סוגיה 32- עילות לגירושין: אלימות
User Profile Picture
Byיאיר טיקטין

הכבוד כלפי גופו ונפשו של הזולת הוא הבסיס לכל מערכת יחסים אנושית ראויה, קל וחומר כשאנו עוסקים בחיי הנישואין. מעבר לסכנות הברורות לשלמותו ולבריאותו של הקרבן, אלימות פיזית או מילולית פוגעת באופן משמעותי באמון, באהבה ובקִרבה בין בני הזוג.

בתנ"ך אין התייחסות מפורשת לנושא זה, אך ניכר שספרות חז"ל מסתייגת מאלימות בין בני הזוג ומנסה להוקיע אותה. עם זאת, הן בספרות התנאים והן בתלמוד היא אינה מוכרת כעילה לגירושין.

יבמות ס״ב ב

תנו רבנן:

האוהב את אשתו כגופו,

והמכבדה יותר מגופו [...]

עליו הכתוב אומר: "וְיָדַעְתָּ כִּי-שָׁלוֹם אָהֳלֶךָ" (איוב, פרק ה' כד).

Yevamot 62b
Grandchildren are considered like children. This indicates that if one’s children have passed away, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply only if they had children of their own, as they are considered like his own children. The Gemara responds: When that baraita is taught it is with regard to completing the required number of children, e.g., if he had only a son, but his son had a daughter, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from another baraita: Grandchildren are considered like children. If one of a man’s children died or was discovered to be a eunuch, the father has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. This directly contradicts Rav Huna’s statement that one fulfills the mitzva even if his children die. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is indeed a conclusive refutation. § It was taught in the baraita that grandchildren are considered like children. Abaye thought to say that if one’s children die, he fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply through grandchildren, provided a son was born to his son and a daughter to his daughter, and all the more so if a son was born to his daughter, as his grandchildren take the place of his children in these cases. However, if a daughter was born to his son, no, she cannot take the place of her father. Rava said to him: We require merely fulfillment of the verse: “He formed it to be inhabited,” and there is fulfillment in this case, as the earth is inhabited by his descendants. The Gemara comments: In any event, everyone agrees that if one has two grandchildren from one child, no, he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, even if he has both a grandson and a granddaughter. The Gemara asks: And has he not? Didn’t the Rabbis say to Rav Sheshet: Marry a woman and have sons, as you have not yet fathered any sons, and Rav Sheshet said to them: The sons of my daughter are my sons? This indicates that one can fulfill the mitzva through grandchildren even if he did not have a son and daughter of his own. The Gemara answers: There, Rav Sheshet was merely putting them off. The real reason he did not want to get remarried was because Rav Sheshet became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse. Rav Huna’s discourses were so lengthy that Rav Sheshet became impotent after waiting for so long without relieving himself. Rabba said to Rava bar Mari: From where is this matter that the Sages stated derived, that grandchildren are considered like children? If we say it is derived from the fact that it is written in Laban’s speech to Jacob: “The daughters are my daughters and the children are my children” (Genesis 31:43), which indicates that Jacob’s children were also considered to be the children of their grandfather Laban, if that is so, does the continuation of Laban’s statement: “And the flocks are my flocks” (Genesis 31:43), indicate that so too, Jacob’s flocks were considered as belonging to Laban? Rather, Laban was saying that you, Jacob, acquired them from me. Here too, with regard to the children, Laban was saying: You acquired them from me, i.e., it is only due to me that you have children. Rather, the proof is from here: “And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead…and she bore him Segub” (I Chronicles 2:21), and it is written: “Out of Machir came down governors” (Judges 5:14), and it is written: “Judah is my governor” (Psalms 60:9). Consequently, the governors, who were from the tribe of Judah, were also called the sons of Machir, who was from the tribe of Manasseh. This must be because they were the children of Machir’s daughter and Hezron, indicating that grandchildren are considered like children. § The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: If a man married a woman in his youth, and she passed away, he should marry another woman in his old age. If he had children in his youth, he should have more children in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not withhold your hand; for you do not know which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both alike shall be good” (Ecclesiastes 11:6). This verse indicates that a man should continue having children even after he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse should be understood as follows: If one studied Torah in his youth he should study more Torah in his old age; if he had students in his youth he should have additional students in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, etc.” They