diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah/English/merged.json" "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah/English/merged.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah/English/merged.json" @@ -0,0 +1,462 @@ +{ + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Sotah", + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "The laws of the Sotah, the suspected adulteress, are dealt with in Numbers 5:11-31. As they are related in these verses, the procedure is that a man suspects that his wife has been unfaithful to him. The Torah describes him as having a “fit of jealousy”. To find out if his wife has truly been with another man, he brings her to a priest in the Temple, who makes her undergo a “test”, sometimes called an ordeal. The test involves her drinking water which has had mixed into it some earth from the Temple floor and the ink from curses that were written onto a scroll and then rubbed off. The test also involves her taking an oath that she has not committed adultery. She is told that if she lies she will become a cursed woman. There is also an offering of grain that accompanies the test. The test will resolve if she was faithful or not. If she was faithful, she shall become pregnant. But if she was unfaithful, she will be disfigured. ", + "There are many scholarly commentaries on this passage. A good suggestion would be Jacob Milgrom’s commentary on Numbers, published by JPS. A somewhat abbreviated version can be found in Etz Chaim, the Torah commentary used in most Conservative synagogues. The commentaries delve much more deeply into the ritual itself, explaining the symbolism of its elements. They also compare it to other ordeals known in the ancient world, most famously that a suspected adulterous was thrown into a river. If she truly committed adultery, she would die. These kinds of ordeals and distrust of women’s sexuality are difficult for modern readers who are sensitive to men’s domination of women. After all, there is no parallel test for men’s faithfulness. This is not the place for a feminist reading of or commentary on the Sotah passage, but I would suggest that people interested read one of the available feminist Torah commentaries. ", + "There are two main ways in which the rabbis have reinterpreted these verses, both of which demonstrate two key rabbinic values. First of all, the simple sense of the Torah is that the husband is only jealous, and based on his jealous rage alone, he can force his wife to go through this trying ordeal. It does not seem that he needs to bring any proof. The rabbis, on the other hand, force the husband to go through a procedure before he can bring his wife to be tested through the Sotah waters. He must first warn her not to seclude herself with a certain man, and then she must go and seclude herself with that same man. There must be witnesses to both of these procedures. These steps make it more likely that the woman has truly committed adultery, and that she is not just a victim of a jealous rage. ", + "However, the rabbis also make the Sotah ceremony more disgraceful for the woman. Since, according to the procedure prescribed by the rabbis, it is very likely that the sotah is actually guilty of adultery, the rabbis call for her to be publicly shamed. Adultery is one of the worst crimes in Judaism and in many religions. The rabbis see the sotah ceremony as a means of warning women not to be unfaithful to their husbands.", + "Finally, the rabbis also give the woman the right to refuse to drink the Sotah waters. While this refusal will cause her to lose her ketubah, a husband can never force his wife to go through this ordeal.", + "By the time of the late Second Temple period, this ordeal was no longer in practice. ", + "Only the first part of tractate Sotah deals with the Sotah ritual. Through an associative process, the Mishnah talks about a wide array of other rituals. We shall explain their connection when we get to them.", + "Good luck learning Sotah!\n" + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nNumbers 5:14 states, “And a fit of jealousy came upon him and he was jealous about his wife.” The phrase “and he was jealous” is an active verb in Hebrew, and not an adjectival phrase as I have translated it in English. It is as if the verse states “and he jealoused his wife”. The rabbis understand this active verb not to be a state of mind of the husband but rather a warning that the husband states to his wife not to associate with a certain man, the man about whom he has suspicions. Throughout, I will translate this verb “kine” as “warn”. Our mishnah discusses this process. Again, we should note that the sotah ritual cannot be enacted unless there is some type of legal procedure that precedes it. This legal procedure makes it more likely that the husband’s suspicions are true.\nThis mishnah and many others refer to the “bitter waters”. This is the water that the Sotah must drink as part of her test. The phrase comes from Number 5:23.", + "One who warns his wife [not to associate with a certain man]: Rabbi Eliezer says: he warns her on the testimony of two witnesses, and makes her drink [the bitter waters] on the testimony of one witness or on his own testimony. Rabbi Joshua says: he warns her on the testimony of two and makes her drink on the testimony of two. In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall see that the “warning” is a two-part procedure. First the husband must warn her not to associate with a certain man. If after this warning she is secluded with that very man, the husband can take her to the Temple for her to undergo the Sotah test. Without both steps, the Sotah ritual cannot be enacted. In our mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate regarding the testimony necessary for each step. Both rabbis agree that he must warn her in front of two witnesses, the usual number for any legal procedure. They disagree with regard to her seclusion, the final step that will lead the husband to bring her to drink the bitter waters. According to Rabbi Eliezer, even the husband may testify that she was secluded with the man about whom she was warned, and thereby bring her to the Temple to undergo the Sotah test. Rabbi Joshua holds that just as “warning” requires two witnesses, so too does her the final step that will cause her to have to drink the bitter waters." + ], + [ + "How does he warn her?
If he says to her in front of two [witnesses], “Do not speak with that man”, and she spoke with him, she is still permitted to her husband and permitted to eat terumah.
If she entered a private place with him and stayed with him a time sufficient for her to be defiled [by having sexual intercourse with him], she is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to eat terumah. If [her husband] died, she performs halitzah but cannot contract yibbum.
Yesterday’s mishnah taught that a husband cannot bring his wife to drink the Sotah waters unless he has first warned her not to seclude herself with a certain man. Today’s mishnah teaches what constitutes warning and what constitutes her transgression of his warning, such that she is brought to be tested.
Section one: The husband is overly strict in his warning. He suspects that she may be having an adulterous affair with a certain man, so he warns her in front of two witnesses not to even speak with this man. The mishnah teaches that even if she speaks with this man, she is not considered a Sotah. She is still permitted to her husband and, if her husband is a priest, she may still eat terumah. A man cannot prevent his wife from speaking to other men.
Section two: However, if he warned her, and she entered a secluded place with that man, then she is a Sotah, meaning a woman who must be tested before her innocence can be established. Since, she is now under the presumption of being an adulteress, she can no longer have intercourse with her husband. This is according to the rule that adultery forbids a woman from returning to her husband. If she is a priest’s wife, she can no longer eat terumah, since she may no longer be permitted to remain his wife. The woman is still his wife, but the normalcy of their marriage has ceased and therefore, to be strict, the halakhah forbids them to continue to act as man and wife. The fact that she still is his wife is evident from the last halakhah of the mishnah. If her husband died without children and she had a brother, she can no longer undergo the Sotah ritual. She is still required to have halitzah with her husband’s brother, because were she to have undergone the ritual she may have been found to be innocent, in which case the marriage would have returned to normal. However, she cannot have yibbum, because she may have actually been guilty. A wife prohibited to her husband as a Sotah is also prohibited to her yavam.
Note, that this last halakhah is the means by which the mishnah teaches that she is still married to her husband and that the fact that she is prohibited to him and cannot eat terumah are stringencies lest she is actually guilty." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are some women who may be suspected of adultery but who do not have the opportunity or the obligation to drink the Sotah waters which would test her innocence or guilt. Had they passed the test, these women would have been allowed to return to being permitted to have intercourse with their husbands and, if married to a priest, to eat terumah. However, since they can’t drink the water, they cannot stay married to their husbands, nor can they eat terumah.", + "The following are prohibited to eat terumah:
She who says [to her husband], “I am unclean to you”, and witnesses came [and testified] that she was unclean; The Sotah ritual is meant to test a case where adultery is questionable. If the woman admits that she committed adultery, the ritual is no longer necessary and hence forbidden. Note that in the last mishnah in Nedarim, the mishnah ruled that a woman who states “I am unclean to you” is not forbidden to her husband. However, in this mishnah, after her husband had warned her, it is more likely that she really has committed adultery and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. The Talmud notes that it is obvious that if witnesses came that she is not a Sotah. Witnesses who testify to her having committed adultery certify her as an adulterous, and not a “suspected adulteress”. Therefore, the Talmud understands that the mishnah refers to a situation where she has already undergone the Sotah ritual and seemingly has not been ill-effected by the bitter waters, and then witnesses came and testified that she was unclean. The Talmud rules that the witnesses who state her guilt are greater than the waters which state her innocence. This is another example of the remarkable power given to human beings in rabbinic law. The divine, magical test of the bitter waters is less accurate than the normal human measure of testimony.", + "She who says, “I refuse to drink [the water]”. The husband cannot force his wife to undergo the Sotah ritual, a ritual that as we shall see was humiliating and probably frightening for the woman. Her husband must divorce her and he need not pay her ketubah, but he cannot force her to drink the bitter waters.", + "She whose husband does not want to make her drink [the water]: In this case, the husband does not want to make her drink the bitter waters, but she wants to. Perhaps he regrets having suspected his wife, or perhaps he himself will be embarrassed when everyone sees that he has made his wife into a Sotah. The mishnah rules that although he doesn’t want her to drink the waters, he cannot return to having her as his wife. Once he has gone through the process of warning her and her having been caught secluded with that person, it is too late to resume the marriage. He must divorce her, and since he is the one who doesn’t want her to drink, he must pay her the ketubah.", + "And she whose husband had intercourse with her on the journey. How does [the husband] deal with her? He brings her to the court in the place where he resides, and they assign to him two disciples of the sages lest he have intercourse with her on the journey. Rabbi Judah says, her husband is trusted with her. From the moment that she has been secluded with the man about whom she was warned, she and her husband are prohibited from having sexual relations. Just as adulterous women may not return to their husbands, so too suspected adulteresses may not. If he nevertheless has sexual relations with her on his way to the Temple to test her, he has committed a sin. The Talmud teaches that the Sotah ritual only works for a husband who is free from transgression. A husband who himself has transgressed the laws of forbidden sexual relations, may not bring his wife to test her. The mishnah is also stating that a husband cannot accuse his wife of being an adulteress and then keep living with her as usual. That would be hypocritical. This is a small measure of egalitarianism in Mishnah Sotah. We shall also see later the idea that just as the waters check her, they check him as well. The mishnah notes a problem. How can the husband accompany his wife on their way to Jerusalem to the Temple, without transgressing the prohibition? The fear is that while traveling and being secluded at night, the husband will have relations with her. The solution is that two disciples of the sages accompany them on their trip. Rabbi Judah holds that a husband is trusted not to have relations with his wife at times when she is prohibited to him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah now begins to describe the process of bringing the sotah to the Temple. First the judges warn her just how serious the ceremony and its consequences are. The point of this admonition and of all of what they say to her is to convince her to admit to her guilt so that the name of God will not be rubbed out from the scroll onto the water, as mandates the ceremony.", + "They bring her up to the great court which is in Jerusalem, and [the judges] solemnly admonish her in the same way that they admonish witnesses in capital cases. And they say to her, “My daughter, much is done by wine does much, much is done by frivolity, much is done by youth, much is done by bad neighbors. For the sake of His great name which is written in holiness do it so that it may not be rubbed out on the water.” And they say to her matters which neither she nor all the family of her father's house is worthy to hear. In capital cases, the judges warn the witnesses that if they testify falsely, an innocent man will be executed. Similarly, here they warn the woman, that if she lies drastic results will occur. For the warning given to witnesses, see Sanhedrin 4:5. The judges also tell her that many things might have caused her to commit adultery and while these do not excuse her sin, they make her sin more understandable. They are telling her that she should not be shamed of admitting her guilt. They implore her not to go through with the ceremony, because part of the ceremony involves writing God’s name on a scroll and then rubbing it out. This is a great desecration and should only be done under the most dire of circumstances. Finally, they tell her things which the mishnah doesn’t even want to mention. Note that according to the mishnah, her family came along with her. Assumedly they are there to defend her, and hope that she is found innocent. The Talmud relates that they tell her stories where Biblical characters admitted to their sins. For example, Judah admits that he sinned with Tamar (Genesis 39:26)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins to describe the Sotah ritual. I should make at this point a general note about the process. We are going to encounter now a ceremony that was intended to disgrace the woman. I believe that the rabbis thought that by disgracing women who actually went through with the ceremony, they would discourage the ceremony from ever taking place. Furthermore, the public humiliation would serve to deter others from committing the same crimes. Finally, as I pointed out in the introduction to Sotah, it is likely that this woman has indeed committed adultery, for she secluded herself with the same man about whom her husband warned her. Nevertheless, we should appreciate how harsh the process is for the woman and that especially for the innocent woman who would have been dragged through the process, it would have been a trauma.", + "If she said, “I am defiled to you”, she gives him a receipt for her ketubah and goes out [with a get]. If, after the warnings are stated to her, she admits that she did commit adultery, she does not drink the Sotah waters. Rather, she loses her ketubah, gives her husband a receipt for the ketubah (even though she didn’t receive it), and is divorced. Note that she is not tried as an adulterer since, even if there were witnesses, she was not warned about the consequences of her act when she committed adultery. In general, as we learned in Sanhedrin, it is exceedingly difficult in Jewish law to convict a person of a capital crime.", + "But if she says, “I am pure”, they bring her up to the east gate, Nicanor’s gate, where they give women suspected of adultery the water to drink, purify women after childbirth and purify lepers. If she continues to insist that she is innocent, she is brought to the east gate of the Temple. The mishnah notes that two other ceremonies were also performed at this gate. There women who had given birth waited while the priests offered their sacrifices which are mandatory for a woman to purify herself after birth (Leviticus 12:6-7) and there lepers waited while priests offered their purificatory sacrifices (Leviticus 14:11). Neither lepers nor women who had given birth could go further into the Temple courtyards since they were impure until their sacrifices were offered.", + "A priest seizes her clothing if they are torn, then they are torn, and if they become unstitched, then they are unstitched, until he uncovers her bosom, and he undoes [the braids of] her hair. Rabbi Judah says: if her bosom was beautiful he does not uncover it, and if her hair was beautiful he does not undo it. The mishnah prescribes that the priest publicly shame her. Part of the function of this process was to deter others from committing the same sin. By publicly at least partially stripping her and undoing her hair, the nature of her crime would be literally and figuratively laid bare to all. Rabbi Judah seems to note that this process may have had an opposite effect. While it is intended to deter others it may have served as a source of titillation. Therefore, if the effect of baring her bosom, or undoing her hair would serve to arouse others for she is a beautiful woman, it is not to be done." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to describe the public humiliation which the Sotah must undergo.", + "If she was clothed in white, he clothes her in black. If she wore gold jewelry or necklaces, ear-rings and finger-rings, they remove them from her in order to make her repulsive. The Sotah is not allowed to continue to wear clothes or jewelry that make her more beautiful.", + "After that [the priest] takes a rope made of twigs and binds it over her breasts. After the clothes were torn (see previous mishnah), the priest uses a coarse rope to tie them above her breasts. She is not meant to stand there naked, but rather just disheveled.", + "Whoever wishes to look upon her comes to look with the exception of her male and female slaves, since she has no shame in front of them. The mishnah allows, indeed encourages, the Sotah to be made into a public spectacle. Anyone who wishes to look at her can do so. The only exceptions are her male and female slaves, for they are accustomed to seeing her at her most intimate moments. Seeing them might encourage her not to admit to her crime, and one of the goals of the ceremony is for her to crime.", + "All of the women are permitted to look upon her, as it is said, “That all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48). The Talmud understands that not only are other women permitted to look at her, but they are actually obligated to look at her. This is learned from Ezekiel who says that other women shall see the adulteress punished and will not repeat her crimes. Note that the chapter in Ezekiel uses the metaphor of adultery to describe Israel’s “whoring” itself after foreign Gods. The vivid descriptions of her crimes and the description of her punishment are reflections of the punishment of adulteresses." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah and those that follow are about the concept “measure for measure”. The Sotah’s humiliation and punishment fits her crime of adultery.", + "In the measure with which a person metes out to others, they mete out to him. She adorned herself for a sin; the Omnipresent made her repulsive. She exposed herself for a sin; the Omnipresent exposed her. She began the transgression with the thigh and afterwards with the womb; therefore she is punished first in the thigh and afterwards in the womb, nor does all the body escape. According to the theology of this mishnah, God acts upon a person in relation to that person’s actions. So too, the Torah’s punishments for the Sotah are commensurate with her crimes. The mishnah now illustrates this. She is made repulsive, her clothes are ripped and her hair is torn, in response to her adorning herself in preparation for adultery. She is exposed for all to see, because she exposed herself to her lover. Finally, the Torah states that if the waters find her to be guilty, her thigh and then womb (belly) will be disfigured. These are two of the areas of her body that were involved in the affair. She exposed to him her thigh, which is often understood to be the genitalia, and then she allowed him to enter her womb. The mishnah notes that this is only the beginning of her curse. She should not think that only her thigh and belly will be disfigured. Rather they are just the start." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss cases where a person is punished in correspondence to his crime. This is more than someone receiving his “just desserts”. Rather it is the idea that the part of the body that sinned is directly punished, or that the precise details of the sin are replayed on the body of the one who committed the crime.\nThe two examples in our mishnah are Samson and Absalom, David’s rebellious son.", + "Samson went after [the desire of] his eyes; therefore the Philistines put out his eyes, as it is said, “And the Philistines laid hold of him, and put out his eyes” (Judges 16:2. In Judges 14:3 Samson tells his father concerning the Philistine woman in Timnah, “Get that one for me, for she is fitting in my eyes.” From here we can see that he sinned by following the lusts of his eyes. Therefore, his eyes were put out by the Philistines. Interestingly, this is literally a case of “an eye for an eye.” While the rabbis believed that the actual “eye for an eye” law was not meant to be taken literally, the aggadic idea that one who sins with his eyes will be punished there as well, is an accepted idea.", + "Absalom was proud of his hair, therefore he was hanged by his hair. II Samuel 14:25-26 deals with Absalom’s pride in his hair at some length. Here it is even stated how much his hair was worth when he cut it once a year. His pride in his hair led to his being punished, or ensnared, by his hair. As he was riding on his mule his hair was entangled in a terebinth and he was wrenched off the mule and unable to get free. [I guess there are some advantages to being bald!] This is how he was caught and executed.", + "And because he had relations with the ten of his father’s concubines, therefore [they thrust] ten spears in him, as it is said, “And ten of Joab’s young arms-bearers closed in [and struck Absalom until he died]” (II Samuel 18:15). The mishnah continues to discuss Absalom. As part of his usurping of his father’s power, he had relations with ten of David’s concubines (II Samuel 16:22). Therefore, he was punished by ten of Joab’s arms-bearers.", + "And because he stole three hearts, the heart of his father, the heart of the court, and the heart of Israel, as it is said, “So Absalom stole the hearts of the people of Israel” (II Samuel 15:6), therefore three darts were driven into him, as it is said, “And he took three darts in his hand, and drove them through the heart of Absalom” (II Samuel 18:1. Absalom managed to get his father, the court and indeed all of Israel to love him, or at least to follow him. This is called “stealing hearts”, for Absalom did not truly deserve the adoration which he received. Therefore, as a parallel to his stealing other people’s hearts, he was punished by Joab thrusting three darts into his heart and killing him." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe previous two mishnayoth taught that people are punished in a manner that fits their crime. Our mishnah gives a message of hope by teaching that people are also rewarded in a manner that fits their good deeds. This idea reminds me of what we were constantly told as children: if you want a friend you have to be a friend. The examples of good deeds in this mishnah are those of kindness, waiting for people in their time need and especially taking care of the dead, which is considered the highest act of kindness in Judaism.\nWe should also note that whereas a person received punishments commensurate to his sin, the rewards are greater than the good deed performed.", + "The same is true for good.
Miriam waited one hour for Moses, as it is said, “And his sister stood afar off”, (Exodus 2:4), therefore Israel was delayed for her seven days in the wilderness, as it is said, “And the people did not journey until Miriam was brought in again” (Numbers 12:15). Miriam watched baby Moses while he was in the basket in the Nile, and in return, when she was struck by leprosy, the entire people of Israel waited for her for seven full days.", + "Joseph had the merit of burying his father and there was none among his brothers greater than he, as it is said, “And Joseph went up to bury his father…and there both chariots and horsemen went up with him” (Exodus 50:7,9). Whom do we have who is greater than Joseph since none other than Moses occupied himself [with his burial]? Moses had the merit [to bury] the bones of Joseph and there was none in Israel greater than he, as it is said, “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19). Whom do have greater than Moses since none other than the Omnipresent was occupied [with his burial], as it is said, “And He buried him in the valley” (Deuteronomy 34:6)? Not only concerning Moses did they say this, but concerning all the righteous, as it is said, “And your righteousness shall go before your, the presence of God shall gather you [in death]” (Isaiah 58:8). This entire section is concerned with burial. Joseph buried his father and as a reward, Moses took Joseph’s bones out of Egypt so that they could be buried in the promised land. As a reward for ensuring that Joseph’s bones received a proper burial, God Himself took care of burying Moses. The mishnah ends by stating that this is not only a history lesson but a message for the future as well. God takes care of the burial of the righteous. I can’t help but think about the many Jews (and righteous Gentiles, for the mishnah does not limit this to Jews) who in the past century have not receive proper burials. The idea that God takes care of those whom humans can’t take care of, is certainly one of great comfort." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAs part of the Sotah ritual, Numbers 5:15 states, “And he shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. No oil shall be poured upon it and no frankincense shall be laid on it, for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of remembrance which recalls transgression.”\nFrom this passage we can already see that this meal-offering differs from other meal-offerings and that it is not a “fancy” offering, but rather base. Most of our mishnah is based on this passage, but the sages add a few flourishes of their own to the baseness of this meal-offering.", + "[The husband] brings her meal-offering in a basket of palm-twigs and places it upon her hands in order to weary her. With all other meal-offerings, their beginning and their end are in ministering vessels; but with this, its beginning is in a basket of palm-twigs and its end in a ministering vessel. Numbers 5:18 states that the husband places the meal offering on his wife’s hands. The mishnah reads this as an attempt to tire her out, and thereby convince her to admit her guilt and avoid the ceremony. Again, we see that the rabbis are trying to avoid at all costs the enactment of the ceremony, for this will cause God’s name to be rubbed out. The mishnah adds to the humiliation, or at least lack of adornment of the ceremony, by stating that unlike all other meal-offerings, which are brought and then brought back in ministering vessels of gold and silver, this one is initially put into a simple reed basket.", + "All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense, but this requires neither oil nor frankincense. This rule is stated explicitly in the verse from Numbers.", + "All other meal-offerings come from wheat, but this comes from barley. Barley was considered a much coarser grain than wheat. The fact that the Torah demands that the Sotah’s meal-offering be brought from barley is again evidence of the fact that it is almost like animal food, as Rabban Gamaliel states below.", + "The meal-offering of the Omer, although it comes from barley, was in the form of sifted flour; but this comes from unsifted flour. The mishnah notes that there is one other meal-offering that was also brought from barley. What distinguishes the Omer offering from that of the Sotah is the fact that the former is sifted and the latter is not.", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so her offering [consisted of] animal's fodder. The final note of our mishnah is clearly where the whole passage was headed. The meal-offering of the Sotah is symbolic of her (albeit) alleged crime of adultery. Uncontrolled sexuality is not proper behavior for human beings; it is behavior fit for an animal. To symbolize this, the Torah and Rabbis made the Sotah’s meal-offering close to animal food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to describe the Sotah process. This mishnah is an expansion of that described in Numbers 5:17.", + "[The priest] takes an earthenware bowl and pours half a log of water into it from the laver. Rabbi Judah says: a quarter [of a log]. Just as [Rabbi Judah] reduces the amount of writing, so he reduces the quantity of water. We should note that the mishnah is now beginning to follow the order of the verses which describe the Sotah ritual in Numbers 5. Verse 15 describes the minhah sacrifice (yesterday’s mishnah) and verse 17 describes the water in the earthenware bowl, into which the name of God will be rubbed out. The verse only says that the priest takes some water, but it does not say where he takes it from. The mishnah adds that it is taken from the laver (the sink, for those of you who speak normal English). There is a debate about how much water is to be put into the bowl, but in either case the amount of water is just sufficient to absolve the ink from God’s name. Rabbi Judah gives a smaller measurement for the water since he prescribes the least amount of writing (see tomorrow’s mishnah).", + "[Then the priest] enters the temple and turns to his right and there was a place there [on the floor] that was a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet, to which a ring was attached. When he would lift this up, he would take some dust from beneath it which he puts [into the bowl] so that it would be seen on top of the water; as it is said, “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17). The Torah states that the priest should take some dust from the floor of the Tabernacle and put it into the bowl. In the Temple floor was a special tile with a ring attached to it so that the priest would have dirt available. The priest would pull on the ring, lift up the tile and take from the dust underneath. In other words, the Temple was built so that this ceremony could take place with relative ease. As far as the function of the earth, it seems likely that it was considered to be imbued with a certain holy power that would aid in testing the guilt/innocence of the Sotah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter putting the meal offering on the hand of the woman, the priest begins to write the curse on a scroll (Numbers 5:23). Later, he will state this curse or curses to the woman and then the writing will be rubbed out into the water and she will drink the mixture.\nIn our mishnah there is a debate about how much he writes on the scroll.", + "He now comes to write the scroll.
From what place [in Scripture] does he write? From “If no man has lain with you … but if you have gone astray while married to your husband” (Numbers 5:19-20). He does not write, “Then the priest shall cause the woman to swear” (v. 21), but continues, “May the Lord make you a curse and an imprecation … And may this water that induces the spell enter your body make your belly swell, and your thigh to sag.” (vs. 21-22) He does not write “And the woman shall say, ‘amen, amen’” (vs. 22). Rabbi Yose says: he makes no omissions. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, the priest does not begin with the curses which begin in verse 21, but begins to copy into the scroll a couple of verses earlier, with the circumstances of her being brought for the test, mentioned in verses 19-20. However, anything that is a directive to the priest about what to do, he does not write. Rabbi Yose says that he does not omit anything, but rather writes straight from verse 19 through the end of verse 22.", + "Rabbi Judah says: he writes nothing except, ““May the Lord make you a curse and an imprecation … And may this water that induces the spell enter your body make your belly swell, and your thigh to sag.” (vs. 21-2 He does not write “And the woman shall say, ‘amen, amen’” (vs. 22). Rabbi Judah disagrees regarding the point from where the priest begins to write. Verses 19-20 are not part of the curses mentioned in verse 23, and hence they are not written." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches upon what material the priest writes the curses and with what type of ink.", + "He writes neither on a [wooden] tablet nor on papyrus nor on rough parchment but on a [parchment] scroll, as it is said, “In a scroll” (Numbers 5:23). The Torah states “sefer” which means a scroll made of parchment (animal hide). Hence other materials cannot be used.", + "Nor does he write with a [preparation of] gum or sulphate of copper or with anything which makes an impression [on the parchment] but with ink, as it is said, “And he will blot it out” (ibid.) writing which is capable of being blotted out. The writing on the scroll will eventually be rubbed out into the water. Hence, he cannot use permanent types of ink, which can’t be rubbed out. He also cannot use something which scratches/indents the scroll for then even after being erased, the curses will be left on the scroll." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAfter the curses are recited, the woman responds “Amen, amen”. “Amen” is a Biblical expression of agreement. Due to it frequent use in prayer, it is to this day one of the most familiar Hebrew words (my mother says that when pregnant with me I used to kick when my father said “amen”☺).\nOur mishnah deals with the repetition of the word “amen”. Why does she say the same word twice? To what exactly is she responding “Amen, amen”? Note that the mishnah accepts a multiplicity of answers to these questions, for they do not necessarily contradict each other.", + "To what does she respond “Amen, amen”?
