Sotah 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

And the reason for the Mishna in tractate Negaim, which states that he shaves even the second shaving

“like a gourd” [

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

Rather, whose opinion is this?

It is

the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who expounds

throughout the Torah

by means of inclusions and exclusions;

for according to the one who expounds by means of “inclusions and exclusions,” he shaves the second shaving as well “like a gourd.”

And

as it was taught:

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

this

includes

the verse.

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

this

excludes.

the requirement.

“And all his hair he shall shave”—

this

returns and includes.

He included, excluded, and included—

he included everything,

and excluded only one thing.

What did he include?

He included

hair

of his entire body [

of the whole body].

And what did he exclude?

He excluded the hair inside the nostrils.

And this is what we learned in the final clause of the Mishna in Negaim: “He shaves it with a second shaving like the first shaving,” and this is not because of a halakha that follows the verse. Here the Gemara returns to the question that the scholars of the academy had raised: Is the ashes valid for the water of the sota, or perhaps, since it is stated “from the ground of the Sanctuary,” the earth must resemble the ground of the Sanctuary? And it asks:

What has been established concerning it [

what is the law regarding this uncertainty]?

Come and hear

a proof that the ashes are valid to place in the water—

from what

If

Rav Huna bar Ashi said in the name of Rav:

If

there is no earth

to place in the water,

he brings decayed 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 can it be said that

decayed vegetation

is earth

resembling the ground of the Sanctuary, whereas

ashes are not earth

resembling the ground of the Sanctuary

?

It is certainly the case that ashes, all the more so, are valid for the water of the sota.

The Sages taught: Three

things

must be visible [

they must be discernible to the eye]:

1.

Earth for the sota

on the surface of the water, as explained in our Mishna. 2.

And the ashes of the red heifer—

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

3. And the spittle of a yevama—for the Torah says: “And his yevama shall approach him before the elders, and remove his shoe from upon his foot, and 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 eyes of the elders ”. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said: 4. Even the blood of the bird

The spittle of a yevama—the Torah says: “Then his yevama shall approach him before the elders, and remove his shoe from his foot, and spit before him, and she shall answer and say: So shall be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house

” \-

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.

of the leper—for the Torah says in the passage concerning the purification of the leper [Leviticus 14:4]: “And the priest shall command, and he shall take for the one being purified two living clean birds, cedar wood, crimson wool, and hyssop. And the priest shall command, and he shall slaughter the one bird into an earthenware vessel over living water”—and he must not place more water than an amount in which the bird’s blood will be visible, which is a quarter-log, as will be explained further in the discussion.

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said:

4.

Even the blood of a bird

of one afflicted with leprosy—for the Torah says in the section concerning the purification of one afflicted with leprosy [Leviticus 14:4]: “And the priest shall command, and he shall take for the one being purified two live, pure birds, cedar wood, crimson thread, and hyssop. And the priest shall command, and he shall slaughter the one bird into an earthenware vessel over living water.” The water must be only in such a quantity that the bird’s blood is visible in it, namely, a quarter of a log, as will be explained below.

—and he shall immerse them

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael,

who maintains that the measure of water for the purification of the leper is that the blood be visible in it? It is because

it is written concerning the leper [in the continuation of the verses]: “He shall take the living bird, and the cedar wood, and the crimson wool, and the hyssop

,

and he shall dip them

and the living bird

in the blood

of the slaughtered bird over the living water.”

And it was taught:

Since the Torah said: “And he shall dip them

in the blood,”

one might have thought

that he should dip them

in blood and not in water; therefore

the verse states

“water”:

“And he shall dip them—upon the living water.”

If it says

“water,”

one might have thought that he should dip them

in water and not in blood; the verse states:

“And he shall dip them

in the blood.”

How is this to be understood?

He brings water in which the blood of a sparrow

[the bird]

is visible. And what is its measure?— A quarter-log

of water. And with them he dips the cedar wood, the hyssop, the crimson wool, and the living bird.

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

And the Rabbis—

who did not require a measure of water in which the bird’s blood would be visible—

their reason is that one cannot derive the relationship between the blood and the water from these two verses, because: That—the two verses, “blood” and “water”— were needed for their own matter; for this is what the Merciful One said: “I dip in blood and in water,”

even when the blood is not visible in the water.

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,”

And Rabbi Yishmael

And Rabbi Yishmael

said to you:

If so—

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

the Merciful One should have written:

“And he shall dip in them,”

meaning in the blood and water mentioned in the passage.

“

In blood and in water”—

why do I need this!?

Rather, certainly it comes

to teach that the water must be such that the bird’s blood

is visible

in it.

And the Rabbis

said to you, in response to Rabbi Yishmael’s claim:

If

the Merciful One

had written only

“And he shall dip in them,”

we might have thought: This

blood

stands alone,

and this

water

stands alone and they are not mixed at all. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote:

“In blood and in water,”

so that we would learn

to mix them.

And Rabbi Yishmael

said to you:

If the purpose is to teach us

to mix them, then

another verse is written,

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

For it is written:

“And he shall slaughter the one bird

into an earthenware vessel over living water,”

and thus the bird’s blood does not stand by itself and the water by itself; rather, they are mixed.

And the Rabbis

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

For

if it were from that—

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 will fall into the water and mix with it;

For

I might have thought:

He should slaughter it

the bird

near the vessel [

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

but nevertheless he should not allow the blood to flow into the water. Rather,

he should hold

them

by the veins [

he should 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 dip them in the blood separately and in the water separately.

Therefore

it teaches us that the verses “in blood and in water” require that the blood and the water be mixed.

Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira:

What is the law if the bird is

large and displaces the water,

so that if its blood is mixed with the water in the amount of a quarter-log, the water is displaced by the blood and is not discernible because of the predominance of the blood?

Or if the bird was

small and is displaced by the water,

so that if its blood is mixed with the water in the amount of a quarter-log, the blood is displaced by the water and is not discernible?

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 should be judged according to its own characteristics

?

meaning, we are dealing with a sparrow—

And there is no bird

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Yirmeya: Did I not say to you:

“Do not take yourself outside the halakha” [

did I not warn you not to question the measures established by the Sages]?

For the Sages measured with a sparrow, that is, we are dealing with a sparrow—

of this species

that displaces

with its blood

the water

And

there is no

bird

larger

of this species

that displaces

with its blood

the water [

in the measure of a quarter-log] so that it will not be discernible because of the predominance of the blood.

And there is no

sparrow so small that it is displaced by the water, so that its blood would not be discernible in a quarter-log of water, because they are all equal.

placed first

the

earth

in the vessel, before

The Sages taught:

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

And if he

placed first

to put

earth in the vessel beforehand, before the water for the sota,

this is

invalid, because it is stated at the end of the passage: “And the priest shall perform for her all this Torah,” and wherever “Torah” is stated, the matter is indispensable,

so that it must follow the order written in the passage.

“And they shall take for the impure person from the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering”—

And Rabbi Shimon deems it valid

after the fact.

And we explain:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

For it is written

concerning the red heifer:

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

And it was taught: Rabbi Shimon said: Is it earth? But it is ashes!?

Rather, for this reason

the verse altered its wording, in order to derive from it [

through this word]

a verbal analogy,

for

it is stated here,

concerning the ashes of the red heifer,

“earth,”

and it is stated there,

concerning the water of the sota,

“earth.”

And you can reason:

Just as there,

concerning the sota, he initially places

earth upon water,

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

earth upon water.

valid

after the fact, as he proceeds to explain—

so too there,

And just as here,

concerning the red heifer—if he

placed the earth before the water,

it is

valid

after the fact, as will be explained.

So too there,

concerning the sota—if he

placed the earth before the water, it is valid after the fact. А там,

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

is what is placed