AJS Review 35:1 (April 2011), 23–34

© Association for Jewish Studies 2011

doi:10.1017/S0364009411000018

“T HE W ISE W OMAN FROM S AIDA ”: T HE S ILENT

D IALOGUE BETWEEN A GGADAH AND H ALAKHAH
R EGARDING W OMEN AND M ARRIAGE

by

Arnon Atzmon

A central concern in the study of gender in Judaism is the status of women

and the relationship between partners in a marriage. In this article I explore a con-
cealed dialogue, or perhaps more accurately, a dialogue that has been condemned
to silence, on that subject.
My analysis follows in the path of Judith Hauptman’s research, among
others.1 Hauptman discussed the relationships among different halakhic sources
that address the issue of a woman’s obligation to procreate. She demonstrated
that the Tosefta—a source redacted relatively late—preserves an early halakhic
tradition that presumed men and women to be under equal obligation.2 Conver-
sely, the Mishnah, which was edited earlier than the Tosefta, deliberately
redacts the tradition so that halakhic discourse negates the woman’s role in pro-
creation and presumes that the purpose of marriage is for the man to fulfill the
commandment of pru urvu (be fruitful and multiply). Such seems to be the
case, for the Mishnah in Yevamot 6:6 states ‫נשא אשה ושהה עמה עשר שנים ולא ילדה‬
‫“—אינו רשאי ליבטל‬If one married a woman and remained with her ten years and

This article is based on a lecture presented at the 41st annual conference of the AJS in Los
Angeles (December 2009). I would like to express my gratitude to professors Jeffrey L. Rubenstein,
Michael L. Satlow, and Aharon Shemesh for their input. I would also like to thank Beit Shalom
Kyoto Japan for their financial support and Meshulam Gotlieb for ably translating this article.
1. Judith Hauptman, “Maternal Dissent: Women and Procreation in the Mishna,” Tikkun 6, no. 6
(1991): 81–82, 94; idem, Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman’s Voice (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
1998), 130–46.
2. Hauptman, Rereading the Rabbis, 133–34, writes: “The Tosefta then adds that men and
women are obligated to marry and forbidden to make themselves sterile or choose a spouse who is
known to be incapable of procreation … the Tosefta, throughout its discussion of this topic, holds
that women, too, are obligated to procreate.” I think that Hauptman’s claim regarding the Tosefta’s atti-
tude toward women and marriage should be revisited, for not only does the Tosefta imply that women
are also obligated to procreate, but also that marriage has value in and of itself (“A man may not live
without a woman nor may a woman live without a man” [T. Yevamot 8:4]). This notwithstanding, the
Tosefta does concur that if the marriage is childless, the couple should divorce so that both spouses (the
husband, and the wife as well) may have children.

23
Arnon Atzmon

had no children, he is not permitted to refrain [from procreating].” According to

the Mishnah, a man must fulfill this commandment; should this prove impossible
in his current marriage, he must marry another woman, and apparently must
divorce his current wife.3
In this article, I will delineate a process similar to Hauptman’s. However, unlike
Hauptman, I will focus on aggadic sources. These sources simultaneously conduct a
dialogue along two distinct axes: an aggadic–halakhic axis, namely with the Mishnah,
and an aggadic–aggadic one, linking the sources themselves. Michael L. Satlow,
Daniel Boyarin, Adiel Schremer, and Admiel Kosman have already addressed the
topic of dialogue between aggadic sources and the Mishnah.4 While my approach
may differ from theirs in both major and minor ways, my primary goal is to
address the second axis, the dialogue between the two aggadic sources.
Two sources in the Midrash Aggadah contain parallel versions of a narrative
homily that cites and addresses the substance of the relevant Mishnah.5 This
Mishnah rules that a man cannot neglect his obligation to procreate, and implies
a solution should he find himself in a childless marriage after ten years. The
homily contains a story about a couple from Saida6 who found themselves in
such a situation, but surprises us by not ending in the way the Mishnah would
have us expect. In both sources, the narrative homily addresses the halakhic
citation and sheds new light on it.
The interaction between halakhah and Aggadah in rabbinic sources most
frequently takes place within halakhic contexts, for example in the Talmudic
sugyot, where aggadic segments are embedded within halakhic discussions.
These types of interactions have received a great deal of critical attention,

