daf bit: Gittin 6

[cellio]

Rabbi Chisda said: a man should never terrorize his household. [Ed: you would think this would go without saying, nu? :-) ] The concubine of Gibea (Judges 19) was terrorized by her husband [and fled], and on her account many thousands were slaughtered in Israel. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: if a man terrorizes his household, he will eventually commit three sins: unchastity (having relations with his wife at the wrong time because she is afraid to tell him), blood-shedding (people run away from him and meet with violence), and violation of Shabbat (because his wife, through fear of him, lights the lamp late). (6b)

The parenthetical explanations in that last part were in footnotes (presumably from other talmudic commentaries). Before I chased those notes I was a little puzzled by the combination of sins listed here -- particularly wondering what Shabbat had to do with the previous two.

Interesting: two of the sins are indirect; he bears the fault if these things happen as consequences, even if he did not directly attack someone or break Shabbat. I've seen that before for sins against people (e.g. you're liable for your ox that gores or the pit you dug that someone fell into), but less so for sins against God.

Comments

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Rabbi Chisda said: a man should never terrorize his household.

Once again, I am reminded of why I like Judaism (from my vantage point of an interested but not exhaustively scholarly outsider). When I was growing up I remember the ongoing debate in my church over whether a woman *should* leave a man who beat/abused/terrorized her; my father was seen as pretty radical for unequivocally saying 'yes'.

[sethg]

I wonder how these statements interact with the principle that "there is no agency for sin".

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

Before I chased those notes I was a little puzzled by the combination of sins listed here -- particularly wondering what Shabbat had to do with the previous two.

If you take the Shabbat one as a case of treating someone/thing else as more important than hashem (since she's acting more afraid of her husband than god), you have the "big 3" represented here.

[cellio]

Wow. I'm so glad I have never lived that debate (or situation).

[cellio]

I wonder, too.

[cellio]

Thank you. I hadn't thought of that, and it makes sense.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

In a certain sense the difference is as follows: Agency means it is your fault on a this-wordly level. If I tell you to shoot Reuven, am I liable in beit din for his murder? No. However, I am liable for causing you to sin (unsure if this really qualifies as stumbling block before the blind, as presumably the "agent" isn't blind to the fact that he is committing a sin here)

However, if I create a scenario where I cause others to sin, that is not good. So a man who insists on everything being so perfect before Shabbat that his wife is unable to do it all before Shabbat and thus breaks Shabbat out of fear of him is on some level responsible for her actions, but not to the level of agency.