במוצאי יום טוב הראשון שלחג ירדו לעזרת הנשים ומתקנין שם תיקון גדול. ומנורות של זהב היו שם, וארבעה ספלים שלזהב בראשיהן, וארבעה סלמות לכל אחד ואחד, וארבעה ילדים מפרחי כהנה ובידיהם כדים שלשמן שלמאה ועשרים לג, שהם מטילים לכל ספל וספל [...]
At the conclusion of the first festival day of Sukkot they descended to the Court of the Women where they had made a great enactment (tiqqun gadol). There were golden candlesticks there, with four golden bowls on the top of each of them, and four ladders to each, and four youths, drawn from priestly stock, in whose hands were held jars of oil containing one hundred and twenty log, which they poured into each bowl […]
החסידים ואנשי המעשה היו מרקדים לפניהם באבוקות שלאור שבידיהן, ואומרים לפניהם דברי שירות ותשבחות. והלוים בכנורות ובנבלים ובמצלתים ובחצוצרות ובכלי שיר בלא מספר, כל חמש עשרה מעלות היורדות מעזרת ישראל לעזרת הנשים כנגד חמשה עשר שיר המעלות שבתהלים, שעליהם הלוים עומדים בכלי שיר ואומרים שירה. ועמדו שני כהנים בשער העליון שיורד מעזרת ישראל לעזרת הנשים ושתי חצוצרות בידיהן. קרא הגבר, תקעו והריעו ותקעו. הגיעו למעלה העשירית, תקעו והריעו ותקעו. הגיעו לעזרה, תקעו והריעו ותקעו. היו תוקעין והולכין עד שמגיעים לשער היוצא למזרח.
The men of piety (hasidim) and men of [good] deeds (anshei ha-ma‘aseh) used to dance before them with lighted torches in their hands, and sing songs, and praises. And Levites without number with harps, lyres, cymbals and trumpets and other musical instruments were there upon the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, corresponding to the fifteen Songs of Ascent in the Psalms. It was upon these that the Levites stood with their musical instruments and sang their songs. Two Priests stood by the upper gate, which leads down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, with two trumpets in their hands. When the rooster crowed, they sounded a blow (teki‘ah), a cheer (teru‘ah), and again a teki‘ah. When they reached the tenth step they sounded a teki‘ah, a teru‘ah, and again a teki‘ah and when they reached the Court, they sounded a teki‘ah, a teru‘ah, and again a teki‘ah. And when they reached the ground, they sounded a teki‘ah, a teru‘ah, and again a teki‘ah. They proceeded, sounding their trumpets, until they reached the gate which leads out to the east.
General observations
These mishnayot describe the preparations in the Temple for the Festival of the Water Libation (simhat bet ha-sho’eva). Although they state that there was a “great enactment” (תקון גדול), they do not provide any details of this event or its purpose. Still we can obtain information from the Tosefta:
בראשונה, כשהיו רואין שמחת בית השואבה, היו אנשים רואים מבפנים ונשים רואות מבחוץ. וכשראו בית דין שהן באין לידי קלות ראש עשו שלוש גזוזטראות בעזרה, כנגד שלש רוחות, ששם נשים יושבות ורואות בשמחת בית השואבה, ולא היו מעורבין.
Originally, when people would witness the rejoicing of Water Libation (simhat bet hasho’eva), the men would watch from the inside and the women would watch from the outside. But when the court (bet din) saw that they turned to silliness, they set up three balconies in the courtyard as against the three winds, where the women sit and watch the rejoicing of the Water Libation. And [the men and women] did not mix.[1]
[1] More on this tradition and the entire discussion here see BAKER, “The Queen, the Apostate, and the Women Between” [ed.].
Likewise the gemara cites the statement of Rabbi Eli‘ezer, who quotes mMid 2:5:
[The Court of Women] had originally been quite bare but subsequently they surrounded it with a balcony and the women sat above while the men [were] below.[1]
[1] HAUPTMAN, Rereading the Mishnah, 145-148, compares mSukkah and mMiddot with tSukkah. According to Hauptman, the reason the “great enactment” cited in the Tosefta is absent in mMiddot could either be due to the editor’s desire to shorten the text or because he believed the description of what happened between the men and women before the enactment was an embarrassment. She believes that it is more probable that the author of the Mishnah was acquainted with the Tosefta and chose to omit the description, rather than to assume that the Mishnah preceded the Tosefta (since the Tosefta does not relate the “great enactment” but rather tells of what happened previously).