3. Whether or not the husband must divorce his wife according to the Mishnah has been the
focus of some debate. Hauptman, Rereading the Rabbis, 131, has suggested that the Mishnah is
most likely instructing the man to have children with another woman either through divorcing this
wife and remarrying or by taking a second wife in addition to his present one. A third putative sugges-
tion, which is that the Mishnah is merely instructing him to keep trying to procreate with his present
wife, is somewhat surprising, given that barring some other option of course he would do so. Further-
more, this possible reading is undermined by the next line in the Mishnah, which discusses the woman’s
status should he divorce her. It should be stressed, however, that whatever the original meaning of the
Mishnah, the aggadic sources discussed in this article—such as the talmudic sages—clearly assume that
according to the Mishnah the couple should get divorced after ten childless years, so procreation takes
priority over the couple’s relationship.
4. Michael L. Satlow, “‘One Who Loves His Wife Like Himself’: Love in Rabbinic Marriage,”
Journal of Jewish Studies 49, no. 1 (1998): 67–87; Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in
Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 53–56; Adiel Schremer, Zakhar
u-nekevah bera’am: ha-niśu’im be-shilhe yeme ha-bayit ha-sheni uvi-tekufat ha-mishnah veha-talmud
(Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar Letoldot Israel, 2003), 312–21; Admiel Kosman, “Ein li hefetz
baolam tov mimkha,” Haaretz, May 9, 1997.
5. Shir Hashirim Rabbah, par. 1 to Song of Songs 1:4; Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Sos-’asis, pis.
22:2 (ed. Mandelbaum, 326–28).
6. Nah.um Cohen, Atarim ve-h.akhmim ba-golan ve-babashan bi-tekufat ha-mishnah veha-
talmud (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2007), 13–18.

24
 “The Wise Woman from Saida”

particularly in the analyses of Jeffrey Rubenstein.7 In our example, we are faced

with a much rarer, possibly complementary, phenomenon: an embedded halakhic
segment within an aggadic–midrashic context.
A comparative analysis of the sources’ content and structure shows that the
original homily is preserved in Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabbah, which is actually
considered the later of the two works, while the homily in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana,
the earlier source, is actually reworked.8 The narrative derasha in the latter work is
restructured to match the halakhic rhetoric of the Mishnah. The woman is deposed
from her central role in the story as well as from her elevated status in the marital
framework9.
In Shir-Hashirim Rabbah 1:2, an aggadic narrative is imposed on the verse
‫ נגילה ונשמחה בך‬to interpret its words as an expression of the love between the
nation of Israel and God. Within the homily itself is a reference to the Mishnah
cited earlier, and a story is told in the name of Rabbi Idi and is connected to
this Mishnah. The reference to the Mishnah in this midrash serves a similar
purpose to that of the reference to a “verse from afar” in the petih.ta (proem)
style of classical midrashic works. In classical petih.taot, a reference to biblical
verses from afar creates an intertextual relationship between different texts, engen-
dering a tension that serves as the core for a homily. Here too, the reference to the
Mishnah creates an intertextual link between the verse being expounded and the
halakhic source. This generates tension and is the basis for the homily. The inter-
preted verse expresses, in its biblical context, an expression of love between a
woman and her mate that has value in and of itself, whereas the halakhic source
views marriage pragmatically as a tool for fulfilling man’s obligation to procreate.
Let us follow the narrative homily’s development as a function of the tension
between the verse and the halakhah. The story begins with the words ‫מעשה באשה‬
‫( אחת בצידן ששהתה עשר שנים עם בעלה ולא ילדה‬There was a case of a woman in Saida,
who remained ten years with her husband and did not give birth). The story is
about a woman. In choosing this formulation, the darshan focuses our attention
on the woman’s perspective. As opposed to the mishnaic formulation that
focuses on the “man who married a woman and remained with her” (‫נשא אשה‬

7. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 243–82; idem, “Bavli Gittin 55b–56b: An Aggadic Nar-
rative in Its Halakhic Context,” Hebrew Studies 38 (1997): 21–45.
8. Hermann L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans.
Markus Bockmuehl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992) 321–22, 342–43; Myron B. Lerner, “The
Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages, ed. Shmuel
Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwarz, Peter J. Tomson (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2006), II:147–50.
9. The complete texts, in Hebrew and in English translation, are found in the appendix to this
article. The English translation of Shir Hashirim Rabbah is based on Boyarin’s translation in Carnal
Israel, with a few of my own minor modifications. The Hebrew text of Pesikta de-Rav Kahana is
that of the Mandelbaum edition (New York: JTS, 1962). The variant readings recorded in Mandel-
baum’s apparatus are, in my opinion, insignificant since they appear in only one manuscript (1‫—א‬
Oxford, Bodleian Library, 2339, Cat. Neubauer), which apparently reflects the scribe’s attempt to
adapt his text to Shir Hashirim Rabbah. The English translation of Pesikta de-Rav Kahana is based
on the Braude-Kapstein edition (Philadelphia: JPS, 1975) with a few of my own minor modifications.

25
Arnon Atzmon

‫)ושהה עמה‬, here it is the woman who has waited and not given birth. Hence, the
problem goes beyond the man’s inability to fulfill the commandment to procreate.
‫ שמעון בן יוחאי בעיין למשתבקא דין מדין‬′‫( אתון גבי ר‬They came before Rabbi
Shimon Ben Yohai; they requested to get divorced one from the other)—the
couple, who seem to understand that they have a halakhic problem, come
before Rashbi and apparently request that he initiate their divorce. It is worth
noting that the words ‫ למשתבקא דין מדין‬literally mean to release them from each
other, namely, from their distress.10 As I understand it, they are not only requesting
the rabbi’s assistance with the technicalities of getting divorced, but rather are fer-
vently asking him to help resolve the complicated predicament in which they, as a
couple, find themselves. Rashbi then gives the couple guidelines that are not, in
essence, halakhic: ‫אמר להון חייכון כשם שנזדווגתם זה לזה במאכל ובמשתה כך אין אתם‬
‫( מתפרשים אלא מתוך מאכל ומשתה‬On your lives, just as you came together to each
other with feasting and drinking, so too you should not part without feasting
and drinking). It seems to me that Rashbi is attempting to ease the couple’s way
into the divorce process. The goal of the unusual discussion is to help them inter-
nalize the insight that the divorce will allow them to rebuild their lives and will
provide them with a new opportunity to procreate, as had been their intention.11
It seems that the guidelines are effective, for the husband, when he proceeds
to become drunk, is able to quite literally “settle his mind” and is able to initiate the
divorce procedure in a loving and generous manner:12 ‫הלכו בדרכיו ועשו לעצמן י"ט‬
‫ כיון שנתיישבה דעתו עליו אמר לה בתי ראי כל חפץ‬,‫ועשו סעודה גדולה ושכרתו יותר מדאי‬
‫( טוב שיש לי בבית וטלי אותו ולכי לבית אביך‬They followed his suggestion, and
they made for themselves a festival and a feast, and she got him too drunk.
When his mind was settled he said to her, “My daughter, see any good object
that I have in this house. Take it and go to your father’s house”). However,
the woman still refuses to accept the notion of “separating” from him, and she
demonstrates this through her actions: ‫מה עשתה היא לאחר שישן רמזה לעבדיה‬
‫( ולשפחותיה ואמרה להם שאוהו במטה וקחו אותו והוליכוהו לבית אבא‬What did she do?
When he was asleep, she told her slaves and maidservants and she said to them,
“Lift him in the bed and take him and bring him to the house of [my] father”).
The husband’s state of inebriation paradoxically allows his wife to express her
determined opposition. When he is once again sober, she even explicitly declares
this to him: ‫בחצי הלילה ננער משנתיה כיון דפג חמריה אמר לה בתי היכן אני נתון אמרה ליה‬

10. Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period
(Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 536–37.
11. In this, I disagree with other scholars who believe that the party was meant to bring the
couple together. In my opinion, this reading is more applicable to the parallel derasha in Pesikta
de-Rav Kahana.
12. My understanding of the phrase ‫ נתיישבה דעתו‬as signifying the husband’s entering a relaxed
state of mind and tranquil mood under the influence of the wine parallel’s Simon’s translation (p. 49)
“feeling then in a good humour,” and Neusner’s translation (p. 89) “his mind was at ease.” Boyarin’s
translation of the phrase as “his sensibility returned to him” is problematic because he understands the
phrase to mean that the husband “became sober,” a phenomenon that is actually described later in the
story by the phrase ‫( פג יינו‬see note 13 below).

26
 “The Wise Woman from Saida”

‫ אמרה ליה ולא כך אמרת לי בערב כל חפץ טוב שיש בביתי טלי‬,‫בבית אבא אמר לה מה לי לבית אביך‬
‫( אותו ולכי לבית אביך אין חפץ טוב לי בעולם יותר ממך‬In the middle of the night he woke
up. When his wine had worn off, he said to her, “My daughter, where am I?”
She said, “In father’s house.” He said, “What am I doing in your father’s
house?” She said to him, “Did you not say to me this very evening, ‘Any good
object which you have in your house, take and go to your father’s house’?
There is no object in the world which is better for me than you!”). The term
h.efetz here holds dual meaning. In the mouth of the husband it means “object,”
but for the wife it refers to her deepest and most fundamental desire. In contrast
to the story of Rachel in the Bible, wherein Rachel declares, “Give me children
and if not I shall die” (implying that marriage and life are meaningless without
children), in this story the wife’s primary objective in marriage is to maintain a
relationship with her husband. The husband seems to internalize his wife’s
lesson, and together they return to Rashbi. At this point, Rashbi adopts a new
approach, not taking on the role of a halakhic decisor as he did before, but
rather taking on the role of a tzaddik who prays for those who have turned to
him for help: ‫( הלכו להם אצל רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ועמד והתפלל עליהם ונפקדו‬They went
to Rabbi Shimon Ben Yohai. He stood and prayed for them, and they were
remembered).
While the darshan mentions Rashbi’s role and prayers in the salvation of the
couple, ‫( ללמדך מה הקב"ה פוקד עקרות אף צדיקים פוקדים עקרות‬To teach you that just as
God helps sterile women, so too do the righteous help sterile women), the
woman’s actions are the main concern, for they lead to the couple’s preservation:
‫והרי דברים קל וחומר ומה אם בשר ודם על שאמר לבשר ודם שכמותו אין לי חפץ בעולם טוב ממך‬
‫ ישראל המחכים לישועת הקב"ה בכל יום ואומרים אין לנו חפץ טוב בעולם אלא אתה עאכ"ו‬,‫נפקדו‬
(Indeed, all the more so, if a flesh and blood said to his fellow flesh and blood,
“There is no object in the world which is better for me than you,” were saved,
Israel who are waiting for the God’s salvation every day, and say, “There is no
object in the world which is better for me than you,” how much more so!). The
darshan concludes by citing the verse with which he began: ‫הוי נגילה ונשמחה בך‬.
The woman’s commitment to her marital relationship is compared to the commit-
ment between the nation of Israel and God.
The darshan seems to experience the tension existing between the halakhic
statement—which primarily defines marriage as a tool for the male’s fulfillment of
the mitzvah of procreation—and the biblical–aggadic notion that places love at the
center of the (marital) relationship, an idea expressed by the woman from Saida.13
The woman in the story challenges the halakhah by teaching her husband and
Rashbi—who represents the law—that the halakhah is not applicable when it con-
tradicts the woman’s feelings of love, and certainly should not be implemented in a
sweeping or forceful way.14

13. Note that as mentioned above in note 2, even if the Mishnah itself does not demand that the
couple divorce, it clearly favors procreation over the couple’s relationship. The author of the midrash
clearly felt this tension, as indicated by his starting assumption that the couple should divorce.
14. Boyarin (above, note 4) asks: “Why are we told that ‘she got him too drunk,’ and then,
‘when his sensibility returned to him, he said … ?’ … Note that it is impossible to understand this

27
Arnon Atzmon

A look at a parallel version of the derasha in Midrash Pesikta de-Rav Kahana,

the earlier work, reveals a different picture, one in which the tension between the
halakhah in the Mishnah and the love reflected by the verse is never stressed. The
story lacks the tragic-romantic undertones found above, and the Rabbis mute what-
ever challenge there might be to the halakhah by having Rashbi himself take up the
potentially subversive argument aimed at saving the marriage. In fact, though Rashbi
may hint to the woman that there is a way to save her marriage, this does not grant her
a voice, status in the marriage, or even necessarily imply the validity of a marriage
containing love and a relationship but not children. Indeed, the marriage only con-
tinues because Rashbi takes the initiative, using both his wisdom and prayers to
give the couple’s marriage a second chance.15
The text begins:

‫[ … א"ר אבין ואין אנו יודעין במה‬24 ‫זה היום עשה י"י נגילה ונשמחה בו ]תהלים קיח‬
‫[ בך‬4 ‫ ובא שלמה ופירש נגילה ונשמחה בך ]שיה"ש א‬,‫ אם ביום ואם בהקב"ה‬,‫לשמוח‬
‫בתורתך … כידתנינן תמן נשא אשה ושהא עמה עשר שנים ולא ילדה א י נ ו ר ש א י ל ב ט ל‬
...‫פיריה וריביה‬

In this version, which commences with a verse from Psalms, the verse from Song
of Songs is not set up in petih.ta format to contrast with the Mishnah. Indeed, the

drunkenness as that which resulted in his being so sleepy that he didn’t detect that he was being first
carried off, because that sleep takes place after he has recovered from his drunkenness.” Then he
suggests: “That the story delicately hints that they made love while he was drunk, and that during inter-
course they realized that they loved each other too much to allow the halakhah to separate them” (54).
As explained in note 12, in my opinion, not only does the phrase ‫ נתיישבה דעתו‬not mean the same thing
as ‫פג יינו‬, but it actually means that he was influenced by the wine he drank. Boyarin also writes, “More-
over, this seems to have been the Rabbi’s plan,” as implied by the sexual connotation of the term ‫נזדווגתם‬
55). Again, in my opinion this conclusion is open to dispute, since Rashbi’s instruction may best be
understood within the rubric of the halakhic norm, as I explained above. Aside from these details, I
tend to agree with the basic thrust of Boyarin’s analysis that “This legend may encode a moment of
tension between a voice for which procreation was perceived as the sole or the overridingly important
telos of marriage and one for which companionship was becoming increasingly important” (55).
However, in my analysis, that tension does not negate the fundamental halakhic norm expressed by
the Mishnah; it merely gives rise to the conclusion that the norm should not be implemented in a sweep-
ing or forceful way.
Satlow also referred to the story’s ambivalence regarding the halakhah’s demand that the couple
divorce. In his analysis, the feast was meant to “reawaken the woman’s desire for her husband, and it is
this desire that ultimately leads to her conceiving.” He notes that “in this understanding of the story, the
purpose of a wife’s desire for her husband is not to maintain a ‘good’ marriage but to increase procrea-
tion. Ultimately, her ‘desire’ is irrelevant to the maintenance of her marriage. By conceiving she
removes the halakhic compulsion for divorce” (76–77). In my opinion, the story’s main theme is the
wife’s love for her husband, not her “desire” for him.
15. See Judith R. Baskin, “Rabbinic Reflections on the Barren Wife,” Harvard Theological
Review 82, no. 1 (1989): 101–114, which quotes the story from Pesikta de-Rav Kahana and concludes
that in cases of childlessness, the rabbis preferred prayer as a potential remedy and discouraged divorce.

28
 “The Wise Woman from Saida”

Mishnah is cited merely to explain the verse from Song of Songs (which has been
cited to explain the verse from Psalms).
The homily of the man and the woman follows the Mishnah in order to illustrate
it, not to contradict it. Thus, in contrast to the parallel version in which the woman’s
voice is stressed—‫—מעשה באשה אחת בצידן ששהתה עשר שנים עם בעלה ולא ילדה‬in this
account the story begins by emphasizing the man’s predicament:‫מעשה בצידן באחד‬
‫( שנשא אשה ושהא עמה עשר שנים ולא ילדה‬There was a case in Saida of one who
married a woman and remained with her ten years and she did not give birth). As
in the Mishnah, ‫נשא אשה ושהה עמה‬, the man’s difficulty in performing the mitzvah
of procreation takes center stage, and the woman’s voice is silenced; no challenge
is issued to the regnant halakhah.
The couple itself (particularly the husband) does not exhibit the poignant be-
havior found in Shir Hashirim Rabbah. When the husband and wife consult
Rashbi, they do not ask him to separate them “from one another” as they did in
Shir Hashirim Rabbah; rather, they come to follow the law and to obtain a
divorce: ‫אתון לגבי ר’ שמעו’ בן יוחי למשתבקה‬. Moreover, in this version the husband
does not need to become inebriated to initiate the divorce process through his
words:‫ כל חפץ שיש לי בתוך ביתי טלי אותו ולכי לבית אביך‬,‫( א’ לה‬He said to her, “Any
object that I have in this house. Take it and go to your father’s house”). Rather,
he makes his declaration immediately upon meeting Rashbi. The husband also
does not endearingly tell his wife to take “a precious object.” He refers, instead,
to just “an object.”
Most significantly, in this version it is Rashbi who adopts the potentially
subversive position, championing continuation of the marriage. He does this in
an unexpected way that seems intended to prevent its dissolution: ’‫א’ להם ר‬
‫שמעון בן יוחאי כשם שנזדווגתם מתוך מאכל ומשקה כך אין אתם פורשין זה מזה אלא מתוך‬
‫( מאכל ומשקה‬Rabbi Shimon Ben Yohai said to them, “Just as you came together
with feasting and drinking, so too you should not part without feasting and drink-
ing”). After Rashbi offers his advice—the purpose of which is to prevent the
divorce—the woman understands what is expected of her and acts accordingly:
‫ עשת סעודה גדולה ושיכרתו יותר מדיי ורמזה לשפחתה ואמרה להון טלו אותו לבית‬,‫מה עשת‬
‫( אבא‬What did she do? She prepared a great feast, and she got him too drunk).
The husband’s inebriation in this version sheds no light on his mental status;
it only enables his wife to carry out her plans and express her love to him. This
differs from the version in Shir Hashirim Rabbah; there, the role of the husband’s
drunkenness is more complex as it both sheds light on his mental status by
enabling him to initiate the divorce procedure in a loving manner and allows
his wife to show her determined opposition to receiving a divorce.
The description of the husband waking up is similar in each version.
However, even though the husband has presumably internalized his wife’s
message, in this rendition the couple does not romantically unite and return to
Rashbi, as they do in Shir Hashirim Rabbah. The voice has been taken away
from the woman and, by extension, the couple. Rashbi, having championed the
marriage, hears about the outcome of his plan and takes the next step: ‫כיון‬
‫ נתפלל עליהם ונתפקדו‬,‫( ששמע ר’ שמעון בן יוחי כך‬since Rabbi Shimon Ben Yohai
heard it, he prayed for them, and they were remembered). Rashbi realizes that

29
Arnon Atzmon

his plan has been successful and now believes that the conditions are ripe for his
prayers, which will enable the couple finally to procreate. The darshan, in this
version, focuses solely on the role of Rashbi, ‫הקב"ה פוקד עקרות והצדיקים פוקדים‬
‫( עקרות‬God helps sterile women, and the righteous help sterile women) and
makes no further mention of the words spoken by the wife to her husband, thus
de-emphasizing the importance of love in their relationship.
The forced connection between the homily and the concluding verse from
Isaiah, which reads ‫והרי הדברים קל וחומר ומה אם בשר ודם שמח שמחה ומשמח את‬
‫ וישראל מצפים לישועתו של הקב"ה‬.‫ כשיבוא הק’ לשמח את ירושלם על אחת כמה וכמה‬,‫הכל‬
‫על אחת כמה וכמה‬, (Indeed, all the more so, if a flesh and blood is able to rejoice
and bring joy to everybody, when God will come to bring joy to Jerusalem,
how much more so. And Israel who for so many ages have been looking
forward to deliverance by God, how much more so!) is another indication of
the secondary nature of the version found in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana.16
In conclusion, it is Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, the composition that was
redacted earlier and is usually ascribed to perhaps the fifth century in the land
of Israel, which brings the reworked and secondary text. Shir Hashirim Rabbah,
which is the later, seventh-century redaction, preserves the earlier text, the one
more challenging from a halakhic perspective.17 The originary nature of the
derasha in Shir Hashirim Rabbah is attested to not only by the principle of
lectio difficilio18 but also by additional structural elements that are not strictly
relevant to our discussion.19 This narrative homily underwent a redaction
prompted by the desire to make it comply with the legal rhetoric of the
Mishnah and the accepted halakhic norms of the time.20 In this process, the
woman was removed from her central place in the story and from her status
within the marital framework. That Rashbi saved the marriage does not imply

16. These words appear verbatim as a formulaic conclusion to the first passage of that Pesikta. There
the words function most appropriately as a connecting link between the passage’s central theme—Sarah’s
joy after giving birth and the feast that she gave, and the verse “Rejoicing in the Lord I give joy” (Isaiah
61:10). The redactor’s use of this formula here clearly seems secondary in nature.
17. Presumably the story originated as some kind of a folk legend and later was adapted to serve
a halakhic function. This presumption may find support in Midrash Pesikta Rabbati (Piska 30, Nahamu
Nahamu, 141) where we find the same basic story told in parable form, without its familiar halakhic
connotations (see Ofra Meir, “Ha-nuschaot ha-yehudiyot shel hatipus hasipuri A.T. 875,” Yedʿa-aʿm:
bamah le-folklor yehudi 45 [1979]: 55–61).
18. The term is usually used in the field of text criticism; here I use it metaphorically to mean
that in order to determine which source was the original, we may assume that the earlier version of the
text underwent a process of standardization to conform to normative rulings. In our case, the normative
law is found in the Mishnah and reflected in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, while Shir Hashirim Rabbah pre-
serves the earlier unstandardized version.
19. Among them, the anonymous citation of the story, and the fact that the second passage—
which has a proem format in Shir Hashirim Rabbah—‫ ר’ רבין פתח‬followed by a verse from afar
(Psalms)—loses this structure in the Pesikta: ‫ א"ר אבין‬and so forth.
20. While I have not offered external proof that at the time of the homily’s redaction the regnant
halakhah dictated that the husband should divorce his wife in such a case, given the beginning of the
Pesikta this would seem most probable. Indeed, if this was not the case, the Pesikta’s assumption that
they should get divorced is surprising, to say the least.

30
 “The Wise Woman from Saida”

his championing of the woman’s voice or her status; it is the combination of his
wisdom and his prayer that gives the marriage a second chance.21
The process described here is analogous to that depicted by Hauptman in her
analysis of the relationship between the Mishnah in Yevamot and the Tosefta that
parallels it. In the aggadic sources as well, the earlier and more authoritative source
is actually reworked to accommodate the story to the prevailing halakhic norms.
Moreover, the earlier source silences the subversive “other” voice that is heard
in the original homily. Perhaps such a step did not need to be taken in the later
and less authoritative source, for Shir Hashirim Rabbah by its very nature was
less threatening. However, it seems to me that the voice calling out from the
Aggadah (preserved in Shir Hashirim Rabbah) and the dialogue, which that
Aggadah has with the mishnaic halakhah, ring out crystal clear. Even though
authoritative sources attempted to silence this voice and consign its argument to
oblivion, it seems quite likely that the Aggadah made its mark on halakhic practice
throughout history. Indeed, the halakhic establishment, contra the Mishnah,
traditionally did not force childless couples to divorce.22

Arnon Atzmon
Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel

21. Schremer, who discussed this version of the homily, claimed that “This story bears a clear
message of social-cultural criticism, on the halakhic demand to dissolve the bond of marriage since the
obligation to procreate was not fulfilled there. That halakhah is cruel in the view of the author, and
morally distorted. In his opinion the purpose of having children is only one aspect of the marriage,
but there is also the aspect of the love that exists between the married couple” (Schremer, Zakhar
u-nekevah, 317). In Schremer’s opinion, the author criticizes Rashbi, as a representative of the Hala-
khah, for only responding to the couple’s distress by praying for them at the end of the story, when
he could and should have done so earlier.
In my opinion, Shremer’s reading is open to dispute, especially as it applies to the Pesikta’s
version. As I have demonstrated, the Pesikta’s version harmonizes the mishnaic halakhah with the
story far more than Shir Hashirim Rabbah does. Furthermore, as I have shown, the author actually
praises Rashbi for taking the initiative and ultimately praying for the couple, as praying for them
before they went through the process would have not been efficacious (cf. Ido Hevroni, “The
Midrash as Marriage Guide,” Azure 29 [2007]: 103–120).
22. Cf. Benjamin Lau, “The Two Objectives of the Institution of Marriage,” Milin Havivin 3
(2007): 52–67.

31
Arnon Atzmon
Appendix 1— The sources in English translation
Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:2
We will rejoice and be happy with you
[Song of Solomon 1:4]
There we have taught: If a man mar-
ried a woman and remained with her
ten years and had no children, he is
not permitted to refrain.
Rabbi Idi Said: There was a case of a
woman in Saida, who remained ten
years with her husband and did not
give birth. They came before Rabbi
Shimon Ben Yohai; they requested to
get divorced one from the other.
He said to them, “On your lives, just
as you came together to each other
with feasting and drinking, so too you
should not part without feasting and
drinking.” They followed his
suggestion, and they made for
themselves a festival and a feast, and
she got him too drunk.
When his mind was settled he said to
her, “My daughter, see any good
object that I have in this house. Take it
and go to your father’s house.”
What did she do? When he was
asleep, she told her slaves and maid-
servants and she said to them, “Lift
him in the bed and take him and bring
him to the house of [my] father.”
In the middle of the night he woke up.
When his wine had worn off, he said
to her, “My daughter, where am I?”
She said, “In father’s house.” He said,
“What am I doing in your father’s
house?”
32
Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 22
This is the day which the Lord made;
we will rejoice and be glad in it
[Psalms 118]
As we have taught there: If one mar-
ried a woman and remained with her
ten years and had no children, he is
not permitted to refrain from pro-
creation….
There was a case in Sida of one who
married a woman and remained with
her ten years and she did not give
birth. They came before Rabbi Shi-
mon Ben Yohai to get divorced.
He said to her, “Any object that I have
in this house. Take it and go to your
father’s house.”Rabbi Shimon Ben
Yohai said to them, “Just as you came
together with feasting and drinking,
so too you should not part without
feasting and drinking.”
What did she do? She prepared a great
feast, and she got him too drunk.
And she gave a sign to her slave girl
and said to her, “Bring him to the
house of [my] father.”
In the middle of the night he woke up.
He said to her, “Where am I?”
She said to him, “Did you not say to
me, ‘Any object which you have in
your house, take and go to your
father’s house’? There is no better
object for me than you!”
Since Rabbi Shimon Ben Yohai heard
it, he prayed for them, and they were
remembered [they had children].
God helps sterile women, and the
righteous help sterile women.
 “The Wise Woman from Saida”

Appendix 1— (contd.)

Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:2 Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 22

She said to him, “Did you not say to Indeed, all the more so, if flesh and
me this very evening, ‘Any good blood is able to rejoice and bring joy
object which you have in your house, to everybody, when God will come to
take and go to your father’s house’? bring joy to Jerusalem, how much
There is no object in the world which more so. And Israel who for so many
is better for me than you!’ ages have been looking forward to
They went to Rabbi Shimon Ben deliverance by God, how much more
Yohai. He stood and prayed for them, so! Hence, Rejoicing in the Lord I
and they were remembered [they had give joy [Isaiah 61:10].
children].
To teach you that just as God helps
sterile women, so too do the righteous
help sterile women.
Indeed, all the more so, if a flesh and
blood said to his fellow flesh and
blood, “There is no object in the
world which is better for me than
you,” were saved, Israel who are
waiting for the God’s salvation every
day, and say, “There is no object in the
world which is better for me than
you,” how much more so! That is, We
will rejoice and be happy with you.

33
‫‪Arnon Atzmon‬‬
‫‪Appendix 2— The sources in the original Hebrew‬‬
‫פסיקתא דרב כהנא )מנדלבוים( כב‪ ,‬שוש אשיש‬
‫זה היום עשה י"י נגילה ונשמחה בו ]תהלים קיח‬
‫‪ … [24‬א"ר אבין ואין אנו יודעין במה לשמוח‪,‬‬
‫אם ביום ואם בהקב"ה‪ ,‬ובא שלמה ופירש נגילה‬
‫ונשמחה בך ]שיה"ש א ‪ [4‬בך בתורתך …‬
‫כידתנינן תמן נשא אשה ושהא עמה עשר שנים ולא‬
‫ילדה אינו רשאי לבטל פיריה וריביה …‬
‫מעשה בצידן באחד שנשא אשה ושהא עמה עשר‬
‫שנים ולא ילדה‪ ,‬אתון לגבי ר’ שמעו’ בן יוחי‬
‫למשתבקה‪,‬‬
‫א' לה‪ ,‬כל חפץ שיש לי בתוך ביתי טלי אותו ולכי‬
‫לבית אביך‪.‬‬
‫א' להם ר' שמעון בן יוחאי כשם שנזדווגתם מתוך‬
‫מאכל ומשקה כך אין אתם פורשין זה מזה אלא‬
‫מתוך מאכל ומשקה‪.‬‬
‫מה עשת‪ ,‬עשת סעודה גדולה ושיכרתו יותר מדיי‬
‫ורמזה לשפחתה ואמרה להון טלו אותו לבית אבא‪.‬‬
‫בחצי הלילה ניעור משנתו‪,‬‬
‫אמר להן‪ ,‬איכן אני נתון‪,‬‬
‫אמרה לו‪ ,‬לא כך אמרתה כל חפץ שיש לי בתוך ביתי‬
‫טלי אותו ולכי לבית אביך‪ ,‬וכדון הוא אין לי חפץ‬
‫טוב ממך‪.‬‬
‫כיון ששמע ר' שמעון בן יוחי כך‪ ,‬נתפלל עליהם‬
‫ונתפקדו‪.‬‬
‫הקב"ה פוקד עקרות והצדיקים פוקדים עקרות‪.‬‬
‫והרי הדברים קל וחומר ומה אם בשר ודם שמח‬
‫שמחה ומשמח את הכל‪ ,‬כשיבוא הק' לשמח את‬
‫ירושלם על אחת כמה וכמה‪ .‬וישראל מצפים‬
‫לישועתו של הקב”ה על אחת כמה וכמה‪ ,‬שוש‬
‫אשיש בי"י ]ישעיה סא ‪.[10‬‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫שיר השירים רבה א ‪2‬‬
‫ד"א נגילה ונשמחה בך ]שיה"ש א ‪,[4‬‬
‫תמן תנינן נשא אדם אשה ושהה עמה עשר‬
‫שנים ולא ילדה אינו רשאי ליבטל‪,‬‬
‫אמר רבי אידי‬
‫מעשה באשה אחת בצידן ששהתה עשר‬
‫שנים עם בעלה ולא ילדה‪ ,‬אתון גבי ר'‬
‫שמעון בן יוחאי בעיין‬
‫למשתבקא דין מדין‬
‫אמר להון חייכון כשם שנזדווגתם זה לזה‬
‫במאכל ובמשתה כך אין אתם מתפרשים‬
‫אלא מתוך מאכל ומשתה‪,‬‬
‫הלכו בדרכיו ועשו לעצמן י"ט ועשו‬
‫סעודה גדולה ושכרתו יותר מדאי‪,‬‬
‫כיון שנתיישבה דעתו עליו אמר לה בתי‬
‫ראי כל חפץ טוב שיש לי בבית וטלי אותו‬
‫ולכי לבית אביך‪,‬‬
‫מה עשתה היא לאחר שישן‬
‫רמזה לעבדיה ולשפחותיה ואמרה להם‬
‫שאוהו במטה וקחו אותו והוליכוהו לבית‬
‫אבא‪ ,‬בחצי הלילה ננער משנתיה כיון דפג‬
‫חמריה‬
‫אמר לה בתי היכן אני נתון‬
‫אמרה ליה בבית אבא אמר לה מה לי לבית‬
‫אביך‪,‬‬
‫אמרה ליה ולא כך אמרת לי בערב כל חפץ‬
‫טוב‬
‫שיש בביתי טלי אותו ולכי לבית אביך אין‬
‫חפץ טוב לי בעולם יותר ממך‪,‬‬
‫הלכו להם אצל רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ועמד‬
‫והתפלל עליהם ונפקדוללמדך מה הקב"ה‬
‫פוקד עקרות אף צדיקים פוקדים עקרות‪,‬‬
‫והרי דברים קל וחומר ומה אם בשר ודם על‬
‫שאמר לבשר ודם שכמותו אין לי חפץ‬
‫בעולם טוב ממך נפקדו‪ ,‬ישראל המחכים‬
‫לישועת הקב"ה בכל יום ואומרים אין לנו‬
‫חפץ טוב בעולם אלא אתה עאכ"ו‪ ,‬הוי‬
‫נגילה ונשמחה בך ]שיה"ש א ‪.[4‬‬