Girl I want to get engaged to wants me to change my Rabbi

000646,

1.) I believe that if a Government that was faithful to Halacha ever ruled E”Y (I think there was) and the Rambam was correct on his assessment of Torah law in the case above (I would err on the side of saying he was correct.) Then yes women were brought in front of Batei Din and lashed for not washing their husbands feet.

I disagree. The conditions required to come together for such an event are so unlikely, that I find it exceptionally improbable that a woman was ever lashed by a kosher Beis Din for such a reason.

1. You are projecting ethnocentric notions of our society where we have sinks and showers into other societies that lacked those amenities. Today it is easy for people to wash their own face, hands, and feet, and thus it would be insulting to demand that someone else do so for you. This was not so in the past. Helping someone to wash most likely was considered a basic courtesy.

2. To even get to the point where the Beis Din would take action to “compel” the woman to fulfill her obligations, we would have to have a scenario where a woman understands that there is a halachic requirement that she is expected to meet and an understanding before the marriage that she was expected to do it (and in this era these requirements were not degrading – they were a basic courtesy, and halacha states that the wife should help partly because it would be a breach of tznius to have a maidservant help, and it would be strange to have a manservant help), she then openly refuses to fulfill the halacha during the marriage, witnesses observed this, and the husband dragged the wife and witnesses to Beis Din. That’s a lot of extreme and unusual actions. Even if we do get this far, the woman can just say she finds her husband to be repulsive to her and leave! And given the sequence of extraordinary events that led to this Beis Din appearance, that’s likely what she’s saying.

As an aside it seems from a simple reading of the text that the only time that is a judicial matter is where she says she is washing his feet or whatever and he is saying she isn’t

If your “simple reading” of the text leads you to believe that Rambam is advocating for the husband to hit, then you are indeed misunderstanding a lot of these halachos. These halachos are not written for a husband and wife to read so that they know how to relate to each other. They are being presented so that a Beis Din knows how to act in case CV”S there are legal disputes between husband and wife.

Husband wants to go from being a tailor to a sailor? Wife disapproves? Rule in favor of the wife. Husband wants to go from splendor to scholar? Wife disapproves? Rule in favor of the husband. These are what the halachos are about.

One more question, How do you understand what the Raavid says? (I don’t have the exact text in front of me, if you do and could post it that would be great)

I don’t have the text either, but it’s pretty clear that it’s talking about his obligations to provide food, clothing, and shelter. You’re interpreting the halacha as “if he doesn’t wash my face, he can chain her in the basement and starve her until she does!!” That is NOT right. At most the Raavad is saying, “if she doesn’t wash his face (e.g., do what is halachically required for a wife to do), he is within his rights to ask her to leave without necessarily beginning divorce proceedings.” And if the wife then declares that she finds her husband repulsive and wants a divorce, the Beis Din usually orders the husband to divorce after a 12 month extension.

2.) Believing that Hashem is immoral makes no sense.

Why not? You are already CV”S basically declaring that His Torah is immoral (though it’s apparent that you are severely misunderstanding it), so why not just take it the next logical step?

I do happen to believe that PEOPLE killing other people for violating a tenet of any religion is definitely immoral. I doubt anyone would really disagree with me on that one. (unless obviously it is a tenet like “do not kill” which besides for being a religious rule is one that is made for the good of society. In a case like that killing someone becomes somewhat debatable)

That is an arbitrary line you are drawing. If Jews in Eretz Yisroel began violating halachos (e.g., shmitta, Shabbos, forbidden relationships), then they would lose Hashem’s protection and become vulnerable to attack from the nations around them. Therefore, violating these mere “tenets” could very well get innocents killed.

Also, who’s to say anyone has a right to kill another human, even if that human also killed? Exile him to an island where he can no longer harm anyone!

Isn’t it exactly the same in reverse as well? A man can’t just skip off on his obligations to his wife either.

000646,

The Rambam seems to be saying that she could be lashed at the discretion of a Dayan

Not if it’s unestablished whether any violations have taken place. A kosher beis din was not lash-happy. And there are opinions that the court did not lash in this circumstance at all.

change it to something that would be considered common courtesy today and my point would still stand.

I think one reason this concept (punishment for refusal to do something) seems strange to Americanized sensibilities is that civil law rarely regulates what people do for others, whereas Torah law does. Being rude in the U.S. is not against the law, but in some cases, it could be against the law in a Torah based society.

U.S. law forbids lashing, but does imprison people, which I think can be more damaging to a person than lashes (e.g., long-term separation from family and friends, inability to develop as a person, risk of prison assaults, declines in health due to confinement, etc.). An overwhelming majority of Americans polled whether they would hypothetically prefer 10 lashes or 5 years imprisonment chose the lashes. It may very well be that in 200 years, an “enlightened” society that lashes will look back at this era in U.S. history with its 2.3 million imprisoned and say, “gosh were they immoral!” And a large number of imprisoned people are confined simply because they bought and ingested some plant that the government happens to dislike.

Torah law metes out lashes in some circumstances, we cannot get around that fact. If you think they are never right, fine, you disagree with Torah law. It seems like you are trying to limit your argument against lashes to this single case involving a wife, why? I think courts ordering lashes in any case (and especially this one) was very rare, you think they did it like candy, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

However even if he said what you say he says, throwing a woman into the street with no money, food or personal belongings is practically the same thing, especially hundreds of years ago

Conjecture. Also, any principal the wife owned before the marriage is still completely hers. And this whole argument is getting silly. Who would get themselves thrown out (or throw someone out) over washing a face?

That is a BELIEF.

NOW it is because we are in golus and don’t have a Torah society at all, but when there is a Torah society, it won’t be, since knowledge of G-d will fill the earth as waters fill the sea.

000646: I most certainly have responded to you on that point. Kibud Av V’Eim, one of the Aseres Hadibros, takes precedence for a husband. That is the halacha l’maaisa today as it always was. We don’t scratch out portions of Shulchan Aruch to comply with modern sensibilities. (And when was this conversation about a fight, anyways?)

No, we don’t scratch out portions of S”A and that’s not why we don’t do that. As earlier stated, he is mochel those duties you’ve earlier referred to. Do you know a single case in the last 100 years were a husband was makpid on that? I certainly don’t. If you do please cite the case specifically and then we can talk. Otherwise you’re simply projecting a non-issue.

It’s an issue if it’s brought before Beis Din. If it’s brought before Beis Din, it’s enforceable. Today like previously. If it isn’t brought before Beis Din, then it isn’t sought to be enforced. If you know of any B”D case were it was sought to be enforced, share the case and we’ll have what to discuss. Since you don’t, you are engaging highly improbable and likely never occurring hypothetical scenarios.

Ben sorer umoreh is also actual enforceable halacha. Even if the set of circumstances leading to an actual case of it never occurred. (Even during the times capital cases were tried.)

000646 wrote:

Are you claiming that if a Husband went to B”D these days and said that he is not mochel these obligations the B”D would force her? We both know that wouldn’t happen, and no one would even claim that it should.

Lior responded:

It’s an issue if it’s brought before Beis Din. If it’s brought before Beis Din, it’s enforceable. Today like previously.

I agree with 000646 on this point. Since our custom is to be mochel on these particular obligations since today they are considered degrading, then unless there was a clear stipulation between chosson and kallah beforehand that they were going to ignore this custom and she would consider herself obligated to wash his face, I don’t believe a Beis Din would rule in favor of the husband.

And we don’t hold like the Rambam in this case, either!

Lior: Avram is correct. Those were assumptions in every marriage. Nowadays it’s never an assumption, so the wife isn’t M’shabed herself to them. Presumably she never knew these “obligations” existed. It would probably be easier for a woman in such a marriage to receive a Psak of “Mekach Ta’us” than it is for a man to get these obligations enforced.

000646,

The Rambam seems to be saying that she could be lashed at the discretion of a Dayan: the exact words are “??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????”.

I think when the Rambam say that the matter should be clarified according to the way the dayan sees fit, that is referring to the method used for confirmation (e.g., unrelated woman in home or neighbors, etc.), not that the Beis Din can do whatever they want with or without confirmation.

I do not think whatever the woman brought into the marriage is hers if she arbitrarily walks out on her husband. Doesn’t that only happen in the case of divorce? (I know I may be wrong here, please correct me if I am)

I am by no means an expert myself, but my understanding is that the principal of what a woman brings into a marriage remains hers, but profits go to the husband while he supports her. For example, if the woman owns property, that property remains hers, but the husband is entitled to the rent income while he is supporting his wife. If they separate and the husband is no longer obligated to provide for his wife, she keeps the property and takes control of the profits.