Bickart.Paper TAL9231Y.pdf

Noah Bickart
May 8, 2009 (ט"סשת ינש חספ)
TAL 9231Y- Final Paper
He Found a Hair and it Bothered Him:
Pubic hair in the Bavli
Arthur Rubenstein, the celebrated Polish- Jewish pianist, expends a great deal of energy
in his first memoir, 1 detailing how his facility with music enabled him to master a great number
of European languages, and how this skill endeared him greatly to all the rich and important peo-
ple with whom he hobnobbed in the finest hotels and bars on the continent. One episode, howev-
er, stands out above the rest for its humor:
We came upon a startling scene. The Blond Beauty, stark naked, was dashing out
of the prince's apartment, yelling at the top of her voice: "help, help, he wants to
kill me!" By then most of the hotel guests were out in the corridor; a few caught
up with the hysterical woman and dragged her into her room. 2
When none of the other guests are able to converse with this Arabian prince, Rubenstein finds
that they do in fact share a language in common, and so he inquires as to why a naked woman
has just run away from him in fear of her life. The Prince responds:
We Moslems are not allowed to have intercourse with women who keep their pubic
hair. I tried to explain it to her, but she couldn't understand what it meant. So I
went to the bathroom to fetch my razor, and came back to shave off her offensive
tuft. When the girl saw me lifting my arm with the razor in my hand she gave that
shriek... 3
The Pianist is able to resolve the situation to the delight of all involved, not least his own. Ruben-
stein, who came from a secular family, and likely never opened a Talmud in his life, would prob-
ably have been surprised to learn that the Talmud too suggests that Jewish woman should
remove their pubic hair, and that the Muslim tradition which caused the uproar may, in fact, have
1. Arthur Rubenstein, My Young Years. (New York, Knopf; 1973.)
2. Ibid, p. 244.
3. Ibid.

2
been been a product of the same cultural forces, for the Muslim notion of fitra, which requires
both women and men to remove their pubic hair, may well be dependent on Zoroastrian norms,
which will be detailed below.
There are three sugyot in the Bavli which directly address the practice of the removal of
women's pubic hair, and they seem, strikingly, to be of a piece. All three are, at their core, Ag-
gadic Babylonian sugyot 4 whose explicit project is to interpret stories from the texts of the Bibli-
cal Prophets, all of which detail women with whom their paramours find violent displeasure. De-
spite their fundamentally Babylonian nature, all of them feature quotations of 2nd-3rd generation
Palestinian Amoraim, and all feature significant editorial (stammaitic) activity around the pres-
ence of female pubic hair. Given that these sections of the Babylonian Talmud seem literally to
span the dual gaps between the Greco-Roman west and the Sassanian Persian east and between
earlier and later Rabbinic Cultures, they offer an opportunity to view the development of rab-
binic attitudes to one small aspect of culture. Furthermore, unlike many other aspects of culture,
contemporary, extra-Rabbinic views about the presence (or absence) of pubic hair are relatively
easy to explore through art and literature.
This paper seeks to employ methodologies which tend to be applied by "pure" textualists,
whose main interests lie in the history if Rabbinic texts themselves alongside those applied by
scholars who are more interested in the history of the cultures which produced the texts. In this
way I am consciously influenced by a recent article by my friend Shai Secunda, who attempts to
straddle this same methodological gap. He writes:
On reflection, these two scholarly views are not necessarily antagonistic. The fact
that the pendulum of scholarly temperaments has swung in opposite directions at
the very same time provides Talmudists with the opportunity to engage text and
4. By this I means that the basic literary unit revolves around the comments of Babylonian
sages, and not around some pre-existing Palestinian structure.

context simultaneously- and to do so with vigor. Instead of privileging one axis
over the other, the measured use of advances in the study of rabbinical hermeneutics,
together with an ever-increasing appreciation of the Bavli's Sasanian milieu,
can be profitably mined to produce exciting and methodologically sound
scholarship. 5
It is perhaps obvious that these two schools should not be seen as separate endeavors at all, how-
ever these aggadic texts, which bear the unmistakable mark of later editors re-working earlier
material, require a careful textual analysis of their creation before anything can be said of the
cultural forces at play. Thus we will begin with careful textual reading of the three Sugyot in
question.
#1 - Shabbat 62b 6
7
- ןורג תויוטנ הנכלתו ,הפוקז המוקב תוכלהמ ויהש - ןויצ תונב והבג יכ ןעי 'ה רמאיו ביתכד יאמ : יאליע ברד הירב אבר שרד •
דצב הכורא תוכלהמ ויהש - ףופטו ךולה ,ןזמרמו והייניעל אלחוכ ןאלמ הוהד - םיניע תורקשמו ,לדוג דצב בקע תוכלהמ ויהש
,הרצק
5. Shai Secunda, Talmudic Text and Iranian Context. AJS Review 33:1 (April 2009) p. 47. I
must admit that while I thought Shai's readings of the Talmudic texts were sound, I am left
feeling unsatisfied at the conclusion offered that posits that that these texts demonstrate rabbinic
anxiety regarding the differences in between Jewish and Zoroastrian purity laws regarding
menstruants. The presence of "anxiety" strikes me a quite tenuous and I tend to prefer
scholarship which focuses more on those aspects of Rabbinic culture about which can be
demonstrated more clearly. However, this caveat does not detract in any way from the
methodology employed.
6. I have elected to present the texts as they appear in the standard editions (Romm, Vilna
1880-1886) with detailed notes on textual variants in the notes. In addition, I have attempted to
identify the various layers within the text in accordance with the methodology of Shamma
Friedman laid out in ,'א תורוקמו םירקחמ ",איגוסה רקח ךרד לע יללכ אובמ ףוריצב ,ילבבב הבר השאה קרפ
ח"לשת ,קרוי וינ ,יקסבורטימיד ז"ח תכורעב" p. 321. Material deemed to be Tanaitic has been rendered
in italics, that of the amoraim in bold, and that of the editors in normal type. The English
translations, unless noted, are my own.
7. Munich 95 reads, "אלוע בר שרד," Bologna reads, "יאיע ברד הירב אלוע בר שרד," whereas both
the Oxford and Vatican witness align with the printed versions. However, I can imagine how a
scribe could confuse אלוע בר with הבר/אבר. Especially given the next section of interpretation. See
Rafael Nathan Nata Rabinowitz, םירפוס יקודקיד (Monachii: H. Roesl, E. Huber, 1867-1886.) ad
loc. note צ. Munich 95's reading of אלוע בר seems to place this derasha in the mouth of a 5th
generation Palestinian Amora, whereas Bologna's reading places in in the mouth of a third
generation Babylonian Amora. The Amora יאליע ברד הירב אבר is otherwise unattested in the Vilna
or any other printed edition, and appears in none of the transcriptions of any Manuscript in the
Lieberman Institute's latest CD-Rom program. It seems that Bologna's reading of הירב אלוע בר
יאליע ברד is the most plausible.
3

8
ןויכו ,םילשורי יקושב תוכלהמו ,ןהילענמב ןומסרפאו רומ תוליטמש דמלמ : ימא יבר יבד קחצי בר רמא ,הנסכעת ןהילגרבו •
9
.סועכב סראכ ערה רצי ןהב תוסינכמו םהילע תוזיתמו עקרקב תוטעוב ,לארשי ירוחב לצא תועיגמש
?םהיתונערופ יאמ
10
םוקמ - הפקנ הרוגח תחתו ,םיקמנ םיקמנ השענ וב תומשבתמ ויהש םוקמ - היהי קמ םשב תחת היהו :אלוע רב הבר שירדדכ •
תחתו ,םיחרק םיחרק השענ וב תוטשקתמ ויהש םוקמ - החרק השקמ השעמ תחתו ,םיפקנ םיפקנ השענ לוצלצב תורוגח ויהש
,קש תרגחמל ויהי הליג ידיל ןיאיבמה םיחתפ - קש תרגחמ ליגיתפ
.אביכ ארפוש יפולח ישניא ירמאד ונייה :אבר רמא ,יפי תחת יכ •
.תחפסלו תאשל:םתה ביתכו חפשו אכה ביתכ .תערצ ןהב החרפש דמלמ :אנינח יברב יסוי יבר רמא ןויצ תונב דקדק 'ה •
.רעיכ ןהיחתפ ושענש :רמא דחו ,ןותיקכ וכפשנש :רמא דח ,לאומשו בר ,הרעי ןהתפ 'הו (חפסו) •
• Rav Ulla son of Rav Ilai 11 expounded: What is meant by, "because the daughters of Zion are so vain"
[Isaiah 3:16]? That means that they walked with haughty bearing. "And walk with throats bent back"
they walked heel by toe. "with roving eyes," they filled their eyes with stibnite 12 and beckoned. "and with
mincing gait" a tall woman walked by the side of a short one.
• "making a tinkling with their feet" Rav Isaac the son of Rabbi Ammi 13 said: This teaches that they
placed myrrh and balsam in their shoes and walked through the market-places of Jerusalem, when they
encountered the young men of Israel, they kicked their feet and splattered it on them, instilling them with
passionate desire like with snake poison.
And what is their punishment?
• As Rabbah the son of ‘Ulla lectured: "And then- Instead of perfume, there shall be rot [v. 24]": the place
where they perfumed themselves shall be decaying sores. "and instead of an apron, a rope" the place
where they were girded with a girdle shall become full of bruises. "Instead of a diadem of beaten work a
shorn head" the place where they adorned themselves shall be bald. "instead of a rich robe a girding of
sackcloth" the openings that lead to joy shall be for a girding of sackcloth.
• "a burn [ki] instead of beauty": Said Raba, Thus men say, Ulcers [kiba] instead of beauty.
• "Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab 14 4
the top of the head of the daughters of Zion" [Isaiah 13:17].
Rabbi Yosse the son of Rabbi Hanina said: This teaches that leprosy broke out in them:here is written
[vesipah]; for it is written elsewhere [e.g. Leviticus 14:56], and for a rising and for a scab [sapahat].
8. This Amora by this exact appellation does not appear in any other place in the Vilna edition,
but appears in Pesachim 56a in the Oxford manuscript (the printed text reads "ירמא ,קחצי יבר רמא
ימא יבר יבד,) in Megilla 14a in Munich 140 (where the other manuscripts report the tradition
anonymously) and in Sanhedrin 60a and 63b according to the Yemenite Manuscript (where the
other editions have "ימא רב קחצי יבר רמא," and "ימא יבר יבד קחצי יבר" respectively). Albeck
concludes that our text should indeed read ימא רב קחצי בר, the 4th generation Babylonian Amora.
I support this conclusion. See Hanoch Albeck, Introduction to the Talmuds [heb.] (Tel Aviv,
Devir 1969) p. 366. Interestingly, and in contrast to all the other textual witnesses, in the geniza
fragment of this sugya (T-S F2 (1) 168) the tradition is represented anonymously. This only goes
to prove that the oldest witness is not always the most reliable.
9. The oxford manuscript reads, "הנכע לש סראכ" the poison of a snake, which is a better reading.
I have followed this reading in the translation below
10. Here the textual witnesses agree on the reading of אלוע רב א/הבר.
11. See note 7 above.
12. See Sokoloff, Michael, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and
Geonic Periods. (Bar Ilan and Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003) p. 558. Clearly the
reference is to a mascara derived from this mineral. See Shabbat 151b, Yoma 9b.
13. See note 8 above.
14. JPS, following Saadia, translated this as "My lord will bare the pates," but the Rabbi Yosse
the son of Rabbi Hanina here reads " ח ַּפִׂשְו ֣ " as connected with " תַח ֙ ַּפַס ֙ " of Leviticus 14:56. In order
for the translation to make sense, i have rendered it as, "smite with a scab."

• "And the Lord will lay bare their openings 15 5
" : Rav and Shemuel: one maintained: This means that they
were poured out like a pot; while the other said: Their openings became like a forest.
This passage constitutes a line by line commentary on Isaiah chapter 3, which foretells the de-
struction of Judah and Jerusalem. The passage is composed of six discrete units, all but the last
of which are formed from the statement(s) of a single Amora (the last being a typical Rav/She-
muel unit). and all but the penultimate come from a Babylonian source. The first four derive
from Babylonian Amoraim of the third and fourth generations, 16 and it is this series of readings,
which I believe once formed a single literary unit. None of these interpretations strays far from
the plain sense of the Biblical text; rather these Rabbinic comments only amplify and embellish
the degree to which God's punishment of the Jewish women conforms to the principle of דגנכ הדמ
הדמ (measure for measure). The anonymous editor only inserts one comment of his own, asking
"םהיתונערופ יאמ" (what is their punishment) between the second and third statement, signifying
the shift between the description of the sinful actions and the corresponding punishments. These
four interpretations likely once travelled (without the pieces which follow) together as a literary
unit which accompanied the study of Isaiah.
However, as the text introduces the next statement, something changes drastically. First
of all, the statement belongs to a Palestinian Amora, Rabbi Yosse the son of Rabbi Hanina. Sec-
ond, he jumps back to verse 17 whereas the the earlier Babylonian unit had already moved for-
ward to interpret verse 24. Finally, the interpretation is a kind of gezerah shavah, straying far
from the plain sense of the text at hand (which in reality has nothing whatsoever to do with lep-
15. It would appear that text is being interpreted as if the word in question was indeed ןהיחתפ and
not ן ֵהְתָּפ ֥ . Munich 95 quotes the verse as "ןחתפ."
16. See notes 7 and 8 above. I have followed Albeck in his numbering of the generations.

osy), and actively misreads ח ַּפִׂשְו ֣ as related to the root חפס. 17 6
The Final piece, presented as an ar-
gument of Rav and Shemuel, is similarly out of place. These Amoraim are also far removed from
the 3rd or 4th generation, and present a non literal reading of the word ח ַּפִׂשְו ֣ in verse 17. Rather
than integrating these final two interpretations into the existing structure of the Midrash on Isaiah
3, the editor simply tacked on these two other sources which he likely received from another
source.
That source appears to have been a tradition which appears both in Leviticus and Lamen-
tations Rabbah 18 :
19
,התוא לטונו התוא האור סוכרפיא ,התוא לטונו התוא האור אסכוד ,תונוזכ םהינפל תואצויו תוטשקתמ ויה םיאנוש ואבו תונווע ומרגש ןויכ
יסוי 'רו רזעל 'ר . ןויצ תונב דקדק י"י חפסו ,השע המ ,ןוהליד אמייק אל 'קה 'א .ןיכורקב ומע הבישוהו התוא לטונו התוא האור סיטליטרטסא
תוחפשמ תוחפשמ ןשאר לע הלעה 'מא הנינח 'רב יסוי 'רו .תרהבלו תחפסלו תאשלו א"דמה ,תערצב םתוא הקלה 'מא רזעל 'ר .הנינח 'רב
'מא .תוצראה ימעב שדוק ערז ברעתי אלש ידכ שדוק ערז רמשל ידכ עפשל ידכ ,חפישו והמ יסיא 'ר 'שב דבז רב יפליחו היכרב 'ר ....םיניכלש
ותוא אלממש דע םד אצומ היהו הנייעמל ה"בקה זמר הרעי ןהתפ י"יו ,השע המ ,תערצה ןמ ןילידב םלועה תומוא ןיאש ינא עדוי ה"בקה
.תקספמו ןהילע תרבוע ןיכורק התיהו ןיכורק ינפל הנתונו חמורב הצעונ ןוטלשה ותוא היהו ןיכורקה
When their sins caused [it] their enemies came, they adorned themselves and came out to them like prostitutes. A
general saw them and took one; a captain saw one and took her; a military chief saw one and seated her with him in
his carriage. The Blessed Holy One said: Shall my [words] will not be fulfilled and theirs will 20 ? What did He do?
[Isaiah 3:17] Therefore the Lord smote with a scab the top of the head of the daughters of Zion. Rabbi [E]leazar and
Rabbi Yosse the son of Rabbi Hanina comment: Rabbi Eleazar said: He smote them with leprosy, as it is stated [in
Leviticus 13:2], and for a rising and for a scab [sapahat] Rabbi Yosse the son of Rabbi Hanina: He brought upon
their heads families 21 of lice.... Rabbi Berekiah and Hilfai the son of Zebid said in the name of Rabbi Isi: What does
vesipech mean? He caused them to discharge blood in order to guard the holy seed from becoming mingled with that
of the nations of the earth. The Blessed Holy One said: I know that the nations of the earth will not keep away from
the leprosy. What did He do? The Lord laid bare their secret parts [Isaiah 3:17] The Blessed Holy One hinted to
their innards which brought out blood until it filled the whole of the carriage; and the commander stabbed the
woman with his spear and placed her in front of the carriage, which passed over her and cut her in pieces.
The opinion which the Bavli places in the mouth of Rabbi Yosse the son of Rabbi Hanina is real-
ly that of Rabbi [E]leazer as is shown from the Midrash. Rabbi Yosse's interpretation as recored
in the Midrash seems to have been lost in transmission. More importantly, however, is the real-
17. It is true that ancient sources did not distinguish between the letter ס and ש as we do today, as
James Kugel noted to me after a lecture at JTS on February 18, 2009.
18. Leviticus Rabbah 16:1, this text it taken from Mordechai Margoliot's edition (New York:
JTS, 1993) p. 344-5. His base text is the London Manuscript.
19. the standard printed text reads ולדג (increased).
20. Following the standard printing which reads "ןוהליד אמייקו יליד אמייק אל"
21. A pun on ח ַּפִׂשְו ֣ as related to החפשמ, family.

7
ization that the position which belongs either to Rav and Shemuel, seems to have been originally
the position of Rabbi Isi, and Palestinian in origin.
What then explains its appearance in the Bavli as the opinion of either Rav or Shemuel?
It is my contention that this unit is actually based on another unresolved disagreement between
Rav and Shemuel, this time regarding the name of a character 22 who appears in 2 Samuel 10:16
and I Chronicles 19:16, found at Sota 42b:
דחו ;ךבושכ יושעש ךבוש ומש ארקנ המלו ,ומש ךפוש :רמא דח ,לאומשו בר - ךפוש ביתכו ,ךבוש ביתכ .'וכ ךבוש לש ונוחצנב ואב ןומע ינב
.ןותיקכ וינפל ךפשנ ותוא האורה לכש ךפוש ומש ארקנ המלו ,ומש ךבוש :רמא
The Aammonites came on the might of Shobach... [The name] is written Shobach and also Shofach! Rav and Shemuel:
One said that his name was Shofach; and why was he called Shobach? Because he was made like a dove-cote
[ךבש]. The other said that his name was Shobach; and why was he called Shofach? Because whoever saw him was
poured out [ךפשנ] before him like a pot.
Here a similar pun appears, and the phrases "ןותיקכ וכפשנש" (poured out like a pot) and "וינפל ךפשנ
ןותיקכ" (poured out before him like a pot) are indeed almost identical. Seemingly, the editor of
our sugya inherited a Palestinian tradition that interpreted the word ח ַּפִׂשְו ֣ in Isaiah 3 as referring
to the pouring out of significant amount of uterine blood, and then (mis?)applied it to the end of
the verse which reads " הֶֽרָעְי ן ֵהְתָּפ ֥ ," and placed it into the a disagreement between Rav and She-
muel based on the parallel in Sota. This editor, stuck with only one half of the needed opinions
then created his own: that the words " הֶֽרָעְי ן ֵהְתָּפ ֥ ," refer to the sprouting of an abundance of pubic
hair on these women, as an appropriate recompense for their sin of being sexually available to
22. There are a number of cases like this debated by Rav and Shemuel, which follow the same
pattern. At core seems to be the commonplace fact that the author of the Biblical books of
Chronicles has slightly different names for characters who also appear in the Deuteronomic
histories of the books of Samuel and Kings. The debate seems to be centered around which name
was the characters actual name, and which is included for the purpose of Midrashic explication
alone. See Sota 42a, Bava Batra 92b, Sanhedrin 42b, and others. Reuven Margoliot (Shem
‘olam ‘inyano le-hakhri‘a ule-sayem shema‘teta be-khol maḳom she-huva be-Talmud Bavli ṿi-
Yerushalmi be-khol ha-midrashim...[Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Ḳuḳ, 1962] p. 50-51) suggests
that the statement in Leviticus Rabbah 1:3, "'שב היעשוה יברד הובא אמח 'רו יול ןב עשוהי 'ר 'שב ןומיס 'ר
שרדיל אלא םימיה ירבד רפס ןתינ אל 'ר" demonstrates that it is Rav who thinks that the "real" name is
always the one not found in Chronicles.

the conquering forces. 23 8
It is possible that this answer is also meant to mirror the same connota-
tions of ritual impurity as would menstrual blood. If read this way, the author of this opinion
lived no earlier than the 4th generation amoraim who appear in this sugya and to whose interpre-
tations this one is added. Thus this potential interpretation that Jewish women once lacked pubic
hair and somehow only began to grow pubic hair in the wake of divine punishment dates from no
earlier than this period as well.
#2 - Sanhedrin 21a-b
.ךממ ינענמי אל יכ ךלמה
25
24
לע אנ - רבד התעו רמאנש ,התיה ראות תפי תב רמת : בר רמא הדוהי בר רמאו•
?היל אירש הוה ימ היתחא ,
26
יאוה ןיאושינ תב ךתעד אקלס יאו
.התיה ראות תפי תב הנימ עמש אלא
.העשרל םכח שיא :בר רמא הדוהי בר רמא .'וגו םכח שיא היהו דוד יחא העמש ןב בדנוי ומשו ער ןונמאלו•
קצתו תרשמה חקתו .הירבה תא יניעל התשעו דע 'וגו לחתהו ךבכשמ לע בכש בדנוי ול רמאיו ךלמה ןב לד הככ התא עודמ רמאיו•
27
.ןוגיט ינימ ול התשעש :בר רמא הדוהי בר רמא .וינפל
.הכפש תורכ ותאשעו ,ול הרשקנ אמינ :קחצי יבר רמא - ?אמעט יאמ , דאמ הלודג האנש ןונמא האנשיו•
?הדבע יאמ יהיא ,ול הרשקנ יכו
28
.הכפש תורכ ותאשעו ,אמינ ול הרשק :אמיא אלא
?יניא
23. I realize here that I am making a bold claim about pseudepigraphy here. See:
תויגוסב דומלתה םתסו םיארומאה תורמימל בוש :"ארומא םש הב רכזנש הפסוה לע המתת לא" ,ןמדירפ הדוהי אמש
( 2006 ,ןליא רב :ןג תמר) תימע ןרהא תכירעב ,ןליא-רב תטיסרבינוא לש דומלתה רקחל ימואלניבה סנכה רפס ,ילבבה
24. Munich 95 and Yad HaRav Hertzog here and throughout the pericope read only, "בר רמא."
25. All other textual witnesses read "לא," as is clear from the Biblical text.
26. Munich 95 reads, "תיה 'אות 'פי תב ואלד ד"ס יאו'" Similarly, Karlsruhe - Reuchlin 2 reads "יאו
האושינ תב [א]לא התיה ראות תפי תב ואלד 'תעד 'קלס," whereas Yad HaRav Hertzog reads "'תעד 'קלס יאו
יאוה היתחא." This doesn't change the basic meaning of the section, but only supports the reading
that this line is a product of the editor of the sugya.
27. Seemingly the notion that solid food is subject to a verb like "קצתו" (to pour out) is in need of
explanation. here, Rav suggests that she poured out the oil in which the cakes were fried.
28. This question and answer appears in neither Munich 95 nor Florence II-I-9 at this point but is
inserted instead after אבר's statement. In Karlsruhe- Reuchlin 2, a marginal note suggests its
presence in the first position, but like the others appears in the body of the text only in the second
position.

?הורעה תיב אלו יחשה תיב רעש אל לארשי תונבל ןהל ןיאש - ךיפיב םיוגב םש ךל אציו ביתכד יאמ :אבר שרד אהו•
30
29
.יאוה ראות תפי תבד ,רמת ינאש
:ורמא .העש התואב רמת הרדג לודג רדג החרק ןב עשוהי יברד הימשמ אנת .הערק הילע רשא םיספה (תנתכ תאו) השאר לע רפא רמת חקתו
.המכו המכ תחא לע תוצורפל - ךכ תועונצל םא ,המכו המכ תחא לע תוטוידה תונבל - ךכ םיכלמ תונבל
...היונפה לעו ,דוחייה לע (ב"ע) ורזג העש התואב :בר רמא הדוהי בר רמא•
Rav Yehudah said that Rav said: Tamar was the daughter of a Beautiful [Captive] Woman, 31 as it is written
[in II Samuel 13:13] "Now therefore, I beg you, speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you."
Now, should you imagine that she was the daughter of a legitimate marriage, how could his sister have been permitted
to him?
Rather, learn from this that she was the daughter of a Beautiful [Captive] Woman.
[II Samuel 13:3 reads] "Amnon had a friend whose name was Jonadab, the son of David’s brother Shimeah;
and Jonadab was a very wise man." Rav Yehudah said that Rav said: "wise" to do evil.
[II Samuel 13:4 continues] "He said to him, ‘O son of the king, why are you so haggard morning after
morning? . . . . [v.5] Jonadab said to him, ‘Lie down on your bed, and pretend to be ill . . . [v.6]and make a
couple of cakes in my sight . . . Then she took the pan and poured them out before him." Rav Yehudah said
that Rav said: She made for him some kind of fried food.
[v. 15] "Then Amnon was seized with a very great loathing for her" For what reason? Rabbi Yitzhak said: A
pubic hair became entangled and castrated 32 him.
If it "became entangled" what did she do?
Rather I will that she entangled it herself and castrated him.
Really? Did Rava not interpret as follows: What is meant by what is written [in Ezekiel 16:14]: "Your
fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty"? That the daughters of Israel had neither under-arm
nor pubic hair?
Tamar was different, for she was the daughter of a Beautiful [Captive] Woman.
[v.19] "Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore the robe that she was wearing." It was taught in the name of Rabbi
Yehoshua the son of Korha. In that hour Tamar set up a great fence. They 33 9
said: if this could happen to kings’
daughters, how much more to the daughters of ordinary men; if this could happen to the chaste, how much more to
the unchaste?
Rav Yehudah said that Rav said: On that occasion, they made a decree against seclusion with a married or
with an unmarried woman...
This sugya shares many structural themes with the first one. Here Rav, the first genera-
tion Babylonian Amora, presents his running commentary on the story of the rape of Tamar in II
Samuel 13. Again, much of the interpretation (that Tamer cooked fried foods, that Jonadab used
29. The Florence and yad Ha Rav Hertzog manuscripts read, "הכפש תורכ ותאשעו ול הרשק המינ אמיא
נאש אמיא תיעב יאו" This also appears to have been the reading of Yad Rama and that of parallel in
the Yalkut Shimoni (טמק זמר ב לאואמש) According to the reading of this text there are two
answers to the problem of why Amnon should have been so angry at Tamar given that she
couldn't have had a pubic hair to wound him with. The first is that she actively wounded him
with of his own pubic hairs. The second is that she did in fact have pubic hair, as she wasn't born
a Jew.
30. At this point, in a clear case of homeoteleuton, Karlsruhe- Reuchlin repeats אבר's statement.
31. As detailed in Deuteronomy 11:10-13.
32. Literal castration is probably impossible here, nonetheless the language for phallic mutilation
is borrowed from Deuteronomy 23:2. See B. AZ 26b where the phrase "הכפש תורכ" seems to be
applied only to a wound to the corona of the penis during a botched circumcision.
33. I assume this means other women, but might also apply to people generally.

10
his cunning for nefarious purposes) conforms to the plain sense of the narrative. While the notion
that Tamar, as the daughter of a Beautiful [Captive] Woman, and thus a convert, was technically
not Amnon's sister is less compelling a "plain-sense" reading, it is far from ridiculous. After all,
Tamar does in fact imply that under other circumstances a union with her brother would be pos-
sible. Furthermore, the sense of the story suggests that the real crime here is rape and not incest.
However, with the introduction of the statement of Rabbi Yitzhak, the situation takes a
turn towards the bizarre. He claims that Amnon was wounded by a pubic hair, prompting his de-
sire to turn to hatred. Usually, the name Rabbi Yitzhak, without patronymic refers to Rabbi
Yitzhak Nafha, the third generation Palestinian Amora who traveled to Babylonia and spoke with
Rav Nahman and Rav Hisda among others. 34 If so, we see again how the editor has interrupted
the flow of a perfectly good plain sense Babylonian sugya with the comment of a Palestinian
Rabbi which changes the whole nature of the situation. Seemingly, the reason the anonymous ed-
itor quotes Rabbi Yitzhak is for the sake of attacking his interpretation on the basis that his an-
swer is incompatible with the Rava's assertion that Jewish woman simply lacked pubic hair. The
ensuing resolution demonstrates why Rabbi Yitzhak was brought: Rav's interpretation that
Tamar was the daughter of a Beautiful [Captive] Woman, not only makes good exegetical sense
by demonstrating how such a marriage could be construed as legitimate, but also neatly solves
the contradiction between Rabbi Yitzhak and Rava, for if she was a convert, she would not have
had characteristically Jewish body-hair.
Before concluding with the final statement of Rav, the editor adds a final Palestinian in-
terpretation of this Biblical passage, in this case bringing a baraita in the name of Rabbi
34. Albeck, p. 252. It is possible that this is the same Rabbi Yitzhak who appeared in the first
sugya, but given that all the textual witnesses here present him as "קחצי יבר," I am inclined to
trust them in aggregate.

11
Yehoshua the son of Korcha, which sets up the Tamer event as the etiology for the law forbid-
ding seclusion which is essentially restated by Rav. Why is this source added, when it seems to
be unnecessary to the flow of the sugya? The answer is devastatingly simple: A naughty pun
links the Israelite women whose pudendas are asserted to have been "bald" with the name of the
Tanna's father החרק (bald). 35
The claim that the end of this sugya bears the marks of the anonymous redactor can be
supported from an analysis of the textual witnesses, and especially from the text that seems to
have been before the 12th century Rabbi Meir HaLevi Abulafia, author of the commentary "Yad
Rama" on Sanhedrin. 36
(סופד) א"ע אכ ןירדהנס
דאמ הלודג האנש ןונמא האנשיו
הכפש תורכ ותאשעו ול הרשקנ אמינ קחצי יבר רמא אמעט יאמ
הדבע יאמ יהיא ול הרשקנ יכו
הכפש תורכ ותאשעו אמינ ול הרשק אמיא אלא
ןהל ןיאש ךיפיב םיוגב םש ךל אציו ביתכד יאמ אבר שרד אהו יניא
הורעה תיב אלו יחשה תיב רעש אל לארשי תונבל
יאוה ראות תפי תבד רמת ינאש
(המר די 'סרג) א"ע אכ ןירדהנס
'וגו ןונמא האנשיו
התורע תיבבש רעישה ןמ ול תרשקתנ אמינ קחצי 'ר רמא אמאט יאמ
.החפש תורכ ותאשעו
ןנישקמו
תונבל םהל ןיאש 'וגו םש ךל אציו ביתכד יאמ אבר 'רד אהו יניא
...הורעה תיב לש רעש אלו יחשה תיב לש רעש אל לארשי
ותואב ול הרשקו השולת אמינ האיבהש ול הרשק אמינ אמיא אלא
החפש תורכ והואשעו םוקמ
הרשקנ םלועל אמיא תיעביאו
יאוה ראות תפי תבד רמת ינאשו
Whereas in the printed edition, Rabbi Yitzhak's statement is challenged from a logical supposi-
tion that Amnon would not have reacted so horrifically towards Tamar over an accidental
wounding by pubic hair, Yad Ramah's version challenges Rabbi Yitzhak directly with Rava's
statement. In the printed text, the answer to the logical challenge is that she indeed actively
placed the offensive hair, a notion which is then challenged by Rava's dictum and then resolved
35. See Sokoloff p. 1039.
36. I have used the text of the 1798 edition housed in the JTS library.

12
by the assertion that Tamar, as the daughter of a Beautiful [Captive] Woman would indeed have
had pubic hair. In Yad Rama's version two equally plausible resolutions to the Rabbi Yitzhak/
Rava contradiction are proffered: One, that she lacked pubic hair, but took a אמינ (strand of hair)
from somewhere else, or, two, that she as the daughter of a Beautiful [Captive] Woman would
indeed have had pubic hair. Yad Rama's reading is quite close to that which is found in a number
of the extant textual witnesses:
אמיא אלא הדבע יאמ יהיא ול הרשקנ יכו הכפש תורכ ותאשעו ול הרשקנ אמינ קחצי יבר רמא וד
'מיא אלא הדבע יאמ יהיא ול הרשקנ יכו הכפש ו ול הרשקנ אמינ קחצי 'ר רמא בד
'מיא אלא 'כפש 'ורכ ותאשעו ול הרשק 'מינ 'חצי ר"א 95מ
אמינ הדבע יאמ ול הרשקנ יכו] הכפש תורכ ותאשעו ול הרשקנ אמינ קחצי ר"א ר-ק
הכפוש תורכ והאשעו ול הרשקינ אמינ קחצי 'ר 'מא פ
אמינ אמיא אל היל אדבע יאמ יהיא ול הרשקנ יכו הכפש תורכ ותאשעו ול הרשקנ המינ קחצי ר'א ת
ךיפיב םיוגב םש ךל אציו ביתכד יאמ :אבר שרד אהו ?יניא - .הכפש תורכ ותאשעו אמינ ול הרשק וד
ךיפיב םיוגב םש ךל אצי רד אהו יניא 'כפש 'ורב ותאשעו 'מינ ול הרשק בד
ךיפויב 'יוגב םש ךל אציו 'כד יאמ אבר שרד אהו יניא
95מ
םיוגב םש ךל אציו 'תכד יאמ אבר שרד אהו יניא [הכפוש תורכ ותאשעו הל הרשקנ ר-ק
['יפויב] םיוגב םש ךל אציו 'תכד יאמ אבר שרד אהו יניא פ
ךיפיב םיוגב םש ךל א?צ?יו אבר שרד אהו והל הוה יאמו הכפש תורכ ותאשעו ול הרשק ת
?הורעה תיב אלו יחשה תיב רעש אל לארשי תונבל ןהל ןיאש וד
'ורעה תיב אלו יחישה תיב אל 'רשי ינבל ןהל ןיאש בד
'ורעה 'יבב אלו יחשה 'יבב אל 'עש 'רשי 'ונבל ןהל היה אלש 95מ
הכפש תורכ ותאשעו הל הרשקנ אמינ 'מיא) 'רעה תיב אלו יחישה תיב אל 'רשי תונבל םהל ןיאש ר-ק
הכפוש תורכ ותאשעו אמינ ול הרשק 'מיא הורעה תיב אלו יחשה תיב אל לארשי תונבל םהל ןיאש פ
הורעה תיב אלו םירתסה תיב אלו יחשה תיב אל לארשי תונבל ןהל ןיאש ת
.יאוה ראות תפי תבד ,רמת ינאש וד
אות תפי תבד 'מת ינאש בד
'תיה ראות 'פי תב 'מת 'לא
95מ
התיה היוג תבד רמת ינש 'יא ['ל](י)א ('תכד יאמ אבר שרד יניא ר-ק
התיה היוג תב רמת 'מיא 'ביאו פ
התיה ראת תפי תב רמת ינאש אמיא תיעב יאו הכפש תורכ ותאשעו ול הרשק המינ אמיא רמ 'מא אה ת
It is especially close to the Yemenite Manuscripts version of this sugya, supporting Mordechai
Sabato's thesis that Abulafia had a text which is quite close to that which is preserved in the
Yemenite text. 37 This reading, which I believe is to be preferred, only underscores the degree to
37. Mordechai Sabato, A Yemenite Manuscript of Tractate Sanhedrin and its Place in the Text
Traditions [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Tzvi, 1998).

13
which Rabbi Yitzhak's statement is brought only to serve the literary project of the editor, name-
ly raising problems and answering them.
But what is the situation that Rabbi Yitzhak describes, and what does it mean? It is note-
worthy that the word used here is not רעיש (hair) as in Rava's statement, but rather אמינ (strand of
hair.) Sokoloff 38 offers both Greek (νῆµα- thread, yarn 39 ) and Syriac (אבינ- sinew, tendon 40 ) ety-
mologies for this word, neither of which seems to have meant "hair" per-se. No doubt, the editor
who included Rabbi Yitzhak's dictum clearly thought it did refer to a pubic hair, but the original
meaning is less clear. It is certainly possible that Rabbi Yitzhak was not speaking of a hair at all,
but perhaps that Tamar attempted to fight off her rapist with some household object which really
might have caused serious damage or at least pain to Amnon's penis. In any case, there is no rea-
son to suspect that Rabbi Yitzhak said anything about the likelihood of Jewish women either not
having or removing pubic hair. This layer of meaning again belongs exclusively to the stratum of
the text, a clearly late Babylonian editorial layer.
#3 - Gittin 6b
,הל אצמ אמינ :רמא
42
41
?אוה הבר ארבג ואל קחצי 'רד אה עדי אלד לכ וטא :ייבא ל"א
,ייחל - ארבסב אילתד אתלימ אמלשב
;היל עימש אל ארמגו ,איה ארמג אה
:הידי לע הירמ םיכסאד אוה רתיבא 'ר אה ,דועו
ןתנוי 'ר ,הל אצמ בובז :רמא רתיבא יבר ,ושגליפ וילע הנזתו :ביתכד
אוה ךכ ינב רתיבא :היל רמא ?רמאק יאמו ,העבגב שגליפב קיסע :ל"א ?ה"בקה דיבע אק יאמ :ל"א ,והילאל רתיבא 'ר היחכשאו
,רמוא אוה ךכ ינב ןתנוי ,רמוא
38. p. 751.
39. See Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott, Eds, A Greek-English Lexicon, (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1867) p. 1173.
40. Sokoloff, p. 746.
41. All the other textual witnesses (except for RNL Evr. I 187 in which this word is missing
altogether) read "עימש."
42. Both RNL Evr. I 187 and Vatican 127 seem to read "ןנחוי" here, though, admittedly, the
difference between ח and ת in both of these manuscripts is rather small. Even if "ןנחוי" is the
proper transcription, I think this is best seen as a scribal error, as we do seem to be dealing with
the third generation of Palestinian Amoraim and not the first.

