Sotah 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

“And for a sefaḥet.”

And se’et means elevation. “

Se’et is an expression of loftiness.

As it is stated—

“And upon

all

the high mountains, and upon

all

the lofty hills.”

And “lofty” is an expression of elevation.

And concerning this it is stated that the end of exaltation is to lead to becoming a sefaḥet,

and sefaḥet means an appendage,

meaning that the sefaḥet itself is not significant, but is secondary to others.

As it is stated—

Regarding the prophecy about the House of Eli, in which the Almighty cursed him that He would establish kohanim who were not descendants of Eli, and they would bring them down from their greatness until they would have to ask the kohanim from the other family,

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

That they should give him bread.

Accordingly, the verse is interpreted as follows:

“And for elevation”—one who elevates himself will eventually come to “and for a sefaḥet,” that is, he will become subordinate to others.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said—

Come and see how great are the humble before the Almighty! When the Temple is standing, if a person offers an olah, the reward of an olah is in his hand; if he offers a meal-offering, the reward of a meal-offering is in his hand. But as for one whose mind is humble, Scripture regards him as though he had offered all the offerings.

As it is stated—

“The sacrifices of God—

a broken spirit.”

The expression “My sacrifices” indicates all the sacrifices; from here we learn that one whose spirit is broken is considered as though he had offered all the sacrifices.

Moreover,

he is considered as though he had offered all the sacrifices—

but

he has an additional virtue:

his prayer is not rejected.

As it is stated—

“A broken and contrite heart,”

these are the humble,

“O God, You will not despise.”

For the Almighty will hear their prayer:

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever evaluates

who evaluates

his ways,

his deeds,

in this world,

and weighs the loss incurred by a mitzva against its reward,

merits seeing 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 “vesham”

as an expression of setting, meaning that he sets his ways according to the ways of God,

but rather, “vesham derekh,”

since he evaluates his deeds and considers his ways, he merits seeing 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 witnesses, saying 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:

The Mishna contradicts itself.

You said,

in the first clause of the Mishna,

“He said to her in the presence of two witnesses: Do not speak with this particular man,”

which indicates that the Mishna is explaining that kinui also applies when he tells her not to speak with a particular man.

Apparently, speech—

is seclusion!

It must be that if he said to her, “Do not speak with him,” then even if she spoke with him in the marketplace, this is considered seclusion and she becomes forbidden. For if she does not become forbidden, why does he warn her? She will not become forbidden on account of this.

And then it teaches,

whereas afterward, in the latter clause of the Mishna, it says:

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

to her husband,

and she is permitted to eat teruma.

Apparently,

it is evident that

speech—

is nothing!

Rather, she becomes forbidden only if she secluded herself with him; therefore, even if she spoke with him, she is still permitted to her husband.

If so, how is it possible to warn her not to speak with so-and-so when she does not become forbidden to him on account of that 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 kinui applies even to ordinary speech. Rather, the Mishna contains two separate matters.

These are the laws presented by the Mishna:

If he said to her, “

Do not speak

with so-and-so,”

and she spoke,

she violated his warning; or even if he warned her, “

Do not speak,”

and not only did she speak, but she even

secluded herself,

or if 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 concern seclusion, and not speech.

Likewise, she must seclude herself with him. Therefore, if he did not warn her about seclusion, but only about speech, then even if she secluded herself with him, she remains permitted. For the wording of kinui is, “Do not seclude yourself

.”

Similarly, if he warned her about seclusion but she only spoke with him, she remains permitted, since she did not seclude herself with him. And when does she become forbidden?

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

she entered a secluded house with him and remained there long enough for impurity to occur—

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

We learned in the Mishna:

A sotah whom he warned and who then secluded herself is forbidden to her husband as a sotah of uncertain status, until she is examined with the bitter waters.

And if he dies

without sons after she secluded herself but before she was examined, although ordinarily the law is that if a man dies without sons, his wife is subject to yibbum, in this case, since she became forbidden to her husband because of the uncertainty, the law is that she

performs ḥalitza

and does not undergo yibbum.

The Gemara asks:

Why? Let her undergo yibbum as well!

Why should she not undergo yibbum?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Yosef said—

The verse states

in the passage concerning divorce: “For he has found in her an immoral matter, and he writes her a bill of divorce,

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

That is, 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 wife,” rather than “and she goes and becomes a man’s wife,” we expound:

“Another man”

she is permitted to marry,

but not the yavam,

for she is forbidden to the yavam when her husband did not have time to divorce her after finding an immoral matter in her, but died; this is the case in which the husband died before she was examined with the bitter waters.

The verse is therefore interpreted as follows:

“For he has found in her an immoral matter”—he must divorce her with a bill of divorce.

“And she leaves his house”—in every manner in which she leaves his house, whether through divorce or through death, she may marry only another man, but not the yavam, since the yavam is not called “another”; after all, she becomes subject to him by virtue of his deceased brother.

The Gemara asks:

Abaye said to him—

If so, she should not require ḥalitza either!

The Torah explicitly states that she is permitted to marry another man and is exempt from yibbum. If so, why does she require ḥalitza?

The Gemara answers:

He said to him,

Rav Yosef—

If he exists,

that is, if the husband is alive,

does she not require,

does she not need,

a bill of divorce?

For the Torah explicitly writes concerning a woman in whom an immoral matter was found, “and he writes her a bill of divorce.”

Therefore,

now too,

also at present,

she should require,

she must undergo,

ḥalitza,

since the yavam stands in the husband’s place. Just as the sotah is not released to the wider world without a bill of divorce from her husband, so she leaves the yavam’s authority only through ḥalitza.

Some say

that this was the exchange between Abaye and Rav Yosef:

Rav Yosef said—

The reason that a sotah of uncertain status does not undergo yibbum is that

the Merciful One said

that the Torah commands that a woman in whom an immoral matter was found be divorced by her husband:

“And she leaves his house, and goes and becomes another man’s

wife,”

in order

not to destroy his household,

so that he not ruin his home by living with a wicked woman.

And you say,

and how can you say,

“Let her undergo yibbum as well,”

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

The Gemara asks:

Abaye said to him—

If so,

since we are concerned that she will destroy the household,

she should not be permitted to another man either,

so

that

we should not permit her

to marry,

in order

not to destroy his household,

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