[Avodah] schechtworthy

[Yitzhak Grossman]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 23:02:34 +0100
"Chana Luntz" <Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> 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 Hafla'ah asks a variant of this question [0]:

<Quote>

It is apparently difficult, if she 'serves' him when she is a Niddah,
so that she is suspect on Niddah, if so he is forbidden to live with
her, and since she caused the prohibition, it is appropriate that she
should lose her Kesubah even without a warning ...

It seems that it is because she can say that she will accept
repentance ...

Perhaps she can argue that even if she is suspect he can live with her
through 'pikahos' who will check her 'be'es vestah' or every thirty
days, as in YD 196:8 regarding a deaf-mute.

</Quote>

He's not actually asking on the law of 'ein kofin', presumably since he
can accept that it can be understood to refer to all the cases
except Niddah.  Note, though, that the Pis'hei Teshuvah does actually
cite the Hafla'ah (via the Bris Avraham) on the words of the SA "[ve'im
razah] l'kayem osah" [1].  The PT also cites his discussion of this
issue in YD [2], where he cites the Havas Da'as there [3].

Full disclosure: I just recently learned EH 115, and RnCL's question
actually appeared on an exam I took on it.

> 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).

This is not universally accepted; Radvaz [4] cites a responsum of the
Rambam ruling that she does indeed forfeit the Kesubah regardless of the
husbands complicity.  On the other hand, in a different responsum [5]
the Rambam rules that we do penalize the husband the value of the
Kesubah for his complicity, but he still maintains that we do not give
the money to the 'zonah ha'marsha'as'.  He does not specify what is
done with it, but the Radvaz concludes by citing a responsum of the
Rambam stating that we penalize the husband and give the "me'uhar" to
paupers, which he endorses.

The 'Meforshei Yad Hahazakah' edition of the Rambam [6] cites several
responsa of the Rambam on this issue; none are sourced.  Two seem to be
mere quotations of the previously cited responsum of Radvaz, and a third
seems to imply that she actually is entitled to her Kesubah in the
event of the husband's complicity, although the language is problematic.

It is nevertheless true that many Aharonim [7] seem to take for granted
that the husband's complicity nullifies his right to deny her the
Kesubah, as RnCL has said.

[0] Kuntrus Aharon, 115:10
[1] 115:12
[2] 185:2
[3] ibid. 1
[4] 1:90, cited by Pis'hei Teshuvah 115:3 (at the end)
[5] Pe'er Hador 119
[6] Ishus, 24:10-11
[7] Panim Me'iros, Beis Meir, Mahari Ha'Levi (Taz's brother) and
Noda Be'Yehudah, as cited by Pis'hei Teshuvah 115:3

> Regards
> 
> Chana

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat