Sotah 4b — the Talmud in English

And it is likewise uncertain:

whether it is wheat bread,

that is, bread made from wheat flour, which is more difficult to remove,

or barley bread,

bread made from barley, which is easier to remove.

And it is likewise uncertain

whether it is soft bread,

that is, bread made in a softened form, and it is softer and consequently more difficult to remove,

or hard bread,

hard bread, which is easier to remove because it is hard.

And we conclude:

teiku.

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Yohanan said—

Each and every one

of the tannaim who stated what the measure of seclusion is

measured for himself,

the measure of the time required for intercourse for himself.

The Gemara asks:

But there is Ben Azzai, who did not marry!

Ben Azzai did not marry because his soul yearned for Torah; so how did he know the measure of intercourse?

The Gemara answers:

If you wish, say: He did marry

—he married a woman—

and he separated from her,

and afterward he separated from her.

And if you wish, say: He heard it from his teacher,

for this is what he received from his teacher.

And if you wish, say: “The secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him,”

the matter was revealed to him through divine inspiration

Rav Avira expounded—

Sometimes,

at times,

he said it,

he expounded this,

in the name of Rabbi Ami, and sometimes,

and at other times,

he said it,

he expounded this

in the name of Rabbi Asi—

Anyone who eats bread without washing his hands

before the meal

is as though he had intercourse with a prostitute.

As it is stated—

“For on account of a prostitute a man is brought to a loaf of bread.”

And the verse is expounded from its end to its beginning: because of a loaf of bread, a person incurs punishment as though he had intercourse with a prostitute.

And he challenges this:

Rava said: This phrase, “For on account of a prostitute a man is brought to a loaf of bread”?

“For on account of a loaf of bread a man is brought to a prostitute”—

should have been required!

If so, it should have been written, “For on account of a loaf of bread a man is brought to a prostitute,” which would indicate that because of a loaf of bread eaten without a blessing, his punishment is as severe as the punishment for a prostitute. But in the verse it is written concerning a prostitute “on account of,” and concerning a loaf of bread it is written “to,” indicating the opposite.

Rather, Rava said:

The verse is expounded in the opposite direction, that

anyone who has intercourse with a prostitute ultimately asks for a loaf of bread!

And the meaning of the verse is that anyone who has intercourse with a prostitute becomes so poor that he must ask for a loaf of bread:

Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Elazar said—

Anyone who treats the washing of hands lightly,

one who always eats without washing his hands,

is uprooted from the world!

Since the obligation of washing the hands is from the words of the Sages, and anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is liable to death, as it is written in the Book of Ecclesiastes, “Whoever breaks through a fence will be bitten by a snake.” Therefore, one who breaks through the fence of the Sages and does not wash his hands is liable to death.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said—

When he washes

the first waters

before the meal,

he must raise

the forearms of

his hands upward,

and when he washes

the last waters, which are

after the meal,

he must lower his hands downward.

It was also taught so:

we learned this in a beraita—

It is explained in tractate Yadayim that the Sages decreed concerning the hands—that is, the portion of the hand from the palm until the connection with the forearm—that they have the status of second-degree impurity until he washes his hands. That is, if a pure person touches a liquid before washing his hands, the liquid becomes impure. Likewise, if he touches teruma before washing, the teruma becomes impure. The same law applies to washing the hands before a meal: he must purify them before eating bread.

Therefore, the law is that he must wash his hands twice, for the first waters became impure because of their contact with the hand, and he must wash his hands a second time so that the second waters will purify the first waters, which became impure because of the impurity of the hands.

And if he is not careful that the first waters reach only as far as the joint, but the waters come above the joint, those waters become impure because they were initially on his palm. Afterwards, when he comes to wash his hands a second time, he will not be careful to wash his hands a second time over that same place outside the joint in order to purify the first waters that went outside the joint.

And now, if he lowers his hands, the impure first waters located above the joint will return from their place above the joint and fall again onto the hand, and will again render it impure. Therefore—

one who washes his hands

before the meal

must raise

the forearms of

his hands upward,

since we are concerned

lest the waters leave

of the first washing

outside the joint,

outside the palm, and he will not be careful that the second washing also be over that same place,

and

then, if he lowers his hands,

the impure waters above the joint will return

the impure waters above the joint

and render the hands impure.

But when he washes the last waters, which are after the meal, he must lower his hands so that the filth will descend. For the reason for washing the last waters is to remove the filth from his hand:

Rabbi Abbahu said—

Anyone who eats bread without drying his hands,

a person who washed his hands but did not dry them—this is a repulsive matter, and he is

as though he eats impure bread.

