Talmud Commentary: Bavli 2/3. bBetsah 18a (mBetsah 2:2)

@Manuscript evidence

@General observations

There are several occasions on which a person has to immerse him/herself according to biblical and rabbinical regulations. Specifically, in bRhSh 16b, it is stated: “A person must purify him/herself before a festival day.” The same applies to objects. All agree that one is not allowed to immerse objects on Shabbat. Yet Rav Hiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav allowed a woman to resort to subterfuge and immerse herself with her clothing on.[1] When she immerses herself, her clothing will also be immersed and become pure. Then an objection was raised that women might forget that it is only permitted to immerse their clothing while still clothed. This argument, however, was refuted by stating that women will remember and are considered trustworthy.

@Feminist observations

@Rabbis on the Trustworthiness of Women

In Judaism, as in many other ancient cultures, menstruants are required to stay away from sacred places as they are regarded as impure.[1] This impurity had to be cleansed in an immersion ritual. According to the Bible, women’s impurity had no more severe consequences than men’s impurity.[2] Nevertheless, as Fonrobert has stated: “Ritual immersion, although possibly also involving men, was increasingly associated with women and with the biblical notion of menstrual impurity.”[3]

Although neither Josephus nor any other Second Temple author required a menstruant to immerse herself, the tannaitic rabbis and, of course, the rabbis of the Bavli and the Yerushalmi, took this immersion for granted.[4] Menstrual laws in both talmudim are, therefore, “a powerful redefinition of the laws concerning menstruation, legitimizing the rabbis’ claim to expertise over women’s blood.”[5] Usually this resulted in stringencies rather than leniencies. For example, in bNid 66a the difference between a zava and a niddah is effaced. Yet, the rabbis themselves claimed that the hardships of the laws on menstruation were invented by the women themselves (bBer 31a, bMeg 28b, bNid 66a).

The above-cited sugya about rabbinic immersion requirement for women after menstruation draws our attention to two major topics concerning women here: The permission to resort to הערמה (subterfuge)[6] and נאמנות (the trustworthiness of women). The term “subterfuge” (להערים/הערמה) denotes a legal fiction that is considered to be as valid as the original halakhah. This principle of the valid loophole occurs throughout rabbinic literature (for instance, in bShab 117b, bShab 124a, bShab 139b, bNed 43a-b, 44a-45a, bMQ 19a; bSuk 41b; bPes 9a, bMen 67b, bNid 15b, bTem 10b, 24b-25a). The subversion is valid as long as it does not violate the halakhah. Employing an הערמה requires thorough knowledge of halakhah in order to avoid breaking the rules. In the above-cited text (bBets 18a), a woman is permitted to use a subterfuge and immerse her clothing while remaining fully clad. Moreover, she is trusted to understand its import and bear in mind that immersion fully dressed is a הערמה, since immersing clothing separately is forbidden. The trustworthiness of women is an underlying principle throughout Massekhet Betsah as I shall briefly demonstrate by digressing onto the rabbinic discussion of women’s trustworthiness.

The rabbis disagree on the question of whether a woman can be trusted in matters of biblical and/or of rabbinic law. The locus classicus for the issue of women’s trustworthiness in rabbinic halakhah is bPes 4a, where it states that everyone, including women, children and slaves, can be relied upon to declare that bi‘ur hamets (removal of leaven) has been completed, this being a rabbinic requirement. Furthermore, women were relied upon in matters of separating terumah (heave offering), ma‘asrot (tithes) and hallah (see the commentary on Mishnah 2. mBetsah 1:6). This can also be deduced from bKet 72a, which comments on the mishnah that informs us about instances when a man may divorce his wife without paying her what he guaranteed to her in her ketubbah (marriage contract). The gemara states that this is permissible if a wife fed her husband fruit, from which terumot and ma‘asrot were not removed, or bread, from which hallah was not set aside.

The trustworthiness of women was discussed by the rishonim who, in general, agreed that a woman can be trusted when she is in control (see, for instance, Tosfot to bGit 2b) or a woman can be trusted if she can be questioned about her statement (see Ha-Meiri on bKet 72a). They conclude that women can be relied upon even concerning biblical commandments. However, the Shitta Mekubetset (bKet 28a) maintains that a woman should only be trusted in matters that are a routine part of her day.

In the Bavli itself we observe that women were relied upon when they were familiar with the laws. Massekhet Betsah generally deals with laws regarding festivals that are intrinsically linked to women’s work. This is why women were trusted in Tractate Betsah and why they sometimes even altered the outcome of halakhic decisions.

The above-cited text (bBets 18a) further testifies to the trust accorded to women stating that, when menstruating, they would remember the prohibition against directly immersing their clothing. Acts of labor involving clothing were considered obligatory for women and under their own control. bKet 65b, therefore, states: