סוטה דף ח

התם קיימא! דמסקינן לה ומחתינן לה כדי לייגעה. דתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: בית דין מסיעין את העדים ממקום למקום, כדי שתטרף דעתן עליהן ויחזרו בהן.

She is already standing there in the Temple courtyard, as that is where the Sanhedrin sits. The Gemara answers: This teaches that they would bring her up and would bring her down repeatedly in order to fatigue her, with the hope that her worn-down mental state will lead to her confession. This was also done with witnesses testifying in cases of capital law, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:1): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: In cases of capital law, the court brings the witnesses from one place to another place in order to confuse them so that they will retract their testimony if they are lying.

ששם משקין את הסוטות וכו׳. בשלמא סוטות, דכתיב: ״והעמיד הכהן את האשה לפני ה׳״, מצורעין נמי, דכתיב: ״והעמיד הכהן המטהר וגו׳״, אלא יולדת מאי טעמא?

§ The mishna teaches: Because there, at the Eastern Gate, they give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and there the lepers and women who have given birth are purified. The Gemara asks: Granted, the sota women are given the bitter water to drink there, as it is written: “And the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord” (Numbers 5:18), and the Eastern Gate is directly opposite the Sanctuary, which is the area referred to as “before the Lord.” Similarly, with regard to lepers as well, this is as it is written: “And the priest that cleans him shall set the man that is to be cleansed, and those things, before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:11). But what is the reason that a woman who has given birth must also be purified there?

אילימא משום דאתיין וקיימין אקורבנייהו, דתניא: אין קרבנו של אדם קרב אלא אם כן עומד על גביו. אי הכי — זבין וזבות נמי! אין הכי נמי,

The Gemara suggests: If we say it is because of the requirement for the women who have given birth to come and stand over their offerings, as it is taught in a baraita: The offering of a person is brought only if he stands over it while it is being sacrificed, and that is why they stand at this gate, which is as close to the sacrifice as they are permitted to be while they are ritually impure. If that is so, then the same halakha should apply to men who experience a gonorrhea-like discharge [zavim] and women who experience a discharge of uterine blood after their menstrual period [zavot] as well. They are also ritually impure while their offerings are sacrificed. Why would the mishna then specify women who have given birth? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the tanna cited one of them, and the same halakha applies to all others in that category.

ותנא חדא מינייהו נקט.

תנו רבנן: אין משקין שתי סוטות כאחת, כדי שלא יהא לבה גס בחבירתה. רבי יהודה אומר: לא מן השם הוא זה, אלא אמר קרא: ״אתה״ — לבדה.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:6): Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, in order that the heart of each one not be emboldened by the other, as there is a concern that when one sees that the other woman is not confessing, she will maintain her innocence even if she is guilty. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because the verse states: “And the priest shall bring her [ota] near and stand her before the Lord” (Numbers 5:16). Rabbi Yehuda explains his inference: The word “ota” indicates her alone, and therefore there is a Torah edict not to have two women drink the bitter water simultaneously.

ותנא קמא, הכתיב ״אתה״? תנא קמא — רבי שמעון היא, דדריש טעם דקרא, ומה טעם קאמר: מה טעם ״אותה״ לבדה — כדי שלא יהא לבה גס בחבירתה.

The Gemara asks: And as for the first tanna, isn’t it written “ota”? The Gemara answers: The first tanna is actually Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the reasons of halakhot written in verses, and he is saying: What is the reason? What is the reason the Torah requires her alone, that each sota drink individually? In order that the heart of each woman not be emboldened by the other.

מאי בינייהו? איכא בינייהו רותתת.

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them? Why should it matter if this halakha is due to a logical reasoning or due to a Torah edict? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where one of the women is trembling from fear. Since she has obviously not been emboldened by the presence of the other, Rabbi Shimon would allow her to be given to drink at the same time as the other.

ורותתת מי משקין? והא אין עושין מצות חבילות חבילות.

The Gemara asks: And if she is trembling, can the court give her to drink at the same time as the other? But there is a general principle that one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, as one who does so appears as if the mitzvot are a burden upon him, and he is trying to finish with them as soon as possible.

דתנן: אין משקין שתי סוטות כאחת, ואין מטהרין שני מצורעין כאחת, ואין רוצעין שני עבדים כאחת, ואין עורפין שתי עגלות כאחת, לפי שאין עושין מצות חבילות חבילות.

As we learned in a baraita: Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, and two lepers are not purified simultaneously, and two slaves are not pierced simultaneously, and two heifers do not have their necks broken simultaneously, because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles. Accordingly, even Rabbi Shimon would agree that under no circumstances can a priest give two sota women to drink simultaneously. How, then, can the Gemara say that a trembling woman can be given to drink together with another sota?

אמר אביי, ואיתימא רב כהנא, לא קשיא: כאן בכהן אחד, כאן בשני כהנים.

Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Kahana who said: This is not difficult. Here, the second baraita, which says that it is prohibited to give two sota women to drink simultaneously because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, is speaking with regard to one priest. There, Rabbi Shimon in the first baraita, who permits a trembling sota to be given to drink together with another sota, is speaking with regard to two priests. Since no individual priest is giving two women to drink simultaneously, mitzvot are not being performed in bundles.

והכהן אוחז בבגדיה. תנו רבנן: ״ופרע את ראש האשה״, אין לי אלא ראשה. גופה מנין — תלמוד לומר: ״האשה״. אם כן מה תלמוד לומר ״ופרע את

§ The mishna teaches: And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them until he reveals her heart, and he unbraids her hair. The Gemara cites the source for these acts. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord and uncover the woman’s head” (Numbers 5:18). From this verse I have derived only that he uncovers her head; from where do I derive that he uncovers her body? The verse states: “The woman,” rather than just stating: And uncovers her head. This indicates that the woman’s body should be uncovered as well. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states specifically: “And uncover her head”? Once it has stated that he uncovers the woman, it is already apparent that she, including her hair, is uncovered. It teaches that the priest not only uncovers her hair but also unbraids her hair.

ראשה״ — מלמד שהכהן סותר את שערה.

רבי יהודה אומר: אם היה לבה וכו׳. למימרא דרבי יהודה חייש להרהורא, ורבנן לא חיישי?

The mishna continues by citing that Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that it is prohibited to uncover an attractive woman, is concerned about onlookers having sexual thoughts, and the Rabbis, who permit it, are not concerned about this?

והא איפכא שמעינן להו, דתניא: האיש, מכסין אותו פרק אחד מלפניו, והאשה, שני פרקים — אחד מלפניה ואחד מלאחריה, מפני שכולה ערוה, דברי רבי יהודה. וחכמים אומרים:

But we have heard the opposite from them, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:6): Although a man condemned to stoning is stoned unclothed, the court covers him with one small piece of material in front of him, to obscure his genitals, and they cover a woman with two small pieces of material, one in front of her and one behind her, because all of her loins are nakedness, as her genitals are visible both from the front and from the back. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: A man is stoned while naked, but a woman is not stoned while naked, but fully clothed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned that the onlookers seeing the woman unclothed will lead to sexual thoughts, but the Rabbis are concerned about this.

האיש נסקל ערום, ואין האשה נסקלת ערומה!

אמר רבה: הכא טעמא מאי — שמא תצא מבית דין זכאית, ויתגרו בה פרחי כהונה. התם — הא מסתלקא. וכי תימא: אתי לאיגרויי באחרנייתא — האמר רבא:

Rabba said: What is the reason here, with regard to a sota, that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned? Perhaps the sota will leave the court having been proven innocent, and the young priests in the Temple who saw her partially naked will become provoked by the sight of her. There, in the case of a woman who is stoned, she departs from this world by being stoned and there is no concern for sexual thoughts. The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the fact that she is killed is irrelevant to their sexual thoughts, as the onlookers will be provoked with regard to other women, this is not a concern. As didn’t Rava say: It is learned as a tradition that the evil inclination controls only that which a person’s eyes see.

גמירי דאין יצר הרע שולט אלא במה שעיניו רואות.

אמר רבא: דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה קשיא, דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא? אלא אמר רבא: דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה לא קשיא, כדשנין.

Rava said: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis, as with regard to a sota, they are not concerned about sexual thoughts, but with regard to a woman who is stoned they are. Rather, Rava said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered above.

דרבנן אדרבנן נמי לא קשיא. הכא טעמא מאי? משום ״ונוסרו כל הנשים״. התם — אין לך ייסור גדול מזה.

The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is not difficult as well. Here, with regard to a sota, what is the reason that her hair and body are uncovered? Because of what is stated in the verse, that other women should be warned: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48). There, with regard to stoning, you have no greater chastening than seeing this stoning itself.

וכי תימא לעביד בה תרתי — אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה, אמר קרא: ״ואהבת לרעך כמוך״ — ברור לו מיתה יפה.

And if you would say that two forms of chastening, both stoning and humiliation, should be done with her, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse states: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process.

לימא דרב נחמן תנאי היא? לא, דכולי עלמא אית להו דרב נחמן. והכא בהא קמיפלגי, מר סבר: בזיוניה עדיף ליה טפי מצערא דגופיה, ומר סבר:

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Naḥman is a dispute between tanna’im, and according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no mitzva to select a compassionate death. The Gemara refutes this: No, it may be that everyone agrees with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Minimizing one’s degradation is preferable to him than minimizing his physical pain. Therefore, the Rabbis view the more compassionate death as one without degradation, even if wearing clothes will increase the pain of the one being executed, as the clothes will absorb the blow and prolong death. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that minimizing physical pain is preferable to a person than minimizing his degradation, and therefore the one being executed prefers to be stoned unclothed, without any chance of the clothing prolonging the death, although this adds to the degradation.

צערא דגופיה עדיף ליה טפי מבזיוניה.

היתה מכוסה לבנים וכו׳. תנא, אם היו שחורים נאים לה — מכסין אותה בגדים מכוערים.

§ The mishna teaches: If she was dressed in white garments, he would cover her with black garments. A Sage taught: If black garments are becoming to her, then she is covered in unsightly garments.

היו עליה כלי זהב וכו׳. פשיטא, השתא נוולי מנוויל לה, הני מיבעיא? מהו דתימא: בהני אית לה בזיון טפי, כדאמרי אינשי: שליח ערטיל וסיים מסאני. קא משמע לן.

The mishna teaches: If she was wearing gold adornments or other jewelry, they are removed from her. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Now that the priest renders her unattractive by uncovering her and dressing her in unsightly garments, is it necessary to teach that they remove these adornments from her? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that with these adornments on her, she has more degradation, as people say in a known aphorism: Undressed, naked, and wearing shoes. This means that a naked person who wears shoes emphasizes the fact that he is naked. Perhaps one would think that by a sota wearing jewelry, her nakedness is emphasized and her degradation is amplified. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not so.

ואחר כך מביא חבל וכו׳. בעא מיניה רבי אבא מרב הונא: חבל המצרי מהו שיעכב בסוטה? משום שלא ישמטו בגדיה מעליה הוא, ובצלצול קטן נמי סגי,

The mishna continues: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope, and he would tie it above her breasts. Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: What is the halakha as to whether the lack of an Egyptian rope will preclude the performance of the rite with regard to a sota? Does any means of tying suffice? Perhaps the primary function of the rope is so that her clothes will not fall off her, and therefore even a small ribbon [tziltzul] would also suffice. Or, perhaps the rope is used because of what the Master said: She girded herself with a comely ribbon when she committed her transgression, and therefore the priest brings specifically an Egyptian rope, which is coarse, and ties it above her breasts. If that is the case, then the Egyptian rope should be indispensable.

או דילמא משום דאמר מר ״היא חגרה לו בצלצול, לפיכך כהן מביא חבל המצרי וקושר לה למעלה מדדיה״ — מעכב?

אמר ליה, תניתוה: ואחר כך מביא חבל המצרי וקושרו לה למעלה מדדיה, כדי שלא ישמטו בגדיה מעליה.

Rav Huna said to him: You learned the answer to this dilemma in a baraita that teaches: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope and he would tie it above her breasts, so that her clothes would not fall off her. The baraita states that the use of an Egyptian rope is primarily for holding up her clothing, and therefore use of specifically Egyptian rope is not essential.

וכל הרוצה לראות בה יראה וכו׳. הא גופא קשיא. אמרת: כל הרוצה לראות בה רואה, אלמא לא שנא גברי ולא שנא נשי, והדר תני: כל הנשים מותרות לראותה:

§ The mishna teaches: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them. And all of the women are permitted to watch her. The Gemara comments: This matter is itself difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in the mishna. First you say: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch. Apparently, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women; all are permitted to observe the rite. And then the mishna teaches: And all of the women are permitted to watch her, which indicates women, yes, they may watch her, but men, no, they may not.

נשים — אין, אנשים — לא.

אמר אביי: תרגמה אנשים. אמר ליה רבא: והא ״כל הרוצה לראות בה רואה״ קתני!

Abaye said: Interpret the first statement, which permits all people to observe the sota, as pertaining to women, but men may not be onlookers. Rava said to him: But it teaches in that first statement that anyone who desires to watch her may watch, and one cannot limit this to women.

אלא אמר רבא: כל הרוצה לראות בה רואה, לא שנא גברי ולא שנא נשי. ונשים חייבות לראותה, שנאמר: ״ונוסרו כל הנשים ולא תעשינה כזמתכנה״.

Rather, Rava said: Anyone who desires to watch her may watch, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women. And the next clause of the mishna teaches that women are obligated to watch her, as is stated: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).

מתני׳ במדה שאדם מודד — בה מודדין לו. היא קשטה את עצמה לעבירה — המקום נוולה. היא גלתה את עצמה לעבירה — המקום גלה עליה.

MISHNA: The mishna teaches lessons that can be derived from the actions and treatment of a sota. With the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it. For example, she, the sota, adorned herself to violate a transgression, the Omnipresent therefore decreed that she be rendered unattractive; she exposed herself for the purpose of violating a transgression, as she stood in places where she would be noticed by potential adulterers, so the Omnipresent therefore decreed that her body be exposed publicly; she began her transgression with her thigh and afterward with her stomach, therefore the thigh is smitten first and then the stomach, and the rest of all her body does not escape punishment.

בירך התחילה בעבירה תחילה ואחר כך הבטן — לפיכך תלקה הירך תחילה ואחר כך הבטן, ושאר כל הגוף לא פלט.

גמ׳ אמר רב יוסף: אף על גב דמדה בטילה, במדה לא בטיל.

GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: Although the measure with regard to court-imposed capital punishment has ceased, as there is no court today empowered to adjudicate and apply corporal punishment, punishment that is suitable to be applied with a measure by God has not ceased, as a person is punished by Heaven in accordance with his sin.

דאמר רב יוסף, וכן תני רבי חייא: מיום שחרב בית המקדש, אף על פי שבטלה סנהדרי — ארבע מיתות לא בטלו. והא בטלו?! אלא:

As Rav Yosef says, and Rabbi Ḥiyya similarly teaches: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four types of court-imposed capital punishment have not ceased. The Gemara asks: But they have ceased; court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. Rather, the intention is: The law of the four types of court-imposed capital punishment has not ceased.

דין ארבע מיתות לא בטלו.

מי שנתחייב סקילה — או נופל מן הגג, או חיה דורסתו. מי שנתחייב שריפה — או נופל בדליקה, או נחש מכישו. מי שנתחייב הריגה — או נמסר למלכות,

The Gemara explains: How so? One who is liable to be executed by stoning either falls from a roof or an animal mauls him and breaks his bones. This death is similar to the experience of stoning, in which the one liable to be executed is pushed from a platform and his bones break from the impact of the fall. One who is liable to be executed by burning either falls into a fire and is burned or a snake bites him, as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. One who is liable to be executed by slaying of the sword either is turned over to the authorities and they execute him with a sword, or robbers come upon him and murder him. One who is liable to be executed by strangling either drowns in a river and is choked by the water or dies of diphtheria [seronekhi], which causes his throat to become clogged, and he dies.

או ליסטין באין עליו. מי שנתחייב חניקה — או טובע בנהר, או מת בסרונכי.

תניא, היה רבי אומר: מנין שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו — שנאמר: ״בסאסאה בשלחה תריבנה״.

It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (3:1–5) that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would say: From where is it derived that with the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it? As it is stated: “In full measure [besase’a], when you send her away, you contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8). In other words, in the measure, bese’a, that one used in one’s sin, God will contend with, i.e., punish, him.

אין לי אלא סאה, מנין לרבות תרקב וחצי תרקב, קב וחצי קב, רובע וחצי רובע, תומן ועוכלא, מנין — תלמוד לומר: ״כי כל סאון סאן ברעש״.

The baraita continues: I have derived only the relatively large measurement of a se’a, which alludes to a significant sin. From where do I know to include even lesser sins that are comparable to smaller measurements, e.g., a half-se’a [tarkav] and a half-tarkav; a kav and a half-kav; a quarter-kav and half of a quarter-kav; an eighth-kav [toman] and an ukla, which is one-thirty-second of a kav. From where is it derived that all these lesser sins are also dealt with in accordance with the measure of the sin? The verse states: “For every boot [sa’on] stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire” (Isaiah 9:4), indicating that every sa’on, which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets as a small se’a, is “stamped with fierceness” and doesn’t go unpunished.

ומנין שכל פרוטה ופרוטה מצטרפת לחשבון גדול — תלמוד לומר: ״אחת לאחת למצא חשבון״.

And from where is it derived that each and every peruta combine to add up to a great sum, alluding to the notion that even if one is not immediately punished for a small transgression, in the final accounting all misdeeds will combine together and be addressed by the imposition of a large punishment? The verse states: “Behold, this have I found, says Koheleth, adding one thing to another, to find out the account” (Ecclesiastes 7:27).

וכן מצינו בסוטה, שבמדה שמדדה — בה מדדו לה: היא עמדה על פתח ביתה ליראות לו — לפיכך כהן מעמידה על שער נקנור ומראה קלונה לכל.

The baraita continues: And we found this with regard to a sota, that with the measure with which she measured, she is measured with it: She stood by the opening of her house to exhibit herself to her paramour, therefore a priest has her stand at the Gate of Nicanor and exhibits her disgrace to all; she spread beautiful shawls [sudarin] on her head for her paramour, therefore a priest removes her kerchief from her head and places it under her feet; she adorned her face for her paramour, therefore

היא פרסה לו סודרין נאין על ראשה — לפיכך כהן נוטל כפה מעל ראשה ומניחו תחת רגליה. היא קשטה לו פניה — לפיכך