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

Daf Yomi

April 1, 2023 | 讬壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.

Sotah 3

A number of statements regarding sins in general are derived from the sotah. Rabbi Yishmael brings an explanation why one witness is believed to testify that the sotah had relations with the man she was warned against. What causes one to sin? What causes a husband to be jealous of his wife? Rabbi Yishmale and Rabbi Akiva debate whether it is permitted or an obligation for the husband to want his wife in a case where he suspects her of infidelity. They have similar arguments in a few other topics about whether it is permitted or an obligation. Rav Shmule bar Nachmani talks about the importance of a single mitzva vs. one transgression. Another braita is brought discussing why one witness is believed about testifying to her having committed adultery but not for the kinui and stira.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专讬 讚讗住讜专 诇拽谞讗讜转


Apparently, both Reish Lakish and Rav Yeimar bar Rabbi Shelemya hold that it is prohibited to issue a warning. Both are of the opinion that the word kinnui is a term for anger. Since causing anger is a negative trait, it follows that it is prohibited to issue a warning.


讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇拽谞讗讜转 诪讛讜 诇砖讜谉 拽讬谞讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬谉 拽讬谞讜讬 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 讛转专讗讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬拽谞讗 讛壮 诇讗专爪讜


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that it is permitted for him to issue a warning, what is the meaning of the term kinnui? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The term kinnui means nothing other than a term of forewarning, and so it says: 鈥淭hen the Lord warned [vayekanneh] concerning His land and had pity for His people鈥 (Joel 2:18). As detailed in that passage, the Lord ordered the locusts to stop destroying Eretz Yisrael.


转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 注讜讘专 注讘讬专讛 讘住转专 讜讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讻专讬讝 注诇讬讜 讘讙诇讜讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讜讞 拽谞讗讛 讜讗讬谉 注讘讬专讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 讛讻专讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讜 诪砖讛 讜讬注讘讬专讜 拽讜诇 讘诪讞谞讛


It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: A person commits a transgression in private and the Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about him openly, i.e., in public, that he transgressed, as it is stated concerning a sota, who transgressed in private: 鈥淭he spirit of jealousy came [avar] upon him鈥 (Numbers 5:14); and the term avira means nothing other than a term of proclamation, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Moses gave the commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed [vaya鈥檃viru] throughout the camp鈥 (Exodus 36:6).


专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜讘专 注讘讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻谞住 讘讜 专讜讞 砖讟讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讻讬 转砖讟讛 讗砖转讜 转砖讟讛 讻转讬讘


Reish Lakish says: A man commits a transgression only if a spirit of folly [shetut] enters him, as it is stated: 鈥淚f any man鈥檚 wife goes aside [tisteh]鈥 (Numbers 5:12). The word tisteh is written with the Hebrew letter shin, affording an alternative reading of tishteh, which is related to the term for folly, the word shetut.


转谞讬讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛讗诪讬谞讛 转讜专讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讘住讜讟讛 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖讛专讬 拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讜谞住转专讛 讜注讚 讗讞讚 诪注讬讚讛 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛


搂 The Gemara discusses why the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to defilement. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a baraita: For what reason did the Torah deem credible a single witness with regard to the defilement of a sota? It is because there is a basis for anticipating the matter, as there is strong circumstantial evidence that she committed adultery. What is the basis for anticipating the matter? As he warned her not to seclude herself with a specific man, and she nevertheless secluded herself with him, and one witness testifies that she is defiled, then the combination of her behavior and the testimony renders it reasonable to assume that she has in fact committed adultery.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘讛 拽讬谞讜讬 讘转专 住转讬专讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘讛


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But when the warning is written in the Torah, it is written in the verse after seclusion and defilement are mentioned, indicating that the circumstance in which one witness is deemed credible with regard to defilement is even when there was no previous warning. The order in which the Torah describes the sota process seems to indicate that the husband鈥檚 warning is issued only after the wife already secluded herself with the other man and was defiled, as the verses state: 鈥淎nd a man lie with her carnally, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was defiled secretly, and there is no witness against her, and she was not taken. And the spirit of jealousy came [ve鈥檃var] upon him, and he warned his wife, and she had become defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:13鈥14).


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜注讘专 讜讻讘专 注讘专


Abaye said to him in response: That which the verse states: 鈥淎nd the spirit of jealousy came [ve鈥檃var] upon him,鈥 means: And it had already come upon him, that the husband warned his wife not to seclude herself with a specific man prior to her seclusion and defilement.


讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜注讘专 诇讻诐 讻诇 讞诇讜抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: If that is so, that 鈥ve鈥檃var鈥 is referring to a matter that already occurred, then in the case of the agreement between Moses and the tribes of Gad and Reuben before they entered Eretz Yisrael, where he stated: 鈥淎nd every armed man of you will pass over [ve鈥檃var] the Jordan鈥 (Numbers 32:21), so too did he mean that they had already crossed? Moses was stipulating a condition with regard to the future; they had yet to cross the Jordan.


讛转诐 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜谞讻讘砖讛 讛讗专抓 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讗讞专 转砖讘讜 诪砖诪注 讚诇讛讘讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讻转讬讘讬 讜注讘专 讘转专 讟讜诪讗讛 讜住转讬专讛 拽讬谞讜讬 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara answers: There, from the fact that it is written: 鈥淎nd the land be subdued before the Lord, and you return afterward鈥 (Numbers 32:22), it is clear that it teaches concerning the future. But here, if it enters your mind that the verses should be understood as they are written in the Torah, that ve鈥檃var (Numbers 5:14) is after the defilement and seclusion, then why do I need a warning? If the woman had already secluded herself with the man and become defiled, the husband鈥檚 warning would be irrelevant, as she had already become forbidden to him. Therefore, the word ve鈥檃var in this context must be referring to a past event, i.e., the husband issuing a warning to his wife prior to the seclusion.


转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讗 诇讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻谞住讛 讘讜 专讜讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讜讞 拽谞讗讛 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪讗讬 专讜讞


The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A man issues a warning to his wife only if a spirit entered him, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife鈥 (Numbers 5:14). The Gemara asks: Of what spirit does Rabbi Yishmael speak?


专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 专讜讞 讟讜诪讗讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讜讞 讟讛专讛


The Rabbis say: A spirit of impurity, as one should not issue a warning to one鈥檚 wife. Rav Ashi says: A spirit of purity, as issuing a warning indicates that he will not tolerate promiscuous behavior.


讜诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜讞 讟讛专讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讜讞 讟讛专讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讜讞 讟讜诪讗讛 专砖讜转 讜讞讜讘讛 诇注讬讜诇讬 诇讗讬谞讬砖 专讜讞 讟讜诪讗讛 讘谞驻砖讬讛


The Gemara comments: And it stands to reason like the one who says that Rabbi Yishmael was speaking of a spirit of purity, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife,鈥 i.e., the issuing of the warning, is optional, that the husband is neither enjoined to nor prohibited from issuing a warning; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, as one who sees his wife behaving in an inappropriate manner with another man is obligated to warn her. The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yishmael was speaking of a spirit of purity, then it is well, as it may be optional, or even mandatory, to issue a warning. But if you say that he was speaking of a spirit of impurity, can it be optional or mandatory for a person to introduce a spirit of impurity into himself? The Torah would not require a husband to act in a manner that results from having a spirit of impurity enter him.


讙讜驻讗 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讬讟诪讗 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself. 鈥淎nd he warned his wife,鈥 i.e., the warning, is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva engage in a similar dispute with regard to several other verses. Although under normal circumstances it is prohibited for a priest to become ritually impure through contact with a corpse, the verse states that he may do so for the sake of burying his relatives. The baraita teaches: 鈥淔or her may he become impure鈥 (Leviticus 21:3), i.e., for a priest to participate in the burial of his sister, despite the fact that he will contract ritual impurity, is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. A priest is not obligated to participate, but he may. And Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory for him to do so.


诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


The verse states: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., keeping one鈥檚 Canaanite slave forever, is optional, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. One is not enjoined against emancipating a Canaanite slave, but one is permitted to keep his Canaanite slaves forever. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, and it is prohibited for one to free his Canaanite slave.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讛讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 讗诪专 专砖讜转 讜诪专 讗诪专 讞讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘拽专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬


Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say that Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: Shall we say that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree in this manner with regard to the entire Torah? In other words, is it so that whenever there is a statement where it is unclear whether it is referring to an optional or mandatory act, that one master, Rabbi Yishmael, says that it is optional, and the other master, Rabbi Akiva, says that it is mandatory. Abaye said to Rav Pappa in response: Here, in these particular cases, they disagree with regard to the meaning of these specific verses, but it is not a general dispute.


讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


The Gemara explains their dispute in these specific contexts, beginning with the dispute concerning a man鈥檚 warning to his wife: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife,鈥 the warning is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讻诇驻讬 砖讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 转砖谞讗 讗转 讗讞讬讱 讘诇讘讘讱 讬讻讜诇 讻讙讜谉 讝讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讜讞 拽谞讗讛 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜


What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? He holds in accordance with the statement of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: With regard to that which the Torah said: 鈥淵ou shall not hate your brother in your heart鈥 (Leviticus 19:17), one might have thought that this prohibition applies in a case such as this one, when one sees his wife behaving improperly with another man, and the verse would instruct the husband to avoid conflict and strife. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife鈥 (Numbers 5:14), teaching that it is permitted for one to issue a warning to his wife in such a case.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讬谞讜讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive that it is mandatory? The Gemara answers: There is another warning written in the same verse, as the entire verse reads: 鈥淎nd the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife, and she be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife, and she be not defiled.鈥 Therefore, the first half of the verse teaches that it is permitted to issue a warning, and the second half teaches that it is in fact mandatory.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the repetition? The Gemara answers: Since it needed to write in this verse both possibilities as to whether the woman was unfaithful: 鈥淎nd she be defiled,鈥 and also: 鈥淎nd she be not defiled,鈥 to teach that although it is uncertain whether she had become defiled, she is still forbidden to her husband, therefore, it is also written: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife,鈥 a second time. This repetition should not be interpreted as rendering the issuance of the warning as mandatory.


诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 驻专砖讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讜谞讬砖谞讬转 诇讗 谞讬砖谞讬转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 砖谞转讞讚砖 讘讛


This manner of interpreting verses is as taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. Although the Torah could have merely mentioned the element necessary to teach an additional halakha, one should not interpret the repetition of a previously mentioned matter as teaching a second additional halakha, as the style of the Torah is to repeat a passage even to teach only one additional halakha. In the case of the passage concerning a sota as well, the repetition of the warning does not teach a new halakha.


诇讛 讬讟诪讗 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


The Gemara discusses the second dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The baraita teaches: 鈥淎nd for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her may he become impure鈥 (Leviticus 21:3), i.e., for a priest to participate in the burial of his sister despite the fact that he will contract ritual impurity is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. A priest is not obligated to participate, but he may do so. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory for him to do so.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗诪专 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讬讛诐 诇谞驻砖 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘注诪讬讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讛 讬讟诪讗


What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written: 鈥淪peak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: There shall none become impure for the dead among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), indicating that a priest is enjoined from contact with the dead, it was necessary to be written: 鈥淔or her may he become impure,鈥 which teaches that a priest may become impure at the burial of a relative.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻讬 讗诐 诇砖讗专讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 讬讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讜讘讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive that it is mandatory? The Gemara answers: He derives that it is permissible from the previous verse, which states: 鈥淓xcept for his kin, that is near to him鈥 (Leviticus 21:2). Since it is derived that it is permitted from that verse, why do I need the additional verse: 鈥淔or her may he become impure鈥? To teach that it is mandatory.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讛 诪讬讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讬讘专讬讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the repetition? The Gemara answers: He explains that the verse teaches that he may become impure for her, but he may not become impure to bury only one of her limbs. This additional verse teaches that a priest may become ritually impure to bury a relative only in the case of burying a complete body.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛 讜诇讬砖转讜拽 讬讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And what does Rabbi Akiva respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse serves to render it prohibited for a priest to become impure to bury a limb, then let the Merciful One write: 鈥淎nd for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her,鈥 and then be silent. Why do I need the verse to write: 鈥淢ay he become impure鈥? Learn from the additional phrase that making himself impure is mandatory.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讘 谞诪讬 讬讟诪讗 诇讻讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 驻专砖讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讜谞讬砖谞讬转 诇讗 谞讬砖谞讬转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 砖谞转讞讚砖 讘讛


And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the additional phrase? Since the verse wrote: 鈥淔or her,鈥 it also wrote: 鈥淢ay he become impure,鈥 for the same reason as was taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated, was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. Therefore, it is possible that the verse serves to teach the halakha that a priest may not become impure in order to bury a limb, and that would account for the repetition of the phrase 鈥渕ay he become impure鈥 as well.


诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


The Gemara discusses the third dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The verse states: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., the halakha that one keeps his Canaanite slave forever, is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. One is not enjoined against emancipating a Canaanite slave, but one is permitted to keep a Canaanite slave forever. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, and one is prohibited from freeing his Canaanite slave.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讞讬讛 讻诇 谞砖诪讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 谞诪讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 诇诪讬砖专讬 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛讗讜诪讜转 砖讘讗 注诇 讛讻谞注谞讬转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜


What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written with regard to Canaanites: 鈥淵ou shall save alive nothing that breathes鈥 (Deuteronomy 20:16), it was necessary to write: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), as well, in order to permit one from any of the other, non-Canaanite nations who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite woman and she bore him a child. This verse teaches that you are permitted to purchase the child as a slave, as he is not included in the mitzva 鈥淵ou shall save alive nothing that breathes鈥 that was stated with regard to full-fledged Canaanites. Therefore, this verse cannot be teaching that it is mandatory.


讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 砖讘讗 注诇 讛讻谞注谞讬转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 讘注讘讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讙诐 诪讘谞讬 讛转讜砖讘讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 注诪讻诐 诪讛诐 转拽谞讜


This is as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that in the case of one from any of the other, non-Canaanite nations who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite woman, and she bore him a child, that you are permitted to purchase the child as a slave? The verse states: 鈥淢oreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may you buy鈥 (Leviticus 25:45). This verse permits the purchase of slaves from among those individuals who are not members of the Canaanite nations, even if they settle in Eretz Yisrael.


讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讛讻谞注谞讬 砖讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 讘注讘讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讛讜诇讬讚讜 讘讗专爪讻诐 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 讘讗专爪讻诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讙专讬诐 讘讗专爪讻诐


The baraita continues: One might have thought that even in the case of a Canaanite man who engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman from one of the other nations and she bore him a child, that you are permitted to purchase the child as a slave, despite the fact that his father is a Canaanite. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淲hich they have given birth to in your land,鈥 teaching that one is permitted to purchase slaves only from the ones who are born in your land but whose paternal origins are from other lands, but not from the ones who already reside in your land, i.e., ones who have a Canaanite father.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪诪讛诐 转拽谞讜 谞驻拽讗 诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讜讘讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the words in the same verse: 鈥淥f them may you buy.鈥 Once the halakha is already taught that one may purchase as a slave the child of a Canaanite woman and a man from another nation, why do I need the verse to state: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46)? It is stated to teach that it is mandatory to enslave a Canaanite slave forever.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讛诐 讜诇讗 讘讗讞讬讻诐


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever,鈥 teaches that you can enslave 鈥渙f them,鈥 but not of your brethren, i.e., it is prohibited to enslave a fellow Jew, even a slave, forever.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讗讞讬讻诐 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讜讘讗讞讬讻诐 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬砖 讘讗讞讬讜 诇讗 转专讚讛 讘讜 讘驻专讱


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: The prohibition against enslaving your brethren is derived from the latter phrase of the verse, where it is explicitly stated: 鈥淏ut over your brethren the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with rigor鈥 (Leviticus 25:46).


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗讞讬讻诐 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 讘讛诐 诇讻讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 驻专砖讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讜谞讬砖谞讬转 诇讗 谞讬砖谞讬转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 砖谞转讞讚砖 讘讛


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He holds that since it is written: 鈥淏ut over your brethren,鈥 which explicitly states that it is prohibited to subjugate a Jew forever, it also writes with regard to Canaanites 鈥渙f them,鈥 but that phrase does not teach any novel halakha, because of the reason that was taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated, was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. Therefore, it is possible that the verse serves to teach the halakha that one may enslave a Canaanite forever, and that would account for the ostensibly superfluous phrase 鈥渙f them.鈥


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝谞讜转讗 讘讘讬转讗 讻讬 拽专讬讗 诇砖讜诪砖诪讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讜拽驻讗 讘讘讬转讗 讻讬 拽专讬讗 诇砖讜诪砖诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讗讬转转讗 讗讘诇 讘讙讘专讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛


搂 The Gemara discusses matters related to sin and sexual impropriety. Rav 岣sda says: Licentious behavior in a home causes damage like a worm [karya] causes damage to sesame [shumeshema]. And Rav 岣sda says: Anger in a home causes damage like a worm causes damage to sesame. The Gemara comments: Both this and that, i.e., that licentious behavior and anger destroy a home, were said with regard to the woman of the house, but with regard to the man, although these behaviors are improper, we do not have the same extreme consequences with regard to it, as the woman鈥檚 role in the home is more significant, resulting in a more detrimental result if she acts improperly.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转讞讬诇讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讟讗讜 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬转讛 砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 注诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪转讛诇讱 讘拽专讘 诪讞谞讱 讻讬讜谉 砖讞讟讗讜 谞住转诇拽讛 砖讻讬谞讛 诪讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘讱 注专讜转 讚讘专 讜砖讘 诪讗讞专讬讱


And Rav 岣sda says: Initially, before the Jewish people sinned, the Divine Presence resided with each and every one of them, as it is stated: 鈥淔or the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15). Once they sinned, the Divine Presence withdrew from them, as it is stated in that same verse: 鈥淭hat He see no unseemly matter in you, and turn away from you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15), teaching that when there is an 鈥渦nseemly matter鈥 among the Jewish people, the Divine Presence no longer resides among them.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讞转 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 诪拽讚诪转讜 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇驻谞讬讜 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 爪讚拽讱 讜讻诇 讛注讜讘专 注讘讬专讛 讗讞转 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 诪诇驻驻转讜 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇驻谞讬讜 诇讬讜诐 讛讚讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讬诇驻转讜 讗专讞讜转 讚专讻诐 讬注诇讜 讘转讛讜 讜讬讗讘讚讜


Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who fulfills one mitzva in this world, that mitzva precedes him and goes before him to the World-to-Come, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your reward鈥 (Isaiah 58:8). And anyone who commits one transgression in this world, it shrouds him and goes before him to the Day of Judgment, as it is stated: 鈥淭he paths of their way do wind, they go up into the waste, and are lost鈥 (Job 6:18).


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜 讻讻诇讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 砖诪注 讗诇讬讛 诇砖讻讘 讗爪诇讛 诇讛讬讜转 注诪讛 诇砖讻讘 讗爪诇讛 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 诇讛讬讜转 注诪讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗


Rabbi Elazar says: The transgression is chained to him and accompanies him like a dog, as it is stated concerning Joseph鈥檚 refusal to commit adultery with the wife of Potiphar: 鈥淭hat he listened not to her, to lie by her, or to be with her鈥 (Genesis 39:10), which is understood to mean: If he would agree 鈥渢o lie by her鈥 in this world, the result would be that he would have 鈥渢o be with her鈥 forever, as the transgression would accompany him to the World-to-Come.


转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讛讬讛 讘讚讬谉


搂 The Gemara returns to its discussion of the number of witnesses necessary for different elements of the process of a woman becoming a sota. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (31a) with regard to the credibility of one witness who testifies concerning a woman鈥檚 infidelity: The halakha that one witness is deemed credible concerning defilement needs to be stated, as, by right, it should not have been deemed credible based on the following a fortiori inference:


讜诪讛 注讚讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讜住专转讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讛 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 注讚讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讗讜住专转讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转转拽讬讬诐 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐


And just as with regard to the first testimony concerning seclusion, which does not forbid her to her husband with an irrevocable prohibition, as the woman can be found innocent, permitting her again to her husband by drinking the bitter water, it is not established with fewer than two witnesses, as that mishna is written in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who stated (2a) that testimony of two witnesses must be provided by two witnesses, then with regard to the final testimony concerning defilement, which forbids her with an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it not be established with fewer than two witnesses?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注讚 讗讬谉 讘讛 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛


Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: 鈥淎nd there is no witness against her鈥 (Numbers 5:13), teaching that any testimony that there is against her with regard to her defilement is sufficient, and two witnesses are not required.


讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇注讚讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪注转讛 讜诪讛 注讚讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讗讜住专转讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘注讚 讗讞讚 注讚讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讜住专转讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转转拽讬讬诐 讘注讚 讗讞讚


The mishna asks: And now that it is established that one witness suffices to testify with regard to defilement, an a fortiori inference can be made with regard to the first testimony of seclusion: And just as with regard to the final testimony concerning defilement, which forbids her with an irrevocable prohibition, yet it is established with one witness, then with regard to the first testimony, which does not forbid her with an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it should be established with only one witness?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 诪爪讗 讘讛 注专讜转 讚讘专 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 注讚讬诐 讬拽讜诐 讚讘专 诪讛 讚讘专 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐


Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: 鈥淚f a man marries a woman and lives with her and it will be that she not find favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter [davar] about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there, in the verses concerning the halakhot of monetary matters, it states: 鈥淏y the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter [davar] be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15). This teaches that just as the 鈥渕atter鈥 stated there is established by the mouth of two witnesses, so too here, the 鈥渕atter鈥 of her seclusion must be established by the mouth of two witnesses.


讛讗讬 诪讻讬 诪爪讗 讘讛 注专讜转 讚讘专 谞驻拽讗 诪讘讛 谞驻拽讗 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: Is this need for two witnesses derived from: 鈥淏ecause he has found some unseemly matter about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1)? It is derived from: 鈥淎nd there is no witness [ed] against her [bah]鈥 (Numbers 5:13), which was explained to mean there were not two witnesses, but only one, who testified concerning her defilement (2a). The Gemara above (2b) derives from the term 鈥bah,鈥 which could also be understood as: With regard to it, that in this matter of defilement one witness suffices, but not with regard to the warning. And one also derives: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion. Therefore, there must be two witnesses to testify about both the warning and the seclusion. The mishna should have given this inference as the source for requiring two witnesses for seclusion, and not the juxtaposition of 鈥渕atter鈥 and 鈥渕atter.鈥


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛


The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying. The mishna should read: The verse states: 鈥淎nd there is no witness against her [bah],鈥 teaching that: With regard to it [bah], but not with regard to the warning. And one also derives: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion.


讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘注诇诪讗 讘诇讗 拽讬谞讜讬 讜讘诇讗 住转讬专讛 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 注讚 讗讞讚 诪谞诇谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻讬 诪爪讗 讘讛 注专讜转 讚讘专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 注讚讬诐 讬拽讜诐 讚讘专 诪讛 讚讘专 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 注讚讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 注讚讬诐 砖谞讬诐


The Gemara comments: And with regard to defilement in general, without a prior warning and without witnesses to seclusion, from where do we derive that one witness is not deemed credible? Here it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he has found some unseemly matter about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there it is stated: 鈥淏y the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), teaching that just as the 鈥渕atter鈥 stated there is established by two witnesses, so too here, with regard to defilement it is established by two witnesses.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讚讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讝讜 注讚讜转 住转讬专讛 注讚讜转 讗讞专讜谞讛 讝讜 注讚讜转 讟讜诪讗讛


The Sages taught (Tosefta 1:1): In the mishna quoted above, which is the first testimony? This is referring to the testimony of seclusion. Which is the final testimony? This is referring to the testimony of defilement.


  • Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sotah: 2-6 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we start a new Masechet, we will learn who is considered a Sota, a woman suspected of adultery. The...
on second thought thumbnail

Difficult to Match – On Second Thought

What is the connection between a shidduch & the splitting of the sea? On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya...
ayelet eng sotah

Intro to Masechet Sotah

https://youtu.be/GqUnAdNSxKM Introduction to Masechet Sotah by podcast: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hadran/IntroductionSotahEng.mp3
introduction to sotah gitta

Introduction to Masechet Sotah

In memory of and l鈥檌luy nishmat our Hadran Zoom colleague, Carol Robinson 鈥 Karina Gola bat Hudda v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi- a鈥漢,...

Sotah 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 3

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专讬 讚讗住讜专 诇拽谞讗讜转


Apparently, both Reish Lakish and Rav Yeimar bar Rabbi Shelemya hold that it is prohibited to issue a warning. Both are of the opinion that the word kinnui is a term for anger. Since causing anger is a negative trait, it follows that it is prohibited to issue a warning.


讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇拽谞讗讜转 诪讛讜 诇砖讜谉 拽讬谞讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬谉 拽讬谞讜讬 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 讛转专讗讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬拽谞讗 讛壮 诇讗专爪讜


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that it is permitted for him to issue a warning, what is the meaning of the term kinnui? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The term kinnui means nothing other than a term of forewarning, and so it says: 鈥淭hen the Lord warned [vayekanneh] concerning His land and had pity for His people鈥 (Joel 2:18). As detailed in that passage, the Lord ordered the locusts to stop destroying Eretz Yisrael.


转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 注讜讘专 注讘讬专讛 讘住转专 讜讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讻专讬讝 注诇讬讜 讘讙诇讜讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讜讞 拽谞讗讛 讜讗讬谉 注讘讬专讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 讛讻专讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讜 诪砖讛 讜讬注讘讬专讜 拽讜诇 讘诪讞谞讛


It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: A person commits a transgression in private and the Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about him openly, i.e., in public, that he transgressed, as it is stated concerning a sota, who transgressed in private: 鈥淭he spirit of jealousy came [avar] upon him鈥 (Numbers 5:14); and the term avira means nothing other than a term of proclamation, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Moses gave the commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed [vaya鈥檃viru] throughout the camp鈥 (Exodus 36:6).


专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜讘专 注讘讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻谞住 讘讜 专讜讞 砖讟讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讻讬 转砖讟讛 讗砖转讜 转砖讟讛 讻转讬讘


Reish Lakish says: A man commits a transgression only if a spirit of folly [shetut] enters him, as it is stated: 鈥淚f any man鈥檚 wife goes aside [tisteh]鈥 (Numbers 5:12). The word tisteh is written with the Hebrew letter shin, affording an alternative reading of tishteh, which is related to the term for folly, the word shetut.


转谞讬讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛讗诪讬谞讛 转讜专讛 注讚 讗讞讚 讘住讜讟讛 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖讛专讬 拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讜谞住转专讛 讜注讚 讗讞讚 诪注讬讚讛 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛


搂 The Gemara discusses why the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to defilement. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a baraita: For what reason did the Torah deem credible a single witness with regard to the defilement of a sota? It is because there is a basis for anticipating the matter, as there is strong circumstantial evidence that she committed adultery. What is the basis for anticipating the matter? As he warned her not to seclude herself with a specific man, and she nevertheless secluded herself with him, and one witness testifies that she is defiled, then the combination of her behavior and the testimony renders it reasonable to assume that she has in fact committed adultery.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘讛 拽讬谞讜讬 讘转专 住转讬专讛 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘讛


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But when the warning is written in the Torah, it is written in the verse after seclusion and defilement are mentioned, indicating that the circumstance in which one witness is deemed credible with regard to defilement is even when there was no previous warning. The order in which the Torah describes the sota process seems to indicate that the husband鈥檚 warning is issued only after the wife already secluded herself with the other man and was defiled, as the verses state: 鈥淎nd a man lie with her carnally, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was defiled secretly, and there is no witness against her, and she was not taken. And the spirit of jealousy came [ve鈥檃var] upon him, and he warned his wife, and she had become defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:13鈥14).


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜注讘专 讜讻讘专 注讘专


Abaye said to him in response: That which the verse states: 鈥淎nd the spirit of jealousy came [ve鈥檃var] upon him,鈥 means: And it had already come upon him, that the husband warned his wife not to seclude herself with a specific man prior to her seclusion and defilement.


讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜注讘专 诇讻诐 讻诇 讞诇讜抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: If that is so, that 鈥ve鈥檃var鈥 is referring to a matter that already occurred, then in the case of the agreement between Moses and the tribes of Gad and Reuben before they entered Eretz Yisrael, where he stated: 鈥淎nd every armed man of you will pass over [ve鈥檃var] the Jordan鈥 (Numbers 32:21), so too did he mean that they had already crossed? Moses was stipulating a condition with regard to the future; they had yet to cross the Jordan.


讛转诐 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜谞讻讘砖讛 讛讗专抓 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讗讞专 转砖讘讜 诪砖诪注 讚诇讛讘讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讻转讬讘讬 讜注讘专 讘转专 讟讜诪讗讛 讜住转讬专讛 拽讬谞讜讬 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara answers: There, from the fact that it is written: 鈥淎nd the land be subdued before the Lord, and you return afterward鈥 (Numbers 32:22), it is clear that it teaches concerning the future. But here, if it enters your mind that the verses should be understood as they are written in the Torah, that ve鈥檃var (Numbers 5:14) is after the defilement and seclusion, then why do I need a warning? If the woman had already secluded herself with the man and become defiled, the husband鈥檚 warning would be irrelevant, as she had already become forbidden to him. Therefore, the word ve鈥檃var in this context must be referring to a past event, i.e., the husband issuing a warning to his wife prior to the seclusion.


转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讗 诇讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻谞住讛 讘讜 专讜讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讜讞 拽谞讗讛 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪讗讬 专讜讞


The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A man issues a warning to his wife only if a spirit entered him, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife鈥 (Numbers 5:14). The Gemara asks: Of what spirit does Rabbi Yishmael speak?


专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 专讜讞 讟讜诪讗讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讜讞 讟讛专讛


The Rabbis say: A spirit of impurity, as one should not issue a warning to one鈥檚 wife. Rav Ashi says: A spirit of purity, as issuing a warning indicates that he will not tolerate promiscuous behavior.


讜诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜讞 讟讛专讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讜讞 讟讛专讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讜讞 讟讜诪讗讛 专砖讜转 讜讞讜讘讛 诇注讬讜诇讬 诇讗讬谞讬砖 专讜讞 讟讜诪讗讛 讘谞驻砖讬讛


The Gemara comments: And it stands to reason like the one who says that Rabbi Yishmael was speaking of a spirit of purity, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife,鈥 i.e., the issuing of the warning, is optional, that the husband is neither enjoined to nor prohibited from issuing a warning; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, as one who sees his wife behaving in an inappropriate manner with another man is obligated to warn her. The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yishmael was speaking of a spirit of purity, then it is well, as it may be optional, or even mandatory, to issue a warning. But if you say that he was speaking of a spirit of impurity, can it be optional or mandatory for a person to introduce a spirit of impurity into himself? The Torah would not require a husband to act in a manner that results from having a spirit of impurity enter him.


讙讜驻讗 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讬讟诪讗 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself. 鈥淎nd he warned his wife,鈥 i.e., the warning, is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva engage in a similar dispute with regard to several other verses. Although under normal circumstances it is prohibited for a priest to become ritually impure through contact with a corpse, the verse states that he may do so for the sake of burying his relatives. The baraita teaches: 鈥淔or her may he become impure鈥 (Leviticus 21:3), i.e., for a priest to participate in the burial of his sister, despite the fact that he will contract ritual impurity, is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. A priest is not obligated to participate, but he may. And Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory for him to do so.


诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


The verse states: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., keeping one鈥檚 Canaanite slave forever, is optional, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. One is not enjoined against emancipating a Canaanite slave, but one is permitted to keep his Canaanite slaves forever. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, and it is prohibited for one to free his Canaanite slave.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讛讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 讗诪专 专砖讜转 讜诪专 讗诪专 讞讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘拽专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬


Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say that Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: Shall we say that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree in this manner with regard to the entire Torah? In other words, is it so that whenever there is a statement where it is unclear whether it is referring to an optional or mandatory act, that one master, Rabbi Yishmael, says that it is optional, and the other master, Rabbi Akiva, says that it is mandatory. Abaye said to Rav Pappa in response: Here, in these particular cases, they disagree with regard to the meaning of these specific verses, but it is not a general dispute.


讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


The Gemara explains their dispute in these specific contexts, beginning with the dispute concerning a man鈥檚 warning to his wife: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife,鈥 the warning is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讻诇驻讬 砖讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 转砖谞讗 讗转 讗讞讬讱 讘诇讘讘讱 讬讻讜诇 讻讙讜谉 讝讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讜讞 拽谞讗讛 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜


What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? He holds in accordance with the statement of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: With regard to that which the Torah said: 鈥淵ou shall not hate your brother in your heart鈥 (Leviticus 19:17), one might have thought that this prohibition applies in a case such as this one, when one sees his wife behaving improperly with another man, and the verse would instruct the husband to avoid conflict and strife. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife鈥 (Numbers 5:14), teaching that it is permitted for one to issue a warning to his wife in such a case.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讬谞讜讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive that it is mandatory? The Gemara answers: There is another warning written in the same verse, as the entire verse reads: 鈥淎nd the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife, and she be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife, and she be not defiled.鈥 Therefore, the first half of the verse teaches that it is permitted to issue a warning, and the second half teaches that it is in fact mandatory.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the repetition? The Gemara answers: Since it needed to write in this verse both possibilities as to whether the woman was unfaithful: 鈥淎nd she be defiled,鈥 and also: 鈥淎nd she be not defiled,鈥 to teach that although it is uncertain whether she had become defiled, she is still forbidden to her husband, therefore, it is also written: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife,鈥 a second time. This repetition should not be interpreted as rendering the issuance of the warning as mandatory.


诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 驻专砖讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讜谞讬砖谞讬转 诇讗 谞讬砖谞讬转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 砖谞转讞讚砖 讘讛


This manner of interpreting verses is as taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. Although the Torah could have merely mentioned the element necessary to teach an additional halakha, one should not interpret the repetition of a previously mentioned matter as teaching a second additional halakha, as the style of the Torah is to repeat a passage even to teach only one additional halakha. In the case of the passage concerning a sota as well, the repetition of the warning does not teach a new halakha.


诇讛 讬讟诪讗 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


The Gemara discusses the second dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The baraita teaches: 鈥淎nd for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her may he become impure鈥 (Leviticus 21:3), i.e., for a priest to participate in the burial of his sister despite the fact that he will contract ritual impurity is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. A priest is not obligated to participate, but he may do so. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory for him to do so.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗诪专 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讬讛诐 诇谞驻砖 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘注诪讬讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇讛 讬讟诪讗


What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written: 鈥淪peak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: There shall none become impure for the dead among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), indicating that a priest is enjoined from contact with the dead, it was necessary to be written: 鈥淔or her may he become impure,鈥 which teaches that a priest may become impure at the burial of a relative.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻讬 讗诐 诇砖讗专讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 讬讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讜讘讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive that it is mandatory? The Gemara answers: He derives that it is permissible from the previous verse, which states: 鈥淓xcept for his kin, that is near to him鈥 (Leviticus 21:2). Since it is derived that it is permitted from that verse, why do I need the additional verse: 鈥淔or her may he become impure鈥? To teach that it is mandatory.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讛 诪讬讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讬讘专讬讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the repetition? The Gemara answers: He explains that the verse teaches that he may become impure for her, but he may not become impure to bury only one of her limbs. This additional verse teaches that a priest may become ritually impure to bury a relative only in the case of burying a complete body.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛 讜诇讬砖转讜拽 讬讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And what does Rabbi Akiva respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse serves to render it prohibited for a priest to become impure to bury a limb, then let the Merciful One write: 鈥淎nd for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her,鈥 and then be silent. Why do I need the verse to write: 鈥淢ay he become impure鈥? Learn from the additional phrase that making himself impure is mandatory.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讘 谞诪讬 讬讟诪讗 诇讻讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 驻专砖讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讜谞讬砖谞讬转 诇讗 谞讬砖谞讬转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 砖谞转讞讚砖 讘讛


And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the additional phrase? Since the verse wrote: 鈥淔or her,鈥 it also wrote: 鈥淢ay he become impure,鈥 for the same reason as was taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated, was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. Therefore, it is possible that the verse serves to teach the halakha that a priest may not become impure in order to bury a limb, and that would account for the repetition of the phrase 鈥渕ay he become impure鈥 as well.


诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 专砖讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜讘讛


The Gemara discusses the third dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The verse states: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., the halakha that one keeps his Canaanite slave forever, is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. One is not enjoined against emancipating a Canaanite slave, but one is permitted to keep a Canaanite slave forever. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, and one is prohibited from freeing his Canaanite slave.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讞讬讛 讻诇 谞砖诪讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 谞诪讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 诇诪讬砖专讬 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛讗讜诪讜转 砖讘讗 注诇 讛讻谞注谞讬转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜


What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written with regard to Canaanites: 鈥淵ou shall save alive nothing that breathes鈥 (Deuteronomy 20:16), it was necessary to write: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), as well, in order to permit one from any of the other, non-Canaanite nations who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite woman and she bore him a child. This verse teaches that you are permitted to purchase the child as a slave, as he is not included in the mitzva 鈥淵ou shall save alive nothing that breathes鈥 that was stated with regard to full-fledged Canaanites. Therefore, this verse cannot be teaching that it is mandatory.


讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 砖讘讗 注诇 讛讻谞注谞讬转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 讘注讘讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讙诐 诪讘谞讬 讛转讜砖讘讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 注诪讻诐 诪讛诐 转拽谞讜


This is as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that in the case of one from any of the other, non-Canaanite nations who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite woman, and she bore him a child, that you are permitted to purchase the child as a slave? The verse states: 鈥淢oreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may you buy鈥 (Leviticus 25:45). This verse permits the purchase of slaves from among those individuals who are not members of the Canaanite nations, even if they settle in Eretz Yisrael.


讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讛讻谞注谞讬 砖讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 讘注讘讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讛讜诇讬讚讜 讘讗专爪讻诐 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬诐 讘讗专爪讻诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讙专讬诐 讘讗专爪讻诐


The baraita continues: One might have thought that even in the case of a Canaanite man who engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman from one of the other nations and she bore him a child, that you are permitted to purchase the child as a slave, despite the fact that his father is a Canaanite. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淲hich they have given birth to in your land,鈥 teaching that one is permitted to purchase slaves only from the ones who are born in your land but whose paternal origins are from other lands, but not from the ones who already reside in your land, i.e., ones who have a Canaanite father.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪诪讛诐 转拽谞讜 谞驻拽讗 诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讜讘讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the words in the same verse: 鈥淥f them may you buy.鈥 Once the halakha is already taught that one may purchase as a slave the child of a Canaanite woman and a man from another nation, why do I need the verse to state: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46)? It is stated to teach that it is mandatory to enslave a Canaanite slave forever.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讛诐 讜诇讗 讘讗讞讬讻诐


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: 鈥淥f them may you take your bondmen forever,鈥 teaches that you can enslave 鈥渙f them,鈥 but not of your brethren, i.e., it is prohibited to enslave a fellow Jew, even a slave, forever.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讗讞讬讻诐 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讜讘讗讞讬讻诐 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬砖 讘讗讞讬讜 诇讗 转专讚讛 讘讜 讘驻专讱


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: The prohibition against enslaving your brethren is derived from the latter phrase of the verse, where it is explicitly stated: 鈥淏ut over your brethren the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with rigor鈥 (Leviticus 25:46).


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗讞讬讻诐 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 讘讛诐 诇讻讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 驻专砖讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讜谞讬砖谞讬转 诇讗 谞讬砖谞讬转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 砖谞转讞讚砖 讘讛


The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He holds that since it is written: 鈥淏ut over your brethren,鈥 which explicitly states that it is prohibited to subjugate a Jew forever, it also writes with regard to Canaanites 鈥渙f them,鈥 but that phrase does not teach any novel halakha, because of the reason that was taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated, was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. Therefore, it is possible that the verse serves to teach the halakha that one may enslave a Canaanite forever, and that would account for the ostensibly superfluous phrase 鈥渙f them.鈥


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝谞讜转讗 讘讘讬转讗 讻讬 拽专讬讗 诇砖讜诪砖诪讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讜拽驻讗 讘讘讬转讗 讻讬 拽专讬讗 诇砖讜诪砖诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讗讬转转讗 讗讘诇 讘讙讘专讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛


搂 The Gemara discusses matters related to sin and sexual impropriety. Rav 岣sda says: Licentious behavior in a home causes damage like a worm [karya] causes damage to sesame [shumeshema]. And Rav 岣sda says: Anger in a home causes damage like a worm causes damage to sesame. The Gemara comments: Both this and that, i.e., that licentious behavior and anger destroy a home, were said with regard to the woman of the house, but with regard to the man, although these behaviors are improper, we do not have the same extreme consequences with regard to it, as the woman鈥檚 role in the home is more significant, resulting in a more detrimental result if she acts improperly.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转讞讬诇讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讟讗讜 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬转讛 砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 注诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪转讛诇讱 讘拽专讘 诪讞谞讱 讻讬讜谉 砖讞讟讗讜 谞住转诇拽讛 砖讻讬谞讛 诪讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘讱 注专讜转 讚讘专 讜砖讘 诪讗讞专讬讱


And Rav 岣sda says: Initially, before the Jewish people sinned, the Divine Presence resided with each and every one of them, as it is stated: 鈥淔or the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15). Once they sinned, the Divine Presence withdrew from them, as it is stated in that same verse: 鈥淭hat He see no unseemly matter in you, and turn away from you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15), teaching that when there is an 鈥渦nseemly matter鈥 among the Jewish people, the Divine Presence no longer resides among them.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讞转 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 诪拽讚诪转讜 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇驻谞讬讜 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 爪讚拽讱 讜讻诇 讛注讜讘专 注讘讬专讛 讗讞转 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 诪诇驻驻转讜 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇驻谞讬讜 诇讬讜诐 讛讚讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讬诇驻转讜 讗专讞讜转 讚专讻诐 讬注诇讜 讘转讛讜 讜讬讗讘讚讜


Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who fulfills one mitzva in this world, that mitzva precedes him and goes before him to the World-to-Come, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your reward鈥 (Isaiah 58:8). And anyone who commits one transgression in this world, it shrouds him and goes before him to the Day of Judgment, as it is stated: 鈥淭he paths of their way do wind, they go up into the waste, and are lost鈥 (Job 6:18).


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜 讻讻诇讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 砖诪注 讗诇讬讛 诇砖讻讘 讗爪诇讛 诇讛讬讜转 注诪讛 诇砖讻讘 讗爪诇讛 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 诇讛讬讜转 注诪讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗


Rabbi Elazar says: The transgression is chained to him and accompanies him like a dog, as it is stated concerning Joseph鈥檚 refusal to commit adultery with the wife of Potiphar: 鈥淭hat he listened not to her, to lie by her, or to be with her鈥 (Genesis 39:10), which is understood to mean: If he would agree 鈥渢o lie by her鈥 in this world, the result would be that he would have 鈥渢o be with her鈥 forever, as the transgression would accompany him to the World-to-Come.


转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讛讬讛 讘讚讬谉


搂 The Gemara returns to its discussion of the number of witnesses necessary for different elements of the process of a woman becoming a sota. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (31a) with regard to the credibility of one witness who testifies concerning a woman鈥檚 infidelity: The halakha that one witness is deemed credible concerning defilement needs to be stated, as, by right, it should not have been deemed credible based on the following a fortiori inference:


讜诪讛 注讚讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讜住专转讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讛 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 注讚讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讗讜住专转讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转转拽讬讬诐 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐


And just as with regard to the first testimony concerning seclusion, which does not forbid her to her husband with an irrevocable prohibition, as the woman can be found innocent, permitting her again to her husband by drinking the bitter water, it is not established with fewer than two witnesses, as that mishna is written in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who stated (2a) that testimony of two witnesses must be provided by two witnesses, then with regard to the final testimony concerning defilement, which forbids her with an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it not be established with fewer than two witnesses?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注讚 讗讬谉 讘讛 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛


Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: 鈥淎nd there is no witness against her鈥 (Numbers 5:13), teaching that any testimony that there is against her with regard to her defilement is sufficient, and two witnesses are not required.


讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇注讚讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪注转讛 讜诪讛 注讚讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讗讜住专转讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘注讚 讗讞讚 注讚讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讜住专转讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转转拽讬讬诐 讘注讚 讗讞讚


The mishna asks: And now that it is established that one witness suffices to testify with regard to defilement, an a fortiori inference can be made with regard to the first testimony of seclusion: And just as with regard to the final testimony concerning defilement, which forbids her with an irrevocable prohibition, yet it is established with one witness, then with regard to the first testimony, which does not forbid her with an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it should be established with only one witness?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 诪爪讗 讘讛 注专讜转 讚讘专 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 注讚讬诐 讬拽讜诐 讚讘专 诪讛 讚讘专 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐


Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: 鈥淚f a man marries a woman and lives with her and it will be that she not find favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter [davar] about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there, in the verses concerning the halakhot of monetary matters, it states: 鈥淏y the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter [davar] be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15). This teaches that just as the 鈥渕atter鈥 stated there is established by the mouth of two witnesses, so too here, the 鈥渕atter鈥 of her seclusion must be established by the mouth of two witnesses.


讛讗讬 诪讻讬 诪爪讗 讘讛 注专讜转 讚讘专 谞驻拽讗 诪讘讛 谞驻拽讗 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: Is this need for two witnesses derived from: 鈥淏ecause he has found some unseemly matter about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1)? It is derived from: 鈥淎nd there is no witness [ed] against her [bah]鈥 (Numbers 5:13), which was explained to mean there were not two witnesses, but only one, who testified concerning her defilement (2a). The Gemara above (2b) derives from the term 鈥bah,鈥 which could also be understood as: With regard to it, that in this matter of defilement one witness suffices, but not with regard to the warning. And one also derives: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion. Therefore, there must be two witnesses to testify about both the warning and the seclusion. The mishna should have given this inference as the source for requiring two witnesses for seclusion, and not the juxtaposition of 鈥渕atter鈥 and 鈥渕atter.鈥


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛


The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying. The mishna should read: The verse states: 鈥淎nd there is no witness against her [bah],鈥 teaching that: With regard to it [bah], but not with regard to the warning. And one also derives: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion.


讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘注诇诪讗 讘诇讗 拽讬谞讜讬 讜讘诇讗 住转讬专讛 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 注讚 讗讞讚 诪谞诇谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻讬 诪爪讗 讘讛 注专讜转 讚讘专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 注讚讬诐 讬拽讜诐 讚讘专 诪讛 讚讘专 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 注讚讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 注讚讬诐 砖谞讬诐


The Gemara comments: And with regard to defilement in general, without a prior warning and without witnesses to seclusion, from where do we derive that one witness is not deemed credible? Here it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he has found some unseemly matter about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there it is stated: 鈥淏y the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), teaching that just as the 鈥渕atter鈥 stated there is established by two witnesses, so too here, with regard to defilement it is established by two witnesses.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讚讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讝讜 注讚讜转 住转讬专讛 注讚讜转 讗讞专讜谞讛 讝讜 注讚讜转 讟讜诪讗讛


The Sages taught (Tosefta 1:1): In the mishna quoted above, which is the first testimony? This is referring to the testimony of seclusion. Which is the final testimony? This is referring to the testimony of defilement.


Scroll To Top