The Yerushalmi too discusses our mishnah without questioning the significance of surrounding the Women’s Court with a balcony. Like the Tosefta, it merely calls it a great enactment (tiqqun gadol) and combines the two stages into one:
ומתקנין שם תיקון גדול. מה תיקון היו עושין שם? שהיו מעמידין האנשים בפני עצמן והנשים בפני עצמן, כהיא דתנינן תמן: וחלקה הייתה בראשה[1] והקיפוה כצוצטרא, שהנשים רואות מלמעלן והאנשים מלמטן כדי שלא יהו מעורבין.
[1] The Qorban Ha‘eda explains: “as it was previously open, with no partition (מחיצה) or fence (מעקה) around it.”
They had made a great enactment. What enactment did they do there? They would place men and women separately, as it is taught: It had originally been quite bare but subsequently they surrounded it with a balcony so that the women could look on from above while the men were below, so that they do not mingle.
According to this explanation, the tiqqun consisted of the addition of a balustrade to the roof so that the women could stand on top of it, without danger of falling, and watch the festivities.
Jeffrey Rubenstein’s[1] comprehensive discussion contributes to a better understanding of the “great enactment” (tiqqun gadol) and his conclusions are very significant for a feminist study. I therefore cite his discussion in full:
Jeffrey Rubenstein’s[1] comprehensive discussion contributes to a better understanding of the “great enactment” (tiqqun gadol) and his conclusions are very significant for a feminist study. I therefore cite his discussion in full:
- There is great confusion as to the tiqqun. Both bSuk 51b and ySuk 5:2, 55b cite mMid 2:5 … This implies the gallery was a permanent fixture whereas mSuk 5:1 states that the tiqqun was made each year on the eve following the first day, just prior to the celebration. Cognizant of this difficulty, Rashi explains that the “gallery” was a wall – bracket (ziz) upon which the planks women stood on were placed every year. Ha-Meiri (to bSuk 51a) suggests they actually constructed brackets and built balconies from the walls, and that “a little work” was permitted despite the prohibition against building on the festival. Maimonides MT, Laws of the Lulav 8:12, shifts the construction of the balcony back to the day before Sukkot, contradicting mSuk 5:2. Albeck, Mishnah, 4:4 (p. 77) and Safrai[2] suggest that the structure was permanent, but each year the precaution was taken that the men and women remain in their respective places …[3] This confusion makes attractive the suggestion of Geiger, that tiqqun gadol means great preparation, presumably the organization of the lanterns, oil, instruments and perhaps food and drink.[4] However the root TQN in Pi‘el generally means ‘repair’ in the Mishnah. Only occasionally does it mean ‘prepare’ e.g. mBM 10:5, mShab 12:1, mAvot 3:16. Fox[5] lists one textual witness to the hiph‘il here, compared to eleven for the pi‘el. In any case, the nominal form tiqqun refers to the ‘ameliorative results’ of legislation, as noted correctly by Jaffee.[6] In the Mishna it occurs only here and in the phrases tiqqun olam (mGit 4:2-7,9; 5:5, 9:4, mEd 1:13) and tiqqun hamizbeah (mGit 5:5, mEd 7:9; in tYev 6:8 we find tiqqun valad), which means ‘precaution for general good’ and ‘precaution for the benefit of the altar’. Hence the “great tiqqun” would seem to be a “great precaution” and not a “great preparation.”[7]
[1] RUBENSTEIN, The History of Sukkot, 136, n. 128.
[2] SAFRAI, Pilgrimage, 192.
[3] Like SAFRAI (see previous note), LIEBERMAN, Tosefta kifeshutah, 886, also differentiates between the regular tiqqun and the annual tiqqun gadol. Lieberman notes that Ha-Meiri’s statement is not consistent with mMiddot and the following baraita in the gemara (bSuk 51b). Therefore, according to these sources, the tiqqun which enabled women to sit above was made one time, while according to mSuk it was made annually. Lieberman believes that Rashi’s interpretation solves this contradiction. Rashi states that the one-time tiqqun mentioned in the mMid involved taking out the brackets from the walls while the annual tiqqun gadol consisted of placing planks on the brackets. According to Lieberman, the tiqqun was called gadol since it was greater than the first tiqqun – where the women exchanged places with the men.
[4] GEIGER, Lehr- und Lesebuch, 23-24. So also HOCHMAN, Festivities, 102-103, n. 63.
[5] FOX, Tractate Succah 2, 171.
[6] JAFFEE, “Taqqanah,” 207, n. 7.
[7] But see HOCHMAN’s philological observations (Festivities, 102-103, n. 63).
[8] RUBENSTEIN, History of Sukkot, 135-136.
Feminist observations
mSuk 5:2 recounts that on the conclusion of the first festival day of Sukkot a great enactment (tiqqun gadol) was made in the Court of the Women. The Tosefta, the Babylonian baraita, and the Yerushalmi indicate that the purpose of this enactment was to enable both women and men to participate in the festival of the Water Libation without intermingling.
The Babylonian baraita reports two attempts to solve the problem of the two sexes intermingling prior to the great enactment:
בראשונה היו נשים מבפנים ואנשים מבחוץ [...] התקינו שיהו נשים יושבות מבחוץ ואנשים מבפנים.
Yet the Tosefta only reports one attempt:
בראשונה [...] היו אנשים רואין מבפנים ונשים מבחוץ.
At first […] the men would watch from inside [the Court of the Women] and the women from outside.
It is most likely that the Babylonian baraita’s account of what transpired in the Land of Israel is less reliable than that of the Tosefta. Still, Lieberman relies upon the Babylonian version and determines that the word בראשונה in the Tosefta refers to the second enactment. In any case, according to the sources, the attempts to separate the men and women without changing the structure of the Temple did not succeed, because they did not prevent “levity.” Therefore, the Women’s Courtyard was enclosed by a balcony and the women stood (or sat) on top of it.
Several interesting gender issues emerge from the above tannaitic sources, as well as from mSuk 5:4:
Several interesting gender issues emerge from the above tannaitic sources, as well as from mSuk 5:4:
- The Women’s Court (azarah) was significantly larger than that of the Israelites inasmuch as everyone, men and women, could enter it simultaneously. It formed the focus for ceremonies and celebrations. Based on testimony from the Babylonian baraita, women may have originally been the focal point of the celebration prior to the great enactment, and as Tal Ilan states: “We may thus suppose that women also participated in the dancing.”[1]
- Although merrymaking and loose behavior characterized the Festival of the Water Libation, nonetheless, there was no attempt to remove women from the celebration. The recurrent efforts and thought invested into the prevention of physical contact between the sexes demonstrate a strong desire to uphold the participation of both women and men in celebrations and ceremonies, albeit separately.
- At least according to the Bavli version, initially, there was no intention to completely separate the two sexes; it was sufficient to put one group inside and the other outside. A complete separation was established only because other attempts had not succeeded and “levity” did not cease.
- The great enactment involved positioning the women above the men. Based on a baraita in the Yerushalmi,[2] several scholars extrapolated that an arrangement, wherein women see the men but the men do not see the women, also existed in the synagogue in Alexandria. However, Shmuel Safrai rejects this hypothesis, claiming that it is based on an aggadic tradition.[3]
- Since the great enactment was only made prior to the Festival of the Water Libation, we can deduce that there was no complete separation between men and women on other festivals. Safrai[4] provides a description of the various functions of the Women’s Court, and asserts that it was by no means intended solely for women. A different chamber was located in each of its four corners. These chambers were directly connected to the sacrificial rite and were used by those who came to offer their obligatory sacrifices. The chamber of the nazarites, which both men and women used, was located in the southern corner. Public occasions connected to worship, which developed during the Second Temple period, took place in the Women’s Court.
