סוטה ד

סוטה ד

וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר סְתִירָה? כְּדֵי טוּמְאָה, כְּדֵי בִיאָה, כְּדֵי הַעֲרָאָה.

The baraita clarifies: And what is the measure of seclusion, i.e., how is the seclusion of a sota defined? The measure of seclusion is equivalent to the time needed for defilement, which is equivalent to the time needed to perform intercourse, which is equivalent to the time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse.

כְּדֵי הַקָּפַת דֶּקֶל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ.

The baraita quotes several practical examples of this period of time. This is equivalent to the time needed for circling a palm tree; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Eliezer says: This is equivalent to the time needed for mixing a cup of wine with water, with the total volume of a quarter-log. Rabbi Yehoshua says: This is equivalent to the time needed to drink that cup of wine.

בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִצְלוֹת בֵּיצָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לְגוֹמְעָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִגְמוֹעַ שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יִרְמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִקְשׁוֹר גַּרְדִּי נִימָא.

The baraita quotes several more examples. Ben Azzai says: This is equivalent to the time needed to roast an egg. Rabbi Akiva says: This is equivalent to the time needed to swallow it. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: This is equivalent to the time needed to swallow three eggs one after another. Rabbi Elazar ben Yirmeya says: This is equivalent to the time needed for a weaver [gardi] to tie a string [nima].

חָנִין בֶּן פִּנְחָס אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹשִׁיט יָדָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיהָ לִיטּוֹל קֵיסָם. פְּלֵימוֹ אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹשִׁיט יָדָהּ לַסַּל לִיטּוֹל כִּכָּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר: ״כִּי בְעַד אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה עַד כִּכַּר לָחֶם״.

Ḥanin ben Pineḥas says: This is equivalent to the time that a woman may need to extend her hand into her mouth to remove a wood chip from between her teeth. The Sage Peleimu says: This is equivalent to the time that she may need to extend her hand into a basket in order to take a loaf of bread. He adds: Although there is no explicit proof from a verse for the matter, there is an allusion to the matter from the verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs 6:26).

וְכׇל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי?

The baraita stated that the measure of seclusion is equivalent to the time needed for defilement, which is equivalent to the time needed to perform sexual intercourse, which is equivalent to the time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse, and it added nine practical examples of that length of time. The Gemara asks: And why do I need all these times when one should have sufficed?

צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי תְּנָא כְּדֵי טוּמְאָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כְּדֵי טוּמְאָתָהּ וְאַרְצוּתָהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כְּדֵי בִיאָה.

The Gemara answers: All three are necessary, as if the baraita taught only: Equivalent to the time needed for defilement, I would say that the measure is equivalent to the time for her defilement and her appeasement, i.e., the amount of time needed to convince her to engage in sexual intercourse. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the measure is equivalent to the time needed to perform sexual intercourse alone.

וְאִי תְּנָא כְּדֵי בִיאָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כְּדֵי גְּמַר בִּיאָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כְּדֵי הַעֲרָאָה.

And if the baraita taught only: The measure of seclusion is equivalent to the time needed to perform sexual intercourse, I would say that the measure is equivalent to the time needed for the completion of the act of intercourse. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the measure is equivalent to the time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן כְּדֵי הַעֲרָאָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כְּדֵי הַעֲרָאָה וְאַרְצוּתָהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כְּדֵי טוּמְאָה. וְכַמָּה כְּדֵי [הַעֲרָאָה] — כְּדֵי הַקָּפַת דֶּקֶל.

And if the baraita taught only: The measure of seclusion is equivalent to the time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse, I would say that the measure is equivalent to the time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse and her appeasement. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the measure is equivalent to the time needed for defilement, which does not include appeasement. The baraita concludes by offering a practical measure: And what is the measure of the equivalent amount of time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse? It is equivalent to the time needed for circling a palm tree. Other Sages then offered their own practical examples.

