Sotah 3b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Akiva,

he too needs to derive this law, that he does not become impure through the limbs of his relative; and if so, the question again arises: what is Rabbi Akiva’s source that this is an obligation?

The Gemara answers:

If so,

that the Torah came only to teach us that he does not become impure through her limbs,

let the Merciful One write “to her,” and be silent!

Let only the word “to her” be written in the Torah—

“he shall become impure,” why do I need it?

Why was it necessary to write the word “he shall become impure”?

Learn from it,

rather, it is necessarily the case that the Torah came to teach us that this is an obligation.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael,

if so, this is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael: why did the Torah write the word “he shall become impure”?

The Gemara answers:

Even though it is superfluous,

since it wrote “to her,”

because the Torah came to teach us that he does not become impure through her limbs,

it also wrote “he shall become impure.”

For this reason the Torah repeated as well that it is permitted to become impure for the seven relatives, as we learned above in the beraita—

in accordance with what the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught—

for the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage that was stated and repeated was repeated only because of a matter that was renewed in it.

And since this is the Torah’s way, the Torah stated twice the law that it is permitted to become impure for the seven relatives:

And now the Gemara explains the third dispute: “

You shall work them forever”—

It is optional; these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation.

What is Rabbi Yishmael’s reason

that it is only optional to subject him to labor? And why should we not say that from the fact that the Torah needed to emphasize, “You shall work them forever,” it is learned that this is an obligation?

Since it is written, “You shall not allow any soul to live,”

since Scripture stated concerning the seven nations in the land of Canaan that it is forbidden to let them live—and it is forbidden to let them live even when one wishes to subject them to labor—therefore

it was also necessary to write, “You shall work them forever,” in order to permit it,

that it is permitted to subject a Canaanite slave to labor, he being

one of all the nations,

from the other seventy nations, concerning whom the prohibition “You shall not allow any soul to live” was not stated,

for

if he

has relations with a Canaanite woman,

a woman from the seven nations,

and fathered a son from her, whom you are permitted to purchase

as a slave, even though he is the son of a woman from the seven nations.

And from here we learn the known principle that with regard to lineage among the nations of the world, one follows the male, [and not as among Israel, where affiliation with the people of Israel is determined according to the mother]; and since his father is from the other nations, his son too is considered one of the seventy nations, and we were not commanded concerning him by “You shall not allow any soul to live,” and it is permitted to let him live.

For it was taught,

and we likewise learned this law in a beraita:

From where [do we know] concerning one of the nations who had relations with a Canaanite woman and fathered a son from her, whom you are permitted to purchase as a slave?

The verse says—

In the passage of Behar: “And your male slave and your female slave who will be yours from the nations that are around you; from them you shall purchase a male slave and a female slave.”

And from the arrangement of the verses in the passage of Behar it appears that specifically from the nations that are around you, around the Land of Israel, may you purchase slaves; but from the nations within the Land of Israel it is forbidden to purchase slaves, because they are the seven nations concerning whom it is stated, “You shall not allow any soul to live.”

And the verse continues: “

And also from the sons of the resident inhabitants who reside with you, from them you shall purchase,”

that if you have a son from the sons of the resident inhabitants—that is, one who came from another place and settled in the Land of Israel—it is permitted to purchase from them the sons who will be born to them from the daughters of your land.

That is, even if he had relations with one of the seven nations and a son was born to them, it is permitted to purchase him as a Canaanite slave, because one follows the male.

One might have thought

that

even a Canaanite who had relations with one of the nations and fathered a son from her—you are permitted to purchase him as a slave.

The verse says

in the continuation of the verse: “From them you shall purchase, and from their families that are with you,

whom they fathered in your land.”

And it implies: only

from those born in your land, and not from those residing in your land!

That is, only sons who are born in your land, and who are sons of residents from the other nations who married a woman from your land—from them you may purchase.

But you may not purchase from those who were born to residents in your land who married women from the other nations, since one follows the male, and the offspring too has the status of one of the seven nations, and it is forbidden to purchase him as a Canaanite slave.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Akiva,

he too agrees that from here we learn that among the nations one follows the male; and if so, from where does he

say

that “You shall work them forever” is an obligation?

The Gemara answers:

It follows from “from them you shall purchase.”

The beraita derives this from the verse “from them you shall purchase.” If so, the verse

“You shall work them forever”—

why do I need it?

It necessarily comes to teach us

an obligation,

that it is obligatory to subject them to labor.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael,

seemingly Rabbi Akiva is correct in his claim that the verse “You shall work them forever” is superfluous, since the beraita learned the law that one follows the male from the verse “from them you shall purchase.”

And the Gemara answers:

“Them”—

and not your brothers!

The verse “You shall work them forever” does not come to teach that it is an obligation, but rather to teach that it is forbidden to make one’s Israelite brother perform slave labor.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Akiva,

Rabbi Akiva also agrees that it is forbidden to make one’s brother perform slave labor, and therefore he needs the verse “You shall work them forever”; and if so, it is again difficult: how will he learn from the verse that it is obligatory to subject a Canaanite slave to labor?

The Gemara answers:

“Your brothers,”

the law that it is forbidden to subject Israelites to labor—

follows from the end of the verse!

From what is written at the end of the verse:

“And over your brothers, the children of Israel, a man over his brother, you shall not rule over him with harsh labor.”

Thus the Torah explicitly wrote that it is forbidden to make an Israelite perform harsh labor; and if so, necessarily “You shall work them forever” comes to teach us that it is obligatory to subject a Canaanite slave to labor.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael,

why does he not learn the law that it is forbidden to subject an Israelite to harsh labor from what the Torah explicitly wrote, “You shall not rule over him with harsh labor”?

And the Gemara answers:

Certainly Rabbi Yishmael too agrees that the source for the fact that it is forbidden to make an Israelite perform harsh labor is what the Torah explicitly wrote, “You shall not rule over him with harsh labor.” Nevertheless, Scripture returned and stated that it is permitted to subject only Canaanites to labor, and not Israelites, because

since it is written,

since Scripture stated

“and over your brothers”

“you shall not rule over him with harsh labor,” therefore

it also wrote “them.”

The Torah again repeated the law that specifically “them” shall you work, and not an Israelite brother, as we brought above from the beraita—

in accordance with what the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught—

for the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught—

Every passage that was stated and repeated—

was repeated only because of a matter that was renewed in it.

And therefore the Torah repeated the law that it is forbidden to make an Israelite brother perform labor.

Rabbi Hisda said—

Fornication in the house,

if there is fornication in the house, it causes the house to be destroyed,

because

just as

a worm

a worm

to sesame,

which eats the sesame.

And Rabbi Hisda said—

If there is

force

anger

in the house,

in the house, it likewise destroys the house,

because

just as

a worm

a worm

to sesame,

which eats the sesame.

One,

also fornication in the house,

and one,

also anger in the house, which we said destroy the house—

with a woman!

They were stated regarding the woman: if she fornicates or becomes angry, she causes the house to be destroyed.

But with a man,

if the husband is the one who becomes angry or causes fornication,

we have no concern,

he does not have this severity of the destruction of the house.

And Rav Hisda said—

At first, before Israel sinned

with forbidden sexual relations,

the Divine Presence rested with each and every one

in his house.

As it is stated—

“For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp.”

And the Holy One, blessed be He, would reveal Himself to each and every one.

Once they sinned

with forbidden sexual relations—

the Divine Presence departed from them.

As it is stated—

“And He shall not see an immodest matter among you, and He shall turn away from behind you.”

For, as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not come to that house to see the transgressions that were committed in it:

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan—

Anyone who performs one mitzva in this world—

it advances before him and goes before him to the World to Come!

The mitzva proclaims concerning him, before he comes to the World to Come, that he should be judged favorably.

As it is stated—

“And your righteousness shall go before you.”

For the mitzva will go before him when he comes to the World to Come, and proclaim his righteousness.

And anyone who commits one transgression in this world, it wraps itself around him,

the transgression winds itself around him,

and goes before him to the Day of Judgment.

As it is stated—

“They shall cling to the paths of their way,”

the transgressions will seize the person’s path to the World to Come,

“they will rise to desolation, and they will perish,”

they will cause the person to rise to a place of desolation, and his memory will perish.

Rabbi Elazar says:

The transgression is

attached to him like a dog.

As it is stated

concerning Joseph: “

And he did not heed her, to lie beside her,

the wife of Potiphar,

to be with her.”

And we interpret: if he had been

to lie beside her,

lying with her here,

in this world,

this would have caused him

to be with her,

so that the transgression would go with him until

the World to Come:

We learned there,

we learned in a Mishna below, in the chapter “One Who Declared Jealousy” [page 31a]: One who declared jealousy concerning his wife, and she secluded herself, and one witness came and testified that she had become impure—she does not drink from the bitter waters, since even one witness is trusted to say that she became impure.

And the Mishna explains

that

seemingly

it would follow by law,

were it not for the verse, that one witness should not be trusted, since we would derive a kal va-chomer:

And if the first testimony,

concerning the seclusion,

which does not prohibit her

to her husband

with a permanent prohibition,

for she is forbidden only until she drinks,

is not established,

she is not prohibited,

with fewer than two witnesses.

The latter testimony,

concerning impurity after the seclusion,

which prohibits her with a permanent prohibition

to her husband, and she can never become pure,

is it not logically so that it should not be established with fewer than two witnesses?

Therefore it is necessary to learn from the verse—

The verse says, “And there is no witness against her,”

even if there is not testimony of two witnesses against her,

anything that she has

even testimony of one witness—he is trusted to prohibit her.

And the verse is speaking of impurity, for it is written, “and she became impure.”

And from here we learned that one witness is trusted to say that she became impure.

Lest you say, if so:

And it is a kal va-chomer for the first testimony,

regarding the seclusion, that one witness should be trusted concerning it,

from now on!

For we shall derive by a kal va-chomer:

And if the latter testimony,

concerning the impurity,

which prohibits her with a permanent prohibition, is established with one witness.

The first testimony

concerning the seclusion,

which does not prohibit her with a permanent prohibition,

for she is forbidden only until she drinks,

is it not logically so that it should be established with one witness,

and why is there a need for two witnesses concerning the seclusion?

Your answer is:

The verse says—

regarding a woman who acted improperly, and whose husband wishes to divorce her, “

For he has found an indecent matter in her.”

And below it says,

in the passage concerning testimony,

“By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established.”

And we learn by means of a gzera shava:

Just as the “matter” stated below,

in the passage concerning testimony, is

by the mouth of two witnesses,

so here,

where it is stated, “For he has found an indecent matter in her,” it is

by the mouth of two,

that two witnesses are required to testify concerning the woman who acted improperly.

And therefore two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion.

Thus far are the words of the Mishna below. And now the Gemara discusses the words of the Mishna:

But is

this—

derived from “For he has found an indecent matter in her”?

Why is it necessary to learn the law that two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion from the gzera shava of “matter” and “matter”?

After all,

it follows from “in her”!

It is explicitly written in the passage concerning impurity that one witness is trusted regarding impurity.

And if so, from that which is written, “and there is no witness against

her,”

concerning impurity, one witness is trusted [that is, there are not two witnesses against her, but one witness],

and not concerning the jealousy declaration,

but two witnesses are required concerning the jealousy declaration.

And likewise we exclude,

“her,”

concerning impurity,

and not concerning the seclusion,

but two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion—

And this derivation from the exclusion

was needed by him;

the tanna of the Mishna should have stated it, so why did he learn it from the gzera shava of “matter” and “matter”.

The Gemara answers:

This is also what he is saying:

indeed, it is not necessary to learn from “matter” and “matter” that two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion; rather, this is how the Mishna should be read:

The verse says, “against her.”

Against her, and not concerning the jealousy declaration. Against her, and not concerning the seclusion.

For concerning the jealousy declaration and the seclusion, one witness is insufficient; rather, two witnesses are required.

And the Mishna continues and says: The matter for which it is necessary to learn through the gzera shava of “matter” and “matter” that two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion applies to the following case—

And mere impurity, without a jealousy declaration and without seclusion,

in a situation where she became impure but no jealousy declaration and seclusion preceded her impurity,

in which one witness is not trusted

concerning the impurity, since one witness is trusted only after a jealousy declaration and seclusion—

This matter itself,

from where do we know it?

From where do we know that concerning impurity without a jealousy declaration and seclusion, two witnesses are required?

Concerning this the Mishna says:

It is stated here, “For he has found

an indecent matter in her,” and it is stated there, “By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established.”

Just as the matter stated there,

specifically

two witnesses—

so here,

specifically

two witnesses.

Our Rabbis taught:

Which is the “first testimony” that the Mishna said? —

This is testimony of seclusion

which is the beginning of impurity,

And

which is

“the latter testimony”

that the Mishna said? —

This is testimony of impurity,

when one witness came to testify that she became impure during that same seclusion —