Sotah 5b — the Talmud in English

“And for swelling and for sapachat.”

And se'et is only an expression of elevation. “

Se'et” is an expression of loftiness.

As it is stated —

“And over

all

the lofty mountains, and over

all

the elevated hills.” And “elevated” is an expression of loftiness.

And concerning this it is stated that the end of loftiness is to reach the status of sapachat,

and sapachat is only an attachment,

the meaning of sapachat being that it is not important on account of itself, but is secondary to others.

As it is stated —

Regarding the prophecy about the House of Eli, that the Almighty cursed them that He would establish priests who were not descendants of Eli, and they would lower them from their greatness, until they would need to ask priests from the other family, “

Attach me, please, to one of the priestly divisions, to eat a piece of bread.”

That they should give him bread.

And according to this, the verse is interpreted as follows: “

And for elevation”: one who elevates himself will afterward come to “and for sapachat,” that is, that he will become attached to others.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said —

Come and see how great are the humble of spirit before the Almighty! When the Temple exists, a person offers a burnt offering, the reward of a burnt offering is in his hand. A meal offering, the reward of a meal offering is in his hand. But one whose mind is humble, Scripture considers it for him as though he offered all the offerings, —

as it is stated —

“The sacrifices of God

are a broken spirit.”

And “My sacrifices” signifies all the sacrifices, and from here we learn that one whose spirit is broken is as though he offered all the sacrifices.

And furthermore,

he is considered as though he offered all the offerings —

but

he has another virtue,

that his prayer is not rejected.

As it is stated —

“A broken and crushed heart,”

these are the humble of spirit,

“O God, You will not despise.”

For the Almighty will hear their prayer:

And Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Whoever evaluates,

who evaluates

his ways,

his deeds,

in this world,

and considers the loss involved in a mitzva against its reward,

merits and sees the salvation of the Almighty.

As it is stated —

“And he who sets a way

I will show him the salvation of God.”

And we expound:

Do not read “and he who sets”

as an expression of setting, that he sets his ways in the ways of God,

but “and he who sets a way,”

once he sets his deeds and considers his ways, he merits and sees the salvation of the Almighty:

We learned in the Mishna —

[

How does he warn her, etc.],

that if he warned her in the presence of two, and said to her, “Do not speak with so-and-so,” and she spoke with him, she is still permitted to eat teruma.

The Gemara asks:

This itself is difficult,

for the Mishna contradicts itself.

You said,

in the first clause of the Mishna,

“He said to her in the presence of two, ‘Do not speak with this so-and-so,’

and it implies that the Mishna comes to explain that the matter of warning is also in a case in which he said to her, “Do not speak with so-and-so.”

It follows that speaking —

is seclusion!

Perforce, if he said to her, “Do not speak,” even if she spoke with him in the marketplace, this is considered seclusion, and she becomes forbidden. For if she does not become forbidden, for what purpose does he warn her? For she will not become forbidden on account of this.

And then it teaches,

whereas afterward it is stated in the latter clause of the Mishna:

“She spoke with him, she is still permitted to her home,

to her husband,

and she is permitted to eat teruma.”

It follows,

it is proven that

speaking —

is nothing!

Rather, only if she secludes herself with him does she become forbidden, and therefore even though she spoke with him, she is still permitted to her husband.

And if so, how is it possible that he can warn her not to speak with so-and-so, when she does not become forbidden to him because of his warning.

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said —

This is what it means,

this is the explanation of the Mishna —

What is written in the Mishna, “He said to her, ‘Do not speak with so-and-so,’” is not the explanation of “How does he warn her,” from which we could learn that there is warning even concerning ordinary speech; rather, there are two separate matters in the Mishna.

And these are the laws of the Mishna —

If he said to her, “

Do not speak

with so-and-so,”

and she spoke,

she violated his warning, or even when he warned her, “

Do not speak,” and

not only did she speak, but she even

secluded herself,

or in a case in which he warned her, “

Do not seclude yourself,”

that she should not be alone with so-and-so,

and

she did not seclude herself with so-and-so, but only

spoke with him —

In all these cases,

she is still permitted to her home, and she is permitted to eat teruma,

because the warning must be concerning seclusion, and not concerning speech.

And likewise, she must seclude herself with him. Therefore, if he did not warn her concerning seclusion, but only concerning speech, even if she secluded herself with him, she is permitted. For the wording of warning is, “Do not seclude yourself.”

And likewise, if he warned her concerning seclusion, and she only spoke with him, she is permitted, since she did not seclude herself with him.

And when does she indeed become forbidden? —

If he warned her, “Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so,” and

she entered with him into a place of seclusion and remained there for the time sufficient for defilement —

she is forbidden to her home, and she is forbidden to eat teruma:

We learned in the Mishna:

A sotah whom he warned, and she secluded herself, is forbidden to her husband by the law of a doubtful sotah, until she is examined with the bitter waters.

And if he dies

without sons, after she secluded herself and before she was examined, although ordinarily the law is that if he dies without sons she requires yibbum, nevertheless this woman, who became forbidden to her husband because of the doubt, has the law that she

performs chalitza

and does not undergo yibbum.

The Gemara asks:

Why? Let her also undergo yibbum!

Why should she not undergo yibbum?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Yosef said —

The verse says

in the section concerning divorce, “For he has found in her a matter of nakedness, and he writes for her a scroll of severance,

and she leaves his house, and she goes and becomes another man’s.”

And this means: a woman who committed adultery must be divorced by her husband, and she is permitted to marry another man.

From the fact that the Torah wrote, “and she goes and becomes another man’s,” and did not write, “and she goes and becomes a man’s,” we expound:

“Another man’s”

she is permitted to marry,

but not a brother-in-law,

for she is forbidden to the brother-in-law in a case in which her husband did not manage to divorce her after finding in her a matter of nakedness, but died—and this is the case in which the husband died before she was examined with the bitter waters.

And the verse is interpreted as follows:

“For he has found in her a matter of nakedness”—he shall divorce her with a bill of divorce.

“And she leaves his house”—and in whatever manner she leaves his house, whether through divorce or through death, she may marry only another man, and not the brother-in-law, since the brother-in-law is not called “another,” for it is by virtue of his deceased brother that she requires him.

The Gemara asks:

Abaye said to him —

If so, she should not require chalitza either!

For the Torah explicitly says that she is permitted to another man and exempt from yibbum; if so, why does she require chalitza?

The Gemara answers:

He said to him,

Rav Yosef —

If he exists,

if the

husband exists, does she not require

a bill of divorce?

For it is explicitly written in the Torah concerning one in whom a matter of nakedness was found, “and he writes for her a scroll of severance.”

Therefore,

now also,

also now,

she should require,

she should need

chalitza,

for the brother-in-law stands in the place of the husband, and just as the sotah is not released to the outside world without a bill of divorce from the husband, so she does not leave the authority of the brother-in-law except through chalitza.

And some say,

and some say that the give-and-take between Abaye and Rav Yosef was as follows —

Rav Yosef said —

The reason that a doubtful sotah does not undergo yibbum is that

the Merciful One said,

that the Torah commands concerning a woman in whom a matter of nakedness was found that her husband should divorce her,

“and she leaves his house, and she goes and becomes

another man’s,”

so that he should not destroy his house,

that he should not destroy his house by living with a wicked woman.

And you say,

how can you say,

“Let her also undergo yibbum,”

that the Torah should command that such a woman undergo yibbum! Therefore, the law is that she does not undergo yibbum .

“Let her undergo yibbum as well,”

The Gemara asks:

Abaye said to him — If so,

since we are concerned that she will destroy the house,

not even to another

should

we

permit her to

marry,

so that she should not destroy his house,

so that she should not destroy his house; and why is she permitted to marry another man?

in order

not to destroy his household,

so that she not ruin his home. Why, then, is she permitted to marry another man?