It Takes Two to Tan Du
We came to a phrase in our perek today that recurs throughout the Bavli. The rabbis are discussing the lengths a woman would subject herself to so that she might remain married. They comment that a woman will always be willing to put up with much more than a man because it would be so much more disastrous for her to be single again than it would be for him. In making this point, they cite a phrase that can be found in five different sugyot in the Bavli, always attributed to Resh Lakish:
Tav l'meytav tan du m'lemeytav armalo.
(It is better to sit as two bodies than to sit as a widow.)
In our sugya in Ketubot 75a, subsequent Amoraim then go on to illustrate this point in a sort of reductio ad absurdum:
Abayey: Even if her husband is as small as an ant, a woman will want to be able to put her chair among the chairs of the married women.
Rav Papa: Even if her husband is just a wool gatherer, she will want to sit with him at the gate of their house.
Rav Ashi: Even if her husband is a cabbagehead, she won't be lacking for lentils in her pot so long as she is married.
And then the sugya ends rather flippantly with a surprising brayta, the gist of which is, "Well, what the heck, all those women just want to be married so that they can sleep around but claim a father for their bastard children."
And so once again I have to wonder -- what did the rabbis really think about women?! Did they think that women were really so dependant on having husbands for their identity and self-worth? WERE women indeed so dependant on their husbands for their identity and self-worth? Were they really as promicuous as the rabbis seem to think, and if so, were there any efforts to reign them in?
I'm proud to say that I don't have a husband, cabbagehead or otherwise, yet I still have plenty of lentils in my pot. And I think that my bastard children are perfectly happy to run around fatherless, thank you very much.
Tav l'meytav tan du m'lemeytav armalo.
(It is better to sit as two bodies than to sit as a widow.)
In our sugya in Ketubot 75a, subsequent Amoraim then go on to illustrate this point in a sort of reductio ad absurdum:
Abayey: Even if her husband is as small as an ant, a woman will want to be able to put her chair among the chairs of the married women.
Rav Papa: Even if her husband is just a wool gatherer, she will want to sit with him at the gate of their house.
Rav Ashi: Even if her husband is a cabbagehead, she won't be lacking for lentils in her pot so long as she is married.
And then the sugya ends rather flippantly with a surprising brayta, the gist of which is, "Well, what the heck, all those women just want to be married so that they can sleep around but claim a father for their bastard children."
And so once again I have to wonder -- what did the rabbis really think about women?! Did they think that women were really so dependant on having husbands for their identity and self-worth? WERE women indeed so dependant on their husbands for their identity and self-worth? Were they really as promicuous as the rabbis seem to think, and if so, were there any efforts to reign them in?
I'm proud to say that I don't have a husband, cabbagehead or otherwise, yet I still have plenty of lentils in my pot. And I think that my bastard children are perfectly happy to run around fatherless, thank you very much.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home