said by way of example that Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students in an area of land that stretched from Gevat to Antipatris in Judea, and they all died in one period of time, because they did not treat each other with respect. And the world was desolate of Torah until Rabbi Akiva came to our Rabbis in the South and taught his Torah to them. This second group of disciples consisted of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. And these are the very ones who upheld the study of Torah at that time. Although Rabbi Akiva’s earlier students did not survive, his later disciples were able to transmit the Torah to future generations. With regard to the twelve thousand pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Gemara adds: It is taught that all of them died in the period from Passover until Shavuot. Rav Ḥama bar Abba said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: They all died a bad death. The Gemara inquires: What is it that is called a bad death? Rav Naḥman said: Diphtheria. Rav Mattana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that one must attempt to have more children even if he has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. § Apropos the discussion with regard to the mitzva to have children, the Gemara cites statements about marriage in general. Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Ḥanilai said: Any man who does not have a wife is left without joy, without blessing, without goodness. He proceeds to quote verses to support each part of his statement. He is without joy, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26), which indicates that the a man is in a joyful state only when he is with his household, i.e., his wife. He is without blessing, as it is written: “To cause a blessing to rest in your house” (Ezekiel 44:30), which indicates that blessing comes through one’s house, i.e., one’s wife. He is without goodness, as it is written: “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18), i.e., without a wife. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: One who lives without a wife is left without Torah, and without a wall of protection. He is without Torah, as it is written: “Is it that I have no help in me, and that sound wisdom is driven from me?” (Job 6:13), indicating that one who does not have a wife lacks sound wisdom, i.e., Torah. He is without a wall, as it is written: “A woman shall go round a man” (Jeremiah 31:21), similar to a protective wall. Rava bar Ulla said: One who does not have a wife is left without peace, as it is written: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation and shall miss nothing” (Job 5:24). This indicates that a man has peace only when he has a tent, i.e., a wife. On the same verse, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever knows that his wife fears Heaven and she desires him, and he does not visit her, i.e., have intercourse with her, is called a sinner, as it is stated: And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A man is obligated to visit his wife for the purpose of having intercourse when he is about to depart on a journey, as it is stated: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace, etc.” The Gemara asks: Is this last statement derived from here? It is derived from there: “And your desire shall be to your husband” (Genesis 3:16), which teaches that a wife desires her husband when he is about to depart on a journey. Rav Yosef said: The additional derivation cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is necessary only near the time of her set pattern, i.e., when she expects to begin experiencing menstrual bleeding. Although the Sages generally prohibited intercourse at this time due to a concern that the couple might have intercourse after she begins bleeding, if he is about to depart on a journey he must have intercourse with her. The Gemara asks: And how much before the expected onset of menstrual bleeding is considered near the time of her set pattern? Rava said: An interval of time, i.e., half a daily cycle, either a day or a night. The Gemara comments: And this statement that a man must have intercourse with his wife before he departs on a journey applies only if he is traveling for an optional matter, but if he is traveling in order to attend to a matter pertaining to a mitzva, he is not required to have intercourse with his wife so that he not become preoccupied and neglect the mitzva. § The Sages taught: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time when they reach maturity, about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin. One who loves his neighbors, and who draws his relatives close, and who marries the daughter of his sister, a woman he knows and is fond of as a family relative and not only as a wife,
תוספתא בבא קמא ט׳:ה׳

החובל באשתו

בין שחבל בה הוא בין שחבלו בה אחרים

מוציאין מידו

וילקח בהן קרקעות

והוא אוכל פירות

ביאור: התוספתא קובעת סנקציה כלכלית על האיש האלים: בעל שהיכה את אשתו וגרם לה חבלה, בית הדין גובה ממנו כסף. האישה רשאית לרכוש בכסף זה קרקעות שהופכות לרכושה הפרטי.

