Dr Ruth Calderon's tale 'A Bride for One Night' and the accompanying commentary considers the implications of certain marital practices associated with Rav and Rav Nachman discussed tersely in Tractate Yoma 18b and Yevamot 37b (see Calderon 2014, pp. 57-65). Calderon describes her mixed feelings when reading these passages that imply that there was a time when notable Jewish men were offered institutionally sanctioned opportunities to pursue women while away from home. This 'marriage for a day' appears to allow for a set of behaviours to cross from the category of sexual deviance to the category of the socially acceptable. One should note that this practice is viewed as problematic in the very text of the Talmud and by subsequent generations of readers.
As Calderon grapples with the reception of this story by a modern reader, she notes that other commentaries claim that this practice was intended to result in a full-time marriage. This also allows the practice of these rabbis to align with another rabbinic principle that one should not marry with the explicit intent to divorce. Calderon is unconvinced by this forced interpretation, and we should note that it squarely contradicts the plainly stated offer by Rav and Rav Nachman that the marriage is intended for just one day. For Calderon, the added challenge is how to attempt to reckon with the meaning of intimacy and marriage in a Judaism that legitimised 'one day marriages'.
The reader's surprise to the story should be compounded by noting that this event could be read as having been a well-known and regular practice by the two rabbis mentioned. They and their destinations are explicitly mentioned by name, and these events were possibly regular occurrences (see Rashi's comment in Yoma 18b). The fact that both rabbis and their destinations are not anonymised leads one later rabbinic commentary to struggle with the implications of the text, that these great men were entirely unable to manage a short journey without their wives. Rabbi Yosef Hayyim of Baghdad (see below for a selection from his work Ben Yehoyada) considers the naming of the rabbis as evidence that the practice was nothing to be ashamed of – a possibility he cannot readily accept. To resolve the bewildering passage, he proposes that the practice was meant to serve as a societal intervention to discourage men from delaying marriage. He suggests that the practice of Jewish men in those two cities was to marry in their 30s and 40s, and Rav and Rav Nachman wanted to stop this practice by convincing younger men in their late teens and early twenties to marry. Rather than simply preach, they led by example, visiting the city and marrying. His view is that the quote 'who will be mine for one day' was to serve as a tacit public admission that even someone as great as they could not manage to remain without a wife for even a short while. Essentially, this action was to force the young men to be honest with themselves, that the practice of extended bachelorhood was not a manageable situation if one was serious about living a holy life.
One should note that the original Talmudic sources (see below) differ in terms of context, and this might shed some light into different concerns with the practice. The context of Tractate Yoma involves a preceding statement of Rav that one should be mindful of one's behaviour while away from home, specifically, by not eating eggs (to prevent a nocturnal emission) and by not sleeping in clothing belonging to the host (to avoid soiling them with an emission). Here, the implication is that Rav and Rav Nachman were so concerned that they would have a nocturnal emission while visiting the city, that they insisted on arranging for a (single day) marriage. It seems that the concern over the sexual appetites of men have pushed the Talmudic authorities to find ways to reshape the law to accommodate them.
In Tractate Yevamot, the anecdote is preceded by a debate between Rabbi Elazar and Hillel on the legitimacy of marriages between certain marginal segments of the Jewish People. In that setting, Jews comprise families of differing social status, marked (in part) by a 'purity' of lineage, and the great concern over people of unknown or doubtful status. On the practice of Rav and Rav Nachman, the Talmud argues that the children of these special unions conducted by notable rabbis are assumed to know who their fathers were. The Talmud's defence of the strange practice may be read as the children of these special unions will know who their fathers are since these notable rabbis would have taken care to notify others of their intentions to conduct these 'one day marriages'. In any case, the themes explored by Calderon should be supplemented by a consideration of the anxieties over status on the part of the men and women involved in this story.
In these short passages, we may already establish that the Jewish sages who differed on their approaches to the question of purity of lineage (e.g., Hillel adopting a position that is somewhat more tolerant than Rabbi Elazar) were (in some ways) reflecting on the surprising array of social divisions among Jews (including converts, freed slaves, Samaritans, street children, etc.). This seems to suggest that these divisions were somewhat new to Jewish communities, and the older, established clan and tribal leaders had to make sense of the potential challenges to integrating these diverse range of groups into an established social hierarchy. There is an obvious need to contain the relations between these different classes of Jews (at the very least, with regard to the High Priest). But the Talmud also records a warning (to Jewish elites) not to marry women in different regions. This is a warning that can only make sense if this was already a practice, and perhaps if certain disputes concerning the paternity of these children took place (e.g., inheritance disputes, etc.).
The challenge for the modern reader is that the anonymous voice of the Talmud is too easily read as a single point of view. What if it is not the case? What if the passages are reflective of differing opinions, concerns, and responses on the part of different members of Jewish leadership and elite Jewish society? And certainly, there is a need to understand the tale from other points of view. Calderon expanded the range of the tale by highlighting the possible view of a woman who marries Rav. And she alludes to the views of some of the other community members. However, what is not reckoned with is the implied situation that Rav and/or Rav Nachman (and/or others) not only married for a single day but that this led to the birth of children. If so, what happens next in this tale? Are these children - who are known as children of a famous rabbi - receiving any involvement from their renowned fathers? What happens to them when their father visits town seeking another woman? To echo Ben Yehoyada's opening line of questioning, how would this behaviour be acceptable to a rabbi when even the most ordinary of men would know this is wrong? And while the Talmud often includes passages that seem to be marked by self-reflexivity, it seems unlikely that this tale is meant to offer a plain critique of the rabbis. It is a tale that seems to easily invite ridicule, which – as Rabbi Yosef Hayyim argues – seems strange to have been included in the Talmud.
וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: וַדָּאָן בְּוַדָּאָן — מוּתָּר, וַדָּאָן בִּסְפֵקָן, וּסְפֵקָן בְּוַדָּאָן, וּסְפֵקָן בִּסְפֵקָן — אָסוּר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן סְפֵקָן: שְׁתוּקִי וַאֲסוּפִי וְכוּתִי. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לִי: הִלֵּל שָׁנָה — עֲשָׂרָה יוּחֲסִין עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל: כָּהֲנֵי, לְוִיֵּי, וְיִשְׂרְאֵלֵי, חֲלָלֵי, גֵּירֵי, חֲרוֹרֵי, מַמְזֵרֵי, נְתִינֵי, שְׁתוּקֵי וַאֲסוּפֵי. וְכוּלָּן מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה.
The Gemara explains: And Abaye and Rava disagree with regard to whether the halakha is decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 74a): With regard to the prohibition against marrying people with certain types of flawed lineage, Rabbi Elazar said: The marriage of those people whose flawed lineage status is certain to those whose status is certain is permitted, but the marriage of those whose status is certain to those whose status is uncertain, and the marriage of those whose status is uncertain to those whose status is certain, and even the marriage of those whose status is uncertain to those whose status is uncertain, is prohibited. The mishna concludes: And these are those who are considered to have an uncertain status: A child of unknown paternity [shetuki], although his mother’s identity is known; and a foundling who was found abandoned in the streets; and a Samaritan [Kuti], who is possibly a mamzer since the Samaritans do not accept and abide by the halakhot of marriage. And with regard to this mishna Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. But when I said this halakha of Rav’s in the presence of Shmuel, he said to me: Hillel taught in a baraita that ten categories of lineage came up from Babylon to Eretz Yisrael: Priests; Levites; and Israelites; priests disqualified due to flawed lineage [ḥalallim]; converts; freed slaves; mamzerim; Gibeonites; shetukei; and foundlings. And it is permitted for all men and women in these categories to marry one another, i.e., the list is arranged such that the marriage between people in any two categories that are adjacent to one another is permitted. This is possible only if one assumes that it is permitted for one whose flawed lineage status is uncertain to marry one whose flawed lineage status is certain.
יָתֵר עַל כֵּן, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם אִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ וְיֵלֵךְ וְיִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁמָּא יִזְדַּוְּוגוּ זֶה לָזֶה, וְנִמְצָא אָח נוֹשֵׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ. אִינִי? וְהָא רַב כִּי אִיקְּלַע לְדַרְדְּשִׁיר, [מַכְרֵיז] וְאָמַר: מַאן הָוְיָא לְיוֹמָא. וְרַב נַחְמָן כִּי אִיקְּלַע לְשַׁכְנְצִיב, [מַכְרֵיז] וְאָמַר: מַאן הָוְיָא לְיוֹמָא! שָׁאנֵי רַבָּנַן, דִּפְקִיעַ שְׁמַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said that even in marriage, one should be careful not to create a situation that could lead to the birth of mamzerim. Therefore, a man should not marry a woman in this country and then go and marry another woman in a different country, lest a son from one marriage and a daughter from the other, unaware that they are both children of the same father, unite with one another, and it could emerge that a brother marries his sister, the children of whom would be mamzerim. The Gemara asks: Is that so; is there really such a prohibition? But didn’t Rav, when he happened to come to Dardeshir, make a public announcement saying: Which woman will be my wife for the day, i.e., for the duration of his visit? Since his wife did not accompany him to Dardeshir, he wished to be married to another woman while he was there, in order to avoid a situation that could lead him to having forbidden thoughts. And also Rav Naḥman, when he happened to come to Shakhnetziv, made a public announcement saying: Which woman will be my wife for the day? It would appear, from the fact that both Sages married wives in two different places, that there is no prohibition in doing so. The Gemara rejects the proof: Sages are different, as their names are renowned, and therefore their children are always identified by their connection to their father. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s concern does not apply to them.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: אַכְסְנַאי לֹא יֹאכַל בֵּיצִים, וְלֹא יִישַׁן בְּטַלִּיתוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. רַב כִּי מִקְּלַע לְדַרְשִׁישׁ, מַכְרֵיז: מַאן הָוְיָא לְיוֹמָא. רַב נַחְמָן כַּד מִקְּלַע לְשַׁכְנְצִיב, מַכְרֵיז: מַאן הָוְיָא לְיוֹמָא. וְהַתַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם אִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ, וְיֵלֵךְ וְיִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁמָּא יִזְדַּוְּוגוּ זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה וְנִמְצָא אָח נוֹשֵׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ (וְאָב נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ), וּמְמַלֵּא כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ מַמְזֵרוּת, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״וּמָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ זִמָּה״. אָמְרִי: רַבָּנַן — קָלָא אִית לְהוּ. וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: תְּבָעוּהָ לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְנִתְפַּיְּיסָה — צְרִיכָה לֵישֵׁב שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים? רַבָּנַן אוֹדוֹעֵי הֲווֹ מוֹדְעוּ לְהוּ, מִקְדָּם הֲווֹ קָדְמִי וּמְשַׁדְּרִי שְׁלוּחָא. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא יַחוֹדֵי הֲווֹ מְיַחֲדִי לְהוּ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פַּת בְּסַלּוֹ לְמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פַּת בְּסַלּוֹ.
Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A guest should neither eat eggs, because they lead to a seminal emission, nor sleep in a garment belonging to the homeowner, his host, because if he experiences a seminal emission and it gets on the garment, he will be diminished in the estimation of his host. Apropos conduct of a guest, the Gemara relates: When Rav would happen to come to Darshish he would declare: Who will be married to me for the day that I am here so that I will not be unwed in this place, after which I will divorce her? Similarly, when Rav Naḥman would come to Shekhantziv he would declare: Who will be married to me for the day that I am here? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A man should not marry a woman in one state and go and marry another woman in a different state, lest a match be arranged between the child of this wife with the child of that wife who are unaware of their relationship. This would lead to a brother marrying his sister or a father marrying his daughter, filling the whole world in its entirety with mamzerim. And concerning this it is stated: “And the land became filled with lewdness” (Leviticus 19:29). The Sages say in response: The Sages generate publicity. Since they were well-known, the identity of their children was also undoubtedly known. Therefore, there was no concern that errors of this kind would befall their children. The Gemara raises a different problem with the practice of Rav and Rav Naḥman. But didn’t Rava say: With regard to one who proposed marriage to a woman and she agreed, she is required to sit seven clean days, as perhaps due to the anticipatory desire she might not notice that she experienced menstrual bleeding and she is therefore impure. How, then, could these amora’im marry a woman on the day that they proposed? The Gemara answers: The Sages would inform them by sending messengers before their arrival. The messenger would announce that the amora sought to marry a local woman. The woman who agreed would in fact wait seven clean days before marrying him. And if you wish, say instead that these Sages were not actually proposing marriage; rather, they proposed so that they could be in seclusion with the women, without consummating the relationship. Since the women knew that the marriage would not be consummated, they did not experience anticipatory desire. There is no similarity between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket. One who does not have access to bread experiences hunger more acutely than one for whom bread is available and can eat whenever he chooses. Similarly, an unmarried man experiences a more acute desire. In order to mitigate that desire, these Sages made certain that women would be designated for them.
רַב, כִּי מִקְלַע לְדַרְשִׁישׁ, מַכְרִיז: מַאן הַוְיָא לְיוֹמָא? רַב נַחְמָן כִּי מִקְלַע לִשְׁכֶנְצִיב, מַכְרִיז: מַאן הַוְיָא לְיוֹמָא?. הנה חלילה להרהר אחר גדולי חכמי ישראל אלה לומר שהיו להוטים כל כך על תאות המשגל ח"ו שאינם יכולים לעמוד בלא אשה על מקצת ימים דאפילו הדיוט שבהדיוטים יוכל לסבול תאותו בזה, וכל שכן קדושים ופרושים כאלו אשר מקדשים עצמן במותר להם! גם עוד אם היו להוטים כל כך חלילה אמאי לא חשו לכבוד עצמם בעיני הבריות? ולא עוד אלא שהיו מכריזין: מי עשה הכרזה כזאת בעולם! ועוד למאי נפקא מינה נכתב דבר זה בתלמוד אם לגנותם ח"ו, ואם ללמוד דין לא היה להזכיר שמותם! אך הַסְכֵּת וּשְׁמַע דברים המוצדקים המתיישבים על הלב, והוא כי לפעמים ימצא מנהג רע באיזה מקומות שהאנשים לא ישאו נשים אלא אחר היותם בני שלשים וארבעים שנה, ועד עתה ימצא כן במקומות כורדסתא"ן ואומרים שגם בערי אירופ"ה יש מנהג זה. והנה בזמן רב ורב נחמן היה המנהג הזה נוהג בערים אלו בדרשיש ושכנציב, ובודאי כד הוו אזלי רבנן להתם היו מוכיחים אותם לבלתי יתאחרו יותר מעשרים שנה, אך להיות כי פשתה המספחת שם במנהג זה, ורבים מעמי הארץ אשר נכשלים בזה הוו רבנן עושים הכרזה זו בעבור עצמן כדי להלהיב לבבות העם בענין זה יותר שאז כל אדם ישא קל וחומר לעצמו לומר ומה רבנן שעוסקים בתורה ימים ולילות וקדושים הם וגם נשואין עם כל זה חוששים לעצמן בשביל קרי ואינם רוצים לעמוד בלא אשה קצת ימים, כל שכן וכל שכן בחורים המונים דתקיף יצרייהו טובא שצריכין להנשא ולא יאחרו נישואין שלהם להשאר בלא אשה מפני איסור קרי! ודבר זה עושה פועל בלבבות ההמונים יותר מדברי מוסר ותוכחות עשר ידות כי זהו מעשה רב! ולפי זה רבנן קבלו לזלזל בכבודם בהכרזה זו שאינה צריכה להם, בעבור לזכות את הרבים באפרושי מאיסורא שבזה יתבטלו במצות הנישואין ופריה ורביה ביותר, אשריהם ואשרי חלקם זכות הרבים תלוי בם! וטעם זה שאני אומר הוא מוכרח מאד בעיני כל איש משכיל, יען כי מן הגמרא משמע דלא היו רבנן עושין כן אלא רק כשהולכין למקומות הללו דרשיש ושכנציב ולא במקומות אחרים, ולמה? אלא ודאי הטעם כאשר כתבתי שעושין כן לצורך מצוה לזכות המון העם שהיה להם מנהג הרע הנזכר ולא היה זה המנהג אלא רק בשני מקומות אלו ולכן הוצרך הש"ס לסיים את שתי המקומות ההם!