Talmud Commentary: Bavli 4/3. bSukkah 49b (mSukkah 4:9)

@General observations

This text continues the discussion of the Water Libation ceremony (simhat bet hasho’evah), which was discussed above (see Bavli 4/1), and it also continues using verses from Song of Song to do this. Rava’s exposition is connected to the pouring of the wine in this ceremony and follows on Resh Laqish’s statement that “When the wine-libation was poured upon the altar, the pits were stopped up” (bSuk 49b). Thus, a large quantity of wine remained on the altar. Rashi explains that this was done so that the hole in the altar would appear like “a throat full of drink, satiety and plenty.” Resh Laqish’s statement, as well as other amoraic sayings, depict the ceremony allegorically and unexpectedly as one in which God drinks and becomes intoxicated. Likewise, God is portrayed as being pleased with those who perform a commandment involving a the consumption of copious amount of wine.

In the sugya, Rava presents an allegorical interpretation of Song 7:2. According to his understanding, the entire verse expresses God’s pleasure with those who perform His commandments, in particular making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem during the three festivals. He interprets “your feet” [1](רגליך) as signifying the three pilgrimage festivals (רגלים) and “daughter of nobles” as a simile for the children of Israel. Based on the parallel with the word “nobles” in Ps 47:10, Rava deduces that the phrase “daughter of nobles” refers to the descendents of Abraham, or in other words, to the Jewish people.

Rav Anan offers an allegorical interpretation of the second part of the verse. Unlike Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of “Your rounded thighs” as a cavity in the upper part of the altar in bSuk 49a, Rav Anan here suggests that they signify the words of Torah, since both should be kept hidden.

@Feminist observations

Abraham’s daughter: The explanation of the biblical phrase “daughter of nobles” as referring to “daughter of our father Abraham” may be based upon the tradition that Abraham had a daughter. This tradition is found in the Tosefta:

Although the dispute between Rabbi Me’ir and Rabbi Yehudah concerns the correct meaning of Gen 24:1,[1] it also refers to another dispute on a major feminist issue: Is the birth of a daughter viewed as a blessing for the father and family, as the birth of a son, or perhaps even more so, or is it a curse? In patriarchal societies, such as those prevalent during the biblical or rabbinic periods, a male heir determined the family’s continuity and its property. Consequently, the main objective of marriage and of a married woman’s life was to bear sons. Numerous biblical stories portray the longing for sons. In most of the narratives women yearn for sons even more so than men. Rabbinic laws and halakhic discussions also relate to this matter. They discuss the obligations of fathers to their sons as well as those of sons, as heirs, towards their mothers and sisters.

Unlike sons, who are viewed as economically beneficial and assure the continuity of the family line, daughters are considered a financial burden. They do not contribute to the family’s biological continuity or to the preservation of its property. Therefore Rabbi Yehudah’s statement, which is cited by Rabbi Shim‘on, is surprising. Rabbi Yehudah declares that the birth of a daughter is such a positive event that God’s blessing to Abraham can only be complete once a daughter is born. bBB 141a presents a slightly different version of the dispute between Rabbi Me’ir and Rabbi Yehudah:

According to this version, Rabbi Yehudah is not expressing a fundamental position but rather making a specific remark: The word בכל (bakol) in Gen 24:1 signifies the name of Abraham’s daughter. In any case, this is how the stama understood Rabbi Yehudah’s position in bBava Batra, since it connects this saying to that of the amora Rav Hisda: ולדידי בנתן עדיפא לי מבני (and for me, daughters are preferable to sons). Although the stama nullifies this connection in the continuation of the sugya, arguing that we cannot learn that a daughter is preferable to a son from this verse, nevertheless, linking Rabbi Yehudah’s statement to that of Rav Hisda indicates that the stama believed Rabbi Yehudah viewed the birth of daughters as a blessing.

A story in bBB 16b endeavors to justify and explain why it is obligatory to produce female offspring:

According to this story, Rabbi [Yehudah the Patriarch] attempted to comfort his son who was saddened by the birth of a baby girl. Rabbi tells him that the birth of girls is desirable, since women are the ones who give birth and they are necessary to perpetuate the world. Yet Bar Qapara tells him that although this is true, the existence of the female sex is still a necessary evil. Thus, the birth of a girl is not a happy occasion.

The protagonists in this story are the last generation of tannaim. As with the dispute between the fourth-generation tannaim, Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Me’ir, this account demonstrates that, at the end of the tannaitic period, the issue of the birth of girls was quite problematic and gave rise to extreme positions and feelings. Still, the sugya in Bava Batra as well as Rav Hisda’s statement here indicate that, from the middle of the amoraic period in Babylonia, the position viewing the birth of girls as a positive event was reinforced and various reasons were given to justify it.

In-taking of the bride into her bridal-canopy: In this sugya Rabbi Ele‘azar is represented as teaching the obligation of in-taking a bride into her bridal chamber based on the verse from Micha 6:8: “He has told you O man what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your God.” The gemara cites his exposition in association with the general discussion of good deeds performed in secret: “‘To do justice’ means to act in accordance with justice. ‘To love goodness’ refers to acts of loving-kindness. And ‘to walk modestly with your God’ refers to out-taking of the dead and the in-taking of the bride into her bridal-canopy.”

This exposition has a parallel in bMak 23b-24a and there it is assigned to Rabbi Shimlai. That version may well be the original, because the natural location of this exposition is in bMakkot, where it combines neatly into a literary unit discussing the decrease in the number of commandments decreed by the prophets over time.

In both sugyot the exposition ends with a common idiom, from which it may be implied that attending funerals and inducting a bride into her bridal-canopy are examples of the principle that one should “walk modestly” in all matters.[1] Our sugya picks up on this: “Now this can be learnt from an a fortiori deduction: If in matters which are normally performed publicly the Torah enjoins ‘to walk modestly’ how much more so in matters that are normally done privately.” This sentence is of special importance because one way of understanding it is that “outtaking of the dead and the in-taking of the bride into her bridal-canopy” is something that is done in public, which implies that the original meaning of the term was the commandment of attending a funeral (any funeral) and accompanying a bride (any bride) to her bridal-canopy as part of her wedding ceremony.[2]

@In-taking of the bride

The combination of out-taking of the dead (הוצאת המת) and in-taking of the bride (הכנסת כלה) is a concept that appears four times in the Bavli, twice in the form of a baraita that teaches that it is a commandment that supersedes Torah study: “It has been taught: One cancels the study of Torah for the purpose of out-taking the dead and in-taking the bride” תניא: מבטלין תלמוד תורה להוצאת המת ולהכנסת כלה (bMeg 3b; bKet 17a). This means that both actions were perceived as similar – a public procession taking place. The injunction to desist from Torah study in order to join in this action requires that both describe a time-consuming event. This is important because it suggests that the Talmud understands the intaking of the bride as a ritual.

It appears that already in the time of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai it was customary to accompany the bride to her bridal-canopy with song, dance and praise since in bKet 16b-17a a baraita presents a dispute between the houses precisely on this issue:

From various sources we may infer that the tannaim viewed with particular favor the accompaniment of the bride to her bridal-canopy and her entertainment with song and dance. In the external Tractate Semahot we read:

Similarly we read in Avot de Rabbi Nathan:

From the evidence of the amoraim of the Land of Israel, who are cited in the Bavli, the accompaniment of the bride to her canopy on her wedding night was associated with specific songs and dances. With regard to song we read in bKet 17a: “When Rav Dimi came [from the Land of Israel to Babylonia] he said: So one sings before a bride: No rouge or eyeshadow or makeup and [still] as fair as a gazelle” (כי אתא רב דימי אמר: הכי משרו קמי כלתא במערבא: לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פרכוס ויעלת חן). With regard to dancing we learn that rabbis used to dance merrily before or even with the bride: “Rav Shmu‘el bar Yitzhaq dances thrice […] Rav Aha would place her on his shoulders” (רב שמואל בר רב יצחק מרקד אתלת [...] רב אחא מרכיב לה אכתפיה ומרקד). From the reactions to these actions found in the gemara, we learn that in Babylonia the accompaniment of the bride to her bridal chamber in song and dance was viewed positively.[1]

It may be assumed that the importance attached by the rabbis to the in-taking of the bride into her bridal-canopy derives from two considerations. The first one, on the positive side, is their opinion that marriage (and pregnancy and birth that follow) is the most important event in the life of a woman, as is reflected from the saying attributed to King Agrippa in Tractate Sem 11:6 “I wear my crown daily but she wears it but one hour” (אני נוטל כתרי בכל יום וזו תיטול כתרה שעה אחת). The second consideration, more on the negative side, is that the young bride on her way to her bridal night is anxious both about her first encounter with sex and her removal from her parental family to that of her husband. The singing and dancing may distract her thoughts in more entertaining directions, or failing this, may drown the unpleasant sounds caused by her weeping.

The opinion that the marriage ceremony is the highlight of a woman’s existence because through it she is able to fulfill her obligation in life is probably the basis for another interpretation of the idiom הכנסת כלה (in-taking of the bride) – financial aid to penniless brides.[2] Although this meaning is nowhere specifically mentioned in the Talmud, it is already found in Rashi’s interpretation to bSuk 49b. He interprets the words הוצאת מת (outtaking of the dead) as referring to a poor deceased person and הכנסת כלה (in-taking of the bride) as referring to a poor bride. This idea is probably derived from the dictum found in mKet 6:5:

This tradition suggests that marrying a daughter is not cheap, and that it is the responsibility of public charity institutions to supply the means for poor and fatherless women to marry. This idea is further developed in Avot de Rabbi Nathan in the tradition cited above, where God is seen as busying himself with honoring the bride. The tradition continues, explaining exactly how this is done:

In this text God does not attend the wedding procession. He provides for the bride. It is likely that this text is the one that gave rise to the understanding that הכנסת כלה (the intaking of the bride) refers to providing for her material needs, so that she can marry.

BAKER, CYNTHIA M., Rebuilding the House of Israel, Berkeley 2002.
HYMAN, AHARON, תולדות תנאים ואמוראים (Biographies of the Rabbis) London 1910.
ILAN, TAL, Massekhet Ta‘anit (FCBT II/9) Tübingen 2008.
VALLER, SHULAMIT, נשים ונשיות בסיפורי התלמוד (Women and Womanhood in the Stories of the Babylonian Talmud) Tel Aviv 1993.