Талмуд к Сота 2:7

HALAKHAH: “A woman living in her husband’s house,” etc. ⁷This paragraph is from Sotah 2:1, Notes 15–23 which is the original since the last sentence, which makes the argument intelligible, is missing here. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who are missing atonement⁸Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), the person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14: 1–32) and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, the woman after childbirth and one [healed from] skin disease, since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib⁹Who could have been afflicted with skin disease and, if female, with a discharge at her birth mimicking menstruation. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] skin disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? ¹⁰This text also is in Yebamot 1:2, Note 153. It implies that a woman giving birth is an adult and no longer in her father’s power. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter¹¹Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him.. Since he married her off¹²Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him., she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since ¹³This statement also is in Sotah 1:2, Note 91. In the language of the Babli, Yebamot33b, “the seduction of an under-age girl is rape.” Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yosa¹⁴With the text in Sotah read: Yasa. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written¹⁵Num. 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the sotah ordeal. The Babli concurs, Sotah27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: The woman shall say: Amen, amen. Rebbi Abun said, since it is written¹⁶Deut. 14:26. A man’s house usually means his wife. The missing final sentence explains that since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abun disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel.: You shall enjoy together with your house.

Both the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon agree to the following²¹Two different reasonings lead to the same practical result.. According to the rabbis, the aspect which “bespeaking” acquires is forbidden in the co-wife, the aspect which “bespeaking” does not acquire is permitted in the co-wife; therefore, the latter has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate²²Since “bespeaking” is neither final nor useless, the wife of the brother becomes possibly a co-wife of his sister-in-law; if he dies she is excluded from levirate since that is possible only for a woman certainly permitted to the (newly born) levir. She cannot leave the family without ḥalîṣah since she was not a full co-wife of the forbidden woman.. According to Rebbi Simeon, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are permitted²³If “bespeaking” preceded the birth of the next brother, the widow of the first brother already was the wife of the second and after his death will be permitted to the third. If the birth of the next brother preceded bespeaking, both are forbidden: the first as widow of a brother who did not live in his world, the second as her co-widow. Whether one wants to emend the text here, from “permitted” to “forbidden”, depends on which case one chooses.. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second one permitted. Out of doubt, she has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. What is the difference between them²⁴Is there any case where there is a practical difference between the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon?? If he slept with the second one²⁵If the third brother sleeps with the woman to whom he should give ḥalîṣah, this is to some degree incestuous intercourse, he cannot acquire her in levirate, and a child from this union is a bastard.. In the opinion of the rabbis, an incestuous intercourse because he²⁶The second brother. had “bespoken”. Therefore, if he had not “bespoken” she may have levirate and there is no candidacy at all²⁷The simple fact that the widow may not marry outside the family without ḥalîṣah does not establish a relationship with any one of the brothers. In the Babli, 17b, this is the minority opinion ascribed to Rav Huna in the name of Rav.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I explained that following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him²⁸Quoted many times affirmatively in the Yerushalmi (Yebamot 4:8, 4:16; Soṭah 2:5), rejected in the Babli, 17b.
The position of R. Simeon is not explained but is clear: The relationship is possibly incestuous, the child is only possibly a bastard and cannot be forbidden by the court to marry inside the congregation.. He had in her an interest of candidacy. When she died, the candidacy was eliminated. And here, when he died, the candidacy was eliminated²⁹Rejected in the Babli, 18a: “Candidacy cannot disappear without action.”.

When was it¹⁵²The daughter-in-law of R. Ismael who had a child and wanted to repudiate her husband following her father’s rules.? She became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs. Could she have lived? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila¹⁵³The Babli, Yebamot 12b, rejects a similar (Galilean) statement; the Babylonian Rav Saphra declares that pregnancy is a sign of puberty.: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Rebbi Ismael follows RebbiJehudah, until the black covers most¹⁵⁴In all these criteria, he will replace “two hairs” with “most of the mons Veneris is black”. [and] Rebbi Simeon, that intercourse occurred with the idea of the prior qiddushin¹⁵⁰As explained in the next paragraph, one holds with R. Simeon that the rabbinic marriage of the minor becomes biblically valid only by a conscious act, for example intercourse to confirm the marriage. Since people usually think that a rabbinic marriage is all they need, simple intercourse does not satisfy the requirement. Therefore, R. Ismael’s daughter-in-law could repudiate even as an adult.. Following the opinions of Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Jehudah who say that her status depends on the signs of development, it fits¹⁵⁵As explained above, the daughter-in-law could have had a baby and still be a minor according to R. Jehudah [not according to R. Meїr; he is mentioned here only to reject the implied opinion of R. Saphra (Note 152).]. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon who says, if he adds another act of acquisition, then even if she is an adult! Rebbi Isaac said, that is so¹⁵⁶The daughter-in-law of R. Ismael could have been an adult if no conscious validation of the marriage took place after her reaching adulthood (Note 150).. Only that the daughters of Israel should not be unbridled in breaking tabus¹⁵⁷The rejection of this interpretation in practice is rabbinic; the Babli (cf. Note 140) takes this as a reason to reject R. Ismael’s position..

Rebbi Jehudah insists on interpreting the contract text. ⁴³Tosephta Ketubot 4:11; a similar text Sifra Meṣora‘ Parašah 4(16). The Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 104a, presents a problem. The text of the editio princeps formulates the statement that he is responsible for “any other obligations that come to you from earlier times” as part of the ketubah document; this is R. Jehudah’s reason to require that the husband pay for all obligatory sacrifices due from his wife, even if the obligation predates the marriage. Rashi ad loc. changes the text to conform to the Sifra text; the changed text is that of the Munich ms. and all other Ashkenazic surviving mss. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: A person brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for⁴⁴Mishnah Nega‘im 14:12. The majority hold that the husband has to pay only for his children and slaves. R. Jehudah holds that a wealthy husband has to pay for his wife’s sacrifices in the way prescribed for wealthy people even if the wife has no money of her own. But he does not have to pay for her voluntary sacrifices., even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for she writes to him⁴⁵In the receipt she gives for full payment of her ketubah. “any other obligations that come to you from earlier times.”

HALAKHAH: “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written³⁵Num. 35:19., the redeemer of the blood³⁶The closest family member of the murder victim is required to lead the execution of the duly convicted murderer. Num. 35:30 requires that the killing of the murderer be in the presence of witnesses; this implies that the killing be in execution of a court order (Sifry Num. 161). himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother³⁷The Babli 12a simply notes the existence of contradictory interpretations, without attaching names to the traditions. R. Eliezer ben Jacob probably is the second of this name, of the fourth generation of Tannaïm. R. Shila bar Binah (Avinna) belongs to the generation of transition from Tannaïm and Amoraïm.. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him³⁸That he is forced to witness the execution, Sifry Num. 160., the verse says³⁵Num. 35:19., when he comes upon him he shall kill him³⁶The closest family member of the murder victim is required to lead the execution of the duly convicted murderer. Num. 35:30 requires that the killing of the murderer be in the presence of witnesses; this implies that the killing be in execution of a court order (Sifry Num. 161)..

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can movables be taken into possession by dragging? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, what is his problem? With hard hides⁵¹⁴Which are too heavy to be lifted.. But soft hides are not taken into posession until lifted⁵¹⁵Movables which can be lifted are taken into possession only by being picked up and then moved; heavy movables can be taken into possession simply by being moved on the ground.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If somebody steals another person’s pouch and removes it on the Sabbath, he is obligated since he already is obligated for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath⁵¹⁶Tosephta Baba qama 9:19. A person committing two crimes simultaneously can be prosecuted only for the more serious crime even if this prosecution is impossible because of external circumstances (for example, if the rabbinic court has only civil but no criminal jurisdiction, or if the civil offense can be proven by the standards of civil procedure but the criminal act cannot be proven by the stricter standards of criminal law; cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 51–71, paralleled in Ketubot3:1, Note 30.)
Since the thief incurred the liabilities for his theft the moment he took the pouch in his victim’s room but he violated the Sabbath prohibition only when he left and transported the pouch from a private to the public domain, the capital crime of violating the Sabbath is not connected with the theft. Paralleled in Babli Šabbat 91a, Ketubot31a, where some unconnected problems are raised about the Sabbath prohibition of moving between domains; Baba batra 86a, Sanhedrin72a; a different version in Baba qama3:4 (3c 1. 58ff.).. But if he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution fall on him simultaneously⁵¹⁷Dragging a person’s pouch in that person’s domain does not transfer possession to the person dragging.. Therefore, if the obligations of capital crime and restitution do not fall on him simultaneously he is obligated⁵¹⁸If the theft happened on a weekday and the thief only dragged, never lifted, the pouch, he nevertheless is obligated for double restitution. He cannot be liable for double restitution unless he took possession. This seems to contradict R. Abba bar Mamal.. Rebbi Mattania said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged⁵¹⁸If the theft happened on a weekday and the thief only dragged, never lifted, the pouch, he nevertheless is obligated for double restitution. He cannot be liable for double restitution unless he took possession. This seems to contradict R. Abba bar Mamal..

HALAKHAH: Why non-sanctified? Even if it is sanctified! Did not Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena say in the name of Rebbi Yasa, you shall sanctify the altar; then the altar will be most holy¹³⁰Ex. 40:10.. Since the altar only sanctifies with intention, so vessels should only sanctify with intention¹³¹The verse starts: anoint the altar and all its vessels, which implies that the power of sanctification is the same for the altar and its vessels. Since it is forbidden to bring profane (not dedicated) matter to the altar, profane matter remains profane also on the altar. This proves that the altar and therefore the sanctified vessels only sanctify with dedication.. Ḥizqiah said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for the sanctification of hands and feet become disqualified by staying overnight¹³²Since sanctification of hands and feet must be with water from a Temple vessel, the water becomes disqualified at daybreak. The problem is that people will say that they saw the water becoming disqualified and nevertheless used for libation, they will wrongly conclude that disqualified water may be used on the altar.. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for Tabernacles become disqualified by staying overnight¹³³Again, and be used nevertheless.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of the evil impression; but we do not know whether following Ḥizqiah or according to everybody’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The water for a deviant wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹³⁴Soṭah 2:2, Note 114. This is a matter of dispute. There is an opinion that the water has to be taken from the water basin in the Temple. Any water taken from there and sanctified in a Temple vessel belongs to the service of that day and becomes disqualified by the next dawn. But according to the opinion that the water may come from outside sources, this need not be the case.. Rebbi Abuna: anything of whose kind nothing possibly is for the altar cannot become disqualified by staying overnight¹³⁵Disputing R. Pedat in principle..

²¹²This paragraph is from Sotah 2:2 (Notes 91–97).“also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it²¹³Single letters were written on the tablet, each letter being the first of its word. (Cf. P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II, pp. 88–95).. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average²¹⁴The suspected wife’s scroll had to be written in the way the letters were on the queen’s tablet, not ornamental nor in italics. The questioner thought that the entire tablet had to be copied as it was written; then an abbreviated version would be impossible.. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”, “the Bet there” by ’’from the Bet there”²¹⁵For each letter one copies the entire word. The first sentence of the scroll would read on the tablet as אם ל ש א א ו ל ש ט ת א ה מ ה ה ה which would be copied as אם לא שכב איש אתך ואם לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך הנקי ממי המרים המאררים האלה where every first letter was copied exactly from the tablet and the rest of the word added in the same style of script. Babli 37b.. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph²¹⁶While writing, the Cohen explained the text homiletically to the suspected wife, so that she would understand the meaning of the ceremony..