“Amen” over the curse and “amen” over the oath; Verse 19 contains an oath to which she must agree. The oath is that she is not guilty of the sin of adultery. Verse 21 uses the word “alah”, a curse that if she has committed adultery the following things shall happen to her. According to the first interpretation of “amen, amen” in our mishnah, the first “amen” is to the curse and the second “amen” is to the oath.", + "“Amen” with respect to this man and “amen” with respect to any other man. Although the warning she received not to seclude herself, had been specific to a certain man, i.e. “don’t seclude yourself with so-and-so” (see chapter one, mishnah one), our mishnah teaches that when she drinks the water, it tests her for adultery with others as well.", + "“Amen” that I did not go astray as a betrothed girl or married woman or a shomeret yavam or a woman taken into [her yavam’s] house. She must affirm that she did not commit adultery at any point in the marriage. In a regular marriage this means both during betrothal and after marriage. In a levirate marriage this means from the time that her husband died while she was waiting for her brother-in-law to marry her (this is the “shomeret yavam”, for more info see the intro to Yevamoth), or after she had entered her yavam’s (her brother-in-law’s) house as his levirate wife.", + "“Amen” that I have not been defiled and if I have, may [these curses] come upon me. This is a different type of interpretation of the words “amen, amen”. The first “amen” is her affirmation that she did not commit adultery; the second “amen” is her acceptance of the curses that will be visited upon her. Some commentators say that this section is an expansion of the first section.", + "Rabbi Meir says: “Amen” that I have not been defiled and the “amen” that I will not become defiled in the future. Rabbi Meir believes that the waters are effective even for future adultery. At this point she affirms that she has not committed adultery in the past and that should she do so in the future, the waters will bring their curse upon her at that later time." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToward the end of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that when the woman says “amen, amen” she is agreeing not just to the fact that she didn’t already commit adultery with the person, but that she will not do so in the future. Our mishnah limits the stipulations to which her husband can make her swear.", + "All agree that he cannot make a stipulation with her with regard to the time before she was betrothed or after she is divorced. The husband cannot use this oath to make her swear that she didn’t have pre-marital relations or that she won’t have post-marital relations with the person about whom he warned her, or with any other person for that matter. As we see at the end of this mishnah, the husband cannot use this opportunity to prevent her from having permitted sexual relations.", + "If she secludes herself [with the man about whom she was warned, but after being divorced] and was defiled and subsequently [her husband] took her back, he cannot make a stipulation with her [in regard to this]. In this case, the husband warned her not to be secluded with a certain man, and then he divorced her. She then went and had relations with that man, which was permitted now that she is divorced. Subsequently the original husband remarried her. Note that she can remarry her first husband so long as she has not been remarried (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4). If she were now again to be secluded with the other man, she becomes a sotah. However, her husband cannot make her swear that she didn’t have relations with the other man during the in-between period, before she was remarried.", + "This is the general rule: any with whom she has intercourse and was not prohibited to him [at that time] the husband cannot make a stipulation on this. As we have already stated, the husband cannot make a stipulation to which she must swear with regard to any sexual relations which was permitted when it took place. This section summarizes that rule." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nNumbers 5:25 reads, “Then the priest shall take from the woman’s hand the meal offering of jealousy, and wave the meal-offering before the Lord, and present it on the altar.” Our mishnah explains and paraphrases this verse.\nInterestingly, the Mishnah never describes the rubbing out of God’s name, although this is alluded to. Perhaps the activity was too frightful to even be described.", + "He takes her meal-offering out of the basket of palm-twigs and places it in a ministering vessel and sets it upon her hand. And the priest places his hand under hers and waves it. Above in mishnah one we learned that the meal offering was in the woman’s hands, in a basket of palm twigs. The priest now takes the offering and puts it in a ministering vessel, one of the normal vessels used in the Temple, as is customary for all meal offerings. The Torah does not state that the woman aids in the waving of the meal offering. However, the rabbis learned that all meal offerings are jointly waved by their owners and by the priest." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to outline the process of the Sotah ritual. We should note that the Torah is ambiguous with regard to when the woman drinks the water. Numbers 5:24 says that the priest gives the sotah to drink, and then vs. 25-26 describe the sacrifice of the meal offering. However, the end of vs. 26 states “and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water.” Hence this point is debated in our mishnah.", + "He waves it, he brings it near [the altar], he takes a handful and he turns it into smoke, and then the remainder is eaten by the priests. This section is a paraphrase of vs. 25-26. In yesterday’s mishnah the priest took the meal offering from the Sotah, and in today’s mishnah he offers it. This includes waving it (which was actually described in yesterday’s mishnah), bringing it to the altar, and finally taking a handful and burning it. The remainder can be eaten by the priests, as can most offerings.", + "He [first] gives [her the water] to drink, and then sacrifices her meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon says: he sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink, as it is said, “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26), but if he gave her to drink and then sacrificed her meal-offering it is valid. According to the first opinion, the woman drinks the water and then the meal offering is sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon says that the opposite order is preferable. However, even according to Rabbi Shimon, if the priest performed the steps in the order prescribed by the previous opinion they are valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe Mishnah has now arrived at the critical moment, right before she is about to drink the bitter waters. She is given one last opportunity to refuse to drink or to admit to her crime.", + "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. She may refuse to drink the water any time until the writing on the scroll has been rubbed out onto the water. At this point she need not admit that she had been defiled through adultery. However, she does lose her ketubah, as she would had she refused to drink at any other point in the process. At this point, the scroll has already been written and her meal offering has already been prepared. The scroll cannot be used by another sotah, rather it is stored away. According to the Palestinian Talmud, it is hidden in the hinges of the doors to the Temple’s entrance. There it will become worn out quickly. The meal offering cannot be eaten or used for another purpose; rather it must be burned by spreading it out upon the ashes (but not upon the altar).", + "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. If the writing had already been rubbed out, she may no longer refuse to drink the water without admitting her guilt. If she does try to do so, she can be forced to drink the water. However, even at this very late stage she may admit her guilt and thereby avoid drinking the water. If she does so, the water is spilled out and as before, the meal offering is burned on the ashes. We can see that the rabbis wanted to do just about everything possible to allow her to avoid drinking the water." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins by describing what happens immediately after the sotah drinks the water.\nThe second half of the mishnah broaches the idea that if the woman has some type of “merit” the effect that the waters have on her is delayed, even if she did commit adultery.\nPart of this mishnah deals with women studying Torah, an issue which is of great importance in our society. We should remember that in the past century great advances were made in providing women with proper education in Torah. Some of the statements in this mishnah are, to put it mildly, not flattering to women and do not reflect the society in which we live or women’s place in that society. In my commentary on this mishnah I shall not delve deeply into this issue and the different ways in which this mishnah has been understood. Rather I refer the reader to Judith Hauptman’s excellent book “Rereading the Rabbis”. Professor Hauptman teaches at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and her book contains some sensible statements on this mishnah in particular and on the rabbi’s attitudes’ towards women in general. Another interesting book, although very different than Hauptman’s, is Daniel Boyarin’s classic “Carnal Israel”, which also contains a chapter on women studying Torah.", + "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”. The mishnah begins by describing the potentially immediate effects of the water. The people who see her scream that she must immediately be removed, lest she defile the Temple. I should note that this defilement is probably not of the typical ritual defilement, but rather a type of moral defilement. The Torah often describes three sins which defile but not in the same way that things such as a dead body, menstruation or leprosy defile ritually: murder, sexual sins (adultery and incest) and idol worship. These sins defile in such a way that their defilement cannot be easily removed through a standard purificatory process (i.e. a mikveh). As an adulteress, this woman’s mere presence in the Temple is perceived as dangerous.", + "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. The mishnah now introduces the idea that if she had some sort of merit, the water will not take immediate effect but its effect will be delayed. It is hard to tell whether the mishnah expects that such effect can be delayed indefinitely. The Talmud lists some ways in which a woman can gain merit and thereby defer the effects of the water. Besides Torah study which the sages debate below, the ways that the Talmud anticipates a woman’s merit involve her children or her husband. For instance, she can bring her children to school, or wait for her husband outside when she anticipates that he will be returning from a journey.", + "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. All the rabbis who debate agree that the most effective way for a person to gain merit is to study Torah. This is after all, perhaps the highest value in the rabbinic value system. However, the rabbis debate whether or not she should learn Torah. According to Ben Azzai, a father should teach his daughter Torah. His reasoning is somewhat strange. He holds that she should learn Torah so that if she drinks the waters and they do not take effect, she will not believe that the waters are ineffective but rather she will chalk it up to her Torah study. Doubt about the waters may cause her to believe that in the future she could get away with adultery again. In other words, teaching a daughter Torah is actually a means of preventing her from committing further adultery.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Eliezer says the opposite. If the girl learns Torah she will think that as long as she learns Torah, she is “free” to commit adultery, for she will be protected against the effects of the bitter waters.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. The connection between Rabbi Joshua’s statement and those which precede it is unclear. Rabbi Joshua says that a woman prefers the sexual company of her husband (or another man) even more than she does extra money to buy more things. Practically speaking, she does not want him to travel on business but would rather him stay home to be with her. “Sexual company” in this statement has a negative connotation. Perhaps, Rabbi Joshua is saying that she does not realize the sacrifice of sexuality that Torah study requires, and hence it is not an appropriate endeavor for her.", + "He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world. This statement is an addendum to the mishnah, brought here because it was said by Rabbi Joshua and it also makes reference to a woman who separates herself. There are four types of people that destroy the world: 1) A foolish pietist. This is illustrated as a man who for matters of modesty does not rescue a drowning woman. 2) A cunning wicked person. One way that this is illustrated is that he is lenient when he makes rulings for himself and stringent when it comes to rulings for other people. 3) The word which I have translated as “separatist” can also be translated as “Pharisee”, but I believe that in this mishnah it does not refer to a woman who was a member of this Second Temple political party. Rather, it refers to a woman who separates herself too much from sexual relations. Abstinence is not the ideal proposed by Rabbi Joshua, nor almost any rabbi. Rather his ideal is one of moderation. 4) In this clause the “separatists” probably does refer to the Pharisees. Rabbi Joshua is referring to hypocritical Pharisees, who strike and flagellate themselves in order to make themselves look pious, when in reality they are not so. We can see that Rabbi Joshua portrays an ideal of religious honesty and moderation and is deeply skeptical of outward acts of zealousness. This attitude of inner, rational, non-zealous piety is, in my mind, the ideal portrayal of the righteous Jew." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn our mishnah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] argue whether or not merit suspends the effect of the bitter waters.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: merit does not suspend the effect of the bitter waters, and if you say that merit does suspend the effect of the bitter waters, you discredit the water in the case of all the women who drink it and defame the pure woman who drank it, since people will say, “They were defiled”, but their merit caused suspended the effect. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the previous mishnah and holds that merit does not suspend the effect of the bitter waters (the sotah waters). What is most interesting about Rabbi Shimon’s position is that his argument is practical. If the effects were suspended, the test would be rendered far less effective. First of all, women will not fear drinking the water, for they will reason that their accumulated merit will aid them in avoiding their punishment. This is similar to Rabbi Eliezer’s argument not to teach daughter’s Torah, which we saw in the previous mishnah. Secondly, not only will the waters not have their desired effect in deterring potential adulteresses, they will not clear the good name of women who are truly innocent. People who see that the woman who drank the water has not been affected will assume that it was because of her merits, and not because of her overall innocence.", + "Rabbi says: merit suspends the effect of the bitter waters, but she never bears a child or thrives, rather she gradually becomes disfigured and finally dies through that death. Rabbi seems to reach a compromise position, between that of Rabbi Shimon and that of the previous mishnah. Merit does suspend the effects of the water, but not absolutely. It only slows down the slow process of disfigurement, the curse mentioned in the Torah. If the woman were innocent, she would become pregnant and give birth, as is promised in Numbers 5:28. However, if she is guilty but has some merit, she will not give birth, her condition will not improve, but rather she will slowly deteriorate until she dies from the type of death promised to her by the Torah. In this way, even though merit does suspend the effect, this does not discredit the effect of the bitter waters, nor does it cause people to be suspicious of pure women." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with situations in which the sotah’s meal offering cannot be offered. Mishnah three above already stated that there are some situations in which the meal offering is burned whole and none of it is eaten by the priests. Our mishnah lists three reasons why the meal offering may be burned: 1) it was defiled through contact with something which defiles, i.e. a dead body; 2) the woman does not end up drinking the water; 3) she was the wife of a priest.", + "If her meal-offering became defiled before it was sanctified in the ministering vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings [similarly defiled] and can be redeemed. But if [it became defiled] after it had been sanctified in the ministering vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings [similarly defiled] and it is burned. This section explains what happens if the meal offering is defiled. These rules for the sotah’s meal offering are no different than those other meal offerings. Before the offering has been put into the ministering vessel, if it was defiled it can be redeemed. This is performed by taking money and “purchasing” the offering and then using that same money to buy another offering. However, once it has entered the ministering vessel it has been sanctified. If after this point it is defiled, it cannot be redeemed but rather must be burned.", + "These are the ones whose meal-offerings are burned: She who says, “I am defiled to you”; And when witnesses came [and testified] that she had been defiled; She who says “I refuse to drink”, She whose husband refuses to let her drink; And she whose husband had relations with her on the journey [to Jerusalem]. These are all cases in which the woman cannot drink the water or doesn’t drink the water because she refuses. All of these cases have been mentioned in various mishnayoth above. In these cases if the meal offering had already been put into a ministering vessel, it can no longer be redeemed and must be burned.", + "And the meal-offerings of all women married to priests are burned. The meal offerings of priests are never eaten; rather they are always wholly burned on the altar. This is stated specifically in Leviticus 6:16. However, unlike a regular meal offering of a priest, the meal offering of the sotah married to the priest does have a handful taken out and turned into smoke on the altar, as described in mishnah two. Once the handful is taken out, the rest is burned upon the ashes. Since the priestly husband has part share in his wife’s offering, it cannot be eaten." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the last clause of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that the meal offering of a priest is not eaten and neither is the meal offering of a sotah who is married to a priest. Our mishnah compares several laws concerning priests, their wives and their daughters.", + "The meal-offering of the daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest is burned. But the meal-offering of the daughter of a priest who is married to an Israelite is eaten. With regard to the eating of the meal offering, what matters is whether or not she is married to a priest and not whether or not she is the daughter of a priest. If she is married to a priest she takes on his status and if she is married to an Israelite, she takes on his status.", + "What [differences are there in law] between a priest and a priest's daughter? The meal-offering of a priest’s daughter is eaten but the meal-offering of a priest is not eaten. The mishnah now begins to examine in general the difference in law between priests and their daughters. The meal offering of a priest’s daughter is eaten, even if she is not married to an Israelite. Only the meal-offering of a priest himself is not eaten.", + "A priest’s daughter may become deconsecrated, but a priest does not become deconsecrated. If a priest’s daughter has sexual intercourse with someone to whom she is prohibited to marry, she becomes a halalah, or “deconsecrated.” As a halalah, she can not subsequently marry a priest nor can she eat terumah. However, if a priest has sexual relations with someone prohibited to him, such as a divorcee, he does not become a halal, “deconsecrated.” The prohibited sexual relations do not impact his class status.", + "A priest’s daughter may defile herself by contact with the dead, but a priest may not defile himself by contact with the dead. Leviticus 21 teaches that priests may not defile themselves through contact with the dead, with the exception of their immediate family. These laws apply only to male priests and not to their daughters.", + "A priest eats of the most holy things, but a priest’s daughter may not eat of the most holy things. Leviticus 6:22 and 7:6 state explicitly, “Only the males in the priestly line may eat of it: it is most holy.” Women may not therefore eat most holy things, which include certain sacrifices. However, they may eat other sacrifices which do not fall into this category." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday’s mishnah dealt with the differences between males and females born into priestly families; today’s mishnah deals with general differences in law between men and women. There are many differences in Jewish law between men and women that are not mentioned in this mishnah. The reason why the mishnah mentions some and not others is not entirely clear.\nNote that all of these rules have been taught elsewhere in the Mishnah. Our mishnah gathers them all up into one succinct source.", + "What [differences are there in law] between a man and a woman?
A man [who has leprosy] rends his clothes and loosens his hair, but a woman does not rend her clothes and loosen her hair. This refers to the laws of leprosy in Leviticus 13:44-45. Verse 44 reads “ish”, or man. From here the rabbis conclude that the laws that follow are only for the leprous man and not for the leprous woman. However, the other laws for the leper are applicable to men and women equally.", + "A man may vow that his son will become a nazirite, but a woman may not vow that her son will become a nazirite. This law was already mentioned in Nazir 4:6. There we learned that a father may take a nazirite vow on behalf of his minor son, but that a mother may not.", + "A man can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship but a woman cannot shave [with offerings set aside for] her father’s naziriteship. This law was mentioned in Nazir 4:7. For details see there.", + "A man may sell his daughter, but a woman may not sell her daughter. Exodus 21:6 says, “If a man (ish) shall sell his daughter as a slave.” As above, “ish” is interpreted to exclude females.", + "A man may give his daughter in betrothal, but a woman may not give her daughter in betrothal. Deuteronomy 22:16 states, “And the father of the girl shall say, ‘I gave my daughter to this man’”. From here the mishnah learns that a father may betroth his daughter but not a mother.", + "A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. This issue was discussed in Sanhedrin 6:3-4. In this case the reason for the difference between men and women is modesty and not an interpretation of a biblical verse.", + "A man is hanged [after being put to death], but a woman is not hanged. This distinction between men and women was also taught in Sanhedrin 6:4. The reason is either exegetical Deuteronomy 21:22 states, “And you shall hang him upon a stake”. Alternatively, it is also a matter of modesty.", + "A man is sold for [to make restitution for] his theft, but a woman is not sold [to make restitution] for her theft. Exodus 22:2 states “If he [the thief] lacks the means [to make restitution] he shall be sold for his theft.” The rabbis understand “he” to exclude women. This distinction may also be based on issues of modesty. The rabbis did not allow for the existence of adult female Jewish slaves, for the assumption was that slave-women could not protect themselves from the sexual advances of their male owners or others. Therefore, they do not allow a female thief to be sold to make restitution for her theft." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with situations in which the woman, suspected of committing adultery, does not have the opportunity to drink the bitter waters, but rather she must be divorced and does not receive her ketubah.", + "A betrothed woman and a shomeret yavam do not drink [the bitter waters] and do not receive their ketubah, as it is said, “When a wife, being under her husband, goes astray” (Numbers 5:29), this excludes a betrothed woman and a shomeret yavam. The Torah uses the word “wife” (alternatively translated as woman) in summarizing the laws of the Sotah. From here the rabbis deduce that she must have the status of full wife in order to drink the bitter waters. A betrothed woman does not have such a status and hence, even if her fiancé forbids her from being secluded with a certain man and afterwards she is secluded with him, she does not undergo the sotah ordeal. Similarly, a “shomeret yavam”, a woman whose husband died childless and is waiting for either levirate marriage (yibbum) or the release from levirate marriage (halitzah), does not drink the bitter waters. This refers to a case where the yavam, her brother-in-law, warned her not to be secluded with a certain man. Both of these women do lose their ketubah, since they were secluded after being warned; however, neither is allowed to undergo the sotah ordeal.", + "A widow who had married a high priest, a divorced woman or a halutzah who had married an ordinary priest, a mamzeret or a netinah who had married an Israelite, and the daughter of an Israelite who had married a mamzer or a natin do not drink [the bitter waters] and do not receive their ketubah. This section is also based on the fact that the Torah uses the word “wife”. Here “wife” excludes a woman who was prohibited from being her husband’s wife. The mishnah lists all relations which are prohibited and yet nevertheless the marriage is legally valid (the marriage would not be valid in cases of incest). This includes the widow who may not marry the high priest, and the divorcee and halutzah (woman who had previously been released from levirate marriage) who may not marry a normal priest. With regard to Israelites it includes the prohibition of marrying a mamzer (one born of forbidden sexual union) and natin (descendent of Temple slaves). We have already encountered these categories in various places in Yevamoth and Ketuboth. We should note that according to the Rambam, the waters don’t work in these cases because the husband married a woman forbidden to him. The waters work only when the husband is also free from having committed any transgressions." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists women who became sotahs but do not drink the water. Some of them receive their ketubah and some don’t. It all depends on why they don’t drink. Some of these cases have already been mentioned in above mishnayoth.", + "And these are the [women] who do not drink and do not receive their ketubah: She who says “I am defiled”; When witnesses came [and testified] that she was defiled; And she who says “I refuse to drink.” These women do not receive their ketubah because either they refused to drink or it became obvious that they had committed adultery. A woman who has committed adultery always forfeits her right to collect her ketubah.", + "When her husband says “I am not letting her drink”, And when her husband has sexual relations with her on the journey [to Jerusalem] she receives her ketubah but does not drink. If her husband is the reason that she doesn’t drink, she does receive her ketubah. This can happen either because he stated outright that he doesn’t want her to drink or because he had relations with her after she became a sotah (see above chapter one, mishnah three).", + "If the husbands died before [the women] drank: Beth Shammai says: they receive their ketubah but do not drink, And Beth Hillel says: they do not drink and they do not receive their ketubah. In this case, the husband warned his wife not to be secluded with a certain man and then she was. Before she had a chance to drink, the husband died. Everyone agrees that she does not drink the water. They disagree with regard to the ketubah. Beth Shammai holds that she collects the ketubah. The Talmud explains that Beth Shammai views a debt document (which a ketubah is) as if it has already been collected. Therefore the money stated in the ketubah is already hers, and unless the husband’s heirs can prove otherwise, she gets to collect. Since they can’t prove that she committed adultery, the ketubah belongs to her. Beth Hillel holds that she loses her ketubah. They do not view debt documents as if the money has already been collected, and therefore the money is still part of her husband’s estate. Hence, she must prove that she is owed the money and that she didn’t commit adultery. Since she cannot drink the waters to prove her innocence, she loses her ketubah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss situations where a man married a woman prohibited to him, and therefore should she become a sotah she doesn’t drink the bitter waters or receive her ketubah.\nWe should note that according to the mishnah it is dangerous for a nursing woman to become pregnant again, for fear that her milk would dry up. This was probably a greater possibility when nutrition was not as good as it is today. Despite this, rabbis did not prohibit pregnant women from having sexual relations with their husbands.", + "[A wife] who was pregnant by a former husband or was nursing a child by a former husband does not drink and does not receive the ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages says: he may separate her [from himself] and take her back after the period [of two years]. A man may not marry a widow who is either pregnant or nursing a child from her former husband. The rabbis feared that a new baby with a new husband would cause a problem for the nursing child (and pregnant women will eventually be nursing women), for the mother could not don’t nurse two babies at the same time. While a husband may continue to have sexual relations with his wife even when she is nursing, in that case we can assume that if the milk is not sufficient for both children, the husband will supplement it with eggs and goat’s milk, which were used as supplements before formula existed. However, concering a new husband we cannot be sure that he will also do so (since the first child is not his), therefore the rabbis forbade the marriage. Since the marriage was prohibited, Rabbi Meir says that she doesn’t drink the waters, nor does she collect her ketubah. The Sages hold that the marriage is not truly prohibited, because he may remain married to her while at the same time staying separate from her (sexually) for two years. This refers to the standard length of time in which women nursed their children. This way she won’t become pregnant while still nursing. Since the marriage can be maintained, she can become a sotah, and drink the water.", + "An aylonit [who is incapable of giving birth], an old woman, and one who is unfit to bear children do not drink and do not receive the ketubah. Rabbi Eliezer says: he may marry another wife and be fruitful and multiply with her. The women listed in this section can all, by definition, not have children. An aylonit is a girl who never develops physical signs of maturity. By definition she cannot conceive. The old woman referred to here is one past child-bearing age. The woman who is unfit to bear children refers to one who drank a sterilizing potion. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, it is forbidden for a man to marry these types of women because they cannot bear children, and he is commanded to have children. Since this is a forbidden marriage, she does not drink the water. We should note that in Yevamoth 6:5 we learned that this prohibition only refers to someone who does not yet have children. A man who has children may marry a woman who cannot have children, since he has already performed his commandment. Rabbi Eliezer points out that this marriage too, while originally prohibited, may be maintained if he marries another woman with whom he can have children. Therefore, if she becomes a sotah she can drink the water.", + "All other women either drink or do not receive the ketubah. All other women, if they don’t want to drink the water, also do not receive their ketubah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn the previous several mishnayoth, we learned of several categories of women who do not drink the water. Our mishnah adds certain women that do, even though it might be supposed that they should not.", + "The wife of a priest drinks and [if she is found to be innocent] is permitted to her husband. The sexual prohibitions for a priest are more stringent than they are for a non-priest. For instance, if the wife of a priest is raped, the priest may not stay married to her. Therefore, the mishnah comes to teach that if she drinks the water, and the water does not cause the negative effects, she may remain married to her husband.", + "The wife of a eunuch drinks. Even though a eunuch cannot have chidren, he may remain married to his wife. If she becomes a sotah, she drinks the water as does a regular wife.", + "Through [seclusion with] all persons forbidden to her in marriage wives are subjected to warning with the exception of a minor and one not a human. Chapter one began by describing the process whereby a husband warns his wife not to be secluded with a certain man. If she is secluded with that man in front of witnesses she becomes a sotah and must drink the water in order to clear her name. Our mishnah teaches that the husband may warn her not to be secluded even with men prohibited to her, such as her father or her son. This is true even though a woman may normally be secluded with either of them. The only two categories of women with regard to whom he cannot warn her are children and animals. These two categories are excluded by a midrash on the word “ish” (man) in Numbers 5:13. Ish excludes animals and minors. If the husband warns her not to be secluded with them and she is secluded with them she doesn’t drink the water and she is not prohibited to her husband." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah in our chapter deals with a husband who is incapable of warning his wife not to be secluded with a certain man. In these cases the mishnah teaches that the court warns the woman on behalf of the husband. However, there is a debate about how effective this warning actually is.", + "In the following cases a court can give the warning [on behalf of the husband]: When the husband became a deaf-mute or an idiot, or was imprisoned. If the court sees that people are talking and rumors are spreading about a woman who is committing adultery with a certain man, but the husband does not have the ability to warn her, the court may warn her on the husband’s behalf. The husband may not have this ability because he has lost his ability to hear and speak, he has lost his senses (an idiot) or he was imprisoned.", + "Not in order to make her drink did they say this, but to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: also to make her drink; when her husband is released from prison he makes her drink. According to both opinions in this section if the court warns her not to be secluded with a certain person, and she is nevertheless secluded with him, she loses her ketubah. She is also forbidden to her husband. However, there is a debate regarding whether this warning is sufficient to cause her to drink the water. According to the first opinion it is not. Should the husband get out of prison, or regain his hearing or senses, and the woman has not yet been secluded with the other man, her husband will need to warn her himself in order for her to drink the water should she be secluded. Rabbi Yose holds that the court’s warning is equivalent to the husband’s; therefore she drinks the water even if the court warns her and the husband does not. However, the husband must get out of prison (or regain his hearing or senses) in order to bring her to the Temple to make her drink the water." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that just as the waters check the innocence of the woman, so too they check the guilt or innocence of the man with whom she is suspected of committing adultery. The second part of the mishnah teaches that in cases in which she is prohibited to her husband, she is also prohibited to her suspected lover.", + "Just as the water checks her so the water checks him, as it is said, “And shall enter”, “And shall enter” (Numbers 5:22, 27). The first four chapters have all been dealing with the woman as suspected adulteress. Now the Mishnah states that the water doesn’t only check the woman, but checks the man with whom she is suspected of committing adultery as well, for he is just as guilty as she. If the waters cause her belly to swell and her thigh to fall, then they will do so to him as well. There are two possible ways of understanding how this midrash works. The first is that the midrash is based on the double appearance of the word “and shall enter”. The second is that the midrash is based on the extra “and” (the letter vav) in one of the words.", + "Just as she is prohibited to the husband so is she prohibited to the lover, as it is said, “defiled … and is defiled” (Numbers 5:27, 29), the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Joshua said: thus Zechariah ben Hakatzav used to expound. Rabbi says: twice in the portion, “If she is defiled…defiled”--one referring [to her being prohibited] to the husband and the other to the paramour. The mishnah now moves from the midrashic idea that the waters check the suspected adulterer, just as they check the suspected adulteress, to a more normative halakhic statement. In many cases which were discussed above, the mishnah ruled that the woman is forbidden to return to her husband. This would include all cases where, for whatever reason, she doesn’t end up drinking the water. Our mishnah teaches that if she is prohibited to her husband, she is likewise prohibited to the suspected adulterer. She may not be divorced and then marry her lover, for in that way she and he would benefit from the adultery. Adultery, according to Jewish law, can never lead to marriage. Rabbi Akiva learns this ruling from the extra “and” in the second appearance of the word “defiled.” Rabbi Joshua says that Zechariah ben Hakatzav also used to expound the extra “and” in this manner. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] suggests a different midrashic means by which to get the same result, and that is the repetition of the phrase “if she is defiled.” There is a dispute among these rabbis how to derive this law from the Torah. There is no dispute, however, about the law itself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe remaining four mishnayoth all contain midrashim which were stated “on that day.” According to the Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 28a, this refers to the day that the rabbis deposed Rabban Gamaliel and appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place. According to the story, when Rabban Gamaliel was head of the Sanhedrin, he limited access to the study sessions. When R. Elazar ben Azarya took over, he opened the doors and that day became a day of great Torah learning. Regardless of whether this story is historically accurate, it seems to touch on a profound truth true wisdom comes from intellectual exchange with fellow students and not from isolated speculation or from the gathering of the elite. When people study together they can question each other, pointing out the weaknesses in each other’s arguments. In such a manner, which one could deem as being both rabbinic and Socratic, the truth is best revealed. Rabban Gamaliel should not have excluded people from the bet midrash for we can never know who will help arrive at the truth.\nThe reason that this chapter brings these midrashim is that the first three were stated by Rabbi Akiva, the author of the midrash which began yesterday’s mishnah.\nAs a note, I translate “darash” as expounded. This is the root of the word “midrash”, a word which I use to mean the expounding of a word or phrase from a Biblical text.", + "On that day, Rabbi Akiva expounded, “And every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, everything in it shall be unclean” (Leviticus 11:33), it does not state tame (is but yitma’, (shall make. This teaches that a loaf which is unclean in the second degree, makes unclean [food and liquids which come into contact with it] in the third degree. The verse in Leviticus states that anything that falls into an unclean earthen vessel becomes itself unclean. The verse uses the word “yitma”, which if vocalized differently could be read “yetame”, which means “will make unclean”. Rabbi Akiva uses this proposed alternative vocalization to conclude that something which falls into an unclean vessel makes other things unclean. The thing that falls into the vessel has “second degree” defilement, and that which it makes impure becomes defiled in the “third degree”, a lesser form of defilement. What defiled the vessel was a primary source of impurity, such as a creepy crawly thing, a menstruant, a zav, etc. The primary source of impurity made the vessel into a first degree defiler, which made the loaf into a second degree, which when it comes into contact with other things will give them third degree defilement.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, since you used to say that in the future another generation will pronounce clean a loaf which is unclean in the third degree on the grounds that there is no text in the Torah according to which it is unclean! Has not Rabbi Akiva your student brought a text from the Torah according to which it is unclean, as it is said “everything in it shall be unclean.” Rabbi Joshua, one of Rabbi Akiva’s teachers, speaks wistfully to his own, deceased teacher, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. He laments the fact that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai is no longer alive, for he would have been astounded at the brilliance of Rabbi Akiva’s midrash. Evidently, the issue of third degree defilement was one of some contention in Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s time; he feared that eventually people would claim that there is no third degree defilement. The reason why they would forget this halakhah is that there is no clear proof for it from any biblical verse. In Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s time it was only a tradition, not rooted in the Torah. Rabbi Akiva improved and solidified the status of this halakhah by tying into a biblical verse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nNumbers 35:1-10 discuss the apportioning of cities to the Levites, who did not inherit large sections of the land as did the other tribes. Besides the cities themselves, the verses mandate a section outside the walls of the city which also shall belong to the Levites. Seemingly, verses 4 and 5 contain a blatant discrepancy, for verse 4 states 1000 cubits and verse 5 states 2000 cubits. Our mishnah contains several solutions for these problematic verses.\nIn my commentary on this mishnah I shall not delve into other non-rabbinic or modern critical ways of reading these verses. There is a fair amount of literature on the subject, literature which is summarized well in Jacob Milgrom’s commentary on Numbers, published by JPS.", + "On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded, “You shall measure off two thousand cubits outside the town on the east side” (Numbers 35:5). But another verse states, “from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits around” (vs. 4) It is impossible to say that it was a thousand cubits since it has been already stated two thousand cubits; and it is impossible to say that it was two thousand cubits since it has been already stated a thousand cubits! How then is this so? A thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for the Sabbath-limits. Rabbi Akiva points out that the two verses seem to contradict each other. To solve the problem he says that verse 4 1000 cubits refers to the size of the field which is to be left for the Levites. The second verse does not refer to the Levitical cities but rather to the Sabbath limits. This refers to the limits one is allowed to travel outside of the city on the Sabbath. We shall discuss this issue in greater depth when we learn Mishnah Shabbat. We should note that Rabbi Akiva’s midrash has a goal similar to his midrash found yesterday’s mishnah. Rabbi Akiva takes a halakhah which others thought could not be derived from the Torah and creatively derives it from the Torah. Indeed, this is one aspect of Rabbi Akiva’s achievements that contributed to his fame; his ability to creatively tie the oral tradition into the written Torah.", + "Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: a thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for fields and vineyards. Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean rejects Rabbi Akiva’s deriving the Sabbath limits from this verse. Rather he wishes to retain the context of the verse as much as possible. Therefore he says that the two thousand cubits also refers to the Levites land. One thousand cubits surrounding the city is to be kept as an empty field, and two thousand cubits (i.e. the next 1000 cubits) can be used for planting." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the third midrash of Rabbi Akiva. It deals with the “Song of the Sea”, a passage familiar to those familiar with shacharit, the morning prayer service. We should note also that the sages use their knowledge of prayer practice to interpret how the Song of the Sea was performed when the Israelites crossed the sea.", + "On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded, “Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song unto the Lord and said saying” (Exodus 15:. For the Torah did not need to say “saying”, so why did the Torah say “saying”? It teaches that the Israelites responded to every sentence after Moses, in the manner of reading Hallel; that is why it says “saying”. The beginning of the “Song of the Sea” seemingly has an extra word “lemor” saying. Rabbi Akiva understands that this word reveals that when the Israelites were crossing the sea, they sang the song in the same way that Hallel (the collection of psalms recited on festivals and other holiday) is sung. The way Hallel was done in Rabbi Akiva’s time is that the leader would say a series of verses and everyone would repeat the beginning of the first verse after him. In other words, the leader would say “Halleluyah” and everyone would say “Halleluyah”. Then the leader would say the next verse and the people would repeat “Halleluyah”. The other psalms also would be repeated in a similar manner. Hallel is not done this way anymore. We should note that again Rabbi Akiva finds scriptural support for what was only a custom until his time.", + "Rabbi Nehemiah says: as is the reading the Shema and not Hallel. Rabbi Nehemiah says that the Song of the Sea was recited in the way that people publicly recited the Shema in his day. The leader would say the beginning of the verse, and the congregation would recite the end of the verse. The Shema is not sung in this manner anymore, nor has it been since the time of the Talmud itself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe structure of this mishnah is similar to mishnah two above. Somebody expounds a midrash and Rabbi Joshua explains how pleased Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, his teacher, would have been had he lived to hear such a midrash.\nThe topic of the midrash is Job, and whether or not he worshipped God out of fear, a lower level of worship, or out of love, a higher level.", + "On that day Rabbi Joshua ben Hyrcanus expounded: Job only served the Holy One, blessed be He, from love: as it is said, “Though he slay me, yet I will wait for him (” (Job 13:15). And it is still evenly balanced whether to read “I will wait for him” or “I will not wait for him”? Scripture states, “Until I die I will maintain my integrity” (Job 27:5), this teaches that what he did was from love. The word “for him” in Hebrew is “lo”. “Lo” can be written either with a vav at the end, in which case it means “for him” or with an aleph, it which case the phrase would mean “I will not wait for him.” Therefore, this verse is not conclusive evidence that Job worshipped God out of love. Hence, Job 27:5 is brought as proof that Job’s served God out of love.", + "Rabbi Joshua [ben Hananiah] said: who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, since you had expounded all your life that Job only served the Omnipresent from fear, as it is said, “A blameless and upright man that fears God and shuns evil” (Job 1:8) did not Joshua, the student of your student, teach that what he did was from love? Again, Rabbi Joshua states how pleased Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai would have been to have heard this midrash. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had been forced to admit that Job only worshipped out of fear, since that is specifically stated in Job 1:8. Had Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai still been alive, he would have been pleased to have someone prove to him that Job worshipped God out of love." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter six returns to discuss the process which needs to occur for a woman to become a sotah, the same topic with which the tractate began. In the first mishnah of the tractate we learned that the husband must first warn her not to be secluded with a certain man, and then she must be secluded with that man. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate whether witnesses are needed to testify that she was secluded with that man in order for her to become a sotah. According to Rabbi Eliezer, witnesses are not necessary. However, in the absence of witnesses the husband himself must see that she was secluded. According to Rabbi Joshua, two witnesses are necessary. In our mishnah, these same two tannaim debate whether or not the woman is prohibited to her husband if there is just a rumor that she was secluded. Although without at least some witnessing she cannot become a sotah, such that she drinks the water, a rumor might, under certain circumstances, be sufficient to cause her to be prohibited to her husband.", + "If a man warned his wife and she secluded herself [with another man], even if he heard [that she had done so] from a flying bird, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. In this situation, the husband has already warned his wife not to be secluded with a certain man. He then heard a rumor that she had secluded herself with the suspected man. The husband heard the rumor from “a flying bird”, which means that he had no idea where the rumor came from. This is not sufficient for the husband to make her drink the sotah waters. Nevertheless, according to Rabbi Eliezer this is sufficient to cause her to be forbidden to him due to suspected adultery. In any case, since he does not have any evidence that she was indeed secluded, he must pay her the ketubah.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: until women who spin by moonlight discuss her. Rabbi Joshua requires that the rumor be one that the “women who spin by moonlight” are gossiping about. Since the women are saying that his wife committed adultery, it would not be appropriate for him to maintain her as a wife. Therefore, he must divorce her, but still pay her the ketubah. However, a rumor “from a flying bird” is not sufficient to make her prohibited to him." + ], + [ + "If one witness said, “I saw that she was defiled”, she does not drink the water. Not only that, but even a slave, male or female, is believed even to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah.
Her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her rival wife, her sister-in-law, and the daughter of her husband are believed, not to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah, but that she should not drink.
Above in mishnah 1:3 we learned that if witnesses testify that the woman had committed adultery with the suspected man (and not just that they saw her secluded with him) she doesn’t drink the sotah waters. The waters test only those with regard to whom there is doubt. Today’s mishnah teaches that if even one witness saw her committing adultery, she does not drink the sotah waters and she loses her ketubah.
Section one: Generally in Jewish law two witnesses are needed for a court to act. However, in this case since there has already been a process of warning the woman, even one witness is sufficient to prove that she has committed adultery. If this happens she does not drink the sotah waters, as would a suspected adulteress. Furthermore, even a witness who is normally not allowed to testify may testify in this case. This includes slaves, both male and female. Such testimony is sufficient even to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah. This is a more significant step because it causes her to lose money promised to her.
However, there is a small list of people who are suspected of lying under such circumstances, and therefore while they can testify against her and thereby prohibit her to her husband, they cannot cause her to lose her ketubah. We have seen this list before in Yevamoth 15:4. There we learned that these women cannot testify that a woman’s husband is dead. The fear is that they are lying because they have a “natural” hatred for the woman. The suspicion that they hate this woman is what disqualifies them from testifying here as well, at least with regard to her ketubah. However, with regard to causing her to become prohibited to her husband, they are believed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah provides the midrashic basis for why two witnesses are necessary to testify that the sotah was secluded with the suspected man but one witness is sufficient to testify that she had been defiled (committed adultery). The mishnah notes that this is counterintuitive, for the second type of testimony is surely more consequential. Therefore, it proves this halakhah using strict exegetical methods, methods which are allowed to be counterintuitive.", + "For it would have been logical: Now if the first evidence [that the woman had secluded herself with the man], which does not prohibit her [to her husband] for all time, is not established by fewer than two witnesses, is it not logical that the final evidence [that she had been defiled] which does prohibit her to him for all time, should not be established by fewer than two witnesses! In order to understand this mishnah in its totality we need to understand that its intent is to defend the following halakhah: two witnesses are required in order to make the suspected adulteress drink the sotah waters. These two witnesses must testify that they saw her secluded with the man with whom her husband warned her not to be secluded. If two valid witnesses testify that she is secluded with him, her husband brings her to the Temple to drink the sotah waters, which will determine her guilt or innocence. If she is found innocent, she may return to normal married life. In other words, the result of their testimony may be temporary. However, only one witness is needed to testify that she actually committed adultery, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. Seemingly this testimony should require two witnesses for its results are permanent. After testimony that she was defiled by committing adultery, she may never return to her husband. This is the “logical” problem brought up in section one of the mishnah.", + "Scripture states, “And there is no witness against her” (Numbers 5:13) whatever testimony there may be against her [is believed]. The resolution is that this rule is learned from a counterintuitive midrash. Numbers 5:13 states, “And there is no witness against her”, using the singular of the word witness. Had there been a witness, even one witness, even a witness who is normally invalid (such as a slave), she does not go on to drink the water.", + "And now with respect to the first evidence [about her seclusion with the man] there is an a fortiori (kal argument: Now if the final evidence [regarding her being defiled], which prohibits her to her husband for all time, is established by one witness, is it not logical that the first evidence, which does not prohibit her to him for all time, should be established by one witness! Now that the mishnah has established that one witness who saw her defiled is sufficient to cause her to be permanently prohibited to her husband, the requirement for two witnesses to testify that she was secluded does not make logical sense. Why should testimony regarding seclusion, whose consequences can be temporary, require two witnesses, while testimony regarding defilement requires only one?", + "Scripture states, “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and elsewhere [Scripture] states, “By the mouth of two witnesses ... shall the matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15); just as the “matter” mentioned in this latter case must be based on the testimony of two witnesses, so also here [in the case of the suspected woman] the “matter” must be based on the testimony of two witnesses. Again, the answer is a midrash. Deuteronomy 24:1 states that if a man finds in his wife “an unseemly matter”, he may divorce her. The midrash assumes that this “unseemly matter” refers to her having been secluded with the suspected other man. The word “matter” is connected with the same word used in Deuteronomy 19:15, which states that two witnesses are required in order for any “matter” to stand. The linguistic connection means that in the case of seclusion, two witnesses are required." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe last mishnah of this chapter deals with a case where there is contradictory testimony with regard to whether or not she committed adultery (was defiled). We should remember that there has already been a process of warning before these witnesses come and testify.", + "If one witness says that she was defiled and another witness says that she was not defiled; Or if a woman says [of her] that she was defiled and another woman says that she was not defiled, she drinks. The testimony of the first witness is contradicted by that of the second witness; each witness’s testimony nullifies that of the other. Since there is no testimony that she was defiled but there was evidence that she was warned and secluded, she drinks the water. The same is true if both witnesses are women. Although women are generally not allowed to testify, they are allowed to testify in this case. However, since they contradict each other, their testimony is nullified.", + "If one witness says that she was defiled and two say that she was not defiled, she drinks. In this case, after one witness testifies that she was defiled, two witnesses testify that she was not defiled. One might have thought that this would have been sufficient not only to nullify the first testimony, but to totally prove her innocence. However, it is still possible that she was defiled before the witnesses saw that she was not (they had completed their adulterous act before the witnesses saw them). Since she was after all secluded with the man whom her husband suspects, she must drink the sotah waters in order to establish her innocence.", + "If two say that she was defiled and one says that she did not, she does not drink. Since two witnesses say that she was defiled, a single witness who says that she was not defiled cannot nullify their testimony. Hence, it is established that she has committed adultery and therefore she does not drink the water. Rather she becomes prohibited to her husband and loses her ketubah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nBeginning with this mishnah and continuing through the end of the tractate, the Mishnah discusses things that must be recited. Some of these must be recited in Hebrew and others can be recited in any language. The reason that these are discussed in Mishnah Sotah is that the first example is the oath that the priest makes the sotah swear, which may be recited in any language.", + "The mishnah lists seven recitations which can be made in any language.", + "The following may be recited in any language:
the section concerning the sotah, The first is the oath that the priest makes a sotah swear (Numbers 5:19-23). The Talmud derives this by using a midrash. It may also be that since the sotah has to understand what she is swearing to, if she doesn’t understand Hebrew it can be recited in any language that she does understand. This rationale lies behind most, if not all, of the other recitations listed in this mishnah.", + "the confession made at the presentation of tithes, On Passover of the fourth and seventh year of the seven year sabbatical cycle, each householder must come to the Temple and confess that he has not withheld tithes in his home (see Deuteronomy 26:13-15). This would include all forms of tithe, each of which must be disposed of in the proper fashion. This confession may be recited in any language.", + "the shema, The Shema, one of the two central parts of Jewish prayer, recited twice daily, can be recited in any language. Since the Shema is the central declaration of faith, it must be understood by the person reciting it, and therefore can be recited in any language.", + "the prayer (the, The amidah, the other central feature of Jewish prayer, which is recited thrice daily (and more on special occasions) can also be recited in any language. The Talmud says that since the amidah is the prayer in which human beings approach God with their requests, it would not make sense for it to be recited in a language which the speaker does not understand.", + "the grace after meals, For similar reasons, the grace after meals may be recited in any language as well.", + "the oath concerning testimony, If a person thinks that another person knows testimony about his case, and the other person denies such knowledge, he may force him to take an oath that he does not know any testimony (see Leviticus 5:1, 6 and Mishnah Shevuoth 4:3). This oath may be recited in any language, since it is critical that the person swearing understands what he is saying.", + "the oath concerning a deposit. If a person thinks that he gave a deposit to another person, but that person denies having received such a deposit, the claimant may make the other person swear that he does not have the deposit. This too can be recited in any language for the same reason as above." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned which “declarations” can be recited in any language. In today’s mishnah we learn the opposite; those things which must be recited in Hebrew. The list in today’s mishnah will be discussed in much greater length in the rest of this chapter and indeed through most of the rest of the tractate.", + "The following are recited in the holy tongue (:
The reading made at the offering of the firstfruits, When a person brings his first fruits to the Temple, he must recite Deuteronomy 26:5-11. In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall learn why this must be recited in Hebrew.", + "The recitation at halitzah, Halitzah is the ceremony performed when the brother-in-law does not want to marry his dead brother’s wife. Both the widow and her brother-in-law must make some declarations (see Deuteronomy 25:7-9). Mishnah four will explain why this must be recited in Hebrew.", + "The blessings and curses, These refer to the blessings and curses stated by the Levites on Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal. Mishnah 5 will elaborate.", + "The priestly blessing, The priestly blessing is described in Numbers 6:23-26. It is still recited in the morning prayer service today, as part of the amidah prayer. It will be discussed below in mishnah 6.", + "The blessing of the high priest, This refers to the blessing given by the high priest to the people on Yom Kippur after he has come out from the Holy of Holies. See below, mishnah 7.", + "The section of the king, The “section of the king” refers to the portion of the Torah read by the king when the congregation gathers together on Sukkot after the seventh year has been completed (below mishnah eight).", + "The section of the calf whose neck is broken, This is what the elders recite when they break the neck of a heifer to atone for a murder whose perpetrator is unknown (Deuteronomy 21:7-8). This will be explained in chapter nine.", + "And the priest anointed [to accompany the army] in battle when he speaks to the people. This refers to the charge given by the priest given to the army before they go out to war (Deuteronomy 20:2-4). See below, chapter eight." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah introduces the midrash which proves that the declaration made upon bringing the first fruits must be in Hebrew.", + "How is it that the declaration made [at the bringing] of the first-fruits [must be in Hebrew]? [It is said], “And you shall answer and say before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:5), and elsewhere it is said, “And the Levites shall answer and say” (Deuteronomy 27:14); just as the “answer” made elsewhere must be in the holy tongue, so must the [declaration discussed here] be in the holy tongue. That the declaration made upon bringing the first fruits must be in Hebrew is derived by comparing the word “answer” in the passage concerning first fruits, with the word “answer” in reference to the blessings and curses that the Levites give to the children of Israel after they have entered the land. Just as the latter must be in Hebrew so too must the former. However, the mishnah does not explain why the blessings and curses made by the Levites must be in Hebrew. The Talmud explains this as a midrashic connection between the word “voice” in this verse (Deut. 27:14), with the word “voice” in Exodus 19:19, “As Moses spoke, God answered him in a voice”. [JPS translates “thunder” but the word “kol” is the same in both contexts.]" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah proves why the halitzah (release from Levirate marriage) must be recited in Hebrew.", + "How is it that the formula of halitzah [must be recited in Hebrew]? [It is said] “And she shall answer and say” (Deuteronomy 25:9), and elsewhere it says, “And the Levites shall answer and say” (Deuteronomy 27:14); just as the “answer” made elsewhere must be in the holy tongue, so must the [declaration discussed here] be in the holy tongue. Rabbi Judah says: “And she shall answer and say thus”, she must say it in this language. The first opinion in the mishnah proves that the halitzah formula must be recited in Hebrew using the same midrash that yesterday’s mishnah used to prove that the declaration made upon bringing the first fruits must be in Hebrew. Both mishnayoth connect the word “say” in this context to the “say” in the context of the Levitical curses and blessings. Rabbi Judah derives this requirement without comparing the word “say” here with “say” elsewhere. Deut. 27:14 uses the word “thus”, a word which is somewhat superfluous. Rabbi Judah understands that word as teaching that the halitzah formula must be recited in Hebrew. Note that there is no halakhic debate between Rabbi Judah and the first opinion; there is only a debate on midrashic technique." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is an explanation of Deuteronomy 27 and several other biblical passages, which describe or refer to the blessings and curses which the Levites were to recite on Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal. Note that this mishnah does not explain how we know that these blessings and curses had to be recited in Hebrew. This seems to be taken for granted.", + "How were the blessings and curses [pronounced]?
When Israel crossed the Jordan and came to Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal which are by Samaria, in the vicinity of Shechem which is near the terebinths of Moreh, as it is said, “Are they not the other side of the Jordan, [beyond the west road that is in the land of the Canaanites who dwell in the Arabah near Gilgal, by the terebinths of Moreh] (Deut. 11:30), and elsewhere it says, “And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem unto the terebinth of Moreh” (Genesis 12:6) just as the terebinth of Moreh mentioned in this latter verse is Shechem, so the terebinth of Moreh mentioned in the former verse is Shechem. This section identifies the location of Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal. Deut. 12:30 says that they are near the “terebinths of Moreh” and in Genesis 12:6 the “terebinths of Moreh” are identified as Shechem (currently an Arab city called Nablus, after the Greek Neapolis). Since the rabbis new where Shechem was but not where the “terebinths of Moreh” were, the identification with Shechem was crucial to identify the location of the two mountains.", + "Six tribes went up Mt. Gerizim and six tribes went up Mt. Ebal, and the priests and Levites with the ark stood below in the middle, the priests surrounding the ark, the Levites [surrounding] the priests, and all Israel on this side and that side, as it is said, “And all Israel, with their elders, officials, and judges stood on both sides of the ark, facing the levitical priests” (Joshua 8:33). After locating the two mountains, the mishnah begins to describe the ritual of blessings and curses. As described in Deut. 27:12-13, half of the tribes went up to Mt. Gerizim and half went up to Mt. Ebal. The mishnah now harmonizes the description in Deuteronomy with that in Joshua 8:33, which seems to say that instead of going up the two mountains, the Israelites faced the two mountains. The mishnah says that all of the tribes went up and the priests, Levites and various officials remained in the middle, as is described in Joshua. The priests formed the inner circle around the ark and the Levites encircled the priests. Another problem is that according to Deut. 27:12, the tribe of Levi stood on Mt. Gerizim, whereas Joshua and Deut. 27:14 seem to place them in the middle. Some commentators resolve this by saying that only some of the Levites remained below.", + "They turned their faces towards Mt. Gerizim and opened with the blessing: Blessed be anyone who does not make a graven or molten image”. And these and these respond amen. They then turned their faces towards Mt. Ebal and opened with the curse: “Cursed be anyone who makes a graven or molten image” (Deut. 27:15). And these and these respond amen. [So they continue] until they complete the blessings and curses. This section harmonizes Deuteronomy 11 with Deuteronomy 27. The earlier chapter refers to blessings recited on Mt. Gerizim and curses on Mt. Ebal. Deuteronomy 27 lists only the curses and it also seems to assume that the Levites who stand in the middle pronounce the curses and blessings. The mishnah resolves these two difficulties by saying that the curses in Deuteronomy 27 are only half of what was said. Not only were the curses recited but the opposite of each curse was also recited as a blessing. Furthermore, the blessings and curses were recited by the Levites while standing between the two mountains, but the Levites would face Mt. Gerizim when blessing and Mt. Ebal when cursing.", + "After that they brought the stones, built the altar and plastered it with plaster, and inscribed upon it all the words of the Torah in seventy languages, as it is said, “most distinctly (be’er. This section refers to Deuteronomy 27:4-5, 8. The mishnah reads the building of the altar as occurring after the blessings and curses and not before, as the order of the verses might be read as implicating. The stones to which the mishnah refers are the same stones that had previously been placed in the Jordan when Israel crossed the river (see Joshua 4:1-11). The most interesting element of this section is that the words “be’er hetev” which JPS translates as “most distinctly”, and could also be translated as “well-explained” are interpreted by the rabbis as meaning that the Torah was written in seventy languages. This is the amount of languages and nations which exist in the world, according to rabbinic folklore. Part of the entering into the land of Israel was that the Torah had to be made available to all of the nations of the world. Indeed, this may be reflective of the fact that in rabbinic times, the Bible was indeed translated into Greek, Aramaic and later on into Roman, the three international languages in the time of the Mishnah.", + "Then they took the stones and went and spent the night in their place. After having set up the altar with the stones that had previously been in the Jordan, the stones are brought back to their proper place in the Gilgal. According to many commentators, they used them to make another altar there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah describes how the priestly blessing was performed, both outside of the Temple and in the Temple. The priestly blessing is Numbers 6:24-26. In Israel it is still done every day. Outside of Israel, some synagogues have the blessing on holidays.\nOur mishnah discusses differences between how the blessing is done inside the Temple and outside of the Temple.\nThe mishnah does not address why the priestly blessing must be recited in Hebrew. The Talmud explains that Numbers 6:23 which reads “Thus shall you bless” implies that the priests must use the exact words written in the Torah.", + "How was the priestly blessing [pronounced]?
In the province (outside of the it was said as three blessings, but in the Temple as one blessing. There are three clauses in the priestly blessing. Outside of the Temple after each clause the people would answer “amen”. However, inside the Temple, the people didn’t respond until all three clauses were recited, and when they did respond they didn’t say “amen” but rather “Blessed is the God of Israel forever and ever”.", + "In the Temple the name was uttered as it is written, but in the province in its substituted name. In the Temple the priests pronounced God’s name as it is written YHWH. (Today we don’t know how this word was pronounced). However, outside the Temple it is pronounced using the substitute name “Adonai”, the way we pronounce God’s name today.", + "In the province the priests raise their hands at the height of their shoulders, but in the Temple above their heads, except the high priest who does not raise his hands higher than the frontlet (on his. Rabbi Judah says: even the high priest raises his hands higher than the frontlet, as it says, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22). In the Temple the priests raise their hands above their heads when blessing the people, while outside of the Temple, they raise their hands no higher than their shoulders. According to the first opinion, the high priest did not lift his hands higher than his head, for on his head was a “frontlet” upon which was written God’s name (Exodus 28:36). Rabbi Judah believes that just as the rest of the priests raised their hands above their heads, so too did the high priest. Rabbi Judah interprets the blessing mentioned in Leviticus 9:22, a blessing given by Aaron the high priest, to be the priestly blessing in Numbers 6. Just as Aaron lifts his hands above his head, so too do the other priests." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the blessings recited by the high priest on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), after he finished performing the special worship service for that day.", + "How were the benedictions of the high priest [performed]?
The hazzan of the synagogue takes the Torah scroll and gives it to the president of the synagogue; the vice-president of the synagogue gives it to the high priest, and the high priest stands, receives [the scroll] and reads [the following portions]: “After the death” (Leviticus 16:1-34), and “But on the tenth day” (Leviticus 23:26-32). Then he rolls the Torah (, places it in his bosom and exclaims, “More than I have read before you is written here!” [The portion], “On the tenth day” (Numbers 29:7-11), which is in the book of Numbers, he reads by heart. After the high priest has finished performing the Yom Kippur service (and sent the scapegoat out to the desert) he would go out to the Temple courtyard and sit there until they bring him the Torah scroll. The scroll is not handed directly to him, but rather several synagogue functionaries participate in passing the scroll before it reaches the high priest. [Somewhat reminiscent of a brit milah in which the baby is passed around before being circumcised.] Note that according to the mishnah there was a synagogue on the Temple grounds. Indeed, archaeologists have found a dedicatory inscription near the Temple which mentions the “head of a synagogue”.", + "And he blesses upon it eight benedictions: “For the Torah”, “For the Temple service”, “For thanksgiving”, “For the pardon of sin”, “For the Temple”, “For Israel”, “For the priests”, and the rest of the prayer. When the high priest receives the Torah, he reads the portions which deal with Yom Kippur. This begins with two passages from Leviticus. After he closing the Torah he tells the people that there is more in the Torah than what he just read to them. [As an aside, this reminds of rabbis telling their congregation on Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur that there are other holidays also coming up.] The passage concerning Yom Kippur which is found towards the end of Numbers he doesn’t read from the scroll itself, but rather by heart. Generally speaking, portions of the written Torah should not be read in public by heart. However, since it would take a long time to roll from Leviticus 23 to Numbers 29 and it would not be respectful to the congregation for them to have to wait long while the Torah is being scrolled. The respect for the congregation is important enough that the Yom Kippur ceremony itself is adjusted to take this into account.", + "Today when a person receives an aliyah to the Torah, they read one blessing before and after. The high priest reads eight blessings. “For the Torah”, is the same blessing recited today before and after the Torah reading (according to some commentators the high priest said these blessings like we do today, one before and one after, but the mishnah refers to this as one blessing.) “For the Temple service” is similar to the third to last blessing in the amidah as it is said today. “For thanksgiving” is similar to the next to last blessing in today’s amidah. “For the pardon of sin” is similar to one of the middle blessings in today’s amidah, which begins “Forgive us.” “For the Temple” is a prayer that the Temple should continue to stand. “For Israel” is a prayer that God’s presence should not depart from the people of Israel. “For the priests” is a prayer that God will accept the worship of the priests. And for the rest of the prayer this refers to a final prayer that God should protect Israel and thanks God for listening to our prayers." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nDeuteronomy 31:10-12 states, “Every seventh year, at the time of the sabbatical year, at Sukkot, when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God in the place that He will choose, you shall read this Teaching aloud in the presence of all Israel. Gather the people men, women, children and the strangers in your communities that they may hear and so learn to revere the Lord your God and to observe faithfully every word of this Teaching.”\nOur mishnah discusses how this ceremony, which is called by the rabbis “Gathering”, was performed. The ceremony was performed on the holiday of Sukkot which immediately followed the end of the sabbatical year.", + "How was the procedure in connection with the portion read by the king?
At the conclusion of the first day of the festival ( in the eighth [year], at the end of the seventh year, they erect a wooden platform in the Temple court, and he sits upon it, as it is said, “At the end of seven years, in the set time” etc (Deuteronomy 31:10). The mishnah teaches that they erected a wooden platform in the Temple so that the king can be heard when he reads the portions of Deuteronomy to the people.", + "The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and hands it to the head of the synagogue, the head of the synagogue hands it to the deputy and he hands it to the high priest, and the high priest hands it to the king and the king stands and receives it, but reads it while sitting. This section describes the same procedure of passing the Torah which we read in yesterday’s mishnah in connection with the high priest reading the Torah on Yom Kippur. The only difference is that the king recites while seated. It was considered more honorable for the king to sit than to stand.", + "King Agrippa stood and received it and read standing, and the sages praised him. When he reached, “You shall not place a foreigner over you” (ibid 17:15) his eyes ran with tears. They said to him, “Fear not, Agrippas, you are our brother, you are our brother!” The mishnah now brings an interesting story about King Aggripas, a descendent of Herod who was an Idumean and not of Israelite stock. When Aggripas was reading the prescribed portions he would stand in order to show his deference for the Torah. Despite the fact that the mishnah says that the king is to sit, the sages praise Aggripas for going “beyond the letter of the law.” His standing while reading establishes Aggripas as a righteous king, despite his being from Herod’s family. When Aggripas read that it is forbidden for Israelites to have a foreign king, he began to cry because he realized that his own kingship was illegitimate. The sages had such respect for him, that they cried back to him that he is indeed their brother. Some commentators say that the sages just said this to make him feel better, while others say that since his mother is an Israelite, he is indeed a legitimate king. In any case, the mishnah is a poignant portrayal of the political situation in which Jews lived in this period.", + "[The king] reads from the beginning of “These are the words” (ibid 1:1) until the Shema ((ibid 6:4-9), and the Shema, and “It will come to pass if you hear” (ibid 11:13-21 the second part of the, and “You shall surely tithe” (ibid 14:22-29), and “When you have finished tithing” (ibid 26:12-15) and the portion of the king (ibid 17:14-20) and the blessings and curses (ibid 28), until he finishes all the section. The Torah says that the king is supposed to read “this Teaching” (Torah). The mishnah does not understand this to mean that he must read all of the Torah or even all of Deuteronomy, which would certainly have taken quite a long time. Rather he reads selected portions of Deuteronomy. He reads the beginning of the book, and then he reads passages that are part of the Shema and then some passages concerning tithes. The tithes’ passages are read since Sukkot is a harvest festival and it is when tithes are separated from produce. He also reads the portion about the king, and the blessings and curses which are found towards the end of Deuteronomy. This last passage was a means by which the covenant between God and Israel could be symbolically renewed.", + "The blessings that the high priest recites, the king recites, except that he substitutes one for the festivals instead of one for the pardon of sin. After reading from the Torah, the king recites most of the blessings which the high priest recites on Yom Kippur. The difference is that instead of praying for forgiveness of sin, as the high priest does on Yom Kippur, the king has a prayer over the festival, a prayer which is still recited today in the festival amidah." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWhen Israel goes out to battle, the people are charged by a priest, who according to the rabbis must be anointed with oil. This charge is described in Deuteronomy 20. This entire chapter is an explication of how this was done. Our mishnah is a midrash on verses 2-4.", + "When the anointed for battle addresses the people he speaks in the holy tongue, as it is said, “And it shall be, when you draw near the battle, that the priest shall approach” (Deuteronomy 20:2) this refers to the anointed for battle. “And speak to the people” ( – in the holy tongue. The Torah states only that a priest shall come forward, without describing which or what type of priest. The rabbis add that this priest must be a priest who has been specially anointed with oil for this purpose before they go out to battle. The address must be given in Hebrew. According to the Talmud this is derived from an analogy between the word “speak” here and “speak” in Exodus 19:19.", + "“He shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel, you are about to join battle with your enemy” (vs. 3) “with your enemy” but not against your brother, not Judah against Shimon nor Shimon against Benjamin, that if you fall into their hand they shall have mercy on you, as it is said, “Then the men named above proceeded to take the captives in hand, and with booty they clothed all the naked among them they clothed them and shod them and gave them to eat and drink and anointed them and provide donkeys for all who were failing and brought them to Jericho, the city of palms, back to their kinsmen. Then they returned to Samaria” (II Chronicles 28:15). Rather against your enemies do you march, so that if you fall into their hand they will have no mercy on you. The anointed priest reminds the people that they are going out to fight against their enemies. If they were going to fight their own people, a not uncommon event in Biblical times and an event that continued to occur as long as Israel had political sovereignty, then at least they could expect mercy if taken captive. This mercy is demonstrated by the mercy shown by Israelite (the northern kingdom) soldiers to Judean soldiers as described in II Chronicles. Now they are going out to fight their (foreign) enemies, and if they are taken captive they can expect to be treated ruthlessly. Therefore, they should fight all the more fiercely so that they will not be taken captive.", + "“Let not your courage falter, fear not, and do not tremble or be in dread of them” (Deuteronomy 20: “Let not your courage falter”-- at the neighing of the horses and the brandishing of swords; “Fear not” --at the crash of shields and the tramp of the soldiers shoes; “Do not tremble” -- at the sound of trumpets; “Or be in dread of them” -- at the sound of battle cries. This section contains a midrash which relates each part of the charge to a fear of another aspect of war. As is typical, the rabbis understand each type of fear to be related to something different.", + "“For it is the Lord your God that goes with you”--they come [relying] upon the might of flesh and blood, but you come [relying] upon the might of the Omnipresent. The Philistines came [relying] upon the power of Goliath (I Samuel 17:4 ff.), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. The Ammonites came [relying] upon the power of Shobach (II Samuel 10:16-18), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. But with you it is otherwise, “For it is the Lord your God is that goes with you” this refers to the camp of the ark. In the final part of his speech the priest points out that God is going out to battle with Israel. The mishnah uses this to contrast Israel with their enemies. Israel’s enemies come out brandishing their physical power, exemplified by Goliah and Shobah. Both of these great warriors were struck down by David whose power was not based on his physical strength but on the fact that God was with him. This reminds us of Zechariah 4:6, “No by might, nor by power, but by My spirit, said the Lord of Hosts.” As a final note, the mishnah relates that the ark was brought out to war with Israel as a tangent symbol of the fact that God is fighting with them." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to expound upon Deuteronomy 20. Our mishnah deals with three exemptions which given to soldiers which allow them to return from war: to one who has built a house but not dedicated it; to one who has planted a vineyard but not harvested it; to one who has betrothed a woman but not married her. Our mishnah defines these three exemptions broadly, as we shall see.", + "“Then the officers shall address the people saying: ‘Is there anyone who has built a new house but has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his home’” (Deuteronomy 20:5). It is the same whether he built a house for straw, a house for cattle, a house for wood, or a storehouse; It is the same whether he built, purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. The first exemption is given to the person who built a house. The mishnah expands this to include any kind of house, even one not intended as living quarters. In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall see some exemptions to this category. It also expands the category to include those who acquired a house by a means other than building it themselves.", + "“‘Is there anyone who has planted a vineyard but has never harvested it?’” (vs. 6). It is the same whether he planted a vineyard or planted five fruit-trees and even of five different species; It is the same whether he planted, bent or grafted it, or whether he purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. The second exemption is given to the one who planted a vineyard. Again, the mishnah expands the category to include planting an orchard, which is considered five or more trees, even if they are of different species. He need not plant it himself. Even if he bends a vine (this refers to bending a vine underground and starting a new vineyard elsewhere), or grafts a branch of one tree onto another, he is considered as having started a new vineyard. Similarly, he need not do the work himself, but may even buy the vineyard/orchard or receive it as a present.", + "“‘Is there anyone who has betrothed a woman [but who has not yet married her]?’” (vs. 7) It is the same whether he had betrothed a virgin or a widow, or even a shomeret yavam, or even if a man heard that his brother had died in battle, he returns home. The final category is betrothal. This includes one who betroths not only a virgin, but also a widow/divorcee or even one who betroths his dead brother’s widow who is awaiting levirate marriage (a shomeret yavam). Even if he has heard that his brother died in battle and left a childless widow, he may return from battle in order to marry her.", + "All these hear the priest’s words concerning the battles of war and return home, and they supply water and food and repair the roads. The above list of people return from battle. However, they must offer support to the war effort, by supplying the soldiers with food and water and by repairing the roads which the soldiers will use to go out into battle." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned the categories of people who are exempt from going out to battle; in today’s mishnah we learn who is not exempt.", + "The following do not return home:
He who built a gatehouse, a portico or a porch; The three structures listed in this section do not count as “houses” and hence one who builds one of them is not exempted from war. While the structures listed in yesterday’s mishnah were not typically used as living quarters, the structures in today’s mishnah are never used as living quarters. A portico is an area encircled by pillars and covered with a roof, but it is not walled-in. A porch is an extension of the upper floor that is not covered by a roof.", + "He who planted four fruit trees or five trees which are not fruit-bearing; Yesterday we learned that to be exempt from going out to war he had to plant five fruit bearing trees. Less than five trees, or more than five non-fruit bearing trees does not count as being similar enough to a vineyard to exempt him.", + "He who took back his divorced wife. Deuteronomy 24:5 states, “When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out with the army.” From here we see that remarrying one’s former wife does not exempt him from going to war.", + "If a high priest married a widow, or an ordinary priest married a divorcee or a halutzah, or an Israelite married a mamzereth or a netinah, or the daughter of an Israelite married a mamzer or a natin, he does not return home. Someone who marries a woman who is prohibited to him does not receive an exemption from war. For an explanation of this list see Yevamoth 2:4.", + "Rabbi Judah says: even he who builds a house upon its [original] foundations does not return home. Rabbi Judah says that one must build a new house in order to be exempt. Rebuilding an old house on its original foundations does not count.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: even he who builds a brick-house in the Sharon does not return home. The Sharon was an area in the land of Israel that was (and still is) prone to earthquakes. The people of Sharon would build their houses out of brick, in anticipation that they would have to rebuild them twice every seven years. Since the houses did not last long, Rabbi Eliezer does not consider them as sufficient to exempt one from the army." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAbove in mishnah two we learned who returns from war if they are already out at battle. Those categories of people returned and worked in supplying food and water to the soldiers and in repairing the roads. In today’s mishnah we learn those who don’t go out to war in the first place and do not supply food or drink to the soldiers or fix the roads.\nThe idea that there are some soldiers who return home is connected to Deuteronomy 20:8, while the idea that some are not even obligated to go out in the first place is connected to 24:5, as we shall see below.", + "The following do not move from their place: He who built a new house and dedicated it, He who planted a vineyard and used its fruit, He who married his betrothed, Or brought in his yevamah; The Torah states that someone who is recently married does not go out to war for one year from his marriage. The rabbis take the categories mentioned in Deuteronomy 20, and discussed in the previous two mishnayoth, and apply them to this halakhah as well. Someone who built a new house and has already dedicated it, but has not lived in it for one year, is exempt from going to war. Similarly, one who planted a vineyard but has not enjoyed a year’s harvest need not go out to war. Finally, as the verse plainly states, a newly married man is exempt for one year. This also includes levirate marriage.", + "As it is said, “He shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household [to give happiness to the woman he married]” (Deuteronomy 24:5) “His household,” this refers to his house; “Shall be” refers to his vineyard; “To give happiness to the wife” refers to his wife; “He married” to include his yevamah’s widow. This section provides midrashic support for that which we learned above. The word “his household” does not just mean that he has a year to be with his new wife, as is the simple reading of the verse. Rather it also includes a new house that has not yet been dedicated. The word “shall be” includes a vineyard (this is a rather creative midrash). The “wife” refers to his wife. The verse did not need to state “who he married” since it already stated “wife”. Therefore the words “he married” are understood as including his yevamah (his levirate wife).", + "These do not supply water and food and repair the roads [for the army]. Deuteronomy 24:5 states, “He shall not go out with the army or be assigned to it for any purpose.” Therefore, not only is he exempt from fighting, but he is exempt from other duties as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah continues explaining the speech made to the troops upon going out to battle. The final exemption is given to anyone who is “afraid and disheartened.” In our mishnah three rabbis argue what this phrase means.", + "“Then the officers shall go on addressing the troops and say, ‘Is there anyone afraid and disheartened’” (Deuteronomy 20:8).
Rabbi Akiva says: “afraid and disheartened” is to be understood literally, that he cannot stand in the battle lines and see a drawn sword. Rabbi Akiva understands the verse literally. The person is literally afraid to go out to battle. He is exempt because his fear may be contagious and cause the other troops to lose heart.", + "Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “afraid and disheartened” this is the one who is afraid because of the transgressions he has committed; therefore the Torah connected all these [other categories of those who return home] with him that he may return home on their account. Rabbi Yose the Galilean understands the exemption as being given to one who has committed transgressions. Assumedly he is afraid that since he has not led a good life, God will not be with him in battle. He notes that the Torah connected this exemption with the others so that the transgressor would not be embarrassed to not go to battle. People seeing him would not know why he is leaving battle and they would assume that he is leaving for one of the other, less embarrassing reasons.", + "Rabbi Yose says: a high priest who married a widow, an ordinary priest who married a divorcee or halutzah, an Israelite who married a mamzeret or netinah, and the daughter of an Israelite who married a mamzer or a natin behold this one is “afraid and disheartened.” Rabbi Yose agrees in general with the previous opinion but holds that the transgression must be one that he is continually transgressing, such as a forbidden marriage (the list in this mishnah). If a man is married to a woman forbidden to him, he is transgressing the prohibition every moment he remains married to her. It is only this type of transgression that allows him to leave battle. One who has committed sins in the past is not considered “afraid and disheartened.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah interprets Deuteronomy 20:9.", + "“And it shall be, when the officers have finished speaking to the people, they shall appoint captains of hosts at the head of the people” (Deuteronomy 20:9). And at the rear of the people they station guards in front of them and others behind them, with iron axes in their hands, and should anyone wish to flee, they have permission to strike his thighs, because the beginning of falling [in battle] is fleeing, as it is said, “Israel fled before the Philistines, and the people also suffered a great slaughter” (I Samuel 4:17) and elsewhere it states, “And the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and fell down slain” (ibid 31:1). The verse states that “captains of hosts” shall be placed “at the head of the people”. Our mishnah interprets “at the head of the people” to mean not just in front of them, leading them into battle, but behind them making sure they do not flee in the face of the enemy. If a soldier tries to flee, the guards may strike him with iron axes in his legs. This would assumedly deter people from fleeing. The mishnah uses two texts to prove that fleeing from the enemy is the beginning of outright defeat." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that the rules spelled out in our chapter do not apply to all types of war. In certain types of war, all of Israel must go out to battle, even a bride and groom from their wedding. There are two different opinions as to what types of war mandate the participation of all.", + "To what this apply? To a voluntary war, but in a war commanded [by the Torah] all go out, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy. According to the first opinion, the preceding rules apply to a “voluntary war”, which is a war to expand the borders of Israel. In such a war some people receive exemptions. However, in a defensive war, which this opinion calls “a war commanded” by the Torah, all must go out and fight.", + "Rabbi Judah says: to what does this apply? To a war commanded [commanded by the Torah], but in an obligatory war all go out, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy. Rabbi Judah has a different opinion. A defensive war, even though it is a mitzvah (commanded), does not mandate the participation of all. However, an obligatory war, such as the conquest of the land by Joshua or the perpetual war against Amalek, requires the participation of all. These wars are obligatory because there are verses in the Bible that directly mandate them. I have interpreted the mishnah according to Albeck’s commentary. There are other interpretations in the Talmud and in the commentaries concerning the differences between the two opinions. Note, that at times “mitzvah” is opposed to obligation. For instance, there is a mitzvah that if one divorces his wife, he must do so with a get. However, there is certainly no obligation to divorce." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first part of the last chapter of Sotah discusses the ceremony in which the neck of a heifer is broken in order to atone for a murder whose murderer has not been identified. This ceremony is described in Deuteronomy 21:1-9.", + "[The declaration over] the heifer whose neck is to be broken must be in the holy tongue; as it is said, “If a corpse is found slain on the land … then your elders and judges shall go out” (Deuteronomy 21:1-2)--three used to go out from the high court in Jerusalem. The reason that this biblical passage is discussed here is that the declaration over the heifer must be made in Hebrew (the content of the declaration will be discussed below). However, the mishnah does not say why this is so. According to the Talmud, this is based on a midrash on the words, “And they shall answer and they shall say” (vs. 7). As we have seen in earlier mishnayoth, “they shall say” is interpreted to mean that they must say in Hebrew. After stating that the declaration must be made in Hebrew, the mishnah continues to discuss how the entire ceremony is performed, and when it is performed. According to the first opinion, three judges would go out from the high court in Jerusalem to determine which town was the closest to the dead body.", + "Rabbi Judah says: five, as it is said, “Your elders” two, “and your judges” two, and there cannot be a court of an even number, they add one more. Rabbi Judah midrashically determines that five judges, and not the typical three are necessary. His opinion is also found in Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:3." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first part of our mishnah teaches that corpses found in certain places do not require a heifer’s neck to be broken. The second section teaches that proximity of the corpse to certain cities also does not require the heifer’s neck to be broken.\nWe should note that the fact that the rabbis were quite willing to limit the applicability of the neck-breaking ceremony demonstrates that they were far less concerned with blood atonement than Israelites were in ancient times. The need for blood atonement was prominent in biblical theology and law, and played less of a role in rabbinic thinking.", + "If [the corpse] was found buried underneath a heap of stones, or hanging on a tree, or floating on the surface of the water, they would not break [the heifer’s neck], as it says: “In the earth” and not buried underneath a heap of stones, nor hanging on a tree; “In a field” and not floating on the surface of the water. Deuteronomy 21:1 reads, “If a corpse is found slain on the land.” The rabbis read “on the land” to exclude corpses that are not found “on the land” but rather underneath a heap of stones or hanging in a tree. The continuation of the verse states “lying in the field”. From this phrase the mishnah excludes a corpse found floating on the surface of the water.", + "If it was found near the border, or a city whose majority of inhabitants were Gentiles, or a city in which there is no court, they would not break [the heifer's neck]. They only measure the distance from a city in which there is a court. If [the corpse] was found exactly between two cities, both of them bring two heifers [between them], the words of Rabbi Eliezer; If the corpse was found near the border of the land of Israel, i.e. near enemy territory, or near a Gentile city (also considered to be enemies), a heifer was not brought. The Talmud explains that these places are considered dangerous and therefore, by going near there, the victim was not acting in a safe manner. Hence, if he is slain, assumedly by enemies, there is no communal guilt incurred by the Jewish city closest to the corpse. However, if the corpse was found near a city in which there is no court, they would still bring a heifer, and they would measure to the nearest city which does have a court. Since the Torah requires members of the court of the nearest city to go out and participate in the neck-breaking ceremony, the city which brings the heifer obviously must have a court. Rabbi Eliezer states that if the corpse is found exactly between two cities, both cities would bring a heifer and breaks its neck. In the Talmud a different opinion is brought, and that is that the two cities equidistant from the corpse share in bringing one heifer. Perhaps these two different opinions have different concepts of the neck-breaking ceremony. Rabbi Eliezer would claim that it is essential that each city which is closest must bring a heifer in order to cleanse its guilt. The responsibility is intended for the people of the city to bring a heifer, and since we don’t know which city is closest, both must bring. The other opinion would hold that the critical thing is that a heifer’s neck is broken in order to atone for the blood of the victim. The act must be fulfilled and the participation of the closest town matters less.", + "Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken. The abovementioned verse states, “If a corpse is found slain on the land which God is giving you to inherit”. Jerusalem was not given as an inheritance to any specific tribe. Rather, it belongs to all of Israel. Therefore, it is excluded from the laws of this verse. If a corpse is found closest to Jerusalem, a heifer’s neck is not broken." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a case where the head and body of the corpse were found in separate places. There are two potential issues involved: first of all, from where do they measure in order to determine which city must bring the heifer? Secondly, where do they bury the body? According to halakhah, an unidentified corpse is buried in the very place that it is found. This is called a “met mitzvah”, a “commanded corpse”. This corpse which is perhaps unidentified, is buried in its place.", + "If the head was found in one place and the body in another place, they bring the head to the body, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: [they bring] the body to the head. The debate in this mishnah is simple to understand but perhaps difficult to fully comprehend. Rabbi Eliezer implies that the body is the important part, and therefore the head is brought to it, whereas Rabbi Akiva implies that the head is the important part, and therefore the body is brought to it. What seems certain to me is that there is a level to this debate deeper than the mere technical details. In other words in this halakhah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva are expressing deeper values. What is uncertain is what those values are. One suggestion which occurred to me is that Rabbi Eliezer is operating according to a principle of “quantity”. Since the body is larger than the head, the head is brought to the body. In contrast, Rabbi Akiva operates according to a principle of essentiality/quality. The head is what governs the body. The head governs the remainder. Furthermore, it is what generally gives human beings their identity; people are recognized by their faces. Therefore, the body is brought to their head." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today’s mishnah we learn from what part of the body they would measure in order to determine the closest city.", + "From what part [of the body] do they measure? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the navel. Rabbi Akiva says: from the nose. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: from the place where he was made a slain person, from the neck. Rabbi Eliezer’s and Rabbi Akiva’s opinion directly parallel their opinions in yesterday’s mishnah. Rabbi Eliezer said that the head is brought to the body, and here he says that the distance is measured from the center of the body, from the navel. Rabbi Akiva said that the body is brought to the head, and here he says that it is measured from the center of the head, from the nose. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob determines the point from where we measure using another principle. A person’s life blood was considered to be in his neck. This can be observed by the fact that slicing a person’s neck causes them to die much quicker than slicing a leg or arm. Since the life-giving blood is found in the neck, the distance to the city is measured from that point." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to describe the neck-breaking ceremony. It clarifies some points in Deuteronomy 21:3-4.", + "The elders of Jerusalem departed and went away. Verse 2 refers to “your elders” and was interpreted in mishnah one as referring to the elders of Jerusalem, who are the elders of all of Israel. They are the ones that measure where the nearest city is. After having done so they leave.", + "The elders of that city bring “a heifer which has never been worked” (Deuteronomy 21:3). And a blemish does not disqualify it. Verse three states “The elders of that city”, which means that the elders of the nearest city are those who bring the heifer. The heifer must be one that has never been worked. However, the Torah does not require that it be free of blemishes, a requirement typical of sacrificial animals.", + "They bring it down to a hard ( wadi “etan” is understood in its literal sense of “hard”. Even if it is not “hard”, it is valid [for the ceremony]. Verse four says that the heifer is taken down to a “nahal etan”. The word “nahal” means wadi, or a riverbed. “Etan” is understood by our mishnah to mean “hard” or perhaps “strong”, the typical meaning of “etan”. Some interpret this to mean that it must have a strong flow of water. Others interpret it as hard in the sense of “rocky”. JPS translates “everflowing”. In any case, the requirement for the wadi to be “etan” is only a priori. Ex post facto, if the ritual was carried out in a non-etan wadi, it is valid.", + "They break its neck with a hatchet from behind. Once they are down at the wadi, the elders break the heifer’s neck with a type of hatchet, a large knife used for cutting meat and bones.", + "The site may never be sown or tilled, but it is permitted to comb flax and chisel rocks. Verse 4 states, “to an ever-flowing wadi, which is not tilled or sown.” The mishnah limits this prohibition to tilling or sewing. However, activities with things that are not attached to the ground such as flax or rocks that are detached from the ground are permitted. Only work involving the ground itself is forbidden." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches the meaning of the declarations made after the neck of the heifer has been broken (vs. 7-8).", + "The elders of that city then wash their hands with water in the place where the heifer's neck was broken and they say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it” (Deuteronomy 21:7). But did we really think that the elders of a court of justice are shedders of blood! Rather, [the intention of their statement is that the man found dead] did not come to us [for help] and we dismissed him without supplying him with food and we did not see him and let him go without escort. The first declaration is made by the elders of the city closest to the unidentified corpse. The mishnah does not interpret their statement to mean simply that they did not shed the blood of the person murdered, for no one would suspect the elders of committing murder. Rather, the mishnah interprets them as exclaiming that that victim did not come to city and they turned him away in his hour of need. Clearly we can see here that according to the mishnah, if a person comes in need of charity to a city, and the people of the city do not help him, and he ends up being killed, it is as if they had killed him themselves.", + "Then the priests exclaim, “Absolve, O Lord, Your people Israel, whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among your people Israel” (vs. 8). They did not need to say, “And they will be absolved of bloodguilt” (, rather the Holy Spirit announces to them, “When you act in this way, the blood is forgiven you.” Verse 5 assigns a role to the priests, “The priests, sons of Levi, shall come forward; for the Lord your God has chosen them to minister to Him and to pronounce blessing in the name of the Lord…” It sounds as if the priests should make a statement or play some role, but the Torah does not say what they say or do. To fill this gap, the mishnah assigns to them the saying in vs. 8, which deals with absolution from sin, a role which priests often play. Verse 5 ends, “And they will be absolved of bloodguilt”. The mishnah teaches that this is not something stated by the priests, rather by a Holy Spirit paraphrasing the verse, promising those who perform the ritual that it is an effective means towards atonement." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a case where a dead body was found and at first, no one knew who the murderer was. Therefore, they began the ritual. However, before the ritual was completed the identity of the murderer was discovered.\nWe should note that the exegetical/midrashic portion of this part of the mishnah is completed, and now the mishnah is filling in some details.", + "If the murderer was discovered before the heifer’s neck was broken, it goes free and grazes with the herd; If the heifer’s neck has not yet been broken and the murderer is found, then the heifer may return to being treated as a normal, non-sacral animal. Its merely having been brought down to the wadi does not subsequently forbid a person from deriving benefit from it.", + "But if after the heifer’s neck was broken, it is buried in that place because it came there from the outset in connection with a matter of doubt, and atoned for the doubt which is now gone. However, if the heifer’s neck has already been broken before the murderer is discovered, it is forbidden for anyone to derive any benefit from it (obviously it can no longer go graze with the herd!). The heifer has essentially fulfilled its purpose; it atoned for the doubt with regard to the murderer’s identity, even though his identity is now known. It is now similar to all heifers whose necks have been broken; no one may derive any benefit from any of them.", + "If the heifer’s neck was broken and afterwards the murderer is discovered, behold he is executed. We might have thought that the fact that the heifer’s neck atoned for the spilled blood of the victim means that if the real murderer is found, he is not executed. Therefore, the mishnah declares that he is nevertheless executed. Blood atonement is only one factor in the treatment of murder; the other is obviously justice. If the murderer is identified the value of justice demands that he be tried and executed, even if the blood which he spilled has already been atoned for." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the final mishnah which deals with the neck-breaking regulations. It discusses a case where there is some but not full testimony about the identity of the murderer.", + "This mishnah is nearly identical to that which we saw regarding adultery and the drinking of the sotah waters above (mishnah 6:4).", + "If one witness says “I saw the murderer” and one witness says “You did not see him”; or if a woman says “I saw him” and another woman says “You did not see him”, they break its neck. The testimony of the first witness is contradicted by that of the second witness; each witness’s testimony nullifies that of the other. Since there is no testimony regarding the identity of the murderer, the heifer’s neck must be broken. The same is true if both witnesses are women.", + "If one witness says “I saw him” and two say “You did not see him”, they break its neck. In this case, after one witness testifies to the identity of the murderer, two witnesses that the first witness did not see the murder. The testimony of the two outweighs that of the single witness, and the heifer’s neck must be broken.", + "If two say “We saw him” and one says to them “You did not see him”, they do not break its neck. Since two witnesses say they saw the murder, a single witness who says they did not see the murder cannot nullify their testimony. Hence, the identity has been established, and the heifer’s neck is not broken." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nFrom here until the end of the tractate, the mishnah teaches various things that the rabbis discontinued or for some reason ceased. The first thing mentioned is the ceremony we have been discussing in this chapter, the ceremony of breaking the heifer’s neck. The second thing discontinued was the sotah ritual, the main topic of this tractate. The third thing was not so much discontinued but ceased. The mishnah teaches that at a certain point there were no more men who were both learned and fully righteous.", + "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 murderers multiplied, murderers such as Eliezer ben Dinai (who had several other names), the rabbis discontinued the neck-breaking ritual. This is because there was no longer any doubt about who the murderer was. Since everyone knew who the murderers were but couldn’t do anything about it, the ritual was no longer applicable.", + "When adulterers multiplied, the ceremony of the bitter waters ceased and it was Rabban Yohanan 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). The word “adulterers” here refers to men (in Hebrew each word has a gender). In a time when many men were committing adultery, the water-drinking ceremony was discontinued. This is based on a midrash found elsewhere on Numbers 5:31, “The man shall be clear of guilt; but that woman shall suffer for her guilt.” The midrash on this verse says that the waters are effective in testing the woman, only if the husband is free of guilt. If he is also engaged in illicit sex with other women, he cannot use the sotah ritual to test his own wife. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who lived through the destruction of the Temple, discontinued the practice. The mishnah also brings a verse from Hosea according to which God will not punish the daughters and daughters-in-law at a time when their fathers are also committing grave sins. In both of these sections we can see that these two mysterious rituals which deal with the most serious of crimes, murder and adultery, are only effective in cleansing Israel of guilt at a time when Israel is in general acting in a righteous and lawful manner. The ceremonies deal with the few deviants in society who do not observe society’s most basic laws. They cannot deal with an entire community gone awry.", + "When Yose ben Yoezer of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan 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). The two sages mentioned here are the first ���pair” mentioned in Avoth 1:4. When they died, there were no longer any people who were like “grape clusters”. This refers metaphorically to people who were both wise and performed good deeds. The idea of comparing the righteous to clusters of grapes is derived from the verse in Micah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are four practices mentioned as being discontinued in this mishnah.", + "Yohanan the high priest brought to an end the confession made at the presentation of the tithe. As we learned above in mishnah 7:1, twice in seven years a person must take his accumulated tithes out of his house and make a confession at the Temple that he had no more tithes. Yohanan the high priest ended this practice. There are two explanations given for why he ended the practice. The first is that he saw that people were no longer separating tithes, and they were only separating terumah. The second is that the tithes were no longer given to the Levites but rather to the priests. This is because when Ezra came to Israel from Babylonia, the priests did not come with him. Therefore he penalized them by giving the tithes to the priests.", + "He also discontinued the wakers and the knockers Before Yohanan the high priest, there was a custom that when the Levites would rise in the Temple in the morning, they would recite the verse, “Rouse Yourself; why do you sleep, O Lord?” (Psalms 44:24). These Levites were called the “wakers”. The practice was abolished because it gives the impression that God is sleeping, and Psalms 121:4 says, “See, the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.” The “knockers” refers to a practice of striking a sacrificial heifer between its horns in order to prepare it for sacrifice. This would make it easier to slaughter. When they began to fear that this would render the animal unfit to eat and therefore they stopped the practice.", + "Up to his days the hammer used to strike in Jerusalem, Up until the days of Yohanan the high priest, on the intermediate days of the festival (hol hamoed), one could hear the sound of hammers striking in Jerusalem. Although the people were doing the types of work which are permitted on these days (we shall learn these laws when we learn tractate Moed Katan), Yohanan the high priest said that this was inappropriate for the sound made it seem as if there was no festival. Therefore, he put an end to the practice.", + "And in his days there was no need to inquire about doubtfully tithed produce. Doubtfully tithed produce (demai) is produce bought from an uneducated person, a person who may not properly separate tithes. In the time of Yohanan the high priest, a person did not need to ask if what he was purchasing was properly tithed, for Yohanan decreed that anybody who buys produce from an uneducated person should separate only the terumah taken from the tithe and second tithe. He would also separate the first and second tithe but these he could eat them himself. Since these tithes may have already been taken out before he bought the produce, the Levite cannot prove that the first tithe belongs to him, nor can the poor person prove that the poor tithe belongs to him. Therefore, he can retain these tithes for himself. Before Yohanan’s time, people had to ask those selling produce if it was tithed, and they would have to decide whether the person was trustworthy. If the seller was not trustworthy, people wouldn’t buy from him, because they would have to separate all of the tithes." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches about what happened when the Sanhedrin, the high court in Jerusalem, ceased to function", + "When the Sanhedrin ceased [to function], song ceased from the places of feasting, as it is said, “They drink their wine without song” (Isaiah 24:9). Towards the end of the Second Temple period, the Sanhedrin ceased to function. According to Albeck, it ceased adjudicating capital crimes. From that time on, there were no more songs sung at places of feasting. Later Talmudic commentators and halakhic authorities say that this refers only to songs of love between people. Songs of love towards God did not cease, and hence it was always customary to sing songs in praise of God." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of this mishnah teaches what ceased when the earlier prophets died out. The remainder of the section teaches what ceased when the Second Temple was destroyed.", + "When the former prophets died, the Urim and Thummim ceased. The Urim and Thummim were two oracular stones that the high priest would carry in his breastplate. When the Israelites had questions they would ask the Urim and Thummim (see Exodus 28:30). The Urim and Thummim were in use only during the First Temple period. When the prophets of the First Temple died out, the Urim and Thummim ceased.", + "When Temple was destroyed, the shamir and nopheth zufim ceased. According to the Talmud, the “shamir” was a worm that was so strong that it could cut through stone. King Solomon used it to cut the stones to build the Temple and it was also used to the stones for the breastplate. The “nophet zufim” was a special type of sweet honey. According to the mishnah, after the Temple was destroyed, these wondrous creations ceased to exist.", + "And people of faith ceased, as it says, “Help, O Lord, for the faithful are no more” (Psalms 12:2). Not only did the abovementioned wondrous creations cease to exist, but so did people of faith. This is hinted at in Psalms 12:2.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in the name of Rabbi Joshua: from the day the Temple was destroyed, there is no day without a curse, the dew has not descended for a blessing, and the flavor has departed from produce. Rabbi Yose says: the fatness was also removed from produce. In these two statements we can see how bitter a loss the destruction of the Temple was for those who lived in that time period. Indeed, this statement reminds me of something someone would say after the loss, God forbid, of a spouse or child. Things just never again taste as good and every day is somewhat of a curse." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Yose and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel blamed the deterioration experienced in their generation to the destruction of the Temple. In today’s mishnah other rabbis attribute this deterioration to a lack of the observance of certain commandments or to acts of immorality.", + "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: [the cessation of observation of the] purity laws has removed taste and fragrance, [the cessation of observation of] the tithes has removed the fatness of grain. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar attributes the loss of the taste of produce not directly to the destruction of the Temple, but to the cessation of the observation of the purity laws and the laws of tithing. I believe that the difference between Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the opinions in the previous mishnah is significant. In the previous mishnah, it was the loss of the Temple that caused food to lose its taste. The Temple was the meeting place of Israel and God and without it people can no longer have contact with the divine. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar understands the observance of commandments as the mechanism that brings taste to one’s life. Although certain commandments can no longer be fulfilled once the Temple has been destroyed, perhaps the “taste of life” could be restored by the observation of those commandments which we can still keep.", + "But the Sages say: licentiousness and sorcery destroyed everything. In the Sages’ words we see yet another attempt to explain why food no longer has taste. I believe that “licentiousness and sorcery” are ways of saying that human beings corrupted the natural order and committed acts of immorality. It is not just the lack of observance of commandments, or the destruction of the Temple which brought a curse to life by ruining its “taste” but rather acts of immorality. Perhaps, again, we can imagine that by restoring morality, at least some of the “taste” could be restored as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses three wars that the Jews fought with the Romans during the Second Temple and mishnaic periods. The first was with Vespasian, three years before the destruction of the Temple. The second was with Quietus about forty years after the destruction. The war with Quietus was fought mostly by the Jews in Egypt. [Other versions of the mishnah say that the second war was with Titus, who ended up destroying the Temple.] The third was the Bar-Kochba revolt, fought from 132-135, with Hadrian. After the Jews lost this war, they no longer had any political autonomy or power and Jerusalem was razed to the ground.\nDuring each of these wars, all of which the Jews ended up losing, the rabbis decreed that certain celebratory actions were no longer appropriate. Most of the decrees were against elements of the wedding celebration.", + "During the war with Vespasian they [the rabbis] decreed against [the use of] crowns worn by bridegrooms and against [the use of] the bell. Before the war with Vespasian, the Jews used a crown to adorn bridegrooms during the wedding ceremony (see Isaiah 61:10). They also used a special bell to play music at the wedding feast. They decreed against both of these during what is known by historians as “The Great Revolt”.", + "During the war with Quietus they decreed against [the use of] crowns worn by brides and that nobody should teach their child Greek. During the second revolt, they decreed against the crowns worn by the brides. On these crowns was embedded the image of Jerusalem. From them we have the phrase “Jerusalem of Gold”, immortalized in Naomi Shemer’s song “Yerushalayim Shel Zahav”. They also decreed that people should not teach their children Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern parts of the Roman Empire. So great was their hatred for the Romans, that they refused even to learn their language.", + "During the final war they decreed that a bride should not go out in a palanquin inside the city, but our rabbis decreed that a bride may go out in a palanquin inside the city. In the last war, they decreed that a bride should no longer use a palanquin, a covered seat carried on poles which is held parallel to the ground on the shoulders of two or four people (according to the Encarta Dictionary). This seat is mentioned in Song of Songs 3:9. However, in a later period “our rabbis”, identified by Maimonides as Rabbi Judah Hanasi, decreed that the bride may again use the palanquin. The Talmud explains that since the palanquin preserved the bride’s modesty, it was allowed." + ], + [ + "When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased.
When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students [of Torah] ceased.
When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased.
When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world.
When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied.
When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy.
When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased.
When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased.
When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men ( ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men.
When Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased.
When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished.
When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased.
When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased.
Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven.
Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence ( will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven.
Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”
The previous several mishnayoth discussed various historical events and what ceased at those times. The first section of the mishnah teaches what ceased when the great teachers of Torah of the mishnaic period died.
The second and third sections contain laments at the great deterioration that Israel experienced when the Temple was destroyed. The last part of the third section and the final section contain messages of hope for better times.
Some of these sections are self-explanatory. Therefore, I will only comment when there is something to add.
Sections 1-3: In the first three sections, when rabbis die who exemplify certain characteristics of Torah learners, the world is bereft of men like them. Rabbi Meir was known for his fables, Ben Azzai for his extreme dedication to study and Ben Zoma was a great expounder of biblical verses (you may remember him from the haggadah).
Section four: Rabbi Joshua died right around the time of the beginning of the Bar-Kochba revolt, a bitter loss for the Jews. This may be the meaning of “goodness ceased from the world.”
Section six: Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was very wealthy and helped support many other Torah scholars.
Section seven: Rabbi Akiva expounded upon every letter in the Torah and even every mark made on top of each letter. This is the “glory of the Torah”, that everything in it has a meaning.
Section nine: The “pious men” may refer to individually pious men, but it also may refer to a radical group of Pharisees known as “hasidim.”
Section eleven: Rabban Gamaliel the Elder lived while the Temple still stood. Separateness may refer to asceticism.
Section fourteen: Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair laments the deterioration that occurred after the destruction of the Temple. The good people were disregarded and led to shame while the violent and those who talked more than they did thrived. At the end of his statement he notes that we have no choice but to continue relying on God. This is this mishnah’s note of hope. Despite the deep traumas experienced by the Jews in this period, traumas that dislocated them from their center of worship in Jerusalem and caused a great loss of life, the rabbis continued to believe in God and to study the Torah. Without them, we would not be here today.
Section fifteen: This section is really the last section of the mishnah, causing the tractate to end on a negative note. In order to prevent this, later copyists added a more upbeat ending to the Mishnah. Rabbi Eliezer the Great again speaks of the deterioration after the destruction. However, there may be some optimism in his words themselves. The phrase “in the footsteps of the messiah” refers to his belief that the great suffering currently being experienced is a sign of the eminent messianic period. These are the “birthpangs of the Messiah”. Rabbi Eliezer closes both sections of his remarks by noting that we have nothing to do but rely on God’s grace.
Section sixteen: This section is a later addition to the Mishnah, one meant to add hope after such a bitter chapter. The saying provides a prescription for bringing about the return of Elijah, the harbinger of the Messiah. It all begins with simple “heedfulness”, which could be understood as passion for observance of the commandments.
Congratulations! We have finished Sotah.
It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.
Sotah was, at least in my opinion, an extremely interesting tractate. The tractate was full of midrash, explaining the sotah ritual and several other important biblical passages. It ended with some fascinating historical material. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.
May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more Mishnah! Tomorrow we begin Gittin." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה סוטה", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Nashim" + ], + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה סוטה", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file