Talmud Commentary: Bavli 3/6. bBetsah 29a-b (mBetsah 3:8)

@Manuscript evidence

@General observations

Here the gemara is in the midst of a discussion regarding permissible foodpreparation activities on a festival day. Rav Yirmiyah bar Abba in the name of Rav permits the measurement of flour on a festival day. Then an objection is raised by Shmu’el, who says that this is prohibited. Against Shmu’el’s objection, a baraita in the name of the “house of Shmu’el” is cited that it is permitted, but this permission should not be publicized. Therefore, Shmu’el states that if someone comes to ask whether it is permitted to measure flour for baking, one should answer him/her that it is not. However, if one observes somebody measuring flour one should not protest, because the actual halakhah is that it is indeed permitted.

The gemara in bBets 29b then turns to discuss another aspect of sifting flour. One may sift flour on a festival day to remove impurities. מרקד (sifting) is a labor that is not permitted on a festival day, for it could have been performed beforehand.

Once impurities were removed from the flour, it was a common practice to resift it, to improve its texture. The gemara inquires whether this resifting is allowed on a festival day. It agrees that it is permitted, because resifting improves the texture of the flour, rather than remove impurities, and is, therefore, clearly distinguishable from the act of sifting. Yet, if a pebble or splinter fell into the dough it should not be resifted, because sifting the flour to remove impurities resembles the forbidden act of sifting; one is only allowed to take the splinter out directly. Although the objection was raised that “taking out” is also forbidden, since it resembles the act of separating (בורר), the rabbis, nevertheless, permitted it on festival days in the course of food preparation. Rav Nahman comments on this, stating that there is no reason to be grateful for this lenient ruling, since it is already common practice.[1]

The gemara additionally states that certain forms of food preparation were permitted only if a change was implemented, altering the normal procedure.

@Feminist observations

First of all, one may observe yet another example of women being responsible for sifting flour, preparing dough and separating hallah from the dough (see the commentary on Mishnah 2. mBetsah 1:6).

The gemara reports three halakhic decisions that were fixed according to the practices of women:

1. The gemara questions the fact that, in contrast to the ruling of Shmu’el, who claimed that it is prohibited to measure flour on a festival day, the “house of Shmu’el” taught that it is permitted. Surprisingly, the halakhah was then accepted according to the house of Shmu’el. Since the term “the house of” refers throughout rabbinic literature to women, and since the field of action described here is by definition a female working sphere, it is quite probable that the dispute between Shmu’el and his house refers actually to a dispute between Shmu’el and his wife. Surprising, though, is that the halakhah follows the practice of Shmu’el’s wife. Throughout Massekhet Betsah it can be observed that these activities were taught by women, whereas the halakhic authority was depicted only as male. The gemara here indirectly justifies the woman and accepts her practice as halakhah, even against the ruling of her husband.

2. The gemara questions the fact that, in contrast to the ruling of Shmu’el, who claimed that it is prohibited to measure flour on a festival day, the “house of Shmu’el” taught that it is permitted. Surprisingly, the halakhah was then accepted according to the house of Shmu’el. Since the term “the house of” refers throughout rabbinic literature to women, and since the field of action described here is by definition a female working sphere, it is quite probable that the dispute between Shmu’el and his house refers actually to a dispute between Shmu’el and his wife. Surprising, though, is that the halakhah follows the practice of Shmu’el’s wife. Throughout Massekhet Betsah it can be observed that these activities were taught by women, whereas the halakhic authority was depicted only as male. The gemara here indirectly justifies the woman and accepts her practice as halakhah, even against the ruling of her husband.

Resifting on a festival day was allowed when one performed the act differently than usual. The Bavli relies explicitly on the resifting practices of two women. The parallel version in the Yerushalmi (yBets 1:10, 60d) on the same halakhah reports that resifting on festival days was only permitted when it was done in an unusual way, without referring to any women. The Bavli, however, tells us that the wife of Rav Yosef would resift the flour on a festival day slightly differently from the normal way she did it. What she did, according to Rashi, was use the back of the sieve rather than its front side. In contrast, her husband, Rav Yosef, claimed that she could sift it in a regular fashion without any change. Similarly, according to Rashi, the wife of Rav Ashi resifted the flour using the underside of a table, i.e., in an unusual way.[1] This was commented upon by Rav Ashi himself, who pointed out that his wife was the daughter of Rami bar Hama and learned how to do this in his house. Furthermore, the gemara states that she gained her knowledge from the בי נשא, the women’s house. The term בי נשא usually refers to the family of the woman and to the house she came from before marriage (see as well bShab 23b, 156a, bYev 35a, bBB 12b). We observe that while the women in the Bavli adhered to the stringent interpretation of the halakhah, their husbands permitted this practice even though it was not derived from weekday activities.

Basing the halakhah so clearly on the actions of women was justified on the assumption that they knew and adhered to the halakhah, because they were daughters or wives of famous and observant rabbis. The Bavli directly refers to these associations. The Korban Netanel (§30) and all the MSS suggest that the father of Rav Ashi’s wife was actually Rami bar Abba (not Hama) as our text describes the lineage. Rami bar Hama lived many years before Rav Ashi. Moreover, the gemara (bHul 111a) specifically claims that Rami bar Abba was Rav Ashi’s father-in-law. Yet in this context, the “wrong version” of Rami bar Hama brings with it more prestige. Rami bar Hama was married to one of the few important women mentioned in the Bavli – Bat Rav Hisda (Hisda’s daughter – bBB 12b). If Rav Ashi was married to Rami bar Hama’s daughter, her mother would have been this most trustworthy of women (see e.g. bKet 85a; bHul 44b; bHag 5a). The women’s house where she had learnt how to conduct herself would have been this one. The “corrected” text of the Bavli here hints at a genealogy of knowledge that was passed from one prominent woman to another. Yet, ascribing this woman to a “wrong” rabbi underlines the point that her knowledge always derives not just from any male source, but from a reliable one. The formulation is standardized. It always goes like this: The wife of X did this and that and it was correct because otherwise the male rabbis would have protested against her behavior. A similar story is told in bHul 110a: There, Rav Pappi served two visiting rabbis a dish made with liver. One of the rabbis ate it, while the other did not. Abbayye questioned the refusal and explained: “Rav Pappi’s wife was the daughter of Rav Yitshaq Nafha and Rav Yitshaq Nafha was a pious man. Had his daughter not learned [this] in her father’s house, she would not have prepared it.”

One can observe that halakhic decisions in the domain of household activities were based upon customs that were practiced by women, who in fact sometimes adhered to a more stringent position and in other cases to a more lenient interpretation of the law than their husbands. In either case, their halakhic position often conflicted with their husband’s indicating its origin in a different (probably feminine) source.