During the process of the Sotah, there are a number of things that are done to encourage her to confess that she is guilty, such as walking back and forth to tire her out. She is then brought to the Nikanor Gate, at the entrance to the azara, to drink the bitter water, which is also similar to a leper and a woman who gave birth, and others like her who are bringing sacrifices and stand there while their sacrifices are being brought. We do not have two Sotahs drinking at the same time so that one won’t influence the other to not confess. It is also derived from a verse. If there is no concern one will influence the other, can they both be done at the same time and if so, isn’t there an issue of not performing mitzvot in bundles? There is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about whether her clothes are mostly removed or not. However, their opinions appear to be reversed in a woman who is taken out to get stoned. This is resolved as the issues are different in each of these cases. As part of the process, she wears ugly clothing and removes her jewelry. An Egyptian rope is used to keep what is left of her clothes covering her private parts. Does it specifically need to be an Egyptian rope or can it be any type of belt? Men are allowed to watch the proceedings and women are encouraged so that they learn not to behave in this manner. The Sotah situation teaches us that punishment is meted out measure for measure. When the Temple is no longer standing, the Sages explain that God ensures that people get punished in the way the courts would have punished them.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Sotah 8
הָתָם קָיְימָא! דְּמַסְּקִינַן לַהּ וּמַחֲתִינַן לַהּ כְּדֵי לְיַיגְּעָהּ. דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בֵּית דִּין מַסִּיעִין אֶת הָעֵדִים מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּטָּרֵף דַּעְתָּן עֲלֵיהֶן וְיַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן.
She is already standing there in the Temple courtyard, as that is where the Sanhedrin sits. The Gemara answers: This teaches that they would bring her up and would bring her down repeatedly in order to fatigue her, with the hope that her worn-down mental state will lead to her confession. This was also done with witnesses testifying in cases of capital law, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:1): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: In cases of capital law, the court brings the witnesses from one place to another place in order to confuse them so that they will retract their testimony if they are lying.
שֶׁשָּׁם מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַסּוֹטוֹת וְכוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא סוֹטוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי ה׳״, מְצוֹרָעִין נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן הַמְטַהֵר וְגוֹ׳״, אֶלָּא יוֹלֶדֶת מַאי טַעְמָא?
§ The mishna teaches: Because there, at the Eastern Gate, they give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and there the lepers and women who have given birth are purified. The Gemara asks: Granted, the sota women are given the bitter water to drink there, as it is written: “And the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord” (Numbers 5:18), and the Eastern Gate is directly opposite the Sanctuary, which is the area referred to as “before the Lord.” Similarly, with regard to lepers as well, this is as it is written: “And the priest that cleans him shall set the man that is to be cleansed, and those things, before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:11). But what is the reason that a woman who has given birth must also be purified there?
אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתְיָין וְקָיְימָין אַקּוּרְבָּנַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קָרֵב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו. אִי הָכִי — זָבִין וְזָבוֹת נָמֵי! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְתַנָּא חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ נְקַט.
The Gemara suggests: If we say it is because of the requirement for the women who have given birth to come and stand over their offerings, as it is taught in a baraita: The offering of a person is brought only if he stands over it while it is being sacrificed, and that is why they stand at this gate, which is as close to the sacrifice as they are permitted to be while they are ritually impure. If that is so, then the same halakha should apply to men who experience a gonorrhea-like discharge [zavim] and women who experience a discharge of uterine blood after their menstrual period [zavot] as well. They are also ritually impure while their offerings are sacrificed. Why would the mishna then specify women who have given birth? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the tanna cited one of them, and the same halakha applies to all others in that category.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מַשְׁקִין שְׁתֵּי סוֹטוֹת כְּאַחַת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לִבָּהּ גַּס בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֹתָהּ״ — לְבַדָּהּ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:6): Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, in order that the heart of each one not be emboldened by the other, as there is a concern that when one sees that the other woman is not confessing, she will maintain her innocence even if she is guilty. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because the verse states: “And the priest shall bring her [ota] near and stand her before the Lord” (Numbers 5:16). Rabbi Yehuda explains his inference: The word “ota” indicates her alone, and therefore there is a Torah edict not to have two women drink the bitter water simultaneously.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, הָכְתִיב ״אֹתָהּ״? תַּנָּא קַמָּא — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּדָרֵישׁ טַעַם דִּקְרָא, וּמָה טַעַם קָאָמַר: מָה טַעַם ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְבַדָּהּ — כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לִבָּהּ גַּס בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And as for the first tanna, isn’t it written “ota”? The Gemara answers: The first tanna is actually Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the reasons of halakhot written in verses, and he is saying: What is the reason? What is the reason the Torah requires her alone, that each sota drink individually? In order that the heart of each woman not be emboldened by the other.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ רוֹתֶתֶת.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them? Why should it matter if this halakha is due to a logical reasoning or due to a Torah edict? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where one of the women is trembling from fear. Since she has obviously not been emboldened by the presence of the other, Rabbi Shimon would allow her to be given to drink at the same time as the other.
וְרוֹתֶתֶת מִי מַשְׁקִין? וְהָא אֵין עוֹשִׂין מִצְוֹת חֲבִילוֹת חֲבִילוֹת.
The Gemara asks: And if she is trembling, can the court give her to drink at the same time as the other? But there is a general principle that one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, as one who does so appears as if the mitzvot are a burden upon him, and he is trying to finish with them as soon as possible.
