Yalta, a woman mentioned several times in the Babylonian Talmud, was the wife of Rav Nachman and is usually remembered for the story describing her rage at a misogynistic guest. In the tale, Yalta breaks four hundred jugs of wine and fires back an insult at the guest who is unsuccessful in difussing the situation.
This famous tale is presented in this sheet alongside two other tales concerning Yalta. These tales may be combined to produce a three-part narrative arc of one of the most frequently mentioned women in the Talmud.
Act One: Yalta the Healer
This first incident likely is one that involves Yalta as a young woman. As the daughter of the Exilarch (Reish Galuta), Yalta is witness to a strange incident. A pious man is ill and appears to be in the care of the Exilarch's household. However, the household members dislike the pious man (they view his piety-related demands to be excessive and burdensome). They do not mistreat him outright, instead, they alter his requests (e.g., if he asks for warm water, they provide cold water). The portrayal that Rav Amram outwits the househeld members indicates that this tension had been going on for some time. In any case, Yalta intervenes and personally oversees the sage's medical treatment.
Some points for consideration:
- What is the nature of Rav Amram's relationship to the Exilarch? It seems that he held a special status in that household as evidenced by his position to order the members of the household to prepare him special meals. The change in the attitude toward him seems to come later in this relationship. But if Rav Amram is in a position of privilege, how do the household members have the impunity to alter his requests? Why can't he simply tell the Exilarch that his household members are acting in this way? It seems unlikely that the Exilarch was involved in the mistreatment of Rav Amram, as that would mean that there is no reason to host the rabbi at all. Furthermore, does Rav Amram not realise that it was his excessively pious behaviour that is to blame for this strange situation?
- If Rav Amram is able to manipulate the household staff to provide him the remedy for his ailment, why does Yalta need to get involved?
- The narrative describes Yalta as 'hearing' about the situation. Who told her? Was it Rav Amram? The Exilarch himself? A different member of the household? What was the nature of the report?
- If Yalta went to great lengths to heal Rav Amram, did that mean that she was not upset about his excessive piety?
- The description of the healing suggests an unusual scene to place a pious sage (presumably already an older man) and a young woman (assuming this incident took place before her marriage to Rav Nachman). Additionally, Rav Amram is described in Kiddushin (81a) as having difficulties containing his desires when secluded with women. Perhaps this is why the narrator cuts off the story with the image of Yalta's treatment having resulted in bloody water and spots on the skin. Perhaps this tale and the tale in Kiddushin are meant to suggest allusions to the misconduct of a seemingly pious person. This would not be the only case where the Talmud offers a tale that subtly critiques a seemingly pious person (see the Ghost Tale in Berakhot 18b).
A possible interpretation: Yalta, as a young woman, is enthralled with the philosophy of Rabbinic Judaism. Yalta discovers that not all members of her community are as devoted to the new post-Temple way of Judaism being developed by the rabbis. There are strong divisions over the direction Judaism must take. Some wish to place the authority of the rabbis above the authority of the Jewish communal leaders (including the Exilarch). Others want to resist these changes. Despite being a member of the Exilarch's family, Yalta respects the piety of Rav Amram and defends his actions and authority to the members of her household. Yalta goes to considerable lengths to support the rabbis, but she will later learn that fealty to rabbinic authority comes at a price... (if Yalta discovers that Rav Amram is not the pious person she thought he was, it might explain her intense reaction in the Ulla incident).
רַב עַמְרָם חֲסִידָא כִּי הֲוָה מְצַעֲרִין לֵיהּ בֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא הֲווֹ מַגְנוּ לֵיהּ אַתַּלְגָא לִמְחַר אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ מַאי נִיחָא לֵיהּ לְמָר דְּלַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ אָמַר הָנֵי כֹּל דְּאָמֵינָא לְהוּ מֵיפָךְ אָפְכִי אֲמַר לְהוּ בִּישְׂרָא סוּמָּקָא אַגּוּמְרֵי וְחַמְרָא מַרְקָא אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ אִינְהוּ בִּישְׂרָא שַׁמִּינָא אַגּוּמְרֵי וְחַמְרָא חַיָּיא שָׁמְעָה יַלְתָּא וּמְעַיְּילָה לֵיהּ לְבֵי מַסּוּתָא וּמוֹקְמִי לֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא דְּבֵי מַסּוּתָא עַד דִּמְהַפְכִי מַיָּא דְּבֵי מַסּוּתָא וְהָווּ דְּמָא וְקָאֵי בִּישְׂרֵיהּ פְּשִׁיטֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי
It was related: When the members of the Exilarch’s house would afflict Rav Amram the pious they would make him lie down to sleep all night on the snow. The next day they would say to him: What is preferable for the Master, i.e., Rav Amram, for us to bring him to eat? Rav Amram said to himself: Anything I say to them, they will do the opposite. He said to them: Bring me red meat roasted over coals and diluted wine. They brought him fatty meat roasted over coals and undiluted wine instead, which is what Rav Amram had intended, because this is the remedy for one who suffers from the chills. Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife, heard what the members of the Exilarch’s house did, and that Rav Amram was suffering from the chills. And she brought him to the bathhouse, and placed him in the water of the bathhouse until the water of the bathhouse turned red like blood. And his flesh became covered with spots that looked like coins [peshitei].
Act Two: Yalta the 'Feminist' Icon
Yalta, as a married woman (married the respectable Rav Nachman), hosts Ulla, a sage who travels between the Land of Israel and Babylonia, transmitting the wisdom of the rabbinic sages of Israel to the Jews of Babylon. The meal takes an unexpected turn when Ulla is honoured with the ritual involving a cup of wine at the end of the meal. As would be customary, Ulla shares the wine of blessing with his host but refuses to share with Yalta. Ulla provides a lengthy rabbinic justification for this act. Yalta hears this excuse and grows angry. She rushes to the wine cellar and destroys 400 jugs/barrels of wine. Rav Nachman persuades Ulla to share a new cup with Yalta. Ulla agrees but cannot help but adds a message that Yalta views as insulting. The scene ends with Yalta sharply insulting Ulla's status as a traveller.
Some points of consideration:
- Why did Ulla object to sharing the wine with Yalta? Was this objection meant to communicate a custom from the Land of Israel or was this his personal view that he justified with the various teachings he studied in Israel?
- Ulla cites two different authors for the teaching that justifies his actions. There appears to be no difference between the two versions, so why cite both in this way?
- Yalta's anger at Ulla may be justified, but why destroy her own wine cellar? This seems more like an act of revenge against her husband, Rav Nachman.
- Rav Nachman convinces Ulla to send another cup of wine. What happened to the first one?
- If taken literally, how long did it take for the wine cellar scene to finish? Why is it that no one intervened in Yalta's fit of rage?
- The image of 400 broken or spoiled jugs/barrels of wine is one that appears in other Talmudic tales. The number 400 is an indicator that the tale (or that component of the tale) is symbolic (e.g., 400 is also the value of Evil Eye / Ayin Ra).
- What was so insulting about Ulla's second message (that the second cup was also one of blessing)?
Yalta as a 'feminist' icon is something that might be read as follows: In this story, Yalta has no voice until the very end, but before she finds her voice, she demonstrates her opposition to a misogynistic patriarchal establishment in the form of a protest. Yalta gets the last say in the story and Ulla ends up with the stinging rebuke. Rav Nachman's position is somwhat complicated as his original effort to include his wife in the blessing ritual seems to have been too meek an approach and neither does his effort to mediate the conflict result in any success. This may be a case of a Yalta challenging an unjust practice to exclude Jewish women in various ways. But paradoxically, this may also be a case of a prominent woman with a fair degree of power (the daughter of the exilarch) objecting to a relatively minor exclusionary practice. On the other hand, it may be that the author of the story wants to portray Yalta as objecting to a matter that is something of a minor religious ritual in order to make certain that the reader accept the criticism of the rabbinic establishment in this case. Such a reflexive undertaking might not succeed if it were directed at a more established Jewish practice or ritual law.
עוּלָּא אִקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב נַחְמָן. כְּרֵיךְ רִיפְתָּא, בָּרֵיךְ בִּרְכַּת מְזוֹנָא, יְהַב לֵיהּ כָּסָא דְּבִרְכְּתָא לְרַב נַחְמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: לִישַׁדַּר מָר כָּסָא דְבִרְכְּתָא לְיַלְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין פְּרִי בִטְנָהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה מִתְבָּרֵךְ אֶלָּא מִפְּרִי בִּטְנוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּבֵרַךְ פְּרִי בִטְנְךָ״. ״פְּרִי בִטְנָהּ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״פְּרִי בִטְנְךָ״. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין פְּרִי בִטְנָהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה מִתְבָּרֵךְ אֶלָּא מִפְּרִי בִּטְנוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבֵרַךְ פְּרִי בִטְנְךָ״, ״פְּרִי בִטְנָהּ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״פְּרִי בִטְנְךָ״. אַדְּהָכִי שְׁמַעָה יַלְתָּא, קָמָה בְּזִיהֲרָא, וְעַלַּת לְבֵי חַמְרָא, וּתְבַרָא אַרְבַּע מְאָה דַּנֵּי דְחַמְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: נְשַׁדַּר לַהּ מָר כָּסָא אַחֲרִינָא, שְׁלַח לַהּ: כֹּל הַאי נַבְגָּא, דְּבִרְכְּתָא הִיא. שְׁלַחָה לֵיהּ: מִמְּהַדּוּרֵי — מִילֵּי, וּמִסְּמַרְטוּטֵי — כַּלְמֵי.
The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Naḥman. He ate bread, recited Grace after Meals, and gave the cup of blessing to Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman said to him: Master, please send the cup of blessing to Yalta, my wife. Ulla responded to him: There is no need, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: The fruit of a woman’s body is blessed only from the fruit of a man’s body, as it is stated: “And He will love you, and bless you, and make you numerous, and He will bless the fruit of your body” (Deuteronomy 7:13). The Gemara infers: “He will bless the fruit of her body” was not stated. Rather, “He will bless the fruit of your [masculine singular] body.” For his wife to be blessed with children, it is sufficient to give the cup to Rav Naḥman. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that the fruit of a woman’s body is only blessed from the fruit of a man’s body? As it is stated: And He will bless the fruit of your body; He will bless the fruit of her body was not stated. Rather, He will bless the fruit of your body. The Gemara relates that meanwhile Yalta heard Ulla’s refusal to send her the cup of blessing. Yalta was the daughter of the Exilarch and was accustomed to being treated with deference, so she arose in a rage, entered the wine-storage, and broke four hundred barrels of wine. Afterward, Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: Let the Master send her another cup. Ulla sent Yalta a different cup with a message saying that all of the wine in this barrel is wine of blessing; although you did not drink from the cup of blessing itself, you may at least drink from the barrel from which the cup of blessing was poured. She sent him a stinging response: From itinerant peddlers, Ulla traveled regularly from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and back, come meaningless words, and from rags come lice.
Act Three: Yalta the Darshanit
Typically, this story is read to provide an anecdote illustrating the law concerning the kosher status of the udder and the appeasing nature of Rav Nachman. However, given that the Talmud provides a complete midrash (halacha) authored by Yalta, we should reconsider how her husband arrives at his legal conclusions.
We may view this speech as something of a poetic declaration by Yalta of the two-sidedness of all that exists in the world (one that culminates in her eating barbecued udder). However, this passage may also be read for the symbols of blood, desire, the actions of good and bad men. This drashah results in a change in the law, directed by Rav Nachman, allowing a resolution for Yalta's unspoken torment.
This scene may be read as Yalta performing what amounts to a midrash halakhah, a re-reading of the Torah and Jewish practice in order to arrive at a new ritual law. Yalta uses multiple arguments in order to ensure her opinion is not challenged by any of the rabbis. The written record of Yalta's argument contains a philosophical stance (that everything prohibited has a permitted parallel), and eight case studies. Why were all eight examples needed? The result is that Rav Nachman agrees and personally commits this to become accepted practice. Theere is a significant element missing from Yalta's argument, a citation from the Torah. Is this meant to characterise Yalta's argument as solely based on a Jewish philosophical stance and not one based in the standard framework of prooftexts. Also, Yalta's argument ends with a request and reads like a personal dramatisation of what could have been a theoretical argument. Perhaps the story's author intends to reduce Yalta's midrash halachah argument to one that is merely the result of personal appetite.
אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן מכדי כל דאסר לן רחמנא שרא לן כוותיה אסר לן דמא שרא לן כבדא נדה דם טוהר חלב בהמה חלב חיה חזיר מוחא דשיבוטא גירותא לישנא דכורא אשת איש גרושה בחיי בעלה אשת אח יבמה כותית יפת תאר בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי זויקו לה כחלי
§ Yalta said to her husband Rav Naḥman: Now as a rule, for any item that the Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us a similar item. He prohibited to us the consumption of blood, yet He permitted to us the consumption of liver, which is filled with blood and retains the taste of blood. Likewise, God prohibited sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, but permitted sexual intercourse with one’s wife while she discharges the blood of purity. During a particular period after giving birth, even if she experiences a flow of blood she is not rendered ritually impure and remains permitted to her husband by Torah law. Furthermore, the Torah prohibits the consumption of the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, but permitted the fat of an undomesticated animal, which has the same flavor. It is prohibited to eat pork, but one may eat the brain of a shibuta fish, which has a similar taste. One may not eat giruta, a non-kosher fish, but one may eat the tongue of a fish, which tastes similar. Likewise, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with the wife of another man but permitted one to marry a divorced woman in her previous husband’s lifetime. The Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with one’s brother’s wife, and yet it permits one to marry his yevama, i.e., his brother’s widow when the brother dies childless. Finally, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with a gentile woman but permitted one to marry a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war (see Deuteronomy 21:10–14). Yalta concluded: The Torah prohibits the consumption of meat cooked in milk; I wish to eat a dish that tastes like meat cooked in milk. Upon hearing this, Rav Naḥman said to his cooks: Roast udders on a spit for her.
Epilogue
In two other small incidents presented below, we find some vaguely similar imagery involving Yalta, blood, treatments relating to the cold/the need for warmth, and the rejection of rabbinic opinion.
Text 1: In Tractate Niddah (20b), Yalta is described as maneuvering past one rabbinic authority to find another rabbi who will present her with a ruling of ritual purity. In this way, we might view this episode as consistent with her speech that results in her husband permitting the roasting of udder. At this (later) stage of Yalta's character development, she understands the rabbinic positions and will navigate her way to a preferred ally instead of attacking those with whom she disagrees.
ילתא אייתא דמא לקמיה דרבה בר בר חנה וטמי לה הדר אייתא לקמיה דרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה ודכי לה
§ The Gemara relates that Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife, brought blood before Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and he deemed her ritually impure. She then brought it before Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, and he deemed her pure.
Text 2: In Tractate Shabbat (54b) we find Rav Nachman make an odd objection to a rabbinic ruling that insists that an animal giving birth should be given a woolen blanket (soaked in oil) to warm itself. The initial reading might present Rav Nachman's objection along the lines of "why would we treat this animal as well as I treat Yalta". However, we should consider that Yalta's character might have been shaped by some terrible event that is too difficult to speak openly about. An event that leads to the outburst in the tale involving Ulla and the wine cellar. In this text we have an (out of context) intervention by Rav Nachman to defend Yalta's honour. When this text is read together with the rest of the texts presented here, we have Rav Nachman challenging the moral standing of the rabbis who are so particular about the care for the safety and comfort of an animal and their (real or perceived) mistreatment of Yalta.
אֶלָּא יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁכּוֹרַעַת לֵילֵד טוֹמְנִין לָהּ שְׁנֵי עֲזָקִין שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן, וּמַנִּיחִין לָהּ אֶחָד עַל פַּדַּחְתָּהּ וְאֶחָד עַל הָרֶחֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּתְחַמֵּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אִם כֵּן, עֲשִׂיתָהּ יַלְתָּא.
Rather, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel sat before Rav Ḥisda, and he sat and he said: At the time that the animal crouches to give birth, those tending to the animal soak two swatches of wool in oil, and place one on the animal’s forehead and the other on its womb so that it will be warmed. Ḥanunot refers to animals with those swatches. Rav Naḥman said to him: If so, you turned the animal into Yalta, my wife, who descended from the house of the Exilarch. That is treatment fit for her, not for an animal.