Sotah 32b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And these are recited in any language: the passage of the sota. And we explain:

From where do we derive that the passage of the sota

is recited in any language? And we explain: because

it is written

in the passage of the sota: “

And he shall say to the woman, if no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray in impurity under your husband, be immune from these bitter waters that cause the curse,” and “to the woman” implies words that enter her heart,

so that she recognizes the language; thus we have learned: in whatever language he speaks.

in any language in which he says it.

The Sages taught: They make known to her

The Sages taught:

They make known

to her [before erasing the scroll]

in

every language that she hears

[understands]:

for what

[why]

she is drinking, and in what she is drinking; for what she became impure, and through what she became impure,

and all of them he explains to her as he proceeds. “

For what she is drinking”:

because of the affairs of warning and seclusion,

that is, it was immodesty that caused her to drink. “

And in what she is drinking”:

in a repulsive vessel,

in an earthen ladle.

For what she became impure: because of frivolity and childishness,

that is, what brought her to impurity—frivolity and levity. And he says this in order to discipline the women, so that they should not act lightly with men, through which this woman came to “and her belly shall swell.”

And through what she became impure: inadvertently or intentionally, under compulsion

or

willingly,

that is, he specifies her laws to her if she became impure in any of these ways: that she dies only if it was intentional and willing, and not inadvertently, such as when they told her that her husband had died, or [if it was] under compulsion.

And why so much

do we need to specify the laws of the sota to her!?

And granted, he says the other matters in order to discipline the women, so that they should not act lightly with men, through which they come to swelling of the belly.

So as not to bring disrepute upon the bitter waters,

for if she became impure under compulsion or inadvertently and was not tested, she should not think: Even if I had become impure intentionally and willingly, the waters would not have tested me.

We learned in the Mishna: These are recited in any language, etc.

the confession of the tithe:

And we explain:

From where do we derive

that it is recited in any language?

Because

it is written: “

And you shall say before the Lord

your God: I have cleared out the sacred portion from the house”—

And he derives

by a gzera shava:

“saying” [“and you shall say”]

which is stated in the confession of the tithe,

from “

saying” that is stated in the

passage of the sota [“and he shall say to the woman”]: Just as the saying stated concerning the sota may be in whatever language he speaks, so too the saying stated in the confession of the tithe:

in whatever language he speaks.

He said

to him,

he objected,

Rav Zevid to Abaye:

From where do we know that the gzera shava “saying, saying” was accepted in order to learn from the sota,

and let him derive “

saying

saying”

from the blessings and curses that the

Levites

said [“and they shall respond and say”]:

Just as there, concerning the Levites, it is only

in the sacred tongue

as explained in our Mishna,

so here, concerning the confession of the tithe, it is only

in the sacred tongue!?

And we answer:

They derive “

saying”

alone

[saying by itself, without a response] in the confession of the tithe,

from “

saying”

alone

in the sota.

And they do not derive saying alone from response and saying [“and they shall respond and say”] of the Levites.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says:

A person speaks his praise in a low voice, but

he speaks

his disgrace

in

a loud voice!

And from where?

His praise in a low voice,

you learn

from the confession of the tithe, which is a person’s praise, for he says, “I have not transgressed any of Your commandments and I have not forgotten,”

and no response is stated in it, which implies [that it is said] in a low voice.

And we ask:

His disgrace in a loud voice,

you learn

from the recitation over the first fruits, in which he says: “An Aramean sought to destroy my father,” and this is his disgrace, for he confesses that his father, Laban the Aramean, was wicked, and “response” is stated concerning it [“And you shall respond and say”], which implies [that it is said] in a loud voice. And we object: And does a person then say his disgrace in a loud voice!? But Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:

that

prayer

should be recited

quietly, as we find concerning Hannah [I Samuel 1:12]: “And as she prayed at length before the Lord, Eli watched her mouth. Now Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard”? So as not to embarrass those who have sinned, who confess in their prayers the sins they have committed. And from where do we know that even those who have sinned are not embarrassed? For the verse did not distinguish a place

For what reason did the Sages institute

that

prayer

should be recited

silently,

as we find with Hannah [I Samuel 1:12]: “And it came to pass, as she prayed at length before the Lord, that Eli watched her mouth. Now Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard”?

So as not to shame those who transgress,

who confess in their prayer concerning sins in their possession.

And from where [do we know] that one does not shame even those who transgress:

for the verse did not distinguish

a place

for the slaughter of the offering

between a sin-offering and a burnt-offering,

that is, the verse did not give the sin-offering [which comes for a sin] a place of slaughter different from the burnt-offering; both are slaughtered in the north of the outer altar in the courtyard, and this is so that they should not understand that it is a sin-offering and become ashamed.

Thus, it is not fitting to say his disgrace in a loud voice, by way of publicizing it!? And we answer:

that a person says

“

his disgrace”

in a loud voice;

Do not say:

a person says “ his disgrace” in a loud voice, but say: a person says “

his distress” in a loud voice.

And when he makes known in a loud voice his distress—that Laban sought to destroy Jacob—and makes known Israel’s descent to Egypt [“and he went down to Egypt”] in a loud voice.

As it was taught,

that a person says his distress in a loud voice:

It is written: “And the leper in whom the affliction is, his garments shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall grow long, and he shall cover his upper lip,

and he shall call out: Impure, impure

[the leper].”

From here [we learn] that

he must make his distress known to the public, and the public,

as a result,

ask mercy for him.

the sin offering is not different from the burnt offering, so that you say that the Torah was careful not to distinguish it from the burnt offering in order not to embarrass the sinner!?

But there is a difference between the sin offering and the burnt offering in the matter of their blood, since

And

so

anyone to whom something bad has happened

must make it known to the public, and the public asks mercy for him. The essential matter: Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: For what reason did they institute prayer silently? So as not to shame those who transgress, for the verse did not distinguish a place between a sin-offering and a burnt-offering. And we wonder:

And

does it then follow that the

sin-offering

is

not different from the burnt-offering, that you say that the Torah was particular not to distinguish it from the burnt-offering so that he should not become ashamed!?

But there is

a distinction between the sin-offering and the burnt-offering in

the blood,

for

the blood of the sin-offering

is sprinkled on the altar

above the scarlet line [a red thread that was made around the altar at its midpoint],

whereas

the blood of the burnt-offering

is sprinkled on the altar

below the scarlet line!?

And if so, what advantage is there in the fact that they are slaughtered in one place? In any event, he is already standing in shame!?

[the females are covered by their tail], so no one knows whether the animal is female or male.

And we answer: The distinction between them in the blood does not shame him, because

there, it is the koen who knows

[only the koen knows about it], and not everyone else; there is no shame in the matter.

And we still object:

But there is another distinction, for the

sin-offering is from the

female, whereas the

burnt-offering comes only from the

male!? And we answer:

There, the females are covered

by the tail

[the females are covered by the tail], and one does not know whether it is female or male.

And we object:

That is satisfactory concerning a ewe,

for indeed its being female is not recognizable, since it is covered by its tail; but

a she-goat, which has no tail,

what is there to say, for its being female is recognizable, and it differs from the burnt-offering, which comes only from a male!?

And we answer:

There, he is the one who shames himself,

[he shames himself],

for he should have brought a ewe

[he should have brought a ewe with a tail],

but he brings a she-goat

[and he brings a tailless she-goat]. And the sin-offering is valid whether from a ewe, whose being female is not recognizable, or from a she-goat, whose being female is recognizable.

[he should be embarrassed, so that he will gain atonement through such a severe punishment].

[the females are covered by the tail], and one cannot tell whether it is female or male.

And we challenge this:

And we still object:

The sin-offering for idolatry, which cannot be anything other than a she-goat

[for it comes only as a she-goat and not as a ewe],

what is there to say!?

And we answer:

!? And we answer:

There, in the case of idolatry, the Torah indeed said that he should bring a she-goat for this reason:

let him become ashamed and continue [in his shame], so that it should atone for him

[he should become ashamed, so that he should be atoned for through a punishment of such magnitude].

[which has a tail],

but he brings a she-goat

[which has no tail]. The sin-offering is valid whether it is a ewe, whose sex is not apparent, or a she-goat, whose being female is apparent.

We nevertheless challenge this:

What can be said concerning the sin-offering for idolatry, which necessarily must be a she-goat

[it may come only as a she-goat, not as a ewe],

what can be said!?

And we answer:

There,

in the case of idolatry, the Torah indeed said that he should bring a she-goat in order to impose upon him the punishment of

being ashamed and continuing to be ashamed, so that he may achieve atonement

[he is shamed so that he will receive atonement through such a severe punishment].

We learned in the Mishna: These are recited in every language, etc.'

Keriat Shema:

And we explain:

From where do we know

that it is recited in every language?

Because

it is written: "

Hear, Israel,"

and it means:

in every language that you hear.

The Sages taught:

Keriat Shema

is recited

according to its writing,

in the sacred language,

the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: in every language

it is recited.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi’s reason?

Because the verse says: "

And they shall be

these words that I command you today shall be upon your heart,” and it means:

they shall be as they are,

as they are, without alteration, and that is in the sacred language.

And

the reason of

the Sages,

who hold that it is recited in every language, is because

the verse says: "

Hear"

in every language that you hear.

And we raise an objection:

But the Sages also—after all, it is written "

and they shall be,"

which means: they shall be as they are, in the sacred language!?

And we explain: The Sages hold that

that “and they shall be”

comes to teach

that he should not recite it

for Keriat Shema

backward,

for example, that he says: “And upon your gates, your house, doorposts.”

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi,

who derives from “and they shall be” that it must be in the sacred language, if so,

from where does he derive that he should not recite it backward [

from where does he know it ]!?

And we explain:

he derives it—for Rabbi—that he should not recite Keriat Shema backward

from what is stated, “and these words,” and it should have said "

"words,

what is stated, “and these words,” and it should have said

“words,”

and it said

“the words,”

in order to teach that he should not recite it backward.

But the Sages,

who do not need this exposition to teach that he should not recite it backward, since they already expounded it from “and they shall be”: "

" “words,” "

" “the words,”

do not understand it

as an exposition.

And Rabbi also—

who holds that Keriat Shema is recited only in the sacred language—

after all, it is written: "

"Hear,

and it means in every language that you hear.

And we answer:

that "

"Hear

is needed for Rabbi,

in order

to

teach: "

"Let your ears hear what you utter with your mouth,

and anyone who recites the Shema but does not make his ears hear it has not fulfilled his obligation.

But the Sages—

for according to their view the word “Hear” is not superfluous to teach this law—

hold like the one

who says: One who recites the Shema but does not make his ears hear it has fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemara further asks:

Shall we say that Rabbi holds [

is it necessary to say that Rabbi holds ]: