1. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.3-3.4, 9.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sifre, anonymous voice of Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 165, 176| 3.3. "עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִלָּה אָמְרָה אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה, מְגִלָּתָהּ נִגְנֶזֶת, וּמִנְחָתָהּ מִתְפַּזֶּרֶת עַל הַדָּשֶׁן. וְאֵין מְגִלָּתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה לְהַשְׁקוֹת בָּהּ סוֹטָה אַחֶרֶת. נִמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִלָּה וְאָמְרָה טְמֵאָה אָנִי, הַמַּיִם נִשְׁפָּכִין וּמִנְחָתָהּ מִתְפַּזֶּרֶת עַל הַדָּשֶׁן. נִמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִלָּה וְאָמְרָה אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה, מְעַרְעֲרִים אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כָּרְחָהּ: \n", 3.4. "אֵינָהּ מַסְפֶּקֶת לִשְׁתּוֹת עַד שֶׁפָּנֶיהָ מוֹרִיקוֹת וְעֵינֶיהָ בּוֹלְטוֹת וְהִיא מִתְמַלֵּאת גִּידִין, וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים הוֹצִיאוּהָ הוֹצִיאוּהָ, שֶׁלֹּא תְטַמֵּא הָעֲזָרָה. אִם יֶשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת, הָיְתָה תוֹלָה לָהּ. יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁנָה אַחַת, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים. מִכָּאן אוֹמֵר בֶּן עַזַּאי, חַיָּב אָדָם לְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תוֹרָה, שֶׁאִם תִּשְׁתֶּה, תֵּדַע שֶׁהַזְּכוּת תּוֹלָה לָהּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַמְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תוֹרָה, כְּאִלּוּ מְלַמְּדָהּ תִּפְלוּת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, רוֹצָה אִשָּׁה בְקַב וְתִפְלוּת מִתִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין וּפְרִישׁוּת. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה, וְרָשָׁע עָרוּם, וְאִשָּׁה פְרוּשָׁה, וּמַכּוֹת פְּרוּשִׁין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְכַלֵּי עוֹלָם: \n", 9.9. "מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָרַצְחָנִים, בָּטְלָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, מִשֶּׁבָּא אֶלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן דִּינַאי, וּתְחִינָה בֶּן פְּרִישָׁה הָיָה נִקְרָא, חָזְרוּ לִקְרוֹתוֹ בֶּן הָרַצְחָן. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הַמְנָאֲפִים, פָּסְקוּ הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים, וְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי הִפְסִיקָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (הושע ד) לֹא אֶפְקוֹד עַל בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תִזְנֶינָה וְעַל כַּלּוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תְנָאַפְנָה כִּי הֵם וְגוֹ'. מִשֶּׁמֵּת יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, בָּטְלוּ הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מיכה ז) אֵין אֶשְׁכּוֹל לֶאֱכֹל בִּכּוּרָה אִוְּתָה נַפְשִׁי: \n", | 3.3. "If before [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out, she said “I refuse to drink”, her scroll is stored away and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. And her scroll is not valid to be used in giving another sotah to drink. If [the writing on] the scroll has been rubbed out and she said “I am defiled”, the water is poured out and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. If [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out and she said “I refuse to drink”, they open her throat and make her drink by force.", 3.4. "She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And [those who see her] exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. If she had merit, it [causes the water] to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink [the water of bitterness], she should know that the merit suspends its effect. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of food) and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world.", 9.9. "When murderers multiplied, the [ceremony of] breaking a heifer’s neck ceased. That was from the time of Eliezer ben Dinai, and he was also called Tehinah ben Perisha and he was afterwards renamed “son of the murderer”. When adulterers multiplied, the ceremony of the bitter waters ceased and it was Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai who discontinued it, as it is said, “I will not punish their daughters for fornicating, nor their daughters-in-law for committing adultery, for they themselves [turn aside with whores and sacrifice with prostitutes]” (Hosea 4:14). When Yose ben Yoezer of Zeredah and Yose ben Yoha of Jerusalem died, the grape-clusters ceased, as it is said, “There is not a cluster [of grapes] to eat; not a ripe fig I could desire [The pious are vanished from the land, none upright are left among men” (Micah 7:1-2).", |
|
3. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sifre, anonymous voice of Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 175| 3a. אלמא קסברי דאסור לקנאות,ומאן דאמר מותר לקנאות מהו לשון קינוי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אין קינוי אלא לשון התראה וכן הוא אומר (יואל ב, יח) ויקנא ה' לארצו,תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר אדם עובר עבירה בסתר והקב"ה מכריז עליו בגלוי שנאמר (במדבר ה, יד) ועבר עליו רוח קנאה ואין עבירה אלא לשון הכרזה שנאמר (שמות לו, ו) ויצו משה ויעבירו קול במחנה,ריש לקיש אמר אין אדם עובר עבירה אא"כ נכנס בו רוח שטות שנא' (במדבר ה, יב) איש איש כי תשטה אשתו תשטה כתיב,תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפני מה האמינה תורה עד אחד בסוטה שרגלים לדבר שהרי קינא לה ונסתרה ועד אחד מעידה שהיא טמאה,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי והא כי כתיבה קינוי בתר סתירה וטומאה הוא דכתיבה,א"ל ועבר וכבר עבר,אלא מעתה (במדבר לב, כא) ועבר לכם כל חלוץ ה"נ,התם מדכתיב (במדבר לב, כב) ונכבשה הארץ לפני ה' ואחר תשובו משמע דלהבא אלא הכא אי ס"ד כדכתיבי ועבר בתר טומאה וסתירה קינוי למה לי,תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אין אדם מקנא לאשתו אא"כ נכנסה בו רוח שנאמר ועבר עליו רוח קנאה וקנא את אשתו מאי רוח,רבנן אמרי רוח טומאה רב אשי אמר רוח טהרה,ומסתברא כמאן דאמר רוח טהרה דתניא וקנא את אשתו רשות דברי ר' ישמעאל ר"ע אומר חובה אי אמרת בשלמא רוח טהרה שפיר אלא אי אמרת רוח טומאה רשות וחובה לעיולי לאיניש רוח טומאה בנפשיה,גופא וקנא את אשתו רשות דברי רבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא אומר חובה (ויקרא כא, ג) לה יטמא רשות דברי רבי ישמעאל ור"ע אומר חובה,(ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו רשות דברי רבי ישמעאל ר' עקיבא אומר חובה,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ואמרי לה רב משרשיא לרבא לימא ר' ישמעאל ור' עקיבא בכל התורה כולה הכי פליגי דמר אמר רשות ומר אמר חובה א"ל הכא בקראי פליגי,וקנא את אשתו רשות דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר חובה,מ"ט דר' ישמעאל סבר לה כי האי תנא דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר כלפי שאמרה תורה (ויקרא יט, יז) לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך יכול כגון זו ת"ל ועבר עליו רוח קנאה וקנא את אשתו,ור"ע קינוי אחרינא כתיב,ורבי ישמעאל איידי דבעי למיכתב והיא נטמאה והיא לא נטמאה כתיב נמי וקנא את אשתו,לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל פרשה שנאמרה ונישנית לא נישנית אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה,לה יטמא רשות דברי רבי ישמעאל ר' עקיבא אומר חובה,מ"ט דר' ישמעאל איידי דכתי' (ויקרא כא, א) אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן ואמרת אליהם לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו איצטריכא למיכתב לה יטמא,ור' עקיבא מכי (ויקרא כא, ב) אם לשארו נפקא לה יטמא למה לי לחובה,ורבי ישמעאל לה מיטמא ואין מיטמא לאיבריה | 3a. b Apparently, /b both Reish Lakish and Rav Yeimar bar Rabbi Shelemya b hold that /b it is b prohibited to issue a warning. /b Both are of the opinion that the word i kinnui /i is a term for anger. Since causing anger is a negative trait, it follows that it is prohibited to issue a warning.,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b the one who says /b that it is b permitted /b for him b to issue a warning, what is /b the meaning of the b term i kinnui /i ? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: /b The term b i kinnui /i /b means b nothing other /b than b a term of forewarning, and so it says: “Then the Lord warned [ i vayekanneh /i ] concerning His land /b and had pity for His people” (Joel 2:18). As detailed in that passage, the Lord ordered the locusts to stop destroying Eretz Yisrael.,It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: A person commits a transgression in private and the Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about him openly, /b i.e., in public, that he transgressed, b as it is stated /b concerning a i sota /i , who transgressed in private: b “The spirit of jealousy came [ i avar /i ] upon him” /b (Numbers 5:14); b and /b the term b i avira /i /b means b nothing other /b than b a term of proclamation, as it is stated: “And Moses gave the commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed [ i vaya’aviru /i ] throughout the camp” /b (Exodus 36:6)., b Reish Lakish says: A man commits a transgression only if a spirit of folly [ i shetut /i ] enters him, as it is stated: “If any man’s wife goes aside [ i tisteh /i ]” /b (Numbers 5:12). The word i tisteh /i is b written /b with the Hebrew letter i shin /i , affording an alternative reading of b i tishteh /i , /b which is related to the term for folly, the word i shetut /i .,§ The Gemara discusses why the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to defilement. b The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught /b a i baraita /i : b For what /b reason b did the Torah deem credible a single witness with regard to /b the defilement of b a i sota /i ? /b It is b because there is a basis for /b anticipating b the matter, /b as there is strong circumstantial evidence that she committed adultery. What is the basis for anticipating the matter? b As he warned her /b not to seclude herself with a specific man, b and she /b nevertheless b secluded herself /b with him, b and one witness testifies that she is defiled, /b then the combination of her behavior and the testimony renders it reasonable to assume that she has in fact committed adultery., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But when the warning is written /b in the Torah, b it is written /b in the verse b after seclusion and defilement /b 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 i sota /i 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 [ i ve’avar /i ] upon him, and he warned his wife, and she had become defiled” (Numbers 5:13–14).,Abaye b said to him /b in response: That which the verse states: b “And /b the spirit of jealousy b came [ i ve’avar /i ] /b upon him,” means: b And /b it had b already come /b upon him, that the husband warned his wife not to seclude herself with a specific man prior to her seclusion and defilement.,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b that “ i ve’avar /i ” 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: b “And every armed man of you will pass over [ i ve’avar /i ] /b the Jordan” (Numbers 32:21), b so too /b 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.,The Gemara answers: b There, from /b the fact b that it is written: “And the land be subdued before the Lord, and you return afterward” /b (Numbers 32:22), it is clear that it b teaches concerning the future. But here, if it enters your mind /b that the verses should be understood b as they are written /b in the Torah, that b “ i ve’avar /i ” /b (Numbers 5:14) is b after /b the b defilement and seclusion, /b then b why do I /b need b a warning? /b 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 i ve’avar /i in this context must be referring to a past event, i.e., the husband issuing a warning to his wife prior to the seclusion., b 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” /b (Numbers 5:14). The Gemara asks: of b what spirit /b does Rabbi Yishmael speak?, b The Rabbis say: A spirit of impurity, /b as one should not issue a warning to one’s wife. b Rav Ashi says: A spirit of purity, /b as issu-ing a warning indicates that he will not tolerate promiscuous behavior.,The Gemara comments: b And /b it b stands to reason like the one who says /b that Rabbi Yishmael was speaking of b a spirit of purity, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “And he warned his wife,” /b i.e., the issuing of the warning, is b optional, /b that the husband is neither enjoined to nor prohibited from issuing a warning; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: /b It is b mandatory, /b as one who sees his wife behaving in an inappropriate manner with another man is obligated to warn her. The Gemara explains: b Granted, if you say /b that Rabbi Yishmael was speaking of b a spirit of purity, /b then it is b well, /b as it may be optional, or even mandatory, to issue a warning. b But if you say /b that he was speaking of b a spirit of impurity, /b can it be b optional or mandatory for a person to introduce a spirit of impurity into himself? /b The Torah would not require a husband to act in a manner that results from having a spirit of impurity enter him.,§ The Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself. “And he warned his wife,” /b i.e., the warning, is b optional; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And Rabbi Akiva says: /b It is b mandatory. /b 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 i baraita /i teaches: b “For her may he become impure” /b (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 b optional; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. /b A priest is not obligated to participate, but he may. b And Rabbi Akiva says: /b It is b mandatory /b for him to do so.,The verse states: b “of them may you take your bondmen forever” /b (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., keeping one’s Canaanite slave forever, is b optional, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. /b One is not enjoined against emancipating a Canaanite slave, but one is permitted to keep his Canaanite slaves forever. b Rabbi Akiva says: /b It is b mandatory, /b and it is prohibited for one to free his Canaanite slave., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say /b that b Rav Mesharshiyya /b said b to Rava: Shall we say /b that b Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree /b in b this /b manner b with regard to the entire Torah? /b 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, b that /b one b master, /b Rabbi Yishmael, b says /b that it is b optional, and /b the other b master, /b Rabbi Akiva, b says /b that it is b mandatory. /b Abaye b said to /b Rav Pappa in response: b Here, /b in these particular cases, b they disagree with regard to /b the meaning of these specific b verses, /b but it is not a general dispute.,The Gemara explains their dispute in these specific contexts, beginning with the dispute concerning a man’s warning to his wife: b “And he warned his wife,” /b the warning is b optional; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: /b It is b mandatory. /b , b What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? /b He b holds in accordance with /b the statement of b this i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: With regard to /b that b which the Torah said: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” /b (Leviticus 19:17), one b might /b have thought that this prohibition applies in a case b such as this /b one, when one sees his wife behaving improperly with another man, and the verse would instruct the husband to avoid conflict and strife. Therefore, b the verse states: “And the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife” /b (Numbers 5:14), teaching that it is permitted for one to issue a warning to his wife in such a case.,The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Akiva /b derive that it is mandatory? The Gemara answers: There b is another warning written /b 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.,The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Yishmael /b explain the repetition? The Gemara answers: b Since it needed to write /b in this verse both possibilities as to whether the woman was unfaithful: b “And she be defiled,” /b and also: b “And she be not defiled,” /b to teach that although it is uncertain whether she had become defiled, she is still forbidden to her husband, therefore, b it is also written: “And he warned his wife,” /b a second time. This repetition should not be interpreted as rendering the issuance of the warning as mandatory.,This manner of interpreting verses is b as taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage /b in the Torah b that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. /b Although the Torah could have merely mentioned the element necessary to teach an additional i halakha /i , one should not interpret the repetition of a previously mentioned matter as teaching a second additional i halakha /i , as the style of the Torah is to repeat a passage even to teach only one additional i halakha /i . In the case of the passage concerning a i sota /i as well, the repetition of the warning does not teach a new i halakha /i .,The Gemara discusses the second dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The i baraita /i teaches: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, b for her may he become impure” /b (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 b optional; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. /b A priest is not obligated to participate, but he may do so. b Rabbi Akiva says: /b It is b mandatory /b for him to do so., b 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” /b (Leviticus 21:1), indicating that a priest is enjoined from contact with the dead, it b was necessary to be written: “For her may he become impure,” /b which teaches that a priest may become impure at the burial of a relative.,The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Akiva /b derive that it is mandatory? The Gemara answers: He b derives /b that it is permissible b from /b the previous verse, which states: b “Except for his kin, /b that is near to him” (Leviticus 21:2). Since it is derived that it is permitted from that verse, b why do I /b need the additional verse: b “For her may he become impure”? To /b teach that it is b mandatory. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Yishmael /b explain the repetition? The Gemara answers: He explains that the verse teaches that b he may become impure for her, but he may not become impure to /b bury only one of b her limbs. /b This additional verse teaches that a priest may become ritually impure to bury a relative only in the case of burying a complete body. |
|
