1170), less importance was attributed to procreation. Men were no longer
forced to divorce their infertile wives and were certainly not allowed to marry
a second woman in order to fulfill the commandment of procreation.^66
The attitudes of the German and French sages to infertility varied accord-
ing to the problem at hand. A woman demanding a divorce writ on grounds of
her husbands’ impotence suffered consequences far different than those un-
dergone by a man claiming that his wife was barren. Since women were not
commanded to procreate, they could not claim, as the men did, that they were
kept from fulfilling a religious obligation. There were, however, other argu-
ments they could enlist in order to facilitate a divorce. A woman could argue
that without offspring, she would remain lonely at the end of her days and be-
come a burden on society. The Aramaic expression “I wish to have a staff in
my hand and a spade for my burial” (h·utra ledah umara lek’vurah)^67 is used to
exemplify the idea that these women want children so that they will have some-
one to provide for them in old age. This idea expresses the belief in the inher-
ent need of women to be mothers. It also is a telling comment on women’s po-
sition in the ideological framework. As they have no religious obligation to
procreate, they cannot make claims based on religious grounds to justify their
demand for divorce. Women could, however, make claims based on what were
perceived to be their natural qualities, or perhaps, what was seen by the soci-
ety as their natural weakness. A woman whose nature is “not to conquer” is
“naturally” expected to need and desire children so as not to be lonely and bit-
ter in her old age.
The main point that comes up again and again is, however, the legislators’
reluctance to intervene in issues that involved trusting women about male in-
fertility. The legislators voiced the fear that women might lie in order to be re-
leased from an undesirable marriage. They also expressed hesitation in ac-
cepting women’s testimony on their husband’s impotence, since according to
Jewish law, women’s testimony is not valid. However, the Mishna and the Tal-
mud already stated that in cases dealing with infertility, women are to be be-
lieved.^68 The issue was also one of great discomfort, since accusing a man of
infertility was an embarrassing ordeal.
By law, releasing women from marriage in impotence cases often involved
not only a writ of divorce, but also the return of a sum of money from the ke-
tubbah(marriage agreement) to the divorcee. This money was often the locus
of argument between spouses during the Middle Ages. The enforcement of the
ruling accepting a wife’s testimony and the returning of the ketubbah money
underwent change in the course of the Middle Ages. In the eleventh century,
Rashi commented on the divorce of a woman whose husband was impotent,
stating that she is to be divorced and given her ketubbah monies. At the same
time, he makes a comment that implies that this divorce was less automatic
than might be assumed. He says: “One should ask him to give her a writ of di-
vorce, but one does not force him.”^69 These instructions differ from the ruling
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1