Meant to commemorate the passing of a loved one by recounting their attributes and good deeds, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Ashkenazic communal memorial books (commonly called yizkor books or memorbücher) include numerous entries praising women who assisted in various aspects of childbirth. Although sources permit only a partial view into the array of caregivers involved in childbirth within Ashkenazic Jewish communities, memorial books offer evidence of a class of women who, unlike midwives, never underwent formal training or licensure, yet played important roles in childbirth nonetheless. Entries for these women rarely include any sort of career designation, but instead frame their childbirth work as merely one aspect of a larger constellation of charitable contributions they made to the community. Formulaic in nature, individual entries offer little information about the mechanics of childbirth as it played out within the Ashkenazic world. But taken in the aggregate, these sources demonstrate that childbirth care extended far beyond the scope of a midwife. The provision of food, talismans, postpartum assistance, and spiritual guidance were as integral to childbirth as the participation of midwives at delivery. Even more so, these sources suggest the need for a more holistic conception of early modern healthcare, which was not limited to ‘official’ practitioners or professionals and encompassed a much wider spectrum of individuals than has often been assumed.
- *Zemah David, Dittionario novo Hebraico…Dechiarato in Tre Lingue* (Venice: 1587) David de’ Pomis (152?–15??) has long been known to Jewish historians for his lexicographical work and especially for his articulate defense of the right of Jews to practice medicine. More recently, scholars have identified and examined several other of de’ Pomis’ works dealing with biblical exegesis as well **as a defense of Venice**. Here we will focus on his short memoir—a brief account of his family, education, and medical practice that he attached as a preface to his tri-lingual dictionary *Zemah David, Dittionario novo Hebraico…Dechiarato in Tre Lingue* (Venice: 1587). Our goal is, so to speak, to read between the lines in order to understand the mechanics of becoming a Jewish doctor and the limits on that career at that time in the papal states and then in the rest of Italy. Beyond the specific restrictions on Jewish doctors imposed by Pope Paul IV and intensified under Pius V, we will trace but by comparing the details of de’ Pomis’ career with those of other contemporary Jewish physicians I hope to uncover a set of structural limitations of Jewish medical practice. And finally, we will look at de’ Pomis’ 1592 letter to Grand Duke Ferdinando I of Tuscany and evaluate his hope for a position at the University in Pisa. **Suggestions for further reading**: Guido Bartolucci, “*Hebraeus semper fidus.* David de’ Pomis e l’apologia dell’ebraismo tra volgare e latino,” *Umanesimo e cultura ebraica nel Rinascimento italiano*, ed. Stefano U. Baldassarri and Fabrizio Lelli (Florence: Angelo Pontecorboli, 2016), pp. 59–90. Idem, “Venezia nel pensiero politico ebraico rinascimentale: un testo ritrovato di David de Pomis,” *Rinascimento*, 2nd ser., vol. 44 (Florence: Olschki, 2005), pp. 225–247. Andrew D. Berns, *The Bible and Natural Philosophy in Renaissance Italy: Jewish and Christian Physicians in Search of Truth* (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), chapter 3. Bernard Dov Cooperman, “Cultural Pluralism from the Ghetto: What Might It Have Meant?” in *Non contrarii, ma diversi*, ed. Pierre Savy and Alessandro Guetta (Rome: Viella 2020), pp. Harry Friedenwald, “Apologetic Works of Jewish Physicians,” *The Jewish Quarterly Review*, n.s., 32 (1942), pp. 227-255 and 407-426. Alessandro Guetta, “David de Pomi’s Commentary to Ecclesiastes: a Catholic Inspiration for a Jewish Apologetics,” ALIENTO 6 (2014), pp. 227–250. Michela Torbidoni, “Pomis, David ben Isaac de,” *Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy*, 2017, s.v.
This presentation will engage one of the preeminent concerns in early modern magical manuscripts devoted to the management of the female body with a particular focus on its regenerative properties. These recipe books, that belong to the genre of practical Kabbalah, were written in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in geographically diverse regions of East-Central Europe including Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and Carpathian-Ruthenia. These texts delineate a cultural-religious space in which knowledge concerning the properties of the natural world combined with familiarity with angelic names and magical formulae enabled the Jewish Shaman (Ba‘alei Shem) to manipulate properties of the physical and spiritual worlds. Additionally, these sources reflect a broader engagement with nascent scientific advancements in the area of pharmacology and medicine along with received traditions of earlier kabbalistic speculations to improve a woman’s physical and spiritual wellbeing. Building on the works of Katherine Park (2000), I will demonstrate that the female body represented a unique epistemological space for the Ba’alei Shem, a hidden axis mundi, where knowledge of reproduction, creation, and regeneration could be accessed and controlled. As gateways to the sacred or the demonic, parts of the female body – the womb, the breasts, and bodily fluids – demanded urgent attention to prevent illness, degeneration, or physical defect. Through close reading of excerpts drawn from select eighteenth-century magical manuscripts, I will interrogate my sources to 1) offer an overview of how Eastern European ba’alei shem regarded illness; 2) reconstruct the diverse types of knowledge these authors deployed in their healing practices: medical, magical, and theoretical-kabbalistic; 3) demonstrate that that ba’alei shem pursued an integrated approach to healing by selectively incorporating elite forms of theoretical knowledge, such as Lurianic Kabbalah; magical practices that used stock formulae such as magical squares; Jewish canonical texts, such as the Hebrew Bible; and folk practices, adapted from the Eastern European cultural milieu.
City Archives Amsterdam, entry number 334, inv. no. 658, \[no page number\], 15 April 1742 Health care among the Portuguese Jews of early modern Amsterdam has not been a much-studied subject. Nevertheless, it was omnipresent and organized, both through public health care and private initiative. Health issues in the city and around could be very urgent, leading to crises, during epidemics and other natural disasters often hitting the area. Besides, many migrants joining the Portuguese community often arrived in bad physical state and needed immediate treatment. Nevertheless, it is difficult to get close to actual medical practice and learn through personal experiences of both medical doctors and patients. There was certainly a divide between the well-to-do using private health care and Jews on welfare lists who were bound by public provisions. It was only in the nineteenth century that the Jews of Amsterdam institutionalized medical care. In the meantime, the Portuguese communal leaders closely followed and supervised medical care provided, so costs would be curtailed. Nevertheless, it seemingly could not cope with the rising need of health care in view of the growth of private organizations to that effect during the 17th and 18th centuries. In this respect there are many questions to be asked, for example into what extent objectives formulated by public health care were translated into practice? Or, why the Portuguese community of early modern Amsterdam refrained from institutionalizing and modernizing medical care till the nineteenth century? The source to be dealt with here, a mid-eighteenth-century petition, is unique in its sort as it leads us into the home-scene, focusing on the mental and physical state of an extremely sick person, not necessarily dependent on welfare, but still too poor to survive without help in one way or another. No assistants around as his young wife apparently took care of the well-being of her husband. On basis of the information provided by this petition, we could wonder whether health care, both public and private, was adequate. This source will be the starting point from where the structure of medical care among the Portuguese Jewish of early modern Amsterdam will be closely followed and analyzed.
No description available.
No description available.
*Ezer Elohi – Ma’amar Be-ipush ha-avir ve-hadever* ("God’s Aid, A Treatise on the Corruption of Air and Plague") was written in 1399 by Benjamin ben Isaac Karkashoni. It extends in MS Héb 1191, 141r-145v, Bibliothèque National, Paris and in Cod. Hebr.59, 225r-227r, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna. This is a translation of the popular Latin treatise *"De epidemia"* by Johannis de Burgundia (14th century) written in 1365. The treatise is a short and practical regimen against the plague. It was aimed for general readership, advising how to avoid contagion and how to treat the sick body with the aid of medicinal plants and according to the six non naturals theory. I chose to present the preface, which offers two main focuses of interest: 1. Medicinal: it portrays a pre-modern understanding of corrupted air, how it affected the environment, how it entered the body and some possible treatments. Ideas about contagion and preventive measures during plague time correspond with challenges we are facing today. 2 Socio-religious: The preface offers a glimpse to the existing tension between polemics and collaboration, as well as questions of medical authority, between Jews and Christians in the medical arena. The Jewish translator notes his efforts to obtain the treatise from Christians, who hid it like a treasure. Though a common motif in Jewish translations of Latin medical sources, it raises questions regarding the demand to wrestle knowledge from Christian colleagues. What can be learnt from this phrase, given that when the treatise was translated original Hebrew plague treatises were already composed and medical knowledge circulated among Jews relatively freely? Why did the Jewish translator choose to leave John's personal motivation to write the treatise as is, and not to state only his own motivation? Was there a "chain of authority", starting in Greco-Arabic medical writings, Latin treatises and at last, a Hebrew translation? Of what importance was this "chain of authority" to the Jewish audience?