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!