The Rambam on a forced get

Question

The famous Rambam(Hilchos Geirushin 2:20) where he writes that if a man is required to divorce his wife (which were enumerated in Hilchos Ishus) and he doesn't want to divorce her ,beis din can force him to give a get. The Rambam writes that this get works is because forcing doesn't work only in a case when it has no connection to Torah observances(sale of land,presents). However,in this case it is his yetzer Harah which is stopping him and really he wants to fulfill his obligation.

My question is that the Rambam writes that this person deep down wants to be part of Israel and wants to keep the mitzvos. Do we say this about a man who became an apikores or mumar which does not fall intof the category of letiavon (for pleasure purposes) or the Rambam meant only in a case where the person is a shomer shabbas?

Answer 1

The Rambam's language strongly implies that the answer to your question is no. He writes that the reason why we say that it is merely the case that "his inclination is forcing him" to do evil is because he wants to remain Jewish and his general overarching will is to do the right thing:

מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה לִהְיוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְרוֹצֶה הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת וּלְהִתְרַחֵק מִן הָעֲבֵרוֹת וְיִצְרוֹ הוּא שֶׁתְּקָפוֹ וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהֻכָּה עַד שֶׁתָּשַׁשׁ יִצְרוֹ וְאָמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי כְּבָר גֵּרֵשׁ לִרְצוֹנוֹ

This is how the Rambam is understood by the Maharik (Shoresh 73, 3), the Shiltei Giborim quoting the Riaz (Gittin 59a in the Rif), Shut Maharitatz (1:83), and Shut Machaneh Chayim 2:2

Admittedly, not everyone reads the Rambam in this manner (see Shut Avodas HaGeirshuni 39 and Chazon Ish Hil. Gittin no. 99). Additionally, it should be pointed out that whatever the Rambam may have meant, the halakha might not conform to it. See Even HaEzer 154:1 especially

Answer 2

Rav Menashe Klein brings different opinions here (in קונטרסים גיטין on סימן קכ"א). He quotes the Shut Maharik 63:3 who says that this reason of the Rambam does not apply to someone who converted away from Judaism, however here he says the Rambam agrees that the Rabbis simply invalidated the Kiddushin because of how much they wanted to avoid an Aguna - so in practice forcing works.

He then quotes the Chasam Sofer Vol. 1 131:1 who says that it applies even to a Mumar, and goes on to question if they truly disagree, or if the Chasam Sofer would agree to a Mumar who is deliberately rebelling against Hashem rather than a מומר לתואבון would indeed be unable to be forced according to this reason.

In summation he ends up with three options: It never applies to a Mumar, it applies to a Mumar LeToavon only, and a third option that applies to a anyone who doesn't want to divorce qua divorce, but not to someone who doesn't want to divorce because he is against the concept of a Get and a religious divorce.

He then goes on to mention - without elaboration - that the Chelkas Yoav and the Or Sameiach argue that the Rambam would say it applies to everyone.

Answer 3

The Rambam does not specify whether this concept applies to someone who does not want to be a Jew/part of the Jewish people, he just sort of assumes that this Jewish man (or perhaps all Jewish men) wants to be part of the Jewish people:

לְפִיכָךְ זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְגָרֵשׁ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה לִהְיוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְרוֹצֶה הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת וּלְהִתְרַחֵק מִן הָעֲבֵרוֹת וְיִצְרוֹ הוּא שֶׁתְּקָפוֹ וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהֻכָּה עַד שֶׁתָּשַׁשׁ יִצְרוֹ וְאָמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי כְּבָר גֵּרֵשׁ לִרְצוֹנוֹ.

Therefore, it is unclear based purely on the wording of the Mishneh Torah whether Rambam was trying to say that all Jews deep down inside want to be part of the Jewish people and perform mitzvot and therefore this would apply to everyone, or if his statement is limited to only those who have not made it explicitly clear that they do not want to be part of the Jewish people.