אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל: הישן בכילה ערום, מוציא ראשו חוץ לכילה וקורא קריאת שמע. מיתיבי: הישן בכילה ערום לא יוציא ראשו חוץ לכילה ויקרא קריאת שמע. הכא במאי עסקינן? כשגבוהה עשרה. הכי נמי מסתברא, מדקתני סיפא: הא למה זה דומה? לעומד בבית ערום, שלא יוציא ראשו חוץ לחלון ויקרא קריאת שמע. שמע מינה ובית נמי, אף על פי שאין גבוה עשרה, כיון דקביע, אוהלא הוא, דלא גרע מקינופות. לישנא אחרינא, אמרי לה: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: מותר לישן בכילת חתנים בסוכה, לפי שאין לה גג, אף על פי שגבוהה עשרה. מיתיבי: הישן בכילה בסוכה לא יצא ידי חובתו. הכא במאי עסקינן? בשיש לה גג.
Rav Tahlifa bar Abimi said in the name of Shmu’el: He who sleeps naked in a canopied bed, may put his head out of the canopied bed and read the Shema. It was objected: He who sleeps in a canopied bed naked may not put his head out and read the Shema. The latter refers to a case where [the canopy] was ten [handbreadths] high. This stands to reason also, since it was stated in the final clause: To what can it be compared? To a man standing naked in a house, in which case he may not put his head out the window and read the Shema. This is conclusive. But as to a house, even though it is not ten [handbreadths] high, since it is permanent it constitutes a valid tent, for it is no worse than the frame of a four-post bed. Another version is that Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmu’el: It is permitted to sleep in a [canopied] bridal-bed in a sukkah, since it has no roof, even though it be ten [handbreadths] high. It was objected: He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a sukkah has not fulfilled his obligations. Here we are dealing with the case of one who has a roof.
Manuscript evidence
כילת – the Munich MS no. 140 has כילה.
מתיבי – the Munich MS no. 140 has תא שמע.
בכילה בסוכה – the Munich MS no. 140 has [כיל(ה) [ת חתנים.
General observations
Shmu’el’s statement, conveyed by Rabbi Tahlifa bar Abimi: “He who sleeps naked in a canopied bed, may put his head out of the canopied bed and read the Shema,” is cited in a discussion of another statement of Shmu’el which was conveyed by Rav Yehudah. The sugya discusses the following statement: “It is permissible to sleep in a canopied bed in a sukkah, even though it has a flat roof, provided it is not ten [handbreadths] high” (the phrase “provided it is not ten [handbreadths] high” may either be an explanation added by the stama in the gemara or it may be Shmu’el’s own phrase).
The sages interpreted the versed in Deut 23:15 “let Him not find anything unseemly among you” as prohibiting a naked person from reciting the Shema since there is the possibility that s/he may look at his genitals. A baraita cited in bBer 24b states: “He who was sleeping in his tallit (Rashi interprets this: “that he was sleeping naked”) and cannot extend his head out because of the cold divides [the two parts of his body] by his tallit on his neck and recites the Shema.” According to this baraita, if any type of clothing, such as a robe, separates the head and eyes from the rest of one’s body, then one may recite the Shema without fear of transgressing the commandment of “let Him not find anything unseemly among you.” Shmu’el’s saying, “He who sleeps naked in a canopied bed, may put his head out of the canopied bed and read the Shema,” indicates that he viewed the canopy as a sort of robe separating a person’s head from the rest of his body. Had Shmu’el considered the canopy as a sort of a tent, then it would have been prohibited to recite the Shema in it since it is assumed that in a tent a person would be able to see his genitals while doing so. Thus, permission to sleep in a canopied bed within a sukkah is not connected to the canopy’s height or to the fact that it is “not ten [handbreadths] high.”
The gemara then objects to Shmu’el’s statement: “He who sleeps in a canopied bed naked may not put his head out and read the Shema.” This objection is based on a counter opinion signposted with the word מתיבי, which indicates that it is a tannaitic source. According to the gemara’s line of reasoning, a later amoraic source such as Shmu’el would not have contradicted an earlier tannaitic source, since the latter is viewed as authoritative. In order to harmonize this dissonance, the gemara proposes a distinction – Shmu’el’s statement referred to a canopy that was not higher than ten handbreadths while the tannaitic source referred to one that was higher than ten handbreadths. The gemara here reverts to a statement made by Shmu’el earlier in the sugya – it was permitted to sleep in a canopied bed in a sukkah even though the canopy forms a roof, as long as it is not higher than ten handbreadths (bSuk 10b).
The gemara then cites the conclusion of the same tannaitic source in support of its assumption that the beginning of Shmu’el’s statement refers to a canopy that is at least ten handbreadths high. This tannaitic source compares someone who sleeps naked in a canopied bed to “a man standing naked in a house, in which case he may not put his head out the window and read the Shema.” This parallel reinforces the assumption that a canopy, at least ten handbreadths high, resembles a tent, even though it is not a permanent structure, demonstrating the difference between a canopy and a house. The latter is viewed as a valid tent and a permanent structure, even if it is less than ten handbreadths high, while the former can only be considered a tent if it is at least ten handbreadth high.
Following this discussion, the gemara presents another version of Shmu’el’s statement: “It is permitted to sleep in a [canopied] bridal-bed in a sukkah, since it has no roof, even though it be ten [handbreadths] high.” As in the previous case, here too a tannaitic statement follows: “He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation,” contradicting Shmu’el’s opinion. This inconsistency is resolved by distinguishing between a bridal-canopy, which has no roof, and a regular canopy, which does have one. As to the main topic of this sugya, sleeping under a canopied bed in a sukkah, we have learned that this is permitted as long as the canopy is not higher than ten handbreadths[1]. We have also learned that it is permitted to sleep in a canopied bridal-bed in a sukkah even if it is higher than ten handbreadths, since it does not have a roof.
Weiss Halivni[2] maintains that Shmu’el originally said: “It is permitted to sleep in a canopied bed in a sukkah” without referring to a specific type of canopied bed. Shmu’el may have felt compelled to specifically state this since he supported (as Rabbah bar Rav Huna maintains) Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion, stated in mSuk 1:2: “A sukkah within a sukkah, the upper one is valid and the lower one invalid. Rabbi Yehudah says: If there are no inhabitants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.” Shmu’el’s viewpoint may have produced two different versions since the gemara did not wish to identify him with the minority opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. Thus, the first version suggested that Shmu’el refers in his statement to a canopied bed with a roof that was not higher than ten handbreadths, and the second version suggested that he referred to one higher than ten handbreadths but without a roof. According to Weiss Halivni, the second statement originally referred to a regular canopied bed, and not a bridal-bed, since several MSS which do not have the word חתנים (bridal). Yet, an examination of the manuscript evidence demonstrates that only in the Munich MS no. 140 the word חתנים does not appear in Shmu’el’s statement, and even in this case the word is preserved in brackets. The MS reads: “Come and hear, one who sleeps in a canopied [bridal] bed in a sukkah did not fulfill his obligation.” The fact that חתנים is inserted in brackets may reflect the hesitation of a scribe who knew that this word was included in other MSS but felt that it was superfluous. In any case, Munich MS no. 140 cannot definitively prove Weiss Halivni’s hypothesis that both of Shmu’el’s statements refer to an ordinary canopied bed and not to a bridal-canopy.
