Sotah 44a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

A corpse occupies four cubits with regard to ritual impurity,

for the Sages decreed that everything found within four cubits adjacent to a corpse shall be impure, so that those who eat pure foods would not become accustomed to approaching it ממש, and one must be concerned lest, without noticing, their hands spread over it and they become impure without being aware of it.

And the tanna teaches this as well

and so our tanna taught in the Mishna taught in Tractate Teharot (Ohalot 15:8):

The courtyard of the grave

that is before the cave,

one standing within it

is pure,

even if the distance between him and the corpse buried in the cave is less than four cubits.

For the Sages did not decree that the corpses within the cave render impure the area outside the cave, even when it is close, within four cubits, since the cave is divided from the courtyard and its partitions are recognizable,

and only with regard to a corpse lying in the air, such as above, near the roof of the cave, did the Rabbis decree that it renders impure within four cubits, in order to distance a person from spreading over the impurity; but in the cave there is a distinguishing indication.

And this is so only when there are

in the courtyard of the grave

four cubits

by four cubits, for only in this manner is the courtyard significant and considered a place separate from the cave of the grave, and one standing within it is pure,

but if it is smaller than this, it is subordinate to the cave and is not considered to be a place in its own right.

These are the words of Beit Shammai.

Beit Hillel say:

It is sufficient that there be in it

four handbreadths,

for through this the courtyard is already considered a significant place, separate from the cave of the grave.

But

when are these words

that it is sufficient that there be in it four handbreadths, specifically in the case

that its entrance

of the courtyard is

from above,

where there is no slope with steps for descending to the courtyard, but one jumps into it from above, and when ascending from it one climbs and emerges; and in this manner there is less concern that he will spread over the corpse,

but

if

its entrance is from the side,

where there is a slope for descending to the courtyard,

everyone agrees

that there must be in it

four cubits

in order that it be considered a place separate from the grave.

And we object:

Where are the matters directed?

Whereas the opposite is logical:

On the contrary,

if the entrance was in a slope

from the side,

since the Sages did not decree four cubits, recognizable partitions should suffice even in a courtyard of four handbreadths, and one standing within it should be pure,

for we have no reason to render him impure, since in order to leave the courtyard he does not need to climb and extend his arms until he spreads over the opening, but

he slips down and emerges

easily, without approaching the impurity,

unlike when the entrance is

from above,

for he needs to climb in order to leave the courtyard,

if the courtyard is only four handbreadths,

it is impossible that he not spread over it

the grave while climbing and leaving the courtyard.

Rather,

this is what must be said:

when are these words

that it is sufficient that there be in it four handbreadths, specifically in the case

that its entrance

of the courtyard is

from the side, but

if

its entrance is from above,

where one must climb in order to leave it, then there must be in it

four cubits

so that one standing within it will be pure.

And

from the fact that the Mishna needed to teach us, with regard to the courtyard of the grave, that one standing within it is pure,

it follows that

these matters

that a person can be near a corpse are said with regard to

a courtyard of a grave whose partitions are defined

whose partitions are delineated,

but an ordinary corpse

that is not found in a place defined by boundaries certainly

occupies

four cubits around it,

for if the Sages had not decreed with regard to an ordinary corpse that it occupies four cubits, why did the Mishna need to teach us that one standing in the courtyard is pure?

If so, there is support from the Mishna for the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who said that a corpse occupies four cubits with regard to impurity:

We learned in the Mishna: “

Who is the man who has betrothed a woman

and has not taken her, let him go and return to his house” (Deuteronomy 20:7):

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

“Who has betrothed”—

whether

one who betroths a virgin,

or

whether

one who betroths a widow,

or

whether

one

who has

a levirate bond woman,

whom he himself did not betroth, but she comes to him by virtue of his brother,

and even if

there were

five brothers and one of them died in the war,

and one of the remaining brothers must perform levirate marriage with his wife, the law is that

all of them return

for her sake.

And furthermore, it could have said

“and has not taken”

but it says

“and has not taken her”;

this was written to exclude:

1.

Except a widow for a High Priest,

2.

a divorced woman or a ḥalutza for an ordinary priest,

3.

a mamzeret or a netina for an Israelite,

4.

an Israelite woman for a mamzer or a netin,

for all these are transgressors and are obligated to divorce their wives, and they do not return.

And we examine it:

Let us say

that this beraita is

not in accordance with

the view of

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,

for if

it is in accordance with

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, did he not say, “The fearful and fainthearted”

(ibid. 8), this is one who is afraid because of transgressions in his possession,

and if so, those who married women through transgression return from the war as transgressors?

And we explain:

Even say

that the beraita is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,

and nevertheless, these who married the women excluded by “and has not taken her” do not return because they transgressed,

since at the time of betrothal they had not yet transgressed a prohibition,

as Rabba said: always

there is no transgression in the betrothal, with money or with a document, of a woman forbidden to him, and he

is not liable

for lashes

until he has intercourse

and brings his offspring or the woman to desecration; and even with regard to a widow for a High Priest, concerning whom it is written “he shall not take,” and “taking” means betrothal, Rabba innovates that there is no transgression in betrothal,

What is the reason

for the matter?

Because it is stated with regard to the High Priest: “A widow, a divorced woman, a profaned woman, and a harlot, these he shall not take, etc., and he shall not profane his offspring among his people” (Leviticus 21:14–15); thus, he is prohibited by

“he shall not take” because of “he shall not profane

his offspring

”; for this reason he is not flogged until he has intercourse,

since neither she nor her offspring become profaned until he comes upon her.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

The order of the verses is: first

“which he built”

and

“which he planted,”

and afterward

“which he betrothed.”

