“You shall live in booths seven days; all citizens in Israel shall live in booths, in order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:42-43).
The Mishnah states: “A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid. R. Judah, however, declares it valid” (Sukkah 1:1).
The Tosefta provides the argument upon which R. Judah grounds his opinion:
“R. Judah said: Queen Helena’s sukkah was higher than twenty cubits, and the elders were going in and out of it and not one spoke a word to her [in disagreement]. They said to him: Because she was a woman, and a woman is free from the obligation of sukkah. He replied: Did she not have seven sons who were all scholars who dwelled in it? (Tosefta Sukkah (Lieberman) 1:1).
The Gemara presents a different version of this argument:
“R. Judah stated: It happened with Queen Helena in Lydda, that her sukkah was higher than twenty cubits, and the elders were going in and out of it and not one spoke a word to her [in disagreement]. They said to him: Is this a proof? She was a woman and free of the obligation of sukkah. He replied: Did she not have seven sons? And besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the instruction of the Sages. Why does he have to add ‘and besides, she did nothing except according to the instruction of the Sages’? He said to them: If you will answer that her sons were all minors, and minors are free of the obligation of sukkah, then since she had seven, at least one was old enough not to be dependent upon his mother. And if you object that educating a child who is not dependent upon his mother is merely a rabbinical injunction and she took no heed of a rabbinical injunction, I add ‘and besides, she did nothing except according to the instruction of the Sages.’” (Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 2b).
Ra’avan (R. Eliezer ben Nathan of Mayence, 1090 – 1170) employs the same story for another purpose:
“You might raise an objection from Rabbi Yehuda to Rabbi Yehuda, that here (Eruvin 96b) he says that we object to women [performing time-bond mitzvot], and in tractate Sukkah (2b) Rabbi Yehuda says that it happened that Queen Helena used to dwell in a sukkah that was taller than twenty cubits, and the elders used to go in and out without objecting. Answer… ‘You shall dwell’ – similar to normal residence, and residence means a man and his wife, and just as a woman dwells [in a sukkah] because of her husband, so Helena dwelt [in a sukka] because of her sons” (Ra’avan, no. 84).
Hakham Zvi (R. Zvi Hirsch ben Yaakov Ashkenazi, 1656 – 1718) employs the story to support the view that a woman who performs a time-bound mitzvah may not say the associated blessing:
“It appears to me that proof can be brought that women are not permitted to bless for performing a time-bound mitzvah, as it says at the beginning of tractate Sukkah in regard to Queen Helena, that she sat in an invalid sukkah and the Sages did not say anything, and if you think that women are permitted to bless, then surely Queen Helena would also have blessed, and how was it then that they said nothing? Moreover, if there was doubt, then the Sages should have instructed her not to bless…(Responsa of Hakham Zvi (Additions) 9:8).
- From the version told in the Tosefta, it would appear that R. Judah employs the story of Queen Helena’s sukkah as proof of the validity of a sukkah that is higher than twenty cubits. What assumptions underlie the logic of his argument?
- Each of the above sources makes different assumptions about a woman’s ability to perform the mitzvah of sukkah, and in each case the author relates to the story of Queen Helena on the basis of his pre-suppositions. What assumptions ground each of the sources?
