Talmud Commentary: Bavli 2/2. bBetsah 17a (mBetsah 2:1)

@Manuscript evidence

@General observations

The above gemara discusses the preparation of food on a festival’s first and second days. On a festival day one is allowed to prepare food, but only the amount needed for the festival day itself. Therefore, it is forbidden to prepare food for eating on the following day, whether it is a weekday, Shabbat, or even the second day of the festival itself. This principle was already stated in bBets 2b, where the gemara explained that weekdays should be used to prepare for Shabbat and festivals, but Shabbat or festivals should not be used to prepare for weekdays. Although normally it is forbidden to prepare food on a festival day for the following day, cooking on a festival day for Shabbat is permitted by specially designating a portion of the cooked dish before the festival begins. This dish is called an eruv tavshilin,[1] literally a “mingling of cooked dishes.” The term eruv is a rabbinic neologism found for the first time in the Mishnah. There are other types of eruvin mentioned in the Mishnah and in the talmudim, such as eruv hatserot and eruv tehumim (see the commentary on Mishnah 7. mBetsah 5:3). While the laws of the last-mentioned Eruvin are discussed in Mishnah Eruvin, the eruv tavshilin belongs to Massekhet Betsah, since everyone who intends to prepare for Shabbat on a festival day requires an eruv tavshilin.

@Feminist observations

Although it is forbidden to prepare more food than necessary on the same festival day, our gemara tells us in the name of Rabbi Shime‘on ben Ele‘azar that a woman may prepare a larger amount. Rabbi Shime‘on ben Ele‘azar’s dictum is introduced with the expression “in truth they said,” which is generally used in presenting halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai (a ruling that goes back in time to Moses himself, i.e., very authoritative and old). Interestingly, precisely at this point the manuscript version of Oxford Opp. Add. Fol. 23 reads: “The house of Rabbi Shime‘on ben Ele‘azar.” The formulation “the house of”, as mentioned above (Bavli 1/4. bBetsah 14b), points to the women (of the house), indicating that the halakhah here follows women’s dicta.

One can observe again that the preparation of food was primarily done by women, or the gemara would not have told us that a woman is allowed to bake and cook, but that a person is allowed to do such or such. The different MS readings confirm that a woman is expected to carry out this work. MSS Vatican 109 and HARL 5508 (400) read the plural verb form (אופין) instead of the singular, and Vatican 134 reads: “Only what she needs” instead of “only what he needs” (of the Vilna print). Moreover, since the halakhah, in fact, applies not only to women, it cannot be considered a law or leniency designed especially for them. For this reason later commentators inquired why it was permitted in general, and not why it was permitted for women. Rashi, for example, explains that since cooking two pieces of meat is the same as cooking one piece of meat, it is allowed, because it does not involve more work. Another explanation is that one is allowed to do so if the result tastes better.

Furthermore, the Yerushalmi here speaks exclusively about women’s sphere of labor: the preparation of food and the making of beds. Although it clearly states that a woman may fill the pot, the sentence continues with a verb in masculine singular: “So that he eats.” It is nevertheless obvious that women are also implied in the use of this masculine verb. The accepted halakhah (transmitted in the name of Rabbi Shime‘on ben Ele‘azar) is, therefore, clearly based on the actions of women.

In order to explain why a woman is allowed to fill an oven with more meat or bread than necessary for the festival day itself, let me examine the institution of the eruv tavshilin concerning women in general.

As Fonrobert has pointed out, not much of the literature on the eruv assumes that “the eruv derives primarily from the halakhic impulse towards leniency among the rabbis, and is therefore designated to make the observance of Shabbat prohibitions easier.”[1] She has convincingly argued that “since the eruv as a ritual system entails forming an Eruv-community, it also operates as a tool to structure the relationship between insiders and outsiders.” The fully developed symbolism of an eruv can, therefore, be interpreted as a “theory of neighborhood.”[2] The neighborhood was “the primary arena for rabbinic thinking about social space.”[3]

What is the role of women in the preparation of an eruv tavshilin and why is the rule discussed in bBets 16a (“not to prepare more than needed for the same day”) altered by taking an example from women’s work? Fonrobert has already shown that women played a central role in the establishment of an eruv in Massekhet Eruvin, in addition to contributing crucially to rabbinic thinking on the neighborhood.[4] In what follows I will discuss their crucial role in establishing also eruv tavshilin.

One can observe that medieval commentators link the eruv tavshilin as discussed in Tractate Betsah with the eruvin discussed in Massekhet Eruvin. This linkage is made, first, because of the same name and, second, because they all deal with food.[5] Because every eruv is intrinsically connected to food, it is at first glance logically linked to women, who were responsible for food preparation and whose domain, the household, was the storage place for the eruv. Although women prepared the ingredients for every eruv, the outer world of eruv hatserot was ascribed to men, whereas the “homely” eruv was considered to be women’s business. While Fonrobert has differed with Ilan, stating that women could not be reduced simply to household activities,[6] in the rabbis’ division of gender-roles we find an absolutely clear line drawn in the assignment of certain activities to women and others to men. Of course, women were found in the public or outside world as well as men, but in household responsibilities they gained a certain degree of trust and acceptance even from the rabbis. Judith Hauptman has already pointed out that the eruv in general addresses the husband-wife relationship, since it is crucial to ascertain whether a wife may make an eruv on behalf of or even against the wishes of her husband.[7] Hauptman has shown that in Tractate Eruvin “the woman is an independent legal person, exactly like the man.”[8]

The involvement of women in the making of the eruv can be observed in both talmudim. For instance, two stories are reported where women even set the eruv: The first story appears in the Bavli and, with slight differences, in the Yerushalmi: “It once happened that a woman made an eruv for her mother-in-law without her knowledge” (yEruv 7:11, 24d), and in the Bavli parallel: “It once happened that the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Oshayah went to the bathhouse (before Shabbat) and it became dark (before she left) and her mother-in-law made an eruv for her” (bEruv 80a). In both stories, women set the eruv. The second story is told in yEruv 3:2, 20d. Here, two women who were hostile to each other reconciled their differences when they jointly set an eruv.

The central role of women in making an eruv can, therefore, be explained as deriving from two main factors: First, women’s central role in food preparation and, second, the central involvement of women in stories about the neighborhood,[9] if we accept Fonrobert’s assumption that the eruv is basically about neighborhood. This assumption can be borne out by the fact that throughout Massekhet Betsah women meet and exchange information, knowledge, and ingredients with their (female) neighbors.

Women’s power and independence in preparing food can be observed in the above-cited text (bBets 17a). Although it was forbidden to cook more food than necessary on the festival day itself, women did cook and bake more than needed out of practical considerations or because of what we would call today eco logical reasons. The rabbis accepted this practice and sanctioned it retroactively as halakhically correct, by instituting an eruv tavshilin, which officially permits the preparation of food for the next day and can, therefore, be denoted as rabbinic acceptance of women’s rule in the household, albeit retroactively. Nevertheless, through the institution of the eruv tavshilin the rabbis regained their power over a female sphere of action. Since they could not change women’s actions, which involved practices that turned the gender-based hierarchy upside down, they ended up acknowledging these practices by inventing the halakhic rule of the eruv tavshilin. This rule “corrected” the hierarchy between the sexes, because although women could set the eruv, it was by definition under the control of men.