recognizes her and refuses to nurse from anyone else. But now, the wet nurse who
nurses her [“Rachel’s”] son [Baby A] refuses to nurse him, as the father of the child
left for to a different city and no one is paying her salary. And the courts tell her
[“Rachel”] that she should nurse her son. But she says that she can’t, because she
is obligated to nurse the son of her master. And her master says he will not allow
her [to leave] because he has already paid her salary, and also because his son will
not nurse from anyone else, and one soul may not take precedence over another.
Answer: The law sides with the father of the infant [Baby B], because she com-
mitted herself to nurse him. Thus, she is obligated to nurse him [Baby B], so as
not to kill the infant. She is not commanded, however, to nurse her own son, even
if she was married. And since the father of the infant [Baby A] does not provide
her maintenance, [we] cannot [let her] die of starvation, especially in this case, as
she isn’t married and isn’t obligated to nurse his son. Moreover, her son [Baby A]
is already accustomed to nursing from another woman, whereas this infant [baby
B] is used to her milk and won’t nurse from anyone else, and one soul does not
take precedence over another. Rather, let the court hire a wet nurse for him [Baby
A] and force the infant’s father to pay. And if the court cannot force him, let the
court pay the salary [of the wet nurse].^61This responsum, like most written by R. Asher, is in answer to a question he
was asked during the period he lived in Spain. In this case, despite the differ-
ences that existed between the Jews of Spain and the Jews in Ashkenaz, I would
argue that the practices concerning the employment of wet nursing were sim-
ilar. R. Asher himself uses precedents from Ashkenaz and points to similarities
between Ashkenazic and Spanish practice.^62
These two sources, the case of “Leah” and “Rachel” in Germany and of
“Rachel” in Spain, illuminate the extent of a wet nurse’s obligations and the
absolute importance of breast milk to children’s survival. The Spanish case em-
phasizes the importance attributed to having the wet nurse feed only one in-
fant. The wet nurse must deny even her own child’s well-being and prefer the
baby she was hired to nurse over her own child. Incidentally, this responsum
also shows the extent to which the law exempting a mother from the obliga-
tion of nursing her own child could be applied. In addition, both cases illus-
trate the desire of the infant’s parents to avoid switching wet nurses. R. Asher’s
response highlights the importance he saw in ensuring that the child would
not be harmed by replacing a wet nurse he was familiar with. The many cases
in the literature that discuss wet nurses who broke their contracts are an indi-
cation of the frequency and severity of the difficulties faced by parents.
Scholars who have studied wet-nursing practices in Christian society have
discussed the contracts wet nurses or their husbands signed when taking on
new employment. In many cases the agreement was that the wet nurse would
lose part of her salary if she left her job before her contract allowed her to do