עם זאת, הבעל זכאי ליהנות מן הרווח שהתקבל מאותה קרקע ("והוא אוכל פירות").

גיטין ו׳ ב:ט״ו-ט״ז

אמר רב חסדא:

לעולם אל יטיל אדם אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו,

שהרי פילגש בגבעה

הטיל עליה בעלה אימה יתירה,

והפילה כמה רבבות מישראל.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב:

כל המטיל אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו,

סוף הוא בא לידי שלש עבירות:

גילוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים, וחילול שבת.

Gittin 6b:15-16
But if you do this then you provide benefit. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: If you do this you provide benefit? This means that if the husband comes to contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we pay no attention to him and his claim. As it is taught in the Tosefta (1:3): An incident occurred involving a man who brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yishmael, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required to state that declaration? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, where are you from? He said to Rabbi Yishmael: My teacher, I am from the village of Sisai. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: You are required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses if the husband contests its validity. After that man left, Rabbi Elai entered before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: My teacher, but isn’t the village of Sisai located within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael, and it is even closer to Tzippori, which is within the main portion of Eretz Yisrael, more so than Akko. And we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to Akko, which is distant. However, with regard to the village of Sisai, which is close, no, they do not dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Elai: Be silent my son, be silent. Since the matter of her divorce was issued as permitted, it was issued, and her divorce is valid. This incident proves that the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is effective to the extent that the divorce is considered to have been performed in an entirely permitted manner, and the husband cannot contest its validity at a later stage. The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to explain the meaning of his ruling to Rabbi Elai? But after all, when he issued his ruling Rabbi Yishmael also stated his reason, as he said to the man: Do this so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses. The Gemara answers: Those who were present did not conclude Rabbi Yishmael’s statement before Rabbi Elai. Rabbi Elai was unaware of Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning, and therefore he questioned him. § The Gemara relates that Rabbi Evyatar sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia to Rav Ḥisda in which he wrote the following: With regard to bills of divorce that come from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, the agent is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Evyatar holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Babylonia are learned with regard to this issue? The Gemara challenges: And can you understand it in this way? After all, Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that the declaration serves to ratify the bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the declaration to ratify the document. But since there are many people who ascend to Eretz Yisrael and descend from there to Babylonia, witnesses are frequently available, and there is no reason to be concerned about the ratification of the bill of divorce. Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us that Rabbi Evyatar is a reliable authority? And furthermore, there is good reason to question his statement: He is the one who sent a letter to Rav Yehuda, and wrote: People who ascend from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, fulfill by themselves the verse: “And they have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk” (Joel 4:3), i.e., these people abandon their families. And Rabbi Evyatar wrote him this verse without scoring, i.e., etching lines into, the parchment upon which he wrote the letter. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says with regard to the writing of a verse from the Torah: One may write two words without scoring the parchment, but one may not write three words without scoring the parchment. Instead, one scores the parchment before writing the verse, as one does when writing a Torah scroll. This ensures that the writing will be done on a straight line, thereby rendering it more beautiful. And it was taught in a baraita: One may write three, but one may not write four. Since Rabbi Evyatar wrote more than three words from a verse without scoring the parchment, his halakhic rulings are evidently unreliable. Abaye said to him: Is that to say that anyone who does not know this halakha of Rabbi Yitzḥak is not a great man? Granted, with regard to a matter that depends on reasoning, it is well, as it is possible to say that an individual who does not know a halakha that can be inferred by logical reasoning cannot be considered a reliable authority. However, this halakha is a tradition, and it is possible that Rabbi Evyatar simply did not hear this tradition. And furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar is the one that his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with in his interpretation of a verse, as it is written with regard to the episode involving the concubine in Gibeah: “And his concubine went away from him” (Judges 19:2). The Sages discussed what occurred that caused her husband to become so angry with her that she left him, and Rabbi Evyatar says: He found her responsible for a fly in the food that she prepared for him, while Rabbi Yonatan says: He found her responsible for a hair [nima]. And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah the prophet and said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing now? Elijah said to him: He is currently engaged in studying the episode of the concubine in Gibeah. Rabbi Evyatar asked him: And what is He saying about it? Elijah said to him that God is saying the following: Evyatar, My son, says this and Yonatan, My son, says that. It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar. Rabbi Evyatar said to him: God forbid, is there uncertainty before Heaven? Doesn’t God know what happened? Why does He mention both opinions? Elijah said to him: Both these and those are the words of the living God, i.e., both incidents happened. The incident occurred in the following manner: He found a fly in his food and did not take umbrage, and later he found a hair and took umbrage. Rav Yehuda says a different explanation: The man found a fly in the dish that she cooked for him, and he found a hair in that place, i.e., in her genital area. When he found a fly it produced a reaction of disgust, and he did not grow angry with her, but the hair was a matter of danger, as he might be hurt by it, and therefore he became angry with her. There are those who say: This and that were found in a dish. The difference is that the fly was a result of circumstances beyond her control, as it fell into the dish on its own, but the hair was found in the dish due to her negligence. Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon the members of his household will ultimately come to commit three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; and he will also end up committing bloodshed, as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; and desecration of Shabbat, as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said a halakha with regard to this statement that the Sages said: There are three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. He should ask the members of his household: Have you tithed the produce that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that one must

