Sotah 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

Thus,

it is evident from the fact that they all maintain that kinui denotes jealousy,

that they hold that it is forbidden to be jealous.

For jealousy is a reprehensible trait.

The Gemara asks:

But according to the one who says that it is permitted to be jealous,

he cannot hold that kinui denotes jealousy; and if so,

what does kinui denote?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The

term

kinui is only

derived

from the term “warning,”

as he warns her not to seclude herself with so-and-so.

And so it says,

there is proof from a verse that kinui denotes warning.

It is written in the prophecy of Joel:

“And the Lord was jealous for His land,”

meaning that He warned the locusts not to destroy His land.

It was taught:

we learned in a beraita,

Rabbi Meir would say:

A person commits a transgression in secret,

such as a promiscuous woman who committed adultery against her husband in secret,

but the Holy One, blessed be He, proclaims it publicly,

by placing in her husband’s heart the impulse to issue a warning to her. And through her husband’s warning, the matter becomes public knowledge: She is suspected of illicit relations.

As it is stated:

“And there passed over him,”

referring to the husband who warns his wife,

“a spirit of jealousy.”

And “transgression” is only an expression of proclamation,

as the word “passed over” denotes proclamation: The Holy One, blessed be He, figuratively intends to cause a voice to pass through the world, so that everyone will know of the deeds of this promiscuous woman.

And the proof that “passed over” denotes proclamation is

that

indeed

it is stated: “And Moses commanded, and they caused a proclamation to pass throughout the camp.”

And causing a proclamation to pass throughout the camp means that they proclaimed the matter throughout the camp:

Reish Lakish said: A person commits a transgression only if a spirit of folly enters him.

As it is stated:

“If any man’s wife goes astray.” It is written tishteh.

And if the intention were its plain meaning, that she strayed from the path, the Torah should have written in the verse titeh, meaning that she deviated from the straight path. Since it is written tishteh, the Torah must necessarily be alluding to folly.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

Why did the Torah believe one witness in the case of a sota,

to testify that she became impure during that seclusion which followed the warning?

Because there is circumstantial evidence

that she became impure.

For he warned her

not to seclude herself,

and

nevertheless

she secluded herself. And

therefore, if

one witness testifies that she is impure,

he is deemed credible, because the fact that she secluded herself provides evidence that he is telling the truth.

The Gemara asks:

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But when the warning is written, it is written after seclusion and impurity!

The very verse from which we learn that one witness is deemed credible concerning a woman who became impure after seclusion appears before the verse in which the Torah mentions the warning. For this is the order of the verses: “And she was secluded, and she became impure, and there was no witness against her,” and only afterward is it written: “And a spirit of jealousy passed over him.” This implies that even without a warning, the witness is deemed credible in testifying that she became impure. If so, it cannot be said that the reason is that there is circumstantial evidence that she committed adultery.

The Gemara answers:

He said to him,

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: What is written in the verse,

“And there passed over,”

does not mean that he is now warning her, but rather

“and it had already passed over,”

meaning that he warned her before she secluded herself. Since she secluded herself after the warning, one witness is deemed credible in testifying that she became impure, because there is circumstantial evidence that she became impure.

The Gemara asks:

But if that is so,

that we interpret “passed over” as meaning that it had already passed over,

then, when it is written in the passage concerning the descendants of Gad and Reuben, that Moses our teacher commanded them to cross the Jordan with Joshua, as it is stated,

“And the armed force shall cross over before you,”

here too,

shall we interpret the verse as meaning that they had already crossed? But Moses our teacher commanded them before they crossed that they should cross at the head of the camp.

The Gemara answers:

There,

we can interpret “and shall cross over” in the future tense,

as it is written

for

“and the land shall be conquered before the Lord, and afterward you shall return,”

and the expression “you shall return”

clearly refers to the future,

and therefore “and the armed force shall cross over before you” is likewise interpreted as referring to the future.

But here,

whereas here,

if it enters your mind

if you wish to interpret

“and there passed over” as it is written,

meaning that he warned her

after impurity and seclusion,

after the seclusion and the impurity,

why do we need the warning!?

Why would there be a need for him to warn her?

Rather, necessarily, the verse means that he warned her before she secluded herself and became impure:

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

A man warns his wife only if a spirit has entered him

from Heaven.

As it is stated: “And a spirit of jealousy shall pass over him, and he shall warn his wife,”

meaning that he warns her through the agency of the spirit.

What is the meaning of “spirit”?

The Sages

of the academy of Rav Ashi

said: A spirit of impurity,

as the Satan causes him to sin by provoking him to quarrel with his wife.

Rav Ashi said: A spirit of purity,

because he hates promiscuity and therefore warns his wife.

And it is reasonable to accept the opinion that it is a spirit of purity—

as it was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

“And he shall warn his wife”—

permission, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation!

Granted, if you say that it is a spirit of purity, that is well,

the dispute as to whether it is permission or an obligation can be understood.

But if you say

that a

spirit of impurity has entered him—

permission or obligation—

is it an obligation for a person to bring a spirit of impurity into himself!?

After all, the concepts of obligation or even permission are inapplicable with regard to bringing a spirit of impurity into oneself.

With regard to the matter itself,

we now return to explain the substance of the beraita cited above:

“And he shall warn his wife,” permission, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation.

We find two other instances in which Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disputed in this manner.

A. The Torah states in the passage of Emor that it is forbidden for a kohen to become impure through contact with the impurity of the dead, except for seven close relatives, to whom he is permitted to become impure. Concerning this they disputed:

“He shall become impure to her”—

permission

to become impure, but not an obligation,

this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael—

And Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation!

It is a mitzva for the kohen to become impure for his seven close relatives.

B. Similarly, we find that they disputed concerning what the Torah says about a person who owns a Canaanite slave: “You shall work them forever.” Does the Torah’s intention in saying

“You shall work them forever,”

mean that it is merely

permission

to make use of them forever, but not an obligation,

the statement of Rabbi Yishmael—

And Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation!

It is a mitzva for the master to make use of him, and it is forbidden for the master to emancipate his slave.

The Gemara asks:

Rav Pappa said to Abaye—and some say

that

Rav Mesharsheya

asked

Rava—

Let us say that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva—

disagree in this manner throughout the entire Torah!

Should we say that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva dispute every matter that the Torah commands a person to do,

as one master says

that according to Rabbi Yishmael it is

permission, while the other master says

that according to Rabbi Akiva it is

an obligation!?

If so, according to Rabbi Yishmael, we have no positive commandments in the Torah that are obligatory.

The Gemara answers:

He said to him: Here, they disagree with regard to the verses.

Certainly, according to Rabbi Yishmael as well, wherever the Torah commands that something be done, it is an obligation. Here, however, they dispute how to expound the verses [and the Gemara explains below the basis of their dispute]. And so they dispute:

“And he shall warn his wife,” permission, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael—

Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael

that it is permission?

He holds in accordance with this tanna,

who holds like the tanna of the beraita—

As it was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Since

according to

the Torah said, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart,”

and since the Torah said that a person may not bring himself to hatred and discord,

can it be that in a case such as this,

a person who sees his wife violating Jewish religious practice and behaving promiscuously should likewise not warn her, because by doing so he causes hatred?

should not be jealous concerning her, since through this he causes hatred .

The verse states:

“And a spirit of jealousy shall pass over him, and he shall warn his wife,”

meaning that if he wishes to warn her, he has permission to do so.

It follows that we have no proof from the verse that there is an obligation to warn one’s wife, since the verse is necessary for the fundamental law: that it is permitted to warn her and this does not violate “You shall not hate.”

But with regard to all the mitzvot in the Torah, they are certainly obligatory to fulfill.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Akiva,

who holds that the warning is an obligation—this is difficult for him, since the verse is needed to teach that the prohibition “You shall not hate” does not apply here. How, then, can he derive from it that it is an obligation?

The Gemara answers:

Another warning is written.

For the Torah writes about the matter of the warning twice. Initially, the Torah writes: “And a spirit of jealousy shall pass over him, and he shall warn his wife, and she became impure,” and afterward the Torah writes: “Or a spirit of jealousy shall pass over him, and he shall warn his wife, and she did not become impure.” One verse teaches that this does not violate “You shall not hate” and that it is permitted to warn her, while the other teaches that it is an obligation.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael,

how does he expound the duplication of the matter of the warning in the Torah?

The Gemara answers:

Since it was necessary to write,

because the Torah wished to introduce the law of

“and she became impure,” “and she did not become impure,”

that even though we are uncertain whether she became impure or did not become impure, she is nevertheless forbidden due to the uncertainty,

it also wrote, “and he shall warn his wife,”

the Torah again wrote the matter of the warning.

Although for this law alone the Torah could have written, “And a spirit of jealousy shall pass over him, and he shall warn his wife, and she became impure or did not become impure,” nevertheless, the Torah repeated the matter of the warning, because this is the Torah’s manner, as we learned in a beraita:

As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage that was stated and then repeated—

was repeated only because of a matter newly introduced in it.

When the Torah repeats an entire passage, sometimes the verse comes only to introduce one new matter, and nevertheless the Torah writes the entire passage a second time. Here too, the entire repetition serves only to introduce the law that she is forbidden due to uncertainty, and along with this the Torah repeated the matter of the warning:

The Gemara now discusses what we learned concerning the kohen’s becoming impure for his seven close relatives:

“He shall become impure to her,” permission, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael—

Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael?

How does he derive from the verse that it is only permission?

Since,

because

it is written, “Say to the kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: He shall not become impure for the dead among his people,”

there is a prohibition upon the kohen against becoming impure through contact with the dead, and therefore

it was necessary to write

the Torah had to state

“He shall become impure to her,”

that nevertheless he is permitted to become impure for his seven close relatives. If so, it can only be derived that this is permission.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Akiva,

what compels him to say that it is an obligation?

The Gemara answers: The permission to become impure is learned

from “for his close relative,” it follows!

For it is explicitly stated in the Torah that he may become impure.

And if so,

“He shall become impure”

why do I need it?

Why did the Torah repeat the permission to become impure for the seven close relatives at the end of the passage? Rather, necessarily, the verse comes to teach

an obligation,

that it is obligatory for the kohen to become impure.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael,

why does he not derive from the Torah’s repetition that it is an obligation?

The Gemara answers:

“To her” he becomes impure, but he does not become impure for her limbs!

The verse “He shall not become impure” teaches us that he becomes impure only if one of these relatives dies. But if the relative was afflicted with boils and one of his limbs fell off—and the law is that anyone who touches a limb severed from a living person becomes impure—one might have said that it is permitted for the kohen to become impure through contact with the limb of his relative.

It therefore teaches us that only when the relative dies does he become impure for him; when the relative is alive, it is forbidden for him to become impure through contact with the limb severed from the living relative.