Talmud Commentary: Bavli 3/3. bBetsah 25b (mBetsah 3:3)

@Manuscript evidence

@General observations

The gemara questions the permissibility of going out and letting oneself be carried on a seat on a festival day. Although the Tosefta (tYT 3:17) states that this is forbidden, both talmudim agree that under certain circumstances it is permitted. Both talmudim provide different examples of when this permission is given. The Yerushalmi states that a physician may be carried on a festival day to visit the sick and also that one may be carried if the public demands it or if a public need is involved. In contrast, the Bavli gives only one reason for the permit to be carried on a festival day: the need of the public. Furthermore, according to Rabbi Ami, even if public need is involved, it is still forbidden to shoulder a chair. The discussion is then followed by a counter-argument to Rabbi Ami’s position: Rav Nahman permitted Yalta to be carried and shouldered on a festival day. The Bavli asks, therefore, why was it permitted for Yalta to be carried that way? The answer given is peculiar: Yalta was allowed to be carried because she was afraid. Likewise, Ameimar and Mar Zutra were carried on festival days, because they, too, were afraid. Another anonymous opinion states, they were carried because of “public pressure.” This sugya leaves us with some questions: First of all, what is meant by “public need” and how can fear be considered an acceptable explanation for violating the law? And, why were Yalta, Ameimar and Mar Zutra carried in the first place, if they were afraid of falling?

The Bavli uses the term “public need” when referring to public lectures on the Torah. Later commentators follow this explanation. Rashi (on bSan 7b), for instance, states that Ameimar and Mar Zutra gave lessons about festival laws on Shabbat and therefore had to be carried. The instability of a seat carried in the arms of two people and the mass of people who came to hear their lecture caused Mar Zutra and Ameimar to voice fears of falling down. Apart from Ameimar and Mar Zutra, a woman named Yalta is also mentioned.

@Feminist observations

The assumption of the Bavli, that the only reason why Yalta had to be carried on a festival day was her fear of falling, is questioned by later commentators (Tosfot, Rashba, Re’ah, Hidushei Ha-Meiri). They all agree that fear cannot constitute grounds for violating the law. Therefore, for Yalta, too, there must have been only one permissible reason to be carried: public need. She must have been on her way to deliver a public lecture on a festival day. For a better understanding of this argument, it is important to take a look at how Yalta is characterized in the Bavli in general.

@Yalta

Yalta is referred to only in the Bavli. Her name is mentioned seven times (in the tractates Berakhot, Shabbat, Niddah, Betsah, Gittin, Qiddushin and Hullin). No other named woman appears more often than she does. Alexander Kohut[1] suggested that the name Yalta is derived from יעלת, the Aramaic form of יעלה, a mountain goat. He suggests also another possible etymology of her name, namely its derivation from אילתה, the Aramaic form of אילה, a doe.

The Bavli records stories about Yalta’s halakhic knowledge and her self-esteem. Accordingly, already in the 19th century, in one of the first books ever devoted to Jewish women, Meyer Kayserling, a Jewish intellectual of Central Europe, Reform rabbi and historian (1829-1905), characterized Yalta as follows:[2]

Yalta was the daughter of the exilarch Abba-Mari and wife of Rav Nahman, whom she married as a widow. She passed her child from her first marriage on to a midwife in order to marry Rav Nahman before the appropriate time limit.[1] Because of her often biting humor, Yalta belongs to the most interesting women in the Talmud. […] As the daughter of the exilarch and wife of Rav Nahman, who was employed as judge by his father-in-law, she loved ostentatiousness. She lived like a grand dame. She […] expected the rabbis, who came to her house, to pay homage to her as they would to a princess. When Ulla once ate at her table and hesitated to pass on the cup of blessing to her, she stood up from the table in anger, went to the cellar and destroyed 400 pitchers of wine. When Ulla, who was poor and forced to wander from place to place, was coaxed by Rav Nahman to concede and finally paid Yalta the previously denied honor, she replied: You are “a beggar offering his lice.”

Like Kayserling, Adin Steinsaltz (b. 1937), a contemporary Israeli rabbi, born into a secular family, who became a practicing Jew and rabbi, authoring the popular translation of the Bavli into several languages (including Hebrew), characterizes Yalta in his commentary on bBer 51b:

Wife of Rav Nahman, from the family of the exilarch. Several stories about Yalta are told in the Talmud and her exchange with Rav Nahman and other sages of the generation are reported. It is stated that certain activities were permitted to her out of respect to the patriarchate; it is further reported that she asked many questions that proved that she had a great knowledge of the Torah. Even when she was angry and full of her self-worth she did not desist from asking the sages questions and even assisted them when she had her period. The name of Yalta almost became a byword for a wealthy and spoilt woman.

These two descriptions, separated by almost a century, and derived from completely different social circles, share the notion that Yalta was, on the one hand, respected for her great Torah knowledge but was, on the other hand, choleric and arrogant and the embodiment of pamperedness. And, just like the two scholars cited above, traditional literature and books of rabbinic biographies describe her as well connected – the daughter of the Exilarch and the wife of a great rabbi – Rav Nahman.[1] Against this notion Tal Ilan has pointed out that not once in the printed Vilna edition, and in most manuscripts, is Yalta expressis verbis referred to as Rav Nahman’s wife.[2] She maintains that they could just as well have been friends.[3] It should, however, be noted that MSS Vatican 134 and HARL 5508 (400) on bBets 25b, as shown above, could be read as referring to Yalta as Rav Nahman’s wife (a wife is different, because she is afraid), although this text could also be understood as a more general statement (a woman is different, because she is afraid).

From a feminist-academic perspective, Rachel Adler has written the most detailed description of Yalta, turning her into a “legal guerilla.” According to Adler, Yalta’s behavior is a “calculated attempt to manipulate the system,” and moreover: “Yalta’s legal guerrilla tactics are predicated upon her scepticism that the authorities are dispensing justice. Yalta as legal guerrilla strips away the mask of justice, revealing the cruel face beneath.”[4] Judith Baskin, too, reads the stories about Yalta as a “determination to undercut female authority,”[5] opining that the stories about her in bQid 70a-b and bBer 51b “demonstrate a rabbinic desire to curtail such instances of female pretensions to independence and power.”[6] She, therefore, concludes, that “if this is the case for Yalta, the influential daughter of the Exilarch, how much more so for an ordinary woman?”[7]

Was Yalta really the daughter of the Resh Galuta or the Nasi? Was she really a “legal guerilla”? What did she fight for or against? Did she really battle against the rabbis? In the following section, I will attempt to answer these questions. My thesis is that the opposite is true. Yalta did not fight the system, but rather she fought within it, using the halakhah as her weapon. I will also argue that Yalta was indeed very strongly associated with the house of the Resh Galuta since her behavior mirrors minhag Bavel (the Babylonian tradition). The majority of the rabbis do not argue against her but approve of her behavior as halakhically correct. I will first discuss two texts that demonstrate Yalta’s great halakhic knowledge. I will then proceed to show what it was that Yalta really fought for and, finally, I will outline what all this can teach us about the status of women in Jewish Babylonia.

Undoubtedly, Yalta was well-versed in halakhah. The Bavli tells us in Tractate Hullin (bHul 109b) about a conversation that Yalta had with Rav Nahman:

Interestingly, the same tradition can be found in an earlier version in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah.[1] Yet the midrash does not mention Yalta at all:

Obviously this midrashic version indicates that the tradition assigned to Yalta in the Bavli was known to the sages independently. Why did the Bavli choose to represent Yalta citing it? The midrash discusses negative commandments and states – as Yalta does – that despite the many prohibitions, they are never absolute and all-embracing, as something equivalent is always permitted. Consequently it emphasizes the issue of negative mitsvot, describing them as fair. The Bavli thus places the argument for the fairness of negative commandments in the mouth of a woman. As the following passages from the Bavli will show, Yalta herself demands to be treated fairly by the same halakhah. In bHul 9b, Yalta does not fight against the halakhah nor does she complain or doubt it. She looks for “the permitted” within its framework and scope. She can, therefore, be considered an advocate of the halakhah le-kula, the lenient interpretation of halakhic rules. She is portrayed as relying upon a rabbinic tradition that can be found already in the midrash, hereby anticipating Rava’s dictum in the Bavli: קדש עצמך במותר לך) sanctify yourself through that which is permitted to you – bYev 20a). According to Yalta, the Torah does not emphasize the prohibitions, but rather the permissions.

Yalta’s great halakhic knowledge is also reflected in a story told in Tractate Niddah. In this episode she “fights” for her interpretation of the halakhah and openly disagrees with the opinion offered by a rabbi:

As Fonrobert has pointed out,[1] bNid 20b deals with the question of how much hegemony a woman can have in matters of blood. The Yalta episode shows that, in the rabbis’ opinion, authority in matters of blood was not placed in women’s hands (and see also the commentary on Bavli 2/3. bBetsah 18a). Nevertheless, in this case Yalta takes matters into her own hands; surprisingly, the text complains, not about her actions, but rather about Rabbi Yitshaq’s. Yalta herself is halakhically vindicated. For this reason the Tosfot (on bNid 20b) question Yalta’s behavior: “One could raise an objection in the case of Yalta: How could she have acted this way? Do we not read in the first chapter of Tractate Avodah Zarah (bAZ 7a) that one is not allowed to go to another scholar?”

The Tosfot refer to a baraita cited in bAZ 7a, whose origin, however, is in the Tosefta:

Yet, although the Tosefta clearly states that it is prohibited to ask for a second opinion, and the Tosfot question Yalta’s behavior, the latter come to a surprising conclusion that asking is always permitted. They outspokenly defend Yalta’s behavior, after being convinced by the halakhic argument attributed to her. Though not stated in so many words, she herself relies on a mishnah from Massekhet Nega‘im, which states that a priest who cannot see well cannot declare a person healthy:

Yalta can be presented here as suggesting that the inspection of a woman’s genital blood is modeled on the priestly inspection of leprous lesions.[1] She stresses the mishnaic halakhah and rejects the interpretation of the Tosefta. Thus the sugya portrays Yalta as favoring mishnaic halakhah over a baraita, and her halakhic statement and argument as convincing. Fonrobert pointed out that “the text ends up putting Yalta on equal footing with the rabbis and makes her a participant in Talmudic discourse, instead of a mere object.”[2] The Bavli explicitly states at the end of the Yalta story in bNId: “Has it not indeed been taught in a baraita: A women is believed when she says I saw a kind of blood like this?” Although the text proves that women had no sovereignty in blood matters, Yalta is portrayed here as knowledgably arguing from a strong halakhic position which convinces the rabbis in the end.

The texts in bHul and bNId depict Yalta’s great halakhic knowledge. She knew and accepted halakhic rules. She opposed the emphasis on the prohibitions and followed the guiding principle that when the Torah prohibits anything it is prohibited, but one has to stay with what is permitted, as long as the halakhah makes it possible.

I will now discuss two further passages that mention Yalta. These two were responsible for her characterization as a spoilt, arrogant and angry woman. I will demonstrate that in these texts, too, Yalta adhered to the halakhah, which led the rabbis to agree with her. The first passage is found in bQid 70a-b. In this text the appearance of Yalta comes at the end of a long court narrative: A certain Jew from Neharde‘a comes to Pumbedita and insults the leading rabbi there – Rav Yehudah. The latter retaliates by declaring a ban on the man. This Neharde‘an in turn summons Rav Yehudah to the court of Rav Nahman in Neharde‘a. Rav Yehudah deliberates with his colleagues whether he should accept the summons but finally decides, that since Rav Nahman is related to the Nasi(!), he should accept it. When he comes, he begins to criticize many phenomena he observes in Rav Nahman’s court, always quoting Shmu’el as his authority. At the end of this exchange we find the following episode:

Rav Nahman here asks Rav Yehudah to send a blessing to Yalta, but he declines. This story mentions by name another woman in Rav Nahman’s vicinity: Doneg, a minor. Rashi claimed that Doneg was Rav Nahman’s daughter, but Ilan has pointed out that she could have been a slave or his wife.[1] In any case, the story ends with the words of Rav Nahman’s wife. This text displays a structural similarity with the following passage in bBerakhot. Both stories suggest that Rav Nahman wishes to honor Yalta whereas his dialogue partner opposes the idea. In both texts the Bavli editor stands on Yalta’s side, but in the second text, her very actions and words were deemed justified by the rabbis. bBer 51a-b tells the story of how Ulla, Rav Nahman and Yalta were dining together, when the question was raised whether Yalta should participate in the “cup of the blessing”:

Ulla belongs to the third generation of amoraim and also to the group of the so-called nehutei (descenders). The nehutei travelled back and forth between the Land of Israel and Babylonia. In many cases they collected funds for the Torah academies in the Land of Israel. Yalta destroyed 400 jars of wine, symbolizing Babylonian-Jewish wealth, before Ulla’s eyes. Feminist scholars such as Rachel Adler have, therefore, judged Yalta’s behavior to be a rebellion against men. According to Adler’s interpretation of the above story, “Ulla maintains that women should not have direct access to the cup of blessing because the blessing it represents is fertility and fertility belongs to men.” Adler concludes that “small wonder that Yalta heads for the wine storage to castrate Ulla symbolically four hundred times, shattering the containers and spilling out the sanctifiable liquid, whose blessing, according to Ulla, is a man’s prerogative to dispense”.[1]

Judith Baskin has argued that if Yalta received nothing from the cup of blessing, one has to assume that women of a lesser social standing most definitely did not receive anything either.[2] If Yalta’s behavior was indeed a female rebellion against the oppression of women, we would expect traditional commentators to condemn her to the same extent that feminist scholars now praise her for her resistance. When we look at traditional medieval commentators, however, their estimation of Yalta is quite stunning. The Maharasha (Rabbi Shmuel Aidels, 1555-1631) explained in his Hidushei Halakhot that Yalta was indeed a great woman who had been appropriately upset at not receiving the cup of blessing[3] for the purest of motives: the desire to participate in this great mitsvah. Thus, she smashed all the wine jars in the cellar, showing they meant nothing to her. It was only the cup of blessing that she desired. Moreover, the 18th-century Rav Yosef Teomin, in his Pri Megadim, and the Maharatz Chajes (Morenu Harav Zvi Chajes) in his Introduction to the Talmud maintain that if an act of destruction has a purpose, i.e. to teach a lesson, then the prohibition against destroying items does not apply, as, for example, breaking a glass at a wedding. Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Bagdad (the Ben Ish Chai – 1832 -1909) in his book Ben Yehoyada‘ assures us that Yalta’s actions were righteous, based upon her name Yalta. In gematria her name corresponds to the number 441, the same number as “truth.” He furthermore states that all the wine that she spilled actually belonged to her; it was a dowry from her father. She was upset at Ulla’s apparent stringency in not sending her the cup of blessing. The number 400, which, in gematria has the same numerical value as עין הרע (the evil eye) alludes to this. To prevent Ulla from benefiting from any wine in her house, Yalta broke the seals on 400 barrels and distributed all the wine to the poor and needy to use for qiddush (blessing at the onset of Shabbat) and havdalah (blessing at its end).

Surprisingly, our feminist rebel is defended by all traditional commentators. As we cannot assume that their comments were written in order to protect women’s rights, there is just one possible reason for the positive opinion about Yalta and that is that Yalta’s behavior was considered halakhically correct. Therefore, we again have to take a look at the story: The Bavli records two different traditions concerning the cup of blessing: One refers to ten things that were said over a cup of blessing; the other refers to only four. While the first tradition says that the cup of blessing should be given to women as well, the second says nothing about this. Before discussing these traditions, let me point out the tradition from the Land of Israel concerning “the cup of blessing.” The Yerushalmi states:

In contrast to the three embellishments that the Yerushalmi claims for the cup of blessing, the Bavli adds many more, including a tradition that maintains that women in general or at least wives may have a share in it. Where does this tradition come from? To answer this question, we have to look at another Bavli tractate. In Tractate Bava Metsia the Bavli comments on the mishnaic statement of Rabban Shime‘on ben Gamli’el, who claims: “Everything depends on local custom” (bBM 83a). Following this statement, the Bavli presents a biblical story. According to Gen 18:9, Abraham was asked: “Where is your wife, Sarah?” And he replied: “in the tent” (see the commentary on Bavli 1/2. bBetsah 5a-b):

According to the Bavli, Sarah received a cup of the blessing when visitors came to her home. No discussion or disagreement follows this statement. Yalta was therefore following a Babylonian tradition of women’s participation in the blessing, when she demanded that the cup of blessing be sent to her. Again she follows the lenient exegesis of the halakhah, as it was practiced in her vicinity. This interpretation is further supported by another piece of evidence found in bBer 20b:

The gemara in Berakhot, therefore, also suggested that giving the cup of blessing to Yalta was the proper thing to do.

Consequently, we have to assume that in the surroundings where Yalta lived there was both a tradition that included women in the cup of the blessing and a tradition from the Land of Israel that did not mention women and could be interpreted as excluding women from this mitsvah.[1] All this strengthens Ilan’s argument that women in Palestine “were not supposed to indulge in wine; in Babylonia on the contrary they did.”[2]

Therefore, the explanation for Yalta’s behavior lies not in her opposition to halakhah, but rather in her reliance on another halakhic tradition. Her anger probably derived not from her being a female guerilla warring against the male halakhah, but rather from striving to hold on to her rights within its limitations. In light of the fact that minhag ha-makom and the halakhah agree with her opinion that she was allowed to drink from the cup of blessing, and in light, also, of her high social status and the circumstance that Ulla was a guest who did not treat his hostess with respect, Yalta’s behavior appears completely justified. The fact that the Bavli gives Yalta, and not Ulla, the last word already indicates that Yalta’s, and not Ulla’s, opinion was the correct one. Her last words “gossip comes from peddlers and vermin from rags” have been interpreted by Ilan and shown to be a pun on a verse from the Book of Ben Sira (42:13). Yalta uses this quotation, which was originally intended to offend women, against Ulla.[3] While Ulla stands in this story for the tradition of the Land of Israel, which probably excludes women from participation in the cup of blessing, Yalta represents the Babylonian tradition. Given the latter, it is more likely that Yalta was the daughter or relative of the Resh Galuta, the head of Jewish communities in Babylonia, and not of the Nasi of the Land of Israel.

Another story transmitted in bShab 54b also associates Yalta with the House of the Resh Galuta:

Rav Hisda compared the treatment of sheep to the pampering of Mar Uqba the Resh Galuta, and Rav Nahman compared it to the pampering of Yalta. Both of them mocked the subjects of their comparisons. The parallel between the Resh Galuta and Yalta is revealing: While Rav Hisda takes the Resh Galuta himself and makes fun of him, Rav Nahman takes Yalta as a representative of that house.

The next story about Yalta reveals more clearly her position as a representative of the house of the Resh Galuta. In Tractate Gittin another story about Yalta is told:

For reasons not related in this episode, Rav Amram, a pious man, was tortured by members of the house of the Resh Galuta, shedding a negative light on it. In several passages the members of the house of the Resh Galuta are referred to as cruel (e.g. bAZ 38b, bSuk 31a, bShab 121b). In contrast to them, Yalta acts righteously and mercifully, opposing the torture they inflict on the pious man. She can, therefore, be considered a representative of the “good side” of the house of the Resh Galuta. Yalta places the cruel actions of other members of the house in perspective. Thus, she purges the house of the Resh Galuta from cruelty, as a good-will ambassador for what we can conceivably take as her father’s house. Like in many other stories recorded throughout the Bavli, here the woman’s behavior mirrors her father’s house. Consequently, in this description, Yalta personifies as feminine the good side of the Babylonian exilarchate, which seems to have come under criticism.

