The Rabbis Are Sitting in a Stolen Sukkah!
Sukkah 31a states:
ההיא סבתא דאתאי לקמיה דרב נחמן אמרה ליה ריש גלותא וכולהו רבנן דבי ריש גלותא בסוכה גזולה הוו יתבי צווחה ולא אשגח בה רב נחמן אמרה ליה איתתא דהוה ליה לאבוהא תלת מאה ותמני סרי עבדי צווחא קמייכו ולא אשגחיתו בה אמר להו רב נחמן פעיתא היא דא ואין לה אלא דמי עצים בלבד
Several questions come to mind:
- Why particularly a “savta”?
- Is her claim correct? Did the Reish Geluta and the Rabbis really steal the materials for a sukkah?
- Why did Rav Nachman ignore her?
- What is the meaning of her claim that she comes from a “forefather who had 318 servants”? What’s the connection, how would that place her in need of being paid attention to?
- Why does Rav Nachman call her a “cryer”?
- Why didn’t he just tell her to begin with that she can claim the money from them?
Answers:
Before we get to answers, it should be noted that a somewhat similar format of a story occurs in Bava Batra 9b:
אמר ליה ואלא שרץ דמטמא אדם מנלן לאו משום דמטמא בגדים אמר ליה שרץ בהדיא כתיב ביה (ויקרא כב, ה) או איש אשר יגע בכל שרץ אלא שכבת זרע דמטמא אדם מנלן לאו משום דהואיל ומטמא בגדים מטמא אדם אמר ליה שכבת זרע נמי בהדיא כתיב ביה (ויקרא כב, ד) או איש לרבות את הנוגע
Before we get to answers, it should be noted that a somewhat similar format of a story occurs in Bava Batra 9b:
אמר ליה ואלא שרץ דמטמא אדם מנלן לאו משום דמטמא בגדים אמר ליה שרץ בהדיא כתיב ביה (ויקרא כב, ה) או איש אשר יגע בכל שרץ אלא שכבת זרע דמטמא אדם מנלן לאו משום דהואיל ומטמא בגדים מטמא אדם אמר ליה שכבת זרע נמי בהדיא כתיב ביה (ויקרא כב, ד) או איש לרבות את הנוגע
Rav Sheshet said to him: But from where do we derive that the carcass of a creeping animal renders a person impure? Is it not because we know that it renders his garments impure? Rav Aḥadvoi said to him: It is written explicitly with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal: “Or a man who touches any creeping animal, whereby he may be made unclean” (Leviticus 22:5). Rav Sheshet said to him: But from where do we derive that semen renders a person impure? Is it not because we say that since it renders his garments impure (see Leviticus 15:17) it also renders a person impure? Rav Aḥadvoi said to him: It is also written explicitly with regard to semen: “Or a man from whom semen is expelled” (Leviticus 22:4), and the Sages expound the superfluous word “or” as serving to include as impure one who touches semen.
אהדר ליה בבדיחותא חלש דעתיה דרב ששת אישתיק רב אחדבוי בר אמי ואתיקר תלמודיה אתיא אימיה וקא בכיא קמיה צווחה צווחה ולא אשגח בה אמרה ליה חזי להני חדיי דמצית מינייהו בעא רחמי עליה ואיתסי
The Gemara relates that with each of his answers Rav Aḥadvoi responded to Rav Sheshet in a mocking tone, intimating that he doubted Rav Sheshet’s grasp of Torah verses. Rav Sheshet was deeply offended, and as punishment, Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami became mute and forgot his learning. Rav Aḥadvoi’s mother came and wept before Rav Sheshet. She cried and cried but he ignored her. As she had once been Rav Sheshet’s nursemaid, she said to him: Look at these breasts of mine from which you suckled. Upon hearing that, Rav Sheshet prayed for mercy for Rav Aḥadvoi, and he was healed.
I have written previously about two aspects of this story. One is the idea that Rav Ahadvoi responded in a mocking tone. Another is on how Rav Sheshet seems to have not known explicit verses in the Torah.
Now let’s talk about a third aspect. The similarities of these cases are striking. A woman cries out (“tzavcha”) to a rabbi about an injustice done to her. He ignores her (“lo eshgach ba”). She does something shocking, and he finally responds.
One point to make here is that this was apparently a literary convention of the Talmud, a formula.
Now let’s talk about a third aspect. The similarities of these cases are striking. A woman cries out (“tzavcha”) to a rabbi about an injustice done to her. He ignores her (“lo eshgach ba”). She does something shocking, and he finally responds.
One point to make here is that this was apparently a literary convention of the Talmud, a formula.
A similar story, but where the woman does not continue to make claims after the initial one, occurs in Ketubot 80b (in the St, Petersburg 187 manuscript, instead of Rava this is Rav Nachman again):
אמר רב פפא הא דיהודה מר בר מרימר לאו בפירוש אתמר אלא מכללא אתמר דההיא איתתא דעיילה ליה לגברא תרתי אמהתא אזל גברא נסיב איתתא אחריתי עייל לה חדא מנייהו
Rav Pappa said: This statement of Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar was not stated explicitly in Rava’s name. Rather, it was stated from an inference based on an incident that occurred in which a certain woman brought in for her husband two maidservants as part of her dowry. The man went and married another woman in addition to the first. He subsequently brought in to the second wife one of the maidservants to attend to her needs.
אתאי לקמיה דרבא צווחה לא אשגח בה מאן דחזא סבר משום דסבר מה שעשה עשוי ולא היא משום רווח ביתא והא קא רווח
The first wife came before Rava and cried about the injustice done to her, but Rava took no notice of her, claiming she had no right to complain. He who observed this incident thought that Rava ruled this way because he holds that what he did is done, i.e., takes effect, and a husband may sell his wife’s usufruct property and use its produce as he sees fit. But that is not so, as the Sages instituted the ordinance that a husband owns the rights to the produce of his wife’s property for the gain of the house, and here the house does gain from his action, as the maidservant also performs work for the house.
And see Bava Batra 54a:
ההיא איתתא דאכלה דיקלא בתפשיחא תליסר שנין אתא ההוא רפיק תותיה פורתא אתא לקמיה דלוי ואמרי לה קמיה דמר עוקבא אוקמיה בידיה אתאי קא צווחא קמיה אמר לה מאי אעביד לך דלא אחזיקת כדמחזקי אינשי
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who profited from an ownerless palm tree by cutting its branches for thirteen years. Another then came and plowed beneath it a bit. The case came before Levi, and some say that it came before Mar Ukva, who established the property in the possession of the one who plowed. The woman came and shouted before him, protesting the perceived injustice of his ruling. Mar Ukva said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession?
See also another story in Shabbat 55a:
רב יהודה הוה יתיב קמיה דשמואל אתאי ההיא איתתא קא צווחה קמיה ולא הוה משגח בה אמר ליה לא סבר ליה מר אוטם אזנו מזעקת דל גם הוא יקרא ולא יענה אמר ליה שיננא רישך בקרירי רישא דרישיך בחמימי הא יתיב מר עוקבא אב בית דין
The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was sitting before Shmuel when this woman came and cried before Shmuel about an injustice that had been committed against her, and Shmuel paid no attention to her. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with the verse: “Whoever stops his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard” (Proverbs 21:13)? He said to him: Big-toothed one, your superior, i.e., I, your teacher, will be punished in cold water. The superior of your superior will be punished in hot water. Mar Ukva, who sits as president of the court, is responsible for those matters.
In Eruvin 25a, we have Rav Nachman again, and he is taking property away from a woman, but this time he immediately responds:
ההיא איתתא דעבדה מחיצה על גבי מחיצה בנכסי הגר אתא ההוא גברא רפק בה פורתא אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אוקמה בידיה אתת איהי וקא צווחא קמיה אמר לה מאי איעביד לך דלא מחזקת כדמחזקי אינשי
The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain woman erected a partition on top of another partition in the property of a deceased convert. A certain man then came and plowed the ground a little. The man came before Rav Naḥman, who established the property in his possession. The woman then came and cried out before Rav Naḥman. He said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession.
However, in Rabbeinu Chananel’s girsa, he does ignore her and then tell her (somewhat difficult to understand the ignoring and then the answering): אוקמה רב נחמן בידיה לההוא דרפק בנכסי הגר אתא היא צווחא קמיה ולא אשגח בה אמר לה לא מחזקת כדמחזקי אינשי.
(I’m only mentioning this for the similarity, see Avoda Zara 28b:
(I’m only mentioning this for the similarity, see Avoda Zara 28b:
ההיא אמתא דהואי בי מר שמואל דקדחא לה עינא בשבתא צווחא וליכא דאשגח בה פקעא עינא למחר נפק מר שמואל ודרש עין שמרדה מותר לכוחלה בשבת מאי טעמא דשורייני דעינא באובנתא דליבא תלו
Rav Yehuda continues: But was it of my own accord that I issued this ruling? It is the ruling of Mar Shmuel, as demonstrated in the following incident: There was a certain maidservant who was in the house of Mar Shmuel whose eye became infected on Shabbat. She screamed in pain, but there was no one who attended to her. Eventually, her eye popped out of its socket. The next day, Mar Shmuel went out and taught: With regard to an eye that rebelled, it is permitted to apply blue eye shadow to it on Shabbat. What is the reason for this leniency, seeing as one may desecrate Shabbat only to treat life-threatening afflictions? The reason is that the tendons [shuraynei] of the eye are dependent upon the valves of the heart.
)
- It should be noted that nearly all the kitvei yad do not have it as a “savta”, but rather a regular woman “iteta”. Most of the Rishonim have this as well.
- Rashi says it actually happened, but not that the Reish Geluta did it, but his servants did it: ההיא סבתא - דגזלו ממנה עבדי ריש גלותא עצים וסככו בהן:
See also the Meiri, who retains this interpretation:וכמו שאמרו בההיא דהוה צווחה ואמרה ריש גלותא וכולהו רבנן בסוכה גזולה יתבי ומפני שעבדים של ריש גלותא גזלו ממנה את העצים
Let’s note that the woman did not claim that the rabbis stole the Sukkah, but that they were sitting (wittingly or not is unclear) in a stolen sukkah. Thus, it would seem she is not angry at them for stealing the materials, only that they haven’t paid her. This gets into the answer for number 3 - According to the Meiri, some say they wanted to pay her the money they owed her but she refused to take anything other than the actual materials itself, which the Rabbis declared owned by the thief because of takanat hashavim:אלמא שלא נפרעה עדיין ומ"מ יש אומרים דכל שלא פרע לא יצא וההיא איתתא רוצים היו ליתן לה את הדמים ולא היתה רוצה ליטלם אלא שהיתה צווחת ליטול את עציה
This might explain why Rav Nachman ignored her. The matter was being taken care of. The rabbis wanted to give her money. She was hoping Rav Nachman would demand they give back the materials itself, not knowing that he himself holds that it is a monetary matter now. She was also being a nudnik and possibly preventing the rabbis from enjoying the Sukkah. Rashi also makes this clear, that she did not want payment, but “צווחה להחזיר לה עצים עצמן”.
Its also possible it was on the Yom Tov itself and she wanted either the wood or the money, neither of which could be done on Yom Tov.
This gets into the question of whether they could sit in the Sukkah so long as they had not resolved the issue. The first answer of the Meiri is yes, the second is no. The Ran on the Rif suggests that ever since takanat hashavim, hefker bet din hefker means that it is not a sukkah gezula, even though originally it would have been pasul d’oraita: היינו בתר דעבידו רבנן תקנת מריש אבל מדאורייתא סוכה גזולה היא ופסולה אלא דבתר תקנתא כשרה דהפקר ב"ד הפקר ואין לנגזל אלא דמי עצים בלבד
The Maharitz Geius has a more nuanced answer: ש"מ דהגוזל עצים וסכך בהו קננהו בתקנתא דרבנן דיהיב דמייהו אבל למיפסל סוכה לא מיפסלא דהא רב נחמן לא פסלה לההיא סוכה אלא אמר אין לה אלא דמי עצים בלבד ודאמרינן לך למעוטי גזולה הני מילי לכתחלה הא דאיעבד נותן דמים.
There are many other positions here. Some of the argument revolves around whether she wanted payment or the actual materials, and the nafka minas of both. - This question is most difficult. What is the meaning of these 318 servants? Rashi clarifies that this forefather refers to Abraham, who had those 318 people with him to fight the war of 4/5 kings “לאברהם אבינו ילידי ביתו שמנה עשר ושלש מאות”. Although the Raah suggests it could be she’s referring to her actual father being very rich and important - שהיה אביה עשיר ונכבד,
But if it is as Rashi has it, Bnei Yisoschar Tishrei Maamar 10 poignantly states, why does the Talmud feel the need to remember and record this? מהראוי להתבונן בדברי האשה הזאת למה ייחסה את עצמה אחר אברהם אבינו במקום הזה, וגם גידלה מעלת אברהם אבינו במה שהיה לו שי"ח עבדים, ואם היא שלא בהשכל דיברה למה הביאו חז"ל דבריה בגמ'.
His answer there is very midrashic and kabbalistic, and it isn’t convincing to me. However, there are elements that are interesting. For example, the relationship between 318 and its gematria, siach. Avraham sends away Hagar and Yishmael to the desert, and they are soon in danger. She can’t bear to see her son die, so she casts him beneath the “bushes”, in Hebrew the “sichim”, so she won’t be able to see him. Thus, the term “siach”, gematria 318, represents the cry of Hagar as she watches her son be “taken” from her. Thus, the woman was asking Rav Nachman - God listened to her cries, but you don’t listen to mine??
Another element he mentions is the significance of the concluding conversation Avraham has with Malkitzedek after Avraham and his 318 men defeat the 5 kings. Avraham refuses to take for his people spoils, and this might be because he didn’t feel one is allowed to take spoils at all, for it is in essence stealing. Thus, the woman might have been exclaiming, “I come from a man who fought at risk to his life alongside his 318 men, and he refused even a shoelace in case it was stealing. And now, you allow stealing to occur under your nose, Rav Nachman?”
A similar interpretation can be found in Tel Shechakim. The author thinks that the problem was the woman assumed the Reish Galuta was morim heter that he can take from anyone he wants because he is the reish geluta. She was not Jewish, and the reish geluta is stealing from non-Jews. No, Rav Nachman says, he cannot do that.
The Rosh David of the Chida on Balak asks: ולכאורה יפלא מה ראתה להזכיר שהיא בת אברהם אבינו, ועוד מה ענין שי"ח עבדי הכא, ואי משום להגדיל יקר תפארת גדולתו של אברהם אבינו מלבד שאין צורך לזה כי הוא מפורסם ואי בעיא לומר שבח אברהם אע"ה כה תאמר שהיה נשיא אלהים אהובו של הקב"ה וכיוצא מכמה מעלות של א"א ומאן דכר שמא דשי"ח עבדי
Firstly, why mention she is the daughter of Avraham? Second, if that’s the emphasis, who cares about the 318 servants? And if its to say how illustrious Avraham was, didn’t Rav Nachman know that? And if its to say that he was God’s beloved, why mention the servants as the proof?
He has a long explanation based on a lot of kabbala. The thrust is that she wanted the actual items. When Rav Nachman refused, she decided to show him there is no such rule as takanat hashavim, that if something is stolen from you, you only pay instead of the actual item. So too, Avraham and his 318 soldiers, they fought a huge war for the sake of one person, Lot. They wanted the actual item too. They were willing to “destroy the sukkah”, destroying cities, for Lot.
Rabbi Yitzchak Blau cites in Fresh Fruit and Vintage Wine, 119, that Reb Tzadok in Divrei Soferim 16 suggests that she was invoking Avraham as her father because just like he never gave up hope on having kids, and never gave up hope when going to war with just 318 men, so too she never had yeush, and therefore the stolen items never transfered property to the rabbis. Therefore it continued to belong to her.
An explanation that comes to mine is that this is all a metaphor. A woman comes to Rav Nachman (a savta no less) and she was crying that no one was going back to Israel and rebuilding Sukkat David, the Beit Hamikdash. They were all content in Babylonia. She says that by staying in Galut, the rabbis (with the Reish Geluta at their head) are living in a stolen Sukkah - on land that is not theirs, with materials that were not Jewish materials. Rav Nachman ignored her - what does she want us to do? Destroy what we have built here? It would be too massive an undertaking. She continued, am I not from Avraham, who loved the land of Israel and left everything, his homeland and his father’s house, to go to Israel? Was he not successful there, building a people of 318 that could even successfully fight the wars to be won? Go back to Israel! Pay attention to this claim! He responds, the rabbis long ago saw that if we thought we would have to lose everything and return the items, in order to go back to our own Sukkah (the Beit Hamikdash and Israel), it would never happen. Meaning to say, that is too hard of an ask. The people building life here in galut need to believe in a certain amount of permanence, or they will never go back to Israel. This is the Babylonia rabbinical “takanat hashavim”. Give us time, they said. With this, the only thing we can say is that when we have the wealth and the power from those who we “stole” the Sukkah from (through Hadrian, etc), then we can go back and return the items. Once we get the money, you will be satisfied.
There’s a kernel here that seems very true. I can’t put my finger on the entirety of it.
The Rosh David of the Chida on Balak asks: ולכאורה יפלא מה ראתה להזכיר שהיא בת אברהם אבינו, ועוד מה ענין שי"ח עבדי הכא, ואי משום להגדיל יקר תפארת גדולתו של אברהם אבינו מלבד שאין צורך לזה כי הוא מפורסם ואי בעיא לומר שבח אברהם אע"ה כה תאמר שהיה נשיא אלהים אהובו של הקב"ה וכיוצא מכמה מעלות של א"א ומאן דכר שמא דשי"ח עבדי
Firstly, why mention she is the daughter of Avraham? Second, if that’s the emphasis, who cares about the 318 servants? And if its to say how illustrious Avraham was, didn’t Rav Nachman know that? And if its to say that he was God’s beloved, why mention the servants as the proof?
He has a long explanation based on a lot of kabbala. The thrust is that she wanted the actual items. When Rav Nachman refused, she decided to show him there is no such rule as takanat hashavim, that if something is stolen from you, you only pay instead of the actual item. So too, Avraham and his 318 soldiers, they fought a huge war for the sake of one person, Lot. They wanted the actual item too. They were willing to “destroy the sukkah”, destroying cities, for Lot.
Rabbi Yitzchak Blau cites in Fresh Fruit and Vintage Wine, 119, that Reb Tzadok in Divrei Soferim 16 suggests that she was invoking Avraham as her father because just like he never gave up hope on having kids, and never gave up hope when going to war with just 318 men, so too she never had yeush, and therefore the stolen items never transfered property to the rabbis. Therefore it continued to belong to her.
An explanation that comes to mine is that this is all a metaphor. A woman comes to Rav Nachman (a savta no less) and she was crying that no one was going back to Israel and rebuilding Sukkat David, the Beit Hamikdash. They were all content in Babylonia. She says that by staying in Galut, the rabbis (with the Reish Geluta at their head) are living in a stolen Sukkah - on land that is not theirs, with materials that were not Jewish materials. Rav Nachman ignored her - what does she want us to do? Destroy what we have built here? It would be too massive an undertaking. She continued, am I not from Avraham, who loved the land of Israel and left everything, his homeland and his father’s house, to go to Israel? Was he not successful there, building a people of 318 that could even successfully fight the wars to be won? Go back to Israel! Pay attention to this claim! He responds, the rabbis long ago saw that if we thought we would have to lose everything and return the items, in order to go back to our own Sukkah (the Beit Hamikdash and Israel), it would never happen. Meaning to say, that is too hard of an ask. The people building life here in galut need to believe in a certain amount of permanence, or they will never go back to Israel. This is the Babylonia rabbinical “takanat hashavim”. Give us time, they said. With this, the only thing we can say is that when we have the wealth and the power from those who we “stole” the Sukkah from (through Hadrian, etc), then we can go back and return the items. Once we get the money, you will be satisfied.
There’s a kernel here that seems very true. I can’t put my finger on the entirety of it.
- Jastrow actually defines this as a “noisy, quarrelsome woman.” His one proof is from this gemara in Sukkah. But many have pointed out that the root “פעי” comes from the same root as in Isaiah 42:14’s “ כַּיּוֹלֵדָ֣ה אֶפְעֶ֔ה”, where God says He cannot be silent anymore, He will scream like a woman in labor. This is also the same root in this week’s parsha, Shemot, regarding the second of the midwives (Exodus 1:15), “פּוּעָֽה”. Rashi states this explicitly, “פועה. לְשׁוֹן צְעָקָה, כְּמוֹ כַּיּוֹלֵדָה אֶפְעֶה” Although why she would be called “scream” is a bit funky, but it is related to childbirth in some way. Also see Rekanti on Genesis 36:39 regarding the city of Pa’u, which he says comes from this root of “scream”.
So, it would seem that Jastrow probably got this wrong.
So why does Rav Nachman respond this way and also tell her an answer? So it could be that, as mentioned above, he was silent because it was Yom Tov and he could not adjudicate financial matters. When she pushed him with her misunderstanding of the law and her importance, he finally reluctantly told her the judgement and corrected her preconception.
Or, like my metaphor of galut and Israel, he calls her the pa’ata because just like God is crying out from the labors of the time of mashiach, bringing the Jewish people out to Israel as in Isaiah 42.
And, like we said, it could be the rabbis were trying to recompense her and she was being annoying and not accepting it.
