The Fraught Approaches to Spousal Abuse in Halakhah

If you are experiencing domestic abuse, here are some resources to get help:

Shalom Task Force (Hotline and chat available): https://shalomtaskforce.org/contact
National Domestic Violence Hotline: https://www.thehotline.org/

(Feel free to clear your browser history to stay safe after viewing any of these websites)

TALMUDIC SOURCES AGAINST SPOUSAL ABUSE

וּפָשֵׁיטְנָא לֵיהּ מֵהָא: עוֹלָה עִמּוֹ וְאֵינָהּ יוֹרֶדֶת עִמּוֹ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי קְרָאָה — ״וְהִיא בְּעוּלַת בָּעַל״, בַּעֲלִיָּיתוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל, וְלֹא בִּירִידָתוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״כִּי הִיא הָיְתָה אֵם כׇּל חָי״, לְחַיִּים נִיתְּנָה, וְלֹא לְצַעַר נִיתְּנָה.

And we answered his question from this amoraic statement: When a woman marries a man, she ascends with him to his socioeconomic status, if it is higher than hers, but she does not descend with him if his status is lower. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is derived from: “She is a man’s wife” (Genesis 20:3). The Gemara explains: The word used here for “wife [be’ula]” hints through similar spelling that she ascends in status with the ascension [aliya] of her husband but does not descend with the descent of her husband. Rabbi Elazar said: There is a hint to this principle from here: “As she was the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20), which indicates that she was given to her husband for living with him, but was not given to suffer pain with him.

אָמַר רַב חִנָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ״? עַם שֶׁאִתְּךָ בְּתוֹרָה וּבַמִּצְווֹת, אַל תּוֹנֵיהוּ. אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם זָהִיר בְּאוֹנָאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁדִּמְעָתָהּ מְצוּיָה, אוֹנָאָתָהּ קְרוֹבָה.
§ Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Idi, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat each man his colleague [amito]” (Leviticus 25:17)? The word amito is interpreted as a contraction of im ito, meaning: One who is with him. With one who is with you in observance of Torah and mitzvot, you shall not mistreat him. Rav says: A person must always be careful about mistreatment of his wife. Since her tear is easily elicited, punishment for her mistreatment is immediate.

ואמר רמי בר חמא אמר רב אסי אסור לאדם שיכוף אשתו לדבר מצוה שנאמר ואץ ברגלים חוטא ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כל הכופה אשתו לדבר מצוה הויין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנין

Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a man to force his wife in the conjugal mitzva, i.e., sexual relations, as it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” (Proverbs 19:2). The term his feet is understood here as a euphemism for intercourse. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva will have unworthy children as a consequence.

אמר רב חסדא לעולם אל יטיל אדם אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו שהרי פילגש בגבעה הטיל עליה בעלה אימה יתירה והפילה כמה רבבות מישראל
Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20).
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַמַּשִּׂיא בִּתּוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ, כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹפְתָהּ וּמַנִּיחָהּ לִפְנֵי אֲרִי. מָה אֲרִי דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל, וְאֵין לוֹ בּוֹשֶׁת פָּנִים — אַף עַם הָאָרֶץ מַכֶּה וּבוֹעֵל, וְאֵין לוֹ בּוֹשֶׁת פָּנִים.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: Anyone who marries off his daughter to an ignoramus is considered as though he binds her and places her before a lion. Why is this so? Just as a lion mauls its prey and eats and has no shame, so too, an ignoramus strikes his wife and then engages in sexual relations with her without appeasing her first, and has no shame.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹהֵב אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּגוּפוֹ, וְהַמְכַבְּדָהּ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפוֹ, וְהַמַּדְרִיךְ בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו בְּדֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה, וְהַמַּשִּׂיאָן סָמוּךְ לְפִירְקָן — עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְיָדַעְתָּ כִּי שָׁלוֹם אׇהֳלֶךָ״.

§ The Sages taught: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time when they reach maturity, about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin.

RAMBAM'S MIXED LEGACY ON ABUSE

כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּמָּנַע מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה מִן הַמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת לַעֲשׂוֹתָן כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ וְעוֹשָׂה אֲפִלּוּ בְּשׁוֹט. טָעַן הוּא שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִמְנַעַת מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מוֹשִׁיבִין אִשָּׁה בֵּינֵיהֶן אוֹ שְׁכֵנִים. וְדָבָר זֶה כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְאֶה הַדַּיָּן שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר בַּדָּבָר:
Whenever a woman refrains from performing any of the tasks that she is obligated to perform, she may be compelled to do so, even with a rod. When a husband complains that [his wife] does not perform [her required tasks], and [the wife] claims that she does, [the dispute should be clarified by having] a [neutral] woman dwell with them or [by asking] the neighbors. The judges should clarify the matter in the best way they see fit.
כל אשה שתמנע וכו'. כתב הראב"ד ז"ל מעולם לא שמעתי יסור שוטים לנשים אלא שממעט לה צרכיה ומזונותיה עד שתכנע עכ"ל:

I have never heard of women being hit with a rod, rather he should lessen her sexual needs and her food until she bends. (translation mine)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁחָבְלוּ בָּהּ אֲחֵרִים. אֲבָל הַבַּעַל שֶׁחָבַל בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם לָהּ מִיָּד כָּל הַנֵּזֶק וְכָל הַבּשֶׁת וְהַצַּעַר וְהַכּל שֶׁלָּהּ וְאֵין לַבַּעַל בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹת. וְאִם רָצְתָה לִתֵּן הַדָּמִים לְאַחֵר נוֹתֶנֶת. וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים. וְהַבַּעַל מְרַפֵּא אוֹתָהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּרַפֵּא כָּל חָלְיָהּ:
When does the above apply? When others injured her. When, however, a husband injures his wife, he is required to pay her the entire assessment for the damages, the embarrassment and the pain. This money is hers entirely. The husband has no rights to the profits. If she desires to give the money to another person, she may. This is the ruling rendered by the geonim. The husband must pay for her medical expenses, as he pays for all her other medical expenses.
וְכֵן צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָדָם מְכַבֵּד אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפוֹ וְאוֹהֲבָהּ כְּגוּפוֹ. וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ מָמוֹן מַרְבֶּה בְּטוֹבָתָהּ כְּפִי מָמוֹנוֹ. וְלֹא יַטִּיל עָלֶיהָ אֵימָה יְתֵרָה. וְיִהְיֶה דִּבּוּרוֹ עִמָּהּ בְּנַחַת. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עָצֵב וְלֹא רַגְזָן:
Similarly, our Sages commanded that a man honor his wife more than his own person, and love her as he loves his own person. If he has financial resources, he should offer her benefits in accordance with his resources. He should not cast a superfluous measure of fear over her. He should talk with her gently, being neither sad nor angry.

RESPONSA LITERATURE THROUGH THE AGES

מיכן יש ללמוד שאסור לאדם להכות את אשתו וגם חייב בנזקיה אם הזיקה. ואם הוא רגיל תדיר להכותה ולהבזותה ברבים כופין אותו להוציאה. וכבר היה מעשה באחד שהיה רגיל תדיר להכות את אשתו. ונשאר מו"ר רבינו שמחה זצ"ל והשיב שכופין אותו להוציאה זה לשונו. אחר כותבי כתב ראשון קבל לפנינו ר' ירמיה על חתנו שהיה מכה את בתו תדיר ומבזה אותה בפריעת ראשה שלא כדת יהודים. דלחיים נתנה ולא לצער. ואפי' קונה אמה העבריה כקונה אדון לעצמו כ"ש אשתו ועל כל הכאה עובר בפן לא יוסיף. ועונשו גדול ממכה חבירו כי היא יושבת לבטח אתו ודמעתה מצויה.
ISAAC BEN MOSES OF VIENNA
1200-1270
From this we should learn that it is forbidden for a person to strike his wife and is likewise obligated in paying her damages and restitution. But if he is in the habit of striking her and disgracing her in public, we force him to divorce her. And there already was an example of one who was in the habit of hitting his wife. Our teacher, Rabbenu Simcha responded that we force him to divorce her. There is also the case about the son-in-law of Rabbi Yirmiyah who used to strike his daughter regularly and disgrace her by uncovering her head against Jewish law. That "for life she was given as a wife and not for suffering." And even "the one who purchases a Hebrew concubine is like one who purchases a master for himself" all the more so for his wife, and on every blow he transgresses the prohibition of "adding extra lashes." And his punishment is greater than the one who strikes his fellow, for she dwells in security with him but her tears are common. (Translation mine)

1351-1445 ,Shimon Ben Tzemach Duran, Algiers

(א) שאלה ח: עוד שאלת אשה שבעלה מצער אותה הרבה עד שמרוב הצער היא מואסת אותו

(ב) תשובה: קרוב הדבר בזה שיוציא ויתן כתובה דקיימא לן לחיים ניתנה ולא לצער... שאין אדם דר עם נחש בכפיפה והדיין הכופה לחזור לבעלה אם מרדה... מנדין אותו

Question: Another question about a long suffering wife, whose husband is a difficult person whom she cannot stand.

Response: You can write that he should divorce her and give her the ketubah for she was given for life, not for sorrow... and does not have to live in close quarters with a snake… and the rabbinic judge who forces a woman who rebelled to go back to her [abusive] husband... should be excommunicated…”

Israel Isserlin (1390 - 1460)
(א) שאלה ריח מי ששמע אשתו מקללת ומזלזלת באביה ואמה והוכיחה בדברים על זה כמה פעמים ולא הועיל שרי להכותה כדי לייסרה שלא תעשה או לאו:
(ב) תשובה יראה דבכה"ג שרי ואע"ג דכתב במרדכי פ' המדיר בתשובת רבינו שמחה דהמכה את אשתו עובר בלאו דפן יוסיף והחמיר מאד בדבר כדאיתא התם מ"מ לאפרושי מאיסור חמור כזה ודאי שרי

Question: One that hears his wife curse and spurn her father and mother, and he warns her with words about this a number of times and it is not effective, is it permitted to hit her in order to discipline her so that she should not do so or not?

Answer: It would seem in this case to be permitted. And this is even though in the Mordechai Perek HaMadir in the response of Rabbenu Simcha that the one who hits his wife transgresses the negative commandment of "lest he exceed (the maximum number of lashes)" and this is a very serious matter...

in any case to remove her from this serious prohibition of cursing parents, it is certainly permitted.

(translation mine)

ברכניכם בשם ה׳. ועל טוב יזכר שמכם. אם כן איפוא כמו שכתב מעבר הלז שהבעל רגיל להכות את אשתו. והיא בקשה ממנו שלא להכותה. ועוד לא רצה להבטיחה שלא להכותה עוד ולא קיבל. ואמר שוב בבית הכנסת שקבלה עבור מזונותיה עליו או שיבטיחנה שלא להכותה עוד ולא רצה לקבל.

דבר פשוט שצריך לשלם כל מה שלוותה ואכלה שלא רצה לכנע לבבו אפי' בדבור לומ' לא אעשה עוד מחשבתו נכרת מתוך מעשיו שהיה חפץ להכותה. כיון שעבר ושנה ושילש בזדון. ונעשה לו כהתר שלא רצה לנהוג עמה דרך כבוד ולא כמשפט הבנות הכבודות!

וקיימא לן והיא בעולת בעל בעלייתו של בעל ולא בירידתו. לחיים ניתנה ולא לצער. כל שכן שלא להכותה דקעבר על לאו דלא יוסיף... אשתו שהוא מצווה עליה לכבדה אינו דין שיהא מצוה שלא להכותה. ואדרבה חייב לכבדה יותר מגופו כדאיתא בפרק אילו הן הנשרפין. (דף עז) ואף המזיק אשתו בתשמיש המטה אמר בפרק המניח (בבא קמא דף לב) דחייב. כ"ש דאין לו להכותה.

ועוד בפרק הבא על יבמתו (יבמות דף סג) דקא דחיק תלמודא למצוא תקנה לאשה רעה ולא מישתמיט ולימא ליסרה בשוטים. ועוד מספר כתובתה נלמוד שיקבל עליו לכבדה. ואנא אפלח ואוקיר וכו'. לכבוד ניתנה ולא לבזיון. ואין זה דרך בני עמינו להכות נשותיהן כמנהג ע"ה. חלילה לכל בני ברית מעשות כדבר הזה.

ואם היה בא לפנינו דין זה שאשה קובלת על בעלה שמכה אותה היינו מחמירין עליו מאילו היה מכה את אחר. ומטעמא דפרישנא. ובפחות מזה כתב רב פלטאי גאון ז"ל שיוצא ויתן כתובה. וזה לשונו.

והיכא דארגילו קטטה אם היא מרגלת. כמורדת דמיא ואין לה כלום: ואם הוא מרגיל יש לה כל כתובתה. ואם מרגילין בני הבית כגון חמותו ובת חמותה יש עליו מן הדין להוציאה למקום אחר אין אדם דר עם נחש בכפיפה. ואם אין מוציאה מגרשה ונותן לה כתובתה. וכן הלכה וכן מנהג עכ"ל:

Meir of Rothenberg 1215-1293

Question: A often beats his wife. She begged him to promise not to beat her any more, but he refused to make any such promise. Even when she appeared in the Synagogue to demand that A pay the debts she had contracted in order to pay for her sustenance [probably during a period of separation], A stubbornly refused to promise that in the future he would refrain from beating her.

Answer: It's an obvious matter that A must pay for his wife's sustenance since by his action he has shown that he had not decided to desist even by his word to say he won't do it again, that his thought is cut off from his deed that he would desire to strike her... since he transgressed and repeated again and again on purpose and it has become to him as if it is permitted to do it, that he doesn't want to act with her in an honorable way and not like the law of honored daughters!

And it's established for us that a husband's taking a wife is for him to ascend and not to descend (in his morals). She was given for life and not for suffering. Even more so should he not strike her that he is transgressing the prohibition of adding lashes... His wife the he is commanded about her to honor her, there is no doubt that he should be commanded not strike her! On the contrary, he is obligated to honor her more than himself, as we have in the chapter Elu Hen HaNisrafin. And also the one who harms his wife through sex, the Talmud also says he is obligated for punishment. All the more so that he cannot strike her.

...And further her Ketubah says that he takes on him to honor her, as it says: "I will work for her and honor her..." For honor she was given and not for disgrace. And this is not the way of our people to hit their wive's like the way of Amei Haaretz. God forbid all people of the covenant from doing a thing such as this.

And if a case were to come before us that a wife attests about her husband that he strikes her, we would be more stringent on him than those that would strike any other person! And this is from the reason that I have explained. And wrote Rav Paltai Gaon that he goes out and gives her ketubah money.

But if it's a case where she is in the habit of making strife, she is like a rebellious wife, and she gets nothing. But if he is the one regularly causing strife, she gets all of her Ketubah money. And if the members of his household like his son in law or her daughter in law are regularly causing the strife, he has to by law take her to another place as "no person can dwell in a cage with a serpent." But if he does not take her out, he divorces her and give her her Ketubah money.