ביאור:

אמר רב חסדא: לעולם אל יטיל אדם אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו (על בני משפחתו), שהרי פילגש בגבעה הטיל עליה בעלה אימה יתירה, ובסופו של דבר הפילה, כלומר, גרמה שנפלו על ידה כמה רבבות מישראל במלחמה שבעקבות אותו מעשה (ראה שופטים כ).

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: כל המטיל אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו, סוף הוא בא לידי שלש עבירות:

גילוי עריות, שמפני שאשתו מפחדת ממנו פעמים שאינה טובלת לנידתה והיא אומרת לו שטבלה,

וכן שפיכות דמים, שבורחת מפניו ועשויה להיהרג,

וחילול שבת, שמבשלת עבורו בשבת מפני שמפחדת שמא יקפיד עליה כשלא בישלה.

רב חסדא- אמורא בבלי (דור שני-שלישי, תחילת המאה הרביעית), ראש ישיבת סורא

רב יהודה (בר יחזקאל) - מגדולי אמוראי בבל (דור שני, מאה שלישית), מייסד ישיבת פומבדיתא.

רב (רבי אבא בר איבו) – דור ראשון לאמוראי בבל. ייסד את ישיבת סורא. בצעירותו למד אצל רבי יהודה הנשיא בארץ ישראל. (אחיינו של רבי חייא).

עיון ודיון

1. הסבירו בלשונכם: על פי התוספתא, מהי הסנקציה המופעלת על בעל המכה את אשתו?

2. קראן אודות מעשה "פילגש בגבעה"- מהו ההקשר לנושא שבסוגיה זו?

3. לדעתכם, האם המקורות לעיל נותנים מענה מספק נגד אלימות במשפחה? נמקו והסבירו.

לאחר חתימת התלמוד, החכמים נחלקו בשאלה האם אלימות מהווה עליה לכפיית גט: ה"גאונים" (ראשי ישיבות בבל במאות 6-11ׂ) - שללו באופן עקרוני את זכותו של הבעל להכות את אשתו והטילו על האיש סנקציות כלכליות שונות (מלבד במקרים בהם הוכח כי היא מתנגדת לעשות את המלאכות שבהן היא מחוייבת) , אך נזהרו מאד שלא לכפות גט על הבעל הסרבן.

במהלך הדורות ובקהילות ישראל השונות, במקרים קשים בהם לא היה מנוס מגירושין, הורו החכמים לבעל האלים לתת גט לאשתו באמצעות שכנוע, הזהרות ואף לחץ חברתי וכלכלי . רובם נמנעו מן הפעולה הקיצונית של כפייה ממשית. זאת מחשש ל"גט מעושה" (כפוי) שתוצאותיו עלולות להיות קשות (הגט בטל כי לא ניתן מרצונו החופשי של האיש, הנישואין תקפים, ואם האישה תינשא בשנית- ילדיה ייחשבו לממזרים).

