484) Babylonian Talmudic notion of 'Temporary Marriage'

Rabbi Professor Yaakov Elman 1943-2018

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Yaakov Elman[1] − examines the recorded Talmudic notion of ‘temporary marriage’ as practised by the Amoraic (Gemara) sages, Rav (d. 247 CE) and R. Nachman (d. 320 CE). In a series of five previous articles, we have dealt with Elman’s groundbreaking studies on surprising but extensive Babylonian influences on the Babylonian Talmud. In this article, we try to understand how a Babylonian (=Iranian, Persian or Sasanian to be more accurate) practice of ‘temporary marriage’ was able to penetrate the conservative Talmudic circles around the third and fourth centuries CE. 

Rabbinic acculturation to Sasanian culture

While many may find it difficult to comprehend the notion that Talmudic rabbis were ever influenced by anything other than ‘Jewish Torah,’ Elman points out that: 

“[The] Jewish community of…‘talmudic times’ was acculturated[2] to the Iranian environment in which it had existed for more than seven centuries, and its rabbis were not less acculturated than their non-rabbinic brethren” (Elman 2019:84). 

Most Jews, it seems spoke Persian and were well-enmeshed in Iranian society and culture. 

Zoroastrianism

The dominant religion in Sassainian Babylonia was Zoroastrianism which was a form of monotheism. Zoroastrianism is an ancient Iranian monotheistic faith system which believes in a Creator, the avoidance of idolatry, the existence of good and evil, heaven and hell, reward and punishment, angels and demons, and has a messianic vision of the revival of the dead and good triumphing over evil. They also believed in the importance of perpetuating oral transmission of sacred texts. If we substituted Hebrew translations for these concepts one could be forgiven for thinking we were speaking about Judaism. However, from the seventh century onwards, Zoroastrianism was suppressed by the Muslim conquest of Persia/Iran. 

‘Temporary marriage’ was enshrined in Sassainain law. It permitted, even advocated for, a woman to be legally married to one man for a certain period and then to return to her former husband thereafter. Such a formulation, of course, would create problems under Torah law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) which does not allow a divorced woman who got remarried to another man, to return to her first husband. We therefore must assume that Rav and R. Nachman, who conducted ‘temporary marriages,’ must have temporarily married single women. But even if they married single women: 

“the fact that they married them for ‘a day’ or ‘days’ is sufficiently unsettling to warrant further examination” (Elman 2019:84). 

Furthermore, both Rav and R. Nachman already had offspring from their permanent wives, and there is no record of any children emerging from their ‘temporary marriages.’ This makes it harder to understand why they conducted these marriages, even if they were influenced by the permeating Sassanian culture. This presented a problem to the later redactors of the Talmud who obviously felt uncomfortable recording such ‘temporary marriages’ that they were quick to point out that the marriages were never consummated (Yoma 18a, Yevamot 37b). 

Rav and R. Nachman were highly regarded and important Amoraic rabbis and considered authorities in matters of Jewish law. Rav was a leading authority in Jewish ritual law while R. Nachman was a leading authority in civil law. 

A window into ‘temporary marriage’ in Sassanian Babylonia

Zoroastrianism taught that no man should die without leaving children and women were used for their fertility in order to ensure that no man died childless. Under Sassainain law: 

“Since a woman – according to the unwritten rule in every patrilineal society – could only be married to one man at a time, this form of time-limited marriage opened additional options. A woman could conclude a…[fully fledged legal] marriage on a temporary basis and enter the lineage of her husband for this period with all the legal consequences…After that marriage expired, she could re-enter her original lineage and put her reproductive capacities at the disposal of her native family…[S]he could [also] remain in her own lineage by conducting a…wedlock with her father or brother for a certain period…In short: temporary marriage was one of the important means of using the fertility of the female to the fullest degree without having to give up the patrilineal line of descent…Moreover, this type of marriage was by no means restricted to women of an inferior economic or social standing…On the contrary, every Zoroastrian woman of standing was obliged [to enter into a form of levirate marriage with a partner designated by the court] …if necessary…[and] to enter a time-limited marriage in order to produce offspring for a deceased father, brother or husband” (Mucuch 2006:590).[3]

Rav and R. Nachman conduct ‘temporary marriages’

Rav is recorded as having conducted a ‘temporary marriage’ when he visited Machoza, and R. Nachman did the same when he visited Shekhunziv (Yoma 18b, Yevamot 39b). 

“Whenever Rav came to Darshis [Machoza], he would announce: Who will be mine for a day? Whenever R. Nachman came to Shekhunziv, he would have it announced: Who will be mine for a day?” (Yoma 18b). 

The Gemara then goes on to ask (not about the morality of this practice, but) why this did not contradict another teaching that: 

“No man should marry a woman in one country and then go and marry another in another country, lest [their children] might marry one another with the result that a brother would marry his sister or a father his daughter and the world would be filled with mamzeirut [bastardy]” (Yoma 18b). 

The Gemara answers its own question by stating that the affairs of these illustrious rabbis are well known and either the wives or the children produced will proudly proclaim their connections to and lineage from these rabbis. 

Babylonian influences on the period of separation

The third-generation Amora, R. Zeira speaks about the ‘stringency’ of the extra “seven clean days” (Berachot 31a). It seems the Talmudic redactors (editors known as Savoraim, or Stammaim) were uncomfortable with such an important principle of family purity having such a late provenance that they ascribed it to Rav, of the first generation of Amoraim. 

“Still, R. Zeira takes it as an example of a stringency adopted by the ‘daughters of Israel,’ and not enacted by the rabbis, a fact stressed by Rava in a conversation with his disciple R. Papa (Niddah 66a)….[I]t’s stringency arose as a Babylonian Jewish women’s response to a Zoroastrian ‘holier than thou’ attitude to Jewish menstrual practices, which were more lenient than Zoroastrian ones” (Elman 2019:95). 

Thus, we now have two examples of redactional discomfort. This case of a ‘Babylonian stringency’ not enacted by rabbis but by “the daughters of Israel,” as well as our case of ‘temporary marriage’ which has one redactor suggesting that the ‘temporary marriages’ of Rav and R. Nachman were “not consummated.” 

R. Nachman had some interesting things to say about marriage law in general. He believed that the bureaucratic processes of marriage and divorce should not be made too onerous and complicated. He validates, for example, a divorce document written by a non-Jew. 

R. Nachman in the cosmopolitan city of Machoza

R. Nachman was criticised for many things – but never for conducting his ‘temporary marriage.’ He was criticised for his upper-class lifestyle and the licentiousness of his daughters as they were allowed some association with males outside of the family. He was also criticised for his upper-class speech and for using Iranian words instead of Hebrew words (Kidushin 70a-b). He was taken to task for his arrogance (Shabbat 94a). Also, he is said to have used Iranian pronunciation: 

“It would seem that the narrator’s view of the proper conduct of a rabbi also involved the purely cultural, rather than strictly religious, aspects of Jewish life… The fact that some Hasidic groups consider it to be a mark of piety to speak English with a Yiddish accent would indicate that that view is still prevalent” (Elman 2019:87). 

R. Nachman had a student, Rava (d. 352), also from the cosmopolitan city of Machoza, who permitted polygamy although he did not practice it himself (nor is there evidence he conducted any ‘temporary marriages’ either). Rav also permitted polygamy but did not practice it (I’m not aware of what R. Nachman’s view on polygamy was) and this makes it even more difficult to understand how Rav, certainly, was able to conduct a ‘temporary marriage.’ Polygamy, however, was practised by the Sassanian upper-class in general. 

R. Nachman’s lifetime corresponds to the reigns of eight Sassanian kings and Elman describes this period as the “golden age of Sassanian-Jewish relations.” Iranian soldiers were often housed in Jewish families (Shabbat 47b, Pesachim 5b). Machoza was home to many Iranian converts to Judaism (Kidushin 73a) and many to many Jews converted to Zoroastrianism as well as Christianity which was also a dominant element in the city which housed the Catholicos (the Christian counterpart to the Jewish Reish Galuta). Both were kept in close proximity to King Shapur II’s palace. Most Machozan Jews were wealthy (Berachot 59b) and often disregarded the authority of the rabbis (Sanhedrin 99b). Machoza was one of the stops along the Silk Route from China. 

Rav and R. Nachman were from the aristocratic class of rabbis. Rav’s grandsons married into the family of the Reish Galuta (exilarch) (Chulin 92a) and R. Nachman’s father-in-law was a Reish Galuta. R. Nachman quotes the great Shmuel (d. 254) about sixty times and informs us that his (R. Nachman’s) father was a scribe in Shmuel’s court (Bava Metzia 16b). R. Nachman himself was a judge in the court of the Reish Galuta, an indication of his expertise in Jewish civil law. Rav Huna (a student of Rav) said of R. Nachman that both he and “King Shapur are brothers as regards civil law” (Bava Kama 96b). 

