ther contribute to the creation of the embryo, each with his or her own seed.
In the Talmud, the implications of this theory are outlined in terms very simi-
lar to theories found in contemporary Latin sources: The mother is said to con-
tribute to the more tangible and earthly features of the fetus—the skin, blood,
and hair, whereas the father contributes bones, nails, and the brain.^38 Most dis-
cussions of these topics in both Jewish and non-Jewish sources emphasize the
father’s role and minimize the mother’s role, turning her into the means of
bringing the infant into the world rather than a central active figure, and her
status in the context of birth is unmistakably subordinate.
In Jewish sources, procreation is linked with a second legal issue—the num-
ber of children needed to fulfill the religious obligation of procreation. This
topic, discussed already in Tractate Yevamot, does not seem to have been a
topic of much debate in medieval Jewish society. The accepted opinion was
that of Beit Hillel—one daughter and one son. By contrast, Beit Shammaibe-
lieved that the Law required two sons. This obligation is discussed in Sefer
H·asidimin a story about a man who had only one child and was worried about
his ability to fulfill the commandment of procreation while his wife was nurs-
ing their infant, as the nursing would prevent the conception of another
child.^39 The precise obligations of this commandment were also important in
cases in which a man lost his wife prior to his fulfillment of the commandment
and wanted to remarry. In cases in which a man had not yet fulfilled the com-
mandment, he was allowed to remarry earlier,^40 thus demonstrating a clear dif-
ference regarding remarriage of widows and widowers with small children, a
topic that will be taken up in chapters 4 and 5.
A final point concerns the importance that medieval people, Jews and Chris-
tians alike, attached to the birth of male offspring. The approach of Beit Sham-
mai who argued in the Mishna that one must have two sons in order to fulfill
the obligation of procreation is a good illustration of this attitude. Medieval
Jewish and Christian societies are not unique in this respect, since most pre-
modern societies agree on this point. Jewish sources attest to the great disap-
pointment that accompanied the birth of daughters. Fathers explicitly prayed
for the birth of male offspring, and from the moment of conception, special
prayers were recited to help women bear sons.^41 Beginning with the Mishna,
and throughout medieval literature, men are warned not to pray once the sex
of the baby has been determined. This does not mean, however, that the birth
of a daughter was not greeted with some sorrow.^42 As a thirteenth-century com-
mentator on Genesis commented, girls were not important; boys were the ikar.
Consequently, he writes that in the passages on the naming of Jacob’s children,
while a reason is given for each of the boy’s names, no explanation is provided
for why Dinah was named as she was.^43 While the Jewish expressions of this
partiality are unique to Jewish sources, this preference was well known among
Christians as well.^44
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1