Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The Mishna in Gittin 9:10 provides a few different interpretations of ערות דבר (Deuteronomy 24:1). While the school of Shammai hold that for a man to divorce his wife he needs to find significant fault with her (דבר ערוה - possibly a crime of licentiousness), it is the opinion of the school of Hillel that he may divorce her if she only burnt his food. Rabbi Akiva's opinion, which is the most permissive of the three, is that he may even divorce her if he found another women whom he prefers. The language of the mishna in question is as follows:

בית שמאי אומרים לא יגרש אדם את אשתו אלא אם כן מצא בה דבר ערוה שנאמר כי מצא בה ערות דבר ובית הלל אומרים אפילו הקדיחה תבשילו שנאמר כי מצא בה ערות דבר רבי עקיבא אומר אפילו מצא אחרת נאה הינמה שנאמר והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו

The school of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds in her a matter of lewdness, as it says, "If he finds in her an unseemly thing" (Deuteronomy 24:1), but the school of Hillel say: Even if she burnt his food, as it says, "If he finds in her an unseemly thing". Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he found one more beautiful than she, as it says, "If she should not find favour in his eyes" (ibid.)

I have heard it said that the reason for the permissiveness of Rabbi Akiva and the school of Hillel is that if we interpret the passage as do the school of Shammai then every woman who is divorced by her husband will be suspected of adultery. By technically allowing divorce to occur for trivial matters, we preserve the dignity of Jewish women who, once divorced, may be suspected of having done nothing more heinous than burn their husbands' food - or of being guilty of nothing more than being married to a womaniser.

I am trying to find the source for that particular chiddush, which I think is very clever. To my mind, it sounds fairly late - maybe 19th/20th century - and I don't know how to go about finding it. If anybody has heard it before and can provide me with a source, I would very much appreciate it.

share|improve this question
1  
The question is asked according to bais shamai why is it necessary to say a kohen must not marry a divorced woman. She is automatically a zonah. Therefore the answer is even according to beis shamai not everyone is divorced because of adultery. –  user2709 May 7 '13 at 22:56
    
I have heard this too, but I have no source either. Good question. –  Monica Cellio May 8 '13 at 0:17
    
@shulem Because maybe she was divorced when she wasn't supposed to be. That doesn't mean the vast majority are divorced for znus (accd to Beit Shamai) and everyone will think negatively about a divorcee. –  Double AA May 8 '13 at 0:25
    
Where have you looked already? (Only so that we don't duplicate your efforts.) –  msh210 May 8 '13 at 2:51
    
Feel free to duplicate, @msh210 - I looked in certain of the major peirushim (Tosafot Yom-Tov, Melekhet Shlomo, Tiferet Yisrael, the Rambam and the Rav of Bertinoro), but didn't see anything. I wasn't really expecting to either: like I say, this sounds more recent to me. It reminds me of chiddushim that I've heard attributed to the Brisker Rov (and R' Yonasan Eybeschütz, come to think of it), but wouldn't know where to start. –  Shimon bM May 8 '13 at 3:22
show 1 more comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I have recently found what may be the earliest printed example of this drosh, in an unattributed passage in R' Baruch haLevi Epstein's Torah Temimah. It commences on p353, about halfway through the paragraph that begins with ודעת ר' עקיבא, and continues until the end of the paragraph on the following page.

Unfortunately, R' Epstein was a notorious plagiarist, so it is impossible to say with certainty that he was the originator of this clever interpretation, although he does show himself elsewhere in his Mekor Baruch to be interested in the plight of women, and a 19th-20th century origin makes sense.

share|improve this answer
    
Re "was a notorious plagiarist" see perhaps seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/9/…. Anyway, some of TT is unattributedly from R'vid Hazahav, but AFAICT this is not, FWIW. –  msh210 May 27 '13 at 7:23
add comment

For an interesting article on this issue in Hebrew, see the following link: http://www.eretzhemdah.org/Data/UploadedFiles/FtpUserFiles/Books/hemdatHaaretz/4.pdf

share|improve this answer
2  
Can you summarize it? We're looking for self-contained answers, not links to answers (that might or might not remain available). You needn't (and shouldn't) copy it completely, but selective quotes, or a summary of its conclusions and main sources, would make this a valuable answer. Thanks and welcome to Mi Yodeya. –  Monica Cellio May 27 '13 at 14:38
    
It's a long and in-depth article, so it would be difficult to summarise, but I'll try to keep my answers concise in the future. Thank you –  Ofer Livnat Jun 12 '13 at 17:40
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.