For our purposes, I will note that R. Eliezer b. Nathan states that in his time, women frequented
the courts: Sefer Ra’avan, no. 87.
- Supra, n. 150.
- For example: R. Meir b. Barukh, Shut Maharam(Prague), no. 655, nos. 863–64; R. Meir
b. Barukh, She’elot uTeshuvot(Crimona), no. 161; R. Asher b. Yeh·iel, Shut HaRosh, no. 52; Sefer
Or Zaru’a, 1: no. 740; Mordekhai, Ketubbot, no. 289; Teshuvot Maimoniyot, no. 24, and note 164. - For example: R. Jacob Hazan, Ez·H·ayim, Laws of Gittin, no. 9, 195, quotes a book called
Sefer haH·anokhi, citing R. Samson’s opinion and stating that R. Tam did not agree with him. Sefer
haH·anokhiwas written in the thirteenth century and has survived only in fragments quoted in
other books. See: Simh·a Emanuel, The Lost Halakhic Books of the Tosaphists, Ph.D. Diss., He-
brew University (Jerusalem, 1993), 81, n. 3. - Tosafot, Yevamot 36b, s.v. “VeLo ketanei”: “And R. Joseph of Orleans ruled that one who
marries a nursing woman does not need a divorce; rather, he should simply separate from her.”
This same ruling appears in Mordekhai, Ketubbot, no. 289, regarding a specific case in which a
Jewish wet nurse had been hired for the infant and had sworn under grave oath that she would not
leave her post before the end of her contract. For a description of how R. Tam’s teachings spread
in France, see Reiner, Rabbenu Tam, 68, and a summary of this topic on p. 113. - This was most probably a Jewish wet nurse. See also the discussion above, pp. 129–30.
- For fairly detailed accounts, see: Sefer Or Zaru’a, 1: no. 640; MS Cincinnati 154, no. 5;
R. Meir b. Barukh, Shut Maharam (Prague), nos. 863–64; R. Meir b. Barukh,She’elot uTeshuvot
(Lvov), no. 362; MS Cambridge Or. 548, fol. 13, no. 74. - Israel M. Ta-Shma, “On the History of Polish Jewry in the Twelfth to Thirteenth Cen-
turies.” Zion53(1988): 353–55 [in Hebrew]. Ta-Shma came to this conclusion based on the fact
that parts of the manuscripts were torn out, as, for example, in the Cincinnati manuscript. See also
Urbach, The Tosaphists, 488–91. - Ta-Shma cites this ruling, “History of Polish Jewry,” 353. This opinion appears in a num-
ber of manuscripts: MS Paris héb. 392, fol. 23a; MS Paris héb. 393, fol. 15a; MS Vatican ebr. 176,
fol. 50b–51a; MS Moscow Günzburg 1, fol. 22a; MS Parma 813, fol. 42b–43a. - For example: R. Meir b. Barukh, Shut Maharam(Prague), no. 864.
- For example, R. Asher b. Yeh·iel, Shut haRosh, no. 53.
172.Teshuvot Hakhmei Provence, no. 53.
173.Sefer Or Zaru’a, 1: no. 740. - This fear is mentioned in other sources as well. For example, R. Asher b. Yeh·iel, supra, n.
- Ta-Shma, “History of Polish Jewry,” 353, n. 22; idem, “Children in Medieval Germanic
Jewry,” 265. - Supra, n. 87.
- In Islam, the situation was very different. See supra, n. 41. It should be noted, however,
that while there were severe restrictions for divorcees in Islam, widows were allowed to remarry. A
comparison of these matters certainly merits further investigation.
Notes to Chapter 5Joseph Dan, Iyyunim beSifrut H·asidei Ashkenaz(Ramat Gan, 1975), 153, excerpted from MS
Oxford Bodl., Opp. 540 (1567), fol. 3a.
- For example: William F. MacLehose, “Nurturing Danger: High Medieval Medicine and the
Problem(s) of the Child,” in Medieval Mothering, eds. John Carmi Parsons and Bonnie Wheeler
(New York and London, 1996), 3–24. - For example: Dhouda, Manuel pour mon fils: Introduction, texte critique, notes par Pierre
Riché, traduit par Bernard de Vergille et Claude Mondesert S. J. (Sources chrétiennes, 225) (Paris,