Read the text (PDF)

מתני׳ Mishnah: מתני׳ היו מעלין אותה לבית דין הגדול שבירושלים ומאיימין עליה כדרך שמאיימין על עדי נפשות ואומרואומרין, ואומרים (Liss 1977: 66-67, nn. 67-69).לה בתי הרבה יין עושה הרבה שחוק עושה הרבה ילדות עושה הרבה שכנים הרעים עושין עשיאל תעשי לשמו, עשי למען שמו (Liss 1977: 67, nn. 81-82).לשמו הגדול שנכתב בקדושה שלא ימחה על המים Mishnah: They would take her up to the High Court in Jerusalem and admonish her in the same way that they admonish witnesses in capital cases. And heTannaitic sources differ on whether “he” refers to the priest (Sifre Numbers 12) or a member of the court (Rabbi Yosi bar Ḥaninah, folio 7b below, may take either position.) Medieval witnesses (Meiri, Maimonides) have the plural (“they say”), clearly referring to the court, as do generally good Mishnah mss. (Parma, Kaufmann; the latter might be corrected to that reading.)says to her, “My daughter, much wine, much levity, much childishness, and many bad neighbors cause [sin]. Cause [rather] this [confession] forThe reading in the majority of mss., also reflected in a different formulation of Sifre Numbers, is “Do not cause his great name…” Other mss. read “…for the sake of His great name.” The printers have conflated the two readings.His great Name, written in holiness, that it may not be blotted out by the waters.” ואומר לפניה דברים שאינם כדישאינה כדאי (Liss 1977: 68, nn. 86 and 92). לשומען היא וכל משפחת בית אביה And he tells her of things that one Rashi and most mss.: “she should not hear.” Rashi comments that she is not permitted to hear the sins of the patriarchs [Mishnah, tractate Megillah 4:10: the sin of Reuben may be “recited but not translated in public”] but this case is an exception, as it may elicit her confession (like Judah and Reuben, who “confessed and were not ashamed”–see 7b below.) Meiri adds that the patriarchs’ sins and confessions will overwhelm even the most intransigent sotah–even if she is surrounded by the supportive presence of “her father’s house.” Meiri therefore interprets the Mishnah as “things that she cannot [bear to] hear,” rather than simply "she should not hear."should not hear, [neither she] nor any relation of her father’s house. אם אמרה טמאה אני שוברת כתובתה ויוצאת ואם אמרה טהורה אני מעלין אותה לשער המזרחלשערי המזרח, לשערי מזרח (Liss 1977: 69, nn. 100-101).שעל פתח שער נקנור ששם משקין את הסוטות ומטהרין את היולדות ומטהרין את המצורעין If she said, “I am defiled,” she writes a receipt for her marriage-contract and she is released. But if she said, “I am pure,” they take her up to the Eastern Gate,Many witnesses and parallels read: “Eastern gates.” Rashi reads “Eastern gate” and comments that this is the outer gate from which one entered the Temple Mount–not the Niqanor or “upper” gate, which he places between the women’s courtyard and the courtyard of Israelites. Most other commentators read the Eastern and Niqanor gates as identical, as does Rashi himself in his commentary to Numbers (5:18). This contradiction may arise from Rashi’s reading of this Mishnah in the Gemara (bottom of 7b below), where the stam adds that “they take her up” from gate to gate “in order to wear her out.” In this context, then, Rashi sees the Niqanor Gate as the “upper gate,” with the sotah going up and down between the two gates. But as Saul Lieberman notes in his commentary to the parallel at Tosefta Sotah 1:4 (New York: JTS, 1967, vol. 8, 613), both ms. Parma of the Mishnah here and ms. Vienna of the Tosefta lack “Niqanor.” That name seems to have crept in later, as a clarification. The original reading was likely closer to Josephus, Antiquities III.6, who refers simply to "the gates which face toward the Temple."at the entryway of the Niqanor Gate, where they give the sotah [bitter waters] to drink, and purify a [recently] delivered woman, and purify those with skin-affliction. וכהןוהכוהן (Liss 1977: 70, n. 116).אוחז בבגדיה אם נקרעו נקרעו ואם נפרמו נפרמו עד שהוא מגלה את לבה וסותר את שערה And aMedieval commentators (Tosafot; Meiri) and a parallel (Numbers Rabbah) read “the priest,” i.e. the priest who is chosen by lot to expose her body (Tosefta Sotah 1:7)–not just any priest. This reading is even reflected in the Gemara itself (II.b.iii below.)priest seizes her clothes–if they are torn, they are torn; if they are ripped, they are ripped–until he exposes her chest, and he uncovers her hair [and unbraids it]. רבי יהודה אומר אם היה לבה נאה לא היה מגלהו ואם היה שערה נאה לא היה סותרסותרו (Liss 1977: 71, n. 126). Rabbi Yehudah says: If her chest was attractive, he wouldn’t expose it, and if her hair was attractive, he wouldn’t uncover [it]The object pronoun is missing in Vilna, but not in most other witnesses.[and unbraid it]. היתהלביישה (בגליון: לנוולה). כ׳׳י אוקספורד, 2675,2.מתכסה בלבנים מכסה בשחורים היההיו (Liss 1977: 71, n. 134).עליה כלי זהב וקטליאות נזמים וטבעות מעבירין ממנה כדי לנוולה If she was dressed in white, he dresses her in black; if she had onMost other witness have, correctly, the plural: “if gold jewelry, etc., were [Vilna: was] on her.” gold jewelry, chokers, nose-rings, rings: they take them off her in order to sullyMs. Oxford 2675,2: shame [in margin: sully]. This variant reveals the social function of the act. her. ואחר כך מביא חבל מצריחבל המצרי (Liss 1977: 72, n. 10).וקושרו למעלה מדדיה After that, [the priest] takes a reedMost witnesses: “the reed rope” [ḥevel ha-mitsri]. Rabbi Yitsḥaq comments, in the earlier parallel in the Palestinian Talmud (Sotah 1:6): “because she acted according to the deeds of the Egyptians [ha-mitsrim],” i.e. fornication (see Ezek. 16:26–also a key intertext of this Mishnah.) Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Sotah 3:11) preserves that position. However, as Rashi notes, the word actually comes from netser (“reed”), as in Babylonian Talmud, tractate Eruvin 58a: “a rope of reeds [netsarim] for a sotah.” See editor’s note in Albeck’s edition of Mishnah Nashim, 381.rope and ties it above her torso. וכל הרוצה לראות באלראות בה בא (Liss 1977: 72, n. 15).לראות חוץ מעבדיה ושפחותיה מפני שלבה גס בהןגס בה (Liss 1977: 73 n. 23).וכלושאר כל הנשים (Liss 1977: 73 n. 24).הנשים מותרות מוֹתְרוֹת חייבות – (Liss 1977: 73 n. 25)לראותה And everyone who wants to gaze may come,Several witnesses, including Rashi and the Gemara (8b below): “to gaze upon her may come.” The phrase “upon her” (bah) likely fell out, due to similarity to the adjacent word “come” (ba’). More importantly, this translation of the implied modal (“may”) reflects only Rava’s reading of the Mishnah at folio 8b in the Gemara (II.c.iii below): anyone, male or female, may come to gaze, but women who attend must gaze. Abbaye holds that only women may attend and they are permitted–but not obligated–to gaze.except male slaves and maidservants, for she is shamelessAs Rosen-Zvi shows (2012: 89-92)–with the exception of the parallel at Tosefta Sotah 1:6–this phrase [literally, her heart swells] usually means that a woman is “shameless” before her social inferiors, rather than “emboldened” by her social peers. He applies the more usual sense here. Rashi, by contrast, reads it in the unusual sense of “emboldened,” as is clear from his reading (“her heart swells within her”) and his comment (“When a person sees the members of his household, his resolve is strengthened and he does not become afraid or confess.”) See Meiri’s interpretation of the clause “nor any of her father’s house” along the same lines, the critical note to “one should not hear” above.before them. And all womenMeiri: “all other women,” i.e., other than her maidservants. See previous critical note.are permittedThe debate over may vs. must come (see critical note to “may come” above) led Shlomo Adani (d. 1629) to “correct” the Mishnah in line with the Gemara by re-vocalizing and glossing the word as obligated. Yet, if that were the reading known to Abbaye & Rava, their subsequent debate could never have arisen.to see her, שנאמר ונוסרו כל הנשים ולא תעשינה כזמתכנה as it is said: that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness. [Ezek. 23:48] גמ׳ Gemara: [I.a] [I.a] מנהני מילי א"ר חייא בר גמדא א"ר יוסי בר’ חנינא אתיא תורה תורה כתיב הכא ועשה לה הכהן את כל התורה וכתיב התם על פי התורה אשר יורוך מה להלן בשבעים ואחד אף כאן בשבעים ואחד Where are these matters [They take her up to the High Court… to be derived] from [in Scripture]? –R. Hiyya bar Gamda said that R. Yosi bar Haninah said, “It is brought from [an analogy between two instances of] ‘Torah’ and ‘Torah’. Here it is written, ‘the priest shall execute upon her [the sotah] all this Torah’ [Num. 5:30], and there it is written, ‘According to the sentence of the Torah which they shalt teach thee’ [Deut. 17:11]. Just as the latter is about [the High Court of] seventy-one [judges], here, too, it is about [the High Court of] seventy-one [judges]. ומאיימין עליה וכו’ ורמינהו כדרך שמאיימין עליה שלא תשתה כך מאיימין עליה שתשתה אומרים לה בתי אם ברור לך הדבר שטהורה את עמדי על בורייך ושתי לפי שאין מים המרים דומין אלא לסם יבש שמונח על בשר חי אם יש שם מכה מחלחל ויורד אין שם מכה אינו מועיל כלום And admonish her etc. And we counterpose the two [sources to raise a contradiction, i.e. this mishnah with the following baraita]: Just as they admonish her not to drink, so do they admonish her to drink. They tell her, “My daughter, if the matter is quite clear to you that you are pure, then rest assured in your clarity and drink, as the bitter waters may be likened to nothing more than a dry ointment spread upon living skin: if there is a wound there, it pierces and goes in. If there is no wound, it brings about nothing at all.” לא קשיא כאן קודם שנמחקה מגילה כאן לאחר שנמחקה מגילה [The apparent contradiction between that baraita and the mishnah] is not difficult [to resolve]: There [in the mishnah] it was before the scroll is dissolved [that she was admonished not to drink so as not to profane God’s name]; here [in the baraita], it is after the scroll is dissolved [that she was admonished to drink, lest an innocent sotah refrain due to her fear – Rashi.] [I.b] [I.b] ואומר לפניה וכו׳ And he tells her etc. ת"ר אומר לפניה דברים של הגדה ומעשים שאירעו בכתובים הראשונים כגון אשר חכמים יגידו ולא כחדו מאבותם יהודה הודה ולא בוש מה היה סופו נחל חיי העולם הבא ראובן הודה ולא בוש מה היה סופו נחל חיי העולם הבא ומה שכרן Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: He tells her of things of lore and deeds that transpired in the early Writings, for instance, Which wise men have told from their fathers, and not hid it [Job 15:18]: Judah confessed and was not ashamed. What end did he come to? He inherited the life of the world to come. Reuben confessed and was not ashamed. What end did he come to? He inherited the life of the world to come. And what was their reward? מה שכרן כדקא אמרינן – What was their reward?! It’s just as we are saying, [the life of the world to come–isn’t that enough]?! אלא מה שכרן בעולם הזה –But [the question was], “What was their reward in this world?” להם לבדם נתנה הארץ ולא עבר זר בתוכם –“Unto whom alone the earth was given, and no stranger passed among them.” [Job 15:19.] בשלמא ביהודה אשכחן דאודי דכתיב ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני אלא ראובן מנלן דאודי – That is suitable for Judah, we do find that he confesses, for it is written, And Judah acknowledged them, and said, "She hath been more righteous than I."Or: “She is in the right–it [i.e., Tamar’s pregnancy] is mine.”[Gen. 38:26.] But Reuben, from where do we [know] that he confesses? דא"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר’ יוחנן מאי דכתיב יחי ראובן ואל ימות וזאת ליהודה כל אותן שנים שהיו ישראל במדבר היו עצמותיו של יהודה מגולגלין בארון עד שעמד משה ובקש עליו רחמים אמר לפניו רבש"ע מי גרם לראובן שהודה יהודה וזאת ליהודה מיד שמע ה’ קול יהודה על איבריה לשפא ולא הוה קא מעיילין ליה למתיבתא דרקיעא ואל עמו תביאנו ולא הוה קא ידע משקל ומטרח בשמעתא בהדי רבנן ידיו רב לו לא הוה קא סלקא ליה שמעתא אליבא דהילכתא ועזר מצריו תהיה –For R. Shmuel bar Nahmani said that R. Yohanan said: Why is it written, “Let Reuben live, and not die […] And this is [the blessing] of Judah”? [Deut. 33:6-7. Why is this the only blessing of the tribes which begins And this, indicating some connection between the blessing of Reuben and the blessing of Judah?- Rashi]. All those years that Israel were in the wilderness, Judah’s bones were rolling in the coffin, until Moses arose and begged for mercy for him. He said before Him, “Lord of the universe, who caused Reuben to confess? Judah! Yet this is [the so-called blessing] of Judah?!” Right away “Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah…” [Deut. 33:7.] Each limb went into its socket. But they still would not bring him up to the academy of the firmament [so Moses continued] “bring him unto his people” [Deut. 33:7]. And [when he arrived] he still did not know [the art of] dialectic in the oral tradition among those teachers of ours, [so Moses continued] “let his hands [i.e. his ability] be sufficient [rav, pun on “a rabbi”] for him” [Deut. 33:7]. He still could not establish the tradition according to the law, [so Moses said] ‘and be thou an help unto him from his enemies’ [Deut. 33:7. This entire paragraph = Babylonian Talmud tractate Makkot 11b]. בשלמא יהודה דאודי כי היכי דלא תישרף תמר אלא ראובן למה ליה דאודי והאמר רב ששת חציף עלי (בר ישראל) דמפריט חטאיה – That is suitable [to show] that Judah confesses: it was so that Tamar would not be burnt. But Reuben, why did he [have to] confess? After all, Rav Sheshet has said, ‘To me, (a son of Israel)Vilna places this scandalous phrase in parentheses. Liss (1977, 79 n. 114) notes that Rashi and other witnesses read simply “one.” The censors added it, Liss says, “because it is the practice of Christians to confess their sins in detail.” See also Babylonian Talmud tractate Berakhot 34b.one who confesses his sins in detail is scandalous!’ כי היכי דלא ליחשדו אחוהי –It was so that his brothers would not be suspected. [I.c] [I.c] אם אמרה טמאה אני וכו’ If she said, “I am defiled” etc. [she writes a receipt for her marriage-contract and she is released]. שמעת מינה כותבין שובר Learn from this that one does write a receipt [rather than tearing up the contract]. אמר אביי תני מקרעת Abbaye said: Recite it [as] “tears up” [rather than “writes a receipt for”, which supports the opposite derivation: one does not write a receipt but tears up the original marriage contract]. א"ל רבא והא שוברת קתני Rava said to Abbaye: And yet, ‘writes a receipt’ is what it says! אלא אמר רבא במקום שאין כותבין כתובה עסקינן Rather, Rava said: We are dealing with a locality where one does not write a marriage-contract [therefore, there is nothing to tear up! In such a locality, in an ordinary divorce, we would rely on the court’s fixed payment to a woman for the dissolution of her marriage-contract, according to whether she is legally a virgin or a widow [Mishnah Ketubbot 1:2], which may require eyewitness testimony [Mishnah Ketubbot 2:1]. But this is not an ordinary divorce: by confessing to adultery, she forfeits any rights under her marriage-contract. Therefore, her husband must retain a receipt for the marriage-contract, in order to be able to prove that she has no claim on him. Receipts pose well-known problems–“mice,” for instance, might eat the receipt, allowing false claims to be made in future. Rava is not, however, drawing a conclusion from this locality about writing receipts in general. – Rashi & Tosafot. We should also consider that, given the graphically public circumstances of her divorce, a sotah is very unlikely to sue her ex-husband or his heirs for her marriage-settlement.] [II.a] [II.a] ואם אמרה טהורה אני מעלין אותה לשערי מזרח But if she said, “I am pure,” they take her up to the Eastern Gate מעלין אותה התם קיימא “They take her up”? She’s standing there [already]! דמסקינן לה ומחתינן לה כדי לייגעה דתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בית דין מסיעין את העדים ממקום למקום כדי שתטרף דעתן עליהן ויחזרו בהן [It means] that they drag her up and down in order to tire her. For as it was taught [in a baraita]: R. Shimon ben Elazar says: A court moves the witnesses from place to place, so that their minds will become addled and they will retract [if they were lying]. [II.b] [II.b] ששם משקין את הסוטות וכו’ where they give the sotah [bitter waters] to drink [and purify a [recently] delivered woman, and purify those with skin-affliction]. [II.b.i] [II.b.i] בשלמא סוטות דכתיב והעמיד הכהן את האשה לפני ה’ מצורעין נמי דכתיב והעמיד הכהן המטהר וגו’ אלא יולדת מאי טעמא [The Eastern Gate] is suitable for sotot, for it is written, And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord [Num. 5:18]. [And it is suitable] those with skin-affliction as well, for it is written, And the priest shall set the man [to be] cleansed etc. [Lev. 14:11, KJV modified.] But [as for] a [recently] delivered woman, what is the reason [for this location of the rite of purification]? אילימא משום דאתיין וקיימין אקורבנייהו דתניא אין קרבנו של אדם קרב אלא אם כן עומד על גביו אי הכי זבין וזבות נמי If you say it is because these women [are supposed to] bring and stand over their offerings (as it was taught [in a baraita], “A person’s offering is not presented unless he is standing over it”), [but these woman are ritually impure and so they stand as close as possible; beside the outer, Niqanor Gate, which is not sanctified– Rashi. See the critical note to “Eastern Gate” in the Mishnah above.] then men and women with genital discharge as well [should be required to stand at the Eastern Gate, but this mishnah did not say so]! אה"נ ותנא חדא מינייהו נקט –Yes, it is so! But the Tanna [behind this mishnah] marked one of them, [the women, to represent multiple kinds of people who bring offerings, but are impure, and therefore stand at this gate]. [II.b.ii] [II.b.ii] ת"ר אין משקין שתי סוטות כאחת כדי שלא יהא לבה גס בחבירתה Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: One may not give two sotot the bitter waters to drink at the same [time], so that one will not embolden her fellow [in that case, a sotah who would have confessed does not because she sees another maintain her innocence- Rashi. See also critical note to “Shameless” in the Mishnah above.] רבי יהודה אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא אמר קרא אותה לבדה R. Yehudah says: That is not the reason! Rather, Scripture said, [The priest shall charge] her [Num. 5:19], [and her] alone. ות"ק הכתיב אותה But as for the Tanna [behind that baraita], is not ‘her’ [indeed] written! [What could he possibly have been thinking, as he also knew the verse?] ת"ק ר"ש היא דדריש טעם דקרא ומה טעם קאמר מה טעם אותה לבדה כדי שלא יהא לבה גס בחבירתה –Its Tanna is R. Shimon, who interprets the rationale of Scripture. And he is saying, “What is the rationale for [the verse to say] ‘her’ alone? So that one will not embolden her fellow.” [Therefore, he agrees on the rule, but supplies a rationale for it.] מאי בינייהו What is the [practical] difference between [“R. Shimon”/R. Yehudah]? איכא בינייהו רותתת – The [practical] difference between them arises [in the case of] a woman who is shaking. [In that case, there is no danger that two sotot might ‘embolden’ each other. So, according to “R. Shimon,” in that case, one could make two sotot drink at the same time. R. Yehudah would still disagree, because the verse says ‘her’ alone.] ורותתת מי משקין והא אין עושין מצות חבילות חבילות –But who would make a shaking woman drink [at the same time as another woman]? After all, ‘one should not fulfill commandments as a package’! [= tractate Berakhot 49a.] דתנן אין משקין שתי סוטות כאחת ואין מטהרין שני מצורעין כאחת ואין רוצעין שני עבדים כאחת ואין עורפין שתי עגלות כאחת לפי שאין עושין מצות חבילות חבילות For we have learned [in a baraita]: One should not make two sotot drink at the same time, nor purify two people with skin-affliction at the same time, nor pierce the ears of two slaves at the same time, nor break the necks of two heifers at the same time, because one should not fulfill commandments as a package [! This refutes the exception to the rule against making two sotot drink at the same time that was just attributed to “R. Shimon,” i.e., in the case of a “shaking” sotah, who cannot “embolden” her fellow.] אמר אביי ואיתימא רב כהנא לא קשיא כאן בכהן אחד כאן בשני כהנים Abbaye said (and some say it was Rav Kahana): “It is not difficult [to defeat this refutation of “R. Shimon’s” exception and save his position]” Here, [this baraita against ‘packaging’ two commandments] is about a single priest. [Whereas] here [in the exception attributed to “R. Shimon,” where a shaking sotah is made to drink at the same time as another,] it is about two priests [who administer the rite to one sotah each. Therefore, neither of the priests is ‘fulfilling commandments as a package.‘]. [II.b.iii] [II.b.iii] והכהן אוחז בבגדיה And the Priest seizes her clothes. תנו רבנן ופרע את ראש האשה אין לי אלא ראשה גופה מנין Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: …and uncover the woman’s head… [Num. 5:18]. [From this] I have only her head. Whence [do we derive] her body? ת"ל האשה –[That is] the lesson of the statement ‘the woman’ [which is superfluous in this verse and, therefore, must refer to an additional item––her body]. אם כן מה ת"ל ופרע את ראשה מלמד שהכהן סותר את שערה If so, what is the lesson of the statement ‘and [the priest shall] uncover the woman’s head’ [!? If he uncovers her body, then doesn’t this include the head?] –It is teaching that the priest uncovers her hair [and unbraids it. The superfluous word head must refer to an additional action—unbraiding her hair]. [II.c] [II.c] ר’ יהודה אומר אם היה לבה וכו’ Rabbi Yehudah says: If her chest was, etc. [attractive, he wouldn’t expose it, and if her hair was attractive, he wouldn’t uncover [it and unbraid it]]. [II.c.i] [II.c.i]This entire sub-section is paralleled in tractate Sanhedrin, 45a. It is a direct expansion of the earlier parallel at the Palestinian Talmud, tractate Sotah 1:5. למימרא דר’ יהודה חייש להרהורא ורבנן לא חיישי והא איפכא שמעינן להו Is this to say that R. Yehudah was worried about arousal [in the audience], whereas our rabbis [the majority behind this mishnah, who do not restrict exposure] are not worried [?!] Yet we have heard them [argue] the reverse! דתניא האיש מכסין אותו פרק אחד מלפניו והאשה שני פרקים אחד מלפניה ואחד מלאחריה מפני שכולה ערוה דברי רבי יהודה וחכ"א האיש נסקל ערום ואין האשה נסקלת ערומה For it was taught [in a baraita], “We cover a man [condemned to death] with one piece in front, but a woman with two pieces–one in front, one in back–for all of her is nakedness. The words of R. Yehudah. But the Sages say: A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked.” [If R. Yehudah was more worried about arousal than the Sages, why didn’t he simply agree with their ‘not stoned naked’ position? If the sages of the mishnah were less worried about arousal than him, then why did they disallow a woman to be stoned naked?] אמר רבה הכא טעמא מאי שמא תצא מב"ד זכאית ויתגרו בה פרחי כהונה התם הא מסתלקא Rabbah said: Here [in the case of a sotah with an attractive chest], what is the reason [for R. Yehudah’s worry]? Perhaps she will be released from the court [innocent] and the ‘buds of the priesthood’ [novices] will be aroused by her [and pursue her for the rest of her life - Rashi.] Whereas there [in the baraita regarding a woman who is stoned naked], well, she has already expired [so they will not pursue her. The difference between R. Yehudah and the majority of the mishnah is not about exposure per se–it is about the possible effect of her exposure on the novice priests.] וכי תימא אתי לאיגרויי באחרניית’ האמר רבא גמירי דאין יצר הרע שולט אלא במה שעיניו רואות –But should you retort: He [a novice] will get aroused by other women [and so, even if he cannot pursue her , R. Yehudah’s worry also applies to a woman who is stoned to death], as for that, Rava has said: “I have a tradition [from my teachers – Rashi] that the Evil Impulse governs only what one’s eyes see.” [Arousal cannot transfer from one woman to another, so this retort is invalid.] אמר רבא דר’ יהודה אדר’ יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן ל"ק Rava said: “Is there a difficulty [due to conflict between one statement] of R. Yehudah and another, but no difficulty [due to such a conflict between statements] of our rabbis?!? [Why would the sages behind the mishnah allow exposing the body of a sotah, whereas the sages behind the baraita do not support exposing the body of a woman who is stoned? This seems self-contradictory.] אלא אמר רבא דר’ יהודה אדר’ יהודה ל"ק כדשנין Rather, said Rava, “There is no difficulty [due to conflict between one statement] of R. Yehudah and another,” as we have [just] resolved. [He is only worried about the “buds of the priesthood,” and they can only be aroused by the sight of an exposed sotah.] דרבנן אדרבנן נמי לא קשיא הכא טעמא מאי משום ונוסרו כל הנשים התם אין לך ייסור גדול מזה Nor is there a difficulty [due to conflict between one statement] of our rabbis and another. Here, [in the mishnah where the body of the sotah is exposed], what is the reason? It is because of [the verse] that all women may be taught [not to do after your lewdness. Ezek. 23:48; see the Mishnah above]. There, [in the baraita where they argue that the body of a woman stoned to death is not exposed], you have no greater chastisement than this [being stoned to death. So all women will still be taught, even if she is not naked]! וכי תימא לעביד בה תרתי אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה But should you retort: Both should be done to her [in the latter case: exposure and stoning to death], Rav Nahman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said, “as Scripture said: but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [Lev. 19:18]. You shall choose for him a good death.” לימא דרב נחמן תנאי היא Let us say that what Rav Nahman [said] is a Tannaitic [controversy. The majority in the baraita held that one need not ensure a “good death” for a person sentenced to death. Therefore, they said, “a man is stoned naked.” Rav Yehudah disagreed, based on the “good death” principle, and his position was preserved by Rav Nahman, who also applied it to a woman.] לא דכולי עלמא אית להו דרב נחמן והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר בזיוניה עדיף ליה טפי מצערא דגופיה ומר סבר צערא דגופיה עדיף ליה טפי מבזיוניה –No. For everyone [both R. Yehudah and the majority in the baraita] holds with Rav Nahman [in the “good death” principle]. But here it is on this [application of the principle that] they diverge: one master [R. Yehudah] reasons that one’s degradation is more serious to him than his [physical] suffering [therefore, R. Yehudah says, we ‘cover a man’ who is stoned to death]. Whereas another master [the majority in the baraita, who counter that ‘a man is stoned naked’] reasons that suffering of the body is more serious to him than his degradation. [Therefore, a “good death,” in their definition, would be entirely naked; because covering his body will only prolong the physical agony of death by stoning – Rashi.] [II.c.ii] [II.c.ii] היתה מכוסה לבנים וכו’ If she was dressed in white, etc. [he dresses her in black.] תנא אם היו שחורים נאים לה מכסין אותה בגדים מכוערים One taught [in a baraita]: If black [clothes] looked good on her, then they should dress her in ugly clothes. היו עליה כלי זהב וכו’ If she had on some gold jewelry, etc. […they take them off in order to sully her.] פשיטא השתא נוולי מנוויל לה הני מיבעיא מהו That is self-evident! If he already sullies her [by removing other, lesser finery], is this necessary [to state]? דתימא בהני אית לה בזיון טפי כדאמרי אינשי שליח ערטיל וסיים מסאני – [Yes, because] you might say she has more degradation with [gold] on, as people say, “Stripped naked and wearing shoes”! [It is the way of people to mock a naked person wearing shoes, because this appears ridiculous. Similarly, wearing gold could theoretically shame her more, therefore its removal had to be stated– Rashi.] קמ"ל – That is what it informs us. ואחר כך מביא חבל וכו’ After that, [the priest] takes a reed rope, etc. [and ties it above her breasts.] בעא מיניה רבי אבא מרב הונא חבל המצרי מהו שיעכב בסוטה משום שלא ישמטו בגדיה מעליה הוא ובצלצול קטן נמי סגי R. Abba asked Rav Huna: “The reed rope–what is the [tradition] regarding whether it is a prerequisite for the sotah [rite]? Is it so that her clothes don’t slip off her? But for that, even a fine woven belt is plenty!” או דילמא משום דאמר מר היא חגרה לו בצלצול לפיכך כהן מביא חבל המצרי וקושר לה למעלה מדדיה מעכב Or perhaps it is a prerequisite because of what the master is saying [in this <hi rend= א"ל תניתוה ואח"כ מביא חבל המצרי וקושרו לה למעלה מדדיה כדי שלא ישמטו בגדיה מעליה [Rav Huna] said to him: You [should have] learned it[s resolution in a baraita]: and after that, [the priest] takes a reed rope and ties it above her breasts, so that her clothes don’t slip off her. [Your first guess that the reed rope is only functional was correct. It is therefore not a ritual prerequisite. See further the critical note to “reed” in the Mishnah above.] [II.c.iii] [II.c.iii] וכל הרוצה לראות בה יראה וכו’ And anyone who wants to look at her, may look, etc. הא גופא קשיא אמרת כל הרוצה לראות בה רואה אלמא לא שנא גברי ולא שנא נשי This is self-contradictory! You say, anyone who wants to look at her, may look; hence, it makes no difference if they are men or women, והדר תני כל הנשים מותרות לראותה נשים אין אנשים לא but then [this mishnah] teaches, And all women are permitted to see her. Women, yes; men, no. אמר אביי תרגמה אנשים אמר ליה רבא והא כל הרוצה לראות בה רואה קתני Abbaye said: “Interpret [the term “anyone” as] about women [only].” But Rava replied: “[It explicitly says], ‘And anyone who wants to look at her, may look’!” אלא אמר רבא כל הרוצה לראות בה רואה לא שנא גברי ולא שנא נשי ונשים חייבות לראותה שנאמר Rather, Rava said, “Anyone who wants to look at her, may look: it makes no difference whether they are men or women. But women are obligated to see her, as it is said, ונוסרו כל הנשים ולא תעשינה כזמתכנה that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” [Ezek. 23:48].

Introduction to the Source

This selection of the Babylonian Talmud is from the tractate on the rite of a woman suspected of adultery (sotah). In the Bible, the rite already forms a well-scripted literary unit at Numbers 5:11-31. The rabbis' commentaries on it, the tractates Sotah, are located in the Order of Women (Nashim) in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and both the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds. In the latter works, the Gemara, reflecting oral debates in the Amoraic and later academies, forms thematically distinct but not explicitly divided blocs of argumentation (sugyot, sg. sugya.)

This selection is comprised of two loosely connected sugyot, Parts I and II in the translation. Each sugya covers one stage in the priestly rite of sotah, as reimagined by the Mishnah. Part I covers the inquisition of the sotah by the judges of the High Court in Jerusalem. It stipulates what is to occur if this elicits a confession of adultery from her: her marriage is dissolved, and she forfeits any rights under her marriage-contract. That possibility was not envisioned by Numbers. Rather than allow that a wife might say, “I am defiled” (Mishnah Sotah 1:5), in Numbers, the husband's “spirit of jealousy” automatically triggers the rite (even if “the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled,” Num. 5:14 KJV, emphasis added.) Part I is thus devoted to exploring this alternative rabbinic scenario: the priest, or a member of the court, might force a confession out of the woman–either by warning that she will violate the sanctity of the divine name when it is dissolved in water during the rite, or by inspiring her with confessions of the biblical patriarchs. Unlike in Numbers and other early rabbinic sources, the sotah is generally presumed guilty in the Mishnah. Forced confession is presented as one way to redress the social consequences of her guilt. 

But confession would halt the rest of the ritual. That option is not the focus of either the Mishnah or the Gemara. Rather, Mishnah 1:5-1:6 and its Gemara (Part II) each present new rabbinic versions of the rite, focusing on the exposure and degradation to which a sotah will be subjected if she does not confess. These are among the most violent scenes in rabbinic reimaginations of the ritual. It is hard not to read them as partly motivated by a misogynistic desire to humiliate the sotah and make an example of her for other women; even as men are said to take a prurient interest in her exposed body. Although this ritual was likely never practiced in the rabbinic period–a fragment from the Cairo Genizah suggests, at most, that it may have become a new kind of magical rite–its discourse remains troubling.

All three aspects of the textual tradition–variants, parallels, and commentaries–affect the reading that one selects for any location, and therefore, both the translation and the interpretation offered. In this translation, only textual cruxes in the Mishnah (cited at the beginning) are presented in the notes as it would be prohibitively long and complex to do so for the Gemara as well. This offers the English reader a sample of the issues which arise in presenting a rabbinic text. For biblical verses, the translation uses the King James Version and its verse-divisions, with modifications as noted.

Introduction to the Text

The Babylonian Talmud (“study, learning”) is a roughly 1.8 million-word compendium of Jewish tradition. It was composed orally, from the 3rd century C.E., at rabbinic academies near today's Fallujah and Najaf, the heart of the Sasanian Empire. It is divided by legal topic into tractates. Each tractate synthesizes discussions (Gemara, study-as-“completion”) of 3rd-century-and-later rabbis, and is structured as commentary on a c. 200 C.E. rabbinic work, the Mishnah (study-as-“repetition”). The Mishnah, in turn, systematizes rabbinic oral traditions related to the Bible, extending as far back as the Second Temple period (ending 70 C.E.) The Mishnah is arranged into 63 tractates and 6 Orders. Only 36.5 Mishnah tractates have a corresponding Gemara in the Babylonian Talmud. Some Babylonian Gemara was lost but has been reconstructed; other Mishnah tractates may never have been studied as such in Babylonia. There is also a Palestinian Talmud with the same format, redacted mainly in Tiberias and Caesarea, under the Roman/early Byzantine empires (c. 425 C.E.)

The Gemara proceeds by commenting on short quotes (lemmas) from the Mishnah, in linear order. Either the Gemara is anonymous (stam), or it uses oral formulae to cite traditions of early rabbis: the Tannaim (“reciters”), contemporary with the oral tradition of the Mishnah, or the Amoraim (“speakers”), of the 3rd through late 5th centuries. The Gemara also incorporates traditions from other rabbinic works: collections of legal exegesis (midrash halakhah) on Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, roughly contemporary with the Mishnah; the 3rd-century Tosefta or “Supplement” to the Mishnah; the Palestinian Talmud; 3rd-through-6th-century Palestinian rabbinic works of non-legal exegesis (midrash aggadah), organized around biblical books or framed as homilies on the liturgy; and collections like the Tosefta of loose oral traditions (baraitot, sg. baraita), organized by theme or by attribution to rabbis and their circles. In sum, on the surface, the Babylonian Talmud is a compendium of the 2nd to early 6th centuries. With virtually no exceptions, it only cites Scripture or rabbinic sources, although it absorbs many non-rabbinic and non-Jewish sources that are not cited.

Below the surface and between the lines, however, the Babylonian Talmud is very much a medieval work. Three later phases witnessed substantial changes in its form, content, and its circulation in society. First, scholars now tend to agree that much of the anonymous (stam) material is later than much of the attributed material, dating this layer to the 6th and 7th centuries. It seems to stem from a period when scholars in the academies dramatically rearranged and supplemented the inherited Gemara of the Amoraim: connecting the dots of debates, adding new material, and interpolating independent collections on special topics like dream-interpretation and medicine. If that is indeed when this Talmud acquired its distinctive voice and form, it is hard to recover earlier layers. Indeed, where parallels do exist, especially to sections of the Palestinian Talmud, they often accent the creativity of these later editors. One cannot be sure how long this creative process extended, given the gap between the last named rabbis (early 6th century) and the beginning of the next rabbinic generation, the Geonim (“Geniuses”), whose original works of responsa, annals, philosophy, and other genres begin to appear in the mid-8th century.

Second, the text of this Talmud was gradually stabilized under the Geonim, who directed it to be copied and sent to diaspora communities. Yet it continued to be studied and transmitted orally in their academies until the 11th century. They also conducted text-criticism orally, resulting in variant formulations. Sources were transmitted in parallel versions, reflecting different branches of tradition and methods of study. These Geonic oral traditions were incorporated into the early annals of Talmudic literature, and some of the material–as well as other scholastic material, e.g. rules for assigning provenance to sources and sorting out chains of tradition–made its way back into the Talmud text, in the form of notes, lists, and glosses. Further varia arose in the course of the Talmud's use as a companion to Geonic literature, where it was a source for works of law, history, customs, etc.

Third, from the 11th century to the advent of printing, Talmud commentary flourished in Iberia, North Africa, and the Rhineland. The Talmud was incorporated into an encyclopedia, the Arukh of Nathan ben Jekhiel of Rome (d. 1106), and became the basis for legal codes by, e.g., Alfasi (d. 1103) and Maimonides (d. 1204). In these new settings, the text continued to mutate: for example, marginal glosses or comments were incorporated into local versions. The Talmud remained a formative canon for new literatures and was remolded in light of their exegetical, homiletical, and jurisprudential aims. It remained bound to both oral and scribal contexts. Extract, gloss, paraphrase, commentary, and anthology shaped the transmission of the text, no less than study of whole tractates of Gemara. Not until printers standardized and democratized access to the text was “the” Babylonian Talmud a stand-alone canon. Even in prints, it remained encircled by a garland of medieval varia and commentaries.

The Talmud's medieval quality comes through particularly well in translation, because one cannot even present the text without supplying explanations in notes and brackets. These explanations reflect either parallel rabbinic traditions or medieval commentators in the margins of printed editions: foremost among them, Rashi (an acronym for "RAbbi SHlomo YItshaqi of Troyes, d. 1105.)

Further Reading

Few studies, especially in English, focus on the Babylonian Gemara of this tractate, as opposed to earlier rabbinic versions of the sotah rite, or synchronic theories of its role in Judaism writ large. As for the rabbinic interpretations of the sotah in general, scholars have advanced feminist critiques; ventured apologetic interpretations; and offered nuanced textual and cultural analyses of its early evolution among the Roman-era Tannaim. A comparable statement about the significance of these sugyot for gender, sex, and sensuality in later rabbinic culture in Sasanian Iran, where this Talmud was produced, would weigh such options against the backdrop of a literary analysis, towards which this translation is but a step.

Destro, Adriana. The Law of Jealousy: Anthropology of Sotah. Brown Judaic Studies, 2020 [1989].

• Chapter 4 includes our text in a holistic view of the rabbinic ritual, from the Mishnah through Maimonides. Applies structural-functionalist theory in arguing for the essential unity of the rite in all its phases (jealousy; confession; ordeal; sacrifice; purification) so as to maintain the ideal social order.

Ebner, David. "The Composition and Structure of Mishnah Sotah." Yeshiva University, 1980, PhD Dissertation.

• Rigorous analysis of the text of the ritual in the Mishnah (chapters 1-6), focusing on editorial decisions and their basic principles; relation to parallels (especially the Tosefta); and chronology.

Grushcow, Lisa. Writing the Wayward Wife: Rabbinic Interpretations of Sotah. Brill, 2006.

• Chronologically organized overview of interpretations of the rite in rabbinic and other ancient sources with helpful appendices, including annotated translations of a variety of primary sources.

Hasan-Rokem, Galit. Tales of the Neighborhood: Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity. U of California P, 2003.

• Chapter 3 examines a Palestinian rabbinic parallel to the earlier Palestinian Gemara of our text that is not, however, preserved in the Babylonian Talmud. This parallel contains a complex story that is read as an internal critique of the rabbinic sotah ritual.

ben Maimon, Moses. The Code of Maimonides. Book Four: The Book of Women. Translated by Isaac Klein. Yale UP, 1972.

• Maimonides' code of Jewish law offers a new rendition of the rite based on his implicit interpretation of the Babylonian Gemara.

Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender, and Midrash. Translated by Orr Scharf. Brill, 2012.

• Combines philological and cultural perspectives in a careful study of the Tannaitic phase of the rite. Uses the Gemara to clarify this earlier literature, but also shows how it diverges.

Zornberg, Avivah Gottlieb. Bewilderments: Reflections on the Book of Numbers. Random House, 2015.

• Both popular and erudite commentary guided by midrash and psychoanalysis. Chapter 2 ventures an original interpretation of the rabbinic rite in light of later Jewish commentaries and another legal narrative concerning women in Numbers, the Daughters of Tselofḥad (Num. 26-27).

Credits

Transcription from Vilna edition (Widow Romm and Brothers, 3rd ed., 1880-1886) supplemented by Avraham Liss, Jerusalem: Institute for the Complete Israeli Talmud, 1977, Translation by James Adam Redfield, Encoded in TEI P5 XML by Danny Smith