The Torah taught proper conduct

to a person:

that

first

a person should build a house and plant a vineyard, and

only

afterward should he take a wife .

.

And Solomon likewise said in his wisdom

:

“Prepare your work outside, and make it ready for yourself in the field

(“and your work shall stand in the field”)

afterward, and build your house”

(Proverbs 24:27).

“Prepare your work outside” —

—

this is a house,

“And make it ready for yourself in the field”—

this is a vineyard,

“Afterward, and build your house”—

this is a wife .

.

Alternatively:

the verse is expounded with regard to the study of Torah:

“Prepare your work outside”—

this is Scripture,

“And make it ready for yourself in the field”—

this is Mishna,

“Afterward, and build your house”—

this is Gemara ,

that is, to give a rationale, understand the reasons of the Mishna, and rule the halakha according to the one who—

Alternatively:

.

“Prepare your work outside”—

this is Scripture and Mishna,

“And make it ready for yourself in the field”—

this is Gemara,

“Afterward, and build your house”—

these are good deeds.

Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, says:

“Prepare your work outside”—

this is Scripture, Mishna, and Gemara,

“And make it ready for yourself in the field”—

these are good deeds ,

that is, virtues and traits ,

“Afterward, and build your house”—

expound and receive reward,

for then he can expound and teach Torah to others

We learned in the Mishna:

And these are those who do not return: one who builds a gatehouse, etc.,

and Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who builds a house on its original foundation does not return:

The tanna

in a beraita:

If he added to it one course of stones

a layer, a row of stones,

one

more than the previous house, either in height or in thickness, it is no longer called “on its original foundation,” and

he returns,

for it is already called a new house:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who builds a house of bricks in the Sharon would not return:

The tanna

in a beraita:

because they renew it

twice

in a week , within seven years, since it does not endure; and if so, this is not permanent construction:

We learned in the Mishna:

And these are those who do not move from their place: one who built a new house and inaugurated it, etc.:

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

It is written in the Torah: “When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, and no matter shall pass over him” (Deuteronomy 24:5).

“A new wife”

I have only

to learn from there

a new wife,

who is a virgin whom he married; but if he married

a widow or a divorced woman

from another man,

from where

do we know that he too is included?

The verse says, “a woman,” in any case,

to include even a woman who is not a virgin.

If so, what does “a new wife” teach—

to exclude,

that specifically

one for whom she is new

is included;

excluded is one who remarries his divorced wife, for she is not

for him

new.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

It is written:

“He shall not go out in the army.”

I might have thought

that one should say that only

in the army he shall not go out, but he shall supply water and food

to the men of the army,

and repair the roads;

the verse says, “and no matter shall pass over him,”

I might have thought that I also include one who built a house and did not inaugurate it, planted a vineyard and did not profane it, or betrothed a woman and did not take her,

so that they too should do nothing,

the verse says, “over him”

to exclude,

that specifically

over him you may not pass

any labor,

but you may pass it over others.

And we object:

And since it is written

in the verse

“he shall not pass,”

that he is exempt from every servitude, if so,

why do I need “he shall not go out in the army”?

And we answer:

To make him transgress two negative commandments,

for if he goes out to the army, he also transgresses “he shall not pass” and “he shall not go out.”

Mishna:

It was already explained above that there were three parts to the statements said to the people: the first part, the priest anointed for war speaks and another priest announces; the second part, the priest anointed for war speaks and an officer announces; and our Mishna deals with the third part, in which an officer speaks and an officer announces.

“And the officers shall continue to speak to the people,

and they shall say: Who is the man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, and let him not melt the heart of his brothers like his heart” (ibid. 20:8). The tannaim disputed the meaning of the expression “fearful and fainthearted”:

Rabbi Akiva says: “Fearful and fainthearted” according to its plain meaning,

who is unable to stand in the bonds of war

when they bind themselves together to stand densely, so that enemies will not separate them,

and to see a drawn sword,

because dread falls upon him.

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: “Fearful and fainthearted”—this is

also

one who is afraid because of transgressions in his possession,

even if he transgressed only the words of the Scribes,

and since one who is afraid because of transgressions in his possession returns,

therefore the Torah attached all these

reasons for which they are exempt from going out to the army, because of a house, a vineyard, and the like,

in order

that he return because of them,

so that everyone would not know that he returns because of transgressions in his possession and think that he returns because of one of the other reasons, and he would not be ashamed to return .

Rabbi Yosei says:

Specifically one who is afraid because of transgressions of Torah in his possession, such as

a widow

who married

a High Priest,

or

a divorced woman or a ḥalutza

who married

an ordinary priest,

or

a mamzeret or a netina

who married

an Israelite,

or

an Israelite woman

who married

a mamzer or a netin—he is

included in

“the fearful and fainthearted,”

who returns to his house; but because of transgressions that are from the words of the Scribes, he does not return.

“And it shall be, when the officers have finished speaking to the people, that they shall appoint captains of armies at the head of the people.”

And

likewise the captains of armies appointed

at the rear of the people

at the end of the camp, so that the last ones would not flee,

for the two ends of the people are called “head.”

And how did the captains of the armies appoint them?

They

would station overseers

strong men and warriors

before them,

to raise up those who fell and strengthen them with words: Return to the war and do not flee .

And

guards

other

are stationed

behind them, with axes

[like axes]

of iron in their hands

in order to guard the soldiers so that they should not flee,

And whoever seeks to retreat

from the battle causes the entire camp to fall by his hand ; therefore

the authority is in the hand

of the guard

to cut off his thighs

.