(Translation Mine)

האומר איני זן ואיני מפרנס כופין אותו לזון ואם אין ב"ד יכולים לכופו לזון כגון שאין לו במה לפרנס ואינו רוצה להשתכר להרויח ולזון אם תרצה היא כופין אותו להוציא מיד וליתן כתובה וכן הדין למי שאינו רוצה לשמש:
Moses Isserles 1530-1572
הגה וכן איש שרגיל לכעוס ולהוציא אשתו מביתו תמיד כופין אותו להוציא כי ע"י זה אינו זנה לפעמים ופורש ממנה בתשמיש יותר מעונתה והוי כמורד ממזונות ותשמיש (תשו' הרשב"א סי' תרצ"ג) וע"ל סי' ע' וסי' ע"ז איש המכה אשתו עבירה היא בידו כמכה חברו ואם רגיל הוא בכך יש ביד ב"ד ליסרו ולהחרימו ולהלקותו בכל מיני רידוי וכפייה ולהשביעו שלא יעשה עוד ואם אינו ציית לדברי הב"ד י"א שכופין אותו להוציא ובלבד שמתרין בו תחילה פעם אחת או שתים כי אינו מדרך בני ישראל להכות נשותיהם ומעשה כותים הוא וכל זה כשהוא מתחיל אבל אם מקללתו בחנם או מזלזלת אביו ואמו והוכיחה בדברים ואינה משגחת עליו י"א דמותר להכותה וי"א דאפילו אשה רעה אסור להכותה והסברא ראשונה היא עיקר ואם אינו ידוע מי הגורם אין הבעל נאמן לומר שהיא המתחלת שכל הנשים בחזקת כשרות ומושיבין ביניהן אחרות לראות בשל מי הרעה הזאת ואם היא מקללתו חנם יוצאת בלא כתובה ונראה לי דוקא ברגילה בכך ואחר ההתראה וכמו שנתבאר לעיל סי' קט"ו ואם הלכה מביתו ולוותה ואכלה אם יצאתה מכח שהכה אותה תמיד חייב לשלם (כל דברי הג"ה זו תמצא במרדכי פרק נערה בשם מוהר"ם וב"ז סי' פ"ח) וכמו שנתבאר לעיל סי' ע':
If someones says, "I will not give food nor provide for [my wife]," we force him to give food. And if the court cannot force him to give food, such as one who doesn't have anything to provide and doesn't want to make money to become profitable and provide food [that way], if she wants, we force him to divorce her immediately and giver her her ketubah. The law is such to someone who does not want have sex.
Rem"a: Similarly, a man who gets angry often and consistently kicks out his wife from his house, we force him to divorce her, for because of this he will not provide food for her sometimes, and he will separate from her from sexual relations more times than her rights to conjugal relations, and that is like refusal to provide food and sex [which are grounds for divorce] (Teshuvat HaRashba Siman 693). And see earlier Siman 70 and Siman 77. A man who hits his wife, has a transgression in his hand as much as striking his fellow. If he does this often, the court had the right to cause him pain and to excommunicate him, to whip him, to use all types of force, and to make him swear he will not do it again. And if he does not obey the court, some say we force him to divorce her, as long as he is warned one or twice, for it is not the way of Jews to hit their wives, that is the actions of the gentiles. This only applies when he starts it, but if she curses him for no reason, or mocks his father and mother, and she contradicts what he says and he has no authority over her, some say it is permitted to hit her. And some say that a bad wife is [also] prohibited to strike. The first opinion is the essential one. If it is not known who started it, the husband is not believed to say that she started it, for all women are assumed kosher, and they place others among them to see who is the bad one. And if she curses him for no reason, she is divorced without her ketubah. And it seems to me that this is only when this happens often, and after warning, as was explained earlier siman 115. If she left his house and borrowed [money] and ate [food], if she left because of him hitting her so often, he must pay her back (all of this note can be found in the Mordechai Perek Naara in the name of the Mohar"am and the B"Z Siman 88), and as is explained earlier Siman 70.

