Sotah 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

The contradiction between the statement of the Rabbis and the statement of the Rabbis is likewise not difficult.

The contradiction that we raised concerning the opinion of the Rabbis is likewise not difficult. For although the Rabbis are concerned about thoughts of sin, and therefore maintain that the woman is not stoned naked,

nevertheless,

what is the reason here—

the reason that her garments are torn is that the Torah says

“And all the women shall be chastised,”

for the Torah desired that she be shamed, and that all the women learn to conduct themselves modestly.

There,

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

you have no greater chastisement than this,

as the women see how she is stoned.

And if you would say—

and if you would challenge that even with regard to one who is stoned, let us say that they should stone her naked, and

perform two measures upon her,

causing those who see her to take care not to sin, since in addition to seeing her killed, they would also see her in 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 dignified death!

Even when he is liable to receive the death penalty, carry it out in a dignified manner, so that he will not be humiliated. Therefore, they do not perform both acts—so that in addition to being stoned, she should also be naked—even though with regard to a sota they uncover her as far as her heart.

And we challenge this—

Shall we say that Rav Naḥman’s statement is subject to a dispute between tanna’im!?

Apparently, according to what has been explained, Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the woman is stoned naked, does not accept Rabbi Naḥman’s exposition, “Choose for him a dignified death.” If so, it follows that Rav Naḥman’s exposition depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

And we answer—

No.

Rav Naḥman’s ruling is not the subject of a dispute. Rather,

everyone accepts Rav Naḥman’s statement,

and agrees with his exposition.

And here,

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

this is the issue over which they disagree:

their dispute is as follows:

One Sage holds that her humiliation is preferable to her bodily pain,

while the other Sage holds that her bodily pain is preferable to her humiliation.

Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the woman prefers to die in humiliation but with greater speed and ease. Therefore, the exposition “Choose for him a dignified death” requires that she be stoned naked, so that she will die quickly. The Rabbis, however, maintain that the woman values her shame more, and therefore the dignified manner of death is achieved by not exposing her at the time of the stoning, even though she will die more slowly.

If she was dressed in white, he covers her in black

It was taught—

if there were

garments

that were black and becoming to her, they cover her with unattractive garments.

This is because the purpose of the Mishna is only to disgrace her.

If she was wearing all gold and so on—

they remove it from her in order to disfigure her.

We challenge this—

Is this not obvious? Now that they disfigure her, is it necessary to mention this as well!?

Once the Mishna has said that they loosen her hair and disfigure her, is it necessary to say further that they remove her jewelry? It is obvious and self-evident.

And we answer—

Lest you say

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

with these she suffers greater humiliation.

When she is dressed in a disheveled manner and exposed as far as her heart, with her hair loosened, wearing jewelry adds to her humiliation.

As people say,

as people jest about

a naked man who completes his outfit with shoes.

A naked person who walks wearing shoes suffers greater humiliation by wearing shoes while naked than by going without them.

It teaches us,

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

And afterward, he brings an Egyptian rope and so on.

Rabbi Abba asked Rav Huna: The Egyptian rope

that we learned in the Mishna is tied above her breasts,

what is its status with regard to the sota?

Must they bring specifically an Egyptian rope, or is any rope sufficient, without requiring specifically an Egyptian rope?

The root of the question is this: Is the reason for tying the rope

that her garments should not slip from her, and with a small cord,

a small but attractive and respectable rope,

it is also sufficient—

it likewise suffices—

or perhaps

the reason for requiring an Egyptian rope is

because the Master said,

as we learned later in the Gemara concerning measure for measure:

she girded herself for him with a cord,

the sota girded herself with a beautiful belt in order to seduce the man with whom she secluded herself—

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

as it is a disgraceful rope.

According to this reason, they must bring specifically an Egyptian rope, and an ordinary rope is insufficient.

He said to him—

you have learned this explicitly,

for the beraita explicitly states 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 slip from her.”

It follows that the reason for the tying is so that her garments should not fall. Therefore, although initially an Egyptian rope is brought in order to disgrace her, this is not the essential reason, and it is not indispensable.

And anyone who wishes to see her may come and see.

We challenge this—

this itself is difficult,

for the words of the Mishna contradict one another. At first,

you said: “Anyone who wishes to see her may come and see.”

Apparently,

this implies

it makes no difference whether men or women,

as both women and men are permitted to see.

And afterward it teaches,

the continuation of the Mishna states:

“All the women are permitted to see her,”

which implies that

women, yes; men, no.

Only women are permitted to come and see.

And we answer—

Abaye said: Interpret it,

explain the first clause of the Mishna, which states, “Anyone who wishes to see,” as referring to

people,

meaning women who wish to see.

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

The language of the Mishna indicates that men are also permitted, as it says “anyone” who wishes.

Accordingly, the first clause cannot be interpreted as referring specifically to women.

Rather, Rava said:

The first clause, which states

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

refers both to men and to women. The latter clause indeed refers only to women.

But the intent of the Mishna is—

“Women are obligated to see her,”

for with regard to women this is an obligation and not merely permission, as the Mishna cites a verse to this effect:

“As it is stated: ‘And all the women shall be chastised, and they shall not act according to your lewdness.’”

Mishna:

By the measure with which a person measures,

by that same measure

he is measured from Heaven.

And so too with regard to a sota: she is punished through measure for measure.

She adorned herself for a transgression

in order to sin, and corresponding to this,

the Omnipresent

disfigured her!

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

She exposed herself

her body

for a transgression,

and corresponding to this,

the Omnipresent

exposed her—

her body is exposed as far as her heart.

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

for initially the thigh derives pleasure from the physical 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,

does not escape,

it is not spared the punishment; rather, it too is struck when she dies.

Gemara:

Rav Yosef said: Although the measure has ceased,

the actual punishment of executions 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,

which punished and executed, nevertheless,

the four forms of execution by the court have not ceased.

And we challenge this—

but they have ceased!

The executions by the court have ceased, so how could Rabbi Ḥiyya say that they have not ceased? And we answer:

Rather, the judgment of the four forms of execution has not ceased.

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

One who was liable to stoning,

his punishment will be—

either he falls from a roof

and dies.

or a wild animal tramples him,

and he dies.

Both are similar to stoning, since in both cases the victim is thrown onto the ground and killed.

One who was liable to burning—

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

and he dies from the venom, which burns him from within.

One who was liable to execution

by the sword—

either he is delivered to the government, or bandits attack him,

and kill him with a sword.

One who was liable to 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—

he is measured from Heaven?—

As it is stated: “With the measure with which she sent it forth, You contend with her.”

That is to say, with that very measure—with the same measure as the transgression—“You contend with her,” meaning You punish her and send her to destruction. This is measure for measure.

I have derived only a se’a,

I know from this verse only that for a major transgression one is punished measure for measure [as a se’a is a large measure]. But

from where is it derived to include a tarkav,

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

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

[all these measures are progressively smaller], from where is it derived that in these cases too the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes measure for measure? That is, this conduct applies even to minor transgressions.

The verse states: “For every battle-shout 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, refers to a small se’a and therefore to a lesser measure].

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

and even if one was not punished initially, this is not because they waived his punishment; rather, everything is combined into one great punishment?

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

That is, several small amounts combine into a large accounting.

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

she was measured.

She stood at the entrance of her house in order to be seen by him

with whom she sinned,

therefore the koen stands her at the Gate of Nicanor, and displays

her

disgrace before all. She spread out for him,

the one with whom she sinned,

beautiful scarves on her head,

in order to seduce him;

therefore the koen removes the cap from her head

and exposes her hair [a cap is a scarf worn on the head],

and places it

the cap

beneath her feet.

She adorned her face for him.