Sotah 8b — the Talmud in English

With regard to the Rabbis, it is likewise not difficult.

The contradiction that we raised concerning the view of the Rabbis is likewise not difficult. For the Rabbis, although they are concerned about improper thoughts, and therefore hold that the woman is not stoned naked,

nevertheless,

here, what is the reason—

the reason that her garments are torn is because the Torah said

“And all the women shall be chastised,”

for the Torah desired that she be shamed, and that all the women learn to be modest.

There,

with regard to the woman who is stoned, there is no need to strip her, for even without this

you have no greater chastisement than this,

that the women see how she is stoned.

And if you would say—

and if you would object that nevertheless, also with regard to the woman who is stoned, let them stone her naked, and

let them do two things to her,

and cause those who see to take care to avoid sin, by their seeing not only that she is killed but also her humiliation.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

The verse says: “And you shall love your fellow as yourself”—

choose for him a proper death!

Even when he is liable for death, do it in a respectful manner, so that he not be disgraced. Therefore, they do not do both things: that, in addition to being stoned, she should also be naked, even though with regard to a sota they expose her up to her heart.

And we raise an objection—

shall we say that Rav Naḥman’s statement is subject to a dispute between tannaim!?

Apparently, according to what has been explained, Rabbi Yehuda, who says that they stone the woman naked, does not accept Rabbi Naḥman’s exposition, “choose for him a proper death.” And if so, it follows that Rabbi Naḥman’s exposition depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

And we answer—

No.

The ruling of Rav Naḥman is not subject to a dispute; rather,

everyone accepts Rav Naḥman’s statement,

they agree with his exposition.

And here,

where we find a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis as to whether she is stoned naked,

they disagree about this,

their dispute is as follows:

One master holds that her humiliation is preferable to her bodily pain, and the other holds that her bodily pain is preferable to her humiliation.

In Tractate Bava Batra, page 9a, with regard to a poor person who comes to request charity, Rabbi Yehuda and Rav Huna disagreed as to whether, when he requests food, he must be examined to determine whether he truly needs it, or when he requests clothing. Rav Huna holds that specifically when he requests food, he is examined to determine whether he is truly needy, while Rabbi Yehuda holds the opposite: specifically when he requests clothing, he must be examined. And according to one explanation there in the Gemara, the root of the dispute is whether the humiliation of one who goes naked is greater than the pain of hunger, or whether the pain of hunger is greater than the humiliation of being naked. And Maimonides ruled there that one examines with regard to clothing but does not examine with regard to food, in accordance with Rav Yehuda. If so, it is explained that according to Maimonides, the halakha is ruled that humiliation is less difficult for a person than the pain of hunger. Yet in chapter 15 of Sanhedrin, halakha 1, he ruled that the woman is not stoned naked, and it is explained that he ruled that it is preferable for the woman to suffer death while clothed than the humiliation of being stoned while naked. Apparently, his words contradict one another, for with regard to stoning it is explained that humiliation is more severe than pain, whereas in the laws of charity he ruled that pain is more severe than humiliation; and this requires examination. For even a court of three suffices for this, whereas in capital cases a court of three does not suffice, but specifically one of twenty-three is required, and a sota is likewise a capital case. And in Tosafot below, 17b, s.v. “What is the reason,” it is explained that the entire procedure of giving the sota to drink, both its beginning and its end, is invalid at night, as are capital cases. It follows from here that even bringing her to the court in her city must be conducted as a capital case. It is possible to reject this, for the words of Tosafot refer only to the procedure of giving her to drink itself, whereas bringing her to the court in her city, which precedes the procedure of giving her to drink, is different; and this requires examination.

Rabbi Yehuda holds that the woman prefers to die in humiliation but with greater speed and ease. Therefore, the exposition “choose for him a proper death” requires stoning her naked, so that she will die quickly.

And the Rabbis hold that the woman values her shame more, and therefore the choice of a proper death is achieved by her not being exposed at the time of stoning, even though she will die more slowly.

If she was clothed in white, he clothes her in black.

It was taught:—

If there were

garments

that are black and becoming to her, they clothe her in unbecoming garments.

Since the reason for the Mishna is only in order to disgrace her.

If all of this was gold upon her, etc.—

They remove it from her in order to disfigure her.

We raise an objection—

Is this obvious? Now, they disfigure her with disfigurement; are these necessary to state!?

After the Mishna said that they dishevel her hair and disfigure her, is it necessary to say further that they remove the jewelry from her? It is an obvious and self-evident matter.

And we answer—

Lest you say

that there was reason to say that we should not remove the jewelry, because

with these she has greater humiliation,

for when she is dressed in a disordered manner and naked up to her heart, with her hair disheveled, wearing jewelry adds humiliation.

As people say,

as people jest about

a naked messenger who finishes with shoes.

A naked person who walks with shoes, for there is an additional humiliation in his walking with footwear while naked than without it.

It teaches us this:

the Mishna comes to emphasize that they remove her jewelry, and this is a greater humiliation.

And afterward he brings an Egyptian rope, etc.

Rabbi Abba asked Rav Huna: The Egyptian rope

that we learned in the Mishna, which he ties above her breasts,

, what is its status with regard to the sota?

Must they bring specifically an Egyptian rope, or is any rope sufficient, and an Egyptian rope specifically is not required?

And the root of the uncertainty is this: Is the reason for tying the rope

because her garments should not fall off her, and with a small bell-rope

a small rope, but attractive and respectable,

is also sufficient,

also enough?

Or perhaps

the reason for the Egyptian rope is

because the master said,

as we will learn later in the Gemara with regard to measure for measure—

she girded herself for him with a bell-rope;

the sota girded herself with a beautiful belt in order to entice the one with whom she secluded herself—

therefore the priest brings her an Egyptian rope and ties it for her above her breasts,

for it is a disgraceful rope.

And according to this reason, they must bring specifically an Egyptian rope, and an ordinary rope is not sufficient.

He said to him—

You have learned it:

we explicitly learned in a beraita the reason for tying the rope.

And this is what the beraita says:

“And afterward he brings an Egyptian rope and ties it above her breasts, so that her garments should not fall off her.”

It follows that the reason for the tying is so that her garments should not fall. If so, although ideally he brings an Egyptian rope in order to disgrace her, this is not the principal reason, and it is not indispensable.

And anyone who wishes to see comes and sees.

We raise an objection—

This itself is difficult,

the words of the Mishna are difficult and contradict themselves. For at first

you said: “Anyone who wishes to see her sees.”

Apparently,

it follows from this that

it makes no difference whether men or women,

for both women and men are permitted to see.

And afterward it teaches,

later in the Mishna it is stated:

“All the women are permitted to see her,”

and it follows from this that

women, yes; men, no.

Only women are permitted to come and see.

And we answer—

Abaye said: Explain it,

explain the words of the first clause of the Mishna, in which it is written, “Anyone who wishes,”

as referring to women,

for the intention of the Mishna is women who wish to see.

Rava said to him: But it teaches, “Anyone who wishes to see comes and sees.”

But the language of the Mishna proves that men are also permitted, and this is the meaning of the word “anyone” who wishes.

If so, it is not possible to explain the first clause as referring specifically to women.

Rather, Rava said:

The first clause, in which it is written

“Anyone who wishes to see comes and sees; it makes no difference whether men or women,”

means both men and women. And the latter clause indeed refers only to women.

But the intention of the Mishna is

“and women are obligated to see her,”

for with regard to women this is an obligation and not merely permission, as the Mishna brings a verse concerning this,

as it is stated: “And all the women shall be chastised, and they shall not do according to your lewdness.”

Mishna:

By the measure with which a person measures,

by that same measure

they measure for him from Heaven.

And so too with regard to a sota, she is punished by way of measure for measure.

She adorned herself for transgression

in order to sin, and corresponding to this,

the Omnipresent

disfigures her!

The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded in the Torah to dishevel her hair, in order to disfigure her.

She exposed herself—

her body—

for transgression,

and corresponding to this,

the Omnipresent

exposes her—

they expose her body up to her heart.

The thigh began the transgression first, and afterward the belly—

for at first the thigh benefited from bodily closeness;

therefore

also when she is punished,

the thigh is struck first, and afterward the belly.

And the rest of the entire body,

which also benefited from the transgression—

did not escape,

it was not saved from the punishment; rather, it too is struck, when she dies.

Gemara:

Rav Yosef said: Although the measure has ceased,

the punishment itself of deaths imposed by the court has ceased; nevertheless,

measure

the punishment from Heaven in a manner resembling the punishment of the court

has not ceased.

For Rav Yosef said, and Rabbi Ḥiyya likewise taught: From the day the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin was abolished,

the court that punished and put people to death; nevertheless,

the four deaths imposed by the court have not ceased.

And we raise an objection—

But they have ceased,

the deaths imposed by the court; so how did Rabbi Ḥiyya say that they had not ceased? And we answer:

Rather, the judgment of the four deaths has not ceased.

For the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes them with that same type of punishment.

One who was liable for stoning,

his punishment will be—

Either he falls from the roof

and dies.

Or a wild animal tramples him, and he dies.

and he dies.

For both resemble stoning, since both cause the one being killed to fall to the ground and kill him.

One who was liable for burning—

Either he falls into a conflagration, or a snake bites him,

and through the venom that burns him from within, he dies.

One who was liable for killing

by the sword—

Either he is handed over to the government, or bandits come upon him,

and kill him with a sword.

One who was liable for strangulation—

Either he dies in a river,

where he drowns and dies from lack of air.

Or he dies from seronchi,

a throat illness from which one is strangled.

It was taught: Rabbi

Meir

would say: From where is it derived that by the measure with which a person measures—

they measure for him from Heaven?—

As it is stated: “With exact measure, when You send it forth, You contend with it.”

That is to say, with that very measure—with that measure of the transgression—then You contend with it: You punish it and send it to destruction. This is measure for measure.

I have only [learned] a se’a,

from this verse I know only that for a great transgression they punish measure for measure [for a se’a is a large measure]. But

from where is it derived to include a tarkav,

that is, a small transgression [a tarkav is half a se’a],

and half a tarkav, a kav, and half a kav, a quarter and half a quarter, a toman and an ukh la

[all these measures are smaller than one another]? From where is it derived that also in these the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes measure for measure—that is, that this conduct exists even with regard to minor transgressions?

The verse states: “For every combat of the warrior is with tumult.”

That is to say, even a sa’on—a minor transgression—“is with tumult”: one is punished even for it [sa’on, like ishon, means a small se’a and a lesser measure].

And from where is it derived that every single peruta joins into a large accounting,

and even if he was not punished at first, this is not because they forgave him, but because everything is joined together for one great punishment?

The verse states: “One by one, to find the account.”

That is, small individual acts join together into a large accounting.

And likewise we find with regard to a sota, that by the measure with which she measured—

they measured for her.

She stood at the entrance of her house in order to show herself to him

with whom she sinned;

therefore the priest stands her at the Nicanor Gate, and displays

her

disgrace to all. She spread out for him,

the one with whom she sinned,

beautiful scarves upon her head,

in order to entice him;

therefore the priest takes the cap from upon her head

and exposes her hair [a cap is a head covering],

and places it

the cap

beneath her feet.

She adorned her face for him.