שו"ת בנימין זאב, סימן מ"ח, מצטט תקנת רבינו פרץ

BENJAMIN ZE'EV BEN MATTATHIAS OF ARTA early 16th century Greece

קול שועת בנות עמינו ממרחק נשמע על אודות בני ישראל המרימי' זרועותיהן להכות נשותיהם ומי השליט באיש בענין זה להכות אשתו הלא מוזהר ועומד הוא שלא להכות שום נפש אחד מישראל... לכן גזרנו בתוקף גזרה ואלה על כל בר ישראל ליכנס בחרם לבקשת אשתו או לבקשת אחד מקרוביה הפסולין לה להעיד שלא להכות אשתו דרך כעס או דרך רשע או דרך בזיון כי לא יעשה זאת בישראל... הודענו לב"ד של אותו מקום כשתבוא זעקת האשה או זעקת קרוביה לפסוק לה מזונות לפי כבודה לפי מנהג בנות המקום אשר דרה היא שם לפי ערכה ויפסקו לה מזונות כאלו הפליג בעלה ממנה והלך בדרך רחוקה

Responsa Binyamin Ze'ev 48, citing enactment of Rabbi Peretz

The cries of our daughters come to us from afar as Jewish [men] raise their hands against their wives. And who ruled that a man may strike his wife? He is forbidden to strike any other person at all! Therefore we have decreed that any Jew may be compelled [to take an oath] not to beat his wife in anger or cruelty so as to disgrace her and if he does so, he will be sent to herem [exile], for this is against Jewish practice... We have informed the local courts that if the cries of such a woman reaches them, the court could assign her [financial] maintenance according to her station and according to the custom of the place where she dwells as if her husband had disappeared.

Rabbi Elliott Dorff, CJLS 1995 Teshuvah on Family Violence:

That historical understanding of Judaism is critical for identifying its contemporary message on any subject, and the topic of family violence is no exception. We look to the tradition for enlightenment and guidance, and we often find it in a simple, straightforward manner. Sometimes, however, traditional sources say things that we find obsolete or even offensive. ·when that occurs, we have not only the right, but the duty to exercise judgment. We must determine whether such a mode of thinking or acting recorded in the tradition is an historical remnant that must be altered because contemporary circum- stances or moral sensitivities have changed, or whether the tradition as it stands is, instead, an indictment of our own way of doing things and a challenge for us to change. Thus, to accomplish our expectation to be taught by the tradition, we must be aware of the twin duties we have as its heirs: we must learn it and preserve it, and, at the same time, evaluate it and reinterpret it when necessary. Only then can it continue to speak to us with wisdom and power.

One other factor must be mentioned at the outset. This responsum is written in answer to Jews asking about the status of family violence in Jewish law. Jews expect their tradition to give them guidance beyond the demands of civil law, for we aspire to holiness. We certainly cannot interpret Jewish law to allow us to be less moral than what civil law requires. Since civil law in most areas of the Western world now prohibits most forms of family violence, Jews must eschew it for that reason in addition to the grounds afforded by the Jewish tradition.

Bibliography:

Rabbi Elliott Dorff's Teshuvah on Family Violence from the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement, which helped me to find many of these sources:

Dorff, E. (1995). Family violence - Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff. Rabbinical Assembly. https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/dorff_violence.pdf

An english summary of the sources over the years by By Naomi Graetz:

Graetz, N. (2015, April 3). Domestic Violence in Jewish law. My Jewish Learning. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/domestic-violence-in-jewish-law/

A more extensive analysis of Jewish law over the centuries also by Naomi Graetz on Jewish Women's Archive:

Graetz, Naomi. "Wifebeating in Jewish Tradition." Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women. 27 February 2009. Jewish Women's Archive. (Viewed on December 21, 2024) <https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/wifebeating-in-jewish-tradition>.

Also see Honeycomb Changemaker's sefaria sourcesheet on Domestic Violence for additional sources, including the teshuvah of Rav Benyamin Ze'ev included in this source sheet:

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/187005.40?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en