The gemara says that "hu b'vigdo and hi b'vigdah" is minhag persians and does not fulfill the mitzvah of onah. The Ritva comments "Even though he is wearing his clothes for tznius purposes, and even if she would do the same, this would have the status of rejecting relations since it is not an intimate way" and is therefore grounds for divorce. The Ritvah does not seem to reject the notion that it would be more tzanuah in this way, rather it seems from the Ritvah that really one can make a legitimate claim that they want to maintain this "chumrah" for the sake of tznius, nevertheless she is not bound to keep his chumros, and he therefore cannot impose this chumra on her without her consent.
I posted earlier regarding the gemara on 22b where shmuel kept a chumra not to believe her amasla that she is really tahor and abstained from relations from her. The Rama records not trusting her amasla as a legitimate chumra and midas chasiddus. R' Moshe asks, How can he do this, he is bound to her to fulfill the mitzvas onah. Even according to the Chasam Sofer who says that when it is a chumra for both him and her, he can impose the chumra, since ma'alos in avodas hashem are advantageous to her as well; but here where she knows that she is actually tahor it is not at all a chumra for her, so how can he impose this on her. R' Moshe seems to understand and agree that whenever the chumra would be for both him and her, he can impose it on her as well, against the implication of the Ritvah.
However, I looked at the Teshuva of the Chasam Sofer (y.d. 149) who discusses a case where she found a ma'reh and was told by the Rav that it was tahor, but the husband who is a talmid chacham wants to be machmir. The chasam sofer elaborates to explain that the nature of being married to a talmid chacham is to accept his chumros....
ומעתה נבוא לנידון דידן נמי, כיון שכן דרכן של פרושים שבישראל להזהר מדבר שהורה בו חכם, נהי דבעת הנישואין לא היה מתנהג עדיין בפרישות רק כשאר ת"ח, לא מצי למטען לא קבלית עלאי שתהיה חסיד ופרוש, אלא אמרינן כיון שנישאת לבחור, רגיל הוא זה שעתיד להיות פרוש וחסיד, וזקני ת"ח כל זמן שמזקינין וכו' וכשם שאמרו אשרי לנשותיהן של אלדד ומידד שזכו לנבואה,
ה"ה כל מדרגה מעלה עבודת השם שמחה היא לאשתו, וכשצווחת אמרינן השתא הוא דאתרעי ומעולם לא נשתעבד לה, זה הנלענ"ד
Clearly the context of the chasam sofer is not that he can impose any chumra he chooses on her. The chasma sofer is speaking of a situation where it should have been expected that he would start keeping these types of chumros, but in cases where at the time of the marriage there was not expectation for him to be a chumra kind of guy, he cannot impose chumros on her which would conform with the implication of the Ritvah.
5 comments:
very interesting, where is the rav moshe?
Look at the Bach E"H 76 s"k 7, regarding if a Man is allowed to change from a job with a more frequent chiyuv of onah to be come a Talmid Chacham which has a less frequent chiyuv of onah.
S
Tosfos Niddah 17a cites a Medrash that Hashem despises those who have relations unclothed. The M"B writes that this is referring to a case when they are completely uncovered; however, if there is a covering on top of them, there is no problem whatsoever. Shaar hatziyon cites Mekubalim that this is the preferable method.
r' yossi - this is from a comment on a post on 22b with the ma'areh makom.
Avi Lebowitz said...
aryeh,
i took a look at the teshuva you refer to (y.d. 4:14 - pg. 181 d.h. ma shekasav harama). The rama who allows a husband to be machmir on himself and not follow her amasla, is based on this gemara about shmuel. But, R' moshe asks a very strong question. Although the chasam sofer (y.d. 149 - mentioned in pischei teshuva 188:2) allows a husband to be machmir in hilchos nidah, even though his chumra will affect her, because the chumra would also be advantageous to her (all madreigos and ma'alos of avodas hashem is a simcha for her"). But in this case where she knows that she is tahor, there is no advantage for her to be machmir, so what right does he have to be machmir since he is obligated in the mitzva of oneh to her? R' moshe suggests that since she caused the confusion by originally claiming to be ta'ameh, he is entitled to be skeptical about her amasla and be machmir.
Someone posted this Aruch Hashulchan on my site: Aruch Hashulachan (185;11) writes that there is an extreme novelty in this ruling: One is permitted to be strict on himself and not have relations with his wife even if it is the appointed time as prescribed to him (their particular onah).
Post a Comment