Sotah 16b — the Talmud in English

And what is the reason for the Mishna in Tractate Nega'im, that it states that he shaves even the second shaving

“like a gourd” [

and like the first one, which is like a gourd], is not because of a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

Rather, this—

who is it?

It is Rabbi Akiva, who expounds

throughout the Torah

“inclusions and exclusions,”

for according to the one who expounds “inclusions and exclusions,” he shaves even the second shaving like a gourd.

And as

it was taught:

“And it shall be on the seventh day: he shall shave all his hair”—

here the

verse included

in general.

“His head, and his beard, and his eyebrows”—

here it

excluded.

the requirement.

“And all his hair he shall shave”—

here it

again included.

It included, excluded, and included—

it included everything,

and excluded only one thing.

What did it include?—It

included

the hair

of his entire body [

of the whole body].

And what did it exclude?—It

excluded the hair inside the nostrils.

And this is what we learned in the conclusion of the Mishna in Tractate Nega'im: “He shaves it with the second shaving like the first shaving,” and this is not because of a halakha that follows the biblical text. And here the Gemara returns to the doubt that the students of the academy raised: whether the ash is fit for the waters of a sota, or perhaps since it was said “from the ground of the Tabernacle,” earth is required that resembles the ground of the Tabernacle—and it asks:

What has been established [

what is the law concerning this doubt]? Come and hear

a proof that the ash is fit to place in the water—

From

what Rav Huna bar Ashi said in the name of Rav:

If

there is no earth

to place inside the water, he

brings the decay of vegetation [

the decay of vegetation],

and consecrates it, [

he places it on the floor of the Temple courtyard in order to consecrate it].

And how is it possible to say that

“the decay of vegetation”

is earth

that resembles the ground of the Tabernacle, whereas

ash is not earth

that resembles the ground of the Tabernacle!?

It is certainly so that, all the more so, ash is fit for the waters of a sota.

The Sages taught: Three

things

must be visible [

must be recognizable to the eye]:

1.

The earth of a sota

on the surface of the water, as explained in our Mishna.

2.

And the ash of the red cow

—for the Torah said: “And they shall take for the impure one from the earth of the burning of the sin-offering, and he shall place upon it living water in a vessel”—the ash must be visible on the surface of the water. 3.

And the spittle of a levirate widow—

for the Torah said: “And his brother’s wife shall approach him before the elders, and she shall remove his shoe from upon his foot, and she shall spit before him, and she shall answer and say: So shall be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house.”

The spittle must be visible “before the elders.”

They said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael:

4.

Even the blood of a bird

of a leper—for the Torah said in the section concerning the purification of a leper [Leviticus 14:4]: “And the priest shall command, and he shall take for the one being purified two living pure birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command, and he shall slaughter the one bird into an earthenware vessel, over living water”—and one must not place water except in a quantity such that the blood of the bird is recognizable in it, which is a quarter-log, as will be explained further in the matter.

And the Gemara explains:

What is Rabbi Ishmael’s reason,

who holds that the measure of the water for the purification of a leper is such that the blood is recognizable in it? Because

it is written

concerning a leper [in the continuation of the verses]: “The living bird he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop

—and he shall immerse them

and the living bird

in the blood of the bird

slaughtered over the living water.”

And it was taught:

Since the Torah said: “And he shall immerse them

in the blood”—

one might have thought

that he should immerse them

in blood and not in water; therefore

the verse says

“

water” [“And he shall immerse them—over the living water”].

of the bird slaughtered over the living water.”

If “

water,”

one might have thought

that he should immerse them

in water and not in blood; the verse says: “And he shall immerse them

in

blood.”

How so?

He brings water in which the blood of a sparrow

is recognizable.

And how much is it?—

A quarter-log

of water.

And with them he immerses the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet, and the living bird.

And the Rabbis—

who did not require a measure of water such that the bird’s blood would be recognizable in it—their reason is that one cannot derive the relationship between the blood and the water from these two verses; for:

That—

the two verses, “blood” and “water”—

were needed for their own matter

as

the Merciful One said: “I immerse in blood and in water,”

even when the blood is not recognizable in the water.

And Rabbi Ishmael

says to you:

If so—

that the verses did not come to teach the relationship between the blood and the water—

let the Merciful One write: “

And he shall immerse in them,”

meaning in the blood and the water mentioned in the section. “

In the blood and in the water”—

why do I need this!?

Rather, certainly it comes

to

teach that there should be water in which the bird’s blood

is recognizable

in it.

And the Rabbis

say to you, in response to Rabbi Ishmael’s claim:

If

not

had the Merciful One written

but rather “

And he shall immerse in them,”

I might have thought: this

blood

alone [

by itself] stands,

and this

water

alone

stands and they are not mixed at all; therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “

In the blood and in the water,”

so that we should learn

to mix them.

And Rabbi Ishmael

says to you:

If it is in order to teach us

to mix them,

then

another verse is written,

and if so, why do I need “in the blood and in the water”?

For it is stated: “

And he shall slaughter the one bird

into an earthenware vessel over living water,” which indicates that the bird’s blood does not stand by itself and the water by itself, but rather they are mixed.

And the Rabbis

say to you: We still need to learn from “in the blood and in the water” that they must be mixed:

For

if from that verse—

from the verse “And he shall slaughter the one bird into an earthenware vessel over living water”—

I would not know that he must slaughter it over the water so that the blood should fall into the water and mix with it;

for

I might have thought:

He should slaughter it

the bird

near the vessel [

the vessel] in which the water is, in order to fulfill “And he shall slaughter the bird over water,”

but

nevertheless he would not let the blood spill into the water, but rather

he would hold them

at the time of slaughter

by the veins [

he would tighten its veins with his hands] so that no blood would emerge from them at the time of slaughter,

and receive the blood in another vessel [

and receive the blood in another empty vessel], and afterward immerse them in the blood separately and in the water separately.

Therefore

it teaches us

the verses “in the blood and in the water” that the blood and the water must be mixed.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeira:

What is the law if the bird is

large and pushes away the water,

so that if its blood mixes with the water in the measure of a quarter-log, the water is pushed aside by the blood and is not recognizable because of the majority of blood?

Or if the bird was

small and is pushed aside by the water,

so that if its blood mixes with the water in the measure of a quarter-log, the blood is pushed aside by the water and is not recognizable?

What is

the measure of water for these birds?

That is, he wondered: How did the Sages establish one uniform measure for all birds, when each bird is according to its own nature!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Jeremiah:

Did I not say to you: “

And there is no bird

Do not take yourself outside the halakha” [

did I not warn you not to question the measures of the Sages], for

the Sages measured according to a sparrow,

that is, we are dealing with a sparrow—

And

you have no

bird

larger

of this species

that pushes away

with its blood

the water [

in the measure of a quarter-log] so that it is not recognizable because of the majority of blood.

And you have no

sparrow

smaller that is pushed aside by

the

water,

so that its blood will not be recognizable in a quarter-log of water, for they are all equal.

The Sages taught:

The order of placing the water and the earth in a sota is: water first, and upon it he places the earth, for it is stated: “And from the earth that shall be in the ground of the Tabernacle, the priest shall take and place into the water.”

And if he

preceded

placing

earth

in the vessel before

the water in the sota,

this is

unfit, because it is stated at the end of the section: “And the priest shall perform for her all this Torah,” and everywhere that “Torah” is stated, it impedes,

so that it must be according to the order written in the section. And Rabbi Shimon declares it fit

after the fact.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason?

For it is written

concerning the cow: “

And they shall take for the impure one from the earth of the burning of the sin-offering”—

And it was taught: Rabbi Shimon said: Is it earth? Is it not ash!?

Rather, for this reason

the verse changed its expression, so as to derive from it [

through this word]

a gezera shava, for

it is stated here,

concerning the ash of the red cow,

“

earth,” and

it is stated there,

concerning the waters of a sota, “

earth”;

and you can reason:

Just as there,

concerning a sota, he initially places

earth upon water,

for the verse says: “And from the earth—the priest shall take and place into the water.”

So too here,

concerning the cow, he initially places

earth upon water.

And just as here,

as the verse says: “And from the earth—the priest shall take and place it into the water.” So too here, concerning the red heifer, he initially places

concerning the cow—if he

preceded the earth to the water,

then it is

fit

after the fact, as he proceeds to explain.

So too there,

concerning a sota—if he

preceded the earth to the water,

then it is

fit

after the fact.

concerning the sota—if he

And there

concerning the heifer—

from where do we know that if he placed earth before water, it is valid?

that if one placed the earth before the water, it is valid?

And the Gemara explains: because

two verses are written [that is, two apparently contradictory verses]

concerning the heifer:

On the one hand

it is written: “

upon it” [“And they shall take for the impure person from the earth of the burning of the sin-offering, and he shall place upon it—upon the ash—living water into a vessel”],

therefore apparently

it is demonstrated that he places

the ash first

[first].

And

on the other hand

it is written: “

living water into a vessel,”

which implies that the water should be in the vessel without earth intervening between them,

therefore

it is demonstrated that he places

the water first.

How then

are these two verses to be reconciled?—

If

he desired

the koen,

this

water,

he places

first.

And if

he desired

the koen

this,

ash,

he places

first—

And it follows that, on the one hand, we learned a gzera shava from Sota to place the water before the ash, while, on the other hand, it is implied from the verses that there is no insistence upon the order, and therefore Rabbi Shimon held that ideally he places the water first, but if he placed the ash before the water, it is valid after the fact; and again we learn from the heifer to Sota by a gzera shava that also in Sota, if he placed earth before the water, it is valid.

And the Rabbis,

who hold that if he placed earth before the water of Sota, it is invalid, and did not learn from the ash of the sin-offering that after the fact it does not prevent [the ritual from being valid], this is because the Rabbis can say to you that also concerning the heifer, if he placed earth before the water, it is invalid; and the reconciliation of the verses concerning the heifer, so that they will not contradict one another, is interpreted in another manner:

That which the Torah said: “living water

into a vessel”

is

specifically,

and teaches that one must place the water first, and afterward the ash.

And that which the verse said: “And he shall place

upon it”

[upon the ash] “water,” it teaches you that one must

mix them,

for after placing the ash into the water, he must turn the water over the ash and mix them.

And we challenge the Rabbis:

But say [is it not possible to say the reverse]: that which the Torah said: “

upon it”

is

specifically,

and one must place the earth first.

And that which the Torah said: “living water

into a vessel,”

comes to teach

that the water’s

vitality

should be

in the vessel,

that is, one should not draw the water in one vessel and from there place it into the vessel in which the ash is, but should draw it from the spring into the vessel in which the ash is!?

And we answer: since it is possible to interpret the verses in this manner, and it is possible to interpret the verses in another manner, it is more logical to interpret that the ash is placed upon the surface of the water.

For

what do we find everywhere,

such as in Sota —

the instrument

is placed

above,

because the earth is the instrument that renders the water fit for the drinking.

Here too,

concerning the heifer—

the instrument

is that which is placed

above,

and this is the ash that renders the water fit for sprinkling.