Sotah 46b — the Talmud in English

as it is stated, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

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

thus, “enduring” means rock,

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

that is, the enduring ones are mountains of stones.

Others say: From where [do we know] that “enduring” means old,

that the riverbed is old, and not that new earth was brought to it from another place,

as it is stated, “an enduring nation is he, a nation from eternity,”

that is, it has existed since the beginning of time.

We learned in the Mishna,

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

And we explain:

What is the reason? He derives

a gzera shava

“breaking of the neck—breaking of the neck” from the bird sin-offering.

We learned in the Mishna,

“And its place is forbidden from being worked and from being sown.”

The Sages taught:

“Toward an enduring stream,”

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

its explanation is

for the past,

that it was neither worked nor sown,

the words of Rabbi Josiah.

And he understood this from the plain meaning of the verse, “which shall not be worked,” because “which” indicates the past.

Rabbi Jonathan says

that the verse refers to

the future,

that they shall not work it and shall not sow it after the heifer’s neck is broken.

Rava said:

Concerning

the future, everyone does not disagree;

it is certainly the subject of the verse,

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 intent of the verse is also regarding

the past. Rabbi Josiah reasoned: 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 in it until now.

And Rabbi

Jonathan

understood that it refers to the future, for

is it written, “which was not worked”?

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

And we explain the response of each amora to his fellow’s proof:

And Rabbi Josiah,

who did not understand “shall be worked” as referring to the future, reasons so because “which” is written in it,

“which,”

and this expression

indicates the past. And Rabbi Jonathan: “which”

in this passage was not stated in the language of the past; rather,

it is an inclusion

to include, in order to prohibit all forms of work in it, as follows.

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 therein and shall not be sown”—I have only

to prohibit

“sowing”; from where [do we know] that other forms of work

are forbidden in the stream after the heifer’s neck has been broken?

The verse states, “which shall not be worked therein,” in any event. If so, what does “and it shall not be sown” come to teach?

For sowing is included among the other forms of work, and why was it specified again? Rather,

to tell you: just as sowing is distinctive in that it is in the substance of the ground, so too all

the prohibition is stated only concerning work

that is in the substance of the ground; combing flax and quarrying stones are excluded, for they are not in the substance of the ground,

and it is permitted to do them in the place where the heifer’s neck was broken.

And we challenge this:

But say: “which shall not be worked therein” is a general statement, and “it shall not be sown” is a specific statement—a generalization and specification. Nothing included in the generalization is [included] except that which

is in the specification;

and we should learn that only

sowing is forbidden,

whereas

nothing else is [forbidden],

and how, then, do we learn from “it shall not be sown” to prohibit all work that affects the body of the ground? And we answer:

“which” is an inclusion,

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

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 whose neck was broken in the stream”—there is no teaching to be derived

from the word

“whose neck was broken.”

And if so,

what does “whose neck was broken” come to teach?

For what purpose was it written?

“Whose neck was broken,”

rather, to teach us that they wash their hands

over the place of the heifer’s neck-breaking.

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 hearts that the court spills blood? Rather,”

when they say, “Our hands did not spill this blood,” their intention is to say that

it did not come into our hands

this corpse before he left our city

and we dismissed him without provisions.

And likewise, when they say, “and our eyes did not see,” their intention is that

we did not see him

going out on the road alone

and we left him without escort.

It was taught: Rabbi Meir used to say: We compel

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

for escorting,

for the reward

of the mitzva of

escorting has no

measure, as it is stated:

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

“And the sentinels saw a man coming out of the city, and they said to him: Please show us the entrance of the city, and we shall deal kindly with you.”

For its entrance was not recognizable: they entered through an almond tree into a cave, and through it to the city.

And it is written, ‘And he showed them the entrance of the city,’

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

And now the Gemara explains what they gave him:

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

“And the man went to the land of the Hittites, built a city, and called its name Luz; that 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 and did not confuse,

and therefore it says concerning it, “to this day”: its name always remained upon it, and although

Nebuchadnezzar came, he did not destroy it,

and even the Angel of Death has no permission to pass through it;

rather, when its elders become weary of life, they go outside the wall, and 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:

“And is this not a kal va-chomer: If this Canaanite,

who showed them the entrance of the city,

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

but merely showed with his hand,

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

so that the Angel of Death has no permission to pass through their city, then we learn that

one who performs escorting with his feet, all the more so

that his reward has no measure.”

And we explain:

In what way did he show them? Hezekiah said: He bent 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 with his finger, he caused salvation for himself and for his descendants until the end of all generations.

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

And Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Because of the four steps with which Pharaoh escorted Abraham, as it is stated, “And Pharaoh commanded men concerning him,”

and they sent him away; and it is explained in the translation that he sent them to escort him.

“He was enslaved through his descendants for four hundred years,” as it is stated, “and they shall serve them and afflict them for four hundred years,”

and it was not decreed with whom they would be enslaved; and in the merit of the escort they were enslaved in his land [Maharsha and Yaavetz; see there, that they were not enslaved by this Pharaoh, for he had already died].

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: Whoever escorts his fellow four cubits in the city,

his fellow who is being escorted

will not be harmed,

even when he goes out on the road.

Ravina escorted Rava bar Yitzhak four cubits in the city,

and by this merit, afterward, when

harm came into the hands of

Rava bar Yitzhak,

he was saved.

The Sages taught: A teacher

escorts

a student as far as the outskirts of the city,

going with him as far as seventy cubits and remnants beyond the houses of the city.

A colleague

escorts

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

and he must go with him a great distance,

and how much is it? Rav Sheshet said: As far as a parasang. And we said this only concerning a teacher who is not his principal teacher; but his principal teacher

the student must escort as far as

three parasangs.

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

a region in Babylon where date palms grew.

When they reached there, he said to him,

Rav Kahana to Rav Shimi:

“Is it certainly as you say,”

is it true that people say that

“these date palms of Babylon have existed since Adam the first man”? He said to him:

Rav Shimi:

“You reminded me of a statement that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written, ‘In a land through which no man passed’

‘and where no person dwelt’? And since no one passed through it,

there at all,

where did he dwell? Rather,”

the explanation of the verse is:

“A land concerning which Adam the first man decreed

that it be designated

for settlement was settled;

but

a land concerning which Adam the first man did not decree

that it be settled

was not 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 settlement.”

Rav Mordechai escorted Rav Ashi from Hagrunia to Bei Kifei; and some say, to Bei Dura.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Anyone who does not escort and is not escorted,

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

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

as it is stated,

when Elisha departed from Jericho after he had healed its waters,

“And he went up from there to Bethel. And as he was going up on the road, young boys came out of 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,”

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

And we expound:

What is the meaning of “young boys”?

After all, a youth is an adult and not a small child.

Rabbi Elazar said:

They were called youths because of

that they were stripped of mitzvot,

and they were called

small because they were of little faith,

for they were worried that their livelihood had ended because he had healed the water, and they did not trust in the Lord that He would provide them with a livelihood in another manner.

And there is

a tanna

who says:

“young”

were grown,

and they made a waste—

they disgraced

themselves

by their conduct

like small children.

Rav Yosef challenges this:

How is it indicated to expound thus from “young small ones,”

and perhaps

they were genuinely small, and they were called “young”

on account of their place,

for they came from a place called Ne’urun?

Is it not written, “And Aram went out in raiding bands and took from the land of Israel a young girl,” and we have difficulty with it:

how can she be

a young girl and small, and Rav Pedat said,

that she was

small

and her place of origin was

from

the city

Ne’urun,

and if so, here too one should explain the verse “young small ones.”

And we answer:

there

in the case of the small girl who was captured by Aram,

her place is not specified,

and it is possible to explain that she came from Ne’urun; but

here,

in the case of the young men who mocked Elisha,

their place is specified,

for they came from Jericho. And necessarily, “young small ones” was stated for an exposition.

“And he turned after him, saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord,”

and we explain:

What did he see? Rav said: He saw literally,

that by seeing them he harmed them,

as it is taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Wherever the Sages set their eyes,

upon it, in strictness,

either death or poverty comes to rest in that place.

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

and they were conceived through a transgression.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: He saw a forelock

that they had

like the Amorites; and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He saw that there was not in them even a trace of a mitzva,

and we challenge this: Even if there was no trace of a mitzva in them, how did he kill them?

And perhaps there would have been some in their offspring,

and we answer:

Rabbi Eliezer said

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

either in them or in their offspring until the end of all generations.

“And two bears came out of the forest and tore apart forty-two children.”