Yalta– Wife of Rabbi Nachman Bar Yaakov — The Wisest Woman of Her Tןme
Very few women are alluded to by name in the Babylonian Talmud. And even those few women, whose names do appear in the Gemorrah, are rarely mentioned. Yalta, the daughter of Rabba Bar Abuha known as the wisest woman of her time — she lived more than seventeen hundred years ago — is the most discussed woman in the Gemorrah.
Yalta (Aramaic for doe or mountain goat) grew up a daughter of privilege, in a wealthy and learned home. Her father was a scion of the Davidic line and a Reish Galuta who represented the Jewish community to the Parthian empire. As exilarch, Yalta’s father would collect the community’s taxes and petition the rulers for its needs.
They lived in Babylonia, in the flourishing city of Nehardea (a composite of two words, Nehar -river, Deah- of knowledge) situated on the Euphrates River. This city, according to a letter written by Rav Sherira Gaon, a descendant of a daughter of Rabba Bar Abuha, (possibly Yalta) contained a synagogue called Shav Veytaiv which foundation was composed of stones and earth from the Temple site.
Nehardea, was overrun in the year 259 C.E. during an uprising lead by Pappa bar Netzer against King Shabur (Sapor I 241-272). Most of the Jewish population fled to different cities along what was called the silk trade route of what is today Iraq. Some of the Rabbis and scholars went to Pumbaditha, where Rav Yehuda bar Yehezkel, one of the leading disciples of Rav and Shmuel, founded a large Yeshiva. Others relocated to Mehoza, west of the Tigris river near the major city of Seleucia in the general area of Baghdad. There another leading disciple of Rav and Shmuel, Rabbah bar Abuha, Yalta’s father, established another large Yeshiva. One of Rabbah Bar Abuha’s favorite students, a tremendous Talmid Chachaom, a third generation Amora, was young Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman’s father Rav Yaakov had been a Sofer and Dayan in the court of Rav Shmuel and a close friend of Rabba Bar Abuha in Nehardea, and when Rabbi Yaakov died, Rabbah took the young orphan under his wing. It was this prize student and orphan that Rabba Bar Abuha chose as a husband for his outstanding daughter.
Rabbi Nachman Bar Yaakov was appointed by Yalta’s father as Dayan in his rabbinic court, and when Rabba Bar Abuhah passed away, his son-in-law took over as Rosh Yeshiva and political leader of Mechoza.
Once Nehardea rose from the rubbles and many Jews returned, Rabbi Nachman transferred the Yeshiva in Mechoza to that city.
Rabbi Nachman and Yalta were very wealthy. According to a tradition, Yalta’s father had made a fortune in a very unsual manner and the couple had inherited it. This story is related in the Gemorrah ( Bava Metziah 114a). Rabbah b. Abbuha met Eliyahu HaNavi standing in a non-Jewish cemetery…. Rabbah said to him: “Are you not a kohen,
a descendant of the Temple priests? Why then do you stand here, in a cemetery where contact with the dead will make you impure and unfit for service in the Beis Hamikdash?” Eliyahu HaNavi replied, “It seems as though the learned sage has not studied the laws of purity (Taharah). For there it has been taught in the name of Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai that the graves of non-Jews do not make one unfit…”
Rabbah replied: “Alas, I cannot even make the time to properly study the most useful parts of the Mishnah that teach me about holidays and everyday life; how could I then study all six divisions of the Mishnah including the very difficult and less useful division about “Purities” (Taharos)?”
“And why is it that you can not study more?” asked Eliyahu HaNovi.
“I am too hard pressed to make a living,” Rabbah answered.
Eliyahu HaNavi then led him into Paradise and said to him: “Remove your outer robe, spread it out and gather some of these leaves”. So he gathered the leaves of Paradise and carried them off. As he was coming out, he heard a voice: “Who would use up his portion in the world to come as Rabbah ben Abuha has done?
When Rabbah heard that, he quickly shook the leaves out of his robe and left Paradise, returning to the cemetery where he had been before. Yet, even so, since he had carried the leaves of Paradise in his robe, it had absorbed their fragrance and so he sold it for twelve thousand denars which he distributed among his children.
Rabbi Nachman too came from a wealthy family. He possessed much property, fields and vineyards that he had inherited from his father. He is described as having ridden in a golden carriage and having dressed as a prince with many attendants. Despite being Chief Dayan of Babylonia, Rav Nachman was exceedingly modest.
Many of the Halachos which he dealt with concerned monetary matters and are found in Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia and Bava Basra. He is especially known for Rav Nachman’s oath, a special oath obligatory on a defendant who denied a monetary claim entirely. The Gemorrah describes Rav Nachman as one of the Chassidim of Babylonia.
Yalta was known as a healer. The Gemorrah relates a story of how she took care of and healed Rabbi Amram Chasida, a second generation Amora. The latter was very stringent in observing Halakha; he even believed that women are obligated to wear Tzitzis and had them attached to their clothing. (Gemorrah Sukkah 11a). Rashi comments that the servants of the Reish Galuto mistreated him because of his stringencies and their mistreatment caused him to become ill.
Rabbi Nachman permitted his wife Yalta to “go out on an alonki, (a wheeless vehicle- a type of human transport)) to be carried on a “sedan chair” on Shabbat. This was usually forbidden but the Gemorrah lists circumstances where it would be permissible, among them is if people needed the person being transported on the chair, for religious guidance. Tosefot suggests that “people required her guidance,” and therefore, Yalta could be carried on Shabbat. This story demonstrates Yalta’s wisdom and sage advice to the Jewish community at the time.
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin a talmid of his grandfather, Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin ZTL, the American Posek and legendary leader of the Ezras TOrah philanthropy organization, writes that he believes that the source of the custom at weddings to lift and carry the chair on which a bride is seated, is derived from this description of Yalta in the Gemorrah Beitzah 25b.
Another custom relating to a marriage is the Kos shel brocho of Sheva brochos which is partaken by members of the wedding party.
Yalta too wanted to benefit of a Kos shel bracha which is not only associated with Sheva Brochos or a bris but also with Birkas Hamazon.
The Gemara relates a story of Yalta, who broke 400 barrels of wine after being told by a guest who she’d just served a sumptuous meal to,that it wasn’t important for her to drink Kos Shel Bracha herself. The MaHarsha and the Ben Ish Chai explain her actions as righteous, that she was demonstrating that it wasm’t wine that was important, rather the Bracha that one receives from drinking it.
Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer, the late father of the present Boyaner Rebbe, in his book,The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychohistorical Perspective discusses this story of Yalta. Professor Brayer describes Yalta as a remarkable wise and strong willed woman who fought for women’s rights.
Here is the conversation found in Talmud Brachos 51b that took place in Yaltas diningroom which enraged her so.
Ulla once visited Rav Nachman. After Birkat Hamazon, Ulla sent the cup of blessing to Rav Nachman.
Rav Nachman said: “Will The Master now pass the cup of blessing to my wife, Yalta?”
Ulla refused to by responding: “Rebbe Yochanan said: the fruits of a woman’s womb are not blessed directly, but only through the fruits of the man’s loins, as the Torah says: He will bless the fruit of your belly (Devarim 7:13). The verse uses the masculine form to teach us that the blessing is directed toward the belly of the man.”
When Yalta heard this exchange, she arose in fury, went to the storage room, and broke 400 barrels of wine.
Rav Nachman said: “Maybe The Master should send her another cup.”
Ulla sent her a cup (with wine which had not been blessed) with the following message: “This cup is from the same barrel as the cup of blessing, so it’s like the cup of blessing.”
Yalta sent back the following message: “From pedlars come gossip, and vermin from rags.”
This expression refers to the fact that travelers who would transmit Torah scholarship from Palestine to Babylonia would often be dirty and transport lice.
In Mine and Yours are Hers: Retrieving Women’s History from Rabbinical Literature, Tal Ilan, the author explains that by Yalta using the expression regarding vermin, Yalta was making use of a folk saying that was common in her day, that old and worn clothes generate disgusting crawling insects. He quotes Ben Sira 42:13 “From a garment comes moths and from a woman, the wickedness of women.” Ilan states that educated people in her day would be familiar with this expression: Ironically this expression associates women with wickedness.
Yalta once said to her husband, Rav Nahman:(Chulin) ‘Observe, for everything that the Divine Law has forbidden us it has permitted us an equivalent:
– it has forbidden us blood but it has permitted us liver;
– it has forbidden us intercourse during menstruation but it has permitted us the blood of purification;
– it has forbidden us the fat of cattle but it has permitted us the fat of wild beasts;
– it has forbidden us swine’s flesh but it has permitted us the brain of the shibbuta;
– it has forbidden us the married woman but it has permitted us the divorcee during the lifetime of her former husband;
– it has forbidden us the brother’s wife but it has permitted us the levirate marriage;
– it has forbidden us the non-Jewess but it has permitted us the beautiful woman taken in war.
She then said: “I wish to taste flesh (meat) in milk, where is its equivalent?’
In order to satisfy her request, Rav Nahman asked the butchers to prepare roasted udders for her. The Gemara asks how could he do so, given the requirement to cut udders crosswise and press it against the wall, The answer is that requirement is limited to situations where the udder was to be cooked, but that it does not apply when the udder was roasted.
More than a year ago, in November, Israel’s Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger announced the discovery in Spain of a special goose species, which had been tasted by three non-Jewish professional chefs in Europe, who confirmed that it tasted exactly like pork.
The question was asked of Rabbi Metzger whether it would be permissible to eat this pork tasting goose; would it be considered kosher. After struggling with the shaila he ruled that it was kosher based on the Gemorah quoting Yalta that for every prohibition Hashem imposed a kosher substitute with the exact same taste.
Rabbi Metzger made the remarks during a culinary conference at the Kaplan Medical Center in Rehovot.
It is interesting to note that Yalta also mentions the brain of the Shibuta, a type of carp, as having the taste of pork.
Five years ago the Rosh Hashana issue of the Jerusalem Post carried an article by Ari Zivotovsky and Ari Greenspan entitled the Holy Shibuta, a Fishy Tale for Rosh Hashana. In the article they write that the taste of pork is replicated in the shibuta. They quote the midrash that when the Jews went into exile at the hands of the Babylonians, “700 types of kosher fish, 800 types of kosher locusts and an unlimited number of kosher birds were exiled with them to Babylonia, and when they returned all of them returned with them except for the fish called the shibuta… and in the days to come, all are destined to return.”
Zivotovsky and Greenspan believe they may have found this fish in Turkey.
Several centuries ago a question was asked about the manna that G-d provided from heaven for the Jews to eat after they left Egypt. The Talmud tells us that manna was na extraordinary food that would taste like anything the person eating desired. And the question was asked: what if the person wanted it to taste like ham? One great scholar, the Chiddushei HaRim, asserted that the manna could not possibly assume the flavor of forbidden foods. Another great scholar, the Chida, on the other hand, said that it could. And the Chida sites the aforementioned incident in the Talmud about Yalta, to prove his point.
Kol Issue, the prohibition for a man to hear the singing voice of a woman other than his mother, wife or daughters is learned from a verse in Shir Hashirim. 2:14 Let me hear you voice because your voice is pleasant and your appearance attractive. This verse is quote with regard to Yalta in the Gemorrah Kiddushin 70 which contains a lengthy story about a man from Nehardea who insults Rav Yehudah while visiting Pumbedita. Rav Yehudah then excommunicates him and declares him a “slave”.
The man then summons Rav Yehudah to a din torah in front of Rav Nahman in Nehardea. Rav Yehudah asks his friend Rav Huna whether he should go and Rav Huna advises him to go. Rav Yehudah then goes to Nehardea to the house of Rav Nahman but, since he resents going, he challenges everything that Rav Nahman does and says, frequently using the words of Shmuel to do so. Incidentally from this story we learn that Rav Nachman and Yalta have a dשughter by the name of Dunag.
[Rav Nahman:] May my daughter Dunag come and give us drink?
[Rav Yehudah] said to him: So said Shmuel: one does not use a woman.
[Rav Nahman:] But she is a minor!
[Rav Yehudah:] Shmuel said explicitly one does not use a woman at all, whether she is an adult or a minor!
[Rav Nahman:] would my L-rd like to send shalom to my wife Yalta?
[Rav Yehudah] said to him: So said Shmuel: kol b’ishah ervah, a voice of a woman is ervah [i.e. I am not allowed to talk to her].
[Rav Nahman:] it is possible to talk to her via a messenger.
[Rav Yehudah] said to him: So said Shmuel: one does not ask after the welfare of a woman.
[Rav Nahman:] Via her husband!
[Rav Yehudah] said to him: So said Shmuel: one does not ask after the welfare of a woman at all.
[Yalta, who noices that her husband is being insulted, tells her husband Nahman to get to the point in order that Rav Yehudah cease making him look inadequate].
From Rav Yehuda’s statement that he wasn’t permitted to speak to Yalta, the Maharal learns that one should avoid any needless conversation with another man’s wife.
A widely accepted opinion regarding kol isha is that of the Magen Avraham. (Rabbi Gumbiner) who stated that the singing voice of a married woman is always forbidden, while her speaking voice is permitted This is the generally accepted approach among many Orthodox communities.
Deborah Farber in her article “Music to my Ears, A Scientific Elucidation of Kol Isha” writes about a recent study performed at the University of Sheffield, under the guidance of psychiatrist Michael Hunter, which could change the way we perceive the prohibition of kol isha. Along with Hunter, Professor Peter Woodruff´s group in the Department of Psychiatry and the Division of Genomic Medicine helped shed light on the true nature of a woman’s voice, and its consequent classification as erva. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), researchers monitored the brain activity of 12 men while they listened to voice recordings. The subjects received 96 stimuli, consisting of male and female voices that were either gender-apparent (unaltered in pitch) or gender-ambiguous (pitch-scaled). The researchers found that the male brain processed voice stimuli differently depending on the gender of the voice stimulus. Male and female voices each activated different areas of the brain in male listeners
The researchers found that perception of a male voice results in activity in the mesio-parietal precuneus of the brain, an area involved in episodic memory and imagination of sounds. Precuneus activation in the male brain during perception of a male voice was consistent with the idea that males compare the male voice stimuli with the internal paradigm of their own voice. In contrast, female voice stimuli activated human voice-selective regions of the right anterior superior temporal gyrus (STG), which is close to the superior temporal sulcus (STS). This finding is consistent with the idea that brain processes that attempt to attribute human qualities to voices are more involved in the perception of female voices than male voices. One explanation for activation of the STG by female voices is that female voices involve a greater employment of emotional prosody (affect and melody) than do male voices, the identification of which involves the STG. It is suggested that female voices are acoustically more complex than male voices, as female voices result in greater activation of the auditory cortex. Studies have demonstrated that computer technology has greater difficulty in recognizing and synthesizing female voices
Regarding the study, Hunter explains, “Voices allow the brain to determine various factors about a person’s appearance, including their sex, size and age. It is much more complex than most people think and is an extremely important tool for determining someone’s identity without having to see them” Farber writes, that the findings from Hunter’s experiment allow us to re-conceptualize our modern thoughts on kol isha. Given that a woman’s speaking voice triggers a different part of the male brain than does a male voice, it is plausible that a woman’s speaking voice, similarly to her singing voice, holds the potential to trigger sensual thoughts in male listeners. I
In the halachic realm, the Meiri further supports this claim by equating a woman’s singing voice with her speaking voice Therefore, Hunter’s experiment supports the claim that the prohibition of kol isha applies to both a woman’s singing voice and her speaking voice.
Family First January 16, 2013
5 Shevat 5773