Compelling a Divorce? Early Talmudic Roots of Coercion in a Case of Moredet

The purpose of this paper is to expose the deep roots of coercion of a get in the case of the moredet (the rebellious wife) in tannaitic and amoraic sources. The relevant Talmudic sources will be discussed and interpreted. It is in the very nature of this kind of source that alternative interpretations are possible, which in our case differ inter alia as regards coercion. However, the interpretation here suggested has important advantages compared to the others, as will be shown at length below. This study argues that the roots of the well known gaonic tradition regarding coercion are to be found already in the tannaitic and amoraic sources. Several parts of this study are based on Rashi's interpretation of the Babylonian sugya, which is compatible with the gaonic tradition, but more far reaching in the way it legitimates coercion on the basis of Talmudic interpretation. These interpretative conclusions are supported by the variant of MS Leningrad-Firkovitch of Amemar's opinion in the Babylonian sugya, which mentions coercion explicitly. This variant was described in past researches as supporting the gaonic tradition. However, according to the present paper, the basis for coercion is not only MS LF's variant of Amemar's opinion, but also earlier sources. The argument that follows has both historical and dogmatic importance: historical insofar as it supports the claims (i) that coercion was implied, even where it was not explicit, already in tannaitic and amoraic sources, and (ii) that the gaonic measures were based on Talmudic interpretation; dogmatic insofar as it points to a body of opinion (here exemplified in the interpretation of Rashi, his predecessors and successors) amongst the Rishonim which