Sotah 48a — the Talmud in English

And we give them to the priests,

since the time Ezra penalized them for not having ascended with him from the exile.

Therefore, it is impossible to say in the confession, “And I have also given it to the Levite, according to all Your commandments that You commanded me.” Consequently, he nullified the entire recitation of the confession.

And we raise an objection:

But let him confess concerning the other tithes,

the second tithe and the poor tithe, which he brought up to Jerusalem or gave to the poor as required by law.

And we answer:

Reish Lakish said: In any house in which one does not confess concerning the first tithe, he can no longer confess concerning the other tithes,

for one may confess concerning a tithe only if he has also given the tithe that precedes it, as follows.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that he cannot confess concerning the other tithes when he does not confess concerning the first tithe?

Abaye said: Since the verse mentioned it first,

for in the command concerning the tithes it says: “And you shall give to the Levite”—this is the first tithe; “to the poor”—this is the poor tithe; “within your gates”—this is the second tithe. The verse began with the first tithe, although the principal confession concerns the second tithe, in order to teach us that the first tithe is indispensable.

And we infer from the wording of the Mishna that he nullified only the confession,

which implies that they did separate

the first tithe, but did not give it to the Levites because of Ezra’s ordinance.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a baraita: He too,

Yoḥanan the High Priest,

nullified the confession and decreed concerning demai

that it must be tithed when purchased from an am haaretz,

because he sent messengers throughout all the boundaries of Israel and saw that

the amei haaretz

were separating only the great teruma, and

as for

the first tithe and the second tithe, some of them tithed and some of them did not tithe.

He said to them: My sons, come and I shall tell you: Just as there is the sin of death for great teruma

if one eats untithed produce from which the teruma has not been separated,

so too, there is the sin of death for terumat maaser and untithed produce.

Therefore,

he arose and instituted for them

that everyone who

purchases produce from an am haaretz must separate from it the first tithe and the second tithe,

and afterward he takes from the

first tithe

and

separates terumat maaser from it and gives it to a priest.

The purpose of this ordinance was that they should treat separations carrying the sin of death like completely untithed produce.

Therefore, he was stringent concerning terumat maaser, requiring that the purchaser not leave it in his possession like

the second tithe,

which he may leave and

bring up and eat in Jerusalem,

or like

the first tithe and the poor tithe,

which he may leave with him and sell to a Levite or a poor person because of the uncertainty, since

the burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks to take from another.

They must provide proof that he is obligated in these tithes. He did not fear that he might eat them, since they are permitted to non-priests.

However, concerning terumat maaser he instituted that the purchaser must separate it immediately and give it to a priest, and may not leave it in his possession in order to sell it, because of the severity of the sin involved in eating it.

It is evident from this baraita that the amei haaretz did not separate any tithes at all. Why, then, did we learn that he nullified the confession concerning the tithe, implying that they had separated it but did not give it away because of the penalty Ezra imposed upon the Levites?

And we answer:

Two

ordinances

he instituted.

The first was

he nullified the confession in the presence of the assembled groups,

the ordinance mentioned in the Mishna as the confession concerning the tithe. It was nullified even for those who tithed properly but did not give it to the Levites because Ezra had penalized them.

And in the second ordinance, he

decreed concerning the demai of the amei haaretz,

the ordinance described in the baraita, which he instituted because he had sent messengers throughout all the boundaries of Israel and saw that not all of them were separating their tithes properly.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he also nullified the awakeners.

And we explain:

What are “the awakeners”? Raḥava said:

This was the practice in the Temple:

Every day, Levites would stand on the platform

when they sang over the offering,

and would say: “Awaken! Why do You sleep, Hashem?” He said to them,

Yoḥanan the High Priest:

Is there

sleep before the Omnipresent? Is it not already stated: “Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps”?

Rather,

this verse is said only when there is concealment of the Divine countenance, and it refers, as it were, to Hashem as sleeping. But this is only

when Israel is suffering, while the idolaters are at ease and tranquility; therefore,

for such a time

it is said: “Awaken! Why do You sleep, Hashem?”

But when the Temple is standing and Israel is dwelling tranquilly on its land, it is inappropriate to recite this verse before Him. Therefore, he nullified its recitation [according to the Maharsha].

We learned in the Mishna:

And the nokefim.

What are the nokefim? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They would scratch the calf

that had been brought as an offering when they came to slaughter it,

between its horns, so that blood would fall into its eyes

and it would not see that they were coming to throw it down and slaughter it, and would resist.

He came,

Yoḥanan the High Priest, and

nullified

their practice of scratching it,

because it appeared to be a blemish.

In a baraita we learned

that they did not scratch the calf; rather,

they would beat it with sticks

to throw it to the ground and slaughter it,

as is done to it before idolatry.

Yoḥanan the High Priest came and

said to them: Until when will you feed neveilot to the altar?

We wonder: Were animals struck with sticks considered

neveilot? They slaughtered them,

and they did not die as a result of the blows and thereby become neveilot.

And we answer:

Rather,

it must be said that he said to them: Until when will you feed

tereifot

to the altar? He considered them tereifot

lest the membrane of the brain had been punctured

by the blows of the sticks, which is one of the signs rendering an animal a tereifa. Therefore, he nullified their practice of striking the sacrificial animals.

And so that the priests would not find it difficult to hold the animals during slaughter, and would accept his words not to strike the animals for this purpose,

he arose and instituted rings for them

that were fixed

in the ground

of the courtyard. They would insert the animal’s neck into them to hold it during slaughter.

We learned in the Mishna:

Until his days, a hammer would strike in Jerusalem.

And we explain that this refers to

the intermediate days of the Festival,

and the practice was nullified because of the honor of the Festival, or so that people would not come to stumble when they did not know that labor was permitted only for the sake of a matter that would otherwise be lost.

We learned in the Mishna:

Throughout all his days, no one needed to ask about demai.

And we explain why, during his days, no one needed to inquire about demai:

As we said,

above in the baraita, he instituted that everyone who purchased from an am haaretz must tithe and separate terumat maaser.

Mishna:

From the time the Sanhedrin ceased to exist

they decreed that

song in banquet houses ceased

so that a person should not sing the praises of another at a wine banquet, even if he sings only vocally,

And from where do we know that they decreed this?

As it is stated: “They shall not drink wine with song, and so on”;

when the first prophets died,

all the prophets who lived until the Second Temple being included in this designation,

the

power of the

Urim VeTumim

to tell the future

was nullified. From the time the Temple was destroyed, the shamir ceased,

for they had a small worm that they placed on a stone to split it or engrave it as needed for the stones of the House and of the ephod, as explained in the Gemara. When the Second Temple was destroyed, this worm disappeared.

And

likewise, with the destruction,

the honey of Tzufim

ceased. This was exceptionally fine honey [in appearance, taste, and aroma—Maimonides], originating in a place called Tzufim.

And

likewise,

ceased

from the time of the destruction

the trustworthy people,

who truly trusted in Hashem and gave money to charity and for the enhancement of a mitzva without worrying about any loss,

as it is stated: “Save, Hashem, for the pious one is no more,”

for the trustworthy have ceased from among the children of man.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: From the day the Temple was destroyed, there is no day

that does not contain a curse, and

since then,

the dew has not fallen for blessing

and the taste of produce has been removed.

Rabbi Yosei says: The fat of produce was also removed,

which is its nourishing component.

Gemara:

We wonder concerning what we learned, that song in banquet houses was nullified from the time the Sanhedrin ceased to exist because it is written, “They shall not drink wine with song”:

And from where is it derived that this verse was written with reference to the time when the Sanhedrin ceased to exist?

This verse

And we explain:

Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: For the verse states: “The elders have ceased from the gate; they have ceased their song.”

Its meaning is that when the elders who sit at the gate, namely, the Sanhedrin, ceased to exist, in that same place the young men’s song also ceased.

This verse does not state a prohibition against singing; rather, it describes the reality—that song ceased. From it they learned that the prohibition stated in the verse cited by the Mishna, “They shall not drink wine with song,” was decreed at the time of the destruction.

Rav said: An ear that hears song

an ear that hears the sound of song nowadays

should be uprooted.

Rava said: Song in a house, destruction in its doorway;

it will ultimately be destroyed,

as it is stated: “A voice shall sing in the window, destruction at the threshold,”

the destruction will be evident at the threshold of the house,

“for the cedar is exposed.”

And we explain:

What is the meaning of “for the cedar is exposed”? Rav Yitzḥak said:

Its explanation is: Is

a house covered

sheltered

with cedars a city?

Is it as strong as a city, so that it cannot be destroyed?

Rather—

indeed,

even a house covered with cedars will crumble,

and it too will be destroyed.

Rav Ashi said: Learn from this

verse

that when destruction begins,

in a house, it

begins at the doorway,

at the threshold,

as it is stated: “Destruction at the threshold.”

And if you wish, say:

There is another source that the destruction of a house begins at its doorway:

from here,

as it is stated:

“And desolation

which is a house empty of inhabitants

shall strike the gate,”

demons dance in it and butt against and break its gates, and from there its destruction begins.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I myself saw

a demon dancing in an empty house,

and

I saw it

butting like an ox.

Rav Huna said: The song of the boat-haulers,

which the sailors sing while pulling the ships with ropes, doing so to hasten them in their difficult work,

and

song

of the plowmen,

which the farmers sing while plowing in order to direct the oxen into their furrows, as they move toward the sound of the pleasant song that attracts them—therefore, this type of song

is permitted.

But the song

of the weavers—

weavers of garments who sing while working —

is forbidden,

since its purpose is merely amusement.

Rav Huna abolished song

and decreed upon his generation that they should not sing in their homes or at banquet houses. As a result, blessing came into the world: geese and wheat became plentiful and their prices fell,

one hundred geese sold for one zuz, and one hundred se’a of wheat sold for one zuz, and no one sought

to purchase them, even at this low price, because of the abundance that came as a result of his decree.

After some time,

Rav Ḥisda came and treated it lightly,

not insisting on reprimanding anyone who violated the decree. The abundance ceased, and the price of geese rose again to the point that

one sought a goose for one zuz, but none could be found.

Rav Yosef said: When men sing and women respond,

when men sing and women answer them, this is

promiscuity,

since a woman’s voice is considered nakedness.

And in the reverse arrangement, which is more severe, namely,

when women sing and men respond,

it is considered

like fire in kindling,

for the one responding inclines his ear toward the singer’s voice in order to answer her, with the result that the men focus their attention on hearing the women’s voices and inflame their inclination like fire in kindling.

And we wonder:

What practical difference does it make

which is more severe, since both are forbidden?

And we explain that the practical difference is in a situation where they will not heed one’s voice to abolish both practices: it is preferable to first

abolish this one

the singing of women and the responses of men

before that one,

the singing of men and the responses of women, because the singing of women before men is like fire in kindling.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Anyone who drinks

in a place where they play music

with four kinds of

musical instruments

brings five

calamities upon the world.

As it is stated: Woe to those who rise early in the morning

to drink wine,

strong drink,

old and intoxicating wine

they pursue

to drink it, even though the practice is to drink it only at night. And at night they

are late in the dusk,

sitting for a long time in the drinking house and drinking much, to such an extent that even

wine will inflame them. And there was

in the drinking house

a harp, a lyre, a timbrel, and a pipe, and

in this atmosphere

wine from their drinking, and they did not regard the work of the Lord

and they did not see the work of His hands. [And Rashi explained there, “in the Torah,” under the words “they did not regard”: and they did not praise Him in the morning in “Who forms light,” nor in the evening in “Who brings on evenings”; see the notes].

And these are the four kinds of musical instruments with which they drink.

And in order to know what the five kinds of calamities are that they bring upon the world, go and learn

what is written after it,

1.

Therefore My people are exiled without knowledge

because they did not wish to know the ways of the Lord, and this is the first calamity

that they cause exile upon the world.

2.

And his honor are men dying of hunger

the honored men of the people will die of hunger, and this is the second calamity,

that they bring hunger upon the world.

3.

And his multitude is parched with thirst,

the multitude of the people will die of thirst and in parched dryness, beneath their drinking, and this is the third calamity, which is by way of metaphor,

that they cause the Torah to be forgotten by those who study it,

and the thirst will be for the Torah, which is likened to water, while they did not drink it, but instead turned their hearts to drinking strong drink and wine.

4.

And man is humbled and man is brought low,

as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, is bent and weakened, and there is no power in Him to do good to Israel; and this is the fourth calamity,

that they cause lowliness to the enemy of the Holy One,

[in language reversed toward good].

And

we explain from where it is meant with reference to the Holy One, blessed be He, for

no

one is called

“man” except the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated: The Lord is a man of war.

5.

And the eyes of the haughty shall be brought low,

and the eyes of Israel, in whom there was haughtiness of spirit evident in the eyes, will be lowered to look downward, as is the way of those who are in distress; and this is the fifth calamity,

that they cause the lowliness of Israel.

And what is written after it,

after they brought five calamities in their drinking, it is stated that their end is to fall into Gehinnom.