- Safrai’s description relates to the realia in the Land of Israel during the Mishnaic period. Yet, as passages from the sugya in the Bavli (bQid 81a) demonstrate, a very different situation existed in Babylonia in the later, talmudic period. The sugya cites the statement of Rav Kahana referring to the separation of men and women: “When men were outside and women inside, one did not worry about [men and women finding themselves] alone together (ייחוד) When men were inside and women outside one did worry about [men and women finding themselves] alone together.” The gemara then adds: “The Mishnah teaches the opposite” (אנשים מבחוץ ונשים מבפנים, אין חוששין משום ייחוד. אנשים מבפנים ונשים מבחוץ, חוששין משום ייחוד. במתניתא תנא איפכא) perhaps referring to the great enactment mentioned in our mishnah. The contradiction between Rav Kahana’s statement and the baraita in bSuk 51b, which comments on the said mishnah (according to which men were placed within the Women’s Court and women without) is connected to the contradicting location of the men and the women. Nonetheless, both sources give an identical description of everyday life in the Land of Israel,[5] where women and men participated in public occasions but did not intermingle. The reaction of Abbayye to this contradiction reveals the realia in Jewish society in Babylonia: “Now, that Rav Kahana said so, and the Mishnah says the reverse, we shall act stringently” (אמר אביי: השתא דאמר רב כהנא הכי, ותנא מתניתא איפכא, אנא נעביד לחומרא.). This is also demonstrated by the actions undertaken by Abbayye and Rava in order to prevent the intermingling of men and women: “Abbayye made a partition of jugs [between men and women]; Rava made a partition of canes” (אביי דייר גולפי, רבא דייר קנה). Thus, the above shows that, as in the Land of Israel, during the middle of the amoraic period in Babylonia, women participated in public occasions although the sages ensured that there was separation between men and women (Abbayye and Rava instituted their own practice, since the procedure used in the Land of Israel was not clear to them). Another statement by Abbayye[6] at the end of the su gya in Qiddushin reveals his fear that the intermingling of men and women during the festival could produce sexual promiscuity. He says: “The ugly [time] of year are the three festivals” (סקבא דשתא – ריגלא). This statement confirms that during the amoraic period mixed assemblies of men and women led to what the rabbis perceived as inappropriate sexual behavior and therefore a strict separation of the two sexes was enacted.[7]
[1] ILAN, Jewish Women, 181.
[2] ySuk 5:1, 55b.
[3] The abovementioned baraita describes Trajan’s slaughter of the Jews of Alexandria as follows. After Trajan’s legions had killed all the men, Trajan said to the women: נשמעות אתם ללגיונותי ואין אני הורג אתכם (If you obey my legions then I will not slay you). The women, however, replied: מה דעבדת בארעייא עביד בעיליא (What you have done in the lower spheres do also in the upper spheres). Several scholars have claimed that the author of the baraita imagined a synagogue and deduced that the men there sat below and the women above. This claim is based upon the statement that Trajan אתא ואשכחון עסוקין באורייתא (came and found them studying Torah), therefore, this must have taken place in a synagogue. Nonetheless, SAFRAI, “Women’s Section,” 333, writes that this is merely a legend, combining verses with deeds. He demonstrates that in LamR 1:45 and 4:22 the word order is reversed and the verse reads: עביד בארעאי מה דעבדת בעילאי (What you have done in the upper spheres do also in the lower spheres). BAR ILAN’s comments on this story (Some Jewish Women, 23- 24) also indicate that he does not believe that one can learn anything from it about seating arrangements in the synagogue. He believes that the women may have been hiding in the synagogue, as was often the case later on in Europe during the Middle Ages.
[4] SAFRAI, “Women’s Section,” 329-338.
[5] This Rav Kahana was probably the second Rav Kahana, who was Rav’s disciple, and at a certain stage was forced to migrate to the Land of Israel, but after a short period returned to Babylonia, see HYMAN, Biographies, 843-848.
[6] So according to the MSS. The Vilna print has Rabbi Abin.
[7] For further detail see VALLER, Women in Jewish Society, 51-55.
@Bibliography
- ALEXANDER, ELISABETH S., “How Tefillin Became a Non-Timebound, Positive Commandment: The Yerushalmi and Bavli on mEruvin 10:1,” in Tal Ilan, Tamara Or, Dorothea M. Salzer, Christiane Steuer and Irina Wandrey (eds.), A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud: Introduction and Studies, Tübingen 2007, 62-89.
- BAKER, CYNTHIA M., “The Queen, the Apostate, and the Women Between: (Dis)Placment of Women in Tosefta Sukkah,” in Tal Ilan, Tamara Or, Dorothea Salzer, Christiane Steuer and Irina Wandrey (eds.), A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud: Introduction and Studies, Tübingen 2007, 169-181.
- BAR ILAN, MEIR, Some Jewish Women in Antiquity, Atlanta GA 1998.
- BASKIN, JUDITH, Midrashic Women: Formations of the Feminine in Rabbinic Literature, Hanover NH 2002.
- BROOTEN, BERNADETTE, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue, Chico CA, 1982.
- EDELMAN, DIANA, “Huldah the Prophet: Of Yahweh or Asherah?” in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, Sheffield 1994, 231-250.
- FOX, MENACHEM Z. מהדורה ביקורתית של משניות מסכת סוכה עם מבוא והערות (A Critical Edition of Mishnah Tractate Succah with an Introduction and Notes; Ph.D. Dissertation) Jerusalem 1979.
- FRYMER, TIKVA, “Asherah,” Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 2 (2nd Edition) Detroit 2007, 562.
- GEIGER, ABRAHAM, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah, Breslau 1845.
- HADLEY, JUDITH M., The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, Cambridge 2000.
- HAUPTMAN, JUDITH, Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts, Tübingen 2005.
- HAUPTMAN, JUDITH, Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman’s Voice, Colorado 1998.
- HYMAN, AHARON, תולדות תנאים ואמוראים (Biographies of the Rabbis) London 1910.
- HOCHMAN, YOSEPH, Jerusalem Temple Festivities, London 1908.
- ILAN, TAL, Integrating Women into Second Temple History, Tübingen 1999.
- ILAN, TAL, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status, Tübingen 1995.
- ILAN, TAL, “‘Men Born of Woman ...’ (Job 14:1): The Phenomenon of Men Bearing Metronymes at the Time of Jesus,” Novum Testamentum 34 (1992) 23-45.
- ILAN, TAL, “The Woman as ‘Other’ in Rabbinic Literature,” in Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz and Stephanie Gripentrog (eds.), Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden 2007, 77-92.
- ILAN, TAL, Massekhet Ta‘anit (FCBT II/9), Tübingen 2008.
- JAFFEE, MARTIN S., “The Taqqanah in Tannaitic Literature: Jurisprudence and the Construction of Memory,” JJS 41 (1990) 204-225.
- JASTROW, M., Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature, New York 1950.
- LIEBERMAN, SHAUL, תוספתא כפשוטה: באור ארוך לתוספתא, חלק ד: סדר מועד (Tosefta kifeshutah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, Part IV: Order Mo‘ed) New York 1992.
- MESHEL, ZEEV, “Teman, Horvat,” in Ephriam Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4, Jerusalem 1992, 1458-1464.
- RUBENSTEIN, JEFFREY, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, Atlanta GA 1992.
- SAFRAI, SHMUEL, "?האם היתה קיימת עזרת נשים בבית הכנסת בתקופה העתיקה" (“Did a Women’s Section Exist in the Synagogue in Antiquity?”) Tarbiz 32 (1963) 329-38.
- SAFRAI, SHMUEL, העליה לרגל בימי הבית השני (Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple) Jerusalem 1984.
- SONNE, ISAIAH, “The Schools of Shammai and Hillel seen from Within,” in S. Lieberman, S. Zeitlin, S. Spiegel and A. Marx (eds.), Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (English volume) New York 1945, 275-91.
- VALLER, SHULAMIT, נשים בחברה היהודית בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד (Women in Jewish Society during the Period of the Mishnah and Talmud) Tel Aviv 2000.
- WEGNER, JUDITH, Chattel or Person: The Status of Women in the Mishnah Oxford 1988.
