Sotah 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

And the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord, and place on her palms,"

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

so too

her husband:

if he was lame or one-armed, he would not make her drink.

The amoraim do not disagree; rather, one explains in what respect the woman is compared to the man, and the other explains in what respect the man is compared to the woman. Rashi.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

She is also compared to him in this regard:

just as a mute woman would not drink

because

it is written "

And the woman shall say: Amen and Amen,"

so too, if he was mute, he would not make her drink.

We have completed the chapter “The 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—with swelling of the abdomen and the falling of the thigh—

as it is stated, “

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

The bitter waters shall enter her,” and from the superfluous letter vav we learn that the adulterer too is punished when the water enters the sota, like her.

Just as she is forbidden

the sota

to her husband,

when she has not drunk the water,

so she is forbidden to the adulterer,

the man with whom she secluded herself, for she is forever forbidden to marry him, even after her husband’s death or after he divorces her.

As it is stated, “

She has become impure” and “

and she has become impure”; from the superfluous vav we expound that she is forbidden also to the adulterer—

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

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: This is how Zekharya ben HaKatzav expounded,

like Rabbi Akiva, deriving it from the superfluous vav.

Rabbi says:

we do not expound a superfluous vav; rather, we expound

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

and she has become impure”—

one refers to the husband and one to the adulterer [the above exposition, likewise, is not derived 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 same day

when Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed Nasi, after Rabban Gamliel was removed from the office of Nasi, and permission was granted for everyone to enter the beit-midrash [for Rabban Gamliel had said: Any student whose inner character is not like his outward appearance should not enter the beit-midrash. When he was removed from office, Torah proliferated that day, and there was no halakha dependent in the beit-midrash that was not clarified. Rabbi Akiva also delivered the exposition of “she has become impure and she has become impure” on that day]

Rabbi Akiva expounded: “

And any earthenware vessel into which any of them”

from the creeping creatures

“shall fall, everything inside it shall become impure.”

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

Rabbi Akiva analyzes the verse:

The verse does not say

“everything inside it shall become

impure,”

but rather “

shall render impure”; and we expound it as though it were vocalized in the causative form [with a sheva beneath the yod]

and we expound it as though the word were vocalized to mean “shall render impure”

to render others impure,

meaning that the food in the earthenware vessel renders others impure.

It teaches

us

from

the verse

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

which is mentioned because a loaf is commonly found in an oven, which is an earthenware vessel, that it is

a second-degree bearer

of impurity

that renders the third degree impure.

That is, it renders another loaf impure through contact, making it third-degree impure, even with regard to non-sacred food, since the verse speaks without qualification.

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

later,

in the future,

will arise that will declare a third-degree loaf pure

with regard to teruma,

since there is no verse from the Torah that it is impure,

but we derive this only by means of a kal va-chomer. The future generation will refute the kal va-chomer, as will be explained in the Gemara.

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

Everything inside it shall become impure,”

even with regard to non-sacred food—and all the more so with regard to teruma!

On that same day Rabbi Akiva expounded

also the passage concerning the cities of the Levites. The Torah states that the Israelites shall give them cities from their inheritance in which to dwell, and open land around the cities. One verse says: “

You shall measure from outside the city, on its eastern side, two thousand cubits,”

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

And

another

verse says: “And the open land of the cities that you shall give to the Levites

from

shall extend from the city wall outward, a thousand cubits all around.”

It is impossible to say

with regard to the measurements of the open land

“a 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, “

a thousand cubits.”

How, then,

are these two verses to be reconciled? “

A thousand cubits”—

they shall give them this so that it will serve them as

open land,

an area free of houses and plantings, intended to beautify the city and provide it with open air.

And “

two thousand cubits”

was not stated as an amount to be given to the Levites, but with regard to

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

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

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says:

the two verses can be reconciled as follows: “

A thousand cubits”—

open land

entirely free of buildings.

And

the other “

two thousand cubits”—

the additional thousand cubits shall be

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

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

On that same 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 verse to say “

saying,”

for this “saying” is unlike the other occurrences of “saying” in the Torah, whose meaning is that the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses to repeat it to Israel; but here this interpretation is impossible.

And what does

the word

“saying” mean here?

It teaches that Israel would respond to Moses’s song after him, for each and every statement.

Moses said, “I shall sing to the Lord,” and they responded after him, “I shall sing to the Lord.” Moses said, “For He is highly exalted,” and they responded after him, “I shall sing to the Lord.” Thus, throughout the song they responded after him, “I shall sing to the Lord,”

as when they recite

Hallel:

when one person enables the many to fulfill their obligation through Hallel, he recites and the congregation responds after him to each passage, “Halleluya”;

therefore it is stated “

saying.”

Rabbi Nehemiah says: As when they recite the Shema.

Moses began the song, the holy spirit rested upon them all, and they directed the song together according to its written form, all reciting it together in the manner followed by one who leads the recitation of the Shema before the congregation,

and not as when they recite Hallel.

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

Because he loved the Holy One, blessed be He,

as it is stated

in Job: “

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

The matter nevertheless remains unresolved,

for this does not decide whether he served out of love or fear, since there is uncertainty regarding the meaning of the word “lo”: if it is written with a vav, its meaning is “even if He slays me,”

I shall wait for Him,

or

if it is written with an alef, meaning

I shall not wait.

Job said: Is He not killing me? I shall no longer wait for Him. There are instances in which “lo,” with an alef, has the same meaning as “lo,” with a vav, such as: “In all their distress He was not distressed.”

The verse states: “

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

the verse teaches

that

Job acted out of love

of the Holy One!

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

because he feared punishment that would befall him,

as it is stated: “

A blameless and upright man, God-fearing and shunning evil.”

But Yehoshua, the student of your student,

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

has taught that he acted out of love!

Gemara:

We raise a contradiction concerning the statement in the Mishna that the water examines

him—for whom

does the water examine him?

If you say it refers to the husband,

what did the husband do,

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