14
43
? אימש ימק אקיפס אכיא ימו ,ו"ח :ל"א
.דיפקהו אצמ אמינ ,דיפקה אלו אצמ בובז ןה םייח םיהלא ירבד ולאו ולא :ל"א
,םוקמ ותואב אמינו ,הרעקב בובז :הדוהי בר רמא
.אתנכס - אמינו ,אתוסיאמ - בובז
.אתועישפ - אמינו ,אסנוא - בובז ,הרעקב ידיאו ידיא :ירמאד אכיא
Said Abaye to [Rav Yosef]: Does the fact that one does not know this teaching of Rabbi Isaac demonstrate
that he is not a great scholar?
Obviously [it would be so] If it was dependent on logic
But it was [oral] tradition! And a tradition with which Rabbi Abiathar was not familiar.
Furthermore, Rabbi Abiathar is an authority whose view was confirmed by God himself!
As is is written [in Judges 19:2]. "But his concubine cheated on him" Rabbi Abiathar said that the Levite
found a fly on her, and Rabbi Jonathan said that he found a hair on her.
Rabbi Abiathar came upon Elijah and said to him: What is the Blessed Holy One doing right now? He Said:
discussing the concubine in Gibea. What does He say. He says: My son Abiathar says thus, and my son
Jonathan says thus.
He said: God Forbid, is there doubt in heaven?
He said: these and these are the words of the living God. He found a fly but it didn't bother him, he found a hair and
it did bother him.
Rav Judah explained: He found a fly in his food and a pubic hair. the fly was merely disgusting, but the hair
was dangerous.
Some say, he found both in his food; the fly was accidental, the hair was her fault.
The same Rabbi Yitzhak who featured so prominently in the discussion above, serves as
a fitting segue into the final source under discussion. This passage seeks to determine if Rabbi
Abiathar ,a third generation Palestinian Amora, is a אכמס רב (one whose traditions are reliable) or
not. In the preceding passage, Rabbi Abiathar is shown to have been unfamiliar with the ruling of
Rabbi Yitzhak, for he seems to have copied some verses from the fourth chapter of the Biblical
book of Joel, without having drawn the necessary scribal lines (טוטריש) beforehand, in accor-
dance with the ruling of Rabbi Yitzhak. The purpose of this obviously Babylonian sugya is to de-
termine the status of Rabbi Abiathar. Abaye argues that the fact that Rabbi Abiathar was un-
aware of the law of Rabbi Yitzhak should have no bearing on his reliability. The Anonymous
editor inserts a comment, drawing a crucial distinction between logical derivations of law (which
reliable authorities should know) and received oral traditions (which one might never have
43. All three Vatican manuscripts read "אוה ךירב אשדוק הימק," which is obviously the sense of
"אימש."

heard). 44 15
The editor then relates a story about Rabbi Abiathar, showing that God himself thinks
that Rabbi Abiathar's positions are worthy of respect. In it, he and Rabbi Jonathan, another third
generation Palestinian Amora, 45 are divided in their interpretations of Judges 19. Yet again we
see a Babylonian Sugya which introduces an older Palestinian Midrash on Prophetic narritive.
Here the debate centers around the phrase " ו ֹׁשְגַליִּֽפ ֔ ויָלָע ֙ הֶנְזִּתַו
֤ " (his concubine cheated on him). The
Rabbis are justifiably confused as to the meaning of this phrase, for, according to Biblical law a
willing adulteress may not remain married to her husband. Yet in this story the Levite attempts to
woo his wife/concubine, and even succeeds in convincing her to return to him. Thus, both sages
resort to non-literal readings of the text to explain what it was that she did to be sent away in the
first place. Rabbi Abiathar offers that he found a fly, whereas Rabbi Jonathan, echoing Rabbi
Yitzhak from Sanhedrin 21a suggests, that the offensive thing was a misplaced pubic hair.
Many scholars have been drawn to this passage for the reason that the ensuing story
about this dispute is the source par excellance of what is termed "Rabbinic Interdeterminancy."
God himself, as the Prophet Elijah relates to Rabbi Abiathar, studies both Rabbinic Midrashim,
as if neither historical fact not God's nominal position as the ultimate author of the book of
Judges gives him any other insight beyond the discussions of the Rabbinic study house. This sug-
gestion, however, demands comment. As Daniel Boyarin writes:
As if in panic at its own suggestion that the text is inhabited by such radical
indeterminacy that even God can only "teach the controversy;" not resolve it- "a
serious encroachment on God's omniscience"-the narrative then opts for
harmonization of the two views: the husband found both fly and hair. This weak
retreat, however, can be read as only emphasizing the drastic character of what
Elijah has reported as God's knowledge or lack of knowledge about what this text
means. Yet God is still reported as being able only to report the different views of
44. Such a distinction and the ensuing preference for logic over עומש is the best clue that this
statement is Stammaitic.
45. See note 42, above.

the human readers, as it were, and not to go beyond them. 46
Strangely, Boyarin reads the 'weak retreat' as coming from the same textual layer as the core sto-
ry, dating the entire section to the time of the Stammaim. 47 He writes:
What has often presented as an ahistorical definitive attribute, the pluralism of
rabbinic Judaism (perhaps its most striking feature), is the product of this specific
moment in history and not a transcendental essence of rabbinic Judaism... I would
put forth that we can locate that "unknown date" as being toward the very end of
the rabbinic period, at the time of the redaction of the babylonian Talmud by the
so-called Stammaim, those anonymous, post-talmudic Rabbis to whom it is becoming
clearer and clearer we owe so much of what we call "Judaism." 48
I disagree. It strikes me as more likely that, once again their are two layers here. One reports the
positions of the two scholars and the brief core of the discussion with Elijah. A Later editor is re-
sponsible for placing the challenge, "God Forbid, is there doubt in heaven?" into Rabbi Abi-
athar's voice, and the harmonization into Elijah's. This, in turn,serves as the impetus for bringing
the two versions of Rav Judah's harmonization.
Again, we are left with the question of what each layer thinks the about the significance
of the hair. As in the passage from Sanhedrin, the word used in אמינ, which may not, if fact, mean
a hair at all. Even if it does, as the second Harmonization shows, it may not be a pubic hair at all,
but simply a hair in the food she (presumably) prepared for her husband. Yet, from the first har-
monization it is clear that we are speaking here about a pubic hair, one that is not merely disgust-
ing, but actually dangerous in perhaps the same way it may have been for Amnon. 49 This under-
46. Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity.
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). p.176.
47. And, incidentally, noting that this text suggests a historical fact that Women were expected to
remove pubic hair. He writes, "An interesting bit of sexual lore is alluded to here. Women were
apparently expected to shave their pudenda, and even one hair was understood to represent a
danger of castration during the act of intercourse [see Rashi on this passage, referring to Deut.
23:2]." p. 175.
48. Ibid. p. 155.
49. See Rashi ad loc.
16

