The Gemara in Pesachim 108a discusses the rabbinic requirement to lean/recline at the Pesach Seder, minimally while fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah and drinking the four cups of wine. In that discussion, the question of who is obligated to recline is broached. The Gemara asks whether a son must recline in the presence of his father; whether a disciple must recline in the presence of his master, and it precedes these queries with the following:
A woman by her husband (i.e., in his presence) does not need to lean;
an ishah chashuva (an important, impressive, or, perhaps, significant woman) must lean.
What is the rationale for this exemption? The Rashbam, the major commentator on this portion of Pesachim, cites two explanations:
1) The fear/awe of her husband is upon her, and she is subordinate to him.
2) In the name of the Sheiltot: It is not the manner of women to recline, i.e., it is inappropriate.
What practical difference is there between the two explanations? Rabbenu Yerucham, brought by the Beit Yosef, asserts that according to the first explanation, a widow or a divorcee would be obligated to recline, while according to the second explanation, a widow or a divorcee would also be exempt.
It is difficult to see how the second explanation accounts for the words "by her husband" in the Gemara, since the presence of the husband in irrelevant to the reasoning. Indeed, the Aruch Hashulchan notes that in some manuscripts of the Talmud those words are missing, and the Rashbam's opening quote of the text of the Gemara indicates that his version was also lacking those words.
The Beit Yosef, in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayyim 472:4), rules in accordance with the second explanation; that is, he exempts from the obligation to recline all women except for an ishah chashuva. The Rema comments on that ruling with the following words, brought in the name of the Tosafot (via Rabbenu Yerucham and the Mordechai): All of our women are considered hashuvot, significant…
According to the Rema, then, all women should be obligated to recline at the Seder. The Rema continues, however, by noting that the custom of women is not to lean, and he asserts that they rely upon the opinion of the Ra'aviyah. The Ra'aviyah had ruled several centuries before in Germany that nowadays, since it is not the custom all year long to recline while eating - the wealthy and wellborn do not recline while eating - therefore, at the Seder, one sits as one is accustomed to sit. This opinion is mentioned also by the Beit Yosef, who notes that already in the times of the Rishonim it was marked as an isolated opinion, and he disregards it in his decision. The Rema, like other Ashkenazic poskim (notably, the Bach), does not entirely disregard it, and here, he does not hesitate to affirm that this is the basis of the women's custom.
Why does he assert this with such certainty? How does he know? After all, elsewhere the Rema doesn't hesitate to critique a questionable custom, or, if seeking to support a custom, to indicate that he is speculating regarding its possible source?
In attempting to address this question, perhaps we should try to better understand the term ishah chashuva. The Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chayyim 472:6) notes that the meaning of the term will depend upon which of the two above-mentioned explanations for the exemption of women we adopt.
1) According to the approach of the Sheiltot, ishah chashuva is an objective term, referring to a woman generally considered to be beautiful and wealthy. The Aruch Hashulchan refers us to the mention of ishah chashuva in the context of the laws of remaining alone with idolaters (Avodah Zara 25b). There, Rashi explains the term to mean a woman whose elevated standing in the eyes of women derives from her beauty, while in the eyes of men it derives from her connections with the upper echelons of power (a connection that in pre-modern times was inevitably connected to money). Thus, an ishah chashuva must recline, since it is indeed the manner of a woman of such stature to recline.
2) According to the Rashbam's approach, ishah chashuva is a subjective term, referring to a woman in whom the husband takes pride, and who he considers to be of a higher standing than he.
Now, while it is possible to explain that the Aruch Hashulchan is referring to a situation where the husband has "married up", marrying a woman of higher social standing, and therefore her significance in his eyes derives from the importance he places on her lofty origins, there is another possibility, one which, I believe, better explains the words of the Rema. The Talmud (Yevamot 62b) teaches:
One who loves his wife as his own self, and honors her more than his own self, and guides his sons and daughters on the upright path, and marries them off as they come of age, of him it is stated, "You will know that your tent is at peace; when you visit your home you will find no one missing" (Iyov 5:24).
Note the sequential structure of the baraita, which hints that we are speaking here of a sequence of stages each of which builds upon the prior stage. Specifically regarding our matter, one who truly loves one's wife as oneself cannot help but claim for her a standing on her own, and see her as one whose value is inherent and not derivative. Loving such a free agent, one notes how amazingly different she is, how she has access to realms unimagined by her husband, how her being fills in for him a cavernous lack of which only now he becomes aware. This leads to an attitude of profound respect, and, in the words of the Aruch Hashulchan, he glories in her, and her level (he sees as) higher than his.
Note the words of the Rema: All our women are considered significant. Ruling in accordance with the Rashbam's explanation, the Rema all but says explicitly that it is the approach taken by the husbands that unlocks the significance of the wives. See how the Rema follows up by immediately modeling himself the ideal husband: Instead of asserting that the practice of the wives derives from some ignorant mistake (after all, the vast majority of the women were completely untutored in the textual sources of the halakhic literature), he affirms that the women rely upon the Ra'aviyah. This affirmation assumes that the custom is valid and well-founded, an assumption based on deep respect. Recall that the Ra'aviyah implies that nowadays, since even the nobles and highborn sit upright at their meals, this is what we should do. In other words, we fulfill the intent of reclining, namely, acting as free people, precisely by sitting upright as even the most unencumbered of our society do.
I believe that the Rema is claiming not that women read the Ra'aviah, but that their intuitive grasp of the practice was in accord with the Ra'aviah's understanding. Indeed, the question may be asked of the majority of the Rishonim: since we are supposed to perform the mitzvot of the Seder in the manner of free people and nobles, why are we shackled to a dining etiquette which has long since ceased to indicate freedom? The Aruch Hashulchan justifies the normative practice by asserting that nowadays we recline in order to insert yet another deviation from everyday practice into the Seder, and thus further stimulate the children to ask questions.
Men, therefore, recline, not for the sake of reclining, but in order to enhance dramatically the mitzvah of asking and telling. In doing this, despite the change in the significance of leaning, they lean on the mesorah received generation after generation. Women, on the other hand, do not recline, but partake of the Seder as noble and wellborn individuals partake of their celebratory meals. In doing this, they lean on their insight (and on the Ra'aviyah!)
Leaning on each other, men and women together fulfill the paradoxical dictates of freedom, in letter and spirit. By the merit of righteous women were we redeemed from Egypt!
Rav Yehoshua Kahan
|
Rav Yehoshua Kahan is a teacher at Yeshivat Bat Ayin. He has held pulpits in Knoxville, Tennessee and Los Angeles, and served as educational director of Livnot U'Lehibanot. He blogs on Parashat Hashavua here |