Avodah Zarah 023

After today's shiur the Rabin Mishnah Study Group will be taking a break: for details see the NOTICE at the end of this shiur. For that reason, in today's shiur, rather than to start a new topic I shall try to bring as many as possible of the queries and comments that you have sent me recently.

In AZ 020 I wrote: With regards to a non-Jewish woman acting as midwife for a Jewish woman we find conflicting views among the Tannaïm. Rabbi Me'ir would not permit a non-Jewish woman to act as midwife for the birth of a Jewish child "because she might kill the child". However, the rest of the sages [say that]… a non-Jewish woman may attend the birth of a Jewish child, but … she may only do so when other Jewish women are also in attendance.

Elizabeth Petuchowski writes:

Was there no remembrance of the merit of Shifra and Puah? Though they are called "Hebrew midwives," is it not generally thought that these were Egyptian midwives tending to the needs of Jewish women in labour? If so, they would surely deserve being remembered for good – for as long as we recall the de-merit of, say, Amalek. Perhaps there are other rabbinic views on this, in addition to these in Avodah Zara.

I respond:

What an interesting question! However, Elizabeth is making the statement in the book of Exodus [1:15] say something that it was not intended to say. The two names are ascribed by the sages to Yokheved herself and her daughter Miriam. (See Rashi's commentary on that verse; his source is in the Gemara: Sotah 11b.) But even if we ignore this midrashic embellishment, the biblical text says quite clearly that the midwives were Hebrew women, not Egyptian. Furthermore, a later verse [1:17] says that the midwives feared God and did not fulfill the pharaoh's commands. That is hardly to be expected of Egyptian women. And when verse 21 says that God rewarded their steadfastness by creating for them 'houses' Rashi explains (from the same source) that Yokheved was the progenitor of the houses of Priests and Levites (through her sons Aaron and Moses). Yokheved's daughter Miriam was the progenitor of royal houses: according to the midrash Sifrey [Beha'alotkha 78] Miriam married Caleb and, according to another midrash [Shemot Rabbah 48:4], one of their ultimate descendents was David .

On that same topic (and also with a connection to Rashi) Naomi Graetz writes:

I'm fascinated by this last shiur – because I have just finished reading the second volume of Maggie Anton's novel, "Rashi's daughters: Miriam". According to the author, Miriam was a midwife apprenticed to her aunt and they served both Jewish and non-Jewish populations. It occurred to me, while reading your shiur that if gentile babies are stillborn or born with defects, the Jewish community could be blamed for killing or maiming "their" babies. Are there instances of this fear being expressed in the mishnah or talmud?

I respond:

First of all let me hasten to warn: most of the biographic details in Anton's novels are the fruit of an active imagination. There is no evidence whatsoever that Rashi's daughter Miriam was a midwife or performed circumcisions; nor is there any evidence whatsoever that her husband was gay. (These denials should be enough to help sell the book!) Even the aunt to whom Miriam was apprenticed is a figment of Anton's imagination – though it is reasonable to assume that Miriam did have an aunt. I cannot immediately recall any mention in our classical sources of Jewish midwives being accused of causing the death or the mutilation of babies of non-Jewish mothers. Of course, in the middle ages there is such evidence in abundance.

And, yet again, on the same topic, Ronen Lautman writes:

I would like to suggest an explanation of why Jewish women are prohibited from suckling a non-Jewish baby. In central Europe, during the 19th century at least, women from poor families who gave birth were hired by rich women who had given birth at around the same time. This was because the rich mothers would not nurse their children themselves for social reasons. The result was that poor women did not nurse their own children who usually died from under-nourishment. It could well be that the sages did not want a Jewish baby to die of starvation while its mother was nursing a non-Jewish child, even for payment. (Jewish women were, of course, permitted to nurse babies born to other Jewish women.) It is a well-known phenomenon that rich people are prepared to exchange their pain, including nursing, from poor people against payment. As Kohelet wrote [Ecclesiastes 1:9]: "What has been will be and what has been done will be done and there is nothing new under the sun."

I respond:

Ronen's suggestion is very interesting. However, his surmise – in reverse – from Kohelet seems to me to be unjustifiable. Are we justified in assuming that what rich European ladies did in the 19th century had already been done by rich women in the middle east 1500 years previously? It is possible, it may even be probable; but can we prove it?

Thursday 9th October is Yom Kippur. I take this opportunity of wishing everybody a meaningful fast and Gmar Ĥatimah Tovah. The following Tuesday is already Sukkot, so RMSG is now going on its traditional vacation for the festival and the next shiur will be, God willing, on Thursday 23rd October.