Talmud Commentary: Bavli 5/1. bSukkah 51b-52a (mSukkah 5:2)

@Manuscript evidence

@General observations

The baraita cited in the gemara concerning a tiggun gadol (great enactment) was discussed above, in Mishnah 5 (mSuk 2:4). I will therefore only examine the question asked by the gemara “But how could they do so?” and its response “Is it not written [in the Torah]: ‘All this that 'ה made me understand by His hand on me […]’.”

The baraita describes the tiggun gadol as the addition of a balcony to the Temple structure. Yet based upon a quote from I Chr 28:19, which states that the Temple was built according God’s plan, the gemara deduces that nothing in the Temple’s structure may be changed, and hence, such an enactment is a violation of God’s commandment. Rav now cites a verse from Zachariah (12:12) in order to permit the building of the balconies for the purpose of separating men and women. In this verse we learn that when the House of David was in mourning, women and men mourned separately.

The continuation of the gemara discusses the causes for mourning in Jerusalem, associating them with the Evil Inclination. The parallel sugya in the Yerushalmi does not present the tiqqun as a violation of God’s commandment: Based on an a fortiori argument from mourning the Messiah to mourning the Evil Inclination, the Yerushalmi deduces that the Torah requires a separation between men and women during the Festival of the Water Libation. The first a fortiori argument in the Yerushalmi differentiates between the behavior of men and women during sad and joyous occasions. The second a fortiori argument distinguishes between the behavior expected from men and women at the End of Days, when the Evil Inclination will no longer have power over them, as opposed to their conduct at this time.

The two a fortiori arguments are combined into one in the Bavli: “If in the future, when they will be engaged in mourning and the Evil Inclination will have no power over them, the Torah nevertheless says, ‘men separately and women separately,’ how much more so now when they are engaged in rejoicing and the Evil Inclination has sway over them.” The gemara is ambiguous as to whether the a fortiori argument is based upon a comparison between mourning and joy, or between the End of Days and the present time. Moreover, the Bavli does not connect the separation between men and women with the two explanations for mourning. Instead, the discussion on mourning the Evil Inclination forms an independent unit.

The continuation of the sugya presents various sayings, baraitot and midrashim on the Evil Inclination in general. Their context, in several cases, shows that the Evil Inclination is a euphemism for sexual desire.[1]

Several problems are raised by this sugya.

1. “Rav Assi stated: The Evil Inclination is at first like a thin thread but ultimately like cart ropes […].” Rav Assi’s comparison between the weak thread and the thick rope initially appears quite logical. However, the meaning of the word בוכיה is uncertain. According to Rashi, this word signifies a spider (and this meaning is transferred here into the English translation of the gemara). Still, this interpretation is problematical on two levels. Firstly, although a spider’s thread/web is thin, it is also strong and the gemara wanted to convey an image of a weak Evil Inclination that becomes stronger. Secondly, the word בוכיה occurs several other times in the Bavli – twice in bPes 30b and once in bZev 25b. In two cases, where the context refers to baking, Rashi and the Ritba interpret it as a utensil made out of tiles in which one bakes or fries a loaf of bread.[2] Rabbenu Hananel’s version of this word reverses the letters ב and כ so that the word reads כוביה. This spelling also occurs in Rav Assi’s statement in an identical tradition concerning the Evil Inclination in bSan 98b. Rabbenu Hananel interprets this word as a device held by a weaver through which he passes the threads, and following Hananel, the Arukh also offers this explanation.[3] Such an interpretation suits Rav Assi’s comparison between a thin and weak thread when the Evil Inclination initially attacks a person, and a thick and strong rope when it completely takes control over him. Still an examination of the MSS and textual variations does not support Rabbenu Hananel’s explanation since the not support Rabbenu Hananel’s explanation since the word כוביה does not appear in any text. The Oxford MS and JTS MSS both have שלכוביא , the Munich 140 MS and British Library MS as well as the Pisaro edition have של בוכיא . We are left with an unanswered query.

