Sotah 37b — the Talmud in English

Behold

here

four

covenants for each and every mitzva.

Four

covenants—[blessed in general and in detail, and accursed in general and in detail]—concerning “to learn,”

and four

covenants concerning “to teach,”

behold, eight

covenants for each mitzva.

And you have two further parts: “to guard and to perform”; behold,

eight

covenants on account of “to learn and to teach” for each mitzva,

and eight

covenants for each mitzva on account of “to guard and to perform,”

behold, sixteen

covenants for each and every mitzva.

And likewise

covenants such as these were made

at Sinai

as he proceeds to explain: From where?

And likewise at the plains of Moab,

for it is stated [Deuteronomy 1:3]: “On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to explain this Torah, saying.”

And from where is it that at Sinai also covenants such as these were made?

For it is stated at the end of the passage of the curses [Deuteronomy 28:69]: “

at the end of the portion of the curses:

These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded

Moses

to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them at Horeb [at Sinai]”; behold, at Sinai also covenants such as these were made.

It follows: forty-eight [

three times sixteen]

covenants concerning each and every mitzva.

Rabbi Shimon excludes

from the reckoning the covenants at

Mount Gerizim and

at

Mount Ebal,

for these were not concerning all the mitzvot, but only concerning several mitzvot,

and includes the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness,

for after the Tabernacle was erected, the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with Moses and taught him the entire Torah, as it is written [Leviticus 1:1]: “And the Lord called to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying.”

And

the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon disagreed

in the dispute of these tannaim [

in the dispute of the following tannaim]!

For it was taught:

Rabbi Ishmael says: General statements

only

were stated at Sinai, and

whereas the

particular details

were stated only

in the Tent of Meeting,

that is: There are laws that were stated to Moses at Sinai only in general form, without specifying all the laws contained in them.

For example, what was stated at Sinai: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall sacrifice upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings.” Behold, burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are mentioned in general form, but this passage does not contain the details of the laws, such as the manner of applying the blood upon the altar, and the flaying and dismembering and burning them entirely upon the altar—in the case of burnt-offerings—and the application of the blood and the burning of the sacrificial portions of peace-offerings; whereas the details of the laws were stated to Moses later in the Tent of Meeting, in the Tabernacle, as it is stated at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus, which deals with the laws of sacrifices: “And He called to Moses, and the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying.”

And according to Rabbi Ishmael’s method, it is impossible to count Sinai and the Tent of Meeting as two.

Rabbi Akiva says:

Between the

general statements and

between the

particular details were stated

all to Moses

at Sinai,

and even those mitzvot that were written in general form were not stated to him in that manner, but with all their details of law; only, they were not written.

And they were repeated

from the mouth of the Lord to Moses

in the Tent of Meeting.

And they were divided into three

from the mouth of Moses to Israel

at the plains of Moab.

And according to his method, indeed Sinai and the Tent of Meeting are to be counted as two.

And there is no mitzva and mitzva written in the Torah concerning which forty-eight covenants were not made,

as was explained.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, a man of Kefar Akko, said in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

There is no mitzva and mitzva written in the Torah concerning which forty-eight covenants were not made, of six hundred thousand and three thousand five hundred and fifty.

That is: for each and every Israelite, forty-eight covenants were made concerning each mitzva, corresponding to each and every one of the six hundred thousand and three thousand five hundred and fifty Israelites who were counted in the wilderness of Sinai [Numbers 2:32], for each one became a guarantor for each Israelite, and he himself has forty-eight covenants.

Rabbi said:

According to Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, a man of Kefar Akko, who said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, there is no mitzva and mitzva in the Torah concerning which forty-eight covenants were not made, of six hundred thousand and three thousand five hundred and fifty: [

it follows, for each and every Israelite] [

and in each one there are]

six hundred thousand and three thousand five hundred and fifty,

and shortly it will be explained what Rabbi comes to add.

What is the difference between them,

between the first tanna according to Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi according to Rabbi Shimon?

Rav Mesharsheya said:

A guarantor and a guarantor for the guarantorship [

guarantorship for the guarantorship]

is the difference between them.

That is: Their dispute is whether each Israelite entered into guarantorship only for his fellow’s obligations, and this is the method of the first tanna; or whether each entered into guarantorship for his own mitzvot and even for the guarantorship of each one, and this is Rabbi’s method. It follows that the sum of the covenants of each one according to the first tanna is multiplied—according to Rabbi—by the number of Israelites.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Nahmani, his translator, [

one who hears the discourse and makes it heard to the many]

of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, expounded: The entire passage

of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal

in its entirety was stated only concerning an adulterer and an adulteress [

adultery applies only with a married woman]:

For it is stated: “

Accursed is the man who makes a graven image or a molten image,”

and is it indeed so that one who denied the fundamental principle

is adequately dealt with by an imprecation [

an imprecation is sufficient for him]!?

Rather, this is one who has intercourse with a forbidden woman [

a married woman]

and fathered a son, and

because of his shame, that he is forbidden to enter the congregation and cannot find a wife,

he went among idolaters and worshipped idolatry; accursed are this one’s father and mother, for they caused him thus

to make a graven image or a molten image.

And likewise what is stated: “Accursed is he who dishonors his father and his mother,” is interpreted concerning an adulterer and an adulteress: for one who has intercourse with a married woman disrespects his father and mother, who raised evil offspring in their home. “

Accursed is he who moves back the boundary of his fellow”: for one who has intercourse with his fellow’s wife has moved back his boundary. “

Accursed is he who misleads the blind on the way”: one who seduces a married woman, who is blind with regard to the matter, for she does not know the punishment of the transgression as he does. “

Accursed is he who perverts the judgment of a stranger, an orphan, and a widow”: this is one who has intercourse with a married woman and fathered from her a mamzer, and because he is a mamzer he goes to dwell in another city, in a distant land, wherever he may find, and it is found that he is like a stranger and like an orphan, for he is like a stranger who has no father, since the one who fathered him does not acknowledge that he is his son; and his mother is also like a widow, for she has become forbidden to her husband and sits abandoned like the living widows. “

Accursed is he who lies with his father’s wife”: for if she was also a married woman, he transgresses two imprecations. “

Accursed is he who lies with any animal”: she is a married woman who performs the act of an animal, mating with one who is not her partner. “

Accursed is he who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother”: for if she was also a married woman, he transgresses two imprecations. “

Accursed is he who lies with his mother-in-law”: for if she was a married woman, he transgresses two imprecations. “

Accursed is he who strikes his fellow in secret”: he causes his wife, through the secret whispers of his secrets, to die through the testing with the bitter waters. “

Accursed is he who takes a bribe to strike a life, the blood of the innocent”: he takes a bribe to pursue the adulterer and seduce a married woman for him, and causes him death.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage of Re’eh [Deuteronomy 11:29]: “And it shall be, when the Lord your God brings you into the land to which you are coming to inherit it,

you shall place the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse

on Mount Ebal.”

What does this teach?

If it is to teach that the blessing should be on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal, it has already been stated

in the passage of Ki Tavo: “

These shall stand to bless the people on Mount Gerizim,”

and it is already written:

“

And these shall stand for the curse on Mount Ebal”!?

Rather, it is to place the blessing before the curse,

for in the passage of Ki Tavo only curses were stated, and Scripture taught that a blessing must precede an imprecation.

One might have thought that all the blessings would precede the curses,

that is: they would first complete the order of the blessings, and afterward begin with the curses?

The verse therefore says: “Behold, I place before you today

a

blessing and a curse” [

singular language]; behold, we have learned:

one blessing

only

precedes the curse, but all the blessings do not precede the curses.

And

for this reason it further says: “A blessing and a curse,” in order

to compare the blessing with the curse

with regard to all the laws derived from the passage of the curses stated in the passage of Ki Tavo,

and to tell you:

Just as the curse: by the Levites

is it stated,

so too the blessing: by the Levites

is it stated.

And just as the curse: in a loud voice, so too the blessing: in a loud voice.

And just as the curse: in the holy language, so too the blessing: in the holy language.

And just as the curse: in general and in detail,

as he says: “Accursed is he who does not uphold the words of this Torah,”

so too the blessing: in general and in detail,

as he says: “Blessed is he who upholds the words of this Torah.”

And just as the curse: these

who are on Mount Gerizim,

and these

who are on Mount Ebal

answer and say “Amen”,

as it is stated: “And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen,’”

so too the blessing: these and these answer and say “Amen”.

Mishna:

A. Our Mishna continues the explanation of the mitzvot taught in the first Mishna of this chapter, which are recited in the holy language.

B. The Torah commanded [Numbers 6:23]: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: Thus shall you bless the children of Israel; say to them: May the Lord bless you and guard you. May the Lord shine His face upon you and be gracious to you. May the Lord lift His face toward you and place peace for you. And they shall place My name upon the children of Israel, and I shall bless them.”

C. The Torah further said [Deuteronomy, Ekev 10:8]: “At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the Ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to serve Him and to bless in His name [the Priestly Blessing], to this day.”

D. We find another blessing for Aaron on the eighth day of the inauguration [Leviticus 9:22]: “And Aaron lifted his hands toward the people and blessed them [‘May He bless you,’ ‘May He shine,’ ‘May He lift,’ according to Rashi’s interpretation there; and according to Ramban, it was another blessing], and he descended from performing the sin-offering, the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings.”

E. This blessing, which the kohanim were commanded to bestow upon the children of Israel, they recite in the Temple at the completion of the service of the daily offering of the morning and of the afternoon, and with the additional offerings—according to Tosafot in our discussion; whereas Rambam’s view [Prayer 14:4] is that they lifted their hands only with the daily offering of the morning; and in the country, they lift their hands at every prayer and prayer.

The Priestly Blessing—

which is: “May He bless,” “May He shine,” “May He lift”—

how

do they recite it?

In the country: he recites it [

the three verses]

as three blessings

separate, because the people answer “Amen” between one blessing and the next.

And in the Temple:

he recites it as

one blessing,

because they do not answer “Amen” in the Temple, and it will be explained further in the Gemara.