1. For an extensive discussion of the folkloristic theme in Jewish (and non-Jewish) sources and for references to additional literature, see Schwarzbaum, H., “The Hero Predestined to Die on His Wedding Day,” in Studies in Marriage Customs, ed. I, Ben-Ami and D. Noy, Folklore Research Center Studies, no. 4 (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 223–252. In several variations of the theme, the wife is not the source of danger and actually saves her husband from his fate.Google Scholar

2. Satan: Bereshit Rabba 17:6, ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 157. Cf. M. M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah 2:241, no. 276. Death: Bereshit Rabba 17:8, pp. 159–160 and parallels. Cf. The Book of Ben Sira [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1973), 25:24 (p. 25): “The beginning of sin is from woman, and because of her we all die.” Cf. Urbach, E.E., The Sages [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1969), p. 372.Google Scholar

3. B. Berakhot 51a. For R. Joshua b. Levi's encounter with the angel of death, see B. Ketubbot lib. On that legend, see Lieberman(n), S., Shkiin(Jerusalem, 1939), pp. 38–42Google Scholar; cf. Schwarzbaum, H., Studies in Jewish and World Folklore(Berlin, 1968), pp. 346, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Cf. Elijah, of , Vilna, Commentary to Jonah [Heb.], ed. J. Rivlin [Israel, 5746], pp. 19–20Google Scholar: “The sword of the angel of death is Lilith, who entices man, then takes his soul.”) On the motif of the angel of death's sword, see now Lerner, M.B., “Collected Exempla” [Heb.], Kiryat Sefer 61(1986–87): 883 ff.Google Scholar

4. The “snake” etymology appears in Bereshit Rabba 20:11, p. 195: “R. Aba said: 'The snake is your snake; you are man's snake.'” Cf. Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols. (Philadelphia, 1955), 5:91, n. 48.Google Scholar (Note that according to the talmudic sages [B. Sanhedrin 38b], primeval man spoke Aramaic.) It has been adopted by modern scholars as well. See Cassuto, U., From Adam to Noah [Heb.], 3rd ed. (Jerusalem, 1959), pp. 113–114.Google Scholar Cf. Zimmermann, F., “Folk Etymology of Biblical Names,” Supplements to Vetus Testamenlum 15 (1966): 316–318,Google Scholar and Westermann, C., Genesis I-II. A Commentary, trans. Scillion, J.J. (Minneapolis, 1984), pp. 268–269.Google Scholar

5. See Kaufmann, Y., The Religion of Israel, trans, and abridged by Greenberg, M. (Chicago,1960), pp. 292–295.Google Scholar Cf. Urbach, The Sages pp. 371–384. Note, e.g., M. Rosh Hashana 3:8: “Does the snake kill or does the snake revive?”; B. Berakhot 33a: “The 'arwad [a deadly reptile] doesn't kill; sin kills.” (On the latter, see Bokser, B.M., “Wonder-Working and the Rabbinic Tradition: The Case of yanina ben Dosa,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 16 [1985]: 42–92.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. A recent critique is offered by Sperling, D., “Israel's Religion in the Ancient Near East,” in Jewish Spirituality from the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. A., Green (New York, 1986), pp. 16 ff. Kaufmann (and others, see below, n. 49) argued that certain pagan beliefs entered Jewish religion as foreign elements in the postbiblical period, when, in contrast to biblical times, they were not considered threatening to monotheism. Sperling's argument against Kaufmann's biblical hypothesis includes the point that “pious Jews who lived in the period of late antiquity, who were surely more consistent monotheists than their Israelite ancestors, did not object to the use of incantations … recognized the legitimacy of many kinds of divination” (pp. 19–21), thus basing himself on an alternative hypothesis.Google Scholar

7. J. Skinner, The Interpreter's Bible 1:757. Emerton, J.A., “Some Problems in Genesis XXXVIII,” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 355.Google Scholar See the literature on Gen. 38 reviewed by Emerton in that article (pp. 338–361) and in two other articles, Ibid., 26 (1976): 79–98 and 29 (1979): 403–415. Cf., e.g., Niditch, S., “The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38,” Harvard Theological Review 72 (1979): 143–149.Google Scholar Much of this literature deals primarily with the authors' reconstructions of the text rather than the biblical text itself; cf., e.g., Wright, G.R.H., “The Positioning of Genesis 38,” Zeitschrift fur die Altetestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982): 523–529, where it is suggested that underlying the story is a myth whose heroine was transformed into a palm tree.Google Scholar

8. I am not arguing that these explanations necessarily correspond to the “historical” etymologies of the names. Other reasonable ones have been offered, and the matter is not central to our thesis. “Er” is explained in Bereshit Rabba 85:4, p. 1037, as “emptied from this world” ([njisin). Targum Yerushalmi I (Pseudo-Jonathan) (ed. Reider, pp. 58–59): “She called his name Er because he would die without children.” Cf. Kasher, Torah Shelemah 6:1447, no. 23 and the sources cited there; Zimmermann, “Folk Etymology of Biblical Names,” pp. 322–323; Garsiel, M., Midrashic Name Derivations in the Bible [Heb.] (Ramat Gan, 1987), p. 147. “Onan” is explained by the midrash as a reference to mourning. In Bereshit Rabba 85:4: “he caused mourning for himself.” See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews 5:333, n. 79; Torah Shelemah loc. cit., and the sources cited there in the comment to no. 24. On our suggested derivation from JIN, cf. Garsiel, p. 133. Besides “naught” awen could mean “evil, fraud.” Cf. “conceiving wrong and begetting evil” in Isa. 59:4, Ps. 7:15, and Job 15:35.Google ScholarZimmermann, p. 323: “the unfortunate one.” Midrash Haggadol on the Pentateuch, Genesis [Heb.], ed. Margulies, M., reprint ed. (Jerusalem, 1975), p. 644, attributes Tamar's name to “her stately form like a palm.” This is obviously a reference to Song of Songs 7:8 and accordingly reflects Tamar's sex appeal. (Cf. the connection with Ishtar suggested by J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis 2nd ed. [Edinburgh, 1963], p. 452.) Zimmermann (p. 323) takes Shelah to mean here “deprived of a name” (cf. below, n. 53).Google Scholar

9. See Urbach, The Sages pp. 453–454; cf. Lerner, M.B., “The Story of the Tanna and theGhost” [Heb.], Asuppot 2 (1988): 50–51.Google Scholar

10. A curious modern parallel to the Tamar story, with the same elements of the levirate and the “killer wife” superstition, can be cited from a report from the Arab village of Anas, south of Bethlehem. There women called qashra are believed to be possessed by an evil spirit which causes the death of their husbands. When Jamīle entered Ibrahim's house, he became pale and died in forty days. Jamile was considered a qashra and returned to her father's home. Mahmud, Ibraim's brother, would not marry Jamile, as he “was afraid the same thing would happen to him.” But he was in love with her, and he changed his mind. Special measures were taken on their wedding day to avert the evil from him. He lived with Jamile four years, had a son, and then died. Jamile then asserted “that she would even marry the third brother in spite of his mother, her mother-in-law.” She died before she could carry out her intention, supposedly a punishment for having sworn a false oath. (H. Granqvist, Marriage Conditions in a Palestinian Village vol. 2 [Helsingfors, 1935], pp. 307–309.)

11. Nabmanides' challenge to Rashi, in his comment to v. 11, is based on the anachronistic assumption that the talmudic law was common knowledge to the patriarchs: “Rashi wrote, 'He pushed her aside with a straw [found an excuse for removing her], because he did not intend to give her in marriage to him [Shelah], “for he thought, he too might die like his brothers,” since she had the status of a woman whose husbands die.' But I do not know why Judah, the ruler of his generation, should be embarassed by this woman and not tell her, 'Go in peace from my house' and why he should deceive her, since she was forbidden to Shelah, as they said, 'in marriage two times is a precedent.'”

12. So Jubilees 41:23; Testament of Judah 12:9; Siphre d'be Rab(Numbers), ed. H. S. Horovitz (Leipzig, 1917 [reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1966]), Beha'alotkha sec. 88, p. 87.

13. For MAL and Hittite levirate, see Skaist, A., “Levirat,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archaeologie(Berlin, 1983), 6:605–608.Google Scholar For Judah's role, note that according to the midrash (Bereshit Rabba 85:5, 8–10, pp. 1038, 1041–1043, and parallels), Judah's affair with Tamar was predestined. (Also cf. B. Yevamot 20b: “If they were intimate, the acquisition is effective with the first act of intercourse, but they may not have intercourse a second time.”) Cf., e.g., Abraham Maimonides in his commentary to Gen. 38:13–14, quoting his grandfather (Perush R. Avraham b. Ha-Rambam z'l 'al Bereshit u-Shemot, ed. E. J. Weissenberg [London, 1958], pp. 144–145); Nahmanides' commentary to Gen. 38:8, 26 (“Once he had provided offspring for his sons, he no longer wanted to be with her”); Gersonides' commentary (Venice, 1546/47), p. 44d; Ehrlich, A.B., Miqra ki-Pheschuto(Berlin, 1899), 1:105; M. D. (U.) Cassuto, “The Story of Tamar and Judah,” in Siyyunim: Y. N. Simhoni Memorial Volume [Heb.] (Berlin, 1929), p. 98Google Scholar; Encyclopedia Biblica (Miqra'it) 3:444; Gordis, R., “Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth: A Chapter in Hebrew Customary Law,” in Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, ed. Bream, N.H., R. D. Heim, and C. A. Moore (Philadelphia, 1974), p. 249.Google Scholar Note that the Spanish Muslim author Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) also wrote that Judah performed the levirate with Tamar (cited by Lazarus-Yafeh, H., Tarbiz 55 [1986]: 373, n. 59).Google Scholar

14. This was suggested in the commentaries of Joseph Bekhor Shor (reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1978), p. 64; Hezekiah ben Manoah (Hizzekuni Jerusalem, 1981), p. 147; and Gersonides (pp. 44d–45b). (Abrabanel, on the other hand, takes v. 26a as Judah's admission that Tamar was not to blame for his sons' deaths, since she had conceived by him. The comments of Bekhor Shor, Ben Manoah, and Gersonides correspond with the later talmudic belief in the “killer wife,” viz., that the danger was not dependent on the length of the marriage or the number of contacts. Abrabanel's corresponds with the Tobit story, where the danger is present in the first act of intimacy. Cf, e.g., Sefer Hasidim's interpretation of B. Hullin 95b, below in sec. 4.)

15. P. Ketubbot 7:5, 31b and parallels. See Torah Shelemah 6:1449, no. 32; 6:1450, nos. 34, 35, and references there. Er abstained from relations with Tamar according to Testament of Judah 10:2–3 and Jubilees 41:2. (Also cf. the sources quoted by Beer, M., Zion 53 [1988]: 152, n. 13.)Google Scholar

16. “Evil in the Lord's sight” occurs only rarely in the Bible and refers (usually) to grave sins for which God takes one's life or for which one deserves to die. Cf. Gen. 13:13 concerning Sodom; II Sam. 11:27, David's sin with Bathsheba; cf. I Chron. 21:7 (Isa. 59:15, Prov. 24:18). As to explaining the deaths of Er and Onan, Yeivin, S (“The Beginnings of the Davidids” [Heb.], Zion 9 [1944]: 60), for example, takes it as a reference to the disappearance of certain intermarried Judean-Canaanite clans.Google Scholar

17. The contrast between the two is implicit in Nahmanides' attempt to reconcile them in his comment to v. 11: “It is unlikely that Judah did not hear that his sons had sinned and 'He dispatched them for their transgression' [Job 8:4], and Tamar had no sin [i.e., was not to blame] for them,” etc. Cf. Abraham Maimonides, Commentary to Gen. 38:11 (Weissenberg ed.), pp. 144–145 and n. 13 there (see below, sec. 5).

18. Similar phenomena of “double causality” in the Bible, the human and the divine, are studied by Seeligmann, I.L., “Menschliches Heldentum und gottliche Hilfe: Die doppelte Kausalitat im alttestamentlichen Geschichtsdenken,” Theologische Zeitschrift 19 (1963): 385–411. (I am indebted to Prof. G. Brinn for this reference.)Google Scholar

19. Cf. Goitein, S.D., Bible Studies [Heb.] (Tel-Aviv, 1957), p. 34:Google Scholar “The story of Tamar and Judah comes to teach us that a woman may acquire at any expense her natural right to motherhood”; cf. Ibid., p. 56.

20. See Bereshit Rabba 85:1, p. 1029; Midrash Haggadol to Gen. 38:1, ed. M. Margulies, p. 642; Kasher, Torah Shelemah 6:1444, no. 8, 6:1446, no. 19. On Malachi 2:12cf. Zer-Kavod, M, Commentary to Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1968), p. 152. Note B. Sola 10a, where Tamar is quoted as saying, “I am a proselyte.”Google Scholar

21. Heller, D., ed., “Sefer Toviah,” in Ha-Sefarim ha-ffitzonim, ed. A., Kahana (Tel-Aviv, 1959), 2:303, 319–320 (chap. 3:7–15), 327–334 (6:10–8:21).Google Scholar Cf. Charles, R.H., ed., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament(Oxford, 1913), 1:196Google Scholar; Zimmermann, F., The Book of Tobit(New York, 1958), pp. 63, 91–93Google Scholar; Grintz, Y.M., “Hebrew Literature in the Persian Period” [Heb.], in Sefer ha-Yovel le-Rabbi Hanokh Albeck(Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 123–139 (on pp. 128, 133, he all but discounts Ashmedai's role in the story); Schwarzbaum, “The Hero Predestined to Die,” pp. 225–226.Google ScholarThomas, J.D., “The Greek Book of Tobit,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 463–471, argues for the primacy of Codex Sinaiticus; but, as we have noted, this does not affect our understanding of Ashmedai's role in the story. For the efficacy of prayer and supplication in thwarting fate, see Schwarzbaum, Studies in Jewish and World Folklore pp. 281–285. See below, n. 51. On clerical reworking of folklore, see Bokser, “Wonder-Working and the Rabbinic Tradition,” p. 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. See Kaufmann, Religion of Israel pp. 122 ff.

23. Matt. 22:23–33, Mark 12:18–34, Luke 20:27–40.

24. Ed. Lieberman, p. 70 and parallels (B. Yevamot 64b, Nidda 64a, and Ketubbot 43b in Munich and Firkovitch MSS [see The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings … Kethuboth ed. M. Hershler, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1972), p. 320]).

25. According to the anonymous gemara in B. Yevamot 64b, some reverse the names of Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel here. But elsewhere when the two dispute the number of times which are considered a precedent, Rabbi says two, and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, three. Besides our case (sources in the preceding note), there is the case of circumcision: After how many baby boys have died from circumcision does a family stop circumcising its sons? (T. Shabbat 15:8; B. Yevamot 64b, where a report is cited in the name of R. Yohanan that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled in such a case that a fourth baby should not be circumcised.) (Fo folktales on evil forces which threaten a baby at circumcision, see Schwarzbaum, “The Hero Predestined to Die,” p. 224, n. 6; cf. J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition [New York, 1939], pp. 170 ff.) P. Yevamot 6:6, 7d, cites a number of berailot which differ on whether a precedent is assumed after two or three times. These concern a woman who stains as a result of intercourse (after a precedent has been set she may not engage in intercourse), the circumcision case, and the right of a woman to collect her kelubba after a number of marriages which did not produce offspring. All the beraitot are anonymous, and the Yerushalmi does not identify them with Rabbi or R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. The Yerushalmi suggests that the tanna who rules that a barren woman not collect her ketubba from her fourth marriage may agree that the third son not be circumcised, because of the danger to his life. Note also T. Yevamot 8:6 (p. 26): after three marriages which produce no offspring a woman does not remarry; but in B. Yevamot 65a: after two, she does not remarry. See S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah 6:72. B. Yevamot 64b–65a also identifies Rabbi with M. Sanhedrin 9:5 (punishment of a three-time offender [cf. T. Sanhedrin 12:7–8]) and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel with M. Nidda 9:10 (regular menstrual period fixed after three times) and M. Bava Qamma 2:4. Also cf. B. Bava Mezia 106b and 110b.

26. M. Bikkurim 1:5; Yevamot 2:9, 15:5, 7; T. Yevamot 6:3, 8:4, 14:1, 7; Ketubbot 2:1, 2, 6:7, 7:5, 10, 11; Eduyot 1:6; Nidda 2:2, 8:2.

27. B. Yevamot 62b: “R. Tanbum said in the name of R. Hanilai, 'A man without a wife lives without joy, without blessing, and without good.' … In the West [Eretz Israel] they say, 'Without Torah and without a wall [homa].'” Maharsha comments: “One's wife protects him from sin and the war with the evil inclination.” Note, however, that the name appears with slightly different spellings; see The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings … Kethuboth, ed. Hershler, M., vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1977), p. 100, n. 19.Google ScholarShulhan Arukh, Even ha-'Ezer 129:34, cites Homa as an example of a woman's Hebrew name. (Rabenu Abraham of Montpellier, Commentary on the Tractate Yevamoth [Heb.], ed. M. Y. Blau [New York, 1962], p. 151: nain, but this apparently is an error: nain appears in the continuation.) This was Abbaye's second arriage, and he seems to have been much older than Homa. See Hyman, A., Toldoth Tannaim Ve' Amoraim, vol. I (reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 86–87Google Scholar; cf. Maimon, J.L., “On Abbaye's Biography” [Heb.], in Sefer ha-Yovelle-Rabbi Hanokh Albeck (Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 320–321Google Scholar (= Maimon, J.L, Abbaye and Rava [Heb.] [Jerusalem, 1965], p. 20). (R. Gordis suggests [in a private communication] that the sages may have called this woman Homa [“Wall”] because of her inaccessibility-as in Song of Songs 8:9-as proven by the deaths of her husbands.)Google Scholar

28. The printed edition has R. Huna, and the text is so quoted by, e.g., Nahmanides, Responsa no. 121. But elsewhere R. Mordechai is found transmitting traditions from Avimi of Hagronia to R. Ashi not in R. Huna's name but in Rava's. Accordingly, Ch. Albeck (Introduction to the Talmud, Babli and Yerushalmi [Heb.] [Tel-Aviv, 1969], p. 403) prefers here the variant “Rava” found in the Munich Codex (95). “Rava” appears in other manuscripts, including Geniza fragments, as well as in texts quoted by RID and Meiri; see The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings … Tractate Yebamoth ed. A. Liss, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1986), p. 444; likewise in the texts quoted in the responsa of R. Joseph Albo and R. Yeljiel (J. Buksboim, “Responsa of Spanish Rabbis concerning the Qallanit” [Heb.], Moriah 1 [1977]: 6, 9.

29. Hebrew (Jastrow's translation). Nahmanides (Responsa no. 121) cites the Gemara with which means the same and may be his paraphrase (cf. R. Asher, Responsa 53:8). The text quoted by RID (see preceding note), (“sin”), if not a scribal error, is likely to be a “correction” rather than a true variant. Note also that one of the terms used in the Talmud for womb is “grave” (e.g., M. Ohalot 7:4). Cf. B. Sanhedrin 92a: “What is the connection between Sheol and the womb?” etc. Death resulting from intercourse is a known folkloristic theme. See Thompson, S, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, vol. 3 (Copenhagen, 1956), p. 173 (F582); cf. p. 164 (F547.1.1); vol. 5 (1957), p. 362 (182).Google Scholar

30. But Rava himself says (B. Moed Qatan 26a) that “life, children, and sustenance do not depend on merit but on fate [mazzal].” (See an example of Rava's concern for his own mazzal when sick in B. Nedarim 40a.) Might R. Ashi be transmitting a tradition of Rava here? (But see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud pp. 428–429.) The connection between the two is implicit in R. Asher's explanation of “fate is the cause” in B. Yevamot 64b (Responsa no. 53:8): “Thewoman has the bad luck [mazzal] that her husbands die. This thing depends on fate, for one's life and sustenance depend on fate, if one is born in an hour whereby he should be wealthy or poor. A woman is secluded in her house, and she would be unable to earn her own livelihood were her husband not to sustain her. It is decreed that this woman's husbands die, in order that she live in poverty all her life, without anyone to sustain her…. But one cannot interpret that she was born in an astrological sign [mazzal] which causes her husband's death…. For we find in the Talmud only that wealth or poverty or longevity or the like depends on fate, but causing the death of other people does not depend on fate.” (”Fate” here was explained by kabbalists as meaning that the woman was destined to marry someone particular, and any other man she married would die. See Derisha to Tur, Even ha-'Ezer 9:1. This can be seen as a variant of one of the motifs in the Book of Tobit; see above at n. 21. Cf. below n. 66.) Note the story in B. Ketubbot 62b, cited above, of the death of Rabbi's intended daughter-in-law. On the other hand, it is clear that R. Ashi himself believed in the power of astrology; see, e.g., B. Shabbat 156a. Cf. B. Bava Batra 12a-b, where both Rava and R. Ashi speak of sages born under the same astrological sign.

31. R. Abraham b. Ishbili (Responsa 3, no. 364), reads instead of nan and takes this to be the third-century amora Rabba. But even according to that reading (also found in Codex Munich 14) the intention is probably to Rava. Cf. Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud p. 411; Halivni, D., Sources and Traditions … Nashim [Heb.] (Tel-Aviv, 1968), p. 71, n. 2. (Rava's preceding statement discussed there may originally have been only “One should not marry a woman from a family with epileptics or lepers.”) The Rabba/Rava interchange is discussed by S. Friedman in a forthcoming study.Google Scholar

32. But according to the anonymous gemara in B. Nidda 64a, both Rav and Samuel follow R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.

33. Rashi. Jastrow (Dictionary p. 1329): “she struck her with the strap of a chest.” Cf. Arukh Completum 7:110 and n. 5. See the variant readings in The Babylonian Talmud with Varimt Readings … Kethuboth vol. 2, pp. 110–111. Note that qolpa also means “ax.” See Boyirin, D., “Towards the Talmudic Lexicon” [Heb.], Tarbiz 50 (1980 /81): 187–191.Google Scholar

34. Cf. Rashi and Perushe R. Judah b. Nathan (Rashi “First Version”, ed. J. N. Epstein Jerusalem, 1933), p. 37.

35. See B. Yevamot 63b, 65a, Qiddushin 7a; cf. Ketubbot 80b and Berakhot 65a. Cf. criedman, M.A., Jewish Polygyny in the Middle Ages [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1986), p. 367a.Google Scholar

36. Also cf. M. Yevamot 3:9 (R. Simeon); B. Yevamot 28b-R. Safra's hypothetical case concerning six brothers. Cf. below n. 79.

37. The beraita deals with a case where “all” of the first husbands returned from abroad. “All” clearly suggests that there were at least three before her last marriage. There are additional indications of omissions in the other versions. The Erfurt Codex has here only “three husbands,” but the third and last husband also goes abroad. As Lieberman notes (Tosefta Ki-Fshufah 6:110, n. 19), there is no point to this. (Lieberman inadvertently refers to the fourth husband rather than the third, and says that the four words describing his trip abroad are superfluous.) These words are a remnant of an additional clause dealing with another husband. Similarly, the Geniza manuscript cited in the apparatus has only “two husbands” (even though it too speaks of “all” of them). The words “they came and told her” are clearly a remnant of an additional clause, and they were deleted by a later hand.

38. Cf. T. Yevamot 8:6 (p. 26): “How many times may she [a barren woman] marry? Three. More than that she may marry only one who has a wife and children. If she marries someone who does not have a wife and children, she is divorced without the ketubba because her marriage is a mistaken marriage.” See Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshulah 6:72–74. Cf. T. Nedarim 6:4 (p. 117): “A betrothed girl … her husband did not hear her [vow] before he died, and she became betrothed again, even to ten [one after the other].” B. Qiddushin lib mentions the hypothetical case of a thrice-widowed woman.

39. See The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings … Kethuboth vol. 1, p. 320, n. 32.

40. Note especially P. Yevamot 6:6, 7d (above, n. 25), where other cases where a sequence is presumed after two or three occurrences are cited. Yefe Enayim (to B. Yevamot 64b) suggests that the Yerushalmi would prohibit remarriage after the death of two husbands. It does so on the basis of the remark in this Yerushalmi passage that the tanna who ruled that three occurrences define a precedent would agree that after two babies had died from circumcision a third should not be circumcised, because of the danger. But in light of the Yerushalmi's silence on the “killer wife,” I do not believe that this conclusion is warranted. For the relative absence of magic and similar phenomena in the Palestinian Talmud, see, e.g., L. Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud vol. 1 (New York, 1941), pp. xxxiv–xxxvi (= On Jewish Law and Lore [Philadelphia, 1955], pp. 22–24); cf. Boyarin, D., Tarbiz 50 (1980 /81): 185, n. 77 quoting Lieberman.Google Scholar But see Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine, 2nd ed. (New York, 1965), pp. 110–111. (P. 110: “It is fundamentally an error to generalize and say that in Palestinian Talmudo-Midrashic literature fewer 'superstitions' are found than in the Babylonian.”) Cf. Urbach, The Sages pp. 85 ff.Google Scholar

41. Some texts read “Eliezer”; see variant readings in Theodor-Albeck's edition and the commentary there.

42. These words are likely to be an editorial addition.

43. These words are in Aramaic, and they are evidently a later addition.

44. See Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 2nd ed. (New York, 1962), pp. 194–199.Google Scholar

45. Before a general undertaking: P. Shabbat 6:10, 8d (or rather before purchasing merchandise; see Lieberman, S., Hayerushalmi Kiphshuto [Jerusalem, 1934], pp. 114–115; see next note). Before purchasing a slave: Bereshit Rabba 87:4 (pp. 1064–1065). Before marriage: Shemol Rabba 20:8. Before the birth of a baby, see Bereshit Rabba 85:2 (p. 1031), B. Sofa12b–13a. Cf. B. Sanhedrin 65b end, Shabbat 155a, and Nedarim 32a.Google Scholar

46. See Lieberman, S., Tarbiz 6 (1935): 234–235; 27 (1958): 57–60 (translated in Lieberman, Texts and Studies [New York, 1974], pp. 21 ff.).Google Scholar Cf. Friedman, M.A., Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study, vol. 1 (Tel-Aviv, 1980), pp. 91–92;Google Scholar idem, “Marriage as an Institu tion: Jewry under Islam,” in The Jewish Family: Metaphor and Memory ed. D. Kraemer (Oxford, 1989), pp. 40–41, 45. Cf. Goitein, S.D., “Religion in Everyday Life as Reflected in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza,” in Religion in a Religious Age, ed. S.D., Goitein (Cambridge,Mass., 1974), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

