Volume 16 Number 3
Produced: Mon Oct 24 0:45:08 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Naomy Graetz - Wife-Beating Article
["Dr. Mark Press"]
Wife Beating
[Michael Broyde]
Wife-abuse
[Isaac Balbin]
Wifebeating and Shivisi Hashem lnegdi tamid
[Yosef Bechhofer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dr. Mark Press" <PRESS@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 94 00:50:25 EST
Subject: Naomy Graetz - Wife-Beating Article
Nomy Graetz made a number of comments which require correction. She
asks "where Frenkel gets the "true" meaning of Rambam's statement in
Hilchot Ishut 21:10 of the use of plural meaning the Beit Din (the
court). If you look at the Migdal Oz (14th) century in his commentary
or even Rabad it is clear that it is the husband who is the referrent
depite the use of kofin (forcing her in the plural) be shot (a whip or
rod). Rabad says in his commentary on Rambam that "I never heard of (her
husband) beating her with a whip (if she doesn't do her duties); HE
(simply) lessens her food supply until she submits (presumably from
hunger)." (parentheses are my insertions) Thus Rabad understands Rambam
to mean that it is the husband not the beit din."
In fact, she is wrong on every point except for her comment on the
Migdal Oz (generally considered to be an insignificant commentator on
the Rambam in any event). That the Rambam is in fact referring to the
Beis Din and not to the husband is explicit in this halacha itself,
where he continues "and this matter is according to what the judge sees
is possible in the matter" as well as in the continuing paragraph where
he writes "if they awarded her the support due her...". The Ravad's
comment does not address the issue of who does the compelling; he merely
says "I never heard of the use of physical force (for compulsion) for
women but he can reduce his support of her needs and food until she
yields", meaning that the court does not involve itself but that the
husband can exercise his right not to support if she fails to fulfill
her obligations.
She goes on to quote Robert Klapper's question whether there are any
post-medieval responsa permitting wife-beating (I will not now discuss
the use of the term wife-beating for all physical punishment; Ms. Graetz
herself distinguishes assaultive from other contact) and quotes the
Sefer Terumat Hadeshen, the responsa of R. Israel Isserlein. However,
here again she misunderstands the meaning of the text. Ms. Graetz'
version is in quotes, followed by the correct translation.
" He is asked whether a man can hit his wife in order to keep
her from cursing her parents.
Answer: Even though Mordecai [b. Hillel] and R. Simcha wrote that
he who beats his wife, transgresses, and is dealt with very harshly, I
disagree with this strict interpretation. I base my interpretation on
R. Nachman b. Yitzchak who wrote that all was in order in the case of a
Cananite slave woman who was beaten in order to prevent her from
transgressing. He of course should not overdo it or else she would be
freed. Anyone who is responsible for educating someone under him, and
sees that person transgressing, can beat that person to prevent the
transgression. He does not have to be brought to court.{Responsa, #218} "
Even though R. Mordechai...transgresses(to this point she's ok) NONE THE
LESS TO PREVENT HER FROM THIS SERIOUS SIN IS CERTAINLY PERMITTED AND THE
PROOF IS FROM THE CASE OF THE MALE SLAVE WHOSE EAR WAS PUNCTURED AND
SERVED UNTIL YOVEL AND HIS MASTER URGES HIM TO LEAVE AND HE DOES NOT
AND HIS MASTER INJURES HIM THE MASTER IS NOT LIABLE AND RAV NACHMAN BAR
YITZCHOK EXPLAINS THAT IT REFERS WHEN HE WAS ALLOWED TO LIVE WITH A
SHIFCHA K'NAANIS AND HE INJURED HIM TO STOP HIM FROM TRANSGRESSING (since
the former slave is now prohibited from such relations)...
The Terumas Hadeshen goes on to say that one may strike anyone for whom
one is responsible to prevent him from a serious sin; parenthetically
one may note that various authorities understand this to be part of the
mitzvah of tochacha incumbent upon all of us (though others do not). The
Terumas Hadeshen does not assume that R. Simcha and he disagree but that
even R. Simcha would agree in this case.