תשובות הגאונים שערי צדק, חלק ד' שער ד' סימן מ"ב

ר' יוסף אבן אביתור (במודפסות בקיצור סימן קל"ה).

וששאלתם:

אשה שאמרה אי אפשי (אינני רוצה) בפלוני בעלי שהוא מכה אותי ומצער אותי,

ונמצא הדבר אמת ובקשה ממנו גט,

כופין אותו ליתן גט, או כופין אותה לישב תחת בעלה

ואם מצער אותה, בחנם תצא בכתובתה כולה או לא.

(תשובה:) הוו יודעין:

שאם נתקיים הדבר בעדים שהכה אותה פעם ופעמים, חייבין בית דין להוכיחו על כך ולומר לו:

הוי יודע שאי אתה רשאי להכותה, ואם שָׁנִיתַ באִוַלְתְּךָ תצא בכתובתה ...

שכך אמרו חכמים: לחיים נתנה ולא לצער נתנה.

אף על פי שנמצא הדבר אמת שהכה אותה פעם ופעם כמו שפרשתם,

אין אנו כופין את הבעל ליתן לה גט ולהגבותה כתובתה, עד שיתרו בו בית דין וזקני הקהל ויאמרו לו:

הוי יודע שמקויים עליך בשטר כתובתה שתכבדנה ותזוננה כדכתב בכתובתה 'ואנא אפלח ואוקיר ואיזון',

וכשמקבל עליו התראה ומשהין אותו על יד נאמן, אם מעיד אותו נאמן ששנה באִולתו, מגבין לה כתובתה.

שו"ת מהר"ם מרוטנבורג חלק ג' (דפוס קרימונה), סימן רצ"א

[...] ואדרבה קל וחומר הוא:

ומה (אדם) אחר שאינו מצווה עליו לכבדו, מצווה הוא על הכאתו (יש איסור לאו על המכה כל אדם) –

אשתו שהוא מצווה עליה לכבדה, אינו דין שיהא מצוה שלא להכותה?

ואדרבה חייב לכבדה יותר מגופו. [...]

ואין זה דרך בני עמינו להכות נשותיהן כמנהג אומות העולם, חלילה לכל בני ברית מעשות כדבר הזה.

ואם היה בא לפנינו דין זה שאשה קובלת על בעלה שמכה אותה,

היינו מחמירין עליו מאילו היה מכה את (אדם) אחר ומטעמא דפרישנא (ומן הטעם שפירשתי).[...]

ובפחות מזה כתב רב פלטאי גאון ז"ל שיוצא ויתן כתובה, וזה לשונו:

והיכא דארגילו (והיכן שהתחילה) קטטה:

אם היא מַרגלת (אם האישה נוהגת להתחיל, לחרחר ריב)- כמורדת דמיא (דומה) ואין לה כלום,

ואם הוא מרגיל (אם האיש מתחיל) - יש לה כל כתובתה.

ואם מרגילין בני הבית כגון חמותו ובת חמותה- יש עליו מן הדין להוציאה למקום אחר.

אין אדם דר עם נחש בכפיפה.

ואם אין מוציאה- מגרשה ונותן לה כתובתה,

וכן הלכה וכן מנהג. ע"כ (עד כאן) לשונו.

רבי יוסף אבן אביתור- חכם ומשורר בספרד במאה ה-10 (למרות שלא היה ראש ישיבה, לא ישב בבבל ולא היה "גאון", תשובותיו מובאות בקובץ "תשובות הגאונים")

המהר"ם מרוטנבורג (ר' מאיר בן ברוך) – מאחרוני בעלי-התוספות, ממנהיגי הציבור הבולטים באשכנז במאה ה- 13.

רב פלטאי (פלטוי) – מגאוני בבל, ראש ישיבת סורא במאה ה- 9

אבן העזר קנ״ד:ג׳

שולחן ערוך אבן העזר הלכות גיטין, סימן קנ"ד סעיף ג'

הגה:

... אִישׁ הַמַכֶּה אִשְׁתּוֹ, עֲבֵרָה הִיא בְּיָדוֹ כְּמַכֶּה חֲבֵרוֹ.

וְאִם רָגִיל הוּא בְּכָךְ, יֵשׁ בְּיַד בֵּית דִּין לְיַסְּרוֹ וּלְהַחֲרִימוֹ וּלְהַלְקוֹתוֹ בְּכָל מִינֵי רִדּוּי וּכְפִיָּה,

וּלְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה עוֹד,

וְאִם אֵינוֹ צַיִּת לְדִבְרֵי הַבֵּית דִּין

יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא,

וּבִלְבַד שֶׁמַתְרִין בּוֹ תְּחִלָּה פַּעַם אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם

כִּי אֵינוֹ מִדֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַכּוֹת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם, וּמַעֲשֵׂה עובד כוכבים הוּא.

וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁהוּא מַתְחִיל,

אֲבָל אִם מְקַלַּלְתּוֹ בְּחִנָם אוֹ מְזַלְזֶלֶת אָבִיו וְאִמוֹ,

וְהוֹכִיחָהּ בִּדְבָרִים וְאֵינָהּ מַשְׁגַּחַת עָלָיו,

יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּמֻתָּר לְהַכּוֹתָהּ,

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דַּאֲפִלּו אִשָּׁה רָעָה אָסוּר לְהַכּוֹתָהּ.

וְהַסְּבָרָא רִאשׁוֹנָה (שמותר להכות) הִיא עִקָר.

וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ מִי הַגּוֹרֵם, אֵין הַבַּעַל נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שֶׁהִיא הַמַתְחֶלֶת,

שֶׁכָּל הַנָשִׁים בְּחֶזְקַת כְּשֵׁרוֹת,

וּמוֹשִׁיבִין בֵּינֵיהֶן אֲחֵרוֹת לִרְאוֹת בְּשֶׁל מִי הָרָעָה הַזֹאת,

וְאִם הִיא מְקַלַּלְתּוֹ חִנָם, יוֹצֵאת בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה.

וְנִרְאֶה לִי, דַּוְקָא בִּרְגִילָה בְּכָךְ, וְאַחַר הַהַתְרָאָה, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל סִימָן קט''ו

Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 154:3

(3) If someones says, "I will not give food nor provide for [my wife]," we force him to give food. And if the court cannot force him to give food, such as one who doesn't have anything to provide and doesn't want to make money to become profitable and provide food [that way], if she wants, we force him to divorce her immediately and giver her her ketubah. The law is such to someone who does not want have sex. Rem"a: Similarly, a man who gets angry often and consistently kicks out his wife from his house, we force him to divorce her, for because of this he will not provide food for her sometimes, and he will separate from her from sexual relations more times than her rights to conjugal relations, and that is like refusal to provide food and sex [which are grounds for divorce] (Teshuvat HaRashba Siman 693). And see earlier Siman 70 and Siman 77. A man who hits his wife, has a transgression in his hand as much as striking his fellow. If he does this often, the court had the right to cause him pain and to excommunicate him, to whip him, to use all types of force, and to make him swear he will not do it again. And if he does not obey the court, some say we force him to divorce her, as long as he is warned one or twice, for it is not the way of Jews to hit their wives, that is the actions of the gentiles. This only applies when he starts it, but if she curses him for no reason, or mocks his father and mother, and she contradicts what he says and he has no authority over her, some say it is permitted to hit her. And some say that a bad wife is [also] prohibited to strike. The first opinion is the essential one. If it is not known who started it, the husband is not believed to say that she started it, for all women are assumed kosher, and they place others among them to see who is the bad one. And if she curses him for no reason, she is divorced without her ketubah. And it seems to me that this is only when this happens often, and after warning, as was explained earlier siman 115. If she left his house and borrowed [money] and ate [food], if she left because of him hitting her so often, he must pay her back (all of this note can be found in the Mordechai Perek Naara in the name of the Mohar"am and the B"Z Siman 88), and as is explained earlier Siman 70.

הגה (הגהות): כינוי לחיבורו של רמ"א (רבי משה איסרליש) "מפת השולחן" (פולין, המאה ה- 16).

הערות והתאמות של "שולחן ערוך" למנהגים ולפסיקות של יהודי אשכנז.

הרמ"א – רבי משה איסרליש

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/mahanaim/shulhan/horovits.htm

עיון ודיון

1. תארו את המקרה שהובא בפני רבי יוסף אבן אביתור.

2. מהן שתי השאלות שנשאל הגאון?

3. האם ניתן, לדעתו, לכפות גט על הבעל? פרטו והסבירו.

4. לדברי המהר"ם מרוטנבורג : מדוע אסור לאיש להכות את אשתו?

5. המהר"ם מרוטנבורג מביא את דברי רב פלטאי גאון:

מהו המקרה עליו מדבר רב פלטאי גאון?

כיצד פסק?

מה למד מכך המהר"ם מרוטנבורג?

6. במקור זה, המהר"ם מרוטנבורג לומד בדרך של "קל וחומר":

עיינו במקורות מידע וכתבו: מה פירוש המונח "קל וחומר"?

פרטו והסבירו את לימודו של המהר"ם.

7. איזו עמדה מחמירה יותר עם בעל אלים – זו של יוסף אבן אביתור או זו

של המהר"ם מרוטנבורג? נמקו!

8. הרמ"א מבחין בין מקרים בהם ידה של האישה על העליונה, לבין מקרים בהם טענותיה

נדחות. הסבירו בלשונכם והדגימו!

פותחים סוגריים

בבא מציעא נ״ט א

אמר רב:

לעולם יהא אדם זהיר באונאת אשתו,

שמתוך שדמעתה מצויה אונאתה קרובה.

רש"י:

באונאת אשתו - באונאת דברים, לצערה.

אונאתה - קרובה לבא, פורענות אונאתה ממהר לבא

Bava Metzia 59a
It is preferable for a person to engage in intercourse with a woman whose married status is uncertain and not humiliate another in public. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: It is from that which Rava interpreted, as Rava interpreted: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when I limped they rejoiced and gathered…they tore and did not cease [damu]” (Psalms 35:15)? The term “damu” can also be understood as a reference to blood. Concerning the fasting he undertook to atone for his sin with Bathsheba (see II Samuel, chapters 11–12), David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that if my tormenters were to tear my flesh, my blood [dami] would not flow to the ground, due to excessive fasting. And moreover, they torment me to the extent that even at the time when they are engaged in the public study of the halakhot of leprous sores and tents in which there is a corpse, i.e., halakhic matters that have no connection to my sin, they say to me: David, one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, his death is effected with what form of execution? And I say to them: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman before witnesses and with forewarning, his death is by strangulation, but he still has a share in the World-to-Come. But one who humiliates another in public has no share in the World-to-Come. The transgression of you, who humiliate me, is more severe than my transgression. And Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says; and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says; and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more comfortable for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace, than to humiliate another in public to avoid being cast into the furnace. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah. When she was taken out to be burned, she did not reveal that she was pregnant with Judah’s child. Rather, she left the decision to him, to avoid humiliating him in public, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong. And she said: Examine these, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff?” (Genesis 38:24–25). § Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Idi, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat each man his colleague [amito]” (Leviticus 25:17)? The word amito is interpreted as a contraction of im ito, meaning: One who is with him. With one who is with you in observance of Torah and mitzvot, you shall not mistreat him. Rav says: A person must always be careful about mistreatment of his wife. Since her tear is easily elicited, punishment for her mistreatment is immediate. Rabbi Elazar says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed the gates of prayer were locked, and prayer is not accepted as it once was, as it is stated in lament of the Temple’s destruction: “Though I plead and call out, He shuts out my prayer” (Lamentations 3:8). Yet, despite the fact that the gates of prayer were locked with the destruction of the Temple, the gates of tears were not locked, and one who cries before God may rest assured that his prayers will be answered, as it is stated: “Hear my prayer, Lord, and give ear to my pleading, keep not silence at my tears” (Psalms 39:13). And Rav says: Nevertheless, anyone who follows the counsel of his wife descends into Gehenna, as it is stated: “But there was none like Ahab, who did give himself over to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife incited” (I Kings 21:25). Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But don’t people say a popular proverb: If your wife is short, stoop and whisper to her and consult with her? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rav instructs that one not follow her counsel in general matters; and that proverb instructs that one follow her counsel in household matters. The Gemara presents another version of this distinction: This statement of Rav maintains that one should not follow her counsel in divine matters; and that proverb maintains that one should follow her counsel in general matters. Rav Ḥisda says: All the gates of Heaven are apt to be locked, except for the gates of prayer for victims of verbal mistreatment, as it is stated: “And behold, the Lord stood upon a wall built with a plumb line, and a plumb line in His hand” (Amos 7:7). God stands with the scales of justice in His hand to determine if one has been subjected to injustice. Rabbi Elazar says: In response to all transgressions, God punishes the perpetrator by means of an agent, except for mistreatment [ona’a], as it is stated: “And a plumb line [anakh] in His hand.” The term for mistreatment and the term for plumb line are spelled in a similar manner, indicating that God Himself inflicts retribution. Rabbi Abbahu says: There are three sins before whose transgressors the curtain [hapargod] between the world and the Divine Presence is not locked; their sins reach the Divine Presence. They are: Verbal mistreatment, robbery, and idol worship. Mistreatment, as it is stated: “And a plumb line in His hand”; robbery, as it is stated: “Violence and robbery are heard in her, they are before Me continually” (Jeremiah 6:7); idol worship, as it is stated: “A people that angers Me before Me continually; that sacrifice in gardens, and burn incense upon bricks” (Isaiah 65:3). Apropos the topic of how man should approach his household, Rav Yehuda says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as discord is found in a person’s house only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “He makes your borders peace; He gives you plenty with the finest wheat” (Psalms 147:14). If there is the finest wheat in your house, there will be peace there. Rav Pappa said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: When the barley is emptied from the jug, quarrel knocks and enters the house. And Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as the Jewish people were characterized as poor only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “And it was, if Israel sowed, and Midian and the children of the east ascended” (Judges 6:3); and it is written: “And they encamped against them and they destroyed the crops of the land” (Judges 6:4); and it is further written: “And Israel was greatly impoverished due to Midian” (Judges 6:6). And Rabbi Ḥelbo says: A person must always be careful about sustaining the honor of his wife, as blessing is found in a person’s house only because of his wife, as it is stated in allusion to this: “And he dealt well with Abram for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen” (Genesis 12:16). And that is what Rava said to the residents of Meḥoza, where he lived: Honor your wives, so that you will become rich. § Apropos the topic of verbal mistreatment, we learned in a mishna there (Kelim 5:10): If one cut an earthenware oven widthwise into segments, and placed sand between each and every segment, Rabbi Eliezer deems it ritually pure. Because of the sand, its legal status is not that of a complete vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure, as it is functionally a complete oven.

רבי יוסף רפאל חזן, חקרי לב על מסכת שבועות

וכתב רבינו הריטב"א,

כי אין לך רֵע קרוב לאדם יותר מאשתו.

וכן אישה, אין לה אדם אחר קרוב אליה יותר מבעלה.

ועל כן פשוט הוא,

שלפני שילך אדם לחפש לו מעשים טובים וחסדים מחוץ לביתו,

יזהר להתנהג יפה עם בני ביתו,

באהבה ואחווה, בהבנה ובאורך רוח.

ועיקר איסור אונאת דברים שהזהירה עליו התורה,

שייך דווקא בין אדם לאשתו, ובין אישה לבעלה,

וכבר אמרו רבותינו, לעולם יזהר אדם באונאת אשתו,

מפני שדמעתה מצויה.

רבי יוסף רפאל חזן (יר"ח) - הרב הראשי הספרדי, ה"ראשון לציון", בתחילת המאה ה- 19.

חיבר את ספר השאלות והתשובות "חקרי לב" .

ריטב"א- רבי יום טוב בן אברהם אשווילי, מגדולי חכמי ספרד במאה ה-14.