Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 22, 2015 | 讬壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sotah 27

Is it better to marry a woman with questionable behavior or her daughter? 聽Who else is excluded from drinking the Sotah waters? 聽The fifth聽perek begins聽with a list of laws relating to various topics that Rabbi Akiva and others taught on the day that Rabban Gamliel was replaced by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria and the Beit Midrash doors were opened to everyone.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚讜诪讛 讜讗诇 讬砖讗 讘转 讚讜诪讛 砖讝讜 讘讗讛 诪讟讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讜讝讜 讘讗讛 诪讟讬驻讛 驻住讜诇讛

a woman whose suspected promiscuity is publicly spoken of [duma], and not marry the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, as this woman, who is herself suspected of promiscuity, comes from seed of unflawed lineage; but that woman, the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, comes from seed of flawed lineage, as she might be a mamzeret.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 讘转 讚讜诪讛 讜讗诇 讬砖讗 讚讜诪讛 砖讝讜 注讜诪讚转 讘讞讝拽转 讻砖专讜转 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 讘讞讝拽转 讻砖专讜转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is better that a man marry the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, and not marry a woman suspected of promiscuity, as this daughter maintains the presumptive status of virtuousness, but that woman suspected of promiscuity does not maintain the presumptive status of virtuousness.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞讜砖讗 讗讚诐 讚讜诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 谞讜砖讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 谞砖讗 转谞讬 谞诪讬 讘转 讚讜诪讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement from a baraita: A man may marry a woman suspected of promiscuity. Rava said in response: And how can you understand the baraita at face value? The baraita states that a man may marry her ab initio, yet clearly it is undesirable to do so. Rather, the wording of the baraita is imprecise, and one must render it: If one married a woman suspected of promiscuity, she is permitted to him. Since the baraita is imprecise, one should also correct it and teach: The daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 讘转 讚讜诪讛 讜讗诇 讬砖讗 讚讜诪讛 讚转谞讬 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 诪注专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗砖讛 诪讝谞讛 讘谞讬讛 讻砖专讬谉 专讜讘 讘注讬诇讜转 讗讞专 讛讘注诇

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that it is better that a man marry the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, and not marry a woman suspected of promiscuity. This is as Rav Ta岣lifa, from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught before Rabbi Abbahu: If a married woman engages in adulterous sexual intercourse, her children are considered of unflawed lineage, as most instances of sexual intercourse are attributed to the husband, and consequently it is presumed that the children were conceived by the husband and not by the paramour. Therefore, the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity is not suspected of being a mamzeret.

讘注讬 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讬转讛 驻专讜爪讛 讘讬讜转专 诪讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转注讘专转 讗诇讗 住诪讜讱 诇讜讜住转讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讘讛 讜诇讗 诪谞讟专 诇讛

Rav Amram raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if the woman was extremely promiscuous and one cannot reasonably attribute most instances of intercourse to the husband? Are her children considered of unflawed lineage, or is their lineage uncertain? According to the opinion of the one who says that a woman becomes pregnant only close to the time of the onset of her menstruation, you do not need to raise this dilemma, as the husband does not know the time of this, i.e., the time of her menstruation, in advance, and he does not watch her actions in order to prevent her from conceiving from another man. Her children are therefore of uncertain lineage.

讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转注讘专转 讗诇讗 住诪讜讱 诇讟讘讬诇转讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讚注 讘讛 谞讟讜专讬 诪谞讟专 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚驻专讜爪讛 讘讬讜转专 诇讗 转讬拽讜

When do you need to raise this dilemma? It is necessary according to the opinion of the one who says that a woman becomes pregnant only close to the time of her immersion. What is the halakha? Can it be assumed that since he knows the time of this, i.e., of her immersion, he watches her actions on that day in order to prevent her from conceiving from another man; or perhaps, since she is extremely promiscuous, her husband cannot adequately watch her and her children are considered of uncertain lineage? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讜讗诇讜 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗砖转 讞专砖 讜讗砖转 砖讜讟讛 讜讗砖转 砖注诪讜诐 讜砖讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖讛讬讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛谉 诇驻讜住诇谉 诪讻转讜讘转谉

搂 The mishna states (24a): And these are the women to whom the court issues a warning in place of their husbands: One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or if he were incarcerated in prison. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淚f the wife of any man goes astray鈥 (Numbers 5:12). As the verse could have said: The wife of a man, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭he wife of any man鈥? It serves to include the wife of a deaf-mute, and the wife of an imbecile, and the wife of an insane person, and one whose husband went overseas, and one whose husband was incarcerated in prison; and it teaches that the court issues a warning to these women in order to disqualify them from receiving payment of their marriage contract.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇讛砖拽讜转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讘讬讗 讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜诇讻砖讬爪讗 讘注诇讛 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讬砖拽谞讛

One might have thought that the court鈥檚 warning is effective even to have the women drink the bitter water; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen the man shall bring his wife to the priest鈥 (Numbers 5:15), indicating that only the warning issued by the husband causes his wife to drink. Rabbi Yosei says: The court鈥檚 warning is effective even to have her drink, and when her husband is released from prison he has her drink.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜拽谞讗 讜讛讘讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜拽谞讗 讜讛讘讬讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that we require the same person who issues the warning to bring the woman to the Temple, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife鈥then the man shall bring his wife to the priest鈥 (Numbers 5:14鈥15). And Rabbi Yosei holds that we do not require that the actions stated in the verse, i.e., 鈥淎nd he warned鈥hen the man shall bring,鈥 be performed by the same person; and although only the husband may bring the woman to the priest to drink the bitter water, the warning may be issued by the court.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖专 转砖讟讛 讗砖讛 转讞转 讗讬砖讛 诇讛拽讬砖 讗讬砖 诇讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻砖诐 砖讗诐 讛讜讗 住讜诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞注诇诐 诪注讬谞讬 讗讬砖讛 讻讱 讛讬讗 讗诐 讛讬转讛 住讜诪讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖讞讬讙专转 讜讙讬讚诪转 诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讚讻转讬讘

The Sages taught that the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband, goes astray and is defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:29), is superfluous, and serves to compare a man to a woman and a woman to a man. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this comparison necessary? Rav Sheshet says: This teaches that just as if the husband was blind he would not have her drink, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it was hidden from the eyes of her husband鈥 (Numbers 5:13), indicating that the sota ritual applies only if the husband was capable of seeing her infidelity but did not do so; so too, with regard to the woman, if she were blind, she would not drink. Rav Ashi also says: Just as a lame woman and a woman without hands would not drink, as it is written:

讜讛注诪讬讚 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讗砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜谞转谉 注诇 讻驻讬讛 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讬讙专 讗讜 讙讬讚诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬诇诪转 诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诪专讛 讛讗砖讛 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讬诇诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛

鈥淎nd the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord鈥nd place the meal-offering of memorial in her hands鈥 (Numbers 5:18), indicating that if she is unable to stand up straight or if she does not have hands with which to accept the offering, then she does not drink; so too, if the husband were lame or without hands, he would not cause his wife to drink. Mar Bar Rav Ashi says: Just as a mute woman would not drink, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the woman shall say: Amen, Amen鈥 (Numbers 5:22), indicating that she must be able to speak; so too, if the husband were mute, he would not cause his wife to drink.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗专讜住讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻砖诐 砖讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讱 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讗讜 讜讘讗讜

MISHNA: Just as the water evaluates her fidelity, so too, the water evaluates his, i.e., her alleged paramour鈥檚, involvement in the sin, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the water that causes the curse shall enter into her鈥 (Numbers 5:24), and it is stated again: 鈥淎nd the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter鈥 (Numbers 5:27). It is derived from the double mention of the phrase 鈥渁nd鈥hall enter鈥 that both the woman and her paramour are evaluated by the water.

讻砖诐 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇 讻讱 讗住讜专讛 诇讘讜注诇 砖谞讗诪专 谞讟诪讗讛 讜谞讟诪讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Furthermore, prior to her drinking the water, just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too is she forbidden to her paramour, because in contrast to the verse stating: 鈥淚s defiled [nitma鈥檃]鈥 (Numbers 5:14), a superfluous conjoining prefix vav is added to a later verse, rendering the phrase: 鈥淎nd is defiled [venitma鈥檃]鈥 (Numbers 5:29). The addition indicates another prohibition, that of the woman to her paramour. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻讱 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻专砖讛 谞讟诪讗讛 讜谞讟诪讗讛 讗讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讗讞讚 诇讘讜注诇

Rabbi Yehoshua said: That was how Zekharya ben HaKatzav would interpret it, i.e., he also derived from the superfluous vav that the woman is forbidden to her paramour. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says an alternate source: The two times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage, namely: 鈥淎nd he warns his wife, and she is defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14), and the later verse: 鈥淲hen a wife, being under her husband, goes astray and is defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:29), indicate that her defilement results in two prohibitions. One is that she is forbidden to her husband and one is that she is forbidden to her paramour.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻诇讬 讞专砖 讗砖专 讬驻诇 诪讛诐 讗诇 转讜讻讜 讻诇 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜 讬讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 诇诪讚 注诇 讻讻专 砖谞讬 砖诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛砖诇讬砖讬

On that same day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed head of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verse: 鈥淎nd every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it鈥 (Leviticus 11:33), as follows: The verse does not state: Is impure [tamei], but rather: 鈥淪hall be impure,鈥 in order to indicate that not only does the vessel itself become ritually impure, but it can now render other items ritually impure. This teaches with regard to a loaf that has second-degree ritual impurity status due to its being placed inside an earthenware vessel that had first-degree impurity, that it can render other food with which it comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity status.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讬 讬讙诇讛 注驻专 诪注讬谞讬讱 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讛讬讬转 讗讜诪专 注转讬讚 讚讜专 讗讞专 诇讟讛专 讻讻专 砖诇讬砖讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讛诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转诇诪讬讚讱 诪讘讬讗 诇讜 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜 讬讟诪讗

After hearing Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement, Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, so that you could live and see this? As you would say: In the future, another generation is destined to deem pure a loaf that contracted third-degree impurity, as there is no explicit verse from the Torah stating that it is impure. But now Rabbi Akiva, your disciple, brings a verse from the Torah indicating that it is impure, as it is stated: 鈥淲hatever is in it shall be impure.鈥

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讚转诐 诪讞讜抓 诇注讬专 讗转 驻讗转 拽讚诪讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讜讙讜壮 讜诪拽专讗 讗讞专 讗诪专 诪拽讬专 讛注讬专 讜讞讜爪讛 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 住讘讬讘

Furthermore, on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verses with regard to the Levite cities as follows: One verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall measure outside the city for the east side two thousand cubits鈥this shall be for them the open land outside the cities鈥 (Numbers 35:5), and another verse states: 鈥淎nd the open land around the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward one thousand cubits round about鈥 (Numbers 35:4).

讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 诪讙专砖 讜讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 转讞讜诐 讛砖讘转

It is impossible to say that the area around the cities given to the Levites was only one thousand cubits, as it is already stated: 鈥淭wo thousand cubits.鈥 And it is impossible to say that two thousand cubits were left for them, as it is already stated: 鈥淥ne thousand cubits.鈥 How can these texts be reconciled? One thousand cubits are to be set aside as a tract of open land surrounding the city, and the two thousand cubits are mentioned not in order to be given to the Levites, but to indicate the boundary of the Shabbat limit, beyond which it is forbidden to travel on Shabbat. This verse thereby serves as the source for the two-thousand-cubit Shabbat limit.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 诪讙专砖 讜讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 砖讚讜转 讜讻专诪讬诐

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says otherwise: One thousand cubits were given to the Levites as an open tract of land, that could not be planted or built upon, and two thousand cubits of additional land were given to the Levites for planting fields and vineyards.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讝 讬砖讬专 诪砖讛 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讬专讛 讛讝讗转 诇讛壮 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讗诪专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗诪专 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗诪专 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 注讜谞讬谉 砖讬专讛 讗讞专讬讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讜讚讘专 讻拽讜专讗讬谉 讗转 讛诇诇 (讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 讻讬 讙讗讛 讙讗讛) 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 诇讗诪专

Additionally, on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verse: 鈥淭hen Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and said, saying鈥 (Exodus 15:1), as follows: As there is no need for the verse to state the word 鈥渟aying,鈥 because it states the word 鈥渟aid鈥 immediately prior to it, why must the verse state the word 鈥渟aying鈥? It teaches that the Jewish people would repeat in song after Moses every single statement he said, as is done when reciting hallel. After Moses would recite a verse, they would say as a refrain: 鈥淚 will sing to the Lord, for He is highly exalted鈥 (Exodus 15:1). It is for this reason that the word 鈥渟aying鈥 is stated, in addition to the word 鈥渟aid.鈥

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻拽讜专讬谉 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讻拽讜专讬谉 讗转 讛诇诇

Rabbi Ne岣mya says: The people sang the song together with Moses as is done when reciting Shema, which is recited in unison after the prayer leader begins, and not as is done when reciting hallel.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讛讜专拽谞讜住 诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬讜讘 讗转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讛讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛谉 讬拽讟诇谞讬 诇讜 讗讬讞诇 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讚讘专 砖拽讜诇 诇讜 讗谞讬 诪爪驻讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讬 诪爪驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讗讙讜注 诇讗 讗住讬专 转诪转讬 诪诪谞讬 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讗讛讘讛 注砖讛

On that same day Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus taught: Job served the Holy One, Blessed be He, only out of love, as it is stated: 鈥淭hough He will slay me, still I will trust in Him鈥 (Job 13:15). And still, the matter is even, i.e., the verse is ambiguous, as there are two possible interpretations of the verse. Was Job saying: I will await Him, expressing his yearning for God; or should the verse be interpreted as saying I will not await Him. As the word 鈥渓o鈥 can mean either 鈥渢o him鈥 or 鈥渘ot,鈥 it is unclear which meaning is intended here. This dilemma is resolved elsewhere, where the verse states a clearer indication of Job鈥檚 intent: 鈥淭ill I die I will not put away my integrity from me鈥 (Job 27:5). This teaches that he acted out of love.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讬 讬讙诇讛 注驻专 诪注讬谞讬讱 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讛讬讬转 讚讜专砖 讻诇 讬诪讬讱 砖诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬讜讘 讗转 讛诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 诪讬专讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 转诐 讜讬砖专 讬专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讜住专 诪专注 讜讛诇讗 讬讛讜砖注 转诇诪讬讚 转诇诪讬讚讱 诇诪讚 砖诪讗讛讘讛 注砖讛

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, so that you could live and see this? As you taught all your life that Job worshipped the Omnipresent only out of fear, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd that man was wholehearted and upright, and God-fearing, and shunned evil鈥 (Job 1:1); but now Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus, the disciple of your disciple, has taught that Job acted out of love.

讙诪壮 讗讜转讜 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讘注诇 讘注诇 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗

GEMARA: It is stated in the mishna that just as the water evaluates whether the woman was unfaithful, so too, the water evaluates whether he committed this sin. The Gemara asks: To whom does this refer? If we say that it is referring to the husband, what did the husband do that he should be evaluated? And if you would say

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sotah 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 27

讚讜诪讛 讜讗诇 讬砖讗 讘转 讚讜诪讛 砖讝讜 讘讗讛 诪讟讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讜讝讜 讘讗讛 诪讟讬驻讛 驻住讜诇讛

a woman whose suspected promiscuity is publicly spoken of [duma], and not marry the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, as this woman, who is herself suspected of promiscuity, comes from seed of unflawed lineage; but that woman, the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, comes from seed of flawed lineage, as she might be a mamzeret.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 讘转 讚讜诪讛 讜讗诇 讬砖讗 讚讜诪讛 砖讝讜 注讜诪讚转 讘讞讝拽转 讻砖专讜转 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 讘讞讝拽转 讻砖专讜转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is better that a man marry the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, and not marry a woman suspected of promiscuity, as this daughter maintains the presumptive status of virtuousness, but that woman suspected of promiscuity does not maintain the presumptive status of virtuousness.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞讜砖讗 讗讚诐 讚讜诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 谞讜砖讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 谞砖讗 转谞讬 谞诪讬 讘转 讚讜诪讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement from a baraita: A man may marry a woman suspected of promiscuity. Rava said in response: And how can you understand the baraita at face value? The baraita states that a man may marry her ab initio, yet clearly it is undesirable to do so. Rather, the wording of the baraita is imprecise, and one must render it: If one married a woman suspected of promiscuity, she is permitted to him. Since the baraita is imprecise, one should also correct it and teach: The daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 讘转 讚讜诪讛 讜讗诇 讬砖讗 讚讜诪讛 讚转谞讬 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 诪注专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗砖讛 诪讝谞讛 讘谞讬讛 讻砖专讬谉 专讜讘 讘注讬诇讜转 讗讞专 讛讘注诇

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that it is better that a man marry the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, and not marry a woman suspected of promiscuity. This is as Rav Ta岣lifa, from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught before Rabbi Abbahu: If a married woman engages in adulterous sexual intercourse, her children are considered of unflawed lineage, as most instances of sexual intercourse are attributed to the husband, and consequently it is presumed that the children were conceived by the husband and not by the paramour. Therefore, the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity is not suspected of being a mamzeret.

讘注讬 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讬转讛 驻专讜爪讛 讘讬讜转专 诪讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转注讘专转 讗诇讗 住诪讜讱 诇讜讜住转讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讘讛 讜诇讗 诪谞讟专 诇讛

Rav Amram raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if the woman was extremely promiscuous and one cannot reasonably attribute most instances of intercourse to the husband? Are her children considered of unflawed lineage, or is their lineage uncertain? According to the opinion of the one who says that a woman becomes pregnant only close to the time of the onset of her menstruation, you do not need to raise this dilemma, as the husband does not know the time of this, i.e., the time of her menstruation, in advance, and he does not watch her actions in order to prevent her from conceiving from another man. Her children are therefore of uncertain lineage.

讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转注讘专转 讗诇讗 住诪讜讱 诇讟讘讬诇转讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讚注 讘讛 谞讟讜专讬 诪谞讟专 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚驻专讜爪讛 讘讬讜转专 诇讗 转讬拽讜

When do you need to raise this dilemma? It is necessary according to the opinion of the one who says that a woman becomes pregnant only close to the time of her immersion. What is the halakha? Can it be assumed that since he knows the time of this, i.e., of her immersion, he watches her actions on that day in order to prevent her from conceiving from another man; or perhaps, since she is extremely promiscuous, her husband cannot adequately watch her and her children are considered of uncertain lineage? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讜讗诇讜 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗砖转 讞专砖 讜讗砖转 砖讜讟讛 讜讗砖转 砖注诪讜诐 讜砖讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖讛讬讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛谉 诇驻讜住诇谉 诪讻转讜讘转谉

搂 The mishna states (24a): And these are the women to whom the court issues a warning in place of their husbands: One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or if he were incarcerated in prison. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淚f the wife of any man goes astray鈥 (Numbers 5:12). As the verse could have said: The wife of a man, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭he wife of any man鈥? It serves to include the wife of a deaf-mute, and the wife of an imbecile, and the wife of an insane person, and one whose husband went overseas, and one whose husband was incarcerated in prison; and it teaches that the court issues a warning to these women in order to disqualify them from receiving payment of their marriage contract.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇讛砖拽讜转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讘讬讗 讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜诇讻砖讬爪讗 讘注诇讛 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讬砖拽谞讛

One might have thought that the court鈥檚 warning is effective even to have the women drink the bitter water; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen the man shall bring his wife to the priest鈥 (Numbers 5:15), indicating that only the warning issued by the husband causes his wife to drink. Rabbi Yosei says: The court鈥檚 warning is effective even to have her drink, and when her husband is released from prison he has her drink.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜拽谞讗 讜讛讘讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜拽谞讗 讜讛讘讬讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that we require the same person who issues the warning to bring the woman to the Temple, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife鈥then the man shall bring his wife to the priest鈥 (Numbers 5:14鈥15). And Rabbi Yosei holds that we do not require that the actions stated in the verse, i.e., 鈥淎nd he warned鈥hen the man shall bring,鈥 be performed by the same person; and although only the husband may bring the woman to the priest to drink the bitter water, the warning may be issued by the court.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖专 转砖讟讛 讗砖讛 转讞转 讗讬砖讛 诇讛拽讬砖 讗讬砖 诇讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻砖诐 砖讗诐 讛讜讗 住讜诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞注诇诐 诪注讬谞讬 讗讬砖讛 讻讱 讛讬讗 讗诐 讛讬转讛 住讜诪讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖讞讬讙专转 讜讙讬讚诪转 诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讚讻转讬讘

The Sages taught that the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband, goes astray and is defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:29), is superfluous, and serves to compare a man to a woman and a woman to a man. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this comparison necessary? Rav Sheshet says: This teaches that just as if the husband was blind he would not have her drink, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it was hidden from the eyes of her husband鈥 (Numbers 5:13), indicating that the sota ritual applies only if the husband was capable of seeing her infidelity but did not do so; so too, with regard to the woman, if she were blind, she would not drink. Rav Ashi also says: Just as a lame woman and a woman without hands would not drink, as it is written:

讜讛注诪讬讚 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讗砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜谞转谉 注诇 讻驻讬讛 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讬讙专 讗讜 讙讬讚诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬诇诪转 诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诪专讛 讛讗砖讛 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讬诇诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛

鈥淎nd the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord鈥nd place the meal-offering of memorial in her hands鈥 (Numbers 5:18), indicating that if she is unable to stand up straight or if she does not have hands with which to accept the offering, then she does not drink; so too, if the husband were lame or without hands, he would not cause his wife to drink. Mar Bar Rav Ashi says: Just as a mute woman would not drink, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the woman shall say: Amen, Amen鈥 (Numbers 5:22), indicating that she must be able to speak; so too, if the husband were mute, he would not cause his wife to drink.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗专讜住讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻砖诐 砖讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讱 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讗讜 讜讘讗讜

MISHNA: Just as the water evaluates her fidelity, so too, the water evaluates his, i.e., her alleged paramour鈥檚, involvement in the sin, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the water that causes the curse shall enter into her鈥 (Numbers 5:24), and it is stated again: 鈥淎nd the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter鈥 (Numbers 5:27). It is derived from the double mention of the phrase 鈥渁nd鈥hall enter鈥 that both the woman and her paramour are evaluated by the water.

讻砖诐 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇 讻讱 讗住讜专讛 诇讘讜注诇 砖谞讗诪专 谞讟诪讗讛 讜谞讟诪讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Furthermore, prior to her drinking the water, just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too is she forbidden to her paramour, because in contrast to the verse stating: 鈥淚s defiled [nitma鈥檃]鈥 (Numbers 5:14), a superfluous conjoining prefix vav is added to a later verse, rendering the phrase: 鈥淎nd is defiled [venitma鈥檃]鈥 (Numbers 5:29). The addition indicates another prohibition, that of the woman to her paramour. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻讱 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻专砖讛 谞讟诪讗讛 讜谞讟诪讗讛 讗讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讗讞讚 诇讘讜注诇

Rabbi Yehoshua said: That was how Zekharya ben HaKatzav would interpret it, i.e., he also derived from the superfluous vav that the woman is forbidden to her paramour. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says an alternate source: The two times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage, namely: 鈥淎nd he warns his wife, and she is defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14), and the later verse: 鈥淲hen a wife, being under her husband, goes astray and is defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:29), indicate that her defilement results in two prohibitions. One is that she is forbidden to her husband and one is that she is forbidden to her paramour.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻诇讬 讞专砖 讗砖专 讬驻诇 诪讛诐 讗诇 转讜讻讜 讻诇 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜 讬讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 诇诪讚 注诇 讻讻专 砖谞讬 砖诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛砖诇讬砖讬

On that same day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed head of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verse: 鈥淎nd every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it鈥 (Leviticus 11:33), as follows: The verse does not state: Is impure [tamei], but rather: 鈥淪hall be impure,鈥 in order to indicate that not only does the vessel itself become ritually impure, but it can now render other items ritually impure. This teaches with regard to a loaf that has second-degree ritual impurity status due to its being placed inside an earthenware vessel that had first-degree impurity, that it can render other food with which it comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity status.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讬 讬讙诇讛 注驻专 诪注讬谞讬讱 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讛讬讬转 讗讜诪专 注转讬讚 讚讜专 讗讞专 诇讟讛专 讻讻专 砖诇讬砖讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讛诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转诇诪讬讚讱 诪讘讬讗 诇讜 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜 讬讟诪讗

After hearing Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement, Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, so that you could live and see this? As you would say: In the future, another generation is destined to deem pure a loaf that contracted third-degree impurity, as there is no explicit verse from the Torah stating that it is impure. But now Rabbi Akiva, your disciple, brings a verse from the Torah indicating that it is impure, as it is stated: 鈥淲hatever is in it shall be impure.鈥

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讚转诐 诪讞讜抓 诇注讬专 讗转 驻讗转 拽讚诪讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讜讙讜壮 讜诪拽专讗 讗讞专 讗诪专 诪拽讬专 讛注讬专 讜讞讜爪讛 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 住讘讬讘

Furthermore, on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verses with regard to the Levite cities as follows: One verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall measure outside the city for the east side two thousand cubits鈥this shall be for them the open land outside the cities鈥 (Numbers 35:5), and another verse states: 鈥淎nd the open land around the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward one thousand cubits round about鈥 (Numbers 35:4).

讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 诪讙专砖 讜讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 转讞讜诐 讛砖讘转

It is impossible to say that the area around the cities given to the Levites was only one thousand cubits, as it is already stated: 鈥淭wo thousand cubits.鈥 And it is impossible to say that two thousand cubits were left for them, as it is already stated: 鈥淥ne thousand cubits.鈥 How can these texts be reconciled? One thousand cubits are to be set aside as a tract of open land surrounding the city, and the two thousand cubits are mentioned not in order to be given to the Levites, but to indicate the boundary of the Shabbat limit, beyond which it is forbidden to travel on Shabbat. This verse thereby serves as the source for the two-thousand-cubit Shabbat limit.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 诪讙专砖 讜讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 砖讚讜转 讜讻专诪讬诐

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says otherwise: One thousand cubits were given to the Levites as an open tract of land, that could not be planted or built upon, and two thousand cubits of additional land were given to the Levites for planting fields and vineyards.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讝 讬砖讬专 诪砖讛 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讬专讛 讛讝讗转 诇讛壮 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讗诪专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗诪专 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗诪专 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 注讜谞讬谉 砖讬专讛 讗讞专讬讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讜讚讘专 讻拽讜专讗讬谉 讗转 讛诇诇 (讗砖讬专讛 诇讛壮 讻讬 讙讗讛 讙讗讛) 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 诇讗诪专

Additionally, on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verse: 鈥淭hen Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and said, saying鈥 (Exodus 15:1), as follows: As there is no need for the verse to state the word 鈥渟aying,鈥 because it states the word 鈥渟aid鈥 immediately prior to it, why must the verse state the word 鈥渟aying鈥? It teaches that the Jewish people would repeat in song after Moses every single statement he said, as is done when reciting hallel. After Moses would recite a verse, they would say as a refrain: 鈥淚 will sing to the Lord, for He is highly exalted鈥 (Exodus 15:1). It is for this reason that the word 鈥渟aying鈥 is stated, in addition to the word 鈥渟aid.鈥

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻拽讜专讬谉 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讻拽讜专讬谉 讗转 讛诇诇

Rabbi Ne岣mya says: The people sang the song together with Moses as is done when reciting Shema, which is recited in unison after the prayer leader begins, and not as is done when reciting hallel.

讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讛讜专拽谞讜住 诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬讜讘 讗转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讛讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛谉 讬拽讟诇谞讬 诇讜 讗讬讞诇 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讚讘专 砖拽讜诇 诇讜 讗谞讬 诪爪驻讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讬 诪爪驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讗讙讜注 诇讗 讗住讬专 转诪转讬 诪诪谞讬 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讗讛讘讛 注砖讛

On that same day Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus taught: Job served the Holy One, Blessed be He, only out of love, as it is stated: 鈥淭hough He will slay me, still I will trust in Him鈥 (Job 13:15). And still, the matter is even, i.e., the verse is ambiguous, as there are two possible interpretations of the verse. Was Job saying: I will await Him, expressing his yearning for God; or should the verse be interpreted as saying I will not await Him. As the word 鈥渓o鈥 can mean either 鈥渢o him鈥 or 鈥渘ot,鈥 it is unclear which meaning is intended here. This dilemma is resolved elsewhere, where the verse states a clearer indication of Job鈥檚 intent: 鈥淭ill I die I will not put away my integrity from me鈥 (Job 27:5). This teaches that he acted out of love.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讬 讬讙诇讛 注驻专 诪注讬谞讬讱 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讛讬讬转 讚讜专砖 讻诇 讬诪讬讱 砖诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬讜讘 讗转 讛诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 诪讬专讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 转诐 讜讬砖专 讬专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讜住专 诪专注 讜讛诇讗 讬讛讜砖注 转诇诪讬讚 转诇诪讬讚讱 诇诪讚 砖诪讗讛讘讛 注砖讛

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, so that you could live and see this? As you taught all your life that Job worshipped the Omnipresent only out of fear, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd that man was wholehearted and upright, and God-fearing, and shunned evil鈥 (Job 1:1); but now Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus, the disciple of your disciple, has taught that Job acted out of love.

讙诪壮 讗讜转讜 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讘注诇 讘注诇 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗

GEMARA: It is stated in the mishna that just as the water evaluates whether the woman was unfaithful, so too, the water evaluates whether he committed this sin. The Gemara asks: To whom does this refer? If we say that it is referring to the husband, what did the husband do that he should be evaluated? And if you would say

Scroll To Top