Comentário sobre Sotá 9:18

עגלה ערופה בלשון הקדש – what the elders say (Deuteronomy 21:7): “Our hands did not shed this blood,” and the Kohanim state (Deuteronomy 27:8): “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],” it was necessary to state this in the Holy Tongue (i.e., Hebrew).

Introduction The 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.

שנאמר כי ימצא וכו' – and in the same portion it states (Deuteronomy 21:7): ‘And they shall make this declaration,” and it states further on (Deuteronomy 27:14): “The Levites shall then proclaim [in a loud voice to all the people of Israel.” Just as there it is in the Holy Tongue (i.e., Hebrew), even here is in the Holy Tongue.

[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.

היו יוצאים – and they come there and measure from the slain to the side of the villages that surround him to know which is closest.

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.

אין ב"ד שקול – a Jewish court is not made where it will be possible to divide into equal shares but rather, that the majority will be on the one side, to fulfill (Exodus 23:2): “[you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute] so as to pervert in favor of the mighty.”

נמצא סמוך לספר – near the border of non-Jews

Introduction The 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. We 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.

לא היו מודדים – they would not measure, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:1): “someone slain is found [lying in the open],” excluding someone who brings himself that is nearby the border of the non-Jews as if he brought himself to death.

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.

לעיר שאין בה ב"ד לא היו מודדין. אין מודדין אלא מעיר שיש בה ב"ד – this is what he said: if he is found near a city that lacks in it a Jewish court, we don’t measure it, but rather, [near to] a city that has a Jewish court close to it. What city that has a Jewish court near it? And if he did not repeat this teaching, I would think that we don’t measure at all, the inference teaches us (Deuteronomy 21:3): “The elders of the town [nearest the corpse] shall then take a [heifer which has never been worked, which has never pulled in a yoke],” anyמway, for this “the city” is an additional Biblical verse” for one could have written “and the city that is closest to the slain and its elders went out.”

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.

מכוון – squeezed in–confined, that it is not closer to this or fro that one, even as much as a thread’s length.

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.

מביאות שתי עגלות דברי ר"א – but the Halakha is not like this, but rather, both bring one heifer jointly . And we state this in the Gemara in [Tractate] Bekhorot [18a).

אין ירושלם מביאה עגלה ערופה – as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:1): “in the land that the LORD your God is assigning you [as a possession) to possess,” excluding Jerusalem that was not allotted to the tribes.

נמצא ראשו במקום אחד – now the Tanna is not speaking about the matter of measuring, since the end (actually, the beginning of Mishnah 4 of this chapter) teaches, from where do they measure–"מאין מודדין" – it follows that in the first part of the Mishnah we do not deal with measurement, but rather, we are dealing with the corpse of a person whose relatives are unknown and whose burial is obligatory on everyone that acquires its place for where his head is found in one place and his body in another place, we bring the head to the body and we bury it where the body is found, for the body fell in its place for the head is unsteady, which are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Introduction Our 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.

רבי עקיבא אומר מוליכין הגוף אצל הראש – for the head, where it fell, it fell, and its body runs and goes, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

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.

ר:א אומר מטיבורו – he holds that the real life is in his navel.

Introduction In today’s mishnah we learn from what part of the body they would measure in order to determine the closest city.

ר' עקיבא אומר מחוטמו – real life is from his nose (cessation of breath from the nostrils is the main sign of death – see Talmud Yoma 85a), as it is written (Genesis 7:22): “All in whose nostrils was the merest breath of life.”

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.

מקום שנעשה חלל מצוארו – it is not called slain, other than from the neck, as it is written (Ezekiel 21:34): “you shall be wielded over the necks of the dishonored withed ones.” Therefore, from it (i.e., the neck) they would measure, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:3): “[The elders of the town nearest] to the corpse,” But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

נפטרו זקני ירושלם – who do not come other than to measure, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:2): “Your elders and magistrates shall go out and measure [the distances from the corpse to the nearby towns].”

Introduction This mishnah continues to describe the neck-breaking ceremony. It clarifies some points in Deuteronomy 21:3-4.

אע"פ שאינו איתן כשר – it did not state "איתן"–everflowing–strong wadi (Deuteronomy 21:4) as an indispensable condition but rather for the Mitzvah.

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.

בקופיץ – a large knife.

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.

מאחריה – opposite its neck.

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.

מקומה אסור – forever.

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.

ומותר לסרוק שם פשתן – work that is not on the body of the land, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:4): “[a heifer] which has never been worked, which has never pulled a yoke.” Just as sowing is special which is on the main body of the land, so also, all work which is on the main body of the land.

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.

לנקר את האבנים – to chisel the stones.

ולא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו – without food.

Introduction Our mishnah teaches the meaning of the declarations made after the neck of the heifer has been broken (vs. 7-8).

ולא ראענוהו והנחנוהו – without accompaniment.

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.

תצא ותרעה בעדר – like other non-holy animals.

Introduction This 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. We should note that the exegetical/midrashic portion of this part of the mishnah is completed, and now the mishnah is filling in some details.

כפרה ספיקה – which had performed its own [work].

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.

ואחר כך נמצא ההורגד ה"ז יהרג – as it is written at the end of the portion of the heifer whose neck was broken (Deuteronomy 21:9): “Thus you will remove from your midst guilt for the blood of the innocent.”

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.

עד אחד אומר ראיתי ועד אחד אומר לא ראית – as for example when both came at the same time [then] they would break the neck. But if one came first and said “I saw the killer”, and they believed him like two [witnesses]. For the Torah believed him, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:1): “the identity of the slayer not being known,” but if they did know, even through one witness, they don’t break the neck, even though one witness had come and afterwards his testimony is contradicted, the second is not believed, because the words of the one is not in the of two [witnesses].

Introduction This 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.

עד אחד אומר ראיתי ושנים אומרים לא ראית היו עורפים – as, for example, the two [witnesses] and the one are invalid witnesses, for in the case of invalid witnesses, one goes according to the majority of opinions.

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.

בטלה עגלה ערופה – because they knew of them who was accustomed to kill.

Introduction From 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.

בטלו האשכולות – a person who has everything (this is a Notarikon – describing the word אשכולות – see the commentary of Tosafot Yom Tov who also quotes Maimonides on this matter), meaning to say, their Torah is true without reproach.

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.

הודיית מעשר – the confession of the tithe (Deuteronomy 26:13): “I have cleared out the consecrated portion from the house; and I have given it to the Levite,” because Ezra fined the Levites that they did not give to them the tithe [of the tithe] when he came up [to the Land of Israel] from the Diaspora, and the Levites did not go up with him, and he (i.e., Ezra) commanded that they should give the tithe [of the tithe] to the Kohanim, and Yohanan the High Priest annulled the confession because he was not able to say, “and I have given it to the Levite.”

Introduction There are four practices mentioned as being discontinued in this mishnah.

בטל את המעוררים – for the Levites would say on each day on the platform (Psalms 44:24): “rouse yourself, why do you sleep, O God.” He stated: Is there sleep before God? (see Talmud Sotah 48a and Tosefta Sotah 13:9). And he stood and annulled them.

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.

ואת הנקפין – that they would wound the calf of the sacrifice between its horns in order that blood would fall between its eyes so that it would not see and it would be easy to bend over and to slaughter it and he would stand and annul it for it appeared as having a blemish (and unfit for the altar) and he established for them rings in the ground for them to place the neck of the animal within it.

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.

נוקפין – beat and its example [Tractate Hullin 7b], “no person bruises his finger here on earth [unless it was so decreed against him in heaven].”

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.

היה פטיש מכה בירושלים – on the Intermediate days of the Festival those artisans of copper and iron would beat with a hammer in order to perform work which cannot be postponed without irretrievable loss, and he stood and cancelled them because the thing becomes more known and there is a disregard of the Intermediate Days of the Festival.

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.

ובימיו אין אדם צריך לשאול על הדמאי – for he said to the people of his generation that just as regarding the great heave offering–priest’s share of the crop, its punishment [for non-fulfilment] is death, so too, the tenth of the tenth [given by the Levites to the Kohanim] and separation of priestly shares is required before one is able to partake of them, [non-fulfillment] is punishable by death and he established that they should take out from the doubtfully tithed produce only the tenth-of-a-tenth and the Second Tithe, and they should not take out it the First Tithe and the Poor Man’s Tithe for one can say to the Levite and–or the Poor Person: Bring proof that it is produce from which priestly gifts and tithes had not yet been separated and take it. And from this ordinance and onward, a person who takes his fruit from the marketplace would not ask if they had been properly prepared [by the giving of the priestly gifts and tithes] or not, but immediately, he separates from them the tenth-of-the-tenth and the Second Tithe, and consumes the rest for anyone who purchases from those who did not observe certain religious customs regarding tithing, their produce is considered doubtfully tithed.

The explanation of the halachic codes in the name of Rav Hai Gaon, of blessed memory, is that the singing mentioned herein refers to love songs written in praise of mortal beauty. However, the recital of songs (hymns) of praise an exaltation, and those that record the benevolent acts of the Almighty accompanied by music and merriment, at weddings and banquet halls is an accepted custom among all Jews.

סנהדרין – the judges are there, and they are called a Sanhedrin in that they detest a majestic appearance–an imposing figure in judgment.

Introduction This mishnah teaches about what happened when the Sanhedrin, the high court in Jerusalem, ceased to function

בטל השיר – as it is written (Lamentations 5:14): “The old men are gone from the gate, The young men from their music” when the elders who were the Sanhedrin who were sitting at the gate were made idle, the young men were also made idle from their music.

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.

משמתו נביאים הראשונים – all the prophets are called the Early Prophets, except for Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi and their associates for they were the Latter [Prophets] who were during the days of the Second Temple.

Introduction The 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.

השמיר – a kind of worm-like creature like the size of a barley-corn that they would show it–place it upon the stones marked with ink and they would split open on their own, [and through it] would open the stones of the Ephod and the Breastplate, as it is written concerning them (Exodus 28:20 – see also Talmud Sotah 48b): “in their mountings,” that they would be complete and not lacking [but he would write on them with ink] and the Shamir would show them outside upon the ink.

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.

ונופת צופים – honey that comes from a place whose name is the inner portion of the cells and is more praiseworthy.

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.

ופסקו אנשי אמנה – that believe in the Holy One, blessed be He.

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.

הטהרה בטלה את הטעם – the ritual purity that ceased from Israel, the taste and aroma of the fruits were abolished, for at the time that Israel was ritually pure and engaged in ritual purity, even the Holy One, blessed be He would purify the produce from a bad taste and a bad smell.

Introduction In 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.

מעשר בטל שומן דגן – for the tithe was called fat, as it is written (Numbers 18:12): “All the best of the oil.”

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.

בפולמוס של אספסיינוס – the army that Vespasian brought against Jerusalem.

Introduction This 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. During 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.

גזרו על עטרות חתנים – they would make garlands for the grooms from salt stone which is clear like the appearance of a jewel and they dye it with sulfur–bitumen like the appearance of embroidery which they call NEEL. And there are those who interpret–explain it as garlands of myrtle and of roses and both are forbidden, but only garlands of reeds are permitted.

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”.

ועל האירוס – it is made like a winnow–sieve whose walls are round and they spread on its mouth a thin piece of leather and beat it with a thin mallet and it emits a clear sound and it the foreign language we call it TANBORO.

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.

עטרות כלות – similar to a city that is made from gold.

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.

ושלא ילמד אדם את בנו יונית – the explanation is Greek wisdom and there are hints and riddles that the Greeks had and only those who were accustomed to them would know them, and in the Gemara (Talmud Sotah 49b) it explains the reason because of an incident when the Hasmonean kings fought one another (the allusion is to the struggle between the two sons of Alexander Jannaeus, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus; Hyrcanus had the assistance of the Romans who besieged Jerusalem). Those who were inside would let down to those who were outside denarii (i.e., money) in a basket and haul up for them [animals for] the daily offerings. There was one elder there who was learned in Greek wisdom, speaking with them in Greek: As long as you are engaged in the Temple service, they will never surrender to you. That same day, they let down denarii in the basket and hauled up for them a pig. At that time, they said: “Cursed be the person who raises a pig and cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom.

בפולמוס האחרון – this is the destruction of the [Second] Temple and it was of Titus.

באפריון – like a tent of golden robes and cloaks.

ורבותינו התירו שתצא כלה באפריון – because of modesty and such is the Halakha.

בטלו מושלי משלים – such as the parables of the foxes that we state in [Tractate] Sanhedrin [38b] when Rabbi Meir would expound on the lesson and would divide his exposition into three parts: one-third devoted to legal discussion, one-third to homily and one-third to parables.

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.

השקדנים – they are attendant on the doors of the Academy–Bet Midrash night and day as we state in [Tractate] Yevamot [63b] as Ben Azzai stated: What can I do when my soul is attached to–in love with the Torah.

הדרשנים – he was expert in Midrash and the rationales of the Biblical verses, as it states [Talmud Berakhot 12b – actually Tractate Berakhot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5]: “And I did not succeed (in proving) that the Exodus from Egypt should be mentioned at night until [I heard] the exposition of Ben Zoma.”

בטל כבוד תורה – He would give attention to expound upon each and every stroke on letter [Tractate Menahot 29b]. This is the great honor of the Torah which has nothing to abolish it.

שבטלו אנשי מעשה – they do wondrous deeds as we state in [Tractate] Taanit [25a]: he will ordain that vinegar should burn, and to goats that they should bring wolves on their horns.”

קטנותם של חסידים – they wee the pious individuals walking and becoming scarce and he was from their most inferior and their end.

משמת רבן גמליאל הזקן בטל כבוד התורה – and until he died [Tractate Megillah 21a], there was health in the world, and hey would study the Torah while standing. And when he died, feebleness of strength came to the world and they began to study while sitting, and this is the abolishment of the honor of the Torah.

משמת רבי בטלה ענוה – the students of Rebbe (i.e., Rabbi Judah the Patriarch) added and wrote this in the Mishnah.