Shaping the Dialogue in the Talmudic Story of an Anonymous Woman’s Arguments for Bearing Children versus the Legal Halakhic Law and the Context of the Story

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper is well written both in terms of substance and form. At the editorial stage, the paper requires careful reading and checking in terms of language and syntax.

Author Response

Religions-1657667- Response to reviewer A

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your important comments. 

As your request, we went through the article again and we made a careful reading and checked all terms of language and syntax.

Thank you.

The authors.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I- In the line 87 the author claims:

“She appealed to the judge’s sense of compassion, to his emotions, rather than to his proficiency in the strict law, and raised a simple direct emotional plea: When she grows old, what will happen to her? To this woman? Who would care for her in her old age if she were to remain alone with no child to support her and nurse her? Who would provide her with social support and welfare if she were to remain childless in her old age?”

The author claim that the woman second plea is kind of emotional plea, not a legal one. However following to this story we have a very similar story in the courtroom of Rav Nachman who is listening to the same plea and ruling similarly to R. Ammi:

 הָהִיא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר לַהּ לָא מִיפַּקְּדַתְּ אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ לָא בָּעֲיָא הָךְ אִתְּתָא חוּטְרָא לִידָה וּמָרָה לִקְבוּרָה אֲמַר כִּי הָא וַדַּאי כָּפֵינַן"

"she needs a staff for support and a spade for burial" - i.e., sons to support her in her old age and to take care of her funeral arrangements. (Yevamot 65b)

 

Furthermore, Maimonides in his codex ruling like R. Ammi and R. Nachman like if it is a simple halachic plea without additional explanation:

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאָה לִתְבֹּעַ מִבַּעְלָהּ לְגָרְשָׁהּ אַחַר עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָלְדָה וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצֻוָּה עַל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה צְרִיכָה הִיא לְבָנִים לְזִקְנוּתָהּ. וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן עִקַּר כְּתֻבָּה בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב לָהּ הַתּוֹסֶפֶת עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֵּצֵא לִרְצוֹנָהּ וְתִטּל:

(Mishneh Torah, Marriage 15:10)

Similarly is ruled in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 154:6)

 

Therefore, the author should mention the case of R. Nachman, and it would be beneficial for better understanding of the article and the argument of the author in this article, to shape this point.

Author Response

Religions-1657667- Response to reviewer B

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your important comments. 

As your request, we have mentioned the case of R. Nachaman (added in the Method and Discussion) in order to understand better the article and to shape the argument in this point.

Thank you.

The authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

The author presents a close reading of a brief Talmudic narrative regarding an anonymous woman who comes to Rabbi Ammi in order to secure a divorce from her husband. The article engages in a close literary reading of the story, connecting various elements to the broader socio-cultural context of the text. While the author presents a number of interesting insights, there are several key desiderata that lead this reviewer to feel the present article is not ready for publication.

First, the article does not sufficiently address the broader “so what” question of what is at stake. What do we learn more broadly about the Bavli, Judaism, ancient Jewish perspectives/constructions of women, etc. from this particular anecdote? Put differently, why is it important for us to better understand this particular narrative? How does it shed light on larger phenomena? Especially for a journal as broadly focused as Religions, there should be some broader conclusions that reach beyond the scope of the particular narrative at hand.

If the author is considering other directions of analysis to expand the scope of the argument, the observation (on page 5) about the usage of the term zil/zili in the eight similarly patterned Talmudic passages opens up an interesting line of inquiry regarding “type-scenes” (à la Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative) within rabbinic texts and the relationship between women and truth (it’s possible that there is already scholarship on this particular point, or comparing these specific stories, of which this reviewer is not familiar).

Despite revolving around an episode about a woman and focusing on the way the Bavli portrays her character, the article is not strongly in dialogue with contemporary feminist scholarship. There is a robust literature relevant for thinking about the way the Bavli constructs gender that is relevant for such an analysis (e.g., the Feminist Talmud Commentary Series, the work by many Talmudists, including Sarra Lev, Gail Labovitz, Judith Hauptman [reflecting an older wave of feminist scholarship], etc.). The article’s abstract (“This article joins a gradually developing trend in recent years within the study of the Talmud Bavli, one that addresses issues related to women’s status and gender discourse”) suggests that the author may not be fully aware of the many different directions of gender-related analysis that have developed since the mid-1990s, with more recent shifts focusing on materiality (e.g., Peskowitz’s Spinning Fantasies), the body (e.g., Fonrobert’s Menstrual Purity), breaking down the gender binary (Sarra Lev’s article “Inside/Outside”), etc.

The author adopts a close literary reading of the narrative to identify key themes and ideas. However, the author does not treat the immediate context of the story – the question regarding women who bring claims other than being commanded and the parallel narrative brought immediately after the Rabbi Ammi episode. How does this legal framing impact our reading of the narrative and its purpose within the sugya? The author may find Barry Wimpfheimer’s Narrating the Law helpful.

Some of the analysis revolves around the phrase “give me [my] ketubah,” but (as noted below), this phrase is missing in a number of the manuscript witnesses. A close reading of the Talmudic text should really engage with the extant manuscript traditions unless there is a particularly compelling reason to adhere to the printed Vilna text – e.g., a reception history of how the narrative was received by those in the early-modern/modern period who only looked to the printed text.

[specific comments included in the attached document]

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Religions-1657667- Response to reviewer C

 

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your important comments. 

We will respond to all of your comments according to the order of your review.

1. First, the article does not sufficiently address the broader “so what” question of what is at stake. What do we learn more broadly about the Bavli, Judaism, ancient Jewish perspectives/constructions of women, etc. from this particular anecdote? Put differently, why is it important for us to better understand this particular narrative? How does it shed light on larger phenomena? Especially for a journal as broadly focused as Religions, there should be some broader conclusions that reach beyond the scope of the particular narrative at hand.

Added in the Conclusions

2. If the author is considering other directions of analysis to expand the scope of the argument, the observation (on page 5) about the usage of the term zil/zili in the eight similarly patterned Talmudic passages opens up an interesting line of inquiry regarding “type-scenes” (à la Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative) within rabbinic texts and the relationship between women and truth (it’s possible that there is already scholarship on this particular point, or comparing these specific stories, of which this reviewer is not familiar).

Added in the Results.

3. Despite revolving around an episode about a woman and focusing on the way the Bavli portrays her character, the article is not strongly in dialogue with contemporary feminist scholarship. There is a robust literature relevant for thinking about the way the Bavli constructs gender that is relevant for such an analysis (e.g., the Feminist Talmud Commentary Series, the work by many Talmudists, including Sarra Lev, Gail Labovitz, Judith Hauptman [reflecting an older wave of feminist scholarship], etc.).

Added in the Conclusions

4. The article’s abstract (“This article joins a gradually developing trend in recent years within the study of the Talmud Bavli, one that addresses issues related to women’s status and gender discourse”) suggests that the author may not be fully aware of the many different directions of gender-related analysis that have developed since the mid-1990s, with more recent shifts focusing on materiality (e.g., Peskowitz’s Spinning Fantasies), the body (e.g., Fonrobert’s Menstrual Purity), breaking down the gender binary (Sarra Lev’s article “Inside/Outside”), etc.

Added in the Abstract.

5. The author adopts a close literary reading of the narrative to identify key themes and ideas. However, the author does not treat the immediate context of the story – the question regarding women who bring claims other than being commanded and the parallel narrative brought immediately after the Rabbi Ammi episode. How does this legal framing impact our reading of the narrative and its purpose within the sugya? The author may find Barry Wimpfheimer’s Narrating the Law helpful.

Added in the Discussion.

6. Some of the analysis revolves around the phrase “give me [my] ketubah,” but (as noted below), this phrase is missing in a number of the manuscript witnesses. A close reading of the Talmudic text should really engage with the extant manuscript traditions unless there is a particularly compelling reason to adhere to the printed Vilna text – e.g., a reception history of how the narrative was received by those in the early-modern/modern period who only looked to the printed text.

The reason was added in parentheses in the Method and Discussion.

 

• Pg 1 – The author begins the article with the term “halakhic” – it might be helpful to parenthetically define/gloss this term for the broader readership

Added in the Introduction

• Pg 2 – “because she knew that her husband was the infertile one” – This assumption is based on Tosafot דעתך סלקא ואי ה''ד ;there are several reasons why I would discourage uncritically adopting this reading as the basic sense of the passage under discussion (even though this reading is adopted by some modern commentaries – e.g., Steinsaltz, Artscroll, etc.). First, this gloss appears in the standard printed Tosafot as a response (תירוץ (to a question raised by the Tosafot and therefore this interpretation is presented in order to resolve a potential contradiction, rather than provide a simple reading of the text itself. Second, this comment appears on an earlier part of the sugya rather than on the narrative in question and thus may not be applicable to the particular narrative. Finally, some manuscripts of the narrative under discussion lack the term כתובה and thus perhaps the woman is simply asking for divorce even without her כתובה) as Rashi glosses her initial request).

The sentence was omitted.

• Pg 2 – “the problematic phrase ‘Give me’” – Note that this phrase does not appear in all of the extant manuscripts. The author might want to consider the implications of this – could the phrase be an interpolation based on one of the other instances in order to connect these intertexts? Perhaps the phrase was removed by some scribes and, if so, what would be their motivation?

The reason was added in parentheses in the Method and Discussion.

• Pg 3 – The desire to be a mother – It is important to note that the woman herself does not explicitly state that her initial claim is a desire to have children, it is Rabbi Ammi who assumes this to be the case. The only claim that the woman makes explicitly is her concern about being taken care of in her old age. Particularly as this episode is brought to illustrate the case of a woman who brings a claim other than being commanded ( מחמת בבאה דלמא ההיא כי טענה ,(the sugya itself is foregrounding her explicit claim rather than the claim Rabbi Ammi assumes to be her motivation. Thus, it’s not clear whether the woman changed her claim or not – perhaps this ambiguity is relevant for the literary reading of the very terse anecdote?

We have included your comment as a part of the article (sub-title 2.3. "The desire…") and we owe you a credit if we know your name.

• Pg 3 – “All the more so in the case of an anonymous woman who normally had no connections with the social rank of Torah scholars and judges.” – I would not assume that because the woman is introduced anonymously within the context of the story that this means she was unknown to Rabbi Ammi. The author may wish to consider this within the context of scholarship on the judicial purview of Palestinian rabbis (e.g., Lapin, Rabbis as Romans, ch 4 and esp. 109-113).

Added in subtitle "the desire…".

• Pg 4 – “Until their marriage women were financially dependent on their father, and after the marriage – on their husband” – While this is probably true, the Mishnah may not be the best source to support this point, as it is primarily prescriptive rather than descriptive, and drawing upon this source assumes that rabbinic prescriptions were widely adopted. Other sources and scholarship about the period would bolster this point.

The source was added in subtitle "The socioeconomic…".

• Pg 4 – “The halakhic give and take that appears in Tractate Yevamot before this story contains the question: What is the law when there is a disagreement between the husband and wife concerning who is the infertile one?” – This discussion appears on the previous page and revolves around the prior Mishnah. The immediate context of the anecdote is actually focused on determining whether (or really according to whom) women are obligated in the commandment of having children. While the earlier context may be relevant, the more immediately context seems to be apposite.

Added in the Results in 3.1.

• Pg 5 – “but when she presented her first plea “Give me a ketubah!” it was clear to him that she had come to demand her divorce and her ketubah due to her infertile husband” – Again, note that this request is missing in a number of MSS (e.g., Munich 95, Munich 141, Oxford Opp. 248 (367), Vatican 111, etc.)

The reason was added in the Method and Discussion.

• Pg 5 – “In all the stories the matter discussed at the beginning, regarding which the word zil or zili was said, eventually changed or turned out to be wrong.” – This is a very helpful insight, but what does it mean that this story is part of this broader trend in the Bavli? If it has not already been explored, there might be something substantive here to explore in terms of recurring narrative structures in the Bavli that all involve women overturning an initial incorrect ruling/assumption.

Added in the Results in 3.1

• Pg 5 – “R. Ammi’s manner in his rulings in the Talmud Bavli (based on the phrase “before R./R. Ammi” (×33)) shows that in regular cases with no legal complications he was inclined to rule formally, according to the letter of the law and following the customary legal-halakhic law” – This claim feels like it could use more support/demonstration as well as further elucidation – what does it mean to rule formally? Is this when a tannaitic source includes a clear indication of the undisputed law? Perhaps this is less about Rabbi Ammi’s personal approach and more about the Bavli’s characterization of this Palestinian amora?

Added in the Results in 3.2

• Pg 6 – “This pattern of action by R. Ammi during the court discussion was characteristic of him and is repeated in other places in the Talmud Bavli” – how does this compare to the depiction of Rav Nachman, who is presented as treating a similar case immediately following the narrative under discussion?

Added in the Method and Discussion

• Pg 6-7 – “She had certain minimal knowledge of the halakha on intimate matters” – I’m not totally sure if this is true, especially if her primary claim is the need for support in her old age (and given that the ruling ultimately emerges in her favor, perhaps she is keenly aware of the law and comes with a claim that is more likely to elicit the desired result).

We omitted the word "minimal".

 

The authors

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, many of the changes are surface-level rather than substantive (i.e., the author introduced a citation to a recommended work or alluded to a suggested concept without actually considering how the work/idea impacts the analysis throughout). Some of the additions feel like they actually detract from the work (e.g., the mention of type-scenes, which does not do justice to the concept and is not actually demonstrated).

The article mentions a few more contemporary works, but does not actually engage with them on a substantive level, nor does the work engage with the concepts it raises in a sophisticated way – e.g., one of the points of the conclusion is about “the ancient Jewish outlook on the attitude to women appearing in the court in the period of the Talmud Bavli,” which is really a part of second wave feminist Talmudic discourse (i.e., does rabbinic literature have a positive or negative view of women) rather than engaging with contemporary discourse on the topic (the mention of constructing gender in the conclusion, which is a trope of some contemporary feminist approaches, is not well employed and does not directly emerge from the analysis as a whole). This reflects a broader concern that the author is seeking “quick fixes” for issues that are more substantive to the work – e.g., I previously noted:

The article’s abstract (“This article joins a gradually developing trend in recent years within the study of the Talmud Bavli, one that addresses issues related to women’s status and gender discourse”) suggests that the author may not be fully aware of the many different directions of gender-related analysis that have developed since the mid-1990s, with more recent shifts focusing on materiality (e.g., Peskowitz’s Spinning Fantasies), the body (e.g., Fonrobert’s Menstrual Purity), breaking down the gender binary (Sarra Lev’s article “Inside/Outside”), etc.

The author’s response is “Added to the abstract” when the point is really that their depiction of feminist readings of the Bavli as a “gradually developing trend in recent years” is not accurate and that more engagement with recent scholarship would enhance the work – not that a few more names should be included in the Abstract.

 

Pg 2 – “which was not customary or common among contemporary women” – how do we know this? Why wouldn’t a woman claim her ketubah using the language of “give me”? If the phrase appears in two other places in the Bavli (as the author notes), why does this make it problematic rather than reflective of the expectation?

Pg 2 - “(Although this sentence is indeed missing in several manuscripts such as Munich 95, Munich 141, Oxford 367, Vatican 111, we chose to present it based on the version of the Vilna edition and the Venice edition – where it appears, as the entire story centers on the woman’s request for payment for her prenuptial agreement).”

I do not find this a compelling reason to ignore the multiple witnesses that do not include this reading (unless the entire analysis is about the reception of the text within the printed edition, but this is clearly not the author’s intention, nor should it be for this type of paper). Why does the author choose to adopt the reading found in the Printed Edition - is there a compelling reason (other than because it fits with the desired line of argumentation)? If “the entire story centers on the woman’s request for payment for her prenuptial agreement,” this makes it even more critical to address the fact that this key line is missing in many witnesses – in what ways does this version of the text yield a different analysis?

Pg 3 – “reveal the narrative of the talmudic sages’ worldview” – I have no idea what this means.

Pg 3 – “as well as the disparity between the dry legal-halakhic law and life circumstances as reflected in these two stories (Wimpfheimer 2011).” – I’m not sure what this point has to do with Wimpfheimer’s argument related to the placement of narratives within legal frameworks (his point is about the impact of the context, not that law and narrative are distinct). The author does not specify a particular page so I cannot tell if there is a minor point that Wimpfheimer makes to which the author might be alluding.

Pg 3 – “It is important to note that the woman herself does not explicitly state that her initial claim is a desire to have children (but it was mentioned in the following story that took place in R. Nachman’s court), rather it is R. Ammi who assumes this to be the case. The only claim that the woman makes explicitly is her concern about being taken care of in her old age.” – The R. Nachman narrative also does not explicitly include a desire to have children, it similarly raises a concern about being taken care of in old age.

Pg 4 – “perhaps this ambiguity is relevant for the literary reading of the very terse anecdote.” – this issue seems to be extremely relevant to a lot of the author’s analysis and should be developed or addressed.

My previous comment: Pg 4 – “The halakhic give and take that appears in Tractate Yevamot before this story contains the question: What is the law when there is a disagreement between the husband and wife concerning who is the infertile one?” – This discussion appears on the previous page and revolves around the prior Mishnah. The immediate context of the anecdote is actually focused on determining whether (or really according to whom) women are obligated in the commandment of having children. While the earlier context may be relevant, the more immediately context seems to be apposite.

The author added a single sentence to note the immediate context of whether women are obligated in having children but does not actually explain the relevance of this point – particularly given the overall orientation of the article as a literary reading, the context should play a more prominent role.

Pg 6 – The author introduces the idea of “type-scenes,” which I previously suggested might be an interesting route to explore if the author intends to delve into the relationship between the eight passages that employ the term zil/zili. However, a single term does not constitute a type-scene and one would actually need to make the case that these anecdotes constitute a type-scene at all. In the present context I see this as detracting from the argument.

Pg 6 – “although it may be said that this is how the Talmud Bavli characterizes the Eretz Israel Amora, R. Ammi (Hauptman 1998, pp. 137-8))” – I’m not sure how this citation from Hauptman addresses this point, she mentions R. Ammi and R. Nachman in the context of these sugyot but does not delve into a broader description of their characters.

Pg 9 – “One of the ways used by the Talmud Bavli to construct gender is, as described in the current story” – this is a very simple understanding of the construction of gender and doesn’t fit within the broader tenor of the piece. It gives the impression that the author is not really conversant with type of discourse.

There are still some basic proofreading issues as well – e.g., “an anonymous woman who come to the court” (pg 1) and some spelling mistakes - .g., “Maimonudes” (note 4).

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf