Perek I Daf 4 Amud a

HALAKHA Th e baraita clarifi es: And what is the measure of seclusion,H ְו ַכ ָּמה ׁ ִש ּיעור ְס ִת ָירה? ְּכֵדי ּטו ְמ ָאה, ְּכֵדי The seclusion of a sota : ׁ ִש ּיעור ְס ִת ָירה – i.e., how is the seclusion of a sota defi ned? Th e measure of seclu- Measure of seclusion is defined as when witnesses see a woman secluded with ִּב ָיאה, ְּכֵדי ַה ֲﬠָר ָאה, sion is equivalent to the time needed for defi lement, which is a man with whom her husband had warned her not to be equivalent to the time needed to perform intercourse, which secluded. The duration of the seclusion is the time needed is equivalent to the time needed to perform the initial stage of for defilement, which is equivalent to the time required for intercourse.N roasting and swallowing an egg. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whose opinion is accepted Th e baraita quotes several practical examples of this period of time. when he is involved in a dispute with others (Rambam Sefer ְּכֵדי ַה ָּק ַפת ֶ ּד ֶקל, ִ ּד ְבֵרי ַר ִּבי ִי ׁ ְש ָמ ֵﬠאל; .(Th is is equivalent to the time needed for circling a palm tree; this Nashim, Hilkhot Sota 1:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 178:4 ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ְמִז ַיגת ַה ּכוֹס; ַר ִּבי is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Eliezer says: Th is is ְי ׁ ֻהוֹשﬠ ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ִל ׁ ְש ּתוֹתוֹ; equivalent to the time needed for mixing a cup of wine with water, NOTES with the total volume of a quarter-log. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Th is Equivalent to the time needed to perform the initial Rashi here defines the : ְּכֵדי ַה ֲﬠָר ָאה – is equivalent to the time needed to drink that cup of wine. stage of intercourse initial stage of intercourse as the initial contact between ,Th e baraita quotes several more examples. Ben Azzai says: Th is the male and female sexual organs. Most commentaries ֶּבן ַﬠַזּאי ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ִל ְצלוֹת ֵּב ָיצה; ַר ִּבי is equivalent to the time needed to roast an egg.N Rabbi Akiva however, accept the opposing opinion in tractate Yevamot 55b), which defines the initial stage of intercourse as the) ֲﬠ ִק ָיבא ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ְל ְגוֹמ ָﬠ ּה; ַר ִּבי ְי ּהוָדה .says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed to swallow it. Rabbi insertion of the corona ֶּבן ְּב ֵת ָירא ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ִל ְג מוֹﬠ ׁ ָשלֹ ׁש Yehuda ben Beteira says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed In the Jerusalem Talmud the : ִל ְצלוֹת ֵּב ָיצה – to swallow three eggs one aft er another. Rabbi Elazar ben To roast an egg ֵּב ִיצים זוֹ ַא ַחר זוֹ; ַר ִּבי ֶא ְל ָﬠָזר ֶּבן ִיְר ְמָיה expression used is: Equivalent to the time needed to roll an Yirmeya says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed for a weaver ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ִל ְק ׁשוֹר ַּגְרִ ּדי ִנ ָימא; L L egg, which involves roasting an egg slightly to the point [gardi] to tie a string [nima]. where it will roll easily. This is a more precise measurement of time than that of the time needed to roast an egg. Ĥanin ben Pineĥas says: Th is is equivalent to the time that a ָח ִנין ֶּבן ִּפ ְנ ָחס ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ׁ ֶש ּת ׁ ִוֹשיט ָי ָד ּה ַאף ַﬠל ִּפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין – .Although there is no explicit proof, etc woman may need to extend her hand into her mouth to remove ְל ְתוֹך ִּפ ָיה ִל ּיטוֹל ֵק ָיסם; ְּפ ֵל ּימו ֵאוֹמר: P : This phrase, which is found in several places in ְר ָא ָיה וכו׳ :a wood chip from between her teeth. Th e Sage Peleimu says the Talmud, indicates that the quoted verse cannot serve ְּכֵדי ׁ ֶש ּת ׁ ִוֹשיט ָי ָד ּה ַל ַּסל ִל ּיטוֹל ִּכ ָּכר. ַאף Th is is equivalent to the time that she may need to extend her as a definitive proof, as