Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah

Folio 3a

It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: If a person commits a transgression in secret, the Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims it against him in public; as it is said: And the spirit of jealousy came upon him;³  and the verb 'abar [came upon] means nothing but 'proclaiming', as it is said: And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp.⁴  Resh Lakish said: A person does not commit a transgression unless a spirit of folly [shetuth] enters into him; as it is said: If any man's wife go aside.⁵  [The word is] written [so that it can be read] sishteh.⁶

The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why does the Torah believe one witness in the case of a suspected woman? Because there was some basis for the charge, seeing that he had warned her and she had secluded herself with the man, and one witness testifies that she had 'defiled' [misconducted] herself. R. Papa said to Abaye, But the warning is mentioned in the text after the seclusion and misconduct?⁷  — He replied to him, We'abar [means] there had already come upon him.⁸  But can that interpretation be also applied to, And every armed man of you will pass over?⁹  — In that passage, since it is written: And the land will be subdued before the Lord, then afterward ye shall return,¹⁰  it follows that the reference is to the future; but here, if it should enter your mind that we follow the order of the text [and we'abar signifies 'will come'], of what use is a warning after misconduct and seclusion had taken place?

The School of R. Ishmael taught: A man does not warn his wife unless a spirit¹¹  enters into him; as it is said: 'And the spirit of jealousy came upon him and he be jealous of his wife'. What is the meaning [of the word] 'spirit'? — The Rabbis declare, It is a spirit of impurity;¹²  but R. Ashi declares, It is a spirit of purity.¹³  Reasonable is the view of him who declares that it is a spirit of purity, because it was taught: and he be jealous of his wife — this is voluntary¹⁴  in the opinion of R. Ishmael; but R. Akiba says: It is obligatory. It is well if you say that it means a spirit of purity, then everything is right; but if you say that it means a spirit of impurity, is it voluntary or obligatory for a man to introduce a spirit of impurity into himself!

[To turn to] the main text: And he be jealous of his wife — this is voluntary in the opinion of R. Ishmael; but R. Akiba says: It is obligatory. For her he may defile himself¹⁵  — this is voluntary in the opinion of R. Ishmael; but R. Akiba says: It is obligatory. Of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever¹⁶  — this is voluntary in the opinion of R. Ishmael; but R. Akiba says: It is obligatory. R. Papa said to Abaye — others declare it was R. Mesharsheya who said to Raba: Is this to say that R. Ishmael and R. Akiba differ in this way throughout the Torah, one maintaining that [a precept] is voluntary and the other that it is obligatory? — He replied, They only differ here over texts: And he be jealous of his wife — it is voluntary in the opinion of R. Ishmael; but R. Akiba says: It is obligatory. What is the reason of R. Ishmael? — He holds the same view as that of the following teacher. It has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: Since the Torah declares, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart,¹⁷  it is possible to think that this applies also in such a circumstance;¹⁸  therefore there is a text to say: And the spirit of jealousy came upon him and he be jealous of his wife.¹⁹  And [what is the reason of] R. Akiba? — The word 'jealous' occurs a second time in the verse.²⁰  And [how does] R. Ishmael [explain the repetition of jealous]? — Since it was necessary to write, And she be defiled and afterwards and she be not defiled, the Torah wrote and he be jealous of his wife.²¹  This is in agreement with the teaching of the School of R. Ishmael; for it was taught in the School of R. Ishmael; Wherever a Scriptural passage is repeated, it is only repeated because of some new point contained therein. [Similarly] 'For her he may defile himself — this is voluntary in the opinion of R. Ishmael; but R. Akiba says: It is obligatory. What is the reason of R. Ishmael? — Since it is written: Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron and say unto them, There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people,²²  it was likewise necessary to write, For her he may defile himself. And [from where does] R. Akiba [learn that a priest may so defile himself]? — He derives it from, Except for his kin;²³  what then is the purpose of, For her he should defile himself? [It is to indicate that] it is obligatory. And [how does] R. Ishmael [explain the addition of these words]? — 'For her' he may defile himself but not for any of her limbs.²⁴

1. Because they explain Kinnui in the sense of hatred, and it is not allowed to create hatred.
2. Joel II, 18. (E.V. 'Then the Lord was jealous for his land'.)
3. Num. V, 14.
4. Ex. XXXVI, 6.
5. Num. V, 12. The word for 'go aside' is sisteh.
6. I.e., act in folly.
7. The matter of seclusion and misconduct is mentioned in Num. V, 12f, and the warning from jealousy in verse 14.
8. [H] is treated as pluperfect.]
9. Num. XXXII, 21 where the same word, we'abar, occurs.
10. Ibid. 22.
11. Introduced into him by God to warn him of what had occurred.
12. An instigation by Satan.
13. Which revolts against immorality.
14. The husband can ignore the matter if he so wishes.
15. Lev. XXI, 3. Does it mean he may or he should; and similarly with the other instances discussed.
16. Ibid. XXV, 46.
17. Ibid. XIX, 17.
18. That a husband may overlook his wife's seclusion with another man and not warn her.
19. He interprets the words as meaning: if the spirit of jealousy came upon him and he wishes to warn his wife.
20. He understands the second clause as he should be jealous and warn her.
21. The words are repeated because of the two contingencies mentioned and no such deduction is to be drawn as R. Akiba suggests.
22. Lev. XXI, 1.
23. Ibid. 2.
24. An amputated limb of a body defiles in the same way as the whole body. V. Nazir 43b.

R. Hisda said: Immorality in a house is like a worm in the sesame plant. Further said R. Hisda: Anger in a house is like a worm in the sesame plant. Both these statements refer to a woman, but in the case of a man there is no objection.¹⁰  Further said R. Hisda, At first, before Israel sinned [against morality], the Shechinah abode with each individual; as it is said: For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp.¹¹  When they sinned, the Shechinah departed from them; as it is said: That he see no unclean thing in thee and turn away from thee.¹²

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whoever performs one precept in this world, it precedes him for the world to come; as it is said: And thy righteousness shall go before thee;¹³  and whoever commits one transgression in this world, it clings to him and precedes him for the Day of Judgment, as it is said: The paths of their way are turned aside; they go up into the waste and perish.¹⁴  R. Eleazar says: It attaches itself to him like a dog; as it is said: He hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her¹⁵  — to lie by her in this world, or to be with her in the world to come.

We learn elsewhere: It is a proper conclusion that if the first evidence [that the woman had secluded herself with the man], which does not prohibit her [to her husband] for all time,¹⁶  is not established by fewer than two witnesses, is it not right that the final evidence [that she had misconducted herself] which prohibits her to him for all time, should not be established by fewer than two witnesses! Therefore there is a text to state, 'And there be no witness against her', [implying that], whatever [evidence] there may be against her [is believed, even if it be only one witness]. And with respect to the first evidence [about her seclusion with the man, that one witness suffices may be argued by] a fortiori reasoning as follows: If the final evidence [regarding misconduct], which prohibits her to her husband for all time, is established by one witness, is it not proper that the first evidence, which does not prohibit her to him for all time, should be established by one witness! Therefore there is a text to state, Because he hath found some unseemly matter in her,¹⁷  and elsewhere it states: At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established;¹⁸  as the 'matter' mentioned in this latter case must be confirmed by the testimony of two witnesses, so also here [in the case of the suspected woman] the 'matter' must be confirmed by the testimony of two witnesses.¹⁹  Is this deduction to be drawn from the words, 'Because he hath found some unseemly matter in her'? It ought to be derived from 'against her' — i.e., 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of warning, 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of seclusion!²⁰  — He also says similarly²¹  [and his teaching is to be cited as follows]: Therefore there is a text to state 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of warning, 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of seclusion; and whence is it that merely in a case of misconduct, where there had been no warning or seclusion one witness is not believed? It is stated here, 'Because he hath found some unseemly matter in her', and elsewhere it states: 'At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established'; as in the 'matter' mentioned in the latter case two witnesses are required, so also here [where there has been misconduct without warning and seclusion] two witnesses are required. Our Rabbis have taught: Which is the 'first testimony'? Evidence of seclusion, and the 'final testimony' is evidence of 'defilement' [misconduct].

1. That it is obligatory.
2. Lev. XXV, 46.
3. Deut. XX, 16.
4. The woman belonged to the seven nations which had to be exterminated.
5. Lev. XXV, 45.
6. Ibid. I.e., the original natives of Canaan.
7. [Whose father belongs to another land.]
8. [I.e., the original natives of Canaan]. It is to be noted that descent is traced through the father, whereas in the case of a Jew descent is traced through the mother.
9. Lev. XXV, 46.
10. This opinion is contradicted by popular proverbs quoted in the Talmud, viz., 'He among the full-grown pumpkins and his wife among the young ones' (infra, p. 45), and 'He who gives vent to his anger destroys his house' (Sanh. 102b).
11. Deut. XXIII, 15.
12. Ibid.
13. Isa. LVIII, 8.
14. Job VI, 18.
15. Gen. XXXIX, 10.
16. Because the water may prove her innocent.
17. Deut. XXIV, 1.
18. Ibid. XIX, 15.
19. Infra 31a-b.
20. V. supra p. 5.
21. The teacher in the Mishnah accepts the deduction from 'against her' and uses the argument from the occurrence of the word 'matter' for another purpose. He had been quoted wrongly and the Gemara proceeds with the correct form of the teaching.