47. See Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine 1:90, n. 70. Cf. Naveh, J., “A Good Subduing, There Is None Like It” [Heb.], Tarbiz 54 (1985): 375–376.Google Scholar

48. Sefer Hasidim (Das Buch der Frommen), ed. Wistinetzki, J. and Friemann, J., 2nd ed. (Frankfurt, 1924), pars. 1870–1871, pp. 452–453; ed. R. Margaliot (Jerusalem, 1970), par. 470, pp. 324–325.Google Scholar

49. See, e.g., Lauterbach, J.Z., Hebrew Union College Annual 2 (1925): 353;Google Scholar Ginzberg, On Jewish Law and Lore pp. 62 ff.; Kaufmann, Y., The Religion of Israel [Heb.], vol. 1, book 2 (Tel Aviv, 1937), pp. 429–433 et passimGoogle Scholar; Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine pp. 91 ff. (p. 92: “It is particularly difficult to eliminate practices which have their roots in popular beliefs and superstitions“); idem, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine pp. 120–121, 129, et passim; Urbach, The Sages pp. 17 ff. Cf. Neusner, J., A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 3 (Leiden, 1968), pp. 117 ff.; vol. 4 (1969), pp. 354 ff.Google Scholar

50. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine p. 68. Many Jews accepted astrology (and other pagan practices and beliefs) without question. Some sages rejected it outright (see Lieberman, pp. 99 ff.). On astrology and demonology among the rabbis, see Neusner, History of the Jews in Babylonia 4:330 ff.

51. According to Ginzberg (Legends of the Jews 6:335, n. 96), “it is difficult to determine with certainty the relation of this legend to the story of Tobit, as it would be a rash conclusion to consider the former directly dependent upon the latter.” But the many points of similarity between the two (omitted in the brief summary above) are strong arguments in favor of the opinion of Grintz (“Hebrew Literature in the Persian Period,” p. 123) and Schwarzbaum (“The Hero Predestined to Die,” pp. 238–240; see literature in n. 46 there) that “this story is nothing else than a folk-retelling of the old, famous tale embedded in the Book of Tobit.” (1 note here one parallel which might be overlooked: as in Tobit, the bride addresses her groom as “my brother.” Cf. Friedman, M.A., “Israel's Response in Hosea 2:17b: 'You Are My Husband,'” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 [1980]: 203.) Schwarzbaum suggests that the number of dead husbands was altered from seven to three to be “more in keeping with the Talmudic statement” (discussed above). But as a fourth marriage is forbidden even according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's ruling, I hardly think that this was intended. Schwarzbaum does not discuss the other changes which are noted above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Cf., e.g., Kaufmann, Religion of Israel [Heb.], vol. 2, book 1, p. 212; Gordis, “Love, Marriage and Business,” pp. 241 ff.

53. Shoresh Yishai to Ruth 4:9 (reprint ed., Bat Yam, 1981, p. 71a).

54. Ruth Rabba 7:7, 10, ed. Lerner, M.B. (“The Book of Ruth in Aggadic Literature and Midrash Ruth Rabba” [Heb.] [ Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1971], 2:186, 190). For the term pesolet “worthless matter (offspring)” (so translated by Jastrow, Dictionary 2:1191), see Lerner, 3:75. For the present context, cf. Ruth Rabba 4:9 (ed. Lerner, 2:112): “Doeg the Edomite … said, 'Even if he is from Perez, isn't he from a disqualified family [pesul mishpaha] Isn't he from Ruth the Moabite?'”; 8:1 (p. 204): “David said… 'How long will they say: Isn't he from a disqualified family?'”Google Scholar

55. See Lerner, 1:106–109.

56. Cf., e.g., B. 'Eruvin 53a: “The 'first ones' is R. Akiva.”

57. Lerner, 2:187, variant readings to line 88; cf. Lerner, 3:75, who cites Alkabez.

58. This agrees with R. Meir's midrash on Ruth 1:4 ("They married Moabite women”) in Ruth Rabba 2:9: “They did not proselytize them and immerse them, and they did not let the new interpretation of the law be established. Had they let the new interpretation of the law be established, they would not have been punished because of them. An Ammonite (male)-not an Ammonite female; a Moabite (male)-not a Moabite female.” This is the correct text of the midrash; see Lieberman, S., “Some Notes to the Beginning of Ruth Rabba” [Heb.], in Henoch Yalon Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1963), p. 179. A passage in B. Ketubbot 11 la seems to reflect a liberal application of this theme: A man's brother in Be Hozaa (Babylonia) died and his sisterin-law thus became eligible for levirate marriage. He came before R. Hanina (in Eretz Israel) and asked him, “Is one permitted to emigrate [‘descend’] in order to perform the levirate?” He responded, “His brother married a gentile. Bless the Lord for killing him. He wants to go down after him?!”Google Scholar

59. Ruth Rabba 7:9 (ed. Lerner, 2:188). Cf. Friedman, Jewish Polygyny in the Middle Agespp. 9–10.

60. Hatam Sofer III, Even ha-'Ezer 1 (Jerusalem, 1970), no. 130, last par. (p. 82b).

61. Azulai, H.J.D., Simhat ha-Regel (Livorno, 1781 /82), p. 34b.Google Scholar

62. Habillo, Simeon, Heleq Bene Yehuda (Venice, 1694 /95), p. 42b.Google Scholar

63. See above, n. 13.

64. Ruth Rabba 4:4 (p. 102), 6:4 (p. 160), 7:14 (p. 202). Cf. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews 6:194. Fixing Ruth's age as forty was intended to prove the miraculous nature of her conceiving and giving birth; cf. B. Bava Batra 119b: “A forty-year-old woman is no longer productive; because of their piety, a miracle was performed.”

65. Midrash Ruth Zutta ed. S. Buber (Berlin, 1894), p. 49; cf. Yalqut Shim'oni Ruth par. 608. Tovia, R.Eliezer, b., Lekach Tob zu Megillat Ruth, ed. S. Bamberger (Mainz, 1887), p. 44Google Scholar(which grotesquely describes how Ruth held Boaz in a death-love embrace until morning). From the context in Yalqut Shim'oni it seems that Boaz's death on his wedding night was associated with a midrash on npi in 4:13, understood as np, i: “Woe, Boaz married Ruth!” According to Leqah Jot it is associated with v. 17: '"A son is born to Naomi'-to Naomi, not to Boaz.” For Mahlon and Chilion as reincarnations of Er and Onan, see Vital, S., Meqor Hayyim(Livorno, 5531), p. 14c (I am indebted to Dr. Y. Spiegel for this reference).Google Scholar

66. See, e.g., Bet Yosef to Tur, Even ha-'Ezer 9. A search on the computer of Bar-Ilan University's responsa program with qatlanit as the key word produced quotations from 114 responsa. One of these did not refer to the widow syndrome but to the case of a kohen involved in a fatal car accident (nn'rcip nnxn). Note that according to the Zohar (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1960, II, 203), Mishpafim the ghost of the first husband remains with the widow and causes the death of other husbands. On “philosophical” considerations in Albo's responsum (above, n. 28), see I. Ta-Shma, Sefunot 3 (1985) 110.

67. Moses, R.Maimon, b., Responsa, ed. J. Blau, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1960), no. 218, pp. 384–388 (cf. Blau's notes and references to scholarly literature). The responsum (without the question) has recently been reedited by I. Shailat, Letters and Essays of Moses Maimonides[Heb.], vol. 2 (Maaleh Adumim, 5748), 620–623. The widow syndrome is treated in responsum no. 15 (Blau, 1:22–24) as well. The latter is translated and discussed in my paper “The Ransom-Divorce: Divorce Proceedings Initiated by the Wife in Mediaeval Jewish Practice,” Israel Oriental Studies 6 (1976): 293–296; n. 37 there deals with the text of no. 218.Google Scholar

68. Arabic awhām can also be translated “delusive imaginations, erroneous impressions, fancies, delusions, beliefs, guesses, surmises, biases, prejudices, self-deception, forebodings,” etc.

69. Arabic takhayyulal can also be translated “imagination, delusions, hallucinations, fancies, whims, fantastic notions.”

70. The word “divorce” has been corrupted in the Arabic original but is preserved in the medieval Hebrew translations. See Blau, 2:387, nn. 33, 11. S. Abramson, in his notes to this responsum in Blau, vol. 3 (1961), p. 167, suggests another way to read the text, according to which the court does not advise the widow to circumvent the talmudic prohibition; but in his notes to Blau, vol. 4 (1986), p. 54, he states that Maimonides did in fact recommend advising the widow to get betrothed. I concur with Shailat, 2:622, n. 15, in upholding Blau's suggestion on the text. Also cf. Otzar ha-Geonim ed. B. M. Lewin (Yevamot) 7:145, no. 339.

71. On Alfasi and the widow syndrome, see , Nahmanides, Novellae to Yevamot [Heb.], ed. S., Dickman (Jerusalem, 5747), pp. 236–237 and n. 295.Google Scholar As to Ibn Migash, see A. Frieman's note in Blau, 2:387, n. 12 (cf. Abramson, Ibid., 3:167, 4:54).

72. Maimonides, , Sefer ha-Miswot, ed. J., Kafih (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 199. Note that R. Saadiah Gaon translates with fa'l (mutafāwil).Google Scholar

73. On danger which results from the fear of divination, cf. B. Pesahim 110b and Nedarim 32a.

74. Abraham Maimonides (above, n. 13), pp. 144–145. Note that “imagine” (lawahham) is the same root used by his father (above, n. 68) to describe the belief: awham.

75. See Dov Ber, Matsav ha-Yashar II, 19b, quoted by Abramson in his notes to Blau, 4:51

76. As in Islam (see J. Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law [Oxford, 1964], pp. 121–122), Maimonides uses this category for actions which are reprehensible but not prohibited. So in his Mishnah Commentary, ed. J. Kafih, to Bova Mezia 5:11 (p. 74; see n. 28 there), Sanhedrin 7:4 (pp. 181, 182, 184), and A vot 1:16 (p. 417). See Kraemer, J.L., “On Maimonides' Messianic Posture,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. Twersky, I. (Cambridge, Mass., 1984), 2:133, n. 83. Cf. Shailat, 2:622, n. 6. Likewise already in a responsum by R. Saadiah b. Judah in MS Cambridge University Library Taylor-Schechter Collection 8 G 7.6: “as to what you mentioned concerning roast meat on the first night of Passover, it is reprehensible.” (Thanks are hereby extended to the Syndics of the Library and to Dr. S. C. Reif.) Also note the gaonic responsum (Otzar ha-Geonim vol. 3 [Pesahim] 67–69, no. 168) concerning B. Pesahim 49b, where Rabbi is quoted as saying that a boor is not permitted to eat meat, etc. The Gaon calls the so-called prohibition “law of etiquette … idle talk.” (The responsum appears to be from Rav Hai or Rav Sherira Gaon. See Harkavy, Teshuvot ha-Geonim p. 375, notes to no. 380; cf. M. A. Friedman, “ and the Signing of the Second Tablets of the Decalogue in the Midrash,” Te'uda 7 [in press], n. 27.)Google Scholar

