Sotah 15b — the Talmud in English

as he heard it from

Rabban Gamliel

to Rabbi Meir,

who says

in the beraita above (8b): “Rabbi [Meir] says: From where is it derived that with the measure by which a person measures, they measure for him? And so you find in the case of a woman suspected of adultery:

she

the woman suspected of adultery

fed him

the man with whom she secluded herself

the delicacies of the world; therefore, her offering is animal fodder.”

And

Rabban Gamliel said to

Rabbi Meir:

That works for

a wealthy woman,

who indeed fed him the delicacies of the world;

but a poor woman,

who has no delicacies of the world,

what can be said—

why does she bring animal fodder?

Rather,

the reason that her offering is made from barley is:

Just as her deeds are the deeds of an animal, so her offering is animal fodder.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues explaining the procedure for giving the woman suspected of adultery the bitter waters to drink.

It is written in the passage concerning the woman suspected of adultery: “And the priest, a Temple functionary of the priestly family, shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. And the priest shall take sacred water in an earthenware vessel, and from the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take and put it into the water.”

The

priest

would bring a vessel [

a cup of water]

of earthenware, and put into it half a log of water from the basin

in the Temple courtyard.

Rabbi Yehuda says: a quarter

of a log alone was put into it.

Just as he reduces

Rabbi Yehuda

the writing

that he writes in the scroll of the woman suspected of adultery, as will be explained in the following Mishna,

so he reduces

Rabbi Yehuda

the water.

The priest left the Temple courtyard and

entered the Sanctuary, turned to his right, and there was a place—

visible and distinguishable from the rest of the Sanctuary floor—

one cubit by one cubit, and

there was

a marble slab there, with a ring fixed in it [

in the slab], so that the slab could be lifted with it.

And when he lifted it,

the slab, he

took

dust from beneath it, and put

enough dust so that

it could be seen

the dust

on the water.

As it is stated: And from the dust that is on the floor of

the Tabernacle, the priest shall take and put it into the water,

and since the verse does not say “and put it in the water,” but “and put it into the water,” this implies that the dust must not be absorbed into the water.

Gemara:

A tanna

teaches

in a beraita:

He would bring

a new earthenware vessel,

meaning one that had never been used for any work,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Yishmael’s reason?

The passage concerning the purification of one afflicted with the skin disease at the end of the period during which he is confined [Leviticus 14:2]:

“This shall be the law of the afflicted person on the day of his purification: He shall be brought to the priest. The priest shall go outside the camp, and the priest shall see that the afflicted person has been healed of his skin disease. The priest shall command that two live, pure birds, cedar wood, crimson wool, and hyssop be brought for the one to be purified. The priest shall then command that one of the birds be slaughtered into an earthenware vessel over spring water. As for the live bird, he shall take it together with the cedar wood, the crimson wool, and the hyssop, and dip them together with the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the spring water. He shall sprinkle seven times on the one to be purified from the skin disease, and purify him; and he shall set the live bird free over the open field.”

Because he

derived by a conclusion based on an identical expression,

“

vessel, vessel,”

from

the afflicted person on the day of his purification:

Just as there—

in the case of the afflicted person—he puts the spring water into a vessel of

new earthenware,

so here—

in the case of the woman suspected of adultery—he puts the water into a vessel of

new earthenware.

And we explain:

And there,

in the case of the afflicted person,

from where do we know

that he puts it into new earthenware that has never been used for work? Because

it is written: “

And he shall slaughter one of the birds into an earthenware vessel over spring water,”

which indicates that the vessel is compared with the water, teaching:

Just as spring water has never been used for work,

as it is called “living.”

So too, a vessel that has never been used for work.

And we challenge this: Since you derive this by a conclusion based on an identical expression from the case of the afflicted person, say also:

If, just as there,

in the case of the afflicted person, the Torah requires

spring water,

that is, water from a spring—

so here,

in the case of the woman suspected of adultery, he should put into the earthenware vessel

spring water!?

And we answer:

According to Rabbi Yishmael,

who derives this by a conclusion based on an identical expression from the case of the afflicted person,

it is indeed so [

yes, he takes spring water for the woman suspected of adultery, since the water for the woman suspected of adultery is taken from the basin, as explained in our Mishna, and according to Rabbi Yishmael all the water of the basin was spring water].

As Rabbi Yohanan said: The water of the basin

from where did it come?

Rabbi Yishmael says: It was spring water.

And the Sages say:

It was also

from other types of water; if he wished to put ritual-bath water into it, he could do so.

We still challenge Rabbi Yishmael, who derives this from the case of the afflicted person by a conclusion based on an identical expression:

There is

a basis for refuting this inference:

What is true of the afflicted person is that he requires cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson wool;

can you say the same of the woman suspected of adultery, who does not require any of these!?

Rather,

Rabba said

the following as the reason for Rabbi Yishmael’s requiring a new vessel for the woman suspected of adultery:

Because

the verse says

in the passage concerning the woman suspected of adultery: “And the priest shall take sacred water

in an earthenware vessel”;

since the verse did not say, “He shall take an earthenware vessel and put water in it,” it implies that he should put it in

the vessel that I already told you about [

mentioned elsewhere], namely, the vessel stated concerning the afflicted person.

Rava said:

They taught

the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael and hold that an old vessel is valid for the water of the woman suspected of adultery—

only

in a vessel

that

had been used for cooking, but its

surface had not yet become darkened

[

blackened]

by the fire.

But

if he put the water into a vessel whose

surface had become darkened

by the fire, those waters are

invalid.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because we require the vessel of the woman suspected of adultery to be

similar to the water

of the woman suspected of adultery:

Just as the water has not changed,

so the vessel must not have changed.

Rava raises a question:

so too, the vessel must not have changed.

An earthenware vessel whose surface

has

become darkened, and they returned it to the fiery kiln

in which

new earthenware vessels are fired, and

the vessels became white again

there,

what is

the law? Do the vessels become fit for putting the water of the woman suspected of adultery into them?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the doubt:

Do we say: Once it has been rejected, it has been rejected,

since it was disqualified, it can no longer become fit?

Or perhaps: Once it has returned, it has returned,

since it became white again, it has again become fit for the water of the woman suspected of adultery?

Come and hear a proof that the vessels do not become valid once they have been rejected:

As it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson wool,

which are required for sprinkling the water of the red heifer,

with which one carried his basket slung behind him,

meaning, he hung his basket behind him with them, are

invalid,

since they became bent because of the load,

and changed. But there, they return and straighten out [

they return to their original straight form], and nevertheless they remain permanently invalid. This shows that we say: “Once it has been rejected, it has been rejected.”

And we reject this proof:

There,

in that beraita, we are dealing with a case where

the outer layer peeled off [

their outer layer peeled off]; this change does not reverse, and therefore they remain invalid.

We learned in the Mishna:

He entered the Sanctuary and turned to his right:

And we explain:

What is the reason

that he turns to his right?

As the master said: Whenever

you turn, it should be only toward the right.

We learned in the Mishna:

that you turn should be only toward the right.

There was a place there, one cubit by one cubit,

with a marble slab and a ring fixed in it; when he lifted it, he took dust from beneath it and put in enough that it could be seen on the water:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the woman suspected of adultery: “

And from the dust that is

on the floor of the Tabernacle, the priest shall take and put it into the water.” -

One might have thought that he could prepare [

reserve dust]

outside and bring it

into the Sanctuary,

and put the dust into the water, and that would suffice, since the dust had been in the Tabernacle—

therefore

the verse states: “And from the dust that is

on the floor of the Tabernacle,”

which implies the floor of the Tabernacle, since the verse did not say, “from the dust that is in the Tabernacle.”

If the verse says “

on the floor of the Tabernacle,”

meaning, if the verse had said only “from the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,”

one might have thought

that I should say:

He may dig with picks

into the floor of the Tabernacle to take dust from there; therefore

the verse states: “

that is.”

How is this resolved?

который будет».

If

there is

in the Tabernacle [that is, in the Sanctuary] loose dust,

bring it

from the floor of the Tabernacle.

But if

there is no

loose dust there, bring dust from outside and

put it there

on the floor of the Tabernacle, and from there put it into the water.

Another beraita was taught,

another beraita was taught in which the tannaim disagree as to whether it follows the first beraita or not:

It is written: “

And from the dust that is

on the floor of the Tabernacle,” and since the verse did not say, “From the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle he shall take,” this

teaches that he would prepare [

reserve dust]

outside and bring it

into the Sanctuary and put it into the water, without first placing it on the floor of the Tabernacle.

If so, why is it stated: “

on the floor of the Tabernacle”? Since he brings dust from outside, and does not even put it on the floor of the Tabernacle!?

on the floor of the Sanctuary” stated, since he brings dust from outside and does not even place it on the floor of the Sanctuary?!

зачем сказано, поскольку он вносит прах снаружи и даже не кладёт его на пол Храма?!