Sotah 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Akiva—

he too must derive this law, that one does not become impure through the limbs of his close relative. If so, the question again arises: What is Rabbi Akiva’s source that this is an obligation?

The Gemara answers:

If so,

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

let the Merciful One write “her” and remain silent!

Let the Torah write only the word “her”—

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

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

Conclude from this:

rather, it is necessarily teaching us that this is an obligation.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael—

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

The Gemara answers:

Although it is superfluous,

since it wrote “her,”

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

it also wrote “he shall become impure.”

Therefore, the Torah repeated that it is permitted to become impure for the seven close relatives, as we learned earlier in the beraita—

as taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael—

For it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Every passage that was stated and then repeated was repeated only because of a new matter introduced in it.

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

The Gemara now explains the third dispute:

“

‘You shall make use of them forever’—permission; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.”

Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation.

What is Rabbi Yishmael’s reason

for holding that it is merely permission to make use of him? And why do we not say that, because the Torah found it necessary to emphasize, “You shall make use of them forever,” we learn that it is an obligation?

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

alongside the verse’s statement 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 make use of them—therefore

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

making use of a Canaanite slave, who is

one of the other nations,

from among 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 fathers a son with her, you are permitted to purchase him

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

From here we learn the well-known principle that, with regard to lineage among the nations of the world, one follows the male, unlike in Israel, where affiliation with the Jewish people is determined by the mother. Since his father is from the other nations, his son too is considered one of the seventy nations; 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 is it derived concerning one of the nations who had relations with a Canaanite woman and fathered a son with her, that you are permitted to purchase him as a slave?

The verse states—

In the passage concerning the Jubilee year: “And your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations that are around you; from them you shall purchase a male slave and a female slave.”

The arrangement of the verses in that passage implies that specifically from the nations that are around you, surrounding 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 children of the resident settlers who reside with you, from them you shall purchase,”

meaning that if you have a son from the children of the resident settlers—that is, one who came from elsewhere and settled in the Land of Israel—it is permitted to purchase the sons 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 with her, you are permitted to purchase as a slave.

The verse states

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

whom they have begotten in your land.”

And this implies that only

from those born in your land, and not from those who reside in your land!

That is, you may purchase only sons who are born in your land and who are the sons of resident settlers from the other nations who married women from your land.

But you may not purchase those who were born to residents of your land who married women from the other nations, since one follows the male, and the offspring too has the status of a member 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. If so, from where does he

say

that “You shall make use of them forever” is an obligation?

The Gemara answers:

It is derived from “from them you shall purchase.”

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

“You shall make use of them forever”—

why do I need it?

Necessarily, it comes to teach us

an obligation,

that it is obligatory to make use of them.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael—

apparently Rabbi Akiva is correct in his claim that the verse “You shall make use of them forever” is superfluous, since the beraita derived the law that one follows the male from the verse “from them you shall purchase.”

The Gemara answers:

“Of them”—

but not of your brothers!

The verse “You shall make use of them forever” does not come to teach that it is an obligation; rather, it comes to teach that it is forbidden to subject a fellow Israelite to slave labor.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Akiva—

Rabbi Akiva too agrees that it is forbidden to subject one’s fellow Israelite to slave labor, and therefore the verse “You shall make use of them forever” is necessary. If so, the difficulty arises again: How will he learn from the verse that it is obligatory to make use of a Canaanite slave?

The Gemara answers:

“Your brothers,”

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

is derived from the end of the verse!

From what is written at the end of the verse:

“But over your brothers, the Children of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with oppressive labor.”

The Torah explicitly wrote that it is forbidden to subject an Israelite to oppressive labor. Therefore, necessarily, “You shall make use of them forever” comes to teach us that it is obligatory to make use of a Canaanite slave.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael—

why does he not derive the law that it is forbidden to subject an Israelite to oppressive labor from the Torah’s explicit statement, “You shall not rule over him with oppressive labor”?

The Gemara answers:

Certainly Rabbi Yishmael too agrees that the source for the prohibition against subjecting an Israelite to oppressive labor is the Torah’s explicit statement, “You shall not rule over him with oppressive labor.” Nevertheless, the verse repeated that it is permitted to make use only of Canaanites and not of Israelites, because

since it is written,

alongside the verse’s statement,

“over your brothers

you shall not rule over him with oppressive labor,” therefore

it also wrote, “of them.”

The Torah again repeated the law that one shall make use specifically of them, and not of his fellow Israelite, as we cited earlier from the beraita—

as taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael—

For it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

Every passage that was stated and then repeated—

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

Therefore, the Torah repeated the law that it is forbidden to subject one’s fellow Israelite to such labor.

Rabbi Hisda said—

Sexual immorality in the house,

if there is sexual immorality in the home, causes the home to be destroyed,

as

a

woodworm

is like a worm

to sesame,

which consumes the sesame.

And Rabbi Hisda said—

If there is

harshness

anger

in the house,

in the home, it too destroys the home,

as

a

woodworm

is like a worm

to sesame,

which consumes the sesame.

This one,

sexual immorality in the home,

and this one,

anger in the home, which we said destroy the home—

refer to a woman!

They were stated with regard to the woman: if she engages in sexual immorality or is angry, she causes the home to be destroyed.

But with regard to the man,

if the husband is the one who becomes angry or causes sexual immorality,

it is of no consequence,

he does not possess the same destructive effect upon the home.

And Rav Hisda said—

At first, before Israel sinned

through forbidden sexual relations,

the Divine Presence rested with each and every one

in his home.

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

through forbidden sexual relations,

the Divine Presence withdrew from them.

As it is stated:

“And He shall not see an indecent thing in you, and He shall turn away from you.”

As it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not come to that home to see the transgressions committed there.

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

Anyone who performs a single mitzva in this world—

it goes ahead of him and precedes him into the World-to-Come!

The mitzva proclaims his merit before he enters the World-to-Come, so that he will be judged favorably.

As it is stated:

“And your righteousness shall go before you.”

The mitzva goes ahead of him before he enters the World-to-Come and proclaims his righteousness.

And anyone who commits a single transgression in this world, it clings to him,

the transgression wraps itself around him,

and goes before him to the Day of Judgment.

As it is stated:

“Their paths shall wind around them,”

the transgressions seize a person’s path to the World-to-Come,

“they shall rise to desolation and perish,”

causing the person to rise to a desolate place, and causing his memory to perish.

Rabbi Elazar says:

The transgression

is tied to him like a dog.

As it is stated

with regard to Joseph:

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

Potiphar’s wife,

to be with her.”

And we expound: If he had

lain beside her,

lying with her here,

in this world,

that would have caused him

to be with her,

so that the transgression would accompany him until

the World-to-Come.

We learned there,

we learned in a Mishna below, in the chapter “One Who Subjected His Wife to Kinui” [31a]: One who subjected his wife to kinui, and she secluded herself, and one witness came and testified that she had become impure—she does not drink the bitter waters, since even one witness is trusted to testify that she became impure.

And the Mishna explains

that

apparently

it would follow by logical derivation,

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

And if the first testimony,

concerning the seclusion,

which does not render her forbidden

to her husband

with an eternal prohibition,

for she is forbidden only until she drinks,

is not established

—she is not rendered forbidden

by fewer than two witnesses,

the last testimony,

concerning impurity after the seclusion,

which renders her forbidden with an eternal prohibition

to her husband, and she can never become permitted again,

should it not logically follow that it is not established by fewer than two witnesses?

Therefore, it is necessary to derive it from the verse—

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

even if there is no testimony of two witnesses against her,

anything that exists against her

even the testimony of one witness, he is trusted to render her forbidden.

And the verse is speaking of impurity, as it is written, “and she has become impure.”

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

Lest you say, if so:

And by a kal va-chomer regarding the first testimony,

concerning the seclusion, one witness should be trusted concerning it

from now on!

For we would derive by a kal va-chomer:

And if the last testimony,

concerning impurity,

which renders her forbidden with an eternal prohibition, is established through one witness,

the first testimony,

concerning the seclusion,

which does not render her forbidden with an eternal prohibition,

for she is forbidden only until she drinks,

should it not logically follow that it is established through one witness?

Why, then, are two witnesses required concerning the seclusion?

Your answer is:

The verse states—

with regard to a woman who acted improperly, and whose husband wishes to divorce her:

“For he has found in her an indecent matter.”

And elsewhere it says,

in the passage concerning testimony:

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

And we learn this through a gzera shava:

Just as the “matter” stated there,

in the passage concerning testimony, is

by the mouth of two witnesses,

so here,

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

by the mouth of two,

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

Therefore, two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion.

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

But is

this—

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

Why must we derive the law that two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion through the gzera shava of “matter” and “matter”?

After all, it is

derived from “in her”!

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

And if so, from the fact that it is written, “And there is no witness against her,” and we exclude specifically

“against her,”

regarding impurity, one witness is trusted—that is, there are not two witnesses against her, but one witness—

but not concerning kinui,

rather, two witnesses are required concerning the kinui.

And likewise we exclude,

“against her,”

regarding impurity,

but not concerning the seclusion;

rather, two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion.

And this teaching from the exclusion

was needed by him,

the tanna of the Mishna should have stated it. Why, then, did he derive this through the gzera shava of “matter” and “matter”?

The Gemara answers:

This is also what he is saying:

indeed, it is unnecessary to derive from “matter” and “matter” that two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion. Rather, the Mishna should be emended as follows:

The verse states, “against her.”

“Against her,” but not concerning kinui; “against her,” but not concerning seclusion.

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

And the Mishna continues and says: The derivation through the gzera shava of “matter” and “matter,” that two witnesses are required concerning the seclusion, is needed for the following case—

And ordinary impurity, without kinui and without seclusion,

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

where one witness is not trusted

regarding the impurity, since one witness is trusted only after kinui and seclusion—

this itself,

from where do we know it?

From where do we know that regarding impurity without kinui and seclusion, two witnesses are required?

Concerning this the Mishna says:

It is stated here, “For he has found in her

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

Just as the matter stated there

is specifically through

two witnesses—

so here,

specifically through

two witnesses.

The Sages taught:

What is the “first testimony” mentioned by the Mishna? —

This is testimony of seclusion

which is the beginning of impurity,

And

what is

the “last testimony”

mentioned by the Mishna? —

This is testimony of impurity,

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