so. Many of the women who left their jobs early did so because of an additional
pregnancy that prevented them from continuing to work. One of the ways em-
ployers tried to ensure that wet nurses would not leave their employment was
by obtaining securities that would guarantee their stay. In other cases, they had
the wet nurse, or her husband, swear that she would not break her contract.^63
We find some mention of this practice in Jewish sources as well, although
no contracts from the medieval period have been found. The Mordekhai men-
tions three different ways of ensuring that a wet nurse would remain with an
infant throughout the entire period she was needed or, at least, minimizing the
potential damage of her leaving. He mentions vows/oaths, guarantees, and the
option of hiring two wet nurses so that at least one of the two will stay on.^64
Other sources provide further details of these practices. Oaths seemed to have
been common. Women who swore not to leave their position usually com-
mitted themselves not to marry if they were single, and not to conceive, if they
were married.^65 In the case of married women, this promise came under the
category of vows by which a woman denies herself something. Since (accord-
ing to Num. 31:10) such vows may be annulled by the husband, some legal
authorities saw this oath as not sufficiently binding.^66 However, it should be
noted that in the case of a Christian wet nurse, the Jewish legal authorities were
not willing to accept her oaths as valid. The rabbis argued that because Jews
feared that gentiles would harm their children, no Jew would risk his child’s
life and continue to employ a Christian wet nurse who wished to terminate her
contract.
Monetary guarantees or securities were another matter. As in Christian so-
ciety, the wet nurses ( Jewish and Christian) often agreed to forfeit a part of their
promised wage if they left early.^67 As for employing two wet nurses, this was a
costly as well as a risky business. After all, both wet nurses could decide to leave,
and then the infant would be no better off. This point does come up, however,
in another Spanish responsum, written by R. Solomon Ibn Aderet (Rashba,
thirteenth century). He discusses a case in which two wet nurses were hired,
and the question addressed to him is whether one of them may be allowed to
get married, as the child is used to nursing from two women, and if one of them
cannot continue she may be replaced.^68
In addition to their wages, the wet nurses received clothing and food.^69
Moreover, it seems that it eventually became customary to provide wet nurses
with gifts at certain times of the year. The Jewish sources discuss this custom
in connection with non-Jewish wet nurses, but it is likely that this was the pre-
vailing custom when employing Jewish wet nurses too, as it was between Chris-
tian employers and their wet nurses.^70 The practice that raised the most con-
cern was that of giving Christian wet nurses gifts on the holiday of Purim. This
custom is mentioned in the literature written by Rashi and his students, as well
as in later literature.
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1