In his responsum, Radbaz penned you to Sim

Rabbi Meir b. 1215–1293) produces you to definitely “An effective Jew must honor his partner over the guy honors himself. If an individual effects an individual’s partner, you should end up being punished a great deal more really than for hitting another individual. For one was enjoined to honor an individual’s partner but is perhaps not enjoined so you can honor one another. . When the he continues when you look at the hitting their unique, he are excommunicated, lashed, and you may suffer the newest severest punishments, also for the the amount regarding amputating his case. In the event that their spouse are prepared to accept a divorce or separation, the guy must breakup her and you may spend their own the fresh ketubbah” (Even ha-Ezer #297). According to him one to a woman that is hit because of the their own husband are entitled to an immediate splitting up in order to receive the money owed their particular in her own wedding settlement. Their suggestions to slice off of the give away from a chronic beater of their fellow echoes the law in Deut. –several, where in actuality the strange discipline off cutting off a hands try applied in order to a lady whom attempts to cut her husband in a way that shames the brand new beater.

So you’re able to validate their view, Roentgen. Meir spends biblical and talmudic procedure to help you legitimize his viewpoints. At the conclusion of it responsum the guy covers the brand new legal precedents for it choice on the Talmud (B. Gittin 88b). Ergo he finishes that “inside the outcome in which she is prepared to undertake [unexpected beatings], she do not deal with beatings rather than a conclusion in sight.” He factors to the fact that a finger gets the possible so you’re able to kill and that if the comfort was impossible, the latest rabbis should try in order to encourage him to splitting up their own off “his personal free commonly,” however if you to definitely proves hopeless, push your so you can separation and divorce their unique (as well as enjoy by-law [ka-torah]).

This responsum is found in a collection of R. Meir’s responsa and in his copy of a responsum by 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 Bizde Г§Д±kan Slovakya kadД±n 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.

Baruch away from Rothenburg (Maharam, c

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. However, they were overturned by most rabbis in later generations, starting with R. Israel b. Petahiah Isserlein (1390–1460) and R. David b. Solomon Ibn Abi Zimra (Radbaz, 1479–1573). hah “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).