וּרְמִינְהִי ״וְנִסְתְּרָה״, וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר סְתִירָה לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר — כְּדֵי טוּמְאָה, כְּדֵי בִיאָה, כְּדֵי הַעֲרָאָה, כְּדֵי חֲזָרַת דֶּקֶל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita (Tosefta 1:2): The verse states: “And she was defiled secretly” (Numbers 5:13), and we have not heard what is the measure of seclusion. When it says in that verse: “And she was defiled secretly,” you must say that the measure of seclusion is equivalent to the time needed for defilement, which is equivalent to the time needed to perform sexual intercourse, which is equivalent to the time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse, which is equivalent to the time needed for the returning of a palm tree; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִצְלוֹת בֵּיצָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לְגוֹמְעָהּ.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehoshua says: This is equivalent to the time needed for mixing a cup of wine with water, with the total volume of a quarter-log. Ben Azzai says: This is equivalent to the time needed to drink that cup of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: This is equivalent to the time needed to roast an egg. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: This is equivalent to the time needed to swallow it.

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין: הַיְינוּ הַקָּפַת דֶּקֶל, הַיְינוּ חֲזָרַת דֶּקֶל. הָתָם אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כְּדֵי הַקָּפַת דֶּקֶל, וּפְלִיג רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עֲלֵיהּ. הָכָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּדֵי חֲזָרַת דֶּקֶל!

The Gemara now addresses several contradictions between this baraita and the one quoted earlier. The Gemara first comments: It might enter our mind to say that circling a palm tree is the same as the returning of a palm tree. The Gemara asks: There, in the first baraita, Rabbi Yishmael says it is equivalent to the time needed for circling a palm tree and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with him, while here, in the second baraita, Rabbi Eliezer himself says it is equivalent to the time needed for the returning of a palm tree; doesn’t this contradict what he stated in the previous baraita?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַקָּפָה בָּרֶגֶל, חֲזָרָה בָּרוּחַ.

To resolve this contradiction, Abaye says: These measures are not the same, as circling is referring to the amount of time it takes for one to circle a palm tree by foot, and returning is referring to the amount of time it takes for a palm branch blown by the wind to revert to its prior position.

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: חֲזָרָה בָּרוּחַ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאָזֵיל וַהֲדַר אָתֵי, אוֹ דִילְמָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאָזֵיל וְאָתֵי וַהֲדַר קָאֵי בְּדוּכְתֵּיהּ. תֵּיקוּ.

Rav Ashi asks: This returning of the palm branch by the wind, is this the time only so that it goes forward with the wind and returns to its place one time, not including the time it is still moving back and forth due to the wind? Or perhaps it is the time so that it goes forward with the wind and comes back and returns until it settles in its place. The Gemara states: The question shall stand unresolved.

הָתָם אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס, הָכָא: כְּדֵי חֲזָרַת דֶּקֶל! אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא.

The Gemara presents another contradiction. There, in the first baraita, Rabbi Eliezer says: This is equivalent to the time needed for pouring a cup of wine. Here, in the second baraita, he says: This is equivalent to the time needed for the returning of a palm tree. The Gemara answers: This and that are one, i.e., the same, measure.

הָתָם אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כְּדֵי לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ, הָכָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס! אֵימָא כְּדֵי לִמְזוֹג וְלִשְׁתּוֹת. וְלֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא! אִם כֵּן, הַיְינוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

The Gemara presents another contradiction. There, in the first baraita, Rabbi Yehoshua says: This is equivalent to the time needed for drinking a cup of wine. Here, in the second baraita, he says: This is equivalent to the time needed for mixing a cup of wine. The Gemara answers: Say that he requires both together, i.e., he requires an amount of time equivalent to the time needed to both mix and drink a cup of wine. The Gemara asks: Instead of combining the measures, why not let us say that this and that are one measure? The Gemara answers: If so, this is the same as the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the first baraita, with whom Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees.

הָתָם אָמַר בֶּן עַזַּאי: כְּדֵי לִצְלוֹת בֵּיצָה, הָכָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ. אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא.

The Gemara presents another contradiction. There, in the first baraita, ben Azzai says: This is equivalent to the time needed to roast an egg. Here, in the second baraita, he says: This is equivalent to the time needed to drink a cup of wine. The Gemara answers: This and that are one measure.

הָתָם אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כְּדֵי לְגוֹמְעָהּ, הָכָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי לִצְלוֹת בֵּיצָה! אֵימָא כְּדֵי לִצְלוֹת בֵּיצָה וּלְגוֹמְעָהּ. וְלֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא! אִם כֵּן, הַיְינוּ בֶּן עַזַּאי.

