SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA
divorce(Deut. 24.1 ff) and the Talmudic Tractate Gitin, as well as discussions elsewhere, deal with causes and the subsequent implementation of divorce.
Among the reasons for divorce is the affliction of either party with an incurable disease which makes intercourse impossible
or dangerous(Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer, 117.1 ff, 154.1 ff). A|
wife may also seek a divorce if the husband is squandering the family assets so that she feels that her maintenance is endangered (Ibid., 154.3). Although no age restrictions are mentioned in these discussions, marriages of the young or middle-aged are implied. In other words, these reasons were not intended to deal specifically
with the problems of old age which may, naturally, lead to illness,
impotence and unusual expenses.
We may approach the entire question from another point of
view as noted by Professor Mark Washofsky, to whom I am indebted, and turn to the duty of one spouse to pay the other's
medical obligations. Shulhan Arakh Even Haezer(69, 79) obliges|
the husband as part of the ketubah to provide medical care for his wife. In our Reform context we would, of course, extend this obligation to the wife. Paragraph one states that this obligation holds whether the illness is of a temporary or a chronic nature. Paragraph three deals directly with our problem. It provides an escape in the event of a long-term and expensive illness(Yad Hil. Ishi 14.17); the husband may set a limit for her medical bills; should she refuse this offer, the husband divorces her and she receives the ketubah. Rambam and Caro argue against this arrangement on eth!cal grounds(see also Magid Mishnah), but neither denies that the husband possesses this right. On the other hand, some authorities do deny this right; the Rabad limits the husband’s power of di
150
Lat at bh Peet ep Pub pep up put