The gemara then objects to Shmu’el’s statement: “He who sleeps in a canopied bed naked may not put his head out and read the Shema.” This objection is based on a counter opinion signposted with the word מתיבי, which indicates that it is a tannaitic source. According to the gemara’s line of reasoning, a later amoraic source such as Shmu’el would not have contradicted an earlier tannaitic source, since the latter is viewed as authoritative. In order to harmonize this dissonance, the gemara proposes a distinction – Shmu’el’s statement referred to a canopy that was not higher than ten handbreadths while the tannaitic source referred to one that was higher than ten handbreadths. The gemara here reverts to a statement made by Shmu’el earlier in the sugya – it was permitted to sleep in a canopied bed in a sukkah even though the canopy forms a roof, as long as it is not higher than ten handbreadths (bSuk 10b).
The gemara then cites the conclusion of the same tannaitic source in support of its assumption that the beginning of Shmu’el’s statement refers to a canopy that is at least ten handbreadths high. This tannaitic source compares someone who sleeps naked in a canopied bed to “a man standing naked in a house, in which case he may not put his head out the window and read the Shema.” This parallel reinforces the assumption that a canopy, at least ten handbreadths high, resembles a tent, even though it is not a permanent structure, demonstrating the difference between a canopy and a house. The latter is viewed as a valid tent and a permanent structure, even if it is less than ten handbreadths high, while the former can only be considered a tent if it is at least ten handbreadth high.
Following this discussion, the gemara presents another version of Shmu’el’s statement: “It is permitted to sleep in a [canopied] bridal-bed in a sukkah, since it has no roof, even though it be ten [handbreadths] high.” As in the previous case, here too a tannaitic statement follows: “He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation,” contradicting Shmu’el’s opinion. This inconsistency is resolved by distinguishing between a bridal-canopy, which has no roof, and a regular canopy, which does have one. As to the main topic of this sugya, sleeping under a canopied bed in a sukkah, we have learned that this is permitted as long as the canopy is not higher than ten handbreadths[1]. We have also learned that it is permitted to sleep in a canopied bridal-bed in a sukkah even if it is higher than ten handbreadths, since it does not have a roof.
Weiss Halivni[2] maintains that Shmu’el originally said: “It is permitted to sleep in a canopied bed in a sukkah” without referring to a specific type of canopied bed. Shmu’el may have felt compelled to specifically state this since he supported (as Rabbah bar Rav Huna maintains) Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion, stated in mSuk 1:2: “A sukkah within a sukkah, the upper one is valid and the lower one invalid. Rabbi Yehudah says: If there are no inhabitants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.” Shmu’el’s viewpoint may have produced two different versions since the gemara did not wish to identify him with the minority opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. Thus, the first version suggested that Shmu’el refers in his statement to a canopied bed with a roof that was not higher than ten handbreadths, and the second version suggested that he referred to one higher than ten handbreadths but without a roof. According to Weiss Halivni, the second statement originally referred to a regular canopied bed, and not a bridal-bed, since several MSS which do not have the word חתנים (bridal). Yet, an examination of the manuscript evidence demonstrates that only in the Munich MS no. 140 the word חתנים does not appear in Shmu’el’s statement, and even in this case the word is preserved in brackets. The MS reads: “Come and hear, one who sleeps in a canopied [bridal] bed in a sukkah did not fulfill his obligation.” The fact that חתנים is inserted in brackets may reflect the hesitation of a scribe who knew that this word was included in other MSS but felt that it was superfluous. In any case, Munich MS no. 140 cannot definitively prove Weiss Halivni’s hypothesis that both of Shmu’el’s statements refer to an ordinary canopied bed and not to a bridal-canopy.
[1] This is subsequently contradicted by the interpretation of Rabbah bar Rav Huna: “It is permitted to sleep in a canopied bed [in a sukkah] even though it has a roof and even though it is ten [handbreadths] high. According to whom [is this opinion expressed]? According to Rabbi Yehudah who said that a temporary tent cannot nullify a permanent one” (מותר לישן בכילה, אף על פי שיש לה גג, אף על פי שגבוהה עשרה. כמאן? כרבי יהודה, דאמר: לא אתי אהל עראי ומבטל אהל קבע) –bSuk 11a.
[2] HALIVNI, Sources and Traditions, 169-170.
Feminist observations
The gemara declares that Shmu’el’s two statements, one cited by Rabbi Tahlifa bar Abimi and the other by Rav Yehudah, are different versions of the same dictum. This assertion has feminist implications since the first statement refers to “He who sleeps naked in a canopied bed,” and the second to “One who sleeps [naked] in a [canopied] bridal-bed.”
Presumably, sleeping naked did not have any erotic connotations. Rather, it was possibly done due to the extreme heat that prevailed in the sukkah during the early autumn. Likewise, the purpose of the canopy or netting was probably to protect the person sleeping under it from mosquitoes and other bugs. Yet uniting these two statements into one does endow it with an erotic element, since it implies that the person is sleeping naked in the sukkah because he is in a bridal-bed. Despite the fact that the gemara compares the one sleeping naked in a canopied bed to one who stands naked in a house for the purpose of reciting the Shema, these two acts are not similar. There are many reasons for standing naked in a house – getting dressed, undressed, washing, etc., which is not the case with sleeping naked under a bridal-canopy, whose prime purpose is marital sexual relations.
The gemara mentions the concept of a “bridal-bed” several times[1] in connection with permission to pitch and fold removable structures on Shabbat. The descriptions in bShab 138a and bEruv 102a indicate that the canopy of a bridal-bed is a type of curtain that hangs over the bed but does not extend down to the floor. According to commentators[2], a pleated curtain placed on a horizontal pole, which was supported by diagonal poles placed at the head and base of the bed formed the canopy. In his commentary to Tractate Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi (the Ra’aviah) states that the canopy of a bridal-bed imparts modesty to the world. Consequently, the objective of the canopy of a bridal-bed was to provide the bride and groom with the utmost amount of privacy.
As mentioned above, based on the Munich MS no. 140, Weiss Halivni[3] believes that Shmu’el’s second statement refers to a regular canopied, not-bridal-bed. A baraita in bSuk 25a (see below Bavli 3/3), which exempts a groom who weds a virgin (and must consummate the marriage) from dwelling in the sukkah, supports the hypothesis that Shmu’el’s statement was not related to a canopied bridal-bed. Nonetheless, according to the same baraita, one who weds a widow is obligated to dwell in a sukkah, which might be the objective of placing a canopied bridal-bed inside the sukkah structure. A passage from bSuk 19b provides a realistic description of a canopied bridal-bed located in a sukkah: “Abbayye found Rav Yosef sleeping in a bridal-canopy in a sukkah” אביי אשכחיה לרב יוסף דקא גני בכילת חתנים בסוכה.[4] The conversation that follows between Rav Yosef and Abbayye reveals that the former was apparently already an experienced scholar and an expert in halakhic decisions.[5] We can therefore deduce that he was not a young groom, but rather a mature or even elderly person who probably wedded a widow or divorcée and believed that he was obligated to dwell in a sukkah.
Yet this same passage can be interpreted in a different manner. Rav Yosef did not sleep in a canopied bridal-bed per se but rather under a netting or covering that was open at the top. The text therefore represents a linguistic development. Perhaps an open canopy was termed a bridal-bed canopy since it resembled one. Over time, this idiom became entrenched in the language and was employed without any association to marriage. Weiss Halivni’s theory supports the idea that a canopied bridal-bed open on top was unrelated to considerations of modesty for brides and grooms. Nonetheless, if the argument I presented above (Bavli 1/1 [bSuk 2b-3a]) is correct, and unlike in the Land of Israel, women participated in the commandment of dwelling in a sukkah in Babylonia, then a canopied bridal-bed may have been connected not only to the case of a widow’s marriage but to any marriage during Sukkot.
In conclusion, according to bShab 45b, 138a and bEruv 102a, a canopied bridal- bed was a well-known contraption in Babylonia during the amoraic period. The question as to what this contraption looked like and what was meant when it was mentioned in the context of sleeping in a sukkah, deserves further study. It will be discussed once again in the tradition on the obligation of a groom to dwell in the sukkah (Bavli 2/4).
Presumably, sleeping naked did not have any erotic connotations. Rather, it was possibly done due to the extreme heat that prevailed in the sukkah during the early autumn. Likewise, the purpose of the canopy or netting was probably to protect the person sleeping under it from mosquitoes and other bugs. Yet uniting these two statements into one does endow it with an erotic element, since it implies that the person is sleeping naked in the sukkah because he is in a bridal-bed. Despite the fact that the gemara compares the one sleeping naked in a canopied bed to one who stands naked in a house for the purpose of reciting the Shema, these two acts are not similar. There are many reasons for standing naked in a house – getting dressed, undressed, washing, etc., which is not the case with sleeping naked under a bridal-canopy, whose prime purpose is marital sexual relations.
The gemara mentions the concept of a “bridal-bed” several times[1] in connection with permission to pitch and fold removable structures on Shabbat. The descriptions in bShab 138a and bEruv 102a indicate that the canopy of a bridal-bed is a type of curtain that hangs over the bed but does not extend down to the floor. According to commentators[2], a pleated curtain placed on a horizontal pole, which was supported by diagonal poles placed at the head and base of the bed formed the canopy. In his commentary to Tractate Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi (the Ra’aviah) states that the canopy of a bridal-bed imparts modesty to the world. Consequently, the objective of the canopy of a bridal-bed was to provide the bride and groom with the utmost amount of privacy.
As mentioned above, based on the Munich MS no. 140, Weiss Halivni[3] believes that Shmu’el’s second statement refers to a regular canopied, not-bridal-bed. A baraita in bSuk 25a (see below Bavli 3/3), which exempts a groom who weds a virgin (and must consummate the marriage) from dwelling in the sukkah, supports the hypothesis that Shmu’el’s statement was not related to a canopied bridal-bed. Nonetheless, according to the same baraita, one who weds a widow is obligated to dwell in a sukkah, which might be the objective of placing a canopied bridal-bed inside the sukkah structure. A passage from bSuk 19b provides a realistic description of a canopied bridal-bed located in a sukkah: “Abbayye found Rav Yosef sleeping in a bridal-canopy in a sukkah” אביי אשכחיה לרב יוסף דקא גני בכילת חתנים בסוכה.[4] The conversation that follows between Rav Yosef and Abbayye reveals that the former was apparently already an experienced scholar and an expert in halakhic decisions.[5] We can therefore deduce that he was not a young groom, but rather a mature or even elderly person who probably wedded a widow or divorcée and believed that he was obligated to dwell in a sukkah.
Yet this same passage can be interpreted in a different manner. Rav Yosef did not sleep in a canopied bridal-bed per se but rather under a netting or covering that was open at the top. The text therefore represents a linguistic development. Perhaps an open canopy was termed a bridal-bed canopy since it resembled one. Over time, this idiom became entrenched in the language and was employed without any association to marriage. Weiss Halivni’s theory supports the idea that a canopied bridal-bed open on top was unrelated to considerations of modesty for brides and grooms. Nonetheless, if the argument I presented above (Bavli 1/1 [bSuk 2b-3a]) is correct, and unlike in the Land of Israel, women participated in the commandment of dwelling in a sukkah in Babylonia, then a canopied bridal-bed may have been connected not only to the case of a widow’s marriage but to any marriage during Sukkot.
In conclusion, according to bShab 45b, 138a and bEruv 102a, a canopied bridal- bed was a well-known contraption in Babylonia during the amoraic period. The question as to what this contraption looked like and what was meant when it was mentioned in the context of sleeping in a sukkah, deserves further study. It will be discussed once again in the tradition on the obligation of a groom to dwell in the sukkah (Bavli 2/4).