דִּתְנַן: אֵין מַשְׁקִין שְׁתֵּי סוֹטוֹת כְּאַחַת, וְאֵין מְטַהֲרִין שְׁנֵי מְצוֹרָעִין כְּאַחַת, וְאֵין רוֹצְעִין שְׁנֵי עֲבָדִים כְּאַחַת, וְאֵין עוֹרְפִין שְׁתֵּי עֲגָלוֹת כְּאַחַת, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מִצְוֹת חֲבִילוֹת חֲבִילוֹת.
As we learned in a baraita: Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, and two lepers are not purified simultaneously, and two slaves are not pierced simultaneously, and two heifers do not have their necks broken simultaneously, because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles. Accordingly, even Rabbi Shimon would agree that under no circumstances can a priest give two sota women to drink simultaneously. How, then, can the Gemara say that a trembling woman can be given to drink together with another sota?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב כָּהֲנָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד, כָּאן בִּשְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים.
Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Kahana who said: This is not difficult. Here, the second baraita, which says that it is prohibited to give two sota women to drink simultaneously because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, is speaking with regard to one priest. There, Rabbi Shimon in the first baraita, who permits a trembling sota to be given to drink together with another sota, is speaking with regard to two priests. Since no individual priest is giving two women to drink simultaneously, mitzvot are not being performed in bundles.
וְהַכֹּהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּפָרַע אֶת רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא רֹאשָׁהּ. גּוּפָהּ מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הָאִשָּׁה״. אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּפָרַע אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן סוֹתֵר אֶת שְׂעָרָהּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them until he reveals her heart, and he unbraids her hair. The Gemara cites the source for these acts. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord and uncover the woman’s head” (Numbers 5:18). From this verse I have derived only that he uncovers her head; from where do I derive that he uncovers her body? The verse states: “The woman,” rather than just stating: And uncovers her head. This indicates that the woman’s body should be uncovered as well. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states specifically: “And uncover her head”? Once it has stated that he uncovers the woman, it is already apparent that she, including her hair, is uncovered. It teaches that the priest not only uncovers her hair but also unbraids her hair.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה לִבָּהּ וְכוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חָיֵישׁ לְהִרְהוּרָא, וְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישִׁי?
The mishna continues by citing that Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that it is prohibited to uncover an attractive woman, is concerned about onlookers having sexual thoughts, and the Rabbis, who permit it, are not concerned about this?
וְהָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָאִישׁ, מְכַסִּין אוֹתוֹ פֶּרֶק אֶחָד מִלְּפָנָיו, וְהָאִשָּׁה, שְׁנֵי פְּרָקִים — אֶחָד מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וְאֶחָד מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ עֶרְוָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרוֹם, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עֲרוּמָּה!
But we have heard the opposite from them, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:6): Although a man condemned to stoning is stoned unclothed, the court covers him with one small piece of material in front of him, to obscure his genitals, and they cover a woman with two small pieces of material, one in front of her and one behind her, because all of her loins are nakedness, as her genitals are visible both from the front and from the back. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: A man is stoned while naked, but a woman is not stoned while naked, but fully clothed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned that the onlookers seeing the woman unclothed will lead to sexual thoughts, but the Rabbis are concerned about this.
אָמַר רַבָּה: הָכָא טַעְמָא מַאי — שֶׁמָּא תֵּצֵא מִבֵּית דִּין זַכָּאִית, וְיִתְגָּרוּ בָּהּ פִּרְחֵי כְהוּנָּה. הָתָם — הָא מִסְתַּלְּקָא. וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָתֵי לְאִיגָּרוֹיֵי בְּאַחְרָנְיָיתָא — הָאָמַר רָבָא: גְּמִירִי דְּאֵין יֵצֶר הָרָע שׁוֹלֵט אֶלָּא בְּמַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת.
Rabba said: What is the reason here, with regard to a sota, that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned? Perhaps the sota will leave the court having been proven innocent, and the young priests in the Temple who saw her partially naked will become provoked by the sight of her. There, in the case of a woman who is stoned, she departs from this world by being stoned and there is no concern for sexual thoughts. The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the fact that she is killed is irrelevant to their sexual thoughts, as the onlookers will be provoked with regard to other women, this is not a concern. As didn’t Rava say: It is learned as a tradition that the evil inclination controls only that which a person’s eyes see.
אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קַשְׁיָא, דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְשַׁנִּין.
Rava said: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis, as with regard to a sota, they are not concerned about sexual thoughts, but with regard to a woman who is stoned they are. Rather, Rava said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered above.
דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא. הָכָא טַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם ״וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים״. הָתָם — אֵין לְךָ יִיסּוּר גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.
The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is not difficult as well. Here, with regard to a sota, what is the reason that her hair and body are uncovered? Because of what is stated in the verse, that other women should be warned: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48). There, with regard to stoning, you have no greater chastening than seeing this stoning itself.
וְכִי תֵּימָא לַעֲבֵיד בַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי — אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״ — בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.
And if you would say that two forms of chastening, both stoning and humiliation, should be done with her, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse states: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process.
לֵימָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: בִּזְיוֹנֵיהּ עֲדִיף לֵיהּ טְפֵי מִצַּעְרָא דְגוּפֵיהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: צַעְרָא דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף לֵיהּ טְפֵי מִבִּזְיוֹנֵיהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Naḥman is a dispute between tanna’im, and according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no mitzva to select a compassionate death. The Gemara refutes this: No, it may be that everyone agrees with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Minimizing one’s degradation is preferable to him than minimizing his physical pain. Therefore, the Rabbis view the more compassionate death as one without degradation, even if wearing clothes will increase the pain of the one being executed, as the clothes will absorb the blow and prolong death. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that minimizing physical pain is preferable to a person than minimizing his degradation, and therefore the one being executed prefers to be stoned unclothed, without any chance of the clothing prolonging the death, although this adds to the degradation.
הָיְתָה מְכוּסָּה לְבָנִים וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא, אִם הָיוּ שְׁחוֹרִים נָאִים לָהּ — מְכַסִּין אוֹתָהּ בְּגָדִים מְכוֹעָרִים.
§ The mishna teaches: If she was dressed in white garments, he would cover her with black garments. A Sage taught: If black garments are becoming to her, then she is covered in unsightly garments.
הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ כְּלֵי זָהָב וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא, הַשְׁתָּא נַוּוֹלֵי מְנַוֵּויל לַהּ, הָנֵי מִיבַּעְיָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בְּהָנֵי אִית לַהּ בִּזָּיוֹן טְפֵי, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שָׁלִיחַ עַרְטִיל וְסָיֵים מְסָאנֵי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The mishna teaches: If she was wearing gold adornments or other jewelry, they are removed from her. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Now that the priest renders her unattractive by uncovering her and dressing her in unsightly garments, is it necessary to teach that they remove these adornments from her? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that with these adornments on her, she has more degradation, as people say in a known aphorism: Undressed, naked, and wearing shoes. This means that a naked person who wears shoes emphasizes the fact that he is naked. Perhaps one would think that by a sota wearing jewelry, her nakedness is emphasized and her degradation is amplified. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not so.
וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֶבֶל וְכוּ׳. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא מֵרַב הוּנָא: חֶבֶל הַמִּצְרִי מַהוּ שֶׁיְּעַכֵּב בְּסוֹטָה? מִשּׁוּם שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁמְטוּ בְּגָדֶיהָ מֵעָלֶיהָ הוּא, וּבְצִלְצוֹל קָטָן נָמֵי סַגִּי, אוֹ דִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר מָר ״הִיא חָגְרָה לוֹ בְּצִלְצוֹל, לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מֵבִיא חֶבֶל הַמִּצְרִי וְקוֹשֵׁר לָהּ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ״ — מְעַכֵּב?
The mishna continues: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope, and he would tie it above her breasts. Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: What is the halakha as to whether the lack of an Egyptian rope will preclude the performance of the rite with regard to a sota? Does any means of tying suffice? Perhaps the primary function of the rope is so that her clothes will not fall off her, and therefore even a small ribbon [tziltzul] would also suffice. Or, perhaps the rope is used because of what the Master said: She girded herself with a comely ribbon when she committed her transgression, and therefore the priest brings specifically an Egyptian rope, which is coarse, and ties it above her breasts. If that is the case, then the Egyptian rope should be indispensable.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֶבֶל הַמִּצְרִי וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ לָהּ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁמְטוּ בְּגָדֶיהָ מֵעָלֶיהָ.
Rav Huna said to him: You learned the answer to this dilemma in a baraita that teaches: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope and he would tie it above her breasts, so that her clothes would not fall off her. The baraita states that the use of an Egyptian rope is primarily for holding up her clothing, and therefore use of specifically Egyptian rope is not essential.
וְכׇל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּהּ יִרְאֶה וְכוּ׳. הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא. אָמְרַתְּ: כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּהּ רוֹאֶה, אַלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא גַּבְרֵי וְלָא שְׁנָא נְשֵׁי, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים מוּתָּרוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ: נָשִׁים — אִין, אֲנָשִׁים — לָא.
§ The mishna teaches: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them. And all of the women are permitted to watch her. The Gemara comments: This matter is itself difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in the mishna. First you say: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch. Apparently, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women; all are permitted to observe the rite. And then the mishna teaches: And all of the women are permitted to watch her, which indicates women, yes, they may watch her, but men, no, they may not.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תַּרְגְּמַהּ אֲנָשִׁים. אָמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא ״כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּהּ רוֹאֶה״ קָתָנֵי!
Abaye said: Interpret the first statement, which permits all people to observe the sota, as pertaining to women, but men may not be onlookers. Rava said to him: But it teaches in that first statement that anyone who desires to watch her may watch, and one cannot limit this to women.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּהּ רוֹאֶה, לָא שְׁנָא גַּבְרֵי וְלָא שְׁנָא נְשֵׁי. וְנָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִמַּתְכֶנָה״.
Rather, Rava said: Anyone who desires to watch her may watch, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women. And the next clause of the mishna teaches that women are obligated to watch her, as is stated: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).
מַתְנִי׳ בְּמִדָּה שֶׁאָדָם מוֹדֵד — בָּהּ מוֹדְדִין לוֹ. הִיא קִשְּׁטָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ לַעֲבֵירָה — הַמָּקוֹם נִוְּולָהּ. הִיא גִּלְּתָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ לַעֲבֵירָה — הַמָּקוֹם גִּלָּה עָלֶיהָ. בַּיָּרֵךְ הִתְחִילָּה בַּעֲבֵירָה תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַבֶּטֶן — לְפִיכָךְ תִּלְקֶה הַיָּרֵךְ תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַבֶּטֶן, וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַגּוּף לֹא פָּלַט.
