Meir’s responsa and also in his backup out of a great responsum by the Roentgen

Rabbi Meir b. Baruch out of Rothenburg (Maharam, c.1215–1293) produces one to “An excellent Jew need honor their wife more than he remembers themselves. If a person influences a person’s spouse, you will need to be punished even more really than for striking someone. For 1 is actually enjoined to prize a person’s spouse but is not enjoined so you can honor each other. . If the guy persists inside the hitting their own, the guy should be excommunicated, lashed, and you can endure this new severest punishments, even to the the amount of amputating his sleeve. In the event that their partner was willing to take on a divorce proceedings, he need split up their particular and you may pay their own the latest ketubbah” (Also ha-Ezer #297). According to him that a female who’s struck of the their unique partner is entitled to a primary split up and to receive the currency owed their unique in her marriage settlement. His information to reduce from the hand out-of a chronic beater away from his fellow echoes the law when you look at the Deut. –a dozen, in which the unusual punishment out-of cutting-off a hand is used to help you a lady just who tries to rescue their spouse from inside the a good manner in which shames brand new beater.

To help you justify their view, R. Meir spends biblical and you can talmudic procedure so you can legitimize their views. At the conclusion of which responsum the guy talks about brand new court precedents for it decision in the Talmud (B. Gittin 88b). Hence the guy concludes one “even yet in happening where she was happy to undertake [periodic beatings], she usually do not accept beatings rather than a finish coming soon.” The guy factors to the reality that a fist gets the potential so you can kill and that in the event that comfort is actually hopeless, the brand new rabbis should try in order to encourage him so you’re able to divorce or separation her out-of “his or her own totally free tend to,” but if you to shows hopeless, force him to help you divorce proceedings their particular (as is invited for legal reasons [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 lГ¶ydГ¤ tГ¤mГ¤ täältГ¤ him and thus it is worse if he hits her than if he hits a stranger.

Although not, these people were overturned by most rabbis during the afterwards years, 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).