Volume 15 Number 80
Produced: Tue Oct 18 0:38:42 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Rambam and Wifebeating
[Gad Frenkel]
Rambam and wifebeating
[David Kaufmann]
Role of Women - reply to Rivka Haut
[Shaul Wallach]
Wifebeating
[Robert Klapper]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gad Frenkel <0003921724@...>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 11:52 EST
Subject: Re: Rambam and Wifebeating
Rivka Haut states (Vol. 15 #68):
>Relying on selected quotes from the Rambam while hiding others is
>not an honest tactic. Rambam, Hilcot Ishut 21:10 states: "Any woman who
>refrains from performing those duties which she is obligated to perform, may
>be forced to do so even by the use of a whip." I once was called by a
>distraught woman who had just been beaten by her husband. She asked me to
>supply rabbinic sources to help her convince him that he was acting in
>violation of halakhah. Unfortunately, I had to inform her that while there
>were respected sources prohibiting wife beating, there were also eminent
>sources, including Rambam, permitting it. As her husband was a Sephardi, he
>would be likely to justify his attitude by citing the Rambam.
> Would Wallach, in his reliance on the Rambam, recommend the Rambam's
>approach to wife beating?
Misinterpreting the Rambam to advance one's own cause or agenda is also
"not an honest tactic":
Ms Haut has chosen to interpret the Rambam as giving the husband
authority to beat his reluctant wife. The Rambam uses the plural word
for force (Heb. Kofin), meaning that THEY, the Bais Din (court) can
exercise its authority.
The true meaning of the Rambam is that the court has the ability to
decide whether a person has fulfilled the implicit responsibilities of a
relationship that they contractually enter into with another person. If
a woman refrains from performing her duties, the Bais Din may choose to
use its police (Heb. Shot-rim) powers, including the use of a strap (
Heb. Shoot) to compel her to do so.
Similarly, if a man refuses to provide his wife with his responsiblity
of food, the court may choose to compel him, even by means of the Shoot.
It is also interesting to note that the prevalent opinion is that court
should not use its police powers of physical force on women.
To say that the Rambam has "an approach to wife beating" is misleading
and an affront to the honor of the Rambam.
Gad Frenkel & David Kramer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Kaufmann <kaufmann@...>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 94 22:24:27 CDT
Subject: Re: Rambam and wifebeating
>Rivka Haut writes:
[Material already quoted in this issue]
While I applaud Rivka Haut's work with AGUNAH (and agree that more
needs to be done), I think perhaps she should have applied her first
sentence to the situation of the "distraught woman." First, I doubt
the woman in question fell into the category described by Rambam.
Second, selective interpretation is as bad as selective quotation:
have the mephorshim been consulted on this halacha? Many times a
statement _appears_ to mean one thing but must, by narrative as well
as halachic grounds, mean something else (eye for an eye, for
example). Third, that the husband would justify his attitude by citing
the Rambam does not mean he has correctly understood the Rambam, or
even that the Rambam would agree.
I think it's dangerous to label the halacha as an "approach to wife
beating" or to assume that a cursory reading gives one insight into
the Rambam's actual approach to the subject.
Finally, as one could as easily find a quote from the Rambam saying
the _husband_ should be beaten for abusing his wife, I suspect that no
quotation would have helped the situation.
Again, I support Rivka Haut's position. I just think the Rambam's
halacha is mischaracterized; I also think he'd probably support her
position as well.
David Kaufmann INTERNET: <kaufmann@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shaul Wallach <F66204@...>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 20:56:42 IST
Subject: Role of Women - reply to Rivka Haut
Rivka Haut has posted a bitter critique of the guidelines we have
suggested for a successful Jewish marriage. In particular, based on her
experience with agunot, she claims instead that a "hierarchal" attitude
on the part of the husband that he is the "authority" and his wife
should be "obedient" is "often a recipe for disaster."
Before answering this directly, let me emphasize that in no way do
I condone the present treatment of the Aguna problem either in Israel or
abroad. It is a great Hillul Hashem, and reflects very badly on the way
Torah values are being taught today, especially in the cases of Haredi
woman whose husbands are supposedly Torah scholars. There is no excuse
for this gross insensitivity towards the suffering of innocent women.
On the other hand, before coming out with a blanket condemnation
of the husbands and their attitudes as the cause of their wives' plight,
I would suggest being careful to examine in each case all other possible
sources of the marital discord which led in the end to the husband's
recalcitrance. In some cases the recalcitrance is mutual; that is,
each side is reacting to the other's prior refusal to honor a peace
or a divorce agreement. In many cases the initial cause is not the
individuals' respective attitudes but a basic problem in interpersonal
communication, which the partners hide by declarations of principles.
The book by R. Zvi Kaufmann which I have cited repeatedly gives many
examples of trifling incidents which were not resolved by proper
communication and blew up into major quarrels. I would suspect that
a recalcitrant husband's declaration that his wife doesn't submit
to his authority often hides his own feeling of frustration over not
being able to communicate his desires to her in a polite and tactful
way so that she will be able to fulfill them. And I would venture to
suggest also that the reverse holds in some cases where wives claim
that their husbands are abusive. And finally I should add, without
the need for examples, that women are not the only victims of Get
recalcitrance.
Therefore, before incriminating the husbands and the rabbis, I
would kindly make sure first that the couple has thoroughly exhausted
all the available means of mediation, including marital and family
therapy. All too often, a quarreling couple will turn to a rabbinic
court, and each will demand that the court force the other party to
"behave correctly." This leads almost invariably to even greater
injury in which each side will harden his resolve not to yield to
the other. In marital therapy, on the other hand - best administered
by a couple well versed both in psychology and Jewish values - each
side learns to express his feelings and desires in a demand-free
atmosphere, just as Harav Dessler outlined a full generation ago. While
such qualified marriage counsellors cost money, I am sure that many
couples would find relief by availing themselves of them. In the long
run the cost will be less than in the tragic alternative.
Now let me comment briefly on the issue of "authority", in which I
feel there is a basic misunderstanding. What I said several times was
that a marriage in which the wife accepts her husband's authority is
considered desirable. But nowhere did I even hint that the husband
should DEMAND this obedience from his wife. On the contrary, Harav
Dessler ZS"L was quoted to the effect that when demands are made, their
happiness is lost. And the Rambam we quoted (at the end of Part 3)
indeed tells the wife to be obedient, but to the husband he says only
to speak gently and to avoid being angry or sad, NOT TO DEMAND anything
of his wife at all. The Midrash we quoted from the Menorat Ha-Ma'or
likewise says that if the wife is obedient by herself, the husband will
reciprocate by serving her as well. Thus each partner can, with a little
wisdom, find the way to act considerately so that the other will want to
do his will without being asked to. It is true that the husband does,
in principle, assume the role of authority, but when there is harmony,
he will rarely ever have to exercise it in practice. Frequent appeals
to his position of authority, therefore, reveal a basic lack of
communication between the couple which must be treated as such.
Rivka accuses me of being dishonest in giving "selected quotes"
of the Rambam, as follows:
> Relying on selected quotes from the Rambam while hiding others is
>not an honest tactic. Rambam, Hilcot Ishut 21:10 states: "Any woman who
>refrains from performing those duties which she is obligated to perform,
>may be forced to do so even by the use of a whip." I once was called by a
>distraught woman who had just been beaten by her husband. She asked me to
>supply rabbinic sources to help her convince him that he was acting in
>violation of halakhah. Unfortunately, I had to inform her that while there
>were respected sources prohibiting wife beating, there were also eminent
>sources, including Rambam, permitting it. As her husband was a Sephardi,
>he would be likely to justify his attitude by citing the Rambam.
> Would Wallach, in his reliance on the Rambam, recommend the Rambam's
>approach to wife beating?
Before answering this, let me say that I am likewise opposed to
"selected quotes" of the Rambam. In particular, I would kindly advise
you to reread my posting in Vol. 15, No. 51 of Mail-Jewish, in which I
cited the ruling by none other than the Rambam (Ishut 14:8) that forces
the husband to give the Get when she cannot stand him. If we were to
follow the Rambam in full, there would not be a single Aguna today!
Now let us quote - this time in full and more literally - the
Rambam that allegedly gives the husband permission to whip his wife
(Ishut 21:10):
Any wife who refrains from doing a labor among the labors that she
is required to do, they force her ("kofin otah") and she does it,
even with a whip. If he claims that she isn't doing (it) and she
claims that she is not refraining from doing (it), then they sit
a woman down between them, or neighbors. And this thing (is done)
the way the judge sees as it is possible.
Note here the plural ("kofin otah") and the mention of the judge in
the last sentence. From this it is obvious that it is not the husband,
but the court (the Beit Din) who has the authority to force her to do
the required labors. And from the last sentence we see that where there
is a dispute between them over whether she is doing her work, the court
first has to use every possible method to find out what is going on. I
would humbly suggest that in most cases this would indeed have to be
done, since a woman would rather defend herself than rebel in court.
We see therfore, that no one, not even a Sepharadi (more correctly,
a Yemenite), can justify his attitude by quoting the Rambam. Thus, on
this ruling, R. Yosef Qafeh - the foremost Yemenite rabbi today who
follows the Rambam - condemns in the strongest language the husband who
takes the law into his own hands to beat his wife.
In this whole discussion about the wife who refuses to do her
labors, we have neglected to ask what these required labors are in the
first place. The Rambam (Isshut, Ch. 21) defines them at length. At the
very outset he says that they go according to the custom of the place.
This is a rather strong statement and infers that is does depend on the
time and the place; i.e. on what is usual in the particular culture
involved. What follows, therefore, should be taken only as an example
and would have to be modified according to what is accepted in the
community.
The poorest wife, who cannot afford even the minimal help at home,
must do all the work herself. But the wife who can afford help is
exempted from all the major labors, such as baking, cooking and doing
the laundry, depending on just how much help she has. At the very least
she has to perform certain "labors" which express especially her
devotion to her husband. These include (21:7) washing his hands etc.,
adding water to his cup of wine, making his bed and serving his food. In
a normal marriage these things - or their modern equivalents - would
come naturally and would not be considered by the wife labors at all. In
addition, according to the Rambam, every woman is required to spin wool,
because this is a prestigious job which is exclusively the women's, as
the Torah mentions in the work for the Tabernacle. The purpose here is
to ensure that the wife keeps busy, since idleness leads to sin (21:3).
It should be stressed here that no wife is required to do things
like going out shopping or taking the children to the doctor. These are
all the exclusive duty of the husband. According to the Rambam, she is
only required to do the household labors, not errands outside the home.
I would most appreciate hearing even a single example of a man who
asked a rabbinical court to whip his wife for not doing any of these
labors, in particular any of the special things that even the wealthy
wives do for their husbands. And I would humbly propose that no Jewish
woman today lacks honorable things with which to keep busy. Even if
there is no longer wool to spin, surely there are more important things
to do today, such as (for example): learning about the mizwot she is
required to do, visiting the sick, giving to the poor, and in general
performing acts of kindness to all the needy.
Shalom,
Shaul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rklapper@...> (Robert Klapper)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 02:21:21 -0400
Subject: Wifebeating
There are, as Rivka Haut notes, halakhic sources permitting wifebeating
for failure to perform certain "wifely duties". However, it's not clear
the Rambam is among them. R. Kafah points out that ishut 21:10, in fact
says "they force her, even with a whip", and the plural subject probably
refers to beit din. I believe he aalso cites responsa in which Rambam
condemns wifebeating in harsh language,
A general survey of the topic of wifebeating in medieval
halakhah was published by Avraham Grossman inthe journal Jewish History
about a year ago - he laso cites Rambam as permissive, however, and
while he has an excellent reputation, I can't vouch for the accuracy of
his other citations.
Does anyone know of any post-medieval responsa permitting
wifebeating? I don't have access to the responsa project here in
Boston, so please email me sources if you know of any. If there aren't
any, I think that would be a good thing to have known.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 15 Issue 80
