in (la’asof—to gather), and the identity of his/her parents is unknown. In the
case of a shetuki (from the verb lishtok—to be silent), the identity of his/her
mother is known, but not that of the father. These children are mentioned in
the context of forbidden marriages, since when these abandoned children grow
up and wish to marry, their parentage is not known and certain legal problems
come up.^92 There are few references to these categories in medieval literature,
and, on the whole, these mainly repeat what was already said in the Talmud.
For example, R. Jacob H·azan of London, who discussed the case of foundlings
at length, summarizes Maimonides’ resumé of the Talmud, without adding
anything new to the discussion.^93
Biblical interpretations of Exod. 2:6 demonstrate the medieval Jewish aware-
ness of abandonment practices. The verse reads: “When she opened it, she saw
that it was a child, a boy crying. She took pity on it and said: ‘This must be a
Hebrew child.’” A number of commentators explain that Pharaoh’s daughter
understood that Moses was not a foundling when she discovered his basket on
the banks of the Nile. This explanation was based on the repetition in the verse
“she saw that it was a child, a boy crying.” According to R. Samuel b. Meir
(Rashbam), when she opened the basket she expected to see a child, as found-
lings were often abandoned in this way. When she saw, however, that Moses
was a boy and circumcised no less, she understood that he was a Jewish child
and not a foundling. On the other hand, had she been a girl, one could have
assumed she was a foundling.^94 R. Judah H·asid explains the repetition in the
verse to mean that not only was Moses by the Nile, but his brother Aaron was
there too. Pharaoh’s daughter saw the child in the basket and then she saw a
boy crying; these were two different children—Moses and Aaron. According
to R. Judah, she understood that Moses was not a foundling because he was ac-
companied by his brother.^95
These interpretations show an awareness of the phenomenon of foundlings,
as well as an inherent belief that Jewish children were not foundlings. I have
found, however, one reference to the abandonment of a baby. An unpublished
responsa from the collection of R. Meir b. Barukh’s responsa reads as follows:
“It happened that there was a baby abandoned in the street, and a rumor cir-
culated about a single woman who had given birth to him, and it was an in-
cessant rumor, and she became betrothed to a cohen [a person of priestly de-
scent].”^96 According to this short report, there were rumors that a certain
unmarried woman had given birth to a child and abandoned him. Unfortu-
nately for us, the supplicant is more interested in determining the status of her
subsequent marriage than in providing details about the abandonment of the
child. Hence, we have no further details about the child’s abandonment and
we do not know what happened to the infant. In fact, had the woman not been
subsequently betrothed to a cohen, we would have probably never heard about
the matter.
This case certainly refutes any claims that Jews could not or would not
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1