Meir’s responsa as well as in their duplicate off a responsum by the Roentgen
Rabbi Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg (Maharam, c.1215–1293) writes you to definitely “A Jew must honor his partner over he remembers himself. If an individual effects a person’s wife, you should become penalized significantly more really than for striking someone. For just one is actually enjoined in order to award an individual’s wife it is perhaps not enjoined in order to prize the other person. . In the event that the guy continues for the hitting their particular, the guy should be excommunicated, lashed, and you can sustain brand new severest punishments, even with the the total amount out-of amputating their sleeve. If his spouse is happy to deal with a split up, he need to divorce their own and you can spend their this new ketubbah” (Even ha-Ezer #297). He says one a woman who is struck because of the their own partner is actually entitled to a primary breakup and to receive the money owed their in her own relationship settlement. Their information postimyynti morsiamen hinta to cut off of the hands away from a habitual beater away from his other echoes what the law states for the Deut. –12, where the strange punishment regarding cutting-off a hands try used to a lady whom tries to cut their particular husband during the a way that shames the brand new beater.
To help you justify their advice, Roentgen. Meir spends biblical and you may talmudic question so you can legitimize his views. After this responsum he talks about brand new legal precedents for this decision from the Talmud (B. Gittin 88b). Ergo he finishes you to definitely “despite the scenario in which she try willing to take on [unexpected beatings], she try not to accept beatings as opposed to an end in sight.” He points to the point that a hand has the prospective to help you eliminate hence if the serenity was impossible, the fresh rabbis should try so you’re able to convince your to separation and divorce their unique away from “his personal 100 % free have a tendency to,” but if you to definitely proves hopeless, push your in order to split up their (as it is welcome 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.
However, they were overturned of the extremely rabbis for the later on years, 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).