Reference for Sotah 15:14
אמר רבא דר' יהודה אדר' יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן ל"ק אלא אמר רבא דר' יהודה אדר' יהודה ל"ק כדשנין
But even if [a woman] is trembling, may we give her the water to drink [simultaneously with another woman] when, behold, we may not perform precepts in bundles?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each must have separate attention. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> For we have learnt: They do not give two suspected women the water to drink at the same time, nor purify two lepers at the same time, nor bore the ears of two slaves at the same time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 6. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> nor break the necks of two calves at the same time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 1 ff. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> because we may not perform precepts in bundles! — Abaye said, but others declare it was R. Kahana: There is no contradiction; the latter case referring to one priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Administering the water to two women, when it would be performing a precept in bundles. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> the other to two priests. A PRIEST SEIZES HER GARMENTS. Our Rabbis have taught: And let the hair of the woman's head go loose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 18. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> I only have here mention of her head; whence is it derived that it applies to her body?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That be uncovers her bosom, as stated in the Mishnah. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> The text states: 'the woman's'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not merely 'the hair of her head'. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> If so, what is the object of the text declaring, 'And let the hair of the head go loose'? It teaches that the priest undoes her hair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And unravels the locks. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> R. JUDAH SAYS, IF HER BOSOM WAS BEAUTIFUL etc. Is this to say that R. Judah is afraid of impure thoughts being aroused and the Rabbis do not fear this? Behold we have heard the opposite opinion of them; for it has been taught: In the case of a man [who is to be stoned] they cover him with one piece of cloth in front, and in the case of a woman with two pieces, one in front and one behind, because the whole of her is considered nudity. This is the statement of R. Judah; but the Sages say: A man is stoned naked but a woman is not stoned naked!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 45a. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — Rabbah answered: What is the reason here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Judah is against the exposure of her bosom. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Lest she go forth from the Court innocent, and the priestly novitiates become inflamed through her, whereas in the other case she is stoned. Should you reply that it may cause them to be inflamed by another woman, Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the parallel passage in Sanh. 45a the name is Rabbah. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> declared: We have learnt a tradition that the evil impulse only bears sway over what a person's eyes see. Raba asked: Is it, then, that R. Judah contradicts himself and the Rabbis do not contradict themselves? But, said Raba, R. Judah does not contradict himself as we have just explained,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a suspected woman is not analogous to that of a woman who is to be stoned. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>