MISHNA: The mishna teaches lessons that can be derived from the actions and treatment of a sota. With the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it. For example, she, the sota, adorned herself to violate a transgression, the Omnipresent therefore decreed that she be rendered unattractive; she exposed herself for the purpose of violating a transgression, as she stood in places where she would be noticed by potential adulterers, so the Omnipresent therefore decreed that her body be exposed publicly; she began her transgression with her thigh and afterward with her stomach, therefore the thigh is smitten first and then the stomach, and the rest of all her body does not escape punishment.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִדָּה בְּטֵילָה, בַּמִּדָּה לֹא בָּטֵיל.
GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: Although the measure with regard to court-imposed capital punishment has ceased, as there is no court today empowered to adjudicate and apply corporal punishment, punishment that is suitable to be applied with a measure by God has not ceased, as a person is punished by Heaven in accordance with his sin.
דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְכֵן תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטְלָה סַנְהֶדְרִי — אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ. וְהָא בָּטְלוּ?! אֶלָּא: דִּין אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ.
As Rav Yosef says, and Rabbi Ḥiyya similarly teaches: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four types of court-imposed capital punishment have not ceased. The Gemara asks: But they have ceased; court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. Rather, the intention is: The law of the four types of court-imposed capital punishment has not ceased.
מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב סְקִילָה — אוֹ נוֹפֵל מִן הַגָּג, אוֹ חַיָּה דּוֹרַסְתּוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׂרֵיפָה — אוֹ נוֹפֵל בִּדְלֵיקָה, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מַכִּישׁוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב הֲרִיגָה — אוֹ נִמְסָר לַמַּלְכוּת, אוֹ לִיסְטִין בָּאִין עָלָיו. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב חֲנִיקָה — אוֹ טוֹבֵעַ בַּנָּהָר, אוֹ מֵת בִּסְרוֹנְכֵי.
The Gemara explains: How so? One who is liable to be executed by stoning either falls from a roof or an animal mauls him and breaks his bones. This death is similar to the experience of stoning, in which the one liable to be executed is pushed from a platform and his bones break from the impact of the fall. One who is liable to be executed by burning either falls into a fire and is burned or a snake bites him, as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. One who is liable to be executed by slaying of the sword either is turned over to the authorities and they execute him with a sword, or robbers come upon him and murder him. One who is liable to be executed by strangling either drowns in a river and is choked by the water or dies of diphtheria [seronekhi], which causes his throat to become clogged, and he dies.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁבְּמִדָּה שֶׁאָדָם מוֹדֵד בָּהּ מוֹדְדִין לוֹ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּסַאסְּאָה בְּשַׁלְּחָהּ תְּרִיבֶנָּה״.
It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (3:1–5) that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would say: From where is it derived that with the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it? As it is stated: “In full measure [besase’a], when you send her away, you contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8). In other words, in the measure, bese’a, that one used in one’s sin, God will contend with, i.e., punish, him.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא סְאָה, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת תַּרְקַב וַחֲצִי תַּרְקַב, קַב וַחֲצִי קַב, רוֹבַע וַחֲצִי רוֹבַע, תּוֹמֶן וְעוּכְלָא, מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כׇּל סְאוֹן סֹאֵן בְּרַעַשׁ״.
The baraita continues: I have derived only the relatively large measurement of a se’a, which alludes to a significant sin. From where do I know to include even lesser sins that are comparable to smaller measurements, e.g., a half-se’a [tarkav] and a half-tarkav; a kav and a half-kav; a quarter-kav and half of a quarter-kav; an eighth-kav [toman] and an ukla, which is one-thirty-second of a kav. From where is it derived that all these lesser sins are also dealt with in accordance with the measure of the sin? The verse states: “For every boot [sa’on] stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire” (Isaiah 9:4), indicating that every sa’on, which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets as a small se’a, is “stamped with fierceness” and doesn’t go unpunished.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁכׇּל פְּרוּטָה וּפְרוּטָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן גָּדוֹל — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַחַת לְאַחַת לִמְצֹא חֶשְׁבּוֹן״.
And from where is it derived that each and every peruta combine to add up to a great sum, alluding to the notion that even if one is not immediately punished for a small transgression, in the final accounting all misdeeds will combine together and be addressed by the imposition of a large punishment? The verse states: “Behold, this have I found, says Koheleth, adding one thing to another, to find out the account” (Ecclesiastes 7:27).
וְכֵן מָצִינוּ בַּסּוֹטָה, שֶׁבַּמִּדָּה שֶׁמָּדְדָה — בָּהּ מָדְדוּ לָהּ: הִיא עָמְדָה עַל פֶּתַח בֵּיתָהּ לֵירָאוֹת לוֹ — לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מַעֲמִידָהּ עַל שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר וּמַרְאֶה קְלוֹנָהּ לַכֹּל. הִיא פָּרְסָה לוֹ סוּדָרִין נָאִין עַל רֹאשָׁהּ — לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן נוֹטֵל כִּפָּה מֵעַל רֹאשָׁהּ וּמַנִּיחוֹ תַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ. הִיא קִשְּׁטָה לוֹ פָּנֶיהָ — לְפִיכָךְ
The baraita continues: And we found this with regard to a sota, that with the measure with which she measured, she is measured with it: She stood by the opening of her house to exhibit herself to her paramour, therefore a priest has her stand at the Gate of Nicanor and exhibits her disgrace to all; she spread beautiful shawls [sudarin] on her head for her paramour, therefore a priest removes her kerchief from her head and places it under her feet; she adorned her face for her paramour, therefore
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Los Angeles, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Bronx, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Sotah 8
הָתָם קָיְימָא! דְּמַסְּקִינַן לַהּ וּמַחֲתִינַן לַהּ כְּדֵי לְיַיגְּעָהּ. דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בֵּית דִּין מַסִּיעִין אֶת הָעֵדִים מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּטָּרֵף דַּעְתָּן עֲלֵיהֶן וְיַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן.
She is already standing there in the Temple courtyard, as that is where the Sanhedrin sits. The Gemara answers: This teaches that they would bring her up and would bring her down repeatedly in order to fatigue her, with the hope that her worn-down mental state will lead to her confession. This was also done with witnesses testifying in cases of capital law, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:1): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: In cases of capital law, the court brings the witnesses from one place to another place in order to confuse them so that they will retract their testimony if they are lying.
שֶׁשָּׁם מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַסּוֹטוֹת וְכוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא סוֹטוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי ה׳״, מְצוֹרָעִין נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן הַמְטַהֵר וְגוֹ׳״, אֶלָּא יוֹלֶדֶת מַאי טַעְמָא?
§ The mishna teaches: Because there, at the Eastern Gate, they give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and there the lepers and women who have given birth are purified. The Gemara asks: Granted, the sota women are given the bitter water to drink there, as it is written: “And the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord” (Numbers 5:18), and the Eastern Gate is directly opposite the Sanctuary, which is the area referred to as “before the Lord.” Similarly, with regard to lepers as well, this is as it is written: “And the priest that cleans him shall set the man that is to be cleansed, and those things, before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:11). But what is the reason that a woman who has given birth must also be purified there?
אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתְיָין וְקָיְימָין אַקּוּרְבָּנַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קָרֵב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו. אִי הָכִי — זָבִין וְזָבוֹת נָמֵי! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְתַנָּא חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ נְקַט.
The Gemara suggests: If we say it is because of the requirement for the women who have given birth to come and stand over their offerings, as it is taught in a baraita: The offering of a person is brought only if he stands over it while it is being sacrificed, and that is why they stand at this gate, which is as close to the sacrifice as they are permitted to be while they are ritually impure. If that is so, then the same halakha should apply to men who experience a gonorrhea-like discharge [zavim] and women who experience a discharge of uterine blood after their menstrual period [zavot] as well. They are also ritually impure while their offerings are sacrificed. Why would the mishna then specify women who have given birth? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the tanna cited one of them, and the same halakha applies to all others in that category.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מַשְׁקִין שְׁתֵּי סוֹטוֹת כְּאַחַת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לִבָּהּ גַּס בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֹתָהּ״ — לְבַדָּהּ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:6): Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, in order that the heart of each one not be emboldened by the other, as there is a concern that when one sees that the other woman is not confessing, she will maintain her innocence even if she is guilty. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because the verse states: “And the priest shall bring her [ota] near and stand her before the Lord” (Numbers 5:16). Rabbi Yehuda explains his inference: The word “ota” indicates her alone, and therefore there is a Torah edict not to have two women drink the bitter water simultaneously.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, הָכְתִיב ״אֹתָהּ״? תַּנָּא קַמָּא — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּדָרֵישׁ טַעַם דִּקְרָא, וּמָה טַעַם קָאָמַר: מָה טַעַם ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְבַדָּהּ — כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לִבָּהּ גַּס בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And as for the first tanna, isn’t it written “ota”? The Gemara answers: The first tanna is actually Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the reasons of halakhot written in verses, and he is saying: What is the reason? What is the reason the Torah requires her alone, that each sota drink individually? In order that the heart of each woman not be emboldened by the other.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ רוֹתֶתֶת.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them? Why should it matter if this halakha is due to a logical reasoning or due to a Torah edict? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where one of the women is trembling from fear. Since she has obviously not been emboldened by the presence of the other, Rabbi Shimon would allow her to be given to drink at the same time as the other.
וְרוֹתֶתֶת מִי מַשְׁקִין? וְהָא אֵין עוֹשִׂין מִצְוֹת חֲבִילוֹת חֲבִילוֹת.
The Gemara asks: And if she is trembling, can the court give her to drink at the same time as the other? But there is a general principle that one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, as one who does so appears as if the mitzvot are a burden upon him, and he is trying to finish with them as soon as possible.
דִּתְנַן: אֵין מַשְׁקִין שְׁתֵּי סוֹטוֹת כְּאַחַת, וְאֵין מְטַהֲרִין שְׁנֵי מְצוֹרָעִין כְּאַחַת, וְאֵין רוֹצְעִין שְׁנֵי עֲבָדִים כְּאַחַת, וְאֵין עוֹרְפִין שְׁתֵּי עֲגָלוֹת כְּאַחַת, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מִצְוֹת חֲבִילוֹת חֲבִילוֹת.
As we learned in a baraita: Two sota women are not given to drink simultaneously, and two lepers are not purified simultaneously, and two slaves are not pierced simultaneously, and two heifers do not have their necks broken simultaneously, because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles. Accordingly, even Rabbi Shimon would agree that under no circumstances can a priest give two sota women to drink simultaneously. How, then, can the Gemara say that a trembling woman can be given to drink together with another sota?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב כָּהֲנָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד, כָּאן בִּשְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים.
Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Kahana who said: This is not difficult. Here, the second baraita, which says that it is prohibited to give two sota women to drink simultaneously because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles, is speaking with regard to one priest. There, Rabbi Shimon in the first baraita, who permits a trembling sota to be given to drink together with another sota, is speaking with regard to two priests. Since no individual priest is giving two women to drink simultaneously, mitzvot are not being performed in bundles.
וְהַכֹּהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּפָרַע אֶת רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא רֹאשָׁהּ. גּוּפָהּ מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הָאִשָּׁה״. אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּפָרַע אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן סוֹתֵר אֶת שְׂעָרָהּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them until he reveals her heart, and he unbraids her hair. The Gemara cites the source for these acts. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord and uncover the woman’s head” (Numbers 5:18). From this verse I have derived only that he uncovers her head; from where do I derive that he uncovers her body? The verse states: “The woman,” rather than just stating: And uncovers her head. This indicates that the woman’s body should be uncovered as well. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states specifically: “And uncover her head”? Once it has stated that he uncovers the woman, it is already apparent that she, including her hair, is uncovered. It teaches that the priest not only uncovers her hair but also unbraids her hair.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה לִבָּהּ וְכוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חָיֵישׁ לְהִרְהוּרָא, וְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישִׁי?
The mishna continues by citing that Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that it is prohibited to uncover an attractive woman, is concerned about onlookers having sexual thoughts, and the Rabbis, who permit it, are not concerned about this?
וְהָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָאִישׁ, מְכַסִּין אוֹתוֹ פֶּרֶק אֶחָד מִלְּפָנָיו, וְהָאִשָּׁה, שְׁנֵי פְּרָקִים — אֶחָד מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וְאֶחָד מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ עֶרְוָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרוֹם, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עֲרוּמָּה!
But we have heard the opposite from them, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:6): Although a man condemned to stoning is stoned unclothed, the court covers him with one small piece of material in front of him, to obscure his genitals, and they cover a woman with two small pieces of material, one in front of her and one behind her, because all of her loins are nakedness, as her genitals are visible both from the front and from the back. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: A man is stoned while naked, but a woman is not stoned while naked, but fully clothed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned that the onlookers seeing the woman unclothed will lead to sexual thoughts, but the Rabbis are concerned about this.
אָמַר רַבָּה: הָכָא טַעְמָא מַאי — שֶׁמָּא תֵּצֵא מִבֵּית דִּין זַכָּאִית, וְיִתְגָּרוּ בָּהּ פִּרְחֵי כְהוּנָּה. הָתָם — הָא מִסְתַּלְּקָא. וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָתֵי לְאִיגָּרוֹיֵי בְּאַחְרָנְיָיתָא — הָאָמַר רָבָא: גְּמִירִי דְּאֵין יֵצֶר הָרָע שׁוֹלֵט אֶלָּא בְּמַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת.
Rabba said: What is the reason here, with regard to a sota, that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned? Perhaps the sota will leave the court having been proven innocent, and the young priests in the Temple who saw her partially naked will become provoked by the sight of her. There, in the case of a woman who is stoned, she departs from this world by being stoned and there is no concern for sexual thoughts. The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the fact that she is killed is irrelevant to their sexual thoughts, as the onlookers will be provoked with regard to other women, this is not a concern. As didn’t Rava say: It is learned as a tradition that the evil inclination controls only that which a person’s eyes see.
אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קַשְׁיָא, דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְשַׁנִּין.
Rava said: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis, as with regard to a sota, they are not concerned about sexual thoughts, but with regard to a woman who is stoned they are. Rather, Rava said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered above.
דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא. הָכָא טַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם ״וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים״. הָתָם — אֵין לְךָ יִיסּוּר גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.
The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is not difficult as well. Here, with regard to a sota, what is the reason that her hair and body are uncovered? Because of what is stated in the verse, that other women should be warned: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48). There, with regard to stoning, you have no greater chastening than seeing this stoning itself.
וְכִי תֵּימָא לַעֲבֵיד בַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי — אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״ — בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.
And if you would say that two forms of chastening, both stoning and humiliation, should be done with her, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse states: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process.
לֵימָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: בִּזְיוֹנֵיהּ עֲדִיף לֵיהּ טְפֵי מִצַּעְרָא דְגוּפֵיהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: צַעְרָא דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף לֵיהּ טְפֵי מִבִּזְיוֹנֵיהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Naḥman is a dispute between tanna’im, and according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no mitzva to select a compassionate death. The Gemara refutes this: No, it may be that everyone agrees with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Minimizing one’s degradation is preferable to him than minimizing his physical pain. Therefore, the Rabbis view the more compassionate death as one without degradation, even if wearing clothes will increase the pain of the one being executed, as the clothes will absorb the blow and prolong death. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that minimizing physical pain is preferable to a person than minimizing his degradation, and therefore the one being executed prefers to be stoned unclothed, without any chance of the clothing prolonging the death, although this adds to the degradation.
הָיְתָה מְכוּסָּה לְבָנִים וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא, אִם הָיוּ שְׁחוֹרִים נָאִים לָהּ — מְכַסִּין אוֹתָהּ בְּגָדִים מְכוֹעָרִים.
§ The mishna teaches: If she was dressed in white garments, he would cover her with black garments. A Sage taught: If black garments are becoming to her, then she is covered in unsightly garments.
הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ כְּלֵי זָהָב וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא, הַשְׁתָּא נַוּוֹלֵי מְנַוֵּויל לַהּ, הָנֵי מִיבַּעְיָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בְּהָנֵי אִית לַהּ בִּזָּיוֹן טְפֵי, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שָׁלִיחַ עַרְטִיל וְסָיֵים מְסָאנֵי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The mishna teaches: If she was wearing gold adornments or other jewelry, they are removed from her. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Now that the priest renders her unattractive by uncovering her and dressing her in unsightly garments, is it necessary to teach that they remove these adornments from her? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that with these adornments on her, she has more degradation, as people say in a known aphorism: Undressed, naked, and wearing shoes. This means that a naked person who wears shoes emphasizes the fact that he is naked. Perhaps one would think that by a sota wearing jewelry, her nakedness is emphasized and her degradation is amplified. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not so.
וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֶבֶל וְכוּ׳. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא מֵרַב הוּנָא: חֶבֶל הַמִּצְרִי מַהוּ שֶׁיְּעַכֵּב בְּסוֹטָה? מִשּׁוּם שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁמְטוּ בְּגָדֶיהָ מֵעָלֶיהָ הוּא, וּבְצִלְצוֹל קָטָן נָמֵי סַגִּי, אוֹ דִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר מָר ״הִיא חָגְרָה לוֹ בְּצִלְצוֹל, לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מֵבִיא חֶבֶל הַמִּצְרִי וְקוֹשֵׁר לָהּ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ״ — מְעַכֵּב?
The mishna continues: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope, and he would tie it above her breasts. Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: What is the halakha as to whether the lack of an Egyptian rope will preclude the performance of the rite with regard to a sota? Does any means of tying suffice? Perhaps the primary function of the rope is so that her clothes will not fall off her, and therefore even a small ribbon [tziltzul] would also suffice. Or, perhaps the rope is used because of what the Master said: She girded herself with a comely ribbon when she committed her transgression, and therefore the priest brings specifically an Egyptian rope, which is coarse, and ties it above her breasts. If that is the case, then the Egyptian rope should be indispensable.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֶבֶל הַמִּצְרִי וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ לָהּ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁמְטוּ בְּגָדֶיהָ מֵעָלֶיהָ.
Rav Huna said to him: You learned the answer to this dilemma in a baraita that teaches: And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope and he would tie it above her breasts, so that her clothes would not fall off her. The baraita states that the use of an Egyptian rope is primarily for holding up her clothing, and therefore use of specifically Egyptian rope is not essential.
וְכׇל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּהּ יִרְאֶה וְכוּ׳. הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא. אָמְרַתְּ: כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּהּ רוֹאֶה, אַלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא גַּבְרֵי וְלָא שְׁנָא נְשֵׁי, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים מוּתָּרוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ: נָשִׁים — אִין, אֲנָשִׁים — לָא.
§ The mishna teaches: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them. And all of the women are permitted to watch her. The Gemara comments: This matter is itself difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in the mishna. First you say: And anyone who desires to watch her may watch. Apparently, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women; all are permitted to observe the rite. And then the mishna teaches: And all of the women are permitted to watch her, which indicates women, yes, they may watch her, but men, no, they may not.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תַּרְגְּמַהּ אֲנָשִׁים. אָמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא ״כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּהּ רוֹאֶה״ קָתָנֵי!
Abaye said: Interpret the first statement, which permits all people to observe the sota, as pertaining to women, but men may not be onlookers. Rava said to him: But it teaches in that first statement that anyone who desires to watch her may watch, and one cannot limit this to women.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּהּ רוֹאֶה, לָא שְׁנָא גַּבְרֵי וְלָא שְׁנָא נְשֵׁי. וְנָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִמַּתְכֶנָה״.
Rather, Rava said: Anyone who desires to watch her may watch, there is no difference whether the onlookers are men and there is no difference whether they are women. And the next clause of the mishna teaches that women are obligated to watch her, as is stated: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).
מַתְנִי׳ בְּמִדָּה שֶׁאָדָם מוֹדֵד — בָּהּ מוֹדְדִין לוֹ. הִיא קִשְּׁטָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ לַעֲבֵירָה — הַמָּקוֹם נִוְּולָהּ. הִיא גִּלְּתָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ לַעֲבֵירָה — הַמָּקוֹם גִּלָּה עָלֶיהָ. בַּיָּרֵךְ הִתְחִילָּה בַּעֲבֵירָה תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַבֶּטֶן — לְפִיכָךְ תִּלְקֶה הַיָּרֵךְ תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַבֶּטֶן, וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַגּוּף לֹא פָּלַט.
MISHNA: The mishna teaches lessons that can be derived from the actions and treatment of a sota. With the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it. For example, she, the sota, adorned herself to violate a transgression, the Omnipresent therefore decreed that she be rendered unattractive; she exposed herself for the purpose of violating a transgression, as she stood in places where she would be noticed by potential adulterers, so the Omnipresent therefore decreed that her body be exposed publicly; she began her transgression with her thigh and afterward with her stomach, therefore the thigh is smitten first and then the stomach, and the rest of all her body does not escape punishment.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִדָּה בְּטֵילָה, בַּמִּדָּה לֹא בָּטֵיל.
GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: Although the measure with regard to court-imposed capital punishment has ceased, as there is no court today empowered to adjudicate and apply corporal punishment, punishment that is suitable to be applied with a measure by God has not ceased, as a person is punished by Heaven in accordance with his sin.
דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְכֵן תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטְלָה סַנְהֶדְרִי — אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ. וְהָא בָּטְלוּ?! אֶלָּא: דִּין אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ.
As Rav Yosef says, and Rabbi Ḥiyya similarly teaches: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four types of court-imposed capital punishment have not ceased. The Gemara asks: But they have ceased; court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. Rather, the intention is: The law of the four types of court-imposed capital punishment has not ceased.
מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב סְקִילָה — אוֹ נוֹפֵל מִן הַגָּג, אוֹ חַיָּה דּוֹרַסְתּוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׂרֵיפָה — אוֹ נוֹפֵל בִּדְלֵיקָה, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מַכִּישׁוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב הֲרִיגָה — אוֹ נִמְסָר לַמַּלְכוּת, אוֹ לִיסְטִין בָּאִין עָלָיו. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב חֲנִיקָה — אוֹ טוֹבֵעַ בַּנָּהָר, אוֹ מֵת בִּסְרוֹנְכֵי.
The Gemara explains: How so? One who is liable to be executed by stoning either falls from a roof or an animal mauls him and breaks his bones. This death is similar to the experience of stoning, in which the one liable to be executed is pushed from a platform and his bones break from the impact of the fall. One who is liable to be executed by burning either falls into a fire and is burned or a snake bites him, as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. One who is liable to be executed by slaying of the sword either is turned over to the authorities and they execute him with a sword, or robbers come upon him and murder him. One who is liable to be executed by strangling either drowns in a river and is choked by the water or dies of diphtheria [seronekhi], which causes his throat to become clogged, and he dies.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁבְּמִדָּה שֶׁאָדָם מוֹדֵד בָּהּ מוֹדְדִין לוֹ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּסַאסְּאָה בְּשַׁלְּחָהּ תְּרִיבֶנָּה״.
It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (3:1–5) that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would say: From where is it derived that with the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it? As it is stated: “In full measure [besase’a], when you send her away, you contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8). In other words, in the measure, bese’a, that one used in one’s sin, God will contend with, i.e., punish, him.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא סְאָה, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת תַּרְקַב וַחֲצִי תַּרְקַב, קַב וַחֲצִי קַב, רוֹבַע וַחֲצִי רוֹבַע, תּוֹמֶן וְעוּכְלָא, מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כׇּל סְאוֹן סֹאֵן בְּרַעַשׁ״.
The baraita continues: I have derived only the relatively large measurement of a se’a, which alludes to a significant sin. From where do I know to include even lesser sins that are comparable to smaller measurements, e.g., a half-se’a [tarkav] and a half-tarkav; a kav and a half-kav; a quarter-kav and half of a quarter-kav; an eighth-kav [toman] and an ukla, which is one-thirty-second of a kav. From where is it derived that all these lesser sins are also dealt with in accordance with the measure of the sin? The verse states: “For every boot [sa’on] stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire” (Isaiah 9:4), indicating that every sa’on, which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets as a small se’a, is “stamped with fierceness” and doesn’t go unpunished.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁכׇּל פְּרוּטָה וּפְרוּטָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן גָּדוֹל — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַחַת לְאַחַת לִמְצֹא חֶשְׁבּוֹן״.
And from where is it derived that each and every peruta combine to add up to a great sum, alluding to the notion that even if one is not immediately punished for a small transgression, in the final accounting all misdeeds will combine together and be addressed by the imposition of a large punishment? The verse states: “Behold, this have I found, says Koheleth, adding one thing to another, to find out the account” (Ecclesiastes 7:27).
וְכֵן מָצִינוּ בַּסּוֹטָה, שֶׁבַּמִּדָּה שֶׁמָּדְדָה — בָּהּ מָדְדוּ לָהּ: הִיא עָמְדָה עַל פֶּתַח בֵּיתָהּ לֵירָאוֹת לוֹ — לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מַעֲמִידָהּ עַל שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר וּמַרְאֶה קְלוֹנָהּ לַכֹּל. הִיא פָּרְסָה לוֹ סוּדָרִין נָאִין עַל רֹאשָׁהּ — לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן נוֹטֵל כִּפָּה מֵעַל רֹאשָׁהּ וּמַנִּיחוֹ תַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ. הִיא קִשְּׁטָה לוֹ פָּנֶיהָ — לְפִיכָךְ
The baraita continues: And we found this with regard to a sota, that with the measure with which she measured, she is measured with it: She stood by the opening of her house to exhibit herself to her paramour, therefore a priest has her stand at the Gate of Nicanor and exhibits her disgrace to all; she spread beautiful shawls [sudarin] on her head for her paramour, therefore a priest removes her kerchief from her head and places it under her feet; she adorned her face for her paramour, therefore
