Sotah 27b — the Talmud in English

And the koen shall have the woman stand before Hashem, and place it on her palms",

and it implies that she is able to stand, and that she has hands,

so it is with him,

her husband,

if he were lame or one-handed, he would not have her drink.

The amoraim do not disagree; rather, this one explains in what respect the woman was likened to the man, and this one explains in what respect the man was likened to the woman. Rashi.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

He too was likened in this respect:

just as a mute woman would not drink,

because

as it is written, "

And the woman shall say: Amen and Amen,"

so it is with him; if he were mute, he would not have her drink.

We will return to you, chapter “Betrothed Woman”

Mishna:

Just as the water examines her, so the water examines him,

the adulterer: for if she is not pure, he too will die in the manner in which the sota dies, through swelling of the belly and falling of the thigh,

as it is stated, “

And they will come, and they will come.” “

And the bitter waters will come into her”: and from the superfluous letter vav we learn that the adulterer too will be punished by the entry of the water into the sota, like her.

Just as she is forbidden

the sota

to her husband,

when she has not drunk,

so she is forbidden to the adulterer,

the man with whom she was secluded, for she is forbidden to marry him forever, even after the death of her husband or after her divorce from him.

As it is stated, “

She has become impure” and “

and she has become impure,”

and from the superfluous vav we expound that she is also forbidden to the adulterer,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Thus would Zekharya ben Ha-Katzav expound,

like Rabbi Akiva, from the superfluous vav.

Rabbi says:

we do not expound the extra letter vav, but rather we expound from

the two occurrences stated in the passage, “She has become impure” and “

and she has become impure”—

one for the husband and one for the adulterer [the above exposition too is not from the superfluous vav, but from another verse, as explained in the Gemara].

And likewise, the earlier exposition is not based on an extra vav, but on another verse, as explained in the Gemara.]

On that day

when Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed nasi, after Rabban Gamaliel was removed from the nesiut, and permission was given for everyone to enter the beit-midrash [for Rabban Gamaliel used to say: every student whose inside is not like his outside should not enter the beit-midrash; and when he was removed from his office, Torah increased on that very day, and there was no halakha dependent in the beit-midrash that was not clarified. And Rabbi Akiva also expounded the exposition of “she has become impure and she has become impure” on that day]

Rabbi Akiva expounded “

And an earthenware vessel into which any of them

[of the creeping creatures]

falls, whatever is inside it shall become impure.”

The creeping creature is a primary source of impurity, and the earthenware vessel into which the creeping creature fell becomes a first-degree source of impurity; the food inside the earthenware vessel becomes impure from it and becomes second-degree impurity.

And Rabbi Akiva infers:

The verse does not say

“whatever is inside it

is impure,”

but

“

shall become impure,” and we expound it as though it were written shall render impure [with a sheva beneath the yod],

to render others impure,

for the food in the earthenware vessel renders others impure.

It teaches

that

from

here the verse

about a loaf

[it mentions a loaf because it is commonly found in an oven, which is an earthenware vessel], which is

second-degree

impurity,

that it renders the third-degree impure.

That is, it renders another loaf impure through contact with it and makes it third-degree, even with ordinary food, since the verse speaks without qualification.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will uncover the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai! For you would say: A generation is destined

later

in the future

to declare a third-degree loaf pure

in teruma,

for it has no verse from the Torah that it is impure,

but we derive this through a kal va-chomer. And the future generation will refute the kal va-chomer, as will be explained in the Gemara.

But Rabbi Akiva, your student, brings it a verse from the Torah that it is impure, as it is stated “

Whatever is inside it shall become impure,”

even with ordinary food, and all the more so with teruma!

On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded

also in the passage concerning the cities of the Levites, where it is stated in the Torah that the Children of Israel shall give them cities from their inheritance in which to dwell, and open land around the cities. One verse says: “

And you shall measure outside the city, the eastern side, two thousand cubits,”

and the end of the verse says, “this shall be their open land around the cities.”

And

whereas

another verse says “

And the open land of the cities that you shall give to the Levites

from the city wall and outward, one thousand cubits all around.”

It is impossible to say

with regard to the measurements of the open land, “

one thousand cubits,”

because

it has already been stated “

two thousand cubits.”

And

on the other hand,

it is impossible to say “

two thousand cubits,”

because

it has already been stated “

one thousand cubits.”

How then

can these two verses be fulfilled? “

One thousand cubits”—

they shall give them so that it may serve them as

open land,

a place entirely free of houses and plantings, intended for the beauty of the city, to provide it with air.

And “

two thousand cubits”

was not stated in order to give them to the Levites, but with regard to

the Shabbat limit,

to say that on Shabbat one may leave the city only as far as a distance of two thousand cubits, and no farther; for according to Rabbi Akiva, the prohibition of boundaries is from the Torah.

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, says:

the two verses are to be reconciled as follows: “

One thousand cubits”—

open land

entirely vacant.

And

whereas “

two thousand cubits,”

the additional thousand shall be

fields and vineyards.

The Shabbat limit, however, is not mentioned in the verse, and is only rabbinic.

On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded “

Then Moses and the Children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and they said, saying.”

For there is no need for the text to say “

saying,”

for this “saying” is unlike the other occurrences of “saying” in the Torah, whose meaning is that the Holy One, blessed is He, told Moses so that he would repeat and say it to Israel; but here it cannot be explained in that manner.

And what does

the word here

“saying” teach?

It teaches that Israel would answer with song after Moses, for each and every statement.

Moses said, “I shall sing to the Lord,” and they answered after him, “I shall sing to the Lord.” Moses said, “For He is greatly exalted,” and they answered after him, “I shall sing to the Lord.” And so throughout the entire song they answered after him, “I shall sing to the Lord,”

as when they recite

the Hallel,

when one who causes the public to fulfill its obligation in Hallel reads, and the congregation answers after him after every section, “Hallelujah”;

therefore it is stated “

saying.”

Rabbi Nehemiah says: As when they recite the Shema.

Moses began the song, and the holy spirit rested upon them all, and they directed the song together according to its written form, and they all said it together, in the manner customary when one recites the Shema before the congregation,

and not as when they recite the Hallel.

On that day Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hurkanos expounded: Job served the Holy One, blessed is He, only out of love.

Because he loved the Holy One, blessed is He,

as it is stated

in Job: “

Though He slay me, I shall wait for Him.”

And still the matter is undetermined,

for there is no decision from here whether he served out of love or out of fear, since one must inquire into the meaning of the word “for Him”: whether it is written with a vav, meaning “even if He slays me,”

I await Him,

or

with an alef, meaning

I do not await Him.

Job said: Is He not killing me? I will no longer await Him; for there are occasions when “not,” with an alef, has the meaning of “for Him,” with a vav, as in “In all their distress He was not distressed”?

The text teaches “

Until I expire, I will not remove my integrity from myself”;

the verse teaches

that

Job acted out of love

of Job.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will uncover the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, for you would expound all your days that Job served the Omnipresent only out of fear,

for he was concerned about punishment that would come upon him,

as it is stated “

A complete and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil.”

But Yehoshua, the student of your student,

who was the student of Rabbi Akiva, who was the student of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai,

learned that he acted out of love!

Gemara:

And we raise an objection concerning this: The statement taught in the Mishna, that the water examines

him—for whom

is it that the water examines him?

If you say: the husband?

What has the husband done,

what sin did he commit that the water should examine him?