Talmud Commentary: Bavli 1/1. bSukkah 2b-3a (mSukkah 1:1)

@Manuscript evidence

רבה בר רב אדא – There are several versions of this amora’s name. In the Oxford MS it is ראבון בר רב אדה . All other MSS have רבין or ר' אבין בר רב אדא or .בר אדא

@General observations

The first mishnah of Tractate Sukkah begins with a dispute between the sages and Rabbi Yehudah concerning a sukkah that is higher than twenty cubits. The gemara then discusses whether Jewish law considers a tall sukkah to be valid, and cites three different traditions of Rav concerning limitations on a sukkah’s size and construction. According to one tradition, a dispute exists over the validity of a sukkah in cases wherein its walls do not reach the roof; a second tradition states that such a dispute arises when the area of a sukkah is smaller than four by four cubits; and a third tradition states that this dispute transpires when a sukkah is so small that it can only accommodate a table, a person’s head and most of his body.

In order to contradict the above traditions connecting a sukkah’s dimensions to its halakhic validity, the gemara cites a baraita. The baraita relates Rabbi Yehudah’s attempt to convince the sages of the validity of a sukkah that is higher than twenty cubits. In order to substantiate his claim that such a sukkah is halakhically valid, Rabbi Yehudah cites the reaction of the sages of-old to the sukkah of Queen Helene of Adiabene. Her sukkah was higher than twenty cubits and sages had frequented it without making any remark (indicating that they viewed it as valid). This baraita, as the above synopsis shows, originates in the Tosefta and is also cited in the Yerushalmi. The gemara’s reaction to the baraita is divided into two parts, both of which relate to the story of Queen Helene’s sukkah.

The first stamaitic part of the gemara questions the need for the last sentence “she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the sages,” and responds that this sentence was uttered in order to clarify one of two options:

1. If one of Helene’s sons was no longer dependent on his mother (that is, if he was required to observe the commandment of dwelling in the sukkah[1]), then Helene certainly built the sukkah for him (and not for herself), as is prescribed by the sages. Thus, the sentence stating her acquiesce to the words of the sages is essential.

2. If the injunction that a child who no longer needs his mother is required to observe the commandment of residing in the sukkah derives from the sages rather than from the Torah itself, one may suspect that Helene did not heed such injunctions. Therefore it is necessary to state that she followed the words of the sages.

The second stamaitic part of the gemara discusses the apparent contradiction between the story of Helene’s sukkah and various other traditions, thereby limiting the dispute between the sages and Rabbi Yehudah by assigning it to cases concerning specific sukkot. In order to do this, the Bavli sugya refers back to a Yerushalmi sugya in which the baraita on Helene’s sukkah is also cited. The gemara claims that only the tradition concerning a sukkah whose walls do not reach the roof can explain the contradiction inherent in the story of Queen Helene’s sukkah, since it is likely that a queen would sit in such a sukkah due to its being well-ventilated. They cannot reconcile the story of Queen Helene with the second and third traditions, which restrict the dispute to small sukkot since it is unlikely that a queen would sit in a small sukkah.[2] This conclusion is based directly on the conclusion also reached by the sugya in the Yerushalmi.

At this point the Bavli breaks off from the Yerushalmi and steers its own course. In response to the above claim, the amora Rabbah bar Adda is quoted. He states that the sukkah mentioned in the story of Queen Helene was a large structure divided into small rooms or recesses, and Queen Helene sat in one of them. The Bavli questions the hypothesis that a queen would sit in a sukkah composed of small rooms, and in response, it cites the amora Rav Ashi who states that it is unnecessary to say that the entire sukkah was divided into small rooms but rather that the queen sat in the sukkah in a special small room allotted for her. This was due to her modesty so that she would not sit together with men. The stama construes this to mean that Rabbi Yehudah believed the sages did not say anything to her (that is, rebuke her since a woman is exempt from the commandment of sitting in the sukkah), even though her sons (who were obligated to reside in the sukkah) sat together with her in the small room. The stama further maintains that the sages were of the opinion that only the queen sat in the small room, due to her modesty, while her sons sat in the large sukkah and therefore the sages did not rebuke her.

This discussion shows (as is the way talmudic discussions work) that the story of Queen Helene’s sukkah does not contradict any of the three mishnaic traditions about various sukkot, restricting the dispute between the sages and Rabbi Yehudah to one specific case. Obviously, the editor(s) of the sugya invented the discussion about the contradiction between the story and the mishnah, based on the sayings of the third generation Babylonian amora Rabbah bar Adda and the sixth generation Babylonian amora Rav Ashi, who sought to explain and resolve the issue of a woman, Helene, sitting in a sukkah.

@Feminist observations

Since the baraita describes the sukkah of a woman, Queen Helene, it merits examination from a feminist perspective. Helene reigned as queen of Adiabene, which is situated in the region of the ancient Assyrian kingdom. According to Josephus,[1] Helene and her entire royal household converted to Judaism. She came to Jerusalem in 46 CE and became involved in public life there. Tal Ilan points out that, in opposition to Josephus, none of the rabbinic sources clearly mentioning Helene[2] state that she was a convert.[3] When the midrash[4] describes the conversion of her sons, Izates and Monobazus, it does not even refer to their mother by name. Nonetheless, Ilan believes that the fact that Helene is repeatedly mentioned by name in rabbinic literature indicates that the rabbis viewed her as more important than the male members of her family, perhaps because she supported the Pharisees.[5] Ilan believes, with reference to our tradition, that the mention of Queen Helene’s sukkah in the Tosefta and not in the Mishnah shows that the former reflects an older Pharisaic tradition. The sages who edited the Mishnah tried to distance themselves from this tradition and therefore avoided including it in their statements.[6]

In the following lines I will analyze the baraita in question in detail as well as in its connection to the historical Helene. Before I describe the significant differences between the Bavli and the texts of the baraita from the Land of Israel, it should be noted that all three versions have a common denominator. They present two accounts separated by one hundred years – one of Rabbi Yehudah who is telling the story (second century CE), and the other, the story itself, of Queen Helene (first century CE).[7]

There are several divergent readings among the three versions. The talmudic stories both cite a place for this event, Lod, which is absent in the Tosefta. Shaul Lieberman[8] assumes that the toseftan version is the original since Helene did not dwell in Lod. Rabbi Yehudah, on the other hand, is reputed to have held several traditions about Lod[9] and therefore both talmudim added a reference to this place.

The assumption that the Tosefta represents the earliest version highlights the difference between the expression “the sukkah of Helene” in the Tosefta (and of Queen Helene in the Yerushalmi), which clearly attributes the sukkah to Helene, as opposed to the Bavli which states: “It happened with Queen Helene in Lod that her sukkah was higher than twenty cubits” which minimizes the fact that the sukkah belonged to her. Likewise, the Tosefta states: “and the elders were going in and out of her [sukkah] [אצלה],” as opposed to בה (in it) in the Yerushalmi and לשם (there) in the Bavli. The Hebrew word אצלה can be interpreted as attributing the sukkah to Helene herself, thereby reinforcing the fact that it belongs to her. Moreover, the Tosefta as well as the Yerushalmi state that her sons were “disciples of sages,” a statement which is absent from the Bavli,[10] and the Tosefta alone has the description “and all dwelled inside” (וכולן שרויים בתוכה). This difference also reinforces the understanding that in the original version Helene built the sukkah for herself. Her adult sons, who were also disciples of sages, sat in it due to the fact that it was their mother’s sukkah.[11] The story of Helene may have transpired in an era when women were not yet exempt from the obligation to dwell in the sukkah, which was a halakhah determined in a later time period.[12]

The fact that Queen Helene was a convert, or a queen, or both may also explain the fact that (in my opinion) she properly observed the commandment of dwelling in the sukkah. She probably made it her business to know whether the public would accept this act in a positive manner, or consider it invalid or peculiar. Consequently, we may infer that Helene sat in a sukkah not out of ignorance, but rather because of her piety. The visits of the sages who went “in and out” of her sukkah demonstrate that halakhic authorities viewed her act as legitimate.

As shown above, the halakhah dissociating women from residing in the sukkah was established in a later period, as part of the overall exemption of women from positive timebound commandments. In tQid 1:10 sitting in the sukkah is cited as one of the positive timebound commandments from which women are exempt.[13] Thus, the response of the sages to Rabbi Yehudah in the Tosefta merely states that women are exempt from the commandment of sukkah. The Yerushalmi, however, converts this statement to a blanket exemption: “And a woman is not required [to observe] the commandments.” This wording is also found in the London MS of the Tosefta. Yet surely this version is secondary, since the sages could not have implied that women were exempt from all commandments. They clearly intended to exempt women only from positive time-bound commandments.

I assume that the halakhah exempting women from positive timebound commandments was formulated after the destruction of the Temple, but prior to the time of Rabbi Yehudah in the post-Bar-Kokhba era. This is based on the fact that both the sages and Rabbi Yehudah cite Queen Helene’s sukkah as proof for each one’s claim, demonstrating that both sides were aware of the halakhah exempting women from these commandments. The sages state: “This is because she is a woman and a woman is not liable [to observe] the commandment of [dwelling in a] sukkah” and Rabbi Yehudah replies: “Did she not have seven sons?” In other words, he does not deny that a woman is exempt from the commandment of sukkah and if she alone dwelled in it then this proof would be invalid.

Ilan offers another explanation for the story of Queen Helene’s sukkah.[14] As previously mentioned, mSuk 2:8 states:

Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the obligation of sukkah, but a minor who is not dependent on his mother is bound by the law of sukkah. It once happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth, and he broke away the plaster of the roof and put sukkah-covering over the bed for the sake of the minor.