Ms. Graetz then goes on to quote the Rosh but misses part of his main
point. Her paragraph follows:
"" Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, the author of the TUR, which is the
precursor to the Shulchan Aruch discusses the case of a man who was
insane. His wife was afraid that he might kill her in his rage. The
harsh answer given by his father, the ROSH (Rabbenu Asher ben Yehiel)
is: "we do not force him to divorce her because we only compel those who
are cited by the Sages as ones who are compelled to divorce. Rather,
let her persuade him (tefaysenu) to divorce her or let her accept him
and live from his estate."
Again, what the Rosh actually says is somewhat different. Her claim is
that the husband may become mad and be unable to legally divorce her,
that she knew of his condition before they married and thought that she
could live with it but now cannot and she fears that he might kill her
since when he is infuriated he becomes violent. He responds that she
accepted him, that he is not mad and that he will divorce her if she
returns his books or pays for them. The Rosh replies that in this case
the conflicting claims do not justify compelling him to divorce since we
should not add to those reasons that the Talmud offers for compelling a
get. (The Rosh is here referring to the position of the Baalei Hatosfos
that since a forced get is invalid we must be careful not to compel
gittin except in the cases where Chazal said to lest the get be invalid
and the children mamzerim). Not quite the version of Ms. Graetz! The
rest of her essay is replete with similar errors but I hope my point is
clear. Before attempting to make interpretations of the statements of
Rishonim and Acharonim (much less Chazal) one should study them with
care and know the relevant issues involved. In this case each of the
three Rishonim involved was significantly misrepresented, perhaps in the
interest of a particular agenda.
M. PRESS, PH.D. 718-270-2409
DEPT. OF PSYCHIATRY
SUNY HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT BROOKLYN
450 CLARKSON AVENUE, BOX 32 BROOKLYN, NY 11203
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Broyde <RELMB@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 94 18:26:50 EDT
Subject: Wife Beating
I think that the discussion within mail-jewish about wife beating is
completely "off base." Particularly so are the remarks of Marc Shapiro,
and both Hauts. This is not because their comments are untrue, but
because they lack a legal tone to the problem. I will attempt to
provide it. "Wife beating" as a legal issue refers to cases where the
law permits one to hit one's wife in situations where one cannot hit a
stranger. Thus, a legal system that generally allows the use of force
to prevent a "sin" and allows a husband to use such force against his
wife or a wife to use such force against her husband does not allow
either wife beating or husband beating. The trumat hadashen refered to
by the first writer is exactly such a case, and is discussed by him in
that matter (and I so wrote to her stating that). Jewish law allowed
the use of force to prevent a person -- wife, husband, lover, child,
stranger-- from sinning. To assert, as trumat hadeshen does, that one
may hit one's spouse to prevent her from sinning does not permit
"wife-beating." English common law until 1823 permitted a husband to
hit his wife for reasons that if a stranger was hit would be a crime.
Jewish law does not -- ever -- permit this. Marc Shapiro's citation to
a responsa that permits force in a marraige clearly proves this point.
It concludes that a husband can hit his wife to prevent a sin, and a
wife can hit her husband to prevent sin. WHERE IS THE LEGAL MANDATE
WHICH PERMITS WIFE BEATING?
In short, the mere citation of sources that permit force do not -- in
any way shape or form -- permit wife beating. I still await a citation
to a responsa that permits one to hit one's wife in a situation where
one can not hit one's brother or a stranger.
On a more general note, for those who have a tendency to cite the migdal
oz to prove a point in the rambam, one should be aware of the fact that
the migdaz oz is a vastly discredited commentary, which was typeset in
the rambam because people thought it was written by ritva; but it was
not. Shach CM 36:6 criticizes Maharam Alshakar for even quoting the
migdal oz. Shach states "I examined the migdal oz and saw that he wrote
in a confusing way, as is his style.... Is it not known that it is the
manner of the migdal oz to regularly reverse (*mehapech*) the words to
Jewish law (*divrei elokim chaim*)".
In sum, the halacha is clear and unchalleged. Jewish law does not
permit wife beating in any way shape or form. It does, according to
some authorties permit the use of force against one who is sinning,
wife, husband or otherwise.
I await a reply from Marc, Irwin, Rivka, and any others who have posted
assertions to the contrary. If in fact there are no sources that permit
"wife beating," that should be clearly aknowledged by all, and
assertions of contrary should be retracted by those who posted them.