As it is stated—

“And the Lord said: Thus shall the children of Israel eat their bread impure,” and so forth.

Thus, a repulsive matter is called impurity. And since one who eats without drying his hands is involved in a repulsive matter, he is therefore considered as though he ate impure bread.

The Gemara asks:

And what,

what do we expound from the end of the verse

“and a married woman captures a precious soul”?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said—

Anyone who possesses arrogance ultimately stumbles through a married woman!

As it is stated, “And a married woman captures a precious soul,”

and the verse is interpreted from its end to its beginning: “a precious soul captures”—the precious soul captures the married woman.

The Gemara asks:

Rava said—

this phrase, “a precious soul”? “An elevated soul”—

should have been required!

If the intention of the verse is to refer to a person who possesses arrogance, it should have said “an elevated soul,” and not “a precious soul.”

And furthermore,

this is difficult: if so, it should have said

“it captures,” should have been required!

For it is the elevated soul that captures the married woman.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, Rava said—

The verse comes to teach us that

anyone who has intercourse with a married woman, even if he studied Torah,

as it is written concerning it

concerning the Torah—

“It is precious

the Torah

more than pearls,”

and the Sages expounded that the meaning of the verse is that one who studies Torah is greater

than the High Priest,

who is called “pearls,” because

he enters within and within.

But once he has intercourse with a married woman, the transgression

will capture him for the judgment of Gehinnom:

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai—

Anyone who possesses arrogance is as though he worships idolatry.

And from where do we know this?

It is written here,

concerning arrogance,

“Every haughty heart is an abomination of the Lord,”

so arrogance is called an abomination,

and it is written there,

concerning idolatry,

“You shall not bring an abomination into your house,”

so idolatry too is called an abomination. Therefore, anyone who possesses arrogance is as though he worships idolatry.

And Rabbi Yohanan himself,

he himself,

said

he expounded—

One who possesses arrogance is

as though he denies the fundamental principle,

as though he denies the Holy One, blessed is He.

As it is stated—

“And your heart becomes haughty, and you forget the Lord your God,” and so forth.

Thus, if your heart becomes haughty, I regard it as though you had forgotten the Lord your God.

Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said—

One who possesses arrogance is

as though he had intercourse with all forbidden sexual relations.

Because

it is written here,

concerning arrogance,

“Every haughty heart is an abomination of the Lord,” and it is written there,

in the passage concerning forbidden sexual relations,

“For all these abominations,” and so forth.

And since forbidden sexual relations are called abominations, we learn that arrogance, which is called an abomination, leads to forbidden sexual relations, which are called abominations.

Ulla said—

one who possesses arrogance is

as though he built a private altar,

as though he worships idolatry.

As it is stated—

“Cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, for how little is he considered.”

Although it is written in the verse “how little is he considered,”

do not read “how little”

with the vowel segol,

but “private altar”

with the vowel kamatz. Thus, a person whose breath is in his nostrils—that is, whose soul is important in his own eyes—is considered a private altar for idolatry.

The Gemara asks:

What

do we expound from the end of the verse

“Hand to hand he shall not go unpunished”?

The Gemara answers:

Rav said: Anyone who possesses arrogance,

even if he granted ownership of them, gave control of them,

to the Holy One, blessed is He, of heaven and earth like Abraham our forefather,

as though he controlled the entire creation like Abraham our forefather, and possessed virtues like Abraham,

as it is written concerning him,

concerning Abraham,

“I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth,”

for he granted ownership, as it were, of heaven and earth to the Holy One, blessed is He.

Even so,

he will not be acquitted from the judgment of Gehinnom,

even if he possesses the virtues of Abraham our forefather, he will not be acquitted.

The Gemara asks:

The school of Rabbi Sheila found this difficult:

the members of Rabbi Sheila’s academy—

This phrase, “Hand to hand he shall not go unpunished”?

“My hand” should have been required!

It should have been written, “My hand shall not go unpunished,” as it is written concerning Abraham; so why is it written “hand to hand”?

The Gemara answers:

Rather, the school of Rabbi Sheila said—

The meaning of the verse is that

even if he received the Torah

like Moses our teacher, concerning whom it is written, “From His right hand He gave them a fiery law,”

and he received the Torah from the hand of the Holy One, blessed is He, into his hand, even so

he will not be acquitted from the judgment of Gehinnom.

The Gemara asks:

Rabbi Yohanan found this difficult: this phrase, “hand to hand”—“hand from hand” should have been required,

for it should have been written “hand from hand,” since Moses received the Torah from the hand of the Holy One, blessed is He.