According to Ilan, although Shammai’s act follows (and contradicts) the halakhah that a minor is exempt from the commandment of sukkah, it could actually also refer to previous persons mentioned in the halakhah – women, and it expresses his objection to the minor’s exemption, or to the woman’s, or to both. Had Shammai done this because it was the norm, no one would have remembered and recorded his action. Since it was remembered, it may imply that he did so in opposition to an opinion that was being voiced in his day (toward the end of the Second Temple period), exempting women and minors from the commandment of sukkah. It therefore makes sense to assume that Bet Shammai, as opposed to Bet Hillel, did not support the ruling that women should be exempt from timebound commandments (or at least not from the commandment of sukkah). Ilan believes that, if the sages of Bet Shammai followed Shammai the Elder in this matter and did not exempt women from residing in the sukkah, then Queen Helene may have accepted their halakhah and built herself a sukkah in order to reside in it according to their instruction.

Whether the story of Queen Helene’s sukkah represents a reality prior to the formulation of the halakhah exempting women from sitting in the sukkah or opposition to this halakhah (as voiced also by Shammai the Elder), women apparently participated in the commandment of residing in a sukkah during the Second Temple period. Support for this premise is found in various halakhot and descriptions from this period indicating the participation of women in commandments connected to the holiday of Sukkot. Thus, for example, women participated in the commandment of Assembly (הקהל) – a ceremony conducted on Sukkot every seven years at the close of the seventh year agricultural cycle, when the Torah was taken out and read to a great gathering in Jerusalem. In his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus describes this commandment as follows:

And so when the King [Solomon] had thus addressed the multitude, he dismissed the assembly after sacrifices for both himself and for the Hebrews […] and all the Hebrews with their women and children feasted therein. Moreover, the festival that is called Setting up of Booths (Tabernacles) was splendidly and magnificently cele brated before the Temple for twice seven days by the king who feasted with all the people.[15]

Although this text describes the feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) in the days of King Solomon, it obviously reflects the celebrations familiar to Josephus in his own days, before the destruction of the Second Temple. Women’s presence in these gatherings was for him self-evident.

Women’s participation in the celebration of the Water Libation (שמחת בית השואבה) is also recorded. Both mSuk 5:2 and tSuk 4:1 report that the women’s gallery was remodeled prior to the celebration of the Water Libation so that women could participate in the festivities without mingling with the men.[16] These texts also demonstrate that women together with men participated in ceremonies connected to the festival of Sukkot during the Second Temple period. Consequently, it is difficult to believe that, if women were allowed to participate in the public celebrations of Sukkot, they would be excluded from sitting privately with their family in the sukkah. The time period and reason for women’s exemption from the commandment of sukkah was discussed in-depth above.[17]

The sugyot in both the Bavli and Yerushalmi contrast the story of Queen Helene’s sukkah in the baraita with the exegetical traditions concerning the dispute between the sages and Rabbi Yehudah in the mishnah. Although the sugyot have a different order and conclusion (see general observations), both resolve the tradition of Queen Helene’s sukkah by viewing it as one “whose walls do not reach the roof,” although with a significant difference. The Bavli states: “It is the custom of a queen to sit in a sukkah whose walls do not reach the roof because of ventilation” while the Yerushalmi maintains that “it is the custom of wealthy people to make light walls so that coolness may enter.” The Yerushalmi does not attribute Helene’s behavior to the fact that she was a queen but rather to her social standing – she belonged to a wealthy class of people, in which no differentiation is made between men and women regarding the commandment of sukkah.

Continuing the sugya, the Bavli now discusses two exegetical traditions that limit the dispute between the sages and Rabbi Yehudah in the mishnah to the matter of small sukkot. Two sayings of amoraim are cited, which the gemara believes can clarify the story of Queen Helene’s sukkah. According to Rav Ashi, Helene sat in a special, small room within a large sukkah. The sugya then cites the stama, which describes the sukkah of Queen Helene in order to resolve the dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and the sages:

The Rabbis hold the opinion that her sons sat in a proper sukkah, while she sat in one of the recesses for reasons of modesty, and hence they said not a thing, while Rabbi Yehudah was of the opinion that her sons sat with her, and still they said not a thing (bSuk 3a).

This stama undoubtedly postdates Rav Ashi inasmuch as it explains his position. Its description of Queen Helene’s sukkah probably reflects the reality in Babylonia at a later period. Based on the above, we can deduce that at the end of the amoraic period women in Babylonia participated in the commandment of sitting in the sukkah, even though the Mishnah exempted them from it. Some modest women would sit in a special small room – an area of the sukkah reserved for them, which was separated from the men’s section. Other women would sit together with their sons and perhaps even other family members. In any case, there is no indication that the Babylonian sages opposed women’s initiative to fulfill the commandment of residing in the sukkah.