The Gemara presents another contradiction. There, in the first baraita, Rabbi Akiva says: This is equivalent to the time needed to swallow an egg. Here, in the second baraita, he says: This is equivalent to the time needed to roast an egg. The Gemara answers: Say that he requires both together, i.e., he requires an amount of time equivalent to the time needed to roast an egg and to swallow it. The Gemara asks: Instead of combining the measures, why not let us say that this and that are one measure? The Gemara answers: If so, this is the same as the opinion of ben Azzai in the first baraita, with whom Rabbi Akiva disagrees.

הָתָם אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא: כְּדֵי לִגְמוֹעַ שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ, הָכָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי לְגוֹמְעָהּ! לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָאָמַר, דְּקָאָמַר מְשַׁעֲרִין בִּצְלִיאָה וּבִגְמִיעָה: אֵימָא שִׁיעוּר גְּמִיעָה לְחוֹדַהּ כְּדֵי לִגְמֹעַ שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ, דְּהַיְינוּ צְלִיאָה וּגְמִיעָה.

The Gemara presents another contradiction. There, in the first baraita, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: This is equivalent to the time needed to swallow three eggs one after another. Here, in the second baraita, he says: This is equivalent to the time needed to swallow an egg, meaning one egg. The Gemara answers: In the first baraita, he did not state his own opinion, but stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who stated that one measures according to the time needed for roasting and swallowing. Rabbi Yehuda responded: Say instead the measure of the time needed for swallowing alone, i.e., an amount of time equivalent to the time needed to swallow three eggs one after another, which is equal to the amount of time necessary for roasting and swallowing, and therefore Rabbi Akiva would not need to include roasting in the measurement.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יִרְמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקְשׁוֹר גַּרְדִּי נִימָא. בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: דִּמְרַחַק, אוֹ דִּמְקָרַב? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara discusses an opinion cited in the first baraita. Rabbi Elazar ben Yirmeya says: This is equivalent to the time needed for a weaver to tie a string. Rav Ashi asks: Is this speaking of where the ends of the string to be tied are far apart from each other, or is it speaking of where they are near to each other? The Gemara states: The question shall stand unresolved.

חָנִין בֶּן פִּנְחָס אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹשִׁיט יָדָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיהָ לִיטּוֹל קֵיסָם. בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: דִּמְהַדַּק אוֹ דְּלָא מְהַדַּק? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara discusses another opinion cited in the first baraita. Ḥanin ben Pineḥas says: This is equivalent to the time that a woman may need to extend her hand into her mouth to remove a wood chip from between her teeth. Rav Ashi asks: Is this speaking of a case where the wood chip is stuck between her teeth, or is it speaking of a case where it is not stuck? The Gemara states: The question shall stand unresolved.

פְּלֵימוֹ אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹשִׁיט יָדָהּ לַסַּל לִיטּוֹל כִּכָּר. בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: דִּמְהַדַּק אוֹ דְּלָא מְהַדַּק? בְּחַדְתָּא אוֹ בְּעַתִּיקָא? בְּחַמִּימָא אוֹ בְּקָרִירָא?

The Gemara discusses another opinion cited in the first baraita. Peleimu says: This is equivalent to the time that a woman may need to extend her hand into a basket in order to take a loaf of bread. Rav Ashi asks: Is this speaking of an occasion where the loaf adheres to the basket, or is it speaking of a case where it does not adhere? Is this speaking of a case where the basket is new, whereby the tips of the shoots forming the basket might restrain the loaf, or this speaking of where the basket is old and smooth, enabling easy removal? Is this speaking of a case where the loaf is hot and therefore softer and may adhere to the basket, or is this speaking of a case where the loaf is cold and easily removed?

בִּדְחִטֵּי אוֹ בְּדִשְׂעָרֵי? בְּרַכִּיכָא אוֹ בַּאֲקוֹשָׁא? תֵּיקוּ.

Is this speaking of a case where the loaf is made of wheat, which is slippery and takes longer to remove, or is this speaking of a case where the loaf is made of barley, which is easily removed? Is this speaking of a case where the loaf is soft, so that it may catch upon the side of the basket, or a case where the loaf is hard, where this is not a concern? The Gemara states: These questions shall stand unresolved.

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד — בְּעַצְמוֹ שִׁיעֵר. וְהָאִיכָּא בֶּן עַזַּאי דְּלָא נְסֵיב?

The Gemara notes: Rav Yitzḥak bar Rav Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Each and every one of these Sages who presented an opinion with regard to the time needed for the initial stage of intercourse estimated based on himself, i.e., based on his own experience. The Gemara asks: But there is ben Azzai, who did not marry, so how could he estimate based on his own experience?

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: נְסֵיב וּפֵירַשׁ הֲוָה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מֵרַבֵּיהּ שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״סוֹד ה׳ לִירֵאָיו״.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he was married and separated from his wife. And if you wish, say that he heard from his teacher. And if you wish, say his knowledge can be understood based on the verse: “The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him” (Psalms 25:14), teaching that those who fear God are privy to knowledge beyond their personal experience.

דָּרֵשׁ רַב עַוִּירָא, זִמְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, וְזִמְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹכֵל לֶחֶם בְּלֹא נְטִילַת יָדַיִם — כְּאִילּוּ בָּא עַל אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי בְעַד אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה עַד כִּכַּר לָחֶם״.

§ Having quoted an allusion from the verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs 6:26), the Gemara offers another interpretation of that verse. Rav Avira interpreted a verse homiletically; there were times he said this interpretation in the name of Rabbi Ami and there were times he said it in the name of Rabbi Asi: Concerning anyone who eats bread without washing his hands, it is as if he engaged in sexual intercourse with a prostitute, as it is stated: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread.”

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי ״בְּעַד אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה עַד כִּכַּר לָחֶם״ — ״בְּעַד כִּכַּר לֶחֶם עַד אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה, לְסוֹף מְבַקֵּשׁ כִּכַּר לֶחֶם.

Rava said: This phrase: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread,” is not how the verse would present this idea. It should have stated: “On account of a loaf a man is brought to a harlot.” Rather, Rava says the verse should be interpreted as follows: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with a harlot will eventually be reduced to poverty and beg people for a loaf of bread.

אָמַר רַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל הַמְּזַלְזֵל בִּנְטִילַת יָדַיִם נֶעֱקָר מִן הָעוֹלָם. אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ יָדָיו לְמַעְלָה, מַיִם אַחֲרוֹנִים — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּשְׁפִּיל יָדָיו לְמַטָּה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַנּוֹטֵל יָדָיו — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ יָדָיו לְמַעְלָה, שֶׁמָּא יֵצְאוּ הַמַּיִם חוּץ לַפֶּרֶק, וְיַחְזְרוּ וִיטַמְּאוּ אֶת הַיָּדַיִם.

The Gemara continues its discussion of washing hands. Rabbi Zerika says that Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone who treats the ritual of washing hands with contempt is uprooted from the world. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: With regard to the first water, i.e., the water used when washing one’s hands before a meal, one must raise his hands upward after washing. With regard to the last water, i.e., the water used when washing one’s hands at the conclusion of the meal before reciting Grace after Meals, one must lower his hands downward. This distinction is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Yadayim 2:2): One who washes his hands before a meal must raise his hands upward after washing, lest the water advance past the joint onto the part of the hands that he was not required to wash, becoming impure, and then return to the area he had washed, rendering his hands ritually impure.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: כׇּל הָאוֹכֵל פַּת בְּלֹא נִיגּוּב יָדַיִם — כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל לֶחֶם טָמֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ כָּכָה יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת לַחְמָם טָמֵא וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Abbahu says: Anyone who eats bread without wiping his hands dry after washing them causes the bread to become repulsive and is considered as if he were eating impure bread, since the verse refers to repulsive bread as impure bread, as it is stated: “And the Lord said: Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations where I will drive them” (Ezekiel 4:13). Eating bread with wet hands causes the bread to become repulsive. The verse deems eating in an uncouth manner, as did the gentiles among whom the Jewish people were exiled, as akin to eating ritually impure bread.

וּמַאי ״וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ נֶפֶשׁ יְקָרָה תָצוּד״? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ — לְבַסּוֹף נִכְשָׁל בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ נֶפֶשׁ יְקָרָה תָצוּד״.

§ The Gemara now continues the interpretation of the above quoted verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs 6:26). The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the continuation of the verse: “But the adulteress hunts for the precious life”? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any person who has arrogance within him will eventually stumble by sinning with an adulteress, as it is stated: “But the adulteress hunts for the precious life,” i.e., she sins with one who considers himself precious.

