints. At the end of that it responsum the guy discusses brand new legal precedents for this choice about Talmud (B. Gittin 88b). Therefore he closes that “inside the scenario in which she try ready to accept [occasional beatings], she cannot accept beatings in the place of a conclusion in sight.” He factors to the fact that a digit gets the possible to help you destroy and that when the comfort is actually impossible, the rabbis should try so you can convince your to breakup their of “his or her own free will,” however if that shows hopeless, push Brezilya kadД±nlar evlenecek your so you can divorce their particular (as well as anticipate 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 people were overturned by most rabbis in after generations, starting 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).