in previous cases in which men are forced to divorce their barren wives. Rashi’s
grandson, Rabbenu Tam (1100–1171) restates the position that men whose
wives claim they are impotent must divorce their wives, yet once again it is not
clear to what extent this ruling was actually enforced.^70
While the legal authorities agree that in certain situations men should be
forcefully persuaded to divorce their wives, we can also discern changes over
time with respect to attitudes toward women who complained of their hus-
band’s impotence. As mentioned above, already in the Mishna we find a cer-
tain opinion voicing suspicions of women who might fabricate infertility
claims. This opinion, which stood in opposition to the decision to accept
women’s testimony regarding the infertility of their spouses, seems to have been
widely accepted by the Ge’onim in Babylon. In the Middle Ages, if the hus-
band denied his impotence, the woman was not immediately believed. Those
supporting the ruling accepting a woman’s testimony, on the other hand,
claimed that no woman would lie about an issue such as this one. The reser-
vations that are mentioned in this context are telling if we consider that there
are no discussions in the Mishna^71 or at a later date, concerning men who un-
justly accuse their wives of infertility. Only women are accused of making false
accusations.
From the twelfth century on, the legal authorities accepted women’s testi-
mony but demanded that they pay a certain price for the right to divorce. In
the twelfth century, R. Isaac b. Avraham (Riz·ba) supported the acceptance of
women’s evidence. His response, however, reveals how equivocal his approach
was. He discusses a case in which a woman has been living with a man for three
years and found him impotent. He tried to convince the couple to wait an ad-
ditional year and explains that he himself had difficulties when he was first
married and advises the couple to give themselves a little more time. It is im-
portant to note that in this case the husband himself admitted that he had dif-
ficulties. Riz·ba, however, poses the woman a new challenge. As opposed to ear-
lier opinions, such as that of Rashi mentioned above, he says that the wife may
demand a divorce but that she must forfeit her ketubbah. This financial mea-
sure was certainly a major obstacle for any woman suing for divorce, but the
Riz·ba justified this requirement by explaining that only if she sued without de-
manding money could she be believed.^72
A different responsum from the twelfth century, addressed to Rahaviah, re-
lating a case that seems to have lasted for many years, broadens our under-
standing of the way male impotence was addressed. In this case, the couple
had been married for sixteen years and the husband was accused of being im-
potent. In addition to the wife’s testimony, this man also bore the outward signs
of a saris(eunuch). He had no facial hair and a high voice. His wife had been
complaining for quite some time and had even gone so far as to lock the doors
of the synagogue during prayers, refusing to allow her community to leave the
synagogue until her plea was heard. This was a standard procedure in medieval
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1