Talmud Commentary: Bavli 3/4. bSukkah 38a (mSukkah 3:10)

@General observations

The gemara cites a baraita that contradicts the mishnah. According to the mishnah, a slave, a woman or a minor can fulfill the obligation of reciting the Hallel for an adult man when he repeats every word they say. The gemara, on the other hand, states that a slave, a woman or a minor can fulfill the obligation of reciting the Hallel for an adult man. The fact that the gemara introduces the baraita with the words באמת אמרו (it has truly been laid down) demonstrates that the subsequent statement is halakhah. This understanding is based upon the usage of these words in two other places in the gemara (bShab 92b[1] and bBM 60a[2]).

The Yerushalmi contains a parallel to our sugya. In it the Yerushalmi begins with the words: אבל אמרו (but they said) instead of באמת אמרו (it has truly been laid down). What can account for this disparity? Perhaps the editor of the Bavli used the word באמת instead of אבל in order to prevent confusion, since the latter word is used later on. In any case, the last clause of the Bavli, mentioning the curse put on a man who allows this, is absent in the Yerushalmi. Weiss Halivni[3] notes that this clause also does not appear in the Tosefta (tBer 5:17), nor in its parallel in the Yerushalmi (yRhSh 3:9, 59a). ySuk 3:9, 53d, cites next to this tradition, also the baraita about women, slaves and minors reciting grace after meals instead of their master and ends its observation on this baraita with the words: ותהא לו מאירה. ועוד אמרו תבוא מאירה לבן עשרים שהוא צריך לבן עשר (may he be cursed. And they further say: A curse be upon one who is twenty years old, who requires [the services of] one who is ten years old).

As already stated, this baraita appears in the Tosefta as follows:

According to this baraita, although these three categories of people are usually exempt from the obligation to recite grace after meals, the case under discussion is an exception to this rule. The issue is further clarified in bBer 20b:

This gemara discusses the halakhic implications of the question as to whether the requirement for women to recite Grace after Meals is ordained by the Torah or by the sages. If women’s requirement is rabbinic, then they cannot fulfill the obligation on behalf of men, whose obligation is derived from the Torah. Nonetheless, the gemara maintains that wives can fulfill the obligation for their husbands. This is based on the assumption that the ruling refers to a man who only ate a small quantity of bread and consequently his obligation to say grace-aftermeal on it is also only a rabbinic injunction. Thus, one rabbinic law can validate another. The parallel in yBer 3:3, 6b (as well as in our ySuk 3:9, 53d and yRhSh 3:10, 59a) contains a baraita responding to this ruling:

The editor of our sugya in the Bavli, who placed the baraita next to the mishnah, apparently believed that, as in the Yerushalmi, the words באמת אמרו signify אבל אמרו . Thus, the explanation of the above baraita is as follows: Despite the rule that a minor, a woman and a slave cannot fulfill the obligation of reciting the Hallel on behalf of others during the Sukkot celebrations, nevertheless a woman can recite the Hallel for her husband, a son for his father and a slave for his master and these must repeat the words being read.[1] Thus, the baraita was probably placed next to the mishnah in order to reinforce its pronouncement.

@Feminist observations

The above mishnah and baraita lead to two conclusions concerning women’s lives in the tannaitic period:

1. Based on the fact that a halakhah was formulated, we may conclude that women reading the Hallel prayer for men, both within and outside of the family framework (either for a group of people or a large public), was not an unheard of occurrence.

2. Unlike the way women are perceived in rabbinic texts, Jewish women often knew how to read and were even knowledgeable concerning various blessings and biblical verses, occasionally even more so than men.[1] Although the phenomenon of a woman saying a blessing for her husband (as the grace after meals baraita is formulated) can be explained by his being busy with some urgent matter, such an explanation cannot hold for a woman reciting Hallel for any man (even one who is not her husband) as our mishnah suggests, since he must be present in order to answer the reader.

The conclusion of the mishnah demonstrates that men’s illiteracy as well as the recital of Hallel by a woman (a slave or a minor) aroused opposition from the sages.[2] Likewise, the ending of the baraita concerning the recitation of grace after meals reveals similar hostility. Several sources use the formula “may he be cursed” in reaction to improper behavior regarding the setting aside of tithes.[3] This was the normal rabbinic view. One source, yDem 2:2, 22d, also reveals an antipathy towards a wife who possesses more knowledge in religious matters and consequently plays a greater religious role than her husband: “May a curse come upon one whose wife is faithful [to the laws of tithes] and he is not faithful” תבוא מאירה למי שאשתו נאמנת והוא אינו נאמן