Talmud Commentary: Bavli 2/1. bSukkah 21a (mSukkah 2:1)

@General observations

The gemara presents a dispute in mSukkah as to whether one who sleeps under a bed in a sukkah has fulfilled his obligation. The sages state that he has not, while Rabbi Yehudah, mentioning the fact that such a custom existed and that the elders did not say anything against it, disagrees.

Based upon a mishnah in Tractate Ohalot, the gemara deduces that the sages believed that a tent (a structure with a roof) made by nature is indeed viewed as a tent for the purpose of fulfilling certain halakhot. Yet Rabbi Yehudah disputes this and states that any tent which is not manmade is not considered a tent (since it was not intended as one). By connecting Rabbi Yehudah’s statement in mOhal 3:7 to mSuk 2:1, the gemara construes an argument that, according to Rabbi Yehudah, a bed in a sukkah is not considered a tent, since it was not placed there for that purpose. It therefore resembles a natural tent. Consequently, one who sleeps under a bed in a sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation.

We are interested in the section of the gemara which presents a contradiction between Rabbi Yehudah’s statement in mOhal 3:7 and his opinion in a baraita in tPar 3:2, which is a parallel to mPar 3:2, though without Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion. A mixture of the baraita and the mishnah are cited in our sugya in the Bavli. According to Rabbi Yehudah in mOhal 3:7, any natural tent cannot be used to fulfill halakhic obligations requiring a tent. On the other hand, the opposite conclusion arises from his statement in tPar 3:2. Both this baraita and mPar 3:2 describe children who, from birth, must be removed from any contact with impurity so that they can serve in the ritual of the burning of the red heifer. Their task in this ceremony consisted of sprinkling water upon the high-priest. The children would bring this water from the nearby Shiloah spring by riding upon a door placed on the back of an ox. This method of riding would separate them from any impurity emanating from underground graves, as described in tPar 3:2:

Rabbi Yehudah says: Oxen with broad bellies, so that the feet of the youngsters should not protrude and become unclean by reason of the grave in the depths.

This is shortened in the gemara to: “Rabbi Yehudah said: They did not bring doors but oxen.” According to Rabbi Yehudah, an ox with a broad stomach resembles a roof and is therefore like a tent, which separates the child on the ox from the impurity emanating from the ground. Consequently, in mOhal 3:7 Rabbi Yehudah argues that a natural entity does not resemble a tent for halakhic obligations while in tPar 3:2 he espouses the opposite view (since the ox, a natural entity, separates the child from impurity).

In our gemara Rabbi Ele‘azar resolves this contradiction by informing the sages that Rav Dimi, when he came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia, refined Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion by stating: “Rabbi Yehudah agrees in the case [of a tent that is as large as] a fistful [that it is valid].” In other words, Rabbi Yehudah agrees with the sages that if a tent were as broad as a fist, it would be considered a tent even if it was a natural entity. In order to reinforce this understanding of Rabbi Yehudah’s statement, the gemara cites another baraita wherein Rabbi Yehudah admits that overhanging crags and clefts of rocks, which are both natural phenomena, are also considered tents for the purpose of impurity.

@Feminist observations

For our purposes, we will examine mPar 3:2, which discusses how, even before they were born, certain children were removed from any contact with impurity. Pregnant women were brought to courtyards, which were built over a rock in order to avoid impurity due to a “grave in the depths” and there they gave birth and reared to children for the ritual of the red heifer. Albeck explains that this type of building would prevent the impurity emanating from the graves from rising up to them. According to Ovadiah of Bartenura, these courtyards were built over a rock which had been there since the creation of the world (צור חלמיש שניכר שהיה שם מתחילת ברייתו של עולם). Still there was fear that an unknown grave could be located under this rock and therefore they ensured that a hollow of one handbreadth was made above it in order to prevent the impurity from rising up. The mishnah then goes on to describe how these children were further protected from impurity when they went to the Shiloah to draw water for the red heifer ritual.

Only part of this baraita links this sugya to feminist issues: “and they used to bring there pregnant women, and there they gave birth to their children and there they reared them for [the service of the red] heifer.” Who were these women? How did they give birth and rear their children in purity? Were they separated from their husbands and families during the period that they lived in the courtyard? When did they leave the courtyard and become reunited with their families? bKet 106a may hint at an answer to the first question. It contains a list of various craftspeople connected to the Temple service who “received their wages from contributions to the Chamber.” The list maintains that:

From the first part of this baraita it may be assumed that the women who were raising their sons for the red heifer service belonged to a group of artisans, who had a guaranteed wage and high social status, paid from the Temple treasury. The same is true for the House of Garmo who baked the show-bread and House of Avtimus, who produced incense. Our baraita followes the one describing these officials. Nonetheless, Abba Sha’ul states in the continuation of the baraita that these women lived off of contributions and did not belong to the class of those receiving a regular income. Since there is no other source that mentions how these women made a living, it cannot be determined which statement in the baraita reflects historical reality – the first quoted authority or that of Abba Sha’ul.

Earlier commentators also offer various interpretations, concerning the issue of rearing children for this task. Rashi writes:

That is, he believes that women came on their own initiative to the courtyard and were not brought there because they were designated for this task. The Ritba (Rabbi Yom Tov ben Avraham Ashbili)[1] was bothered by a different dilemma. How is it possible that children who were born in the courtyards did not acquire ritual impurity during birth? He writes:

As to the issue of when the women returned from the courtyard to their homes, or for how long they reared their children, tPar 3:2 contains a puzzling answer:

They bring pregnant women, who give birth there and raise their sons there until they are eighteen years old.

The reference to the age of eighteen is puzzling for two reasons. Firstly, it seems unreasonable that it would take such a length of time to raise a child. Secondly, youths at this age were probably on occasion in a state of ritual impurity, due to seminal emission. In his commentary to mPar 3:2, Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenuro writes:

This exegesis suggests that the Erfurt MS. of the Tosefta is here in error, and that another textual version, known to Ovadiah of Bartenuro may have existed in the past. The following statement by Ha-Meiri also substantiates the existence of such an alternative version: