Sotah 7
יֵשׁ לָהּ עֵדִים בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם!
the case where there are witnesses for her in a country overseas who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse, when the bitter water will not evaluate her faithfulness. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon should be concerned that such a dispensation will result in the defamation of the untainted women who drank and were unaffected, as people will view them as guilty women who were not affected because there were witnesses overseas.
לָא שְׁכִיחָא.
The Gemara answers: The case of witnesses in a country overseas is not common, and therefore no one will assume that that is the reason why the woman was not affected. By contrast, a woman having merit is common.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה לָהּ? מוֹלִיכָהּ לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם, וּמוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ.
MISHNA: The mishna details the procedure for administering the drinking of the bitter water of a sota. What does her husband do with her after she secluded herself with the man about whom she had been warned? He brings her to the court that is found in that location, and the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple, which is not only prohibited but will also prevent the bitter water from evaluating her. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her, so there is no need to provide scholars to accompany him.
גְּמָ׳ תְּרֵי וְאִיהוּ — הָא תְּלָתָא. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בָּעִיר, אֲבָל בַּדֶּרֶךְ — עַד דְּאִיכָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁמָּא יִצְטָרֵךְ אֶחָד מֵהֶן לִנְקָבָיו, וְנִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן מִתְיַיחֵד עִם הָעֶרְוָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara assumes that the requirement for there to be two Torah scholars is to avoid the prohibition against a woman being alone with a man. The Gemara notes: Two additional men and he, the husband, are three people altogether. Let us say that this mishna supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only in the town (see Kiddushin 80b). But on the way, when traveling, this is not permitted unless there are three men with the woman. The reason for this stringency is that if there are only two men with her, perhaps one will need to relieve himself and will seek privacy, and it will be found that one of them is in seclusion with a woman forbidden to him.
לָא: הָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיהְווֹ עֲלֵיהּ סָהֲדִי.
The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, so that there are two witnesses with regard to her, i.e., there will be two witnesses to testify in the event that the husband engages in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple. The reason is not to avoid the prohibition against her being alone with a man, as one scholar would suffice for that.
תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים — אִין, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא — לָא. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְאִידַּךְ דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא כְּשֵׁרִין, אֲבָל פְּרוּצִין, אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה נָמֵי לָא. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ עֲשָׂרָה בְּמִטָּה.
The mishna teaches that the husband is provided with Torah scholars. The Gemara further comments: Torah scholars, yes; anyone else, no. It is specifically Torah scholars who are provided to accompany the husband and wife. Let us say that this mishna supports another statement of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only with regard to men of fit morals. But with regard to those of loose morals, she may not be secluded even with ten men. The Gemara adds: There was an incident and ten men carried out a woman on a bier, as if she were dead, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her.
לָא, הָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא — דְּיָדְעִי לְאַתְרוֹיֵי בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, that they know how to properly warn him not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, this mishna does not support the opinion of Rav.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת — בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, סוֹטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
§ The Gemara now discusses Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her. It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:2): Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted due to an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, as he is permitted to seclude himself with her, so too, with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband only by penalty of a prohibition, is it not all the more so that he should be trusted?
וְרַבָּנַן, הִיא הַנּוֹתֶנֶת: נִדָּה דְּכָרֵת — חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ וּמְהֵימַן. סוֹטָה דְּלָאו — לָא חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ, וְלָא מְהֵימַן.
And the Rabbis say: That provides support for the contrary opinion, as these considerations lead to the opposite conclusion. A menstruating woman is forbidden by penalty of karet. This is a stringent prohibition for him, and this is why he is trusted not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. By contrast, a sota is forbidden to him only by a prohibition. This is not a stringent prohibition to him, and he is therefore not trusted with her.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִקְּרָאֵי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״. מִן הַתּוֹרָה הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: מוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact derive this halakha from an a fortiori inference? But Rabbi Yehuda derives it from a verse, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest” (Numbers 5:15), teaches that by Torah law the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, but the Sages said: The court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת — בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, סוֹטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
The baraita records a second opinion. Rabbi Yosei says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her based on an a fortiori inference: And just as a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, and her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, then with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of only a prohibition, should he not all the more so be trusted?
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנִדָּה — שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר, תֹּאמַר בְּסוֹטָה — שֶׁאֵין לָהּ הֶיתֵּר, וְאוֹמֵר: ״מַיִם גְּנוּבִים יִמְתָּקוּ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Sages said to him: No, if you say that this is true with regard to a menstruating woman, the reason he is trusted is not due to the severity of the prohibition. Rather, he is trusted because she has the ability to become permitted to her husband after her menstrual flow has ceased and she has immersed in a ritual bath. Shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a sota, who potentially does not have the ability to become permitted to her husband due to her suspected adultery? And proof to the notion that people will more readily commit illicit acts that are permanently prohibited comes from the verse that states: “Stolen waters are sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasing” (Proverbs 9:17). Consequently, there is a concern that the husband will engage in sexual intercourse with his sota wife if not accompanied by scholars.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִן הַתּוֹרָה הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״!
The baraita quotes a third opinion. Rabbi Yehuda says: By Torah law, the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, as is stated: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest.” This baraita states explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda derives this halakha from the verse itself, not from an a fortiori inference.
אֲמַר לְהוּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּרֵישָׁא וּפַרְכוּהּ, וַהֲדַר אָמַר לְהוּ קְרָא.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda first said to them the a fortiori inference, and they refuted it as mentioned above, and he then said to them the derivation from the verse.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ ״אֲבָל אָמְרוּ״.
The Gemara clarifies: Apparently, the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is the same as that of the first tanna in the baraita, who also cites the verse as proof that by Torah law the husband alone brings his wife to the priest. The Gemara explains: The difference between them concerns the following clause: But the Sages said that the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him. The first tanna holds that the Sages require two scholars to accompany the husband and wife, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that they do not.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּמְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּימִין עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת.
MISHNA: The mishna details the next stage of the process. They would bring her up to the Sanhedrin that was in Jerusalem, and the judges would threaten her in order that she admit her sin. And this was done in the manner that they would threaten witnesses testifying in cases of capital law. In those cases, the judges would explain to the witnesses the gravity of their testimony by stressing the value of human life. Here too, the judges would attempt to convince the woman to admit her sin, to avoid the loss of her life.
וְאוֹמֵר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, הַרְבֵּה יַיִן עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׂחוֹק עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה יַלְדוּת עוֹשָׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׁכֵנִים הָרָעִים עוֹשִׂין.
And additionally, the judge would say to her: My daughter, wine causes a great deal of immoral behavior, levity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, immaturity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, and bad neighbors cause a great deal of immoral behavior. The judge encouraged her to admit her sin by explaining to her that he understands that there may have been mitigating factors.
עֲשִׂי לִשְׁמוֹ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם. וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָם כְּדַי לְשׁוֹמְעָן, הִיא וְכׇל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ.
The judge then continues: Act for the sake of His great name, so that God’s name, which is written in sanctity, shall not be erased on the water. If the woman admits to having committed adultery, the scroll upon which the name of God is written will not be erased. And additionally, the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family, in order to encourage her to admit her sin, as the Gemara will explain.
אִם אָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״ — שׁוֹבֶרֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְיוֹצֵאת.
If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. That is, she writes a receipt indicating that she has no claims on her husband with regard to the sum written in her marriage contract, as a woman who admits to adultery forfeits her right to this payment. And she is then divorced from her husband.
וְאִם אָמְרָה ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ — מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְשַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, שֶׁשָּׁם מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַסּוֹטוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַיּוֹלְדוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַמְצוֹרָעִין.
But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they bring her up to the Eastern Gate, which is at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor, because three rites were performed there: They give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and they purify women who have given birth (see Leviticus 12:6–8), and they purify the lepers (see Leviticus 14:10–20).
וְכֹהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ. אִם נִקְרְעוּ — נִקְרְעוּ. וְאִם נִפְרְמוּ — נִפְרְמוּ. עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבָּהּ. וְסוֹתֵר אֶת שְׂעָרָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה לִבָּהּ נָאֶה — לֹא הָיָה מְגַלֵּהוּ, וְאִם הָיָה שְׂעָרָהּ נָאֶה — לֹא הָיָה סוֹתֵר.
The mishna continues describing the sota rite. And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them, unconcerned about what happens to the clothing. If the clothes are torn, so they are torn; if the stitches come apart, so they come apart. And he pulls her clothing until he reveals her heart, i.e., her chest. And then he unbraids her hair. Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it.
הָיְתָה מִתְכַּסָּה בִּלְבָנִים — מְכַסֶּהָ בִּשְׁחוֹרִים. הָיָה עָלֶיהָ כְּלֵי זָהָב
If she was dressed in white garments, he would now cover her with black garments. If she was wearing gold adornments,
וְקַטְלֵיאוֹת, נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת — מַעֲבִירִין מִמֶּנָּה, כְּדֵי לְנַוְּולָהּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֶבֶל מִצְרִי וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ,
or chokers [katliyot], or nose rings, or finger rings, they removed them from her in order to render her unattractive. And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope fashioned from palm fibers, and he would tie it above her breasts.
וְכׇל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּא לִרְאוֹת, חוּץ מֵעֲבָדֶיהָ וְשִׁפְחוֹתֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבָּהּ גַּס בָּהֶן. וְכׇל הַנָּשִׁים מוּתָּרוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִמַּתְכֶנָה״.
And anyone who desires to watch her may come to watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them, as seeing one’s slaves reinforces one’s feeling of pride, and their presence may cause her to maintain her innocence. And all of the women are permitted to watch her, as it is stated: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אָתְיָא ״תּוֹרָה״ ״תּוֹרָה״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְעָשָׂה לָהּ הַכֹּהֵן אֵת כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד — אַף כָּאן בְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks concerning the halakha that the sota is brought before the Sanhedrin: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the words “tora” and “tora.” It is written here, with regard to a sota: “And the priest shall execute upon her all this law [tora]” (Numbers 5:30), and it is written there, with regard to a rebellious Elder, who must go to the place chosen by God and follow the ruling of the Sanhedrin: “According to the law [tora] that they shall teach you” (Deuteronomy 17:11). Just as there the verse is referring to what occurs in the presence of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, so too here, with regard to a sota, the verse is referring to what occurs in the presence of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges.
וּמְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתֶּה כָּךְ מְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁתִּשְׁתֶּה. אוֹמְרִים לָהּ: בִּתִּי, אִם בָּרוּר לָךְ הַדָּבָר שֶׁטְּהוֹרָה אַתְּ עִמְדִי עַל בּוּרְיִיךְ, וּשְׁתִי. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַיִם הַמָּרִים דּוֹמִין אֶלָּא לְסַם יָבֵשׁ שֶׁמּוּנָּח עַל בָּשָׂר חַי. אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מַכָּה — מְחַלְחֵל וְיוֹרֵד, אֵין שָׁם מַכָּה — אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם.
§ The mishna teaches: And they threaten her in order that she admit her sin, to obviate the need to erase God’s name. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:6): In the same manner that they threaten her so that she will not drink, so too, they threaten her so that she will drink, as they say to her: My daughter, if the matter is clear to you that you are pure, arise for the sake of your clear position and drink. If you are innocent you have nothing to fear, because the bitter water is similar only to a dry poison placed on the flesh. If there is a wound there, the poison will penetrate and enter the blood stream, but if there is no wound there, it does not have any effect. This teaches that the woman is warned not to drink if she is guilty, but if she is not guilty she is encouraged to drink. There is no mention of the latter in the mishna.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה. כָּאן — לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the mishna is referring to before the scroll was erased, and at that point the woman is warned only not to drink if she is guilty, so that the name of God will not be erased. There the baraita is referring to after the scroll was erased. Then she is warned that if she is innocent she should drink because if she now refuses to drink, it will turn out that the scroll was erased for no purpose.
וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל הַגָּדָה, וּמַעֲשִׂים שֶׁאֵירְעוּ בִּכְתוּבִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, כְּגוֹן: ״אֲשֶׁר חֲכָמִים יַגִּידוּ וְלֹא כִחֲדוּ מֵאֲבוֹתָם״.
§ The mishna teaches: And the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family in order to encourage her to admit her sin. The Gemara cites a baraita that details what was said. The Sages taught in a baraita: The judge says in her presence words of homiletical interpretation and mentions incidents that happened to previous generations that are recorded in the early prophetic writings. For example, they expound the following verse: “That wise men told and did not hide from their fathers” (Job 15:18); this teaches that even during the time of the forefathers, there were people who admitted their sins despite the shame they incurred.
יְהוּדָה הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ — נָחַל חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. רְאוּבֵן הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ — נָחַל חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וּמָה שְׂכָרָן? מָה שְׂכָרָן?! כִּדְקָא אָמְרִינַן! אֶלָּא: מָה שְׂכָרָן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״לָהֶם לְבַדָּם נִתְּנָה הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא עָבַר זָר בְּתוֹכָם״.
For example, Judah admitted that he sinned with Tamar and was not embarrassed to do so, and what was his end? He inherited the life of the World-to-Come. Reuben admitted that he lay with his father’s concubine Bilhah and was not embarrassed, and what was his end? He too inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: And what is their reward? The Gemara interjects: What is their reward? Their reward was clearly as we say, that they inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara clarifies: Rather, the second question was: What is their reward in this world? The Gemara answers by citing the next verse in the book of Job: “To them alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them” (Job 15:19). Judah was given the kingship, and Reuben inherited a portion of land in the Transjordan before the other tribes.
בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּיהוּדָה אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאוֹדִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי״, אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן מְנָלַן דְּאוֹדִי?
The Gemara questions the source for Reuben’s admission. Granted, with regard to Judah we have found a source that he admitted his sin with Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26). Judah admitted that he was the one who had impregnated Tamar. But from where do we derive that Reuben admitted his sin?
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״יְחִי רְאוּבֵן וְאַל יָמֹת״, ״וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה״?
The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written concerning Reuben and Judah in Moses’ blessing of the tribes at the end of his life: “Let Reuben live and not die in that his men become few” (Deuteronomy 33:6), and immediately afterward, in the following verse, it is stated: “And this for Judah, and he said: Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him in unto his people; his hands shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7). What is the connection between the blessing of Reuben and that of Judah, juxtaposed with the conjunction “and”?
כׇּל אוֹתָן שָׁנִים שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, הָיוּ עַצְמוֹתָיו שֶׁל יְהוּדָה מְגוּלְגָּלִין בָּאָרוֹן, עַד שֶׁעָמַד מֹשֶׁה וּבִקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מִי גָּרַם לִרְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוֹדָה — יְהוּדָה: ״וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה״?!
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All those years that the Jewish people were in the desert, the bones of Judah, which the Jewish people took with them from Egypt along with the bones of his brothers, were rolling around in the coffin, until Moses arose and asked for compassion on Judah’s behalf. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who served as the impetus for Reuben that he admit his sin, through which he merited a blessing and was not excluded from the count of the twelve sons of Jacob (see Genesis 35:22)? It was Judah, as Reuben saw him confess his sin, and thereby did the same. Moses continues in the next verse: “And this for Judah,” as if to say: Is this Judah’s reward for serving as an example of confessing to one’s sins, that his bones roll around?
מִיָּד: ״שְׁמַע ה׳ קוֹל יְהוּדָה״, עָל אֵיבְרֵיהּ לְשָׁפָא. וְלָא הֲוָה קָא מְעַיְּילִין לֵיהּ לִמְתִיבְתָּא דִרְקִיעָא, ״וְאֶל עַמּוֹ תְּבִיאֶנּוּ״. וְלָא הֲוָה קָא יָדַע מִשְׁקַל וּמִטְרַח בִּשְׁמַעְתָּא בַּהֲדֵי רַבָּנַן, ״יָדָיו רָב לוֹ״. לָא הֲוָה קָא סָלְקָא לֵיהּ שְׁמַעְתָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְהִילְכְתָא, ״וְעֵזֶר מִצָּרָיו תִּהְיֶה״.
Immediately after Moses prayed, the verse states: “Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah” (Deuteronomy 33:7). His bones then entered their sockets [shafa], and his skeleton was reassembled. But the angels still did not elevate him into the heavenly study hall. Moses then prayed: “And bring him in unto his people” (Deuteronomy 33:7), i.e., those in the heavenly study hall. This prayer was accepted, but he still did not know how to deliberate in Torah matters with the heavenly sages. Moses then prayed: “His hands shall contend for him” (Deuteronomy 33:7), meaning that he should have the ability to contend with them in study. But still he was unable to draw conclusions from his discussion in accordance with the halakha. Moses then prayed: “And You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7).
בִּשְׁלָמָא יְהוּדָה דְּאוֹדִי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֹא תִּישָּׂרֵף תָּמָר. אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן, לְמָה לֵיהּ דְּאוֹדִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: חֲצִיף עֲלַי דִּמְפָרֵיט חֶטְאֵיהּ? כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיחַשְׁדוּ אֲחוֹהִי.
The Gemara discusses the propriety of admitting one’s sins in public. Granted, with regard to Judah, it was proper that he admitted his sin in public, as he did so in order that Tamar not be burned innocently. But why did Reuben admit his sin in public? But didn’t Rav Sheshet say: I consider one who specifies his sins in public to be brazen, as one who does so indicates that he is not embarrassed by his actions? The Gemara answers: The reason he admitted his sin in public was in order that his brothers should not be suspected of having committed the deed.
אִם אָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״ וְכוּ׳. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.
§ The mishna teaches: If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. The Gemara comments: You can learn from this mishna that one writes a receipt to serve as proof that a debt has been paid rather than tearing the promissory note. This matter is the subject of a dispute between the tanna’im in tractate Bava Batra (170b).
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תְּנִי: ״מְקָרַעַת״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא ״שׁוֹבֶרֶת״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין כְּתוּבָּה עָסְקִינַן.
Abaye said: Teach in the mishna differently. Rather than understanding that she writes a receipt, explain it to mean: She tears her marriage contract. Rava said to him: But the mishna teaches explicitly that she writes a receipt. Rather, to explain the mishna, Rava said: We are dealing with a place in which they do not write a marriage contract, as they rely on the rabbinical ordinance that all wives are entitled to the sum of a standard marriage contract upon divorce or being widowed, even if no marriage contract has been written. Because there is no marriage contract to tear, a receipt is written so that the man can prove that he no longer has a monetary obligation. However, generally, it is possible that the document would be torn, and no proof can be adduced from this mishna.
וְאִם אָמְרָה ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְשַׁעֲרֵי מִזְרָח. מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ?!
§ The mishna teaches: But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they would bring her up to the Eastern Gate. The Gemara asks: Would they bring her up?
