The Women's Right to Choose: An Unsigned Responsum from Ottoman Safed

The Women�s Right to Choose:An Unsigned Responsum from Ottoman Safed

Phillip Ackerman-Lieberman

In summarizing rabbinic views from the Ottoman period of a woman�srole as a marital partner, Minna Rozen writes that

“[m]arriage was a social institution meant to ensure the continuation ofthe world, in the sense of the family line and the Jewish people. The role ofthe woman in that arrangement was to complete the man, helping him live alife of purity and keeping him away from sin.”1

Both male-centeredness and female subordination are suggested by thisvision; in this vein, Ruth Lamdan explains that “[d]omineering womenwere considered a scourge.”2 On the other hand, social reality may havediverged from the rabbinic ideal: an unsigned and undated responsum inmanuscript from the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary foundwithin a collection of responsa from the Ottoman period reveals apowerful, even domineering, role for the women of a wealthy family innegotiating the choice of a marital partner for the male scion of thefamily. While Margaret Meriwether�s analysis of the upper classes ofthe Islamic community in Aleppo in the later Ottoman period pointsout that “… the role of women in critical decisions about marriagewas crucial. It was through women�s networks that information aboutmarriageable girls was available”,3 the unsigned responsum reveals aman deliberately circumventing that network, as well as the reaction ofthe women of his family as they emerge in force to overturn his actions.As expected, the responsum alludes to the importance of the womens�role in information-gathering. However, the responsum also suggests anactive role for these women in the decision-making process itself, as

Jewish Studies Quarterly, Volume 17 (2010) pp. 99—113' Mohr Siebeck — ISSN 0944-5706

1 Minna Rozen, A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul: The FormativeYears, 1453–1566, Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage (Boston: Brill, 2002), 109.

2 Ruth Lamdan, A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt inthe Sixteenth Century, Brill�s Series in Jewish Studies (Boston: Brill, 2000), 14.

3 Margaret Lee Meriwether, The Kin Who Count: Family and Society in OttomanAleppo, 1770–1840, 1st ed. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999), 113.

opposed to simply gathering information which would inform a decisionultimately made by men. The responsum should be seen, then, as point-ing to social class as a determinant of a woman�s place in the family,functioning in tension with the rabbinic ideals of modesty and domes-ticity described by Rozen as well as androcentric models of control gen-erally as described by Lamdan.

This paper will focus on this unsigned and undated responsum, whichcan be found on folios 210 Recto to 213 Verso of JTS Ms 7157 in theLibrary of the Jewish Theological Seminary. A summary of the narrativewhich it depicts will make for a brief discussion of a few of the centrallegal issues with which it is concerned. Discussion of these legal issueswill actually allow for a tentative identification of the writer of the re-sponsum with Elisha b. Gabriel Gallico (d. 1583, Safed), successor toJoseph Caro as head of the academy in Safed, for whom few extantresponsa have been identified,4 as a number of other responsa fromthe period allude to a legal position expressed by Gallico which linesup with the responsum under discussion, and indeed this responsummay be that which is cited elsewhere. Moving beyond the legal material,the paper will bring to light the social tensions lying beneath the surfaceof the responsum and reveal the central role of the women in the story inthe process of choosing a bride in Ottoman Safed.

The Narrative

The questioner begins by mentioning that “Reuben”, our story�s prota-gonist, had the opportunity to marry off his beloved son at age 18, the

100 Phillip Ackerman-Lieberman JSQ 17

4 The published collection of the responsa of Joseph Caro Avkat Rokhel contains aresponsum attributed to Gallico (#84), and responsa in manuscript attributed to Gal-lico can be found in Jerusalem (within JNUL Ms. Heb 82001) and Berlin (BerlinStaatsbibliothek Or. fol. 4065). A number of non-legal materials ascribed to Gallicohave been identified: a letter attributed to Gallico was identified by Hartwig Hirschfeldin Hartwig Hirschfeld, “Descriptive Catalogue of Hebrew Mss. Of the MontefioreLibrary,” Jewish Quarterly Review N. S. 15, no. 1 (1902): 148, which currently bearsthe shelf-mark Montefiore 479; as well as his commentary on the Book of Ruth, dis-cussed by Saul Regev in Saul Regev, “A Fragment from Rabbi Elisha Gallico�s Com-mentary to the Book of Ruth,” Asufot: Annual for Jewish Studies 4 (1990). Other items,currently in manuscript, include an ordering of the sermons of Isaac Luria (RussianNational Library Moscow, Ms. Guenzburg 222); a commentary on the Book of Esther(Jerusalem, Israel Mehlman Collection 142); Song of Songs (H

