[Avodah] schechtworthy

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:

>>who fails
> > to divorce his wife in accordance with the Mishna in Kesubos which
> > would seem to require it.

And RMYG replied:

> Rambam Hilchos Ishus 24:14 implies that he doesn't have to divorce her if
> he
> doesn't want to. 

Actually, I think he states it explicitly in 24:16 - ain kofin es haba'al
l'hotezia ela im ratza lo yozia.

However The Shulchan Aruch siman 115 si'if 4 after stating like the Rambam -
ain kofin oso l'hotzeia adds mikol makom mitzvah alav shyoziena (and note
that the Rema says that the takana of Rabbanu Gershom that she cannot be
divorced against her will does not apply here).

It is also interesting to note that the Rambam in 24:16 is explicitly
talking about a woman who is over on daas Yehudis *and* daas Moshe.  On the
other hand, this Shulchan Aruch is brought at the end of the si'if on daas
Yehudis, and it is not at all clear to me that he is necessarily applying it
to the daas Moshe situation.

And, in many ways it is hard to see (leaving aside the hair covering case)
how a man who wants to be shomrei mitzvos can remain married to such a
woman.  As we have been discussing on Areivim, the concept of eid echad is
learnt out from the woman counting days for herself, and the husband can
rely on her.  But if she has proved herself to be unreliable in this regard
(which is precisely one of the cases) and has lost her hezkas kashrus in
this respect, how exactly is he to remain married to her?  Admittedly if it
is merely a matter of feeding him treif, then I guess he could remain
married to her but not eat anything she prepared, but if it was in relation
to hilchos nida, I confess I struggle somewhat with the Rambam (unless he is
saying that she forfeits her right of onah, and he is not considered a
mored).

The point of the Mishnah, AIUI, is that if he does, he
> doesn't have to pay her Kesubah. 

That is true in any event (ie whether he wants to divorce her or not), but I
think the implication of the Mishna is more than this, as the Shulchan Aruch
brings.  

Note, before anybody jumps up and down about this, that it is quite clear
from all the sources that this is only true in a situation where he doesn't
want to eat treif or be boel nida and is led to the action unsuspectingly,
not in a case where he knows the full circumstances and goes along with it
(or is an equal perpetrator).

> KT,
> MYG

Regards

Chana