77. See my Jewish Polygyny in the Middle Ages pp. 25–26.

78. Cf. Twersky, I., Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (New Haven, 1980), p. 481.Google Scholar

79. Even where relevant; see above, n. 36.

80. Cf. Midrash ha-Hefeş: “'For he thought, he too might die like his brothers' [Gen. 38:11]. From here we learn that if a woman marries one man and he dies, and a second and he dies, she may not marry a third” (Torah Shelemah 6:1457, no. 55; see comment there).

page 57 note 1. Kafih, J., R. Saadiah Gaon's Comments on the Torah [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1963), p. 43, mistakenly renders mumatta'a in v. 21 as zona.Google Scholar

page 57 note 2. M. Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon's Translation of the Torah [Heb.] (New York, 1959), pp.477–478. Zucker does not identify the source of the manuscript. Upon my request. Dr. Moshe Sokolow kindly searched Zucker's papers and found reference to Jewish Theological Seminary of America Library EN Adler 2707.51, evidently the manuscript cited by Zucker. (But there is some doubt as to the identification, since there are slight differences in the text of the passage, none of which changes its meaning:… Thanks are hereby extended to the Librarian of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.) My translation of the end of the passage (concerning which I consulted Prof. Joel Kxaemer) and the subsequent discussion differ from that offered by Zucker (and by Kafih, op. cit., p. 146, n. 2). The seven categories are as follows: (1) mut'a marriage, (2) relations with an unmarried woman, (3) incest, (4) adultery, (5) relations with a woman with menstrual impurity, (6) relations with a gentile, and (7) (in the manuscript cited in the next note) sodomy (between men). Ibn Ezra, in his Long Commentary to Lev. 18:21 (ed. A. Weisser [Jeru salem, 1977], 3:57) and in his Short Commentary to Exod. 20:13 (Weisser, 2:138, n. 143), refers to the Gaon's “eight categories.” In the former and in his Long Commentary to Exod. 20:13 (where he refers to Saadiah's “several categories”) bestiality is added as the most severe category. No mention of mut'a is made; and the forbidden relations appear in different order.

page 58 note 3. TS Ar. 48.104 (cf. the preceding note). Thanks are given to the Syndics of the Cambridge University Library and to Dr. S. C. Reif.

page 58 note 4. See Encyclopaedia of Islam 1st ed., 6:774–776 (Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam pp. 418–420).

page 58 note 5. Both cited by Zucker. The latter is from a Geniza text in the Kaufmann collection, Budapest, edited by A. Scheiber and S. Hahn in Tarbiz 28 (1958): 51. The relevant passage is mistranslated on p. 53; it should be rendered as follows: “He prohibited mut'a marriage for a man or a woman, as is written concerning both of them (read S'naVx) 'No Israelite woman shall be a qedēshā' etc.”

page 58 note 6. Encyclopaedia of Islam loc. cit.; Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam loc. cit.

page 59 note 7. Cf. B. Yevamot 61b and see Friedman, Jewish Polygyny in the Middle Ages pp. 162–165.

page 59 note 8. al-Qirqisānī, Ya'qūb, Kitāb al-Anwār wal-Marāqib, ed. L., Nemoy (New York, 1941), 3:728 (cited by Zucker). Also cf. Judah Hadasy, Eshkol ha-Kofer sec. 278, p. 105c (I would like to thank Prof. H. Ben-Shammai for this reference).Google Scholar

page 59 note 9. Abraham, David ben al-Fāsī, Kitāb Jāmi' al-Alfāz (Agron), ed. Skoss, S.L.) (New Haven, 1945), 2:541,Google Scholar cited by Ratzaby, Y., A Dictionary of Judeo-Arabic in R. Saadya's Tafsir [Heb.] (Ramat-Gan, 1985), p. 124, in connection with Saadiah's translation of qedesha as mumatta'a.Google Scholar

page 60 note 10. Encyclopaedia of Islam loc. cit.; Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam loc. cit.

page 60 note 11. I have discussed Deut. 24:1–4 in an extensive paper (not yet published).

page 60 note 12. See Friedman, Jewish Polygyny in the Middle Ages p. 292.

page 60 note 13. Rabbanite: See Kasher, Torah Shelemah 6:1445, no. 15, 6:1462, nn. 76, 78. Cf. Margulies, M., The Differences Between Babylonian and Palestinian Jews [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1938), p. 105, n. 21. Karaite: See the text edited by Zucker, pp. 485–486. I render the passage at the ttom of p. 485 as follows: “The only reason that Scripture did not mention the giving of the bride price [for Tamar] was because she had already been deflowered and did not have her virginity, so that she could agree to any sum less than the fifty dirhems.”Google Scholar

page 61 note14. It could also have been complemented by a late midrash on Gen. 38:18 in which Dmn was understood as the signet ring used to perform the betrothal. For such a midrash, see Torah Shelemah 6:1464, n. 81. On the practice of effecting the betrothal by giving a ring, see Ibid., p. 1524; Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine 1:207–210; idem, “Contracts,” in The Literature of the Sages vol. 2, ed. S. Safrai (forthcoming), nn. 91–92.

page 61 note15. M. Megilla 4:10. See Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah 5:1214.