Talmud sobre Sotá 1:1

MISHNAH: The following leave without ketubah: Any one violating the laws of Moses or Jews. What is the law of Moses? She feeds him what is not tithed, or makes him sleep with her when she is menstruating, or does not cut ḥallah⁵⁸In all these cases, she causes him to commit a sin punishable by extirpation. One recommends to the husband to divorce her since “nobody should live with a snake in the same basket” [Babli 72a; Yerushalmi Demai2:2 (Note 129; 22d l. 59)]., or makes vows which she does not keep. And what is the law of Jews: She leaves home with her hair in disorder⁵⁹In both Talmudim, this is interpreted that she leaves home with her hair uncovered., or spins in public⁶⁰It seems that it was a common sign of a free woman engaged in prostitution to appear as if spinning in public (in the Babli, 72b, if she is spinning with a rose on her ear), in contrast to slave girls used as prostitutes who were exhibited naked in front of brothels., or speaks with everybody⁶¹This also could be interpreted as a way of soliciting.. Abba Saul says, also one who curses his parents in his presence. Rebbi Tarphon says, also the big-voiced.
What is the big-voiced? Any who speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. ⁸⁵A parallel is in S̄ebuot 5:5; the reading there are noted ש. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything⁸⁶If a witness to any contract, including a bill of divorce, signs and appends a greeting and formulates the greeting as a sentence standing alone, his signature cannot be counted as testimony. But if he writes: “and I am greeting”, he makes clear that his signature refers to the entire document. The same statement (R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan) is in the Babli, 87a.; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything⁸⁷This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli.. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁸Referring to the Mishnah. How must a collective bill of divorce be formulated to be valid?? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A⁸⁹This statement is ambiguous since no further details are given about R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion. It is obvious from Halakhah 3:1 that a text which mentions men and women separately, “we X and Z divorce our wives Y and U” is biblically invalid since (a) one cannot divorce two women with one statement and (b) it is not clear which woman was married to which man. One has to assume that the text was something like: “we X and Z divorce our wives, X Y and Z U,” with mention of place and date.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately⁹⁰If the language is “X divorces Y and Z divorces U”, there can be no collective bill of divorce. It still can be written on one sheet but it must spell out in full that X divorces Y and frees her to marry any man she choses, Z divorces U and frees her to marry any man she choses, and each statement has to be separately validated by two witnesses.. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening⁹¹Mishnah Nedarim 9:7. The quote is incorrect. The Mishnah states that if each vow separately is declared as qorban, it will have to be annulled separately. One has to read: “a qorbān for this one, a qorbān for that one”. This Mishnah supports R. Ze‘ira’s interpretation of R. Joḥanan’s position..” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text⁹²And using a separate sentence containing the verb “to divorce” for each couple represents a separate text for each divorce. for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr⁹³The same statement is in Šebuot 5:5 (36c 1. 4), Babli 38a. It refers to Mishnah Šebuot 5:5: “Give me my wheat, barley, and spelt, (expressed in the plural) which you are holding!” “An oath that I am holding nothing of yours”, he is guilty only once (if he swore falsely). “An oath that I am not holding any wheat, or barley, or spelt (expressed in the plural) of yours”, he is guilty for every statement. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he said “wheat, or barley, or spelt (expressed in the collective singular)”, he is guilty for every statement. In a baraita (Babli Šebuot 38a, Qiddušin 25a; quoted in Yerushalmi Qiddušin 2:1, 62b 1. 76) R. Meїr states that for a general statement in a false oath he is guilty only once, for a detailed statement he is guilty for every particular item. R. Jehudah notes that if a person is sued simultaneously by several people (Mishnah Šebuot 5:3) and he falsely swears that he owes “not to you, nor to you, nor to you”, he is guilty for every single statement. Samuel notes that what is a general statement for one may be a detailed statement for another.. [Rebbi]⁹⁴From the text in Šebuot. The Giṭṭin text cannot be correct since the first generation Samuel cannot quote the fourth generation R. Ze‘ira. Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything⁹⁵Since in the baraita, R. Jehudah is mentioned as differing from R. Meїr, the question arises whether for R. Meїr there is a difference between a denial of a debt “to you, to you, to you” and “to you, and to you, and to you”. In the first case, there might be three denials, in the second case, there is only one. The implications for R. Jehudah would be the opposite.? How is this⁹⁶As the parallel shows, this interjection should be deleted.? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there⁹⁷Mishnah Šebuot 5:5. The omission of תמן “there” in the parallel text is appropriate.: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement⁹⁸Which must have been “wheat, barley, spelt” without connectives.. How is this⁹⁶As the parallel shows, this interjection should be deleted.? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether]⁹⁹The necessary inserted text is from Šebuot. he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars¹⁰⁰Since there are three particulars, he is obligated for three separate purificatioon offerings.. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars¹⁰¹It is one connected statement which, if false, constitutes one sin..

Rebbi Ismael stated: He has to bear his punishment¹⁹³Lev. 5:1., a sacrifice¹⁹⁴This supports Rav, that a sacrifice is due for any untruthful oath.. From where that one needs a court¹⁹⁵That a sacrifice is required only for oaths connected with judicial proceedings.? One learns “telling, telling¹⁹⁶The only legal texts in the Pentateuch which use the root נגד are Lev. 5:1 and Deut. 17:9–11. The latter text contains the rules of the Supreme Court and the punishment for disobeying its rulings.”. Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, a person should not divorce his wife unless he found her immoral, as it was said¹⁷¹Deut. 24:1.: “For he found with her a matter of nakedness¹⁷²If the husband had proof of her infidelity, he would by law be obligated to divorce her (cf. Soṭah 1:1, Notes 13,14). In the absence of proof, the House of Shammai counsel him to divorce her. This probably is also the interpretation to be given to Matth. 19:9 and is the basis of the disapproval of marrying a divorcee expressed in Sifry Deut. 270..” But the House of Hillel say, even if she spoiled his dish, as it was said: “For he found with her a bad thing¹⁷³The Houses of Shammai and Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai read עֶרְוַת דָּבָר as if it were (in rabbinic Hebrew) דְּבַר עֶרְוָה “a matter of nakedness (immorality)”. The House of Hillel read the construct state עֶרְוַת as a modifier of דָּבָר “thing”: an undesirable thing; e.g., being a bad cook..” Rebbi Aqiba said, even if he found another more beautiful than her, as it was said: “It will be if she does not appear pleasing in his eyes^171,Deut. 24:1.¹⁷⁴Even if she is beautiful in an objective way, but not beautiful in his eyes, he may divorce her. In his opinion (adopted in practice), a divorcee may be completely blameless., etc.”

HALAKHAH: ¹⁸⁰Soṭah 1:1, Notes 13,14. Was it not stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s [hair] is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” How can the House of Shammai confirm this¹⁸¹In the Mishnah, the House of Shammai admit only adultery as cause of divorce. In the baraita, they admit all kinds of lewd behavior.? Lest you say that one divorced because of immorality is forbidden, for anothercause she would be permitted¹⁸²Could be remarried by her first husband after having had a second husband.. Rebbi Shila from Kefar-Tamarta said: The verse is difficult for the House of Shammai: “Her first husband, who had sent her away, cannot afterwards retake her.¹⁸³Deut. 24:4.” Where do we hold? If to forbid her to him, is she not already forbidden to him¹⁸⁴If she committed adultery, she is automatically forbidden to her husband, even if she does not remarry. The prohibition to remarry the first husband after a remarriage seems to be unnecessary for the House of Shammai.? But we must hold, to burden him with a prohibition¹⁸⁵In remarrying her, the first husband would commit two sins in one act (cf. Tosaphot 90a, s.v. מה)..

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai²⁴⁶So also in Soṭah 1:1, Note 38. In the Babli 80b, R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Ismael, in Sanhedrin 21b, Avodah zarah 36b, in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. The latter attribution probably is the correct one; in these two quotes also the verse correctly is called “a hint”, not a proof.: “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son, or your daughter incites you²⁴⁷Deut. 13:7. As usual, the reference is to the part of the verse not quoted; in this case that the inciting happens “in secret”.”. “Your mother in secret,” “your daughter in secret.” A man can be alone with his mother and live with her²⁴⁸In a one-room apartment., with his daughter and live with her, with his sister and does not live with her, and sleep with them with their skins touching. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: The daughter with her father up to the age of three years and one day²⁴⁹The day she becomes nubile.; the son with his mother up to the age of nine years and one day²⁵⁰Before that day, his sex act has no legal consequences (Mishnah Yebamot 10:6).. If they get older, each one sleeps in his own clothing. It was stated²⁵¹Similar statements are in Berakhot 24a.: If two people sleep in the same bed, each one covers himself with his own garment and recites {the Šema‘]²⁵²Which, as a holy text, it is forbidden to recite in the presence of nudity.; if his son or daughter were small it is permitted. There, they say: A man with his wife is permitted²⁵³Even if both are naked under the same bedsheet, since “his wife is part of his body” (Babli Berakhot 24a).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A man with his wife is problematic²⁵⁴Even if his wife is part of his body, he could recite the Šema‘ while lying close to her only if she would not represent a sexual attraction to him. This is not a desirable situation..