Sotah 46b (מו:) — the Talmud in English

As it is stated:

“Your dwelling is enduring, and place your nest in a rock,”

which indicates that “enduring” means rock,

and it says: “Hear, mountains, the dispute of the Lord, and the enduring foundations of the earth,”

meaning that “the enduring ones” are mountains of stones.

Others say: From where is it derived that “enduring” means old,

that the streambed is ancient, and that new soil was not brought to it from elsewhere?

As it is stated: “A nation of enduring origin, a nation from time immemorial,”

meaning that it has existed since time immemorial.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And they decapitate it with a cleaver from behind its neck.”

And we explain:

What is the reason? He derives

a gzera shava,

“decapitation” from “decapitation,” from the bird-offering for sin.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And its place is prohibited from being plowed and from being sown.”

The Sages taught:

“To a stream that is enduring,

which shall not be worked and shall not be sown,”

its meaning is

in the past:

that it had not been worked and had not been sown,

the words of Rabbi Yashya.

He understood this from the plain meaning of the verse, “which shall not be worked,” since the word “which” indicates the past.

Rabbi Yonatan says

that the verse refers to

the future:

that it may not be worked or sown after the heifer is decapitated.

Rava said:

Regarding

the future, everyone agrees

that the verse certainly refers to it,

as it is written: “and it shall not be sown,”

and it was not written, “and which shall not be sown.”

When they disagree

is whether the verse also refers to

the past. Rabbi Yashya holds: Is it written, “and it shall not be worked”?

But it is written, “which shall not be worked,” indicating that it has not been worked until now.

And Rabbi

Yonatan

understood that it refers to the future, since

is it written, “which was not worked”?

But it is written, “which shall not be worked,” and its meaning is in the future.

And we explain each amora’s response to the proof of the other.

And Rabbi Yashya,

who did not understand “shall be worked” as referring to the future, bases his view on the fact that the word

“which”

appears in the verse, and this expression

indicates the past. And Rabbi Yonatan: “which”

in this passage was not stated to indicate the past; rather,

it is an amplification

to include the prohibition of all forms of work in it, as stated below.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And it is permitted to comb flax there and to quarry stones there.”

The Sages taught: “Which shall not be worked and shall not be sown”—I have

only learned that

“sowing” is prohibited; from where do we derive that other forms of work

are prohibited in the stream after the heifer has been decapitated?

The verse states: “which shall not be worked in it”—in any event. If so, what is the purpose of stating “and shall not be sown”?

Sowing is included among the other forms of work, so why was it specified again? Rather, it comes

to teach you: Just as sowing is distinctive in that it affects the body of the soil, so too all

the prohibition applies only to work

that affects the body of the soil. This excludes combing flax and quarrying stones, which do not affect the body of the soil,

and they are permitted to be performed in the place where the heifer was decapitated.

And we challenge this:

But say that “which shall not be worked in it” is a general statement, and “shall not be sown” is a specific statement— a generalization followed by a specification. Nothing included in the generalization is אלא what

is stated in the specification,

and we should learn that only

sowing is

prohibited, whereas

nothing else is.

How, then, can “shall not be sown” be used to prohibit all work that affects the body of the soil? And we answer:

“Which” is an amplification,

and it includes all forms of work resembling sowing in that they affect the body of the soil.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The elders of that city wash their hands, etc.”

The Sages taught:

“And all the elders of that city who are nearest to the corpse shall wash their hands over the heifer that was decapitated in the stream”—there is no need for the Torah to state

anything through the word

“that was decapitated.”

If so,

what is the purpose of stating

why was the word

“that was decapitated”

written? It teaches us that they wash their hands

over the place where the heifer was decapitated.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And they say: ‘Our hands did not spill this blood, and our eyes did not see.’ Would it enter our minds that the court spills blood? Rather,”

when they say, “Our hands did not spill this blood,” they mean that

this did not come into our hands

before the corpse left our city

and we dismissed him without provisions.

Likewise, when they say, “And our eyes did not see,” they mean that

we did not see him

leaving alone on the road

and leave him without escort.

It was taught: Rabbi Meir would say: We compel

one who does not wish to escort his fellow on the road to go with him

as an escort,

because the reward

of the mitzva

of escorting has no

measure, as it is stated:

at the beginning of the Book of Judges, when the descendants of Joseph came to conquer Bethel,

“And the guards saw a man emerging from the city, as the descendants of Joseph sought to conquer it, and they said to him: ‘Please show us the entrance to the city, and we shall act kindly with you.’”

For its entrance was not recognizable; they entered through an almond tree into a cave, and from there by way of the city.

And it is written: “And he showed them the entrance to the city,”

and below the proof from here concerning the great reward for escorting is explained.

And now the Gemara explains what they did for him:

“And what kindness did they do with him? They slew the entire city by the sword, but they sent that man and his family away,”

“And the man went to the land of the Hittites and built a city, and he called its name Luz; it is its name to this day.”

It was taught:

The city of Luz that he built then

is the Luz in which tekhelet is dyed; it is the Luz that Sennacherib came to but did not confuse,

and therefore it is said of it, “to this day”: its name always remained upon it, even though

Nebuchadnezzar came and did not destroy it.

And even the Angel of Death has no authority to pass through it;

rather, when the elders there become weary of life, they go outside the wall, and there they die.

For the Angel of Death rules over them when they leave the city.

And we explain the proof from here that the reward for escorting has no measure:

Is this not a kal va-chomer: If this Canaanite,

who showed them the entrance to the city,

who did not speak with his mouth and did not walk with his feet,

but merely pointed with his hand,

caused salvation for himself and his descendants until the end of all generations,

so that the Angel of Death had no authority to pass through their city, then we may learn that

one who escorts with his feet is certainly all the more so

entitled to a reward without measure.

And we explain:

How did he show them? Hezekiah said: He crooked his mouth

and gestured

to them. Rabbi Yohanan said: He showed them with his finger. It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: Because this Canaanite showed them with his finger, he caused salvation for himself and his descendants until the end of all generations.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who travels on the road and has no escort should engage in Torah study, as it is stated: “For they are a graceful wreath upon your head and necklaces for your throat.”

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Because Pharaoh escorted Abraham four cubits, as it is stated: “And Pharaoh commanded men concerning him,”

and they sent him away; the Targum explains that he sent them to escort him.

He was punished by having his descendants enslaved for four hundred years, as it is stated: “And they shall serve them and they shall afflict them four hundred years,”

but it was not decreed whom they would serve; by virtue of the escort, they were enslaved in his land, [Maharsha and Ya'avetz; see there, who explain that they were not enslaved by this Pharaoh, since he had already died]

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Anyone who escorts his fellow four cubits in the city,

his fellow who is being escorted

will not be harmed,

even when he sets out on the road.

Ravina escorted Rava bar Yitzhak four cubits in the city,

and by virtue of this, later, when

harm came into the hands

of Rava bar Yitzhak,

he was saved.

The Sages taught: A teacher

escorts

a student to the outskirts of the city,

going with him seventy cubits and remnants beyond the city’s houses.

A colleague

escorts

a colleague to the Shabbat boundary; a student escorting his teacher has no measure,

and he must go with him a great distance.

And how far? Rav Sheshet said: As far as a parasang. And we said this only of a teacher who is not his primary teacher; but for his primary teacher,

the student must escort him as far as

three parasangs.

Rav Kahana escorted Rav Shimi bar Ashi from Pum Nahara to Bei Tzinitai of Babylonia,

an area of Babylonia where date palms grew.

When they arrived there, he said to him,

Rav Kahana to Rav Shimi:

“Is it certainly true that you say

that what people say is correct—that

these date palms of Babylonia have existed since Adam the first man?” He said to him,

Rav Shimi:

“You have reminded me of something that Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written, ‘In a land through which no man passed’

‘and where no person dwelt’? Since no one passed

there at all,

where did he dwell? Rather,

the explanation of the verse is:

A land that Adam the first man decreed

would be designated

for settlement became settled;

whereas

a land that Adam the first man did not decree

would become settled

did not become settled

forever. Therefore date palms have grown in this place since time immemorial, because Adam the first man decreed that there should be a settlement of date palms here, and not another type of settlement.”

Rav Mordekhai escorted Rav Ashi from Hagrunya to Bei Kifei; and some say, to Bei Dura.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Anyone who neither escorts nor is escorted

is as though he spills blood, for had the people of Jericho escorted Elisha, he would not have incited bears against the children.

The escorts would have rebuked the youths who mocked him, and he would not have brought bears upon them; this was the incident:

As it is stated,

when Elisha left Jericho after he had healed its waters,

“He went up from there to Bethel. As he was going up on the road, young boys emerged from the city, mocked him, and said to him: ‘Go up, bald one! Go up, bald one!’”

And we explain:

They said to him: “Go up, for you have made the place bald for us,”

because these youths earned their livelihood by bringing good water from a distance to the people of Jericho, since there had been no suitable drinking water in their city until Elisha healed the water, and their livelihood was lost.

And we expound:

What is the meaning of “young boys”?

A youth is an adult, not a small child.

Rabbi Elazar said:

They were called “youths” because

they were stripped of the mitzvot,

and they were called

“small” because they were among those of little faith,

for they were worried that their livelihood had been cut off because the water was healed, and they did not trust in God to provide them with a livelihood in another manner.

And there is

a tanna

who says:

the boys

were adults,

but acted wantonly—

they disgraced

themselves

by behaving

like children.

Rav Yosef objects to this:

how can this be inferred from “small boys”?

Perhaps

they were literally minors, and were called boys

because of their place of origin,

as they came from a place called Na'uran.

Is it not written: “And Aram went out in raiding parties and took captive from the Land of Israel a young girl,” and this is difficult for us:

how could she be both

young and a girl, and Rav Pedat said

that she was

young

and her origin was

from

the city

of Na'uran;

if so, the phrase “small boys” can likewise be explained in this manner.

And we answer:

There,

with regard to the young girl who was taken captive by Aram,

her place of origin is not specified,

and it is possible to explain that she came from Na'uran. But

here,

with regard to the boys who mocked Elisha,

their place of origin is specified,

as they came from Jericho. Therefore, the phrase “small boys” must necessarily be expounded.

And he turned behind him, saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord,

and we explain:

What did he see? Rav said: He literally saw

that by seeing them he harmed them,

as it was taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Wherever the Sages cast their eyes

upon it in anger, either death or poverty takes effect in that place—

either death or poverty.

And Shmuel said: He saw that all their mothers had conceived them on Yom Kippur

and they were thus created through a transgression.

And Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa said: He saw their belorit,

which

they had like the Amorites. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He saw that there was not even a trace of a mitzva in them,

and we object: Even if there was no trace of a mitzva in them, how could he kill them?

Perhaps there would be such a trace in their descendants.

And we answer:

Rabbi Eliezer said

that he saw through prophecy that there would be no trace of a mitzva

neither in them nor in their descendants until the end of all generations.

And two bears emerged from the forest and tore apart forty-two children.