Yet Yalta’s role as halakhic expert was not as unique as it may seem at first blush. We know of at least three women who served as heads of synagogues: Rufina, head of a Jewish synagogue in the city of Smyrna in the Roman province of Asia, Sophia of Gortyn and Theopemte of Myndos, and we have testimonies about women attending the synagogue services (bSot 22b).[1] Women also studied Torah.[2] On this Boyarin has pointed out that:

The energetic denial of any merit for women in the study of Torah which we observe in Babylonia, and indeed, the erasure in the Babylonian Talmud of the Palestinian remarks on women’s studying, are more a “wishful” prescriptive determination than a reflection of actual social conditions. We could then interpret the evident threat of the texts which denote women’s studying as owing to the fact that women did study in that culture, and it is this which explains the greater anxiety of the Babylonian Rabbis.[1]

Boyarin’s general observation concerning the anxiety of the rabbis of learned women could be applied to the stories about Yalta as well.

Let us now return to the story of Yalta in bBetsah: It is odd that Yalta, characterized in all the stories throughout the Bavli as a strong, learned and merciful woman, who adhered to the halakhah and had halakhic knowledge, is described in Massekhet Betsah as violating the halakhah out of fear. Samuel Strashun, the Rashash, a 19th-century talmudic commentator, also wonders and asks how could Yalta have been allowed to be carried out of fear? Why did she not walk to begin with, or decide not to travel at all? In any case, according to the Rashash, fear can never be used as an argument for violating the halakhah. We are left with only one possible reason for explaining the permission granted Yalta to be carried on a sedan chair on a festival day, the reason given by the Bavli at the beginning of the story: public need. Yalta, like Ameimar and Mar Zutra, is on her way to deliver a Torah lecture. The other stories in the Bavli have already demonstrated how the Bavli editor perceived her deep halakhic knowledge. Rashi interpreted the permission given to Mar Zutra and Ameimar to be carried on a festival day on account of their fear as arising from the assumption that many people came to listen to them. With such a large audience, public pressure was high and the rabbis were afraid of falling down in the midst of the crowd. There is no reason why this assumption would not apply to Yalta as well. It is quite possible to imagine that many people wanted to hear this famous woman, probably daughter of the Resh Galuta, who was merciful and learned, and taught a lenient interpretation of the halakhah. The pressure of many people coming to hear her on a festival day may have given rise to fear.

Maybe the above-cited text “Yalta was different” (שאני ילתא) has to be read in conjunction with bHag 5a, where Rava says about his wife: “The daughter of Rav Hisda is different,” (שאני), but he doesn’t speak of fear; he continues with: שאני בת רב חסדה דקים ליה דבקיאה “for he was sure of her that she was an expert.” If we would understand the sentence “Yalta was different” as a shorthand quotation of the same saying[1] it would look like this: שאני ילתא ד[קים ליה דבקיאה] בעיתא Yalta is different, for [he is certain of her, for she is learned] she fears). This would correspond then to what was stated about the two other educated scholars: אמימר ומר זוטרא מכתפי להו דרגלא משום ביעתותא (Ameimar and Mar Zutra were carried on shoulders on the Shabbat of the festival because of [their] fear). Yalta was different not because of her fear. Yalta was different because of her great knowledge and expertise. Thus, her fear is the same as the fear of Ameimar and Mar Zutra, all three of them on their way to deliver public Torah sermons, attended by a crowd which might cause them to fall off their chairs. It was not Yalta, but rather the rabbis themselves, who were afraid of a public Torah discourse given by a woman. Nevertheless, they reported the stories about Yalta and thereby left traces of a powerful and learned woman in their transmitted texts.