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי ״נֶפֶשׁ יְקָרָה״ — ״נֶפֶשׁ גְּבוֹהָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. וְעוֹד: ״הִיא תָּצוּד״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, אֲפִילּוּ לָמַד תּוֹרָה דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים״, מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְנָס לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, ״הִיא תְּצוּדֶנּוּ״ — לְדִינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.

Rava said: This phrase: “The precious life,” is not how the verse would present this idea. It should have stated: An arrogant life. And further, it should have stated: A precious life, she hunts for the adulteress, indicating that the precious soul will entrap the adulteress, and not vice versa, as the verse indicates as written. Rather, Rava says that the verse should be interpreted as follows: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress, even if that man studied Torah, about which it is written: “She is more precious than rubies [peninim]” (Proverbs 3:15), which, based on its etymological connection with the Hebrew term for the Holy of Holies, lifnai velifnim, is interpreted by the Sages to mean that one who studies Torah is more precious than a High Priest, who enters the innermost sanctum, still, this transgression of adultery will entrap him into the judgment of Gehenna, and the Torah he studied will not be able to save him.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ — כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״תּוֹעֲבַת ה׳ כׇּל גְּבַהּ לֵב״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְלָא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ״.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if he were an idol worshipper, as it is written here: “Everyone that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5), and it is written there concerning the destruction of idols: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26).

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: כְּאִילּוּ כָּפַר בָּעִיקָּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְרָם לְבָבֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said his own statement: Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if he has denied the core belief in God’s existence, as it is stated: “Then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:14).

רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר: כְּאִילּוּ בָּא עַל כׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״תּוֹעֲבַת ה׳ כׇּל גְּבַהּ לֵב״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״כִּי אֶת כׇּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if he engaged in sexual intercourse with all of those with whom relations are forbidden, as it is written here: “Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5), and it is written there, at the end of the passage concerning forbidden sexual relationships: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done” (Leviticus 18:27).

עוּלָּא אָמַר: כְּאִילּוּ בָּנָה בָּמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חִדְלוּ לָכֶם מִן הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר נְשָׁמָה בְּאַפּוֹ כִּי בַּמֶּה נֶחְשָׁב הוּא״ — אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״בַּמֶּה״, אֶלָּא ״בָּמָה״.

Ulla says: Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if he built a personal altar for idol worship, as it is stated: “Cease you from man, in whose nostrils there is breath, for how little [bammeh] is he to be accounted” (Isaiah 2:22), referring to an arrogant person. Do not read the verse as it is written, bammeh, how little. Rather, read it as bama, altar.

מַאי ״יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה״? אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְנָהוּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ כְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״הֲרִימֹתִי יָדִי אֶל ה׳ אֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.

Having interpreted the phrase: “Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5), the Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse. What is the meaning of: “Hand to hand, he shall not be unpunished” (Proverbs 16:5)? Rav says: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress, even if he were to have attributed possession of heaven and earth to the Holy One, Blessed be He, just as Abraham our forefather did, that it is written with regard to him: “I have lifted up my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:22), he will not be unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna. Abraham is described as one whose hands were lifted to declare the glory of God, yet this verse declares that even if one who engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse were to use his hands in the same way, still, due to his sin, the verse says: “He shall not be unpunished.”

קַשְׁיָא לְהוּ לִדְבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא: הַאי ״יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה״, ״יָדִי״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

This interpretation poses a difficulty to the Sages of the school of Rabbi Sheila: This phrase: “Hand to hand, he shall not be unpunished,” is not how the verse would present this idea. It should have stated: My hand, as that is the term employed in the verse with regard to Abraham.

אֶלָּא אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא: אֲפִילּוּ קִיבֵּל תּוֹרָה כְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״מִימִינוֹ אֵשׁ דָּת לָמוֹ״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.

Rather, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Sheila say: This teaches that even if one who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress had received the Torah from the hand of God like Moses our teacher did, that it is written with regard to him: “At His right hand was a fiery law unto them” (Deuteronomy 33:2), i.e., God gave the Torah from His right hand into the hand of Moses in order to give to the Jewish people, the sinner will not be unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna.

קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַאי ״יָד לְיָד״, ״יָד מִיָּד״ מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ!

This interpretation also poses a difficulty to Rabbi Yoḥanan: This phrase “hand to hand” is not how the verse would present this idea. It should have stated: Hand from hand, as that is the term employed in the verse with regard to Moses.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:

Rather Rabbi Yoḥanan says: