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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 3, 2015 | 讻状讗 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讜

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

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

Sotah 8

讛转诐 拽讬讬诪讗 讚诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讜诪讞转讬谞谉 诇讛 讻讚讬 诇讬讬讙注讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪住讬注讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讻讚讬 砖转讟专祝 讚注转谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉

She is already standing there in the Temple courtyard, as that is where the Sanhedrin sits. The Gemara answers: This teaches that they would bring her up and would bring her down repeatedly in order to fatigue her, with the hope that her worn-down mental state will lead to her confession. This was also done with witnesses testifying in cases of capital law, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:1): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: In cases of capital law, the court brings the witnesses from one place to another place in order to confuse them so that they will retract their testimony if they are lying.

砖砖诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讗转 讛住讜讟讜转 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 住讜讟讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛注诪讬讚 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讗砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诪爪讜专注讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛注诪讬讚 讛讻讛谉 讛诪讟讛专 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 讬讜诇讚转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches: Because there, at the Eastern Gate, they give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and there the lepers and women who have given birth are purified. The Gemara asks: Granted, the sota women are given the bitter water to drink there, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 5:18), and the Eastern Gate is directly opposite the Sanctuary, which is the area referred to as 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥 Similarly, with regard to lepers as well, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest that cleans him shall set the man that is to be cleansed, and those things, before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 14:11). But what is the reason that a woman who has given birth must also be purified there?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬讬谉 讜拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗拽讜专讘谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽专讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讝讘讬谉 讜讝讘讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜转谞讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞拽讟

The Gemara suggests: If we say it is because of the requirement for the women who have given birth to come and stand over their offerings, as it is taught in a baraita: The offering of a person is brought only if he stands over it while it is being sacrificed, and that is why they stand at this gate, which is as close to the sacrifice as they are permitted to be while they are ritually impure. If that is so, then the same halakha should apply to men who experience a gonorrhea-like discharge [zavim] and women who experience a discharge of uterine blood after their menstrual period [zavot] as well. They are also ritually impure while their offerings are sacrificed. Why would the mishna then specify women who have given birth? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the tanna cited one of them, and the same halakha applies to all others in that category.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 砖转讬 住讜讟讜转 讻讗讞转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讘讛 讙住 讘讞讘讬专转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗转讛 诇讘讚讛

The Sages taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:6): Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, in order that the heart of each one not be emboldened by the other, as there is a concern that when one sees that the other woman is not confessing, she will maintain her innocence even if she is guilty. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring her [ota] near and stand her before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 5:16). Rabbi Yehuda explains his inference: The word 鈥ota鈥 indicates her alone, and therefore there is a Torah edict not to have two women drink the bitter water simultaneously.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讻转讬讘 讗转讛 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诐 讚拽专讗 讜诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗讜转讛 诇讘讚讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讘讛 讙住 讘讞讘讬专转讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the first tanna, isn鈥檛 it written 鈥ota鈥? The Gemara answers: The first tanna is actually Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the reasons of halakhot written in verses, and he is saying: What is the reason? What is the reason the Torah requires her alone, that each sota drink individually? In order that the heart of each woman not be emboldened by the other.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讜转转转

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them? Why should it matter if this halakha is due to a logical reasoning or due to a Torah edict? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where one of the women is trembling from fear. Since she has obviously not been emboldened by the presence of the other, Rabbi Shimon would allow her to be given to drink at the same time as the other.

讜专讜转转转 诪讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪爪讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转

The Gemara asks: And if she is trembling, can the court give her to drink at the same time as the other? But there is a general principle that one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, as one who does so appears as if the mitzvot are a burden upon him, and he is trying to finish with them as soon as possible.

讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 砖转讬 住讜讟讜转 讻讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讛专讬谉 砖谞讬 诪爪讜专注讬谉 讻讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 专讜爪注讬谉 砖谞讬 注讘讚讬诐 讻讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 注讜专驻讬谉 砖转讬 注讙诇讜转 讻讗讞转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪爪讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转

As we learned in a baraita: Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, and two lepers are not purified simultaneously, and two slaves are not pierced simultaneously, and two heifers do not have their necks broken simultaneously, because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles. Accordingly, even Rabbi Shimon would agree that under no circumstances can a priest give two sota women to drink simultaneously. How, then, can the Gemara say that a trembling woman can be given to drink together with another sota?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讻讛谉 讗讞讚 讻讗谉 讘砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐

Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Kahana who said: This is not difficult. Here, the second baraita, which says that it is prohibited to give two sota women to drink simultaneously because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, is speaking with regard to one priest. There, Rabbi Shimon in the first baraita, who permits a trembling sota to be given to drink together with another sota, is speaking with regard to two priests. Since no individual priest is giving two women to drink simultaneously, mitzvot are not being performed in bundles.

讜讛讻讛谉 讗讜讞讝 讘讘讙讚讬讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻专注 讗转 专讗砖 讛讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 专讗砖讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讗砖讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻专注 讗转 专讗砖讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讻讛谉 住讜转专 讗转 砖注专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them until he reveals her heart, and he unbraids her hair. The Gemara cites the source for these acts. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord and uncover the woman鈥檚 head鈥 (Numbers 5:18). From this verse I have derived only that he uncovers her head; from where do I derive that he uncovers her body? The verse states: 鈥淭he woman,鈥 rather than just stating: And uncovers her head. This indicates that the woman鈥檚 body should be uncovered as well. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states specifically: 鈥淎nd uncover her head鈥? Once it has stated that he uncovers the woman, it is already apparent that she, including her hair, is uncovered. It teaches that the priest not only uncovers her hair but also unbraids her hair.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讘讛 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬砖 诇讛专讛讜专讗 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬

The mishna continues by citing that Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that it is prohibited to uncover an attractive woman, is concerned about onlookers having sexual thoughts, and the Rabbis, who permit it, are not concerned about this?

讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讬砖 诪讻住讬谉 讗讜转讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讜讛讗砖讛 砖谞讬 驻专拽讬诐 讗讞讚 诪诇驻谞讬讛 讜讗讞讚 诪诇讗讞专讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讜诇讛 注专讜讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讬砖 谞住拽诇 注专讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞住拽诇转 注专讜诪讛

But we have heard the opposite from them, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:6): Although a man condemned to stoning is stoned unclothed, the court covers him with one small piece of material in front of him, to obscure his genitals, and they cover a woman with two small pieces of material, one in front of her and one behind her, because all of her loins are nakedness, as her genitals are visible both from the front and from the back. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: A man is stoned while naked, but a woman is not stoned while naked, but fully clothed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned that the onlookers seeing the woman unclothed will lead to sexual thoughts, but the Rabbis are concerned about this.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讗 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 砖诪讗 转爪讗 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讝讻讗讬转 讜讬转讙专讜 讘讛 驻专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讛转诐 讛讗 诪住转诇拽讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬讙专讜讬讬 讘讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬谉 讬爪专 讛专注 砖讜诇讟 讗诇讗 讘诪讛 砖注讬谞讬讜 专讜讗讜转

Rabba said: What is the reason here, with regard to a sota, that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned? Perhaps the sota will leave the court having been proven innocent, and the young priests in the Temple who saw her partially naked will become provoked by the sight of her. There, in the case of a woman who is stoned, she departs from this world by being stoned and there is no concern for sexual thoughts. The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the fact that she is killed is irrelevant to their sexual thoughts, as the onlookers will be provoked with regard to other women, this is not a concern. As didn鈥檛 Rava say: It is learned as a tradition that the evil inclination controls only that which a person鈥檚 eyes see.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉

Rava said: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis, as with regard to a sota, they are not concerned about sexual thoughts, but with regard to a woman who is stoned they are. Rather, Rava said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered above.

讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讜谞讜住专讜 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讛转诐 讗讬谉 诇讱 讬讬住讜专 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is not difficult as well. Here, with regard to a sota, what is the reason that her hair and body are uncovered? Because of what is stated in the verse, that other women should be warned: 鈥淭hus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness鈥 (Ezekiel 23:48). There, with regard to stoning, you have no greater chastening than seeing this stoning itself.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注讘讬讚 讘讛 转专转讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛

And if you would say that two forms of chastening, both stoning and humiliation, should be done with her, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process.

诇讬诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讝讬讜谞讬讛 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪爪注专讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 爪注专讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪讘讝讬讜谞讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Na岣an is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no mitzva to select a compassionate death. The Gemara refutes this: No, it may be that everyone agrees with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Minimizing one鈥檚 degradation is preferable to him than minimizing his physical pain. Therefore, the Rabbis view the more compassionate death as one without degradation, even if wearing clothes will increase the pain of the one being executed, as the clothes will absorb the blow and prolong death. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that minimizing physical pain is preferable to a person than minimizing his degradation, and therefore the one being executed prefers to be stoned unclothed, without any chance of the clothing prolonging the death, although this adds to the degradation.

讛讬转讛 诪讻讜住讛 诇讘谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 砖讞讜专讬诐 谞讗讬诐 诇讛 诪讻住讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讻讜注专讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: If she was dressed in white garments, he would cover her with black garments. A Sage taught: If black garments are becoming to her, then she is covered in unsightly garments.

讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 讝讛讘 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 谞讜讜诇讬 诪谞讜讜讬诇 诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘讛谞讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讘讝讬讜谉 讟驻讬 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诇讬讞 注专讟讬诇 讜住讬讬诐 诪住讗谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna teaches: If she was wearing gold adornments or other jewelry, they are removed from her. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Now that the priest renders her unattractive by uncovering her and dressing her in unsightly garments, is it necessary to teach that they remove these adornments from her? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that with these adornments on her, she has more degradation, as people say in a known aphorism: Undressed, naked, and wearing shoes. This means that a naked person who wears shoes emphasizes the fact that he is naked. Perhaps one would think that by a sota wearing jewelry, her nakedness is emphasized and her degradation is amplified. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not so.

讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讘讬讗 讞讘诇 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讘诇 讛诪爪专讬 诪讛讜 砖讬注讻讘 讘住讜讟讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诇讗 讬砖诪讟讜 讘讙讚讬讛 诪注诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讘爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 住讙讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讬讗 讞讙专讛 诇讜 讘爪诇爪讜诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讻讛谉 诪讘讬讗 讞讘诇 讛诪爪专讬 讜拽讜砖专 诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讚讚讬讛 诪注讻讘

The mishna continues: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope, and he would tie it above her breasts. Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: What is the halakha as to whether the lack of an Egyptian rope will preclude the performance of the rite with regard to a sota? Does any means of tying suffice? Perhaps the primary function of the rope is so that her clothes will not fall off her, and therefore even a small ribbon [tziltzul] would also suffice. Or, perhaps the rope is used because of what the Master said: She girded herself with a comely ribbon when she committed her transgression, and therefore the priest brings specifically an Egyptian rope, which is coarse, and ties it above her breasts. If that is the case, then the Egyptian rope should be indispensable.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讘讬讗 讞讘诇 讛诪爪专讬 讜拽讜砖专讜 诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讚讚讬讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬砖诪讟讜 讘讙讚讬讛 诪注诇讬讛

Rav Huna said to him: You learned the answer to this dilemma in a baraita that teaches: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope and he would tie it above her breasts, so that her clothes would not fall off her. The baraita states that the use of an Egyptian rope is primarily for holding up her clothing, and therefore use of specifically Egyptian rope is not essential.

讜讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘讛 讬专讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘讛 专讜讗讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讘专讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞砖讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 诇专讗讜转讛 谞砖讬诐 讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬诐 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them. And all of the women are permitted to watch her. The Gemara comments: This matter is itself difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in the mishna. First you say: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch. Apparently, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women; all are permitted to observe the rite. And then the mishna teaches: And all of the women are permitted to watch her, which indicates women, yes, they may watch her, but men, no, they may not.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讙诪讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘讛 专讜讗讛 拽转谞讬

Abaye said: Interpret the first statement, which permits all people to observe the sota, as pertaining to women, but men may not be onlookers. Rava said to him: But it teaches in that first statement that anyone who desires to watch her may watch, and one cannot limit this to women.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘讛 专讜讗讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讘专讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞砖讬 讜谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 诇专讗讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞讜住专讜 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讻讝诪转讻谞讛

Rather, Rava said: Anyone who desires to watch her may watch, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women. And the next clause of the mishna teaches that women are obligated to watch her, as is stated: 鈥淭hus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness鈥 (Ezekiel 23:48).

诪转谞讬壮 讘诪讚讛 砖讗讚诐 诪讜讚讚 讘讛 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讜 讛讬讗 拽砖讟讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 诇注讘讬专讛 讛诪拽讜诐 谞讜讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讙诇转讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 诇注讘讬专讛 讛诪拽讜诐 讙诇讛 注诇讬讛 讘讬专讱 讛转讞讬诇讛 讘注讘讬专讛 转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讘讟谉 诇驻讬讻讱 转诇拽讛 讛讬专讱 转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讘讟谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 驻诇讟

MISHNA: The mishna teaches lessons that can be derived from the actions and treatment of a sota. With the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it. For example, she, the sota, adorned herself to violate a transgression, the Omnipresent therefore decreed that she be rendered unattractive; she exposed herself for the purpose of violating a transgression, as she stood in places where she would be noticed by potential adulterers, so the Omnipresent therefore decreed that her body be exposed publicly; she began her transgression with her thigh and afterward with her stomach, therefore the thigh is smitten first and then the stomach, and the rest of all her body does not escape punishment.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讚讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘诪讚讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: Although the measure with regard to court-imposed capital punishment has ceased, as there is no court today empowered to adjudicate and apply corporal punishment, punishment that is suitable to be applied with a measure by God has not ceased, as a person is punished by Heaven in accordance with his sin.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘讟诇讛 住谞讛讚专讬 讗专讘注 诪讬转讜转 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 讜讛讗 讘讟诇讜 讗诇讗 讚讬谉 讗专讘注 诪讬转讜转 诇讗 讘讟诇讜

As Rav Yosef says, and Rabbi 岣yya similarly teaches: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four types of court-imposed capital punishment have not ceased. The Gemara asks: But they have ceased; court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. Rather, the intention is: The law of the four types of court-imposed capital punishment has not ceased.

诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 住拽讬诇讛 讗讜 谞讜驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗讜 讞讬讛 讚讜专住转讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 砖专讬驻讛 讗讜 谞讜驻诇 讘讚诇讬拽讛 讗讜 谞讞砖 诪讻讬砖讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讛专讬讙讛 讗讜 谞诪住专 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讜 诇讬住讟讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讞谞讬拽讛 讗讜 讟讜讘注 讘谞讛专 讗讜 诪转 讘住专讜谞讻讬

The Gemara explains: How so? One who is liable to be executed by stoning either falls from a roof or an animal mauls him and breaks his bones. This death is similar to the experience of stoning, in which the one liable to be executed is pushed from a platform and his bones break from the impact of the fall. One who is liable to be executed by burning either falls into a fire and is burned or a snake bites him, as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. One who is liable to be executed by slaying of the sword either is turned over to the authorities and they execute him with a sword, or robbers come upon him and murder him. One who is liable to be executed by strangling either drowns in a river and is choked by the water or dies of diphtheria [seronekhi], which causes his throat to become clogged, and he dies.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讘诪讚讛 砖讗讚诐 诪讜讚讚 讘讛 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘住讗住讗讛 讘砖诇讞讛 转专讬讘谞讛

It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (3:1鈥5) that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would say: From where is it derived that with the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it? As it is stated: 鈥淚n full measure [besase鈥檃], when you send her away, you contend with her鈥 (Isaiah 27:8). In other words, in the measure, bese鈥檃, that one used in one鈥檚 sin, God will contend with, i.e., punish, him.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 住讗讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 转专拽讘 讜讞爪讬 转专拽讘 拽讘 讜讞爪讬 拽讘 专讜讘注 讜讞爪讬 专讜讘注 转讜诪谉 讜注讜讻诇讗 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 住讗讜谉 住讗谉 讘专注砖

The baraita continues: I have derived only the relatively large measurement of a se鈥檃, which alludes to a significant sin. From where do I know to include even lesser sins that are comparable to smaller measurements, e.g., a half-se鈥檃 [tarkav] and a half-tarkav; a kav and a half-kav; a quarter-kav and half of a quarter-kav; an eighth-kav [toman] and an ukla, which is one-thirty-second of a kav. From where is it derived that all these lesser sins are also dealt with in accordance with the measure of the sin? The verse states: 鈥淔or every boot [sa鈥檕n] stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire鈥 (Isaiah 9:4), indicating that every sa鈥檕n, which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets as a small se鈥檃, is 鈥渟tamped with fierceness鈥 and doesn鈥檛 go unpunished.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讻诇 驻专讜讟讛 讜驻专讜讟讛 诪爪讟专驻转 诇讞砖讘讜谉 讙讚讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞转 诇讗讞转 诇诪爪讗 讞砖讘讜谉

And from where is it derived that each and every peruta combine to add up to a great sum, alluding to the notion that even if one is not immediately punished for a small transgression, in the final accounting all misdeeds will combine together and be addressed by the imposition of a large punishment? The verse states: 鈥淏ehold, this have I found, says Koheleth, adding one thing to another, to find out the account鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:27).

讜讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘住讜讟讛 砖讘诪讚讛 砖诪讚讚讛 讘讛 诪讚讚讜 诇讛 讛讬讗 注诪讚讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转讛 诇讬专讗讜转 诇讜 诇驻讬讻讱 讻讛谉 诪注诪讬讚讛 注诇 砖注专 谞拽谞讜专 讜诪专讗讛 拽诇讜谞讛 诇讻诇 讛讬讗 驻专住讛 诇讜 住讜讚专讬谉 谞讗讬谉 注诇 专讗砖讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讻讛谉 谞讜讟诇 讻驻讛 诪注诇 专讗砖讛 讜诪谞讬讞讜 转讞转 专讙诇讬讛 讛讬讗 拽砖讟讛 诇讜 驻谞讬讛 诇驻讬讻讱

The baraita continues: And we found this with regard to a sota, that with the measure with which she measured, she is measured with it: She stood by the opening of her house to exhibit herself to her paramour, therefore a priest has her stand at the Gate of Nicanor and exhibits her disgrace to all; she spread beautiful shawls [sudarin] on her head for her paramour, therefore a priest removes her kerchief from her head and places it under her feet; she adorned her face for her paramour, therefore

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Sotah 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 8

讛转诐 拽讬讬诪讗 讚诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讜诪讞转讬谞谉 诇讛 讻讚讬 诇讬讬讙注讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪住讬注讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讻讚讬 砖转讟专祝 讚注转谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉

She is already standing there in the Temple courtyard, as that is where the Sanhedrin sits. The Gemara answers: This teaches that they would bring her up and would bring her down repeatedly in order to fatigue her, with the hope that her worn-down mental state will lead to her confession. This was also done with witnesses testifying in cases of capital law, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:1): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: In cases of capital law, the court brings the witnesses from one place to another place in order to confuse them so that they will retract their testimony if they are lying.

砖砖诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讗转 讛住讜讟讜转 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 住讜讟讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛注诪讬讚 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讗砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诪爪讜专注讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛注诪讬讚 讛讻讛谉 讛诪讟讛专 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 讬讜诇讚转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches: Because there, at the Eastern Gate, they give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and there the lepers and women who have given birth are purified. The Gemara asks: Granted, the sota women are given the bitter water to drink there, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 5:18), and the Eastern Gate is directly opposite the Sanctuary, which is the area referred to as 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥 Similarly, with regard to lepers as well, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest that cleans him shall set the man that is to be cleansed, and those things, before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 14:11). But what is the reason that a woman who has given birth must also be purified there?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬讬谉 讜拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗拽讜专讘谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽专讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讝讘讬谉 讜讝讘讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜转谞讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞拽讟

The Gemara suggests: If we say it is because of the requirement for the women who have given birth to come and stand over their offerings, as it is taught in a baraita: The offering of a person is brought only if he stands over it while it is being sacrificed, and that is why they stand at this gate, which is as close to the sacrifice as they are permitted to be while they are ritually impure. If that is so, then the same halakha should apply to men who experience a gonorrhea-like discharge [zavim] and women who experience a discharge of uterine blood after their menstrual period [zavot] as well. They are also ritually impure while their offerings are sacrificed. Why would the mishna then specify women who have given birth? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the tanna cited one of them, and the same halakha applies to all others in that category.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 砖转讬 住讜讟讜转 讻讗讞转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讘讛 讙住 讘讞讘讬专转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗转讛 诇讘讚讛

The Sages taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:6): Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, in order that the heart of each one not be emboldened by the other, as there is a concern that when one sees that the other woman is not confessing, she will maintain her innocence even if she is guilty. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring her [ota] near and stand her before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 5:16). Rabbi Yehuda explains his inference: The word 鈥ota鈥 indicates her alone, and therefore there is a Torah edict not to have two women drink the bitter water simultaneously.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讻转讬讘 讗转讛 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诐 讚拽专讗 讜诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗讜转讛 诇讘讚讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讘讛 讙住 讘讞讘讬专转讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the first tanna, isn鈥檛 it written 鈥ota鈥? The Gemara answers: The first tanna is actually Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the reasons of halakhot written in verses, and he is saying: What is the reason? What is the reason the Torah requires her alone, that each sota drink individually? In order that the heart of each woman not be emboldened by the other.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讜转转转

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them? Why should it matter if this halakha is due to a logical reasoning or due to a Torah edict? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where one of the women is trembling from fear. Since she has obviously not been emboldened by the presence of the other, Rabbi Shimon would allow her to be given to drink at the same time as the other.

讜专讜转转转 诪讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪爪讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转

The Gemara asks: And if she is trembling, can the court give her to drink at the same time as the other? But there is a general principle that one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, as one who does so appears as if the mitzvot are a burden upon him, and he is trying to finish with them as soon as possible.

讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 砖转讬 住讜讟讜转 讻讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讛专讬谉 砖谞讬 诪爪讜专注讬谉 讻讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 专讜爪注讬谉 砖谞讬 注讘讚讬诐 讻讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 注讜专驻讬谉 砖转讬 注讙诇讜转 讻讗讞转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪爪讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转 讞讘讬诇讜转

As we learned in a baraita: Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, and two lepers are not purified simultaneously, and two slaves are not pierced simultaneously, and two heifers do not have their necks broken simultaneously, because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles. Accordingly, even Rabbi Shimon would agree that under no circumstances can a priest give two sota women to drink simultaneously. How, then, can the Gemara say that a trembling woman can be given to drink together with another sota?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讻讛谉 讗讞讚 讻讗谉 讘砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐

Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Kahana who said: This is not difficult. Here, the second baraita, which says that it is prohibited to give two sota women to drink simultaneously because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, is speaking with regard to one priest. There, Rabbi Shimon in the first baraita, who permits a trembling sota to be given to drink together with another sota, is speaking with regard to two priests. Since no individual priest is giving two women to drink simultaneously, mitzvot are not being performed in bundles.

讜讛讻讛谉 讗讜讞讝 讘讘讙讚讬讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻专注 讗转 专讗砖 讛讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 专讗砖讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讗砖讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻专注 讗转 专讗砖讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讻讛谉 住讜转专 讗转 砖注专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them until he reveals her heart, and he unbraids her hair. The Gemara cites the source for these acts. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord and uncover the woman鈥檚 head鈥 (Numbers 5:18). From this verse I have derived only that he uncovers her head; from where do I derive that he uncovers her body? The verse states: 鈥淭he woman,鈥 rather than just stating: And uncovers her head. This indicates that the woman鈥檚 body should be uncovered as well. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states specifically: 鈥淎nd uncover her head鈥? Once it has stated that he uncovers the woman, it is already apparent that she, including her hair, is uncovered. It teaches that the priest not only uncovers her hair but also unbraids her hair.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讘讛 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬砖 诇讛专讛讜专讗 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬

The mishna continues by citing that Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that it is prohibited to uncover an attractive woman, is concerned about onlookers having sexual thoughts, and the Rabbis, who permit it, are not concerned about this?

讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讬砖 诪讻住讬谉 讗讜转讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讜讛讗砖讛 砖谞讬 驻专拽讬诐 讗讞讚 诪诇驻谞讬讛 讜讗讞讚 诪诇讗讞专讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讜诇讛 注专讜讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讬砖 谞住拽诇 注专讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞住拽诇转 注专讜诪讛

But we have heard the opposite from them, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:6): Although a man condemned to stoning is stoned unclothed, the court covers him with one small piece of material in front of him, to obscure his genitals, and they cover a woman with two small pieces of material, one in front of her and one behind her, because all of her loins are nakedness, as her genitals are visible both from the front and from the back. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: A man is stoned while naked, but a woman is not stoned while naked, but fully clothed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned that the onlookers seeing the woman unclothed will lead to sexual thoughts, but the Rabbis are concerned about this.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讗 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 砖诪讗 转爪讗 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讝讻讗讬转 讜讬转讙专讜 讘讛 驻专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讛转诐 讛讗 诪住转诇拽讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬讙专讜讬讬 讘讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬谉 讬爪专 讛专注 砖讜诇讟 讗诇讗 讘诪讛 砖注讬谞讬讜 专讜讗讜转

Rabba said: What is the reason here, with regard to a sota, that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned? Perhaps the sota will leave the court having been proven innocent, and the young priests in the Temple who saw her partially naked will become provoked by the sight of her. There, in the case of a woman who is stoned, she departs from this world by being stoned and there is no concern for sexual thoughts. The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the fact that she is killed is irrelevant to their sexual thoughts, as the onlookers will be provoked with regard to other women, this is not a concern. As didn鈥檛 Rava say: It is learned as a tradition that the evil inclination controls only that which a person鈥檚 eyes see.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉

Rava said: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis, as with regard to a sota, they are not concerned about sexual thoughts, but with regard to a woman who is stoned they are. Rather, Rava said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered above.

讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讜谞讜住专讜 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讛转诐 讗讬谉 诇讱 讬讬住讜专 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is not difficult as well. Here, with regard to a sota, what is the reason that her hair and body are uncovered? Because of what is stated in the verse, that other women should be warned: 鈥淭hus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness鈥 (Ezekiel 23:48). There, with regard to stoning, you have no greater chastening than seeing this stoning itself.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注讘讬讚 讘讛 转专转讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛

And if you would say that two forms of chastening, both stoning and humiliation, should be done with her, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process.

诇讬诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讝讬讜谞讬讛 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪爪注专讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 爪注专讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪讘讝讬讜谞讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Na岣an is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no mitzva to select a compassionate death. The Gemara refutes this: No, it may be that everyone agrees with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Minimizing one鈥檚 degradation is preferable to him than minimizing his physical pain. Therefore, the Rabbis view the more compassionate death as one without degradation, even if wearing clothes will increase the pain of the one being executed, as the clothes will absorb the blow and prolong death. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that minimizing physical pain is preferable to a person than minimizing his degradation, and therefore the one being executed prefers to be stoned unclothed, without any chance of the clothing prolonging the death, although this adds to the degradation.

讛讬转讛 诪讻讜住讛 诇讘谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 砖讞讜专讬诐 谞讗讬诐 诇讛 诪讻住讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讻讜注专讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: If she was dressed in white garments, he would cover her with black garments. A Sage taught: If black garments are becoming to her, then she is covered in unsightly garments.

讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 讝讛讘 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 谞讜讜诇讬 诪谞讜讜讬诇 诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘讛谞讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讘讝讬讜谉 讟驻讬 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诇讬讞 注专讟讬诇 讜住讬讬诐 诪住讗谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna teaches: If she was wearing gold adornments or other jewelry, they are removed from her. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Now that the priest renders her unattractive by uncovering her and dressing her in unsightly garments, is it necessary to teach that they remove these adornments from her? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that with these adornments on her, she has more degradation, as people say in a known aphorism: Undressed, naked, and wearing shoes. This means that a naked person who wears shoes emphasizes the fact that he is naked. Perhaps one would think that by a sota wearing jewelry, her nakedness is emphasized and her degradation is amplified. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not so.

讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讘讬讗 讞讘诇 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讘诇 讛诪爪专讬 诪讛讜 砖讬注讻讘 讘住讜讟讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诇讗 讬砖诪讟讜 讘讙讚讬讛 诪注诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讘爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 住讙讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讬讗 讞讙专讛 诇讜 讘爪诇爪讜诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讻讛谉 诪讘讬讗 讞讘诇 讛诪爪专讬 讜拽讜砖专 诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讚讚讬讛 诪注讻讘

The mishna continues: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope, and he would tie it above her breasts. Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: What is the halakha as to whether the lack of an Egyptian rope will preclude the performance of the rite with regard to a sota? Does any means of tying suffice? Perhaps the primary function of the rope is so that her clothes will not fall off her, and therefore even a small ribbon [tziltzul] would also suffice. Or, perhaps the rope is used because of what the Master said: She girded herself with a comely ribbon when she committed her transgression, and therefore the priest brings specifically an Egyptian rope, which is coarse, and ties it above her breasts. If that is the case, then the Egyptian rope should be indispensable.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讘讬讗 讞讘诇 讛诪爪专讬 讜拽讜砖专讜 诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讚讚讬讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬砖诪讟讜 讘讙讚讬讛 诪注诇讬讛

Rav Huna said to him: You learned the answer to this dilemma in a baraita that teaches: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope and he would tie it above her breasts, so that her clothes would not fall off her. The baraita states that the use of an Egyptian rope is primarily for holding up her clothing, and therefore use of specifically Egyptian rope is not essential.

讜讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘讛 讬专讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘讛 专讜讗讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讘专讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞砖讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 诇专讗讜转讛 谞砖讬诐 讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬诐 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them. And all of the women are permitted to watch her. The Gemara comments: This matter is itself difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in the mishna. First you say: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch. Apparently, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women; all are permitted to observe the rite. And then the mishna teaches: And all of the women are permitted to watch her, which indicates women, yes, they may watch her, but men, no, they may not.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讙诪讛 讗谞砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘讛 专讜讗讛 拽转谞讬

Abaye said: Interpret the first statement, which permits all people to observe the sota, as pertaining to women, but men may not be onlookers. Rava said to him: But it teaches in that first statement that anyone who desires to watch her may watch, and one cannot limit this to women.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘讛 专讜讗讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讘专讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞砖讬 讜谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 诇专讗讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞讜住专讜 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讻讝诪转讻谞讛

Rather, Rava said: Anyone who desires to watch her may watch, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women. And the next clause of the mishna teaches that women are obligated to watch her, as is stated: 鈥淭hus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness鈥 (Ezekiel 23:48).

诪转谞讬壮 讘诪讚讛 砖讗讚诐 诪讜讚讚 讘讛 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讜 讛讬讗 拽砖讟讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 诇注讘讬专讛 讛诪拽讜诐 谞讜讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讙诇转讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 诇注讘讬专讛 讛诪拽讜诐 讙诇讛 注诇讬讛 讘讬专讱 讛转讞讬诇讛 讘注讘讬专讛 转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讘讟谉 诇驻讬讻讱 转诇拽讛 讛讬专讱 转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讘讟谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 驻诇讟

MISHNA: The mishna teaches lessons that can be derived from the actions and treatment of a sota. With the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it. For example, she, the sota, adorned herself to violate a transgression, the Omnipresent therefore decreed that she be rendered unattractive; she exposed herself for the purpose of violating a transgression, as she stood in places where she would be noticed by potential adulterers, so the Omnipresent therefore decreed that her body be exposed publicly; she began her transgression with her thigh and afterward with her stomach, therefore the thigh is smitten first and then the stomach, and the rest of all her body does not escape punishment.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讚讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘诪讚讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: Although the measure with regard to court-imposed capital punishment has ceased, as there is no court today empowered to adjudicate and apply corporal punishment, punishment that is suitable to be applied with a measure by God has not ceased, as a person is punished by Heaven in accordance with his sin.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘讟诇讛 住谞讛讚专讬 讗专讘注 诪讬转讜转 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 讜讛讗 讘讟诇讜 讗诇讗 讚讬谉 讗专讘注 诪讬转讜转 诇讗 讘讟诇讜

As Rav Yosef says, and Rabbi 岣yya similarly teaches: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four types of court-imposed capital punishment have not ceased. The Gemara asks: But they have ceased; court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. Rather, the intention is: The law of the four types of court-imposed capital punishment has not ceased.

诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 住拽讬诇讛 讗讜 谞讜驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗讜 讞讬讛 讚讜专住转讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 砖专讬驻讛 讗讜 谞讜驻诇 讘讚诇讬拽讛 讗讜 谞讞砖 诪讻讬砖讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讛专讬讙讛 讗讜 谞诪住专 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讜 诇讬住讟讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讞谞讬拽讛 讗讜 讟讜讘注 讘谞讛专 讗讜 诪转 讘住专讜谞讻讬

The Gemara explains: How so? One who is liable to be executed by stoning either falls from a roof or an animal mauls him and breaks his bones. This death is similar to the experience of stoning, in which the one liable to be executed is pushed from a platform and his bones break from the impact of the fall. One who is liable to be executed by burning either falls into a fire and is burned or a snake bites him, as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. One who is liable to be executed by slaying of the sword either is turned over to the authorities and they execute him with a sword, or robbers come upon him and murder him. One who is liable to be executed by strangling either drowns in a river and is choked by the water or dies of diphtheria [seronekhi], which causes his throat to become clogged, and he dies.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讘诪讚讛 砖讗讚诐 诪讜讚讚 讘讛 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘住讗住讗讛 讘砖诇讞讛 转专讬讘谞讛

It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (3:1鈥5) that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would say: From where is it derived that with the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it? As it is stated: 鈥淚n full measure [besase鈥檃], when you send her away, you contend with her鈥 (Isaiah 27:8). In other words, in the measure, bese鈥檃, that one used in one鈥檚 sin, God will contend with, i.e., punish, him.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 住讗讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 转专拽讘 讜讞爪讬 转专拽讘 拽讘 讜讞爪讬 拽讘 专讜讘注 讜讞爪讬 专讜讘注 转讜诪谉 讜注讜讻诇讗 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 住讗讜谉 住讗谉 讘专注砖

The baraita continues: I have derived only the relatively large measurement of a se鈥檃, which alludes to a significant sin. From where do I know to include even lesser sins that are comparable to smaller measurements, e.g., a half-se鈥檃 [tarkav] and a half-tarkav; a kav and a half-kav; a quarter-kav and half of a quarter-kav; an eighth-kav [toman] and an ukla, which is one-thirty-second of a kav. From where is it derived that all these lesser sins are also dealt with in accordance with the measure of the sin? The verse states: 鈥淔or every boot [sa鈥檕n] stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire鈥 (Isaiah 9:4), indicating that every sa鈥檕n, which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets as a small se鈥檃, is 鈥渟tamped with fierceness鈥 and doesn鈥檛 go unpunished.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讻诇 驻专讜讟讛 讜驻专讜讟讛 诪爪讟专驻转 诇讞砖讘讜谉 讙讚讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞转 诇讗讞转 诇诪爪讗 讞砖讘讜谉

And from where is it derived that each and every peruta combine to add up to a great sum, alluding to the notion that even if one is not immediately punished for a small transgression, in the final accounting all misdeeds will combine together and be addressed by the imposition of a large punishment? The verse states: 鈥淏ehold, this have I found, says Koheleth, adding one thing to another, to find out the account鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:27).

讜讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘住讜讟讛 砖讘诪讚讛 砖诪讚讚讛 讘讛 诪讚讚讜 诇讛 讛讬讗 注诪讚讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转讛 诇讬专讗讜转 诇讜 诇驻讬讻讱 讻讛谉 诪注诪讬讚讛 注诇 砖注专 谞拽谞讜专 讜诪专讗讛 拽诇讜谞讛 诇讻诇 讛讬讗 驻专住讛 诇讜 住讜讚专讬谉 谞讗讬谉 注诇 专讗砖讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讻讛谉 谞讜讟诇 讻驻讛 诪注诇 专讗砖讛 讜诪谞讬讞讜 转讞转 专讙诇讬讛 讛讬讗 拽砖讟讛 诇讜 驻谞讬讛 诇驻讬讻讱

The baraita continues: And we found this with regard to a sota, that with the measure with which she measured, she is measured with it: She stood by the opening of her house to exhibit herself to her paramour, therefore a priest has her stand at the Gate of Nicanor and exhibits her disgrace to all; she spread beautiful shawls [sudarin] on her head for her paramour, therefore a priest removes her kerchief from her head and places it under her feet; she adorned her face for her paramour, therefore

Scroll To Top