Sotah 6

ורבי עקיבא א"כ ליכתוב רחמנא לה ולישתוק יטמא למה לי ש"מ

[What reply does] R. Akiba [make to this explanation]? — If that were the sole intention, the All-Merciful should have written 'for her' and then stop; what is the purpose of the words 'he should defile himself? Deduce therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is obligatory. ');">¹</span>

ור' ישמעאל איידי דכתב לה כתב נמי יטמא לכדתני דבי ר' ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל פרשה שנאמרה ונישנית לא נישנית אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה

[How does] R. Ishmael [meet this argument]? — Since the Torah wrote 'for her', it likewise wrote 'he may defile himself 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. [And similarly,]'Of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 46. ');">²</span>

(ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו רשות דברי ר' ישמעאל ר"ע אומר חובה

— 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: Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XX, 16. ');">³</span>

מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל איידי דכתיב (דברים כ, טז) לא תחיה כל נשמה איצטריך נמי למיכתב לעולם בהם תעבודו למישרי אחד מכל האומות שבא על הכנענית והוליד ממנה בן שאתה רשאי לקנותו

it was likewise necessary to write, 'Of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever', in order to indicate that if a man belonging to any other Gentile people has intercourse with a Canaanite woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman belonged to the seven nations which had to be exterminated. ');">⁴</span>

דתניא מנין לאחד מן האומות שבא על הכנענית והוליד ממנה בן שאתה רשאי לקנותו בעבד ת"ל (ויקרא כה, מה) וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו

and begets a son by her, it is permissible to purchase him as a slave. For it has been taught: Whence is it that if a man belonging to any other Gentile people has intercourse with a Canaanite woman and begets a son by her, it is permissible to purchase him as a slave? There is a text to declare, Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 45. ');">⁵</span>

יכול אף הכנעני שבא על אחת מן האומות והוליד ממנה בן שאתה רשאי לקנותו בעבד ת"ל (ויקרא כה, מה) אשר הולידו בארצכם מן הנולדים בארצכם ולא מן הגרים בארצכם

It is possible to think that also if a Canaanite had intercourse with a woman belonging to any other Gentile people and he begets a son by her, it is permissible to purchase him as a slave; therefore there is a text to declare, Which they have begotten in your land<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. I.e., the original natives of Canaan. ');">⁶</span>

ור"ע ממהם תקנו נפקא לעולם בהם תעבודו למה לי לחובה

— from those born in your land<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Whose father belongs to another land.] ');">⁷</span>

ורבי ישמעאל בהם ולא באחיכם

and not from those who dwell in your land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [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. ');">⁸</span>

ור"ע באחיכם מסיפא דקרא נפקא (ויקרא כה, מו) ובאחיכם בני ישראל איש באחיו לא תרדה בו בפרך

And [from where does] R. Akiba [learn this rule]? — He derives it from, 'Of them shall ye buy'; what then is the purpose of, 'Of them ye shall take your bondmen for ever'? [It indicates that] it is obligatory. And [how does] R. Ishmael [explain the addition of these words]? — 'Of them' [he may purchase] but not of your brethren. [From where does] R. Akiba [derive this rule]? — It is deduced from the mention of 'your brethren' at the end of the verse: But over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 46. ');">⁹</span>

ור' ישמעאל איידי דכתי' ובאחיכם כתי' נמי בהם לכדתנ' דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל כל פרשה שנאמרה ונישנית לא נישנית אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה

[How does] R. Ishmael [meet this argument]? — Since the Torah wrote 'But over your brethren', it likewise wrote 'of them'. 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.

א"ר חסדא זנותא בביתא כי קריא לשומשמא וא"ר חסדא תוקפא בביתא כי קריא לשומשמא אידי ואידי באיתתא אבל בגברא לית לן בה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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). ');">¹⁰</span>

ואמר רב חסדא בתחילה קודם שחטאו ישראל היתה שכינה שורה עם כל אחד ואחד שנאמר (דברים כג, טו) כי ה' אלהיך מתהלך בקרב מחניך כיון שחטאו נסתלקה שכינה מהם שנאמר (דברים כג, טו) ולא יראה בך ערות דבר ושב מאחריך

Further said R. Hisda, At first, before Israel sinned [against morality], the <i>Shechinah</i> abode with each individual; as it is said: For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 15. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל העושה מצוה אחת בעוה"ז ממקדמתו והולכת לפניו לעוה"ב שנאמר (ישעיהו נח, ח) והלך לפניך צדקך וכל העובר עבירה אחת בעוה"ז מלפפתו והולכת לפניו ליום הדין שנאמר (איוב ו, יח) ילפתו ארחות דרכם יעלו בתוהו ויאבדו

When they sinned, the <i>Shechinah</i> departed from them; as it is said: That he see no unclean thing in thee and turn away from thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹²</span>

ר"א אומר קשורה בו ככלב שנאמר (בראשית לט, י) ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה להיות עמה לשכב אצלה בעולם הזה להיות עמה לעולם הבא

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LVIII, 8. ');">¹³</span>

תנן התם שהיה בדין

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job VI, 18. ');">¹⁴</span>

ומה עדות הראשונה שאין אוסרתה איסור עולם אינה מתקיימת בפחות משנים עדות האחרונה שאוסרתה איסור עולם אינו דין שלא תתקיים בפחות משנים

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 her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXXIX, 10. ');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ל (במדבר ה, יג) ועד אין בה כל שיש בה

— to lie by her in this world, or to be with her in the world to come.

וק"ו לעדות הראשונה מעתה ומה עדות האחרונה שאוסרתה איסור עולם מתקיימת בעד אחד עדות הראשונה שאין אוסרתה איסור עולם אינו דין שתתקיים בעד אחד

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the water may prove her innocent. ');">¹⁶</span>

ת"ל (דברים כד, א) כי מצא בה ערות דבר ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים יט, טו) על פי שני עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר מה דבר האמור להלן על פי שנים עדים אף כאן על פי שנים

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] <i>a fortiori</i> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. ');">¹⁷</span>

האי מכי מצא בה ערות דבר נפקא מבה נפקא בה ולא בקינוי בה ולא בסתירה מיבעי ליה

and elsewhere it states: At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIX, 15. ');">¹⁸</span>

הכי נמי קאמר תלמוד לומר בה בה ולא בקינוי בה ולא בסתירה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 31a-b. ');">¹⁹</span>

וטומאה בעלמא בלא קינוי ובלא סתירה דלא מהימן עד אחד מנלן נאמר כאן כי מצא בה ערות דבר ונאמר להלן על פי שני עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר מה דבר האמור להלן עדים שנים אף כאן עדים שנים

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 5. ');">²⁰</span>

תנו רבנן אי זו היא עדות הראשונה זו עדות סתירה עדות אחרונה זו עדות טומאה

— He also says similarly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²¹</span> [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].