Commento su Sotah 5:6

כך בודקין – adulterer.

Introduction This 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.

ובאו ובאו – both of them (Numbers 5:22 and Numbers 5:27) have an extra [letter] “vav” for interpretation.

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.

נטמאה ונטמאה – (Numbers 5:27 and Numbers 5:29) the extra “vav” in the second word "ונטמאה" –and defiles herself (Numbers 5:29) is for interpretation.

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.

רבי אומר שני פעמים וכו' – Rebbe (i.e., Rabbi Judah the Prince) did not expound the extra letter “vav” as Rabbi Akiva but rather the inclusion of the Biblical verses he expounds whether the two forms of "ובאו" –”and they enter” (verse 22) and “the spell-inducing waters enter” or whether two forms of "ונטמאה" –”if she defiled herself” (verses 28 and 29).

בו ביום דרש – every place where it teaches: "בו ביום"–on that selfsame day is the day where they appointed Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah to the presidency, when the [number of] students were increased, they gave permission to all to enter (see Talmud Berakhot 28a). [And because of] of this exposition of נטמאה ונטמאה–she defiled herself (Numbers 5:27); and defiles herself (Numbers 5:29), also was expounded on that selfsame day, we take it as a tradition for all of these here.

Introduction The 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. The 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. As 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.

כלי חרס – it is a first level of ritual impurity which was defiled from the unclean reptile which is one of the direct causes of Levitical impurity.

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.

אינו אומר טמא – (Leviticus 11:33): “everything inside it shall be unclean”; it does not say טמא–is impure–unclean but rather יטמא–will be unclean–impure. It comes to expound also – that יטמא means – that it defiles other things.

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.

למד על ככר שני – therefore it took the tradition of a loaf because it is found in an oven.

שמטמא את השלישי – and even that which is non-holy, for the Biblical verse was written undefined.

דור אחר – from those who will come in the future who will purify the third level of Levitical impurity, and even Terumah–priest’s due which has no Biblical verse regarding it from the Torah.

והרי עקיבא תלמידך מביא לו ראיה מן המקרא שהוא טמא – even for non-holy produce, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva and something that is second level of Levitical impurity does not make something third level of Levitical impurity for non-holy produce, but only for produce dedicated to the Temple.

מגרש – an open place free from sowing and from trees for the beauty of the city. But two-thousand [cubits] is not mentioned there for the Levites and is not mentioned other than [for leaving from the limits of] Shabbat.

Introduction Numbers 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. In 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.

שדות וכרמים – and two-thousand [cubits] surrounding they gave to the Levites, and from them they left one-thousand [cubits] surrounding the city for the fields and the rest of the fields and vineyards. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yosi HaGlili that the Sabbath limit is two-thousand [cubits] according to the Rabbis.

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.

שאין ת"ל לאמר – which is not similar to the other [mentions] of [the word] "לאמר" –saying, that are in the Torah for the Divine Presence speaks to Moses stating the utterance to Israel. But here, we don’t say this.

Introduction This 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.

בקורין את ההלל – headings of chapters alone that they would answer following them.

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.

מאהבה – that he loved “the place” (i.e., God).

Introduction The 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. The 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.

שקול – the weight will be equivalent, not outweighing to one side or the other, and he holds the Biblical verse with the letter “Vav,” and its implication is that the Biblical verse ended with a “Vav.” "הן יקטלני"–He may well slay me (Job 13:15) – though he kills me, “yet I will trust in Him no longer,” or, “yet I will trust in Him.” (whether one reads the word as לא or לו ).

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.

מיראה – from fear of retribution that will not come upon him.

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.

ירא אלהים – and he doesn’t love God.