Specific Ashkenazi rabbis considered battering as the reasons behind forcing one to provide a great Writ regarding (religious) divorce rating

Meir’s responsa plus his backup from a great responsum by the R

Rabbi Meir b. Baruch away from Rothenburg (Maharam, c.1215–1293) writes you to definitely “An excellent Jew need award their spouse more the guy honors themselves. If one effects one’s spouse, you ought to end up being penalized so much more seriously compared to hitting another person. For starters was enjoined so you’re able to prize your partner but is perhaps not enjoined in order to prize the other person. . If the the guy lasts inside the striking their own, he will be excommunicated, lashed, and you will endure the brand new severest punishments, also with the the quantity out of amputating their case. In the event the his wife is actually willing to take on a separation, the guy have to split up her and you may shell out their particular brand new ketubbah” (Also ha-Ezer #297). He says that a female who’s hit of the their own partner was entitled to a primary separation and divorce and to receive the currency owed their own in her matrimony settlement. Their guidance to cut from the hands of a chronic beater from their fellow echoes regulations within the Deut. –a dozen, where the strange abuse of cutting off a give try used to a female just who tries to help save her partner in the a great way that shames the latest beater.

So you’re able to validate his thoughts, Roentgen. Meir spends biblical and you can talmudic material so you’re able to legitimize his opinions. After this responsum the guy talks about the new legal precedents for this choice on the Talmud (B. Gittin 88b). Thus the guy stops you to definitely “even yet in the outcome where she was happy to take on [occasional beatings], she usually do not undertake beatings rather than an end around the corner.” The guy what to the point that a hand has got the prospective to help you destroy and that in the event that tranquility are hopeless, the latest rabbis need to help you Nyttig kilde persuade him so you can split up her out-of “his own free will,” in case that shows impossible, push him so you’re able to breakup their own (as is greeting 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.

Although not, they certainly were overturned from the really rabbis inside 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 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).