the custom that when a man died, his mother would take only 200 zuzfrom her
ketubbah and she would become the custodian of the child’s money and support
herself from it until the child grew up. For who is loyal to a child like its mother?
So Solomon said cunningly to the women: “‘Disputed money of doubtful own-
ership should be divided among the disputants’ (BT Bava Mez·i’a 2b). I will divide
the child and the money.” And the woman whose son was alive said to the king,
because she pitied her son: “Give her the live child,” and the other woman said:
“You are being deceitful so that all will say that you are merciful and therefore are
his mother.... Since this dispute exists, let us act by the law of the Torah and di-
vide.” Then Solomon said: “From the words of the first woman, I cannot tell if
she is telling the truth, but I can tell from the words of the second. Since she cru-
elly said, “Cut him,” and did not pity him, she is clearly not his mother.”^51R. Judah clearly expects a woman to be merciful and loving toward her chil-
dren, as he says: “For who is loyal to a child like its mother?” In addition, he
calls the woman who suggests cutting the child “mad.” This approach is
echoed in a Tosafist commentary on Exod. 2:2:
“And when she saw how good he was.. .”^52 It should not be understood that she
hid him [in the basket] because she saw that he was good and beautiful. Because
all women who give birth to sons/children^53 show compassion for their children,
whether beautiful or ugly, we should explain in this manner: “And God saw all
he had made and found it was very good” (Gen. 1:31)... in this case because
Moses was born at six months of age, and she looked at him when he was born [to
see] whether he was a stillborn [in which case] she wouldn’t trouble to save him.
[But] she saw he was good and beautiful, and his hair and nails were formed, and
she knew he could live.^54This understanding, that women show “natural” compassion for their chil-
dren, comes up in a discussion of breast-feeding as well. R. Jacob Mulin dis-
cusses the case of a woman who gave birth to a child out of wedlock and her
obligation to nurse the child. He explains that the sages obligated this woman
legally to nurse her child so as to protect the child but that “most women have
compassion for their children and nurse them.”^55 As we have already demon-
strated, although they held a basic belief that most women would choose to
nurse their offspring, medieval Jewish authorities made provisions to ensure in-
fants’ well-being.
This attitude—asserting, on the one hand, that women possessed an in-
stinctive compassion for their children, while attempting to assure children’s
welfare by law—is not unique to the medieval Jewish sources, or to medieval
society. The sources in Christian Europe that support each side of this issue
have been thoroughly explored by scholars who have argued for and against
theories proposed by Philippe Ariès.^56 The next sections of this chapter will
examine some of the issues raised by Ariès’s followers and his opponents, such