˙olon, Judah Nah

˙um 57);

on verses from Proverbs and Song of Songs (New York, JTS Benaim 42); and anedition of the sermons of H

˙ayyim Vit

˙al (St. Petersburg, Oriental Institute A90).

start of his marriageable life according to the sages of Safed,5 to thedaughter of a wealthy family, suggested by the sizeable dowry of somethree hundred thousand akce.6 This dowry amount helps link the case toSafed, since whereas “[i]n Patras the sixteenth century custom was togive the sum of thirty-three thousand akce (asper) as a dowry”,7 and“the standard amount was between ten and fifteen thousand akce”,8

dowries in the range of more than fifty thousand akce are reflected inresponsa emerging from Safed in the late sixteenth century.9 However,despite the sizeable dowry, this match does not proceed as planned: thebride turns out not to be healthy, and so the groom (or Reuben himself)declines the marriage.

Following the failed match, one of the local elders – indeed, accordingto the responsum, “an important elder” (“zaqen ve-h

˙ashuv”) comes to

Reuben with another proposed match. “Since you want a Kprecious ves-sel� (=keli yaqar>) and not money, here is the daughter of so-and-so,” hesays, “she is pretty and unblemished.” However, this match carries adowry of only one hundred thousand akce. Reuben seems pleased en-ough with the match, and sends a marital gift (sivlonot)10 to the bridethrough the father-in-law of a local elder, effecting the betrothal. Addi-tionally, it seems that the details of the marriage agreement were nego-tiated, because even the question to which the responsum responds al-ludes to an “oath”, which, as the responsum itself unfolds, is clearly anoath taken on the part of the groom not to marry another woman with-out the express knowledge and permission of his existing wife.11 Impor-

(2010) The Women>s Right to Choose 101

5 cf. Responsa Moshe di-T˙rani 3:108, “she-higi<a pirqo li-nisu>in ki hu ben 18”; Shul-

h˙an <Arukh Even ha-<Ezer 1:3.

6 Heb. “levanim”, white (silver) coins.7 Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky, “Patterns of the Jewish Family: Characteristics of

the Jewish Family in the Communities of Morea and Epirus in the Sixteenth Century,”in Histoire Economique Et Social De L>empire Ottoman Et De La Tourqie, 1326–1960,ed. D. Panzac (Paris: Peeters, 1995), 326.

8 Ibid.9 See, for example, Responsa Joseph di-T

˙rani, H

˙oshen Mishpat

˙93, Even ha-<Ezer 27;

Responsa Moses b. Mordekhai Galant˙i 82. Despite the concentration of these cases in

Safed, non-dowry financial transactions in this range can be seen in the responsa of anumber of Salonikan jurists: for instance Responsa Joseph b. David Ibn Lev 1:62; Re-sponsa Samuel de-Medina, H

˙oshen Mishpat

˙174; and Responsa Solomon b. Abraham ha-

Kohen 1:67, 2:38, and 2:129. While the Salonikan sources suggest aggregate wealthholdings that would permit a dowry of the magnitude seen in this responsum, thespecific mention of dowries in this range seems to be limited to cases adjudicated byjurists in Safed. The lofty dowry figures in Safed might indicate a different coinage,though Album notes that coinage reform occurs only much later – during the reign ofSuleyman II (r.1687–1691).

10 See Rozen for a discussion of variant sivlonot-traditions among Romaniot andIberian communities in Istanbul in the period.

tantly, Reuben carries out all of these negotiations and sends the sivlonotwithout the knowledge and permission of his wife and his female rela-tives, contravening the practice that “even arranged marriages, whichwere decided upon by fathers, were often the product of long negotia-tions conducted by women, sometimes without the knowledge of thehead of the family.”12 Indeed, it would seem that his female relativesare not even in the same locale when Reuben rushes off to effect thebetrothal, but are perhaps on holiday in “the village” (“ba-kefar”).13

The respondent notes the rushed nature of the betrothal, describingthe protagonist Reuben by resorting to a play on the biblical Reuben,who is described as “unstable as water”.14

The very same week following the delivery of the sivlonot, it becameclear that the young woman was hardly the “precious vessel” the elderhad said she was. The irony of this revelation is certainly heightened bythe fact that Reuben had refused an earlier, more lucrative, match on thegrounds that the potential bride was “not so healthy” (“lo kol kakhberi>a”), while this woman had been ill for a long time, and indeed seemsto have suffered partial loss of the use of one of her hands15 following amedical procedure in which a blood-letter or doctor had cut the tendonsuch that she was unable to extend her hand or to use it in the ordinarymanner.

Unsurprisingly, this revelation caused Reuben some distress. Further-more, the questioner explains, Reuben�s wife and daughter became an-gry when they, too heard the news, quarrelling with Reuben for hastilybetrothing his son without their knowledge and without giving them theopportunity to examine the girl. Apparently, the women had returnedfrom “the village” at this point. Reuben sent a message to the bride�sfather explaining that if these rumors were indeed true, that he wouldcancel the marriage on the principle that the union was a “purchasemade in error”. The father of the bride responded that the rumorswere false, and that Reuben and his family would be permitted to seethe bride at the bath-house.16 The women of Reuben�s family accept the


11 For a discussion of this oath generally, see Lamdan, A Separate People: JewishWomen in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt in the Sixteenth Century, 146–49.

12 Rozen, A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul: The Formative Years,1453–1566, 127.

13 Folio 212 Recto.14 Cf. Genesis 49:4.15 Apparently, her right hand, since she is described as “like a left-handed person”

in the responsum (Folio 212 Verso).16 For the bath-house as a locus of communication for women, see Rozen, A His-

tory of the Jewish Community in Istanbul: The Formative Years, 1453–1566, 219–20.

father�s offer, and (surprisingly, perhaps, considering the willingness ofthe father to make this offer) the rumors turn out to be true. At thispoint, the questioner remarks that “there is no greater blemish thanthis”, explaining the son�s wish at that point to terminate the betrothaland to proceed to betroth and marry another woman. Further, the ques-tioner alludes to tensions between the son and his mother.

The responsum proper opens up by alluding to the fact that variousavenues have been pursued to bring the couple together. Indeed, anentire year seems to have been given over to these efforts. The localelders, including both the elder who had initially attested to the girl�sfitness and the respondent himself, had made unsuccessful attempts atmediation. Indeed, a lower court seems to write a responsum concerningthe issue, but this does not resolve the matter. Following these attempts,the respondent alludes to great pressure placed upon him from localleaders to adjudicate the matter, despite a general tendency amongjudges to refrain from adjudication in favor of mediation.17 However,like the dove whom the biblical Noah sent off from the ark, never toreturn once it found shelter elsewhere, the son has set his eyes on an-other. Employing a jumble of biblical allusions, the respondent writes,“hence a man leaves his father clings to his heart, a heart which aloneknows its bitterness”. The first part of this phrase clearly alludes toGenesis 2:24a, “Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clingsto his wife”, though the allusion to the mother is absent. That is, Reu-ben�s son has clearly sided with his mother in the argument between hisparents, leaving his father in the lurch. Instead of clinging to his “wife”,the respondent writes that Reuben�s son has clung to “his heart”, lead-ing into the second part of this phrase, which quotes Proverbs 14:10a,“The heart alone knows its bitterness”. At this point, the respondentreveals a bit more detail concerning Reuben�s hasty actions: apparentlyhe sent the sivlonot not by the community elder, who seems (like thewife) to have been out of town, but by the elder�s father-in-law. Therespondent suggests that the elder�s father-in-law was duped by thebride�s father, citing Job 13:9b, “Will you fool Him as one fools men?”18


With respect to the Muslim community, Meriwether describes the process of “Kvetting�the potential bride … [by means of] … contact with women from other harems in thebaths and gardens …” (Meriwether, The Kin Who Count: Family and Society in Otto-man Aleppo, 1770–1840, 113.). For detail concerning the groom�s family�s legal right toinspect the potential bride, see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ishut 25:2.

17 C. f. the respondent�s allusion to Mishna Avot 4:7, “Rabbi Ishmael b. Yosetaught: One who saves oneself from (the office of) judge, rids oneself of enmity, theft,vain oaths …”

After the local elder returned and attempted to smooth over matters,the respondent himself did the same, calling upon the father of the be-trothed woman to help resolve the situation. On the other hand, theprecise resolution which the respondent wishes to be brought about isunclear: he explains that he has been pressured by the arguments that“just as you may receive a reward for bringing about peace, so you mayreceive a reward for bringing about a disposition”;19 this would seem tosuggest pressure on him to nullify the union (as opposed to reconcilingthe individuals towards peace).

Yet it appears that the “disposition” that the parties seek is not a nulli-fication of the betrothal, but instead a nullification of the oath that Re-uben�s son would not take on a second wife without the express permis-sion of his first wife. Indeed, Reuben or his son apparently made somesort of penalty payment to the woman to compensate her for his trans-gressing his oath and to smooth over matters.20 In line with this, therespondent�s ultimate decision is to hold the betrothal valid, yet in lightof the young woman�s damaged hand, to hold the oath of monogamy tobe null and void. Thus, Reuben�s son is free to marry someone whom hismother has a role in choosing, and he is given the option of either divor-cing the woman with the damaged hand or living with her as his first wife.

Legal Issues in the Responsum

The responsum can be situated amidst a cluster of responsa dealing witha common issue: physical imperfections in the female marital partner. Apair of these responsa refer to a case in which a woman became blindafter marriage, one by Moses b. Joseph di Trani, also known as Mabit

˙21

and one by Moses Alshekh, also known as Maharam Alshekh,22 both ofwhich are addressed by Lamdan.23 The latter of these responsa is expli-citly cited in the unsigned responsum, which provides a terminus ad quofor it – that is, the beginning of Alshekh�s efflorescence, the first quarterof the 16th century. The citation of Alshekh suggests a terminus ad quem


18 Folio 211 Verso.19 Folio 211 Verso.20 Folio 213 Verso.21 Responsa Mabit

˙III:51. Di Trani was born in Salonika in 1500 and served on

Joseph Caro�s court in Safed, where he died in 1580.22 Responsa Maharam Alshekh 86. Alshekh was born in Turkey in 1507, serving in

the same court as di Trani; he died after 1593.23 Lamdan, A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt in the

Sixteenth Century, 14–15, 148.

as well for the unsigned responsum: a missing number in a citation onFolio 212 Recto suggests either that the manuscript itself is but a work-ing draft, composed with lacunae which the writer intended to fill in at alater date but never managed to do so; or that the responsa of Alshekhwere not yet organized for copying and printing, forcing the writer toleave the citation incomplete. If the lacuna is explained by the latter, thelate terminus ad quem would be the publication of Alshekh�s responsa in1605.24 In the same vein, the author�s quotation of deceased rabbinicauthorities is generally followed by the traditional benediction “z(ichro-no) l(ivracha)”25, whereas Alshekh is mentioned without this benedic-tion, suggesting that Alshekh remains among the living at the time ofthe composition (or indeed, perhaps even the copying) of the respon-sum. This would, therefore, situation the responsum between roughly1525 and 1593.

Facing a man who had taken an oath not to marry a second wifewithout his first wife�s permission, and the subsequent affliction ofthat first wife with blindness, di Trani and Alshekh establish a conti-nuum of positions, as explicated by Lamdan: di Trani permits the Jewishcourt to nullify the man�s oath, while Alshekh argues that “not only wasthe husband allowed to take another wife, but that there was no needeven to have his vow annulled.”26 Di Trani�s responsum outlines theeconomic value and importance of the first wife�s work, explainingthat her blindness prevents her from performing “the tasks that somewomen perform for their husbands, such as cooking and baking”.27

Because of the wife�s inability to discharge her duties, di Trani permitsthe court to nullify the man�s oath. On the other hand, Alshekh�s view,also cited in the unsigned responsum,28 makes recourse to rabbinicsources29 arguing that misfortunes subsequent to the betrothal do notimpugn the effectiveness of the betrothal (or, in the case faced by Al-shekh, the marriage itself), though they do nullify the oath itself. Thus,as Lamdan explains, there would be no need for the oath to be nullified.


24 The Jewish Encyclopedia (s. v. “Alshech”) reports publication of Alshekh�s re-sponsa in Venice in 1605.

25 Note that the writer is not completely consistent in attaching the benediction; onFolio 213 Recto, the author quotes the long-dead 12th century sage Eliezer b. Natan ofMayence without it. Folio 213 Recto does follow Alshekh�s name with the letters “z>>l”,but this seems to stand for “zeh leshono” (“these are his words”).

26 Lamdan, A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt in theSixteenth Century, 148.

27 Responsa Mabit˙, ibid.; Ibid., 15, 148. Note that Lamdan�s translation varies from

“most women” on page 15 to “some women” on page 148.28 Folio 212 Recto and Folio 213 Recto.29 Cf. Mishna Ketubbot 1:6.

However, Lamdan suggests another point on this continuum: the opi-nion of Elisha Gallico. According to Lamdan, “Rabbi Elisha Gallico didnot agree with the Mabit, and claimed that Reuben�s vow was bind-ing.”30 On the other hand, she also points out that di Trani allows theman to marry a second wife with the court�s permission, and that “[t]hepermit was granted by R. Elisha Gallico of Safed.”31 While the practicaloutcome of the decisions ascribed to both di Trani and Gallico seems tobe the same – both require the oath to be nullified before the man maymarry a second wife – Gallico�s reasoning appears to be slightly differ-ent. Di Trani essentially rules that unforeseeable bad luck resulting inthe wife�s blindness allows the court to nullify some of the husband�svows – specifically, the vow not to take on a second wife – since the wifewill be unable to fulfill all of her duties. On the other hand, after out-lining his own opinion in his responsum, di Trani writes that “And thesage R(abbi) Elisha, m(ay his) R(ock and his) R(edeemer protect him)wrote on this question …”32 Di Trani reports that Gallico holds fast to aprinciple that “uncommon events are not considered in the making ofoaths”; presumably, then, the oath stands, though it can nonetheless benullified by the court, as Lamdan points out. Di Trani explains thatGallico brought material from the 19th chapter of Maimonides� Lawsof Sale supporting his use of this principle.

Although Trani�s statement that “Elisha … wrote on this question”might suggest that Gallico was yet a third respondent in a case whichwas apparently evaluated by both di Trani and Mabit

˙– to wit, the case

of the wife who went blind after marriage – a broader reading of di Tra-ni�s statement, that Gallico wrote on the issue of infirmity of a maritalpartner before and after marriage, would support the suggestion that thewriter of the unsigned responsum is Gallico himself.33 This connectionis, perhaps, strengthened by the citation in the unsigned responsum of aresponsum of Joseph Colon34 which itself cites a responsum of Asher b.Jeh

˙iel bringing to bear the Talmudic source35 which underpins the ma-

terial which di Trani mentions as brought by Gallico. That is, if di Traniwere paraphrasing Gallico rather than citing him directly (and the po-tential confusion in citing Colon�s citation of Asher b. Jeh

˙iel of the


30 Lamdan, A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt in theSixteenth Century, 148.

31 Ibid., 15 n. 5.32 Responsa Mabit

˙III:51.

33 Comparison with other manuscripts from Gallico�s hand supports this identifica-tion, but cannot confirm it beyond a doubt.

34 Responsa Mahariq 101.35 That is, TB Git

˙t˙in 73a.

Talmud should be clear), then di Trani�s statement could indeed alludeto the unsigned responsum.

The logic of the unsigned responsum also places its writer between thepermissive position of Alshekh, who holds the oath of monogamy to benullified where a first wife loses her sight; and the restrictive position ofdi Trani, who requires the court to nullify this oath. The unsigned re-sponsum explains that where the wife�s debility preceded the union thatthe oath of monogamy may be retroactively nullified,36 whereas the un-ion itself is effective. On the other hand, the unsigned responsum alsocites a responsum of Colon37 pointing out that a man�s decision to livewith his wife�s debility effectively relinquishes his right to nullifying theoath, an oath which Alshekh views as null as a result of that very de-bility. The responsum even traces out a dialogue with Alshekh: “if wedistance ourselves from his reasoning by claiming that Khis field hasflooded�,38 he would respond: K[this applies] when he wishes to divorceher, [but when] he wishes to take another wife, the oath does nothold.�”39 Thus, the central claim of the unsigned responsum is that thefailure of the men to examine the young woman does not nullify thebetrothal itself, but the false pretenses under which the men enteredinto the agreement nullify the oath of monogamy. This is clear evenfrom the manner in which the questioner frames his question: whilementioning that Reuben�s son wishes to betroth and marry another wo-man, he subtly rejects the reasoning of Reuben himself that the betrothalwhich he effected was a “purchase in error” and therefore completelynull and void. That is, from the start it is the assumption of the ques-tioner that this betrothal will stand.

While the responsum of di Trani suggests the economic importance ofthe wife�s role, in cooking, baking, and the like, this information is con-spicuous by its absence from the unsigned responsum. Given the largedowry amounts to which Reuben alludes, this information combineswith other data from the responsum to suggest that the woman�s ex-pected contribution to the economic well-being of the union did notcome from her the work of her own hands. Thus, the framing of legalissues in the case discussed by the unsigned responsum actually provides


36 See particularly Folio 212 Recto, azrdad rxsml ezrd pojxmad erfby pak pja”“rbyo al jked.

37 Responsa Mahariq 107, cited on Folio 213 Recto.38 An allusion to Mishna Ketubbot 1:6, suggesting that a one does not have re-

course to misfortune after an agreement has been concluded.39 Folio 212 Recto. Note that this is a paraphrase, not a citation, of Alshekh�s

responsum.

insight into the community from which that case emerged, which bearssome examination here.

The Dramatis Personae and the CommunityDepicted by the Responsum

Since both the questioner and the respondent chose to frame the case interms of Reuben�s eagerness to betroth his son even in the absence of thewomen of his family, when the respondent could certainly have written aresponsum much in the vein of those cited from the works of di Traniand Alshekh, focusing primarily on the wife�s debility, it must be con-jectured that the role of Reuben�s female family members in the processof vetting and even selecting a bride for Reuben�s son is the centraltension in the narrative.

As mentioned, the women in Reuben�s family are “in the village”40

when Reuben preempts their role in vetting and examining possiblematches for his son. It is unclear why he would do this: if his statementrecapitulated by the questioner is accurate, he has already had an op-portunity to marry off his son with a marital payment well in excess ofthe one hundred thousand akce upon which he settles.41 If this statementwere fantasy or hyperbole, though, Reuben may simply be seizing uponan opportunity to cast in his lot with a wealthy patron by marrying hisson into the patron�s family. Likewise, if Reuben had a business ventureslipping into failure, he could have relied upon his reputation to securethe offer of marriage yet he would have been unable to hold on to suchan offer for long. The dowry from the new marriage might have kepthim afloat, or perhaps even have been accompanied by a financial part-nership with his new in-laws. Yet if this were the case, Reuben�s family asa whole would have been satisfied with the union as it would have bol-stered their hopes for continued financial security. Instead, dispute ragesbetween the son and his mother, and she pressures both the son and thelegal authorities to nullify the union. This suggests that Reuben�s wifehas other marital plans for her son, of which Reuben was well aware,and Reuben�s seemingly-impulsive betrothal of his son was actually adeliberate attempt to foil such plans – or, at the very least, an attempt


40 It is unclear exactly where this “village” might be. As mentioned, it would seem tobe a holiday destination, a summer haven perhaps.

41 Indeed, this suggests that the first offer is a red herring, fabricated (as is, perhaps,the detail that Reuben rejected this offer because the prospective bride was not soundof body) to strengthen the argument that the oath of monogamy may be nullified.

to secure his own well-being to the exclusion of his wife�s. Reuben�s wifemay well have intended to marry her son into her own family, protectingher own assets42.

That the betrothed young man�s sister joins in the fray, cursing Re-uben, suggests that the union will negatively affect her own well-being aswell. Likely Reuben�s daughter rather than his step-daughter43 and liv-ing at home, she is probably concerned with her own marital prospects.Since she would not be expected to inherit more than a quarter of hermother�s assets44 and little of her father�s, the dowry would be the pri-mary vehicle for her parents to pass on their assets. If her brother�sbetrothal involved a financial partnership with her father, the unionmay have tied up capital which could have gone for her dowry. Thiswould have been a concern for her, particularly if the dowry involved acash payment45 which would have made her a particularly attractivecandidate for marriage. In the same vein, the mother may well haveintended to marry both of her children into her own family, to protecther own assets and the assets of her family at large. In an endogamoussociety, an unmarried son may well make his sisters look more attrac-tive: a family attaching itself to the daughters has a greater chance ofmarrying the son, the bearer of inheritance. Reuben�s unilateral actionwould foil this plan.

Additionally, in a community permeated by popular mysticism,“whose aim is … the extinction of the world�s blemish”,46 the physicalworld is but a reflection of the spiritual: “Everybody carries the secrettrace of the transmigrations of his soul in the lineaments of his foreheadand his hands, and in the aura which radiates from his body.”47 Having asister-in-law who bore the imperfection of a damaged hand could con-


42 That is, whether the husband inherits half of her estate (the Romaniot tradition)or all of it (the Iberian), the husband would eventually pass these assets on to her son.If her son marries within her family, the assets stay within her family; if Reuven issuccessful in marrying his son outside of his wife�s family, those assets will be lost toher family forever.

43 Since his son is eighteen years old and the sister is unmarried, she is probablyyounger than he (the average marital age for young women was well below eighteen,cf. Lamdan, A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt in theSixteenth Century, 46–57. Since Reuben himself betroths the son, he is probably theboy�s father – in which case his son�s sister would also be his own daughter.

44 Even the most generous inheritance arrangement would give only half of themother�s assets to the children, which would then be shared between the son and his sister.

45 For a discussion of such cash payments, see Rozen, A History of the Jewish Com-munity in Istanbul: The Formative Years, 1453–1566, 130 ff..

46 Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York:Schocken Books, 1995), 286.

47 Ibid., 283.

ceivably harm the sister�s own chances of finding an appropriate match.Yet if this was the real reason for the sister�s displeasure in her brother�sunion, it would hardly be assuaged by the respondent�s decision to allowthe son to remarry – unless those plans were already in place, suggestedby the allusion in the responsum to the “wife of his heart” (“eshet libo”)whom Reuben�s son will, it seems, take on as his second wife.

That the hapless woman whose hand was debilitated through abungled medical procedure is also from a family of means is obviouslysuggested by the size of the dowry, as it is clear when prominent leaderspressure the respondent to decide the case rally to support her and herfamily. Further, if the respondent were to leave her in the lurch, nullify-ing her marriage rather than his oath, she may well have encounteredgreat difficulty in finding another match. This would undoubtedly havebeen an impolitic decision for any legal decisor. Thus, the responsumproper begins by focusing on her legal claims, assuming (in line withthe question itself) that the marriage will be maintained, even if theoath is not. It is likely that remaining with Reuben�s son even as a“hated wife” could be the woman�s best hope: staying with Reuben�sson, she might be forced to compete with a second wife, but her materialwell-being would be assured. As a woman, this would be far better thanliving out her days destitute while the males in her family inherited fromher wealthy father as her well-being would be protected by any legaldecision affirming the betrothal. It would seem, then, that the attemptsto heal the couple, or to bring them together, are actually attempts tocalm the storm brewing in Reuben�s household.

With public opinion pressuring the respondent, the legal situationseemingly clear, and with important or wealthy local claimants, the re-sult is certainly unsurprising.48 The precedent described by the afore-mentioned responsa of di Trani and Alshekh seems powerful. Indeed,if a claimant less well-off than Reuben�s family, which seems to havefocused on the direct economic contributions of its women, could getthe result they wanted in the courts, how much moreso the currentcase. In fact, if the respondent had ruled otherwise he would have runthe risk of being over-ruled by Alshekh, and turning the rabbinicalcourts of Safed into a medical clinic, deciding which illnesses orblemishes were sufficient to nullify the vow of monogamy. While permis-


48 Thus Rozen: “No matter what circumstances induced a man to take a second orthird wife, this was always a privilege of the rich.” (A History of the Jewish Communityin Istanbul: The Formative Years, 1453–1566, p. 147) When his less-well-off contempor-ary was allowed to remarry for economic reasons, Reuven�s son could be sure to receivepermission as well.

sion to nullify an oath of monogamy on the grounds of infertility waswidespread from the twelfth century,49 the unsigned responsum extendsthis permission, writing that “it is possible to add to the category [ofblemishes] in every generation … as the situation changes,”50 notingthat blindness was recently added to this category – undoubtedly a re-ference to the case evaluated by di Trani and Alshekh.

That the father of the bride denies the rumors and is eminently willingto permit his daughter to be inspected suggests that the rumors were false,for it would make no sense for the father to deny something that wasclearly and easily verifiable, especially after the betrothal had been con-cluded. Further to this point, that Reuben�s wife could be unscrupulous instarting rumors is no surprise in the face of her equally-unscrupulous andhasty husband. Additionally, the subjective quality of the deformity itself(that the betrothed woman does not have complete use of her hand in theordinary manner) makes the veracity of such claims a bit doubtful.

Once the rumors have spread, Reuben (who undoubtedly wants thebetrothal to stand) can comfortably appease his wife�s anger by demand-ing that the betrothal be nullified, knowing that the father of the be-trothed woman will reject such a demand because the rumors are untrue.Yet when Reuben�s wife “and all of the important elder-women whowere there” examine the woman, they substantiate the rumors – unsur-prising, as it is clearly in their interest to do so; nullifying the betrothalwould permit their own plans for the son�s marriage to be carried outdespite Reuben�s attempts to obstruct them.

Ultimately, then, the ruling is Solomonic: rather than nullifying thebetrothal, which would have granted complete credence to the rumors ofthe woman�s blemish, the respondent simply nullifies the oath of mono-gamy. This allows any financial arrangement between Reuben and thefamily of the betrothed woman to stand, Reuben�s wife to carry out herplans for her children, the institution of sivlonot to endure as a vehiclefor effecting betrothal, and the rabbinic court to retain its place as thevenue for adjudication of such matters – rather than the streets of Safed.This settlement comes at the expense of monogamy, an institution towhich the respondent, despite his allusions to Rabbenu Gershom�s pro-hibition of polygamy, is not necessarily particularly attached;51 and the


49 Rozen, A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul: The Formative Years,1453–1566, 145.

50 Folio 212 Recto.51 Lamdan discusses the uneven implementation of this prohibition: “every sage in

the 16th century Levant found ways of circumventing Rabenu Gershom�s ban undercertain conditions.” (Lamdan, A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria,and Egypt in the Sixteenth Century, 145.)

betrothed woman herself, who might not otherwise have expected toshare her husband with another woman. That Reuben and his soncome away unscathed should be no surprise – for as the respondentwrites, “when Kone finds a woman, one finds good, and has won thefavor of the Lord�, never bringing about a loss.”52

Conclusion

As mentioned, the framing of legal issues in the responsum highlightsthe power and centrality of the role of women in making decisions ratherthan simply providing information to male decision-makers. Particularlywhere those women were wealthy and had the capacity to array localnotables in order to pressure the rabbinic authority structure, theirvoices seem to have been heard loud and clear. The tension which iscreated as they pursue their interests is felt not only among the elite,but in the public sphere generally. Finally, while the success of the femalecharacters in our narrative might not be unalloyed, it is also not withoutits significant triumphs.


52 Folio 212 Recto.

Courtesy of The Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary,JTS MS 7157, fol. 210r.


The Women's Right to Choose: An Unsigned Responsum from Ottoman Safed

Documents