Rabbi Michael Broyde
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 08:37:16 +1000
Subject: Re: Wife-abuse
| >From: Jeffrey Woolf <F12043@...>
| pointed out by others). HOWEVER, we ought to liberate ourselves from
| being too closely bound by careful reading of the Mishneh Torah
I would prefer not to be liberated from a close reading of the Rambam
when it comes to Halakha, and so I am opposed to such a sweeping statement.
| admit that:1) The Orthodox community IS dismissive of women (especially
| in the Haredi world)
The word `dismissive' is not defined. Dismissive must necessarily
be a relativistic term. Accordingly, unless we have statistically significant
evidence describing what the amorphous `Charedi' women consider dismissive,
and unless these standards are then correlated against the actions of
Charedi men, such statements are too broad-sweeping and not helpful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Bechhofer)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 13:33:12 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Wifebeating and Shivisi Hashem lnegdi tamid
I do not know who Dr. Naomi Graetz of BGU is and what her agenda for
writing this work on wifebeating in Jewish sources. I am sure that
some of my erudite friends on MJ may be able to refute some of the
sources she has amassed, but that is not the issue I would like to
raise here. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, I would raise the
following point even if all of her sources (as they may well be) prove
to be 100% accurate.
Indeed, I am also disturbed by Rabbi Shaul Wallach's posts on
marriage. Once more, my concern applies even if his sources as well
are 100% accurate.
First, as regards Dr. Graetz's work. It may indeed be that, say, the
Terumas HaDeshen allowed a husband to discipline his wife. It may be
that we are now more "ethical" in this respect. After all, Rav Kook
zt"l believed that at least in certain respects the world is evolving
to higher levels. Yet:
a) Is this how we present the Terumas HaDeshen to the world? More than
that - all our great Poskim whom she will cite - solely in the context
of one minute aspect of their personalities, and one which probably
does not reflect upon their personal behavior, Malachei Hashem
Tzevakos that they were. How can we present our Sages in this light
with not at least giving the background of their towering
righteousness and refinement?
I would submit that such a work is a Chillul Hashem of the highest
order! This is a point that should be overlooked - if one wants,
dismiss it as a result of prevalent zeitgeists at the time, and just
forget it on that account. If that is too difficult, then explain that
this is but a minor blemish - in your opinion - on the brilliant
record of our great Leaders. Anything else is a serious distortion of
our illustrious forebears and a grave misrepresentation.
b) As Torah Jews, EVERY act we do must be analyzed under the spotlight
and through the microscope of the following questions:
"Is this what Hashem wants me to do?"
"Is this act a Kiddush Hashem?"
"Will this act make us more of the Light unto the Nations that we
should be?"
I know these questions overlap.
They all stem from the same powerful verse:
"Shivisi Hashem l'negdi tamid."
(Please see the Rambam on this in Moreh Nevuchim 3:51.)
Can one have possibly have had these questions in mind when
approaching the issue of composing such a work?! The fact that one is
the Academic world is no "Hetter" to disregard these criteria!
I am not advocating distortions and coverups. Rabbi Rakkefet's
biographies come to mind as solid, truthful histories which place
things in their proper contexts and as good models.
c) Considering Rabbi Wallach's postings and the subsequent uproar that
ensued here, I came to a the following conclusion. The advice that may
be gleaned from Chazal is secondary in importance, and may well be
obsolete in current conditions. Perhaps!
At the core of a successful marriage - of a successful anything - are
these three questions. If each spouse constantly assesses their
behavior in this perspective, they'll be very well off without any
other advice. If they don't, all is lost regardless!
The body of MJ readers has become extraordinarily diverse. Doubtless
some will disagree with some phrase I have employed, although I tried
to be careful. Torah true Jews must - I think and hope - at the core
all agree with me that our goal in our activites was put best by one
of my personal heroes, Rabbi Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan zt"l:
When you come to the community of Israel, and you arise on
its stage - even on a political stage - call out to the
nation to renew its heart; to open its heart to Torah and
fill its heart with the love and awe of God (yes, in such
simple terms!). Let these clear and direct words,
uncomplicated by metaphor and free of criticism, be heard by
every beating heart. To know, educate, and clarify, that we
have but one slogan: Yir'ah and ma'asim tovim...
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 16 Issue 3