Elman points out that R. Nachman was the most “Persianized” of all the Babylonian rabbis. In an exchange between R. Nachman and his student Rava over why Hallel is not recited on Purim, Rava declares that “we are still slaves of Ahashveirosh” (Megila 14a). R. Nachman, being more “Persianized,” does not accept that, and instead argues that the reading of the Megilah takes the place of Hallel. R. Nachman, even named his daughter “Denag,” after the founding queen of the Sassanian dynasty (Kidushin 70a). 

Rava, unlike his teacher, had grievances against the Sassanian authorities (Chagiga 5a-b). He wanted tax exemption for scholars just like it was during ancient Babylon in the time of Ezra (Ezra 7:24) (Nedarim 62a). He maintained an intense interest in the Book of Ester as a prefiguring of his own experience in Sassanian Babylonia. He argued that Hallel is not instituted for Purim (although we have an entire biblical book dealing with Purim), whereas Hallel is said on Chanuka, which has no biblical connection. This, he claimed, indicates the rabbinic authority even over the Torah itself (Makot 22b). We also know that Rava’s students were extremely bold and often acted independently sometimes even claiming authority over their teacher (Bava Metzia 97a). 

The big question, however, is why and how such great, respected and moral rabbis have not just condoned the practice of ‘temporary marriage,’ but conducted such ‘marriages’ in the first instance. Elman believes the answer lies in profound cultural and theological influences from Sassanian Babylonia. 

Babylonian legal and theological justification

R. Nachman declared: 

“Thoughts of sin are more injurious than the sin itself” (Yoma 29a). 

Elman, citing David Brodsky’s (2010) research, points out that this notion of thought of sin being more severe than the sin itself is fundamentally Zoroastrian. In Zoroastrian theology, sin can be committed in “thought, speech and action” (Denkard 6:227). Another Zoroastrian text teaches: 

“[H]e should never think of a sinful thing in his mind…For as long as the man thinks good deeds and righteousness the gods stay in his body and the demons are made powerless and depart, and when he thinks sinful things, the demons rush into his body” (Denkaed 6:236). 

Elman posits that R. Nachman took that Sassanian/Zoroastrian concept, expanded upon it and maintained that the thought of sin is more injurious than the deed itself and as a consequence: 

“Rav and R. Nachman went so far as to conduct temporary marriages when away from home in order to prevent such thoughts” (Elman 2019”102). 

Elman is buoyed by his extensive research into this period and writes that today: 

“we know so much more about acculturation of the Babylonian Jewish community to Iranian norms than…[even] twenty years ago" (2019:106). 

Elman argues that since Rav and particularly R. Nachman were so acculturated to Babylonian society, norms and even philosophy, their solution was that conducting ‘temporary marriages’ outweighed sinful thoughts − and that solution had the vast, influential and powerful body of Sassanian culture, values and legal norms to support their actions. Elman concludes: 

“[T]emporary marriage, which was an important element in Sassanian family law to ensure a more fruitful use of women’s fertility, entered rabbinic Jewish society as a defense against sinful thoughts. Ironically, both the institution and its rationale in rabbinic society were Iranian, though in a proud sence the justification was Jewish” (Elman 2019:107).

 

Further Reading

Kotzk Blog: 197) BABYLONIAN INFLUENCES ON THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD:

Kotzk Blog: 149) REVENGE OF THE TALMUD YERUSHALMI: 

Kotzk Blog: 279) A BABYLONIAN CONTEXT TO THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD: 

Kotzk Blog: 199) ASTROLOGY – IGNORED BY THE YERUSHALMI, EMBRACED BY THE BAVLI:

Kotzk Blog: 198) WERE THE EDITORS OF THE BAVLI MORE POWERFUL THAN ITS WRITERS? 

Kotzk Blog: 376) Babylonian influences behind the Mourner’s Kaddish 

Kotzk Blog: 200) “THE TALMUD OF PERSECUTION” vs “THE TALMUD OF EXILE”:

---

[1] Yaakov Elman, Y., 2019, ‘The Torah of Temporary Marriage: A Study in Cultural History’, in Almut Hintze, et al., eds., A Thousand Judgements: Festschrift for Maria Macuch, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 83-107.

[2] Acculturated means ‘adopted the culture.’ 

[3] Mucuch, M., 2006, ‘The Function of Temporary Marriage in the Context of Sassanian Family Law’, in Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Societas Iranologica Europaea, Milano.