17
standing is disconnected with the original palestinian context, and seems to derive from the same
Babylonian source which quotes Rav Yehuda.
There is a disturbing element in common to all three stories. In each case either the plain
sense of the biblical passage or of the rabbinic commentary narrates the brutal rape of Jewish
women. Tamar, the Concubine of Giva, and the "Daughters of Zion" are all raped by evil men.
Each story seems to be the beginning of a terrible period of suffering as well. The Tamar incident
leads to the war between David and Absalom, the Concubine of Giva's death leads to civil war,
and Isaiah prophesies the destruction of Jewish society. That pubic hair is inserted by the Bavli
into all three of these stories can not be accidental.
Medieval commentators were also aware of the similarities between these three sources,
and, as is their style, sought to harmonize them. Perhaps the best example of such interpretive
work can be found in the Tosafot HaRosh. 50
תיב אלו יחשה תיב אל רעש לארשי תונבל םהל היה אלש לודג ןהכ קרפ ןירדהנסב ןמירמא אה ת"או -הל אצמ אמינ
וא התיה ראות תפי תבד שגלפ ךהב רמימל אכיא ימנ יכה התיה ראות תפי תבד רמת יבג םתה ינשמדכ ל"יו ,הורעה
תורעש נ"א ,םהל ויה תומוג אמשד ל"יו ,םינמיס תאבה םהב רכינ היה ךאיה תורעש םהל היה אלש ןויכו ת"או .תרויג
ןהתפ 'ייו והיעשי םהילע אבינו ואטחש דע הכפש תורכ ידיל לכויש תורעש יוביר םהל היה אלו ויה תוטעומו תונטק
.רעיכ ןיהתפ ושענש השא המב 'פב היל ןנישרדד הרעי
He found a hair- If you should bring a challenge from what is said in the second chapter of
Sanhedrin that, "That the daughters of Israel had neither under-arm nor pubic hair," one might
answer with the same resolution offered there with regard to Tamar having been the daughter of
a [beautiful] Captive, so to one might say regarding this concubine that she was a daughter of a
[beautiful] Captive or a convert. And if you should bring the challenge that if they had no pubic
hair, how could signs of adult status (e.g. two pubic hairs) be recognized, one might answer that
they had dimples (which served the same purpose), alternatively, they had short hairs but had no
long hair which could cause mutilation, until they sinned and Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled that:
The Lord will lay bare their openings, as we interpret in the sixth Chapter of Shabbat, to mean
that their openings became like a forest.
By weaving these three passages together, Rosh outlines a historical progression: Jewish
women once had no pubic hair. The various women who seem to have had pubic hair were ex-
תורעה תורוקמ ינויצ תואובמ ףוריצב םינושאר םיסופדו די יבתכ פ"ע ןיטיג תכסמ לע רשא וניברל שארה תופסות . 50
רתא לע .סשת קוק ברה דסומ :םילשורי .םירואיבו

18
ceptional, having not been born as Jews. Jewish women now have pubic hair as a punishment for
their sins. Rosh also notes a problem caused by this line of reasoning: If they had no pubic hair,
how could they ever have been declared adults, a rite of passage which is dependent on the
growth of pubic hair! Though his answer is typical of the school of the Tosafot, buts its weakness
only serves to emphasize the quality of the question. The simpler answer is that these three tal-
mudic passages say nothing about the history of the hairiness of Jewish women at all, but they do
tell us something about the cultural attitudes of those who shaped these texts.
In all three cases we saw that while the original may have been early and/or Palestinian in
origin, it is the later Babylonian editors who connect the presence of female pubic hair to the dis-
astrous results which ensue. It is my contention that female pubic hair was viewed quite differ-
ently in the Sassanian Persian milieu of Babylonia, than it was in the east of the Roman empires.
While women in both locations seem to have practiced (or we forced to practice) pubic hair
depilation, the reasons for such behavior were quite different. It is this difference which com-
pelled the Babylonian authors to ascribe such negative reactions to the presence of pubic hair.
It is clear from both literary and physical evidence that women in Greco-Roman Culture
practiced some forms of depilation. As Troy Martin explains:
Although sometimes inflicted on male adulterers, depilation of the pubes is common
among Greco-Roman women and enhances their attractiveness to males.
Plucking, singeing, and applying caustic resins are the means of removing the
hair, but singeing is the most effective in enhancing fertility... Vase paintings
depict women engaged in singeing the pubes, and to infiltrate secretly the Thesmophoria
and appear as a woman, Mnesilochus submits to the depilation of his
pubes by singeing. Bettina Eva Stumpp surmises that the practice originally
served a hygienic and then an aesthetic purpose before becoming the dominant
fashion. 51
51. Troy W. Martin, Paul's Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A
Testicle Instead of a Head Covering. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 123, No. 1 pp. 81-2.

Likewise, Aristophanes presents a similar scene in Lysistrata, in which the title character de-
scribes herself as having recently been depilated:
πολύ γε νὴ τὼ θεώ. εἰ γὰρ καθοίµεθ' ἔνδον ἐντετριµµέναι, κἀν τοῖς χιτωνίοισι
τοῖς Ἀµοργίνοις γυµναὶ παρίοιµεν δέλτα παρατετιλµέναι, στύοιντο δ' ἅνδρες
κἀπιθυµοῖεν σπλεκοῦν, ἡµεῖς δὲ µὴ προσίοιµεν ἀλλ' ἀπεχοίµεθα, σπονδὰς
ποιήσαιντ' ἂν ταχέως, εὖ οἶδ' ὅτι.
By the two Goddesses, now can't you see All we have to do is idly sit indoors
With smooth roses powdered on our cheeks, Our bodies burning naked through
the folds Of shining Amorgos' silk, and meet the men With our dear Venus-plats
plucked trim and neat. Their stirring love will rise up furiously, They'll beg our
arms to open. That's our time! We'll disregard their knocking, beat them off-- And
they will soon be rabid for a Peace. I'm sure of it. 52
However, as can plainly seen, Lysistrata seems only to trimmed her hair, here by means of
plucking, and not removed it completely. There appear to have been a number of methods for
removing the hair, not only plucking, but also singing with a fire. As Martin Kilmer notes:
As has been noted, singeing by lamp would leave a short stubble, unless one were
to singe so closely as to run serious risk of burns. The passages here cited also
make it clear that in plucking, the object was not to strip the genitals bald, but to
leave a neat and well-defined, but not too thick and bushy, patch of pubic hair.
Some of these passages demonstrate that pubic hair was found sexually attractive
on women, at least under some circumstances. 53
Thus, those who plucked or singed seems to have done so primarily for aesthetic reasons, much
along the lines of styling or trimming hair on any other part of the human body. Kilmer notes
that some men, to the contrary, seem to have preferred women with more hair. Indeed, Lucilius
refers to "in bulgam penetrare pilosam (penetrating a hairy bag), 54 and one particularly crude and
sexually explicit graffito found at Pompeii reads: FVTVITVR CVNNVS ..SSVS MVLTO ME-
LIVS QVAM GLABER E..EM CONTINET VAPOREM ET EADEM V..T MENTVLAM ("a
52. Greek text and Translation from: Aristophanes, Lysistrata (ed. Jack Lindsay) retrieved from
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0242.
53. Martin Kilmer, Genital Phobia and Depilation. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 102
(1982) p. 107.
54. Loeb Classical Library (L329, 1938) Remains of Old Latin vol. III Lucisius, The twelve
Tables, edited with Latin text and English Translation by E.H. Warmington p. 61.
19

20
hairy vagina [lit. cunt] is penetrated much better than one which is smooth; it holds in the steam
and wants the phallus"). 55 Yet Pompeii is also home to explicit pornographic representations of
women without any pubic hair whatsoever. 56 pubic hair depilation seems to have been a matter of
personal aesthetics. Many women did, and it is reasonable to expect that many men expected
them to do so, and would have been disappointed had they not. It may be this kind of disappoint-
ment which was the impetus for the statements of Rabbi Yitzhak and Rabbi Rabbi Abiathar. Yet
the same situation, I propose, would have had very different resonances in Zoroastrian Persia.
Yaakov Elman and his students are the current driving force for asserting that the norms
of elite Zoroastrian Persia had a powerful impact on the Babylonian Rabbis, though others, like
55. CIL IV.1830, Inscriptiones Parietariae Pompeianae Herculanenses Stabianae. C.
Zanfmeister & R. Schoene, Eds. (Berolini: 1871). Translation here is my own. I thank ירמו יבא,
David Bickart, whose still reads Latin as well as he did in High School, for his assistance.
56.
This picture was scanned from: Angelika Dierichs: Erotik in der Römischen Kunst. von Zabern,
Mainz 1993 ( Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie p. 73

Isaiah Gafni 57 21
especially have also shown direct Talmudic borrowings from Sassanian Zoroastri-
anism. While it is difficult to find explicit references to pubic hair removal in Pavlavi texts, there
are hints both in later literature as well as physical artifacts which suggest that Zoroastrian
women were expected to remove all pubic hair as part of their elaborate purity system.
For instance, in this image from a late Sasanian imperial decorative object, the female
figure is depicted without any pubic hair whatsoever:
58
57. Here I am referring to his assertion that the Talmudic directive regarding the disposal of
finger-nail clippings found at Niddah 17a is a direct borrowing. See: Isaiah Gafni, Yehudei Bavel
bi-Tequfat ha-Talmud: Hayyei ha-hevrah veha-Ru'ah (Jerusalem: Merkaz Shazar, 1990) p. 171.
58. Haleh Emrani, Like Father, Like Daughter: Late Sasanian Imperial
Ideology & the Rise of Bōrān to Power. e-Sasanika 9 (2009), figure 8.

22
Furthermore, in her study of the particulars of the modern Iranian woman's cosmetic kit, whose
origins date to pre-Islamic times, 59 Fatema Soudavar Farmanfarmaian argues that a skin softener,
which is part of this kit, once had a particularly ritual purpose. She writes:
A variety known as safldab-i zanatn was made from bone ash mixed with animal
fat, colocynth, and jasmine oil, but it is not clear whether this was of the variety
used for facial makeup or of the kind that was taken to the bath. The latter seems
more likely, since the combination mentioned would hardly qualify as face
powder or even foundation. As a softening agent, the fat additives alleviated any
irritation caused either by the coarseness of the kisa cloth that is used for
defoliating dirt and dead cells or by the irritating abrasion that resulted from the
use of vajibt (a highly abrasive depilatory made from yellow arsenic, active lime,
and wood-ash) used for the removal of ritually unclean hair, especially of the
pubic zone. 60
Hair, once removed from the body was seen to have been corpse-like in its ability to transmit
impurity to pure objects, and was thus disposed of with extreme care. As Yaakov Elman writes:
For demonology in Zoroastrianism is not merely a popular accretion, but rather an
integral and most important part of elite theological teaching. The demons
constitute the armies of the Evil One, and must be resisted and fought in every
area of Zoroastrian life, not least the laws of purity, which, like Jewish purities'
regulations, involve the twin foci of impurity- corpse and carcass impurity, and
menstrual impurity. 61
Men too were advised by religious authorities to remove their hair and nails. In the Counsels of
Adarbad Mahraspandan, the high priest who lived during the reign of Shaipur II we find the
among the litany of duties to be performed on different days of the month we find the following:
On the day of Day-pa-Adar wash your head and trim your hair and nails...On the
day of Day-pa-Mihr wash your head and trim your hair and nails, and (pick) your
grapes... On the day of Day-pa-Den do anything you like, bring your wife into
your quarters, trim your hair and nails and clothe yourself. 62
Thus, it is not unreasonable to suggest that not only was the disposal of hair and nails part of the
59. Fatema Soudavar Farmanfarmaian, "Haft Qalam Ārāyish": Cosmetics in the Iranian World .
Iranian Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 2000) p. 286.
60. Ibid. p. 309.
61. Yaakov Elman, "Acculturation to Elite Persian Norms and Modes of Thought in the
Babylonian Jewish Community of Late Antiquity" in Netiot L' David: Jubilee Volume for David
Weiss Halivni. (Jerusalem: Orhot, 2004) p. 34.
62. R. C. Zaehner, The Teachings of the Magi, (New York: Oxford, 1976), p. 101

23
cosmic struggle between good and evil and between order and chaos, but the removal of hair to
begin with was part of the same struggle. Another Zoroastrian text, the Arda Viraf, 63 a detailed
description of Hell hints at such a practice for women as well:
I also saw the soul of a woman whose whole body the noxious creatures
(khrafstars) ever gnawed. And I asked thus: 'What sin was committed by this
body?' Srosh the pious, and Adar the angel, said thus: 'This is the soul of that
wicked woman who, in the world, dressed her hair-curls and hair over the fire;
and threw hairs from, the head and scruf and hair of the body upon the fire; and
introduced fire under the body, and held herself on the fire.'
Here, the "scruf and hair of the body" in question may well be pubic hair. It is my contention that
unlike in the Roman west were depilation of pubic hair serves aesthetic purposes only, in the
Sassanian East, removal of pubic hair had a distinctly ritual function. This kind of hair was
completely removed and discarded according to the rules of purity as part of the larger project of
ordering the world and fighting off the demons of Angra Mainyu/ Ahriman. Babylonian Jews
who has acculturated to a large degree in Sassanian society probably followed suit. Thus, when
the redactors of the Bavli inserted older Palestinian traditions or invented such situations, they
took on a new layer of meaning. The presence of pubic hair was not only disgusting, but ritually
dangerous, and therefore was a plausible reason for the calamities which seem to stem from these
three talmudic passages. Rape, the breakdown of sexual purity; and war, the breakdown of Law,
seem to be the result of a breakdown of purity boundaries. The themes that tie these three stories
together are the the themes which allow for the "cultural work" to be clearly understood. Jewish
women are to remove their pubic hair, not for the pleasure of their husbands, but for the
maintenance of the balance of the universe.
More work on the Zoroastrian sources to prove this link definitively, however, this may
63. Arda Viraf chapter 34, Taken from Charles F. Horne, ed. The Sacred Books and Early
Literature of the East, Volume VII: Ancient Persia. (Delhi (India): Mittal Publications, 1987.)

24
be yet another case in which the study of cultural borrowings enable us to understand otherwise
unclear Talmudic texts. Yet the application of theories of cultural borrowing is also dependent on
the ability of the reader to correctly pull apart the tangled web of layers which make up the Bavli
as we now know it. This is why both methodologies must always be employed in tandem. One of
the most basic distinctions between Human beings and other animals is our propensity for
adapting our physical bodies for a culture. Human bodies are also kinds of texts, which can
reveal many things about contexts of those bodies, when they are properly understood.