case was discussed throughout Ashkenaz and became a precedent for the gen-
erations that followed. A woman from Krakow, who is called the widow of
Krakow in the halakhic literature, married a well-known Polish rabbi, R. Jacob
Savra of Krakow. Before she remarried, she hired a wet nurse^166 and had her
swear in front of witnesses that she would not leave her post before the infant
was twenty-four months old. In spite of her attempt to assure the infant’s well-
being, when the marriage was publicized, some rabbinic authorities thought
R. Jacob should be forced to divorce the widow. This case, however, had some
unique circumstances. R. Jacob was a Cohen, the descendant of Aaronic
priests. Hence, according to Jewish law, he could not marry a divorcée. There-
fore, had the couple been divorced, they would not have been able to remarry
when the infant reached the age of twenty-four months.
As part of the attempt to resolve this case, scholars throughout Europe were
contacted and asked to express their opinions. This case is mentioned already
in R. Isaac b. Moses’s Sefer Or Zaru’aand is continually discussed for many
years afterward.^167 Although there are numerous accounts of this story, many
details concerning the case are unclear, and Israel Ta-Shma even suggested
that over time the details of the case were censored by copyists.^168 Ques-
tions were sent to many scholars, and only one scholar, R. Tuviah (Tobias)
of Vienne, was willing to allow the couple to remain married. R. Tuviah, a
thirteenth-century French scholar, argued that since the wet nurse had sworn
she would remain in her post, the couple should not be forced to divorce.^169
All the German scholars, on the other hand, were of the opinion that R. Jacob
must divorce his wife, and they even threatened to excommunicate him if he
did not do so. They refused to accept the oath of the wet nurse or the securi-
ties she gave as binding, arguing that the wet nurse’s husband could easily
annul her vow.^170 This stringent ruling became the normative one and had
far-reaching consequences.^171
In examining the response to this trend, it becomes clear that many medieval
women and their families felt that these laws, and especially the stringency with
which they were enforced, were unnecessarily harsh. For example, in a twelfth-
century case from France, a young woman named Frieda, the daughter of
R. Isaac of Rouen, wishes to obtain permission to remarry although she is preg-
nant. As a young divorcée who had not yet given birth, Frieda could surely have
decided not to nurse her child and obtained a wet nurse for him. Her father
and his colleague, R. Moses haDoeg b. Nathan, present this argument in their
suit for permission for her to remarry.^172 Frieda’s family, arguing on her behalf,
contends that it is of utmost importance for her to be able to remarry as quickly
as possible. The opposition argues for enforcing R. Tam’s ruling.
We can assume that many of the women who were divorced and widowed
with small infants were fairly young, as they were in their childbearing years.
Probably, in many cases, as in the case of Frieda, their families supported, or
perhaps even encouraged them to remarry quickly. This is supported by stud-
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1