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.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Sotah 3
אַלְמָא קָסָבְרִי דְּאָסוּר לְקַנּאוֹת.
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.
וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר לְקַנּאוֹת, מַהוּ לְשׁוֹן ״קִינּוּי״? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֵין ״קִינּוּי״ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן הַתְרָאָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְקַנֵּא ה׳ לְאַרְצוֹ״.
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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The term kinnui means nothing other than a term of forewarning, and so it says: “Then the Lord warned [vayekanneh] concerning His land and had pity for His people” (Joel 2:18). As detailed in that passage, the Lord ordered the locusts to stop destroying Eretz Yisrael.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אָדָם עוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה בַּסֵּתֶר וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַכְרִיז עָלָיו בְּגָלוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה״, וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן הַכְרָזָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה וַיַּעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בַּמַּחֲנֶה״.
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: “The spirit of jealousy came [avar] upon him” (Numbers 5:14); and the term avira means nothing other than a term of proclamation, as it is stated: “And Moses gave the commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed [vaya’aviru] throughout the camp” (Exodus 36:6).
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵין אָדָם עוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְנַס בּוֹ רוּחַ שְׁטוּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ״, ״תִּשְׁטֶה״ כְּתִיב.
Reish Lakish says: A man commits a transgression only if a spirit of folly [shetut] enters him, as it is stated: “If any man’s wife goes aside [tisteh]” (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.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִפְּנֵי מָה הֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד בְּסוֹטָה — שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר, שֶׁהֲרֵי קִינֵּא לָהּ, וְנִסְתְּרָה, וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה.
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיבָה קִינּוּי, בָּתַר סְתִירָה וְטוּמְאָה הוּא דִּכְתִיבָה!
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’s warning is issued only after the wife already secluded herself with the other man and was defiled, as the verses state: “And 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’avar] upon him, and he warned his wife, and she had become defiled” (Numbers 5:13–14).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְעָבַר״ — וּכְבָר עָבַר.
Abaye said to him in response: That which the verse states: “And the spirit of jealousy came [ve’avar] upon him,” 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.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״וְעָבַר לָכֶם כׇּל חָלוּץ״, הָכִי נָמֵי?
The Gemara asks: If that is so, that “ve’avar” 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: “And every armed man of you will pass over [ve’avar] the Jordan” (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.
הָתָם, מִדִּכְתִיב ״וְנִכְבְּשָׁה הָאָרֶץ לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְאַחַר תָּשֻׁבוּ״ — מַשְׁמַע דִּלְהַבָּא. אֶלָּא הָכָא, אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּדִכְתִיבִי, ״וְעָבַר״ בָּתַר טוּמְאָה וּסְתִירָה — קִינּוּי לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara answers: There, from the fact that it is written: “And the land be subdued before the Lord, and you return afterward” (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’avar” (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’s warning would be irrelevant, as she had already become forbidden to him. Therefore, the word ve’avar in this context must be referring to a past event, i.e., the husband issuing a warning to his wife prior to the seclusion.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אֵין אָדָם מְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְנְסָה בּוֹ רוּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״. מַאי רוּחַ?
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A man issues a warning to his wife only if a spirit entered him, as it is stated: “And the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife” (Numbers 5:14). The Gemara asks: Of what spirit does Rabbi Yishmael speak?
רַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: רוּחַ טוּמְאָה. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: רוּחַ טׇהֳרָה.
The Rabbis say: A spirit of impurity, as one should not issue a warning to one’s wife. Rav Ashi says: A spirit of purity, as issuing a warning indicates that he will not tolerate promiscuous behavior.
וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר רוּחַ טׇהֳרָה. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רוּחַ טׇהֳרָה — שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רוּחַ טוּמְאָה, רְשׁוּת וְחוֹבָה לְעַיּוֹלֵי לְאִינִישׁ רוּחַ טוּמְאָה בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ?
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: “And he warned his wife,” 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.
גּוּפָא: ״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה. ״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself. “And he warned his wife,” 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: “For her may he become impure” (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.
״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
The verse states: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., keeping one’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא: לֵימָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ הָכִי פְּלִיגִי, דְּמָר אָמַר רְשׁוּת וּמָר אָמַר חוֹבָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי.
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.
״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
The Gemara explains their dispute in these specific contexts, beginning with the dispute concerning a man’s warning to his wife: “And he warned his wife,” the warning is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כְּלַפֵּי שֶׁאָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ״, יָכוֹל כְּגוֹן זוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״.
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’akov says: With regard to that which the Torah said: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (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: “And the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife” (Numbers 5:14), teaching that it is permitted for one to issue a warning to his wife in such a case.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: קִינּוּי אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב.
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: “And 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.” 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.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? אַיְּידֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיכְתַּב ״וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״ ״וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה״ — כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״.
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: “And she be defiled,” and also: “And she be not defiled,” to teach that although it is uncertain whether she had become defiled, she is still forbidden to her husband, therefore, it is also written: “And he warned his wife,” a second time. This repetition should not be interpreted as rendering the issuance of the warning as mandatory.
לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִישְׁנֵית — לֹא נִישְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
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.
״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
The Gemara discusses the second dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The baraita teaches: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her may he become impure” (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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם לְנֶפֶשׁ לֹא יִטַּמָּא בְּעַמָּיו״, אִיצְטְרִיכָא לְמִיכְתַּב ״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״.
What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: There shall none become impure for the dead among his people” (Leviticus 21:1), indicating that a priest is enjoined from contact with the dead, it was necessary to be written: “For her may he become impure,” which teaches that a priest may become impure at the burial of a relative.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִ״כִּי אִם לִשְׁאֵרוֹ״ נָפְקָא, ״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״ לְמָה לִי — לְחוֹבָה.
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: “Except for his kin, that is near to him” (Leviticus 21:2). Since it is derived that it is permitted from that verse, why do I need the additional verse: “For her may he become impure”? To teach that it is mandatory.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לָהּ מִיטַּמֵּא, וְאֵין מִיטַּמֵּא לְאֵיבָרֶיהָ.
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.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — אִם כֵּן, לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לָהּ״ וְלִישְׁתּוֹק, ״יִטַּמָּא״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her,” and then be silent. Why do I need the verse to write: “May he become impure”? Learn from the additional phrase that making himself impure is mandatory.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתַב ״לָהּ״, כְּתַב נָמֵי ״יִטַּמָּא״. לְכִדְתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִישְׁנֵית, לֹא נִישְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the additional phrase? Since the verse wrote: “For her,” it also wrote: “May he become impure,” 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 “may he become impure” as well.
״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
The Gemara discusses the third dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The verse states: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְחַיֶּה כׇּל נְשָׁמָה״, אִיצְטְרִיךְ נָמֵי לְמִיכְתַּב ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״, לְמִישְׁרֵי אֶחָד מִכׇּל הָאוּמּוֹת שֶׁבָּא עַל הַכְּנַעֲנִית וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן, שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ.
What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written with regard to Canaanites: “You shall save alive nothing that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16), it was necessary to write: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (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 “You shall save alive nothing that breathes” that was stated with regard to full-fledged Canaanites. Therefore, this verse cannot be teaching that it is mandatory.
דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְאֶחָד מִן הָאוּמּוֹת שֶׁבָּא עַל הַכְּנַעֲנִית וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן, שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ בְּעֶבֶד, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְגַם מִבְּנֵי הַתּוֹשָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ״.
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: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may you buy” (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.
יָכוֹל אַף הַכְּנַעֲנִי שֶׁבָּא עַל אַחַת מִן הָאוּמּוֹת וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן, שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ בְּעֶבֶד, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הוֹלִידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם״, מִן הַנּוֹלָדִים בְּאַרְצְכֶם, וְלֹא מִן הַגָּרִים בְּאַרְצְכֶם.
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: “Which they have given birth to in your land,” 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.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִ״מֵּהֶם תִּקְנוּ״ נָפְקָא, ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״ לְמָה לִי — לְחוֹבָה.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the words in the same verse: “Of them may you buy.” 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: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46)? It is stated to teach that it is mandatory to enslave a Canaanite slave forever.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בָּהֶם״ — וְלֹא בְּאַחֵיכֶם.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever,” teaches that you can enslave “of them,” but not of your brethren, i.e., it is prohibited to enslave a fellow Jew, even a slave, forever.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: בְּאַחֵיכֶם — מִסֵּיפָא דִּקְרָא נָפְקָא: ״וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו לֹא תִרְדֶּה בוֹ בְּפָרֶךְ״.
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: “But over your brethren the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with rigor” (Leviticus 25:46).
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב ״וּבְאַחֵיכֶם״, כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״בָּהֶם״. לְכִדְתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִישְׁנֵית, לֹא נִישְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He holds that since it is written: “But over your brethren,” which explicitly states that it is prohibited to subjugate a Jew forever, it also writes with regard to Canaanites “of them,” 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 “of them.”
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זְנוּתָא בְּבֵיתָא כִּי קַרְיָא לְשׁוּמְשְׁמָא. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תּוּקְפָּא בְּבֵיתָא כִּי קַרְיָא לְשׁוּמְשְׁמָא. אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּאִיתְּתָא, אֲבָל בְּגַבְרָא לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
§ The Gemara discusses matters related to sin and sexual impropriety. Rav Ḥisda says: Licentious behavior in a home causes damage like a worm [karya] causes damage to sesame [shumeshema]. And Rav Ḥisda 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’s role in the home is more significant, resulting in a more detrimental result if she acts improperly.
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בַּתְּחִילָּה, קוֹדֶם שֶׁחָטְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, הָיְתָה שְׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה עִם כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ״. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָטְאוּ נִסְתַּלְּקָה שְׁכִינָה מֵהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ״.
And Rav Ḥisda says: Initially, before the Jewish people sinned, the Divine Presence resided with each and every one of them, as it is stated: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp” (Deuteronomy 23:15). Once they sinned, the Divine Presence withdrew from them, as it is stated in that same verse: “That He see no unseemly matter in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), teaching that when there is an “unseemly matter” among the Jewish people, the Divine Presence no longer resides among them.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה — מְקַדַּמְתּוֹ וְהוֹלֶכֶת לְפָנָיו לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ״. וְכׇל הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה אַחַת בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה — מְלַפַּפְתּוֹ וְהוֹלֶכֶת לְפָנָיו לְיוֹם הַדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִלָּפְתוּ אׇרְחוֹת דַּרְכָּם יַעֲלוּ בַתֹּהוּ וְיֹאבֵדוּ״.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani 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: “And your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your reward” (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: “The paths of their way do wind, they go up into the waste, and are lost” (Job 6:18).
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ כְּכֶלֶב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ״. ״לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ״ — בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ״ — לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
Rabbi Elazar says: The transgression is chained to him and accompanies him like a dog, as it is stated concerning Joseph’s refusal to commit adultery with the wife of Potiphar: “That he listened not to her, to lie by her, or to be with her” (Genesis 39:10), which is understood to mean: If he would agree “to lie by her” in this world, the result would be that he would have “to be with her” forever, as the transgression would accompany him to the World-to-Come.
תְּנַן הָתָם, שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין:
§ 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’s 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:
וּמָה עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — אֵינָהּ מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם, עֵדוּת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְקַיֵּים בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם?
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?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ״, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: “And there is no witness against her” (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.
וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לְעֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה עֵדוּת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד, עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּים בְּעֵד אֶחָד?
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?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר ״עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר״. מָה ״דָּבָר״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן — עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, אַף כָּאן — עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם.
Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: “If 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” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there, in the verses concerning the halakhot of monetary matters, it states: “By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter [davar] be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). This teaches that just as the “matter” stated there is established by the mouth of two witnesses, so too here, the “matter” of her seclusion must be established by the mouth of two witnesses.
הַאי מִ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״ נָפְקָא? מִ״בָּהּ״ נָפְקָא: בָּהּ — וְלֹא בְּקִינּוּי, בָּהּ — וְלֹא בִּסְתִירָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara asks: Is this need for two witnesses derived from: “Because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1)? It is derived from: “And there is no witness [ed] against her [bah]” (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 “bah,” 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 “matter” and “matter.”
הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בָּהּ״: בָּהּ — וְלֹא בְּקִינּוּי, בָּהּ — וְלֹא בִּסְתִירָה.
The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying. The mishna should read: The verse states: “And there is no witness against her [bah],” 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.
וְטוּמְאָה בְּעָלְמָא בְּלֹא קִינּוּי וּבְלֹא סְתִירָה, דְּלָא מְהֵימַן עֵד אֶחָד, מְנָלַן? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר״. מָה ״דָּבָר״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן — עֵדִים שְׁנַיִם, אַף כָּאן — עֵדִים שְׁנַיִם.
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: “Because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there it is stated: “By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), teaching that just as the “matter” stated there is established by two witnesses, so too here, with regard to defilement it is established by two witnesses.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵי זוֹ הִיא עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — זוֹ עֵדוּת סְתִירָה, עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה — זוֹ עֵדוּת טוּמְאָה.
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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Sotah 3
אַלְמָא קָסָבְרִי דְּאָסוּר לְקַנּאוֹת.
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.
וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר לְקַנּאוֹת, מַהוּ לְשׁוֹן ״קִינּוּי״? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֵין ״קִינּוּי״ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן הַתְרָאָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְקַנֵּא ה׳ לְאַרְצוֹ״.
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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The term kinnui means nothing other than a term of forewarning, and so it says: “Then the Lord warned [vayekanneh] concerning His land and had pity for His people” (Joel 2:18). As detailed in that passage, the Lord ordered the locusts to stop destroying Eretz Yisrael.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אָדָם עוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה בַּסֵּתֶר וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַכְרִיז עָלָיו בְּגָלוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה״, וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן הַכְרָזָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה וַיַּעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בַּמַּחֲנֶה״.
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: “The spirit of jealousy came [avar] upon him” (Numbers 5:14); and the term avira means nothing other than a term of proclamation, as it is stated: “And Moses gave the commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed [vaya’aviru] throughout the camp” (Exodus 36:6).
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵין אָדָם עוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְנַס בּוֹ רוּחַ שְׁטוּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ״, ״תִּשְׁטֶה״ כְּתִיב.
Reish Lakish says: A man commits a transgression only if a spirit of folly [shetut] enters him, as it is stated: “If any man’s wife goes aside [tisteh]” (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.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִפְּנֵי מָה הֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד בְּסוֹטָה — שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר, שֶׁהֲרֵי קִינֵּא לָהּ, וְנִסְתְּרָה, וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה.
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיבָה קִינּוּי, בָּתַר סְתִירָה וְטוּמְאָה הוּא דִּכְתִיבָה!
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’s warning is issued only after the wife already secluded herself with the other man and was defiled, as the verses state: “And 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’avar] upon him, and he warned his wife, and she had become defiled” (Numbers 5:13–14).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְעָבַר״ — וּכְבָר עָבַר.
Abaye said to him in response: That which the verse states: “And the spirit of jealousy came [ve’avar] upon him,” 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.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״וְעָבַר לָכֶם כׇּל חָלוּץ״, הָכִי נָמֵי?
The Gemara asks: If that is so, that “ve’avar” 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: “And every armed man of you will pass over [ve’avar] the Jordan” (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.
הָתָם, מִדִּכְתִיב ״וְנִכְבְּשָׁה הָאָרֶץ לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְאַחַר תָּשֻׁבוּ״ — מַשְׁמַע דִּלְהַבָּא. אֶלָּא הָכָא, אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּדִכְתִיבִי, ״וְעָבַר״ בָּתַר טוּמְאָה וּסְתִירָה — קִינּוּי לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara answers: There, from the fact that it is written: “And the land be subdued before the Lord, and you return afterward” (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’avar” (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’s warning would be irrelevant, as she had already become forbidden to him. Therefore, the word ve’avar in this context must be referring to a past event, i.e., the husband issuing a warning to his wife prior to the seclusion.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אֵין אָדָם מְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְנְסָה בּוֹ רוּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״. מַאי רוּחַ?
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A man issues a warning to his wife only if a spirit entered him, as it is stated: “And the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife” (Numbers 5:14). The Gemara asks: Of what spirit does Rabbi Yishmael speak?
רַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: רוּחַ טוּמְאָה. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: רוּחַ טׇהֳרָה.
The Rabbis say: A spirit of impurity, as one should not issue a warning to one’s wife. Rav Ashi says: A spirit of purity, as issuing a warning indicates that he will not tolerate promiscuous behavior.
וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר רוּחַ טׇהֳרָה. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רוּחַ טׇהֳרָה — שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רוּחַ טוּמְאָה, רְשׁוּת וְחוֹבָה לְעַיּוֹלֵי לְאִינִישׁ רוּחַ טוּמְאָה בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ?
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: “And he warned his wife,” 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.
גּוּפָא: ״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה. ״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself. “And he warned his wife,” 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: “For her may he become impure” (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.
״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
The verse states: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., keeping one’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא: לֵימָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ הָכִי פְּלִיגִי, דְּמָר אָמַר רְשׁוּת וּמָר אָמַר חוֹבָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי.
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.
״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
The Gemara explains their dispute in these specific contexts, beginning with the dispute concerning a man’s warning to his wife: “And he warned his wife,” the warning is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כְּלַפֵּי שֶׁאָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ״, יָכוֹל כְּגוֹן זוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״.