2. A baraita concerning the Messiah follows Rav Assi’s statement. However, this is not relevant to the topic under discussion. Subsequently, Rabbi Avira,[4] or Rabbi Yehoshu‘a ben Levi, discuss the seven different names for the Evil Inclination. By attaching a story about Abbayye at the end of this discussion, the gemara links the Evil Inclination with sexual desire (although the verses cited to describe it are also associated with idolatry or murder).

3. The printed version of the Bavli contains the following midrash: “‘I will remove far off from you the hidden one [...] That his foulness may come up and his ill-savor may come up” (Joel 2:20) means that he leaves other nations in peace and attacks only the enemies of Israel. “Because he has done great things” (ibid.). Abbayye explained, against scholars more than against anyone else.” The above homily raises two questions: a) Why is the Evil Inclination punished for attacking the enemies of Israel? Such an action should be commended. b) Why is Abbayye’s interpretation of the last part of the verse appended to the discourse of Rav/Rabbi Avira or Rabbi Yehoshu‘a ben Levi?

@Feminist observations

According to Rabbenu Hananel and Rashi, as well as the Oxford, JTS, and Munich 140 MSS with slight changes, the phrase אויבי (“the enemies of”) is not part of the original text. Instead, the correct reading is “he [the Evil Inclination] leaves other nations in peace and attacks only Israel,” which solves the first difficulty. As to the second issue, Abbayye’s interpretation of the second part of the verse from Joel as referring specifically to scholars, relates to his subsequent adventure.

In order to illustrate its contention that the Evil Inclination attacks scholars more than other people, the gemara presents a story of how Abbayye followed a man and woman, assuming they were about to commit sexual transgression. At the end of the account, Abbayye is tormented with the thought that his own sexual desire is what caused him to suspect such impure intentions in others.[1] When he realizes his error, Abbayye exclaims: “If it were my enemy, he could not have restrained himself” (אי מאן דסני לי הוה לא הוה מצי לאוקומיה נפשיה). This statement also requires clarification. Why does Abbayye use the expression דסני לי (my enemy)? Does it express self-hatred, thus demonstrating his torment? And, why does he then go and lean against the doorpost? Rashi writes that this stance shows he was pondering [the situation] and expressing his anguish. Still, leaning against a doorpost nowhere indicates sorrow in the Bavli. For example, Rav Sheshet would lean against a doorpost in order to express his joy at learning Torah (bPes 68b). Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak would lean against a doorpost in order to ask about a halakhic ruling regarding the annulment of a get (bGit 32b).[2] Consequently, the gemara probably deduced Abbayye’s sorrow (or anguish) from the word ומצטער and not from the fact that he was leaning against a doorpost.

The Oxford and JTS MSS can help shed light on Abbayye’s statements. They read: אמ': אי אנא הואי ברחמי נפישי כי הוה מיתצילנא (He said: Had it been me, I would have prayed with a great passion). According to this version, Abbayye did not say that he hated himself but rather that he himself would have required a great spiritual effort in order to overcome his desire.

The readings of these MSS as well as that of the British Library also help clarify Abbayye’s subsequent actions. The Oxford and JTS MSS read: כי הדר בעא למיפל מיגירא דגמלא (when he returned he attempted to plunge down from the corner of a bridge) while the British Library MS reads: אזל תלא נפשיה בגי/ד/ר?א דגמלא והוה קא טבע (he went and suspended himself over the corner of a bridge in order to drown himself). According to these MSS, Abbayye wished to commit suicide due to the fact that his sexual desire overcame him and caused him to suspect innocent people.

Following this story, the gemara presents various sayings of Palestinian tannaim and amoraim concerning the power of the Evil Inclination, and how to overcome it. Rabbi Yohanan’s statement concerning sexual desire is pertinent to our discussion: “There is a small organ in a man. Whoever makes it hungry is satisfied, whoever satisfies it is hungry, as it is said: “When they were fed they became full”’[3] (Hos 13:6).” Rashi understood the word “hunger” in a general physical sense of hunger for food, implying that a person must take care of his physical health now and in the future. Still, I believe Rabbi Yohanan’s saying indicates a hunger for sexual relations and that the “small organ” which is or is not satisfied refers to the male sexual organ. Hence, one who often engages in sexual relations is hungry for more, while someone who has relations infrequently starves his body so that he does not require them. According to this interpretation, one must refrain from sex in order to overcome sexual desire.

This sugya may be related to a statement by the Babylonian amora Rav Yehudah in bSan 107a concerning the meaning of “late afternoon David rose from his couch” (II Sam 11:2). The gemara interprets this verse as signifying that David arose from cohabiting with Bat Sheva towards the evening. Hence he had engaged in sexual relations with her during daytime. Rav Yehudah comments on this as follows: “He changed his night couch to a day couch but he forgot the halakhah: There is a small organ in a man. Whoever makes it hungry is satisfied, whoever satisfies it is hungry.” Here Rav Yehudah presents the maxim as a halakhah forbidding daytime sexual relations, and David as one whose sexual urge impelled him to ignore this halakhah.

In my opinion, this saying was first uttered by Rabbi Yohanan and was originally a general recommendation for asceticism. The Babylonian amora, Rav Yehudah, made secondary use of this aphorism and linked it to David’s sin. Yet the plain sense of the verse does not imply a condemnation of daytime sexual relations.[4]

The tradition cited by Rav concerning the separation of men and women during the mourning period raises a feminist issue. As shown by the above synopsis, this theme apparently originated in the Yerushalmi. Thus, both the Yerushalmi and the Bavli assume that even though a person’s sexual desire is weakened when in mourning, it still remains uncontrollable. The following tradition in bQid 80b indicates that such a premise was apparently widely accepted. It cites a baraita concerning the burial of a baby:

The reply to Abba Sha’ul refers to mQid 4:12: “A man may not be alone with two women but one woman may be alone with two men (לא יתיחד אדם עם שתי נשים אבל אישה אחת מתיחדת עם שני אנשים). Justifying the prohibition of a man being alone with two women, the gemara (Tanna de-Ve Eliyahu) then states: הואיל ונשים דעתן קלות עליהן (because women are temperamentally light-headed). Rashi explains that the expression דעתן קלות (light-headed) indicates that women are easily seduced, and that the presence of another woman will not dissuade the first one from engaging in sexual relations with the man present, but rather both will yield to temptation. Elsewhere I have shown that the expression דעתן קלות (light-headed) describes women’s inability to withstand physical and mental strains but not sexual licentiousness.[1] Tal Ilan has demonstrated that the stories presented in the continuation of the Bavli also place the blame for sexual misconduct on men.[2] According to Judith Hauptman, this expression signifies “Lacking a strong enough will to resist that which one is being pressed into doing.” [3] Consequently, the gemara views the woman as in some measure responsible for any possible sexual interlude between the sexes. Hence she concludes that the expression נשים דעתן קלות עליהן (women are temperamentally lightheaded) represents stereotypical male thinking, according to which women should prevent men from sinning. I concur that the gemara presents the man, and not the woman, as yielding to his sexual desire and initiating sexual encounters.

The gemara in Qiddushin continues by presenting a baraita to justify Abba Sha’ul’s statement and the rabbis’ subsequent response:

The tannaim determined that when a child is buried it may be accompanied by one woman and two men but not one man and two women. The sugya in bQid 80b reveals that there was no uniform opinion among them regarding a man’s sexual impulse. Unlike Abba Sha’ul, most tannaim believed that even when in mourning, a man’s sexual desire would overwhelm him. Yet such an understanding conflicts with Rav’s opinion in our sugya (bSuk 51a) as well as that of the stama in the Yerushalmi (ySuk 5:2, 55b). Both believe that when a man is occupied with mourning the Evil Inclination does not overcome him.

Rabbi Yohanan’s remark regarding a man’s small organ raises another feminist issue. This statement expresses an aversion for satiating sexual desire as well as the dangers it involves.[1] An examination of the verse in Hos 13:6, upon which Rabbi Yohanan’s statement is based, clearly demonstrates the destructive results of satiating one’s desire: “When they were fed they became full; when they were full they grew haughty; and so they forgot Me.” Still it is unclear whether the words “which satisfies him when in hunger” are a recommendation for total starvation/sexual abstinence or moderation in sexual relations, as understood by Rabbi Yehudah in bSan 107a.[2]