Talmud Commentary: Bavli 1/3. bSukkah 8b (mSukkah 1:1)​​​​​​​

@General observations

The gemara addresses the various types of sukkot mentioned in tannaitic sources in connection with the sugya on the mishnah: “And [a sukkah] whose sun is greater than its shade is invalid” (mSuk 1:1). The baraita it cites discusses sukkot that were not initially made for the festival but rather for other purposes.[1] It determines that “a booth of gentiles, a booth of women, a booth of cattle or a booth of Samaritans” are valid for fulfilling the commandment of dwelling in a sukkah, provided that they have the amount of shade required by halakhah.

Rav Hisda interpreted the condition ובלבד שתהיה מסוככת כהלכתה (provided that it is covered according to the rule) as signifying “that the covering was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for the sukkah.” In other words, he construes the words כהלכתה (according to the rule) as meaning properly prepared, and not “according to the halakhah.” Therefore, in line with this explanation, these sukkot are valid if they have the proper roof (with a sufficient amount of covering) and were built in order to provide shade. Rav Hisda’s statements comes in response to the gemara’s astonishment at the condition stipulated in the baraita that a sukkah must have sufficient shade in order to be valid. Moreover, the gemara asks why the baraita specified this condition as regards sukkot of gentiles, women, cattle or Samaritans.

Borganski[2] believes that Rav Hisda responded to the mishnah and not the baraita. He disputes the gemara’s understanding of Rav Hisda’s statement that a sukkah must be made for the purpose of providing shade even if it does not have a large amount of covering. He further claims that a large amount of covering could be aimed at concealing the sukkah, and not providing shade. Based on this line of reasoning, Borganski believes that Rav Hisda did not originally intend to respond to the issue of מאי כהלכתה (what is meant by ‘according to the rule’). Rather, he wished to explain a dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in the Mishnah. In mSuk 1:1 we read: “An old Sukkah:

Bet Shammai declare redundant and Bet Hillel declare valid.” It was Rav Hisda’s intention to show that on this issue even Bet Hillel agreed with Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel declared an old sukkah, which was not originally made for the festival, valid. But it did decree that a sukkah must be made to provide shade in order to be valid. Borganski claims that Rav Hisda’s statement was associated with the sukkah of gentiles, women, cattle or Samaritans at a later period.[3] He thus concludes that the word כהלכתה (according to the rule) in the baraita should be interpreted according to its plain meaning and consequently the condition should be explained as follows: Although the sukkot of gentiles, women, cattle or Samaritans were not made by those who were obligated to fulfill the commandment, or were made for a purpose other than for the festival of sukkot, should they provide sufficient shade as per laws set down in the Mishnah, they could also be used for the festival.[4]

Based on the following two reasons, David Weiss Halivni[5] also questions whether Rav Hisda’s statement forms a response to the question מאי כהלכתה (what is meant by ‘according to the rule’):

1. The word והוא (provided) in the amoraic statement does not follow the question but rather forms a phrase in and of itself, limiting the halakhah to a specific situation.

2. It is problematic to interpret שתהיה מסוככת כהלכתה (that it is covered according to the rule), which refers to the roof covering, as meaning שעשאה לצל סוכה (that [the covering] was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for the sukkah) which denotes the entire sukkah. Halivni points out that ? מאי כהלכתה (what is meant by ‘according to the rule’?) is not included in the talmudic text of the Munich MS nor in the texts of Rabbi Yitzhak Alfasi and Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel. He consequently assumes that the word והוא (provided) in Rav Hisda’s statement does not respond to a difficulty in the baraita but rather limits the halakhah validating sukkot to those that are properly prepared. Moreover, the phrase ובלבד שתהא מסוככת כהלכתה (that it is made according to the rule) in the baraita only indicates good advice, in that one should insure that the sukkah is viable and not rely upon the fact that it was made according to halakhic requirements.

The continuation of the sugya, which is not cited here, emphasizes two unique features of a sukkah of gentiles, women, cattle or Samaritans:

1. They are permanent structures that were built to be so, unlike sukkot of RQBSh (= רועים, shepherds; קייצים, field-watchers; בורגנין, city-guards; and שומרי פירות , orchard-keepers), which were erected as temporary dwellings.

2. They were built by people who were not obligated to fulfill the commandment of sukkah, unlike the sukkot of RQBSh, built by those who were obligated.

@Feminist observations

Among the various types of sukkot, the baraita mentions those made by (or for) women, which is our main concern. The concept of “the sukkah of women” is mentioned one other time in rabbinic literature – in a parallel baraita in bMen 42a. I have not seen any commentary by the rishonim on the latter baraita. Rabbenu Hananel and Rabbi Yitzhak Alfasi cite all the elements mentioned in our baraita (bSuk 8b) – gentiles, women, cattle and Samaritans – but do not offer any explanation for this combination of sukkah-owners. Rashi only describes “the sukkah of gentiles” as “being made to dwell within during hot days.” The Tosfot only relate to “the sukkah of Samaritans” and explain that it was made by Samaritans who dwell in the Land of Israel and were not obligated to observe the commandment of sukkah although “they fear God and worship their gods.” In line with Rashi’s explanation of “the sukkah of gentiles” as a ventilated structure used by people as a shelter from the summer heat, “the sukkah of women” can also be viewed as a similar shelter for women. But why would women, separately from men, require such a structure? Several theories have attempted to explain this:

1. Women celebrated the festival of Sukkot in their own special sukkah. This assumption is unlikely, since it does not correspond to the gemara’s understanding that these sukkot were not originally built for the festival.

2. These sukkot were intended solely for some sort of women’s gatherings that were held separate from men. For example, they might have been used for mourning or celebration, as is the case in other traditional societies.[1] Yet such a hypothesis has no basis in rabbinic literature. We do not know of the use of sukkot for such separate activities by men and women. One mourning custom can be relevant here. With the death of the parent of a bride or groom, as mentioned in bKet 3b, after the couple had sexual relations and the seven days of rejoicing have elapsed, mourning rites are observed for seven days: the groom sleeps with men and the bride with women. Nonetheless, there is no special structure for this rite, certainly not a sukkah.

The term “the sukkah of women” could be (and has been) interpreted as a structure used by women during their period of menstruation (niddah). Possibly it resembled the בית הטמאות (house of impurity/uncleanness) mentioned in mNid 7:4, which according to Rashi, was “a room used by women during their days of menstruation.” In line with this explanation, our text appears to assume that at some epoch the Jewish people separated women during their menstrual period, and they stayed in special structures while they were in this state. This thesis was supported, for example, by Israel Moses Ta-Shma, who wrote in his article on Niddah in the Encyclopedia Judaica:

In ancient time a menstruous woman was completely segregated, particularly in Eretz Israel where the laws of purity were still in vogue from when the Temple existed. Excluded from her home, the menstruous woman stayed in a special house known as “the house of uncleanness” (mNid 7:4), she was called “galmudah.”[2]

Rejecting this hypothesis completely, Charlotte Fonrobert writes:

We can (also) observe that rabbinic literature does not anywhere indicate or allude to a practice of women’s public segregation … The separation that rabbinic literature delineates is exclusively that between husband and wife, the married couple itself, and not between the menstruous woman and the community or the household.[3]

To support this thesis, Charlotte Fonrobert cites Yedidyah Dinari, who argues as follows:

It has to be assumed that the whole explanation of “galmudah” in Bavli Rosh ha-Shanah 26a is introduced only to emphasize that she is only weaned from her husband, but not from anybody else.[4]

Fonrobert further maintains that the text of mNid 7:4, mentioning the house of impurities, is extremely ambiguous with regard to its manuscript evidence, and therefore she does not agree with Ta-Shma’s general statement concerning women’s segregation. Fonrobert fails to refer to the text from bSuk under discussion here. If one assumes that the sukkah of women was a place for menstruants, then this omission may suggest that she is only partly right in her complete rejection of the premise. The fact that the expression “the sukkah of women” is only found, as has been mentioned, in a Bavli baraita (and not in the Yerushalmi) supports her assertion that the segregation of menstruant women from men was not practiced in the Land of Israel. It appears, however, that this practice was adopted by Babylonian Jews, probably under the influence of the Sassanian-Persian society in which they dwelt, as indicated by Jacob Elman,[5] the foremost scholar on the influence of Sassanian society on the Jews of Babylonia. Elman demonstrates that in the Sassanian world sexual relations with a menstruant were considered one of the greatest possible sins. The Persians believed that women spread impurity by their very glance during their menstrual period. Fear of menstrual impurity was so strong that leftover foodstuffs of menstruants were forbidden to all, including the menstruants themselves. In order to avoid it, menstruant women were banished from their homes during their period to a windowless booth, where they dwelled till they could be purified. Sassanian influ ence can thus be understood as the source of a Babylonian practice of building booths for menstruant women. Perhaps the sukkah of women mentioned in the Babylonian version of our baraita refers to just such a structure.