These texts were first brought to my attention by my husband, Uri Melammed, who had studied them with Professor Joshua Blau in a course in Judeo-Arabic; he graciously passed on his knowledge to me. I used the Hebrew version in class for some years, but then found an English version necessary for use in the American classroom. I could not have completed it without the aid of my husband, who diligently checked every word of the original responsa and later pored over the entire article with his usual thoroughness and precision; my heartfelt thanks to my partner. I must also thank my pedagogic partner, Ross S. Kraemer, with whom I co-taught a course on women in Jewish history at Franklin and Marshall College. This translation was prepared for that class. She encouraged me to write up the material for publication, but I procrastinated until I was strongly urged to do so by Seth Ward as well. The first draft was read by David Kraemer, who checked the rabbinic sources, and also by Ross S. Kraemer, who made many helpful comments.

1. This is what S. D. Goitein terms Geniza society in A Mediterranean Society,5 vols. (Berkeley, Calif., 1967–88). The responsa treated in this article are from the Cairo Geniza collection.Google Scholar

2. The best-known edition of these responsa appears in a collection that displays the original Judeo-Arabic alongside Hebrew translations. See Joshua Blau, Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,4 vols. (Jerusalem, 1957–86), vol. 1, pp. 49–53, 71–73. The corrected Judeo-Arabic edition appears in idem, Judaeo-Arabic Literature: Selected Texts(Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 223–228. Blau based his readings on MS Simonsen B in the Royal Library of Copenhagen; see entry for David J. Simonsen in Benjamin Richler, Guide to Hebrew Manuscript Collections(Jerusalem, 1994), p. 176. The dating of these copies is difficult and uncertain, and might be as late as the fourteenth century; for a discussion of the collection as well as the dating, see Blau, Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,vol. 3, pp. 3–6. They, together with a Hebrew translation, were also found in abbreviated form in the A. H. Freimann collection (Jerusalem, 1934). Heretofore these texts have not been available to the English reader, although a summary of them appears in Goitein, Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, pp. 344–346. An annotated translation will appear in Joel Kraemer's forthcoming collection of translated works of Maimonides in the Yale Judaica Series.Google Scholar

3. One often has to take into account the fact that most (published) responsa were edited, and in the process details that might have helped to recreate or enrich the social or historical context were sometimes edited out. In addition, when copies were made, there was always the pitfall of human error on the part of the scribe. “The copyists were infamous for deleting all of the data which they considered halakhically irrelevant, exactly that information which the social historian finds most meaningful.” Mordechai A. Friedman, “Responsa of R. Abraham Maimonides from the Cairo Geniza: A Preliminary Review,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research56 (1990): 32. See also the comments in the (unpaginated) introduction to Blau, Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,vol. 1, about translators not including certain details.Google Scholar

4. Maimonides was born in 1138 and died in 1204; hence the latest possible date for the responsa.Google Scholar

5. Needless to say, there once must have been documents that would have been of great use, such as the marriage contract, perhaps a divorce writ, property ownership papers, wills, and the like, but none were found or identified among the Geniza fragments and papers. Some may no longer have existed, for papers were often discarded after the conditions of a divorce were carried out.Google Scholar

6. D. H. Baneth thought that it was the wife's relatives rather than the wife who turned to the court; see note on Arabic text, Blau, Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,vol. 1, p. 71, and Judaeo-Arabic Literature,p. 223, n. 1. However, the Geniza documents make it clear that women frequently appeared in court (except the rather wealthy ones); thus it cannot be assumed that she could not have been the petitioner.Google Scholar

7. Each responsum in Teshuvot Ha-Rambamwas assigned a number according to the order in which it appeared in the manuscripts; while the second responsum is number 34 (and 52 in the manuscript), it was presented to Maimonides sometime after the question numbered 45 (no. 63 in the manuscript). Scholars have assumed that the interval between the two was a matter of years; Baneth estimated that it was “a few years,” Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,vol. 1, p. 71, and Goitein assumed that the lawsuit “probably went on for some time,” Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, p. 345. Brackets are used to insert words that make it easier to understand the text but were not part of the original.Google Scholar

8. Goitein wrote that “absenteeism of the husband was the most widespread cancer of marital life as known to us from the Geniza.” Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, p. 155Google Scholar

9. This word is also translated as “exposed” rather than “embarrassing”; see Y. Qafih's comment in Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,vol. 3, p. 120.Google Scholar

10. Goitein pointed out that in B.T., Kiddushin (4:13) 82a, it is written that bachelors and women may not teach. He stressed Maimonides' addition to this restriction in Mishneh Torah,Study of Torah 2:4, whereby the bachelor's limitation is because of the mothers who would bring their sons to class, and the women's limitation is because of the fathers. Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, p. 504, n. 155.Google Scholar

11. According to a custom that began in the gaonic period, several payments were involved in marriage contracts, each being made at a different time. The moharwas the (cash) payment by the groom before the marriage. The additional payment was divided into two parts, the muqdamand the me 'uhar.The muqdamwas usually made immediately after the wedding, but could be given any time between the making of the match and the wedding. The me 'uhar,or delayed marriage payment, was given to the wife if her husband died or if a divorce occurred. Thus it served as a guarantee of support if the husband decided to divorce the wife without cause. See the discussion in S. D. Goitein's Hebrew article, “The Position of the Woman According to the Geniza Writings,” Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Jewish StudiesB (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 177–179, and in greater depth in M. A. Friedman, “Division of the Marriage Gift into Immediate and Postponed Payments in the Geniza Documents” [Heb.] Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies,vol. 3 (1977), pp. 377–387.Google Scholar

12. This clause is extremely interesting, and has been discussed by various scholars. The earliest known “monogamy clause” is dated to 1125/26 and is included among a number of conditions in the marriage document. See Cohen, Mark R., Jewish Self-Govemment in Medieval Egypt(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 257. Many Geniza marriage contracts from this period have such clauses; see Mordechai A. Friedman, “The Monogamy Clause in Jewish Marriage Contracts,” Perspectives in Jewish Learning4 (1972): 20–40. For additional reading, see idem, “The Ethics of Medieval Jewish Marriage,” in Religion in a Religious Age,ed. S. D. Goitein (Cambridge, Mass., 1974), pp. 83–102 and Jewish Polgyny in the Middle Ages: New Documents from the Cairo Geniza[Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1986)Google Scholar

13. The Arabic word translated as “father” is not clear in the manuscript. Blau points out that it could easily have been the word for “brother”; see Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,vol. 1, p. 49, n. 3.Google Scholar

14. This term is also unclear; the Arabic word is khamis.Baneth thought that fees were customarily paid on Thursdays, which would explain the reference to five or the fifth day, Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,vol. 1, p. 50, n. 4. Goitein confirmed this when he wrote that Thursday was the day on which fees were normally paid; see Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, p. 188. A similar usage of a different term is found in the well-established Sephardi community in Jerusalem. The first line of Psalm 81, recited on Thursdays, is “Sing joyously to God, our strength; raise a shout for the God of Jacob.” The first word, harnenu(“sing joyously”), came to signify the day that would bring joy to the Torah teacher because he would receive his weekly salary and thus be able to purchase food for the Sabbath. See David Benveniste, Hebrew Words in Judeo-Spanish[Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 31Google Scholar

15. This passage gives us some idea of the value of the dirhem.Earlier it was said that the husband did not have the half-dirhemnecessary to pay his tax; here we see that a ha\f-dirhemwould have been one twenty-eighth of a month's rent, clearly a pittance.Google Scholar

16. According to S. Abramson, this reference is to the Hebrew word for “flour,” in this case meaning “food,” rather than the Arabic word for “wheat.” See Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,vol. 3, p. 154.Google Scholar

17. These duties are only alluded to briefly in the Torah. See Exodus 21:10, where three obligations are specified: food, clothing, and sexual obligations.Google Scholar

18. In addition to the three obligations listed in the Torah, seven more are specified in the rabbinic sources. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah,Laws of Marriage 12:1–2.Google Scholar

19. This contention provided the basis of the first response.Google Scholar

20. This is the translation of the term moredet,designating a rebellious woman who refuses to engage in sexual relations with her husband. When a wife behaved in this manner, this gave the husband acceptable grounds for divorce; the wife's ketubbawould be reduced weekly until nothing remained, at which time she could be divorced, unable to claim her ketubba.See B.T., Ketubbot(5:7) 63a.Google Scholar The husband also has conjugal duties to his wife (ibid. 61b), and if he “rebels,” an addition is made to his wife's ketubba(63a).

21. It must be pointed out that these petitions were not made personally, but through intermediaries, legal representatives, rabbis, judges, or halakhically knowledgeable individuals; this was the normal practice and does not necessarily mean that the petitioner was illiterate or able to read but not write. The representative formulated the petition, hopefully to the benefit of the petitioner, sometimes recording everything and other times editing, reformulating, or even shortening the query as he deemed fit. The final form of the petition was tailored to present the picture the representative considered to be most beneficial to his client's case.Google Scholar

22. While the anonymity of the responsa may cast a shadow of doubt here, it is very unlikely that two different families in the same area would simultaneously have had such similar lives (i.e., travel details, family size, occupations, property ownership, family structure, financial situation, etc.). Blau first wrote that Question 34 had a certain similarity to Question 45, although Baneth believed that the same husband and wife were involved in both cases; see Teshuvot Ha-Rambam,vol. 3, p. 71. Goitein never doubted the fact that the same couple was struggling with these issues; Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, pp. 344–346.Google Scholar

23. This is compatible with Goitein's description of this society as being extremely mobile, with mobility not being limited solely to the wealthy. See Mediterranean Society,vol. 1, pp. 42–59.Google Scholar

24. See Jacques, Hassoun, “Un Judai'sme au feminin,” Les nouveaus cahiers 86 (Autumn 1986): 7;Google Scholar these women were specifically referred to as mu 'allimāt,the feminine plural form of the Arabic for “teacher.”

25. Polygamy was an accepted practice in Oriental and Sephardi communities even after Ashkenazi Jewry had complied with the ban against it decreed by R. Gershom ben Judah (960–1028) of Germany.Google Scholar

26. Various taxes, such as the entry tax, were incumbent upon all residents of Moslem lands; certain others, such as the poll tax, were paid only by members of tolerated religions (dhimmi),i.e., Jews, Christians, and ZoroastriansGoogle Scholar

27. The husband's statement is usually taken at face value; Goitein remarked that “she had made good use of her loafer of a husband,” Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, p. 345.Google Scholar

28. Discussions of the duties of husband to wife and of wife to husband are interspersed throughout the fifth chapter of tractate Ketubbotof the Babylonian Talmud. For example, there is a list of the kinds of work that a woman must perform for her husband (fol. 59b). An example of the husband's obligations emerges in a discussion of the duties incumbent upon a man who maintains his wife through a trustee (see fol. 64b). This list mentions many of the items included above by the wife.Google Scholar

29. B.T., Kiddushin(4:12), 80b. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that it was unacceptable at any time for a man and a woman who were not married to one another to be together while unaccompanied.Google Scholar

30. See n. 24 above for mention of women teachers. The best-known woman in the Geniza collection is Wuhsha Al-Dallala, an agent or businesswoman. S. D. Goitein wrote about her frequently; e.g., see his “A Jewish Business Woman of the Eleventh Century,” in The Seventy-fifth Anniversary Volume of “The Jewish Quarterly Review”(Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 225–242.Google Scholar

31. See above, n. 10. Maimonides overlooked this contention in his second response.Google Scholar

32. Warren, Zev Harvey, “The Obligation of Talmud on Women According to Maimonides,” Tradition 19, no. 2 (Summer 1981): 128Google Scholar

33. The husband has obligations to his wife while residing at home but also while out of town or abroad. There is a discussion in B.T., Ketubbot(13:1) 107a, about whether or not a wife can claim maintenance from a husband who went to a country beyond the sea. This reflects a concern for the women and children left behind, who were not necessarily properly cared for when the husbands went abroad.Google Scholar

34. The comment by Maimonides here, “if her words are words of truth,” makes it clear that verification is necessary, as it should be in a case in which two conflicting versions are presented.Google Scholar

35. See Goitein, S.D., “The Jewish Family of the High Middle Ages as Revealed by the Documents of the Cairo Geniza,” GHEbrei Nell“alto Medioevo 2 (1980): 713–733; he discusses divorce as a means to gain freedom and comments that ”even in upper-class or scholarly families divorce was preferred to a bad marriage“ (p. 732).Google Scholar