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’akov says: With regard to that which the Torah said: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (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: “And the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife” (Numbers 5:14), teaching that it is permitted for one to issue a warning to his wife in such a case.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: קִינּוּי אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב.
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: “And 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.” 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.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? אַיְּידֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִיכְתַּב ״וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״ ״וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה״ — כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״.
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: “And she be defiled,” and also: “And she be not defiled,” to teach that although it is uncertain whether she had become defiled, she is still forbidden to her husband, therefore, it is also written: “And he warned his wife,” a second time. This repetition should not be interpreted as rendering the issuance of the warning as mandatory.
לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִישְׁנֵית — לֹא נִישְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
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.
״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
The Gemara discusses the second dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The baraita teaches: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her may he become impure” (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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם לְנֶפֶשׁ לֹא יִטַּמָּא בְּעַמָּיו״, אִיצְטְרִיכָא לְמִיכְתַּב ״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״.
What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: There shall none become impure for the dead among his people” (Leviticus 21:1), indicating that a priest is enjoined from contact with the dead, it was necessary to be written: “For her may he become impure,” which teaches that a priest may become impure at the burial of a relative.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִ״כִּי אִם לִשְׁאֵרוֹ״ נָפְקָא, ״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״ לְמָה לִי — לְחוֹבָה.
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: “Except for his kin, that is near to him” (Leviticus 21:2). Since it is derived that it is permitted from that verse, why do I need the additional verse: “For her may he become impure”? To teach that it is mandatory.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לָהּ מִיטַּמֵּא, וְאֵין מִיטַּמֵּא לְאֵיבָרֶיהָ.
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.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — אִם כֵּן, לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לָהּ״ וְלִישְׁתּוֹק, ״יִטַּמָּא״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her,” and then be silent. Why do I need the verse to write: “May he become impure”? Learn from the additional phrase that making himself impure is mandatory.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתַב ״לָהּ״, כְּתַב נָמֵי ״יִטַּמָּא״. לְכִדְתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִישְׁנֵית, לֹא נִישְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the additional phrase? Since the verse wrote: “For her,” it also wrote: “May he become impure,” 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 “may he become impure” as well.
״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״ — רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.
The Gemara discusses the third dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The verse states: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְחַיֶּה כׇּל נְשָׁמָה״, אִיצְטְרִיךְ נָמֵי לְמִיכְתַּב ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״, לְמִישְׁרֵי אֶחָד מִכׇּל הָאוּמּוֹת שֶׁבָּא עַל הַכְּנַעֲנִית וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן, שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ.
What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written with regard to Canaanites: “You shall save alive nothing that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16), it was necessary to write: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (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 “You shall save alive nothing that breathes” that was stated with regard to full-fledged Canaanites. Therefore, this verse cannot be teaching that it is mandatory.
דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְאֶחָד מִן הָאוּמּוֹת שֶׁבָּא עַל הַכְּנַעֲנִית וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן, שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ בְּעֶבֶד, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְגַם מִבְּנֵי הַתּוֹשָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ״.
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: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may you buy” (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.
יָכוֹל אַף הַכְּנַעֲנִי שֶׁבָּא עַל אַחַת מִן הָאוּמּוֹת וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן, שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִקְנוֹתוֹ בְּעֶבֶד, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הוֹלִידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם״, מִן הַנּוֹלָדִים בְּאַרְצְכֶם, וְלֹא מִן הַגָּרִים בְּאַרְצְכֶם.
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: “Which they have given birth to in your land,” 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.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִ״מֵּהֶם תִּקְנוּ״ נָפְקָא, ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״ לְמָה לִי — לְחוֹבָה.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the words in the same verse: “Of them may you buy.” 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: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46)? It is stated to teach that it is mandatory to enslave a Canaanite slave forever.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בָּהֶם״ — וְלֹא בְּאַחֵיכֶם.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever,” teaches that you can enslave “of them,” but not of your brethren, i.e., it is prohibited to enslave a fellow Jew, even a slave, forever.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: בְּאַחֵיכֶם — מִסֵּיפָא דִּקְרָא נָפְקָא: ״וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו לֹא תִרְדֶּה בוֹ בְּפָרֶךְ״.
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: “But over your brethren the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with rigor” (Leviticus 25:46).
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב ״וּבְאַחֵיכֶם״, כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״בָּהֶם״. לְכִדְתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִישְׁנֵית, לֹא נִישְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He holds that since it is written: “But over your brethren,” which explicitly states that it is prohibited to subjugate a Jew forever, it also writes with regard to Canaanites “of them,” 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 “of them.”
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זְנוּתָא בְּבֵיתָא כִּי קַרְיָא לְשׁוּמְשְׁמָא. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תּוּקְפָּא בְּבֵיתָא כִּי קַרְיָא לְשׁוּמְשְׁמָא. אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּאִיתְּתָא, אֲבָל בְּגַבְרָא לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
§ The Gemara discusses matters related to sin and sexual impropriety. Rav Ḥisda says: Licentious behavior in a home causes damage like a worm [karya] causes damage to sesame [shumeshema]. And Rav Ḥisda 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’s role in the home is more significant, resulting in a more detrimental result if she acts improperly.
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בַּתְּחִילָּה, קוֹדֶם שֶׁחָטְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, הָיְתָה שְׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה עִם כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ״. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָטְאוּ נִסְתַּלְּקָה שְׁכִינָה מֵהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ״.
And Rav Ḥisda says: Initially, before the Jewish people sinned, the Divine Presence resided with each and every one of them, as it is stated: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp” (Deuteronomy 23:15). Once they sinned, the Divine Presence withdrew from them, as it is stated in that same verse: “That He see no unseemly matter in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), teaching that when there is an “unseemly matter” among the Jewish people, the Divine Presence no longer resides among them.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה — מְקַדַּמְתּוֹ וְהוֹלֶכֶת לְפָנָיו לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ״. וְכׇל הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה אַחַת בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה — מְלַפַּפְתּוֹ וְהוֹלֶכֶת לְפָנָיו לְיוֹם הַדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִלָּפְתוּ אׇרְחוֹת דַּרְכָּם יַעֲלוּ בַתֹּהוּ וְיֹאבֵדוּ״.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani 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: “And your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your reward” (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: “The paths of their way do wind, they go up into the waste, and are lost” (Job 6:18).
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ כְּכֶלֶב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ״. ״לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ״ — בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ״ — לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
Rabbi Elazar says: The transgression is chained to him and accompanies him like a dog, as it is stated concerning Joseph’s refusal to commit adultery with the wife of Potiphar: “That he listened not to her, to lie by her, or to be with her” (Genesis 39:10), which is understood to mean: If he would agree “to lie by her” in this world, the result would be that he would have “to be with her” forever, as the transgression would accompany him to the World-to-Come.
תְּנַן הָתָם, שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין:
§ 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’s 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:
וּמָה עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — אֵינָהּ מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם, עֵדוּת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְקַיֵּים בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם?
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?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ״, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: “And there is no witness against her” (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.
וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לְעֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה עֵדוּת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד, עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּים בְּעֵד אֶחָד?
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?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר ״עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר״. מָה ״דָּבָר״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן — עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, אַף כָּאן — עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם.
Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: “If 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” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there, in the verses concerning the halakhot of monetary matters, it states: “By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter [davar] be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). This teaches that just as the “matter” stated there is established by the mouth of two witnesses, so too here, the “matter” of her seclusion must be established by the mouth of two witnesses.
הַאי מִ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״ נָפְקָא? מִ״בָּהּ״ נָפְקָא: בָּהּ — וְלֹא בְּקִינּוּי, בָּהּ — וְלֹא בִּסְתִירָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara asks: Is this need for two witnesses derived from: “Because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1)? It is derived from: “And there is no witness [ed] against her [bah]” (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 “bah,” 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 “matter” and “matter.”
הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בָּהּ״: בָּהּ — וְלֹא בְּקִינּוּי, בָּהּ — וְלֹא בִּסְתִירָה.
The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying. The mishna should read: The verse states: “And there is no witness against her [bah],” 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.
וְטוּמְאָה בְּעָלְמָא בְּלֹא קִינּוּי וּבְלֹא סְתִירָה, דְּלָא מְהֵימַן עֵד אֶחָד, מְנָלַן? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר״. מָה ״דָּבָר״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן — עֵדִים שְׁנַיִם, אַף כָּאן — עֵדִים שְׁנַיִם.
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: “Because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there it is stated: “By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), teaching that just as the “matter” stated there is established by two witnesses, so too here, with regard to defilement it is established by two witnesses.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵי זוֹ הִיא עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — זוֹ עֵדוּת סְתִירָה, עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה — זוֹ עֵדוּת טוּמְאָה.
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.