it does not relate directly to the ַﬠל ִּפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְר ָא ָיה ַל ָ ּד ָבר – ֵז ֶכר ַל ָ ּד ָבר: hand into a basket in order to take a loaf of bread. He adds: matter under discussion. However, the verse does present N Although there is no explicit proof from a verse for the matt er, a verbal linkage or an association in meaning to the matter ִּ״כי ְב ַﬠד ִא ָּׁשה ָזוֹנה ַﬠד ִּכ ַּכר ָל ֶחם״. there is an allusion to the matt er from the verse: “For on account and is worth noting. of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs :). I would say the equivalent to the time needed to per- form the initial stage of intercourse and her appease- Tosafot cite the : ֲהָוה ָא ִמ ָינא ְּכֵדי ַה ֲﬠָר ָאה ְו ַאְר ּצו ָת ּה – Th e baraita stated that the measure of seclusion is equivalent to ment ְו ָכל ָה ֵני ָל ָּמה ִלי? the time needed for defi lement, which is equivalent to the time Jerusalem Talmud, where it is explicitly stated that all these needed to perform sexual intercourse, which is equivalent to the measures of time refer only to the time necessary for the time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse, and it defilement itself. As such, one must add the measure of added nine practical examples of that length of time. Th e Gemara time needed for the woman to remove her undergarments. It is discussed in the Torat HaKenaot whether this should be asks: And why do I need all these times when one should have understood as disagreeing with the measures stated here suffi ced? in that it requires additional time, or whether it may be that the Babylonian Talmud is discussing a case where her ,Th e Gemara answers: All three are necessary, as if the baraita undergarments had been removed prior to the seclusion ְצִר ִיכי, ְ ּד ִאי ָּת ָנא ְּכֵדי ּטו ְמ ָאה, ֲהָוה taught only: Equivalent to the time needed for defi lement, I and therefore only the actual time needed for the act of ָא ִמ ָינא ְּכֵדי ּטו ְמ ָא ָת ּה ְו ַאְר ּצו ָת ּה, ָקא .would say that the measure is equivalent to the time for her sexual intercourse itself is listed ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ְּכֵדי ִּב ָיאה. defi lement and her appeasement, i.e., the amount of time needed to convince her to engage in sexual intercourse. Th erefore, the LANGUAGE ,From the Greek γέρδιός, gerdios : ַּגְרִ ּדי – [baraita teaches us that the measure is equivalent to the time Weaver [gardi needed to perform sexual intercourse alone. meaning weaver. -From the Greek νῆμα, nēma, mean : ִנ ָימא – [String [nima .And if the baraita taught only: Th e measure of seclusion is equiva- ing string ְו ִאי ָּת ָנא ְּכֵדי ִּב ָיאה, ֲהָוה ָא ִמ ָינא ְּכֵדי lent to the time needed to perform sexual intercourse, I would ְּג ַמר ִּב ָיאה, ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ְּכֵדי ַה ֲﬠָר ָאה. say that the measure is equivalent to the time needed for the PERSONALITIES completion of the act of intercourse. Th erefore, the baraita The Sage Peleimu was one of the prized : ְּפ ֵל ּימו – Peleimu teaches us that the measure is equivalent to the time needed to students of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and in several instances perform the initial stage of intercourse. he is quoted as asking his teacher brilliant questions. Sev- eral of his statements are recorded in baraitot, where he ,And if the baraita taught only: Th e measure of seclusion is equiva- often disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon ְו ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִﬠ ַינן ְּכֵדי ַה ֲﬠָר ָאה, ֲהָוה ָא ִמ ָינא lent to the time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse, another student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. There are also ְּכֵדי ַה ֲﬠָר ָאה ְו ַאְר ּצו ָת ּה, ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן a number of narratives in the Talmud describing his great I would say that the measure is equivalent to the time needed to ְּכֵדי ּטו ְמ ָאה. ְו ַכ ָּמה ְּכֵדי [ ַה ֲﬠָר ָאה]? ְּכֵדי perform the initial stage of intercourse and her appeasement.N righteousness. -Th erefore, the baraita teaches us that the measure is equiva ַה ָּק ַפת ֶ ּד ֶקל. lent to the time needed for defi lement, 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 off ered their own practical examples. sota . Perek I . 4a 21 . פרק א׳ דף ד. BACKGROUND And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a diff erent baraita ּוְר ִמ ְינ ִהי: ְ״ו ִנ ְס ְּתָרה״ – ְו ַכ ָּמה ׁ ִש ּיעור ”Various explanations have been (Toseft a :): Th e verse states: “And she was defi led secretly : ֵּת ּיקו – [Shall stand [teiku ְס ִת ָירה לֹא ׁ ָש ַמ ְﬠ ּנו. ְּכ ׁ ֶש ּהוא ֵאוֹמר ְ״ו ִהיא offered with regard to the etymology of this term. One (Numbers :), and we have not heard what is the measure of ִנ ְט ָמ ָאה״, ֱהֵוי ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ּטו ְמ ָאה, ְּכֵדי explanation is that the word is an abbreviated form of seclusion. When it says in that verse: “And she was defi led ִּב ָיאה, ְּכֵדי ַה ֲﬠָר ָאה, ְּכֵדי ֲחָזַרת ֶ ּד ֶקל, ִ ּד ְבֵרי -the word tikom, meaning let it stand. Another explana tion is that its source is the word tik, meaning a case or secretly,” you must say that the measure of seclusion is equivalent to the time needed for defi lement, which is equivalent to the ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר; pouch. Just as upon seeing a case or pouch one is unsure of its contents, so too, the word teiku is used in a situation time needed to perform sexual intercourse, which is equivalent where a resolution is unknown to us, as if the solution to the time needed to perform the initial stage of intercourse, were hidden inside a case (Arukh). Although not the literal which is equivalent to the time needed for the returning of a meaning, some suggest that the term teiku is an allusion to the acrostic for the phrase: The Tishbite, i.e., Elijah the palm tree; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. prophet, will resolve questions and dilemmas (Tosefot Yom Th e baraita continues: Rabbi Yehoshua says: Th is is equivalent ַר ִּבי ְי ׁ ֻהוֹשﬠ ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ְמִז ַיגת ַה ּכוֹס; ֶּבן Tov). This is in reference to the tradition that when Elijah to the time needed for mixing a cup of wine with water, with the ַﬠַזּאי ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ִל ׁ ְש ּתוֹתוֹ; ַר ִּבי ֲﬠ ִק ָיבא returns to the Jewish people to herald the advent of the Messiah he will also reveal the solutions to outstanding total volume of a quarter-log. Ben Azzai says: Th is is equivalent ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ִל ְצלוֹת ֵּב ָיצה; ַר ִּבי ְי ּהוָדה ֶּבן halakhic difficulties. to the time needed to drink that cup of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed to roast an egg. Rabbi ְּב ֵת ָירא ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ְל ְגוֹמ ָﬠ ּה; Yehuda ben Beteira says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed to swallow it.

Th e Gemara now addresses several contradictions between this ָקא ָס ְל ָקא ַ ּד ְﬠ ִּתין ַה ְי ּינו ַה ָּק ַפת ֶ ּד ֶקל ַה ְי ּינו :baraita and the one quoted earlier. Th e Gemara fi rst comments ֲחָזַרת ֶ ּד ֶקל. ָה ָתם ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ִי ׁ ְש ָמ ֵﬠאל ְּכֵדי It might enter our mind to say that circling a palm tree is the ַה ָּק ַפת ֶ ּד ֶקל ּו ָפ ֵליג ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר ֲﬠ ֵל ּיה. ָה ָכא same as the returning of a palm tree. Th e Gemara asks: Th ere, in the fi rst baraita, Rabbi Yishmael says it is equivalent to the time ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר ְּכֵדי ֲחָזַרת ֶ ּד ֶקל! 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?

To resolve this contradiction, Abaye says: Th ese measures are not ָא ַמר ַא ַּבֵיי: ַה ָּק ָפה ָּבֶרֶגל, ֲחָזָרה ָּב ּרוח. 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.

Rav Ashi asks: Th is returning of the palm branch by the wind, is ָּב ֵﬠי ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי: ֲחָזָרה ָּב ּרוח ִּכי ֵה ִיכי ְ ּד ָאֵזיל this the time only so that it goes forward with the wind and ַו ֲה ַדר ָא ֵתי, אוֹ ִ ּד ְיל ָמא ִּכי ֵה ִיכי ְ ּד ָאֵזיל -returns to its place one time, not including the time it is still mov ְו ָא ֵתי ַו ֲהַדר ָק ֵאי ְּב ּדו ְכ ֵת ּיה? ֵּת ּיקו. ing 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 sett les in its place. Th e Gemara states: Th e question shall standB unresolved.

Th e Gemara presents another contradiction. Th ere, in the fi rst ָה ָתם ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר: ְּכֵדי ְמִז ַיגת ַה ּכוֹס, baraita, Rabbi Eliezer says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed ָה ָכא – ְּכֵדי ֲחָזַרת ֶ ּד ֶקל! ִא ִידי ְו ִא ִידי ַחד :for pouring a cup of wine. Here, in the second baraita, he says ׁ ִש ּיעוָרא ּהוא. Th is is equivalent to the time needed for the returning of a palm tree. Th e Gemara answers: Th is and that are one, i.e., the same, measure.

Th e Gemara presents another contradiction. Th ere, in the fi rst ָה ָתם ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ְי ׁ ֻהוֹשﬠ: ְּכֵדי ִל ׁ ְש ּתוֹתוֹ, baraita, Rabbi Yehoshua says: Th is is equivalent to the time ָה ָכא ָא ַמר: ְּכֵדי ְמִז ַיגת ַה ּכוֹס! ֵא ָימא: ְּכֵדי ,needed for drinking a cup of wine. Here, in the second baraita ִל ְמזוֹג ְו ִל ׁ ְש ּתוֹת. ְו ֵל ָימא: ִא ִידי ְו ִא ִידי ַחד he says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed for mixing a cup ,of wine. Th e Gemara answers: Say that he requires both together ׁ ִש ּיעוָרא ּהוא! ִאם ֵּכן, ַה ְי ּינו ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר. i.e., he requires an amount of time equivalent to the time needed to both mix and drink a cup of wine. Th e Gemara asks: Instead of combining the measures, why not let us say that this and that are one measure? Th e Gemara answers: If so, this is the same as the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the fi rst baraita, with whom Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees.

Th e Gemara presents another contradiction. Th ere, in the fi rst ָה ָתם ָא ַמר ֶּבן ַﬠַזּאי: ְּכֵדי ִל ְצלוֹת ֵּב ָיצה, baraita, ben Azzai says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed to ָה ָכא ָא ַמר: ְּכֵדי ִל ׁ ְש ּתוֹתוֹ! ִא ִידי ְו ִא ִידי ַחד -roast an egg. Here, in the second baraita, he says: Th is is equiva ׁ ִש ּיעוָרא ּהוא. lent to the time needed to drink a cup of wine. Th e Gemara answers: Th is and that are one measure. פרק א׳ דף ד. . sota . perek I . 4a 22 NOTES Th e Gemara presents another contradiction. Th ere, in the fi rst ָה ָתם ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ֲﬠ ִק ָיבא: ְּכֵדי ְל ְגוֹמ ָﬠ ּה, ָה ָכא baraita, Rabbi Akiva says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed Where the ends are far or where they are near – Tosafot explain that Rav Ashi does :ְד ִמָר ַחק אוֹ ְ ּד ִמ ָּקַרב ָא ַמר: ְּכֵדי ִל ְצלוֹת ֵּב ָיצה! ֵא ָימא: ְּכֵדי ִל ְצלוֹת to swallow an egg. Here, in the second baraita, he says: Th is is -not ask about the thickness of the palm tree to be cir ֵּב ָיצה ּו ְל ְגוֹמ ָﬠ ּה. ְו ֵל ָימא: ִא ִידי ְו ִא ִידי ַחד equivalent to the time needed to roast an egg. Th e Gemara cled or the size of the egg to be roasted, as they were ׁ ִש ּיעוָרא ּהוא! ִאם ֵּכן, ַה ְי ּינו ֶּבן ַﬠַזּאי. answers: Say that he requires both together, i.e., he requires an already compared to other measures in the baraita. amount of time equivalent to the time needed to roast an egg and Tosefot HaRash explains that in all cases it refers to to swallow it. Th e Gemara asks: Instead of combining the mea- an average-sized item. The Ya’avetz notes that since sures, why not let us say that this and that are one measure? Th e the word used here to describe the palm tree, dekel, Gemara answers: If so, this is the same as the opinion of ben Azzai refers specifically to a large palm, as a small palm tree is called by another name, there was no need to in the fi rst baraita, with whom Rabbi Akiva disagrees. clarify further. Others explain that there was no need to clarify further because the palm is thick enough .(Th e Gemara presents another contradiction. Th ere, in the fi rst that it must be circled by foot (Meromei Sadeh ָה ָתם ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ְי ּהו ָדה ֶּבן ְּב ֵת ָירא: ְּכ ֵדי baraita, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Th is is equivalent to the ִלְג מוֹﬠ ׁ ָשלֹ ׁש ֵּב ִיצים זוֹ ַא ַחר זוֹ, ָה ָכא ָא ַמר: time needed to swallow three eggs one aft er another. Here, in BACKGROUND ְּכֵדי ְל ְגוֹמ ָﬠ ּה! ִל ְד ָבָריו ְ ּדַר ִּבי ֲﬠ ִק ָיבא ָק ָא ַמר, the second baraita, he says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed – Where the ends are far or where they are near ְ ּד ָק ָא ַמר: ְמ ׁ ַש ֲﬠִרין ִּב ְצ ִל ָיאה ּו ִב ְג ִמ ָיﬠה – Since all the estimates of time :ְ ּד ִמָר ַחק אוֹ ְ ּד ִמ ָּקַרב to swallow an egg, meaning one egg. Th e Gemara answers: In the fi rst baraita, he did not state his own opinion, but stated his opin- for defilement are extremely short, the difference ֵא ָימא: ׁ ִש ּיעור ְּג ִמ ָיﬠה ְל ּחו ָד ּה, ְּכֵדי ִל ְגמֹﬠ -ion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who stated between them can be a matter of seconds. There ׁ ָשלֹ ׁש ֵּב ִיצים זוֹ ַא ַחר זוֹ, ְ ּד ַה ְי ּינו ְצ ִל ָיאה fore, it was necessary to attempt to give as precise that one measures according to the time needed for roasting and ּוְג ִמ ָיﬠה. swallowing. Rabbi Yehoshua responded: Say instead the measure a measure as possible, leading to these very specific questions. of the time needed for swallowing alone, i.e., an amount of time equivalent to the time needed to swallow three eggs one aft er another, which is equal to the amount of time necessary for roast- ing and swallowing, and therefore Rabbi Akiva would not need to include roasting in the measurement.

Th e Gemara discusses an opinion cited in the fi rst baraita. Rabbi ַ״ר ִּבי ֶא ְל ָﬠָזר ֶּבן ִיְר ְמָיה ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ׁ ֶשִיּ ְק ׁשוֹר Elazar ben Yirmeya says: Th is is equivalent to the time needed ַּגְר ִ ּדי ִנ ָימא״. ָּב ֵﬠי ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי: ְד ִמָר ַחק אוֹ for a weaver to tie a string. Rav Ashi asks: Is this speaking of ְ ּד ִמ ָּקַרב? ֵּת ּיקו. where the ends of the string to be tied are far apart from each other, or is it speaking of where they are nearN B to each other? Th e Gemara states: Th e question shall stand unresolved.

.Th e Gemara discusses another opinion cited in the fi rst baraita ָ״ח ִנין ֶּבן ִּפ ְנ ָחס ֵאוֹמר: ְּכֵדי ׁ ֶש ּת ׁ ִוֹשיט ָי ָד ּה Ĥanin ben Pineĥas says: Th is is equivalent to the time that a ְל ְתוֹך ִּפ ָיה ִל ּיטוֹל ֵק ָיסם״. ָּב ֵﬠי ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי: woman may need to extend her hand into her mouth to remove ְ ּד ִמ ֲהַדק אוֹ ְ ּד ָלא ִמ ֲהַדק? ֵּת ּיקו. a wood chip from between her teeth. Rav Ashi asks: Is this speak- ing of a case where the wood chip is stuck between her teeth, or is it speaking of a case where it is not stuck? Th e Gemara states: Th e question shall stand unresolved.

.Th e Gemara discusses another opinion cited in the fi rst baraita ְּ״פ ֵל ּימו ֵאוֹמר: ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ּת ׁ ִוֹשיט ָי ָד ּה ַל ַּסל Peleimu says: Th is is equivalent to the time that a woman may ִל ּיטוֹל ִּכ ָּכר״. ָּב ֵﬠי ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי: ְ ּד ִמ ֲהַדק אוֹ ְ ּד ָלא need to extend her hand into a basket in order to take a loaf of ִמ ֲה ַדק? ְּב ַח ְד ָּתא אוֹ ְּב ַﬠ ִּת ָיקא? ַּב ֲח ִמ ָימא 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 אוֹ ִּב ְקִר ָירא? 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 soft er and may adhere to the basket, or is this speaking of a case where the loaf is cold and easily removed?

Perek I Daf 4 Amud b

Is this speaking of a case where the loaf is made of wheat, which ִּבְד ִח ֵּטי אוֹ ִּבְד ַׂש ֲﬠֵרי? ְּבַר ִּכ ָיכא אוֹ ְּב ַא ּק ּו ׁ ָשא? is slippery and takes longer to remove, or is this speaking of a case ֵּת ּיקו. 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? Th e Gemara states: Th ese questions shall stand unresolved. sota . Perek I . 4b 23 . פרק א׳ דף ד: PERSONALITIES Th e Gemara notes: Rav Yitzĥak bar Rav Yosef says that Rabbi ָא ַמר ַרב ִי ְצ ָחק ַּבר ַרב ֵיוֹסף ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי This is Shimon ben Azzai, one of the Yoĥanan says: Each and every one of these Sages who presented : ֶּבן ַﬠַזּאי – Ben Azzai ָיוֹח ָנן: ָּכל ֶא ָחד ְו ֶא ָחד ְּב ַﬠ ְצמוֹ ׁ ִש ֵיﬠר. ,tanna’im in Yavne. Shimon ben Azzai was never ordained an opinion with regard to the time needed for the initial stage ְו ָה ִא ָּיכא ֶּבן ַﬠַזּאי ְ ּד ָלא ְנ ֵסיב! which is why he is called by his name alone, without a title. He is usually referred to simply as ben Azzai. He was of intercourse estimated based on himself, i.e., based on his P considered one of the outstanding Sages and his wisdom own experience. Th e Gemara asks: But there is ben Azzai, was celebrated for many generations. Apparently, he did not who did not marry, so how could he estimate based on his own study Torah in his youth until he met Rabbi Akiva’s daughter. experience? She promised to marry him if he studied Torah. Consequently, he went to study with Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yishmael Th e Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he was married and ִא ָּיב ֵﬠית ֵא ָימא: ְנ ֵסיב ּו ֵפ ֵיר ׁש ֲהָוה; and was the primary student and even a disciple-colleague separated from his wife. And if you wish, say that he heard from ְו ִא ָּיב ֵﬠית ֵא ָימא: ֵמַר ֵּב ּיה ׁ ְש ִמ יﬠ ֵל ּיה; of Rabbi Akiva, whom he considered to be the preeminent -his teacher. And if you wish, say his knowledge can be under ְו ִא ָּיב ֵﬠית ֵא ָימא: ״סוֹד ה' ִל ֵיר ָאיו״. Sage of his generation. It is unclear whether he never married or whether he married Rabbi Akiva’s daughter and left her stood based on the verse: “Th e counsel of the Lord is with them a short time later due to his overwhelming desire to study that fear Him” (Psalms :), teaching that those who fear God Torah. He completely devoted himself to the study of Torah, are privy to knowledge beyond their personal experience. as can be seen in the mishna (49a), which says: Since ben Azzai died, there are no more diligent people. His statements Having quoted an allusion from the verse: “For on account of a § ָ ּדַר ׁש ַרב ֲﬠִו ָירא, ִז ְמ ִנין ֲא ַמר ָל ּה ִמ ְּׁש ֵמ ּיה ,can be found in the Mishna and in the Gemara. Apparently harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs :), the ְ ּדַר ִּבי ַא ִמי, ְוִז ְמ ִנין ֲא ַמר ָל ּה ִמ ְּׁש ֵמ ּיה he had several disciples in Tiberias, his city of residence. Ben Gemara off ers another interpretation of that verse. Rav Avira ְ ּדַר ִּבי ַא ִסי: ָּכל ָה ֵאוֹכל ֶל ֶחם ְּבלֹא Azzai engaged in the study of esoterica and is one of the four who entered the mystical orchard, as recorded in tractate interpreted a verse homiletically; there were times he said this ּ interpretation in the name of Rabbi Ami and there were times ְנ ִט ַילת ָי ַד ִים – ְּכ ִאיל ּו ָּבא ַﬠל ִא ָּׁשה Ĥagiga (14b), where it states that upon doing so, ben Azzai he said it in the name of Rabbi Asi: Concerning anyone who eats ָזוֹנה, ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר: ִּ״כי ְב ַﬠד ִא ָּׁשה ָזוֹנה ַﬠד -glimpsed at the Divine Presence and died. The verse: “Pre cious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His pious ones” bread without washing his hands, it is as if he engaged in sexual ִּכ ַּכר ָל ֶחם״. .Psalms 116:15), was quoted in reference to his death) intercourse with a prostitute,N as it is stated: “For on account of NOTES a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread.” As if he engaged in sexual intercourse with a prostitute, Rava said: Th is phrase: “For on account of a harlot a man is ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא: ַהאי ְ״ב ַﬠד ִא ָּׁשה ָזוֹנה ַﬠד Tosefot HaRash explains this : ְּכ ִא ּיל ּו ָּבא ַﬠל ִא ָּׁשה ָזוֹנה וכו׳ – .etc brought to a loaf of bread,” is not how the verse would present ִּכ ַּכר ָל ֶחם״, ְ״ב ַﬠד ִּכ ַּכר ֶל ֶחם ַﬠד ִא ָּׁשה analogy by noting that one who eats without washing his this idea. It should have stated: “On account of a loaf a man is ָזוֹנה״ ִמ ָּיב ֵﬠי ֵל ּיה! ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא: ָּכל hands fulfills his desire without forethought, as does one who engages in sexual intercourse with a prostitute. The Maharal brought to a harlot.” Rather, Rava says the verse should be inter- preted as follows: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse ַה ָּבא ַﬠל ִא ָּׁשה ָזוֹנה – ְלסוֹף ְמ ַב ֵּק ׁש offers another connection between the two by noting that with a harlot will eventually be reduced to poverty and beg ִּכ ַּכר ֶל ֶחם. both eating without washing one’s hands and engaging in forbidden sexual relations are forms of benefiting from the world without first sanctifying oneself, by washing one’s people for a loaf of bread. hands in the one case and by betrothal in the other. Th e Gemara continues its discussion of washing hands. Rabbi ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ְזִר ָיקא ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ֶא ְל ָﬠָזר: Anyone who treats the ritual of washing hands with con- Zerika says that Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone who treats the ritual ָּכל ַה ְמַז ְלֵזל ִּב ְנ ִט ַילת ָי ַד ִים ֶנ ֱﬠ ָקר ִמן Rashi explains this to refer to NH : ָּכל ַה ְמַז ְלֵזל ִּב ְנ ִט ַילת ָי ַד ִים – tempt .of washing hands with contempt is uprooted from the world ָה ָעוֹלם. ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ָיּיא ַּבר ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר someone who never washes his hands before eating. This is also indicated in the Gemara in tractate Shabbat (62a), which Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: With regard to the fi rst ַרב: ַמ ִים ִר ׁאש ִוֹנים – ָצִר ְיך ׁ ֶש ַיּ ְג ִּב ַיה refers to one who does not wash his hands at all. By contrast, water, i.e., the water used when washing one’s hands before a meal, one must raiseH his hands upward aft er washing. With regard to ָי ָדיו ְל ַמ ְﬠ ָלה, ַמ ִים ַא ֲח ִרוֹנים – ָצִר ְיך the She’iltot deRav Aĥai Gaon presents an alternative text of the last water, i.e., the water used when washing one’s hands at the ׁ ֶש ַיּ ׁ ְש ִּפיל ָי ָדיו ְל ַמ ָּטה. ַּת ְנָיא ַנ ִמי ָה ִכי: that Gemara that indicates that it refers even to one who only occasionally washes his hands before eating. conclusion of the meal before reciting Grace aft er Meals, one must ַה ּנ ֵוֹטל ָי ָדיו ָצִר ְיך ׁ ֶשַיְּג ִּב ַיה ָי ָדיו ְל ַמ ְﬠ ָלה, Rashi H : ׁ ֶש ָּמא ֵי ְצ ּאו ַה ַּמִים וכו׳ – .Lest the water advance, etc lower his hands downward. Th is distinction is also taught in a ׁ ֶש ָּמא ֵי ְצ ּאו ַה ַּמ ִים ּחוץ ַל ֶּפֶרק ְו ַי ְחְז ּרו explains that this baraita is based on a mishna in tractate baraita (Toseft a, Yadayim :): One who washes his hands before ִו ַיט ְּמ ּאו ֶאת ַהָיּ ַד ִים. :Yadayim (2:3) that states that one must wash his hands twice a meal must raise his hands upward aft er washing, lest the water One washes the first time in order to remove the impurity N from his hands, as the Sages decreed that one’s hands up to advance past the joint onto the part of the hands that he was not the wrist are ritually impure. Afterward one washes his hands required to wash, becoming impure, and then return to the area again to wash away the impure water remaining on the he had washed, rendering his hands ritually impure. hands from the initial washing. The mishna there continues that if one did not wash his hands a second time, or if he washed a second time but the water did not reach all the parts of his hand that remained wet from the initial water, then if the water remaining from the first washing were to HALAKHA touch his hand beneath the wrist, his hands would once again become impure. Accordingly, Rashi explains the baraita Anyone who treats the ritual of washing hands with con- later authorities question the efficacy of directing the hands One must be careful with downward. The Shulĥan Arukh writes that if the amount of the : ָּכל ַה ְמַז ְלֵזל ִּב ְנ ִט ַילת ָי ַד ִים – quoted here that one must lift up his hands so that the initial tempt waters do not again touch his hands. Tosefot HaRosh and washing hands, as one who treats this ritual with contempt initial water poured on his hands was a quarter-log, there is no Rabbi Shimshon of Saens note that the water of the second is uprooted from this world. The Sages also said that such a need to raise one’s hands. There is also no need to raise one’s washing will not purify the water beyond the wrist even if it person should be punished by excommunication, and he will hands in the event that one washed his hands in a ritual bath or reaches to there. eventually become impoverished (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim a river. Since there are many circumstances in which one need The Ra’avad, in his commentary on tractate Yadayim, notes 158:9). not raise his hands, many were not meticulous to observe this custom. However, because raising one’s hands has a basis in a ַמִים – .that the halakhot of washing the hands are based not only With regard to the first water one must raise, etc verse, it is proper that one observe this ritual ab initio. This is the ,After washing with the first water :ִר ׁאש ִוֹנים ָצִר ְיך ְל ַה ְג ִּב ַיה וכו׳ on impurity but also on cleanliness. One must wash twice custom in Sephardic communities. However, those who do not because the fi rst washing cleans the hands and the second one must raise his hands so that the water does not run past do so but rather wash with a quantity equal to a full quarter-log clears away any dirt remaining from the fi rst washing. Raising the wrist and return to render the hands impure. This applies should be considered as acting properly (Rambam Sefer Ahava, the hands thereby ensures that the dirt beneath the wrist will only to one who does not wash the entire hand up to the wrist. Hilkhot Berakhot 6:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 162:1). not dirty the hands a second time. The Rema notes that some hold that this applies even if one ַמִים – .washes his entire hand up to the wrist. He also writes that if one With regard to the last water one must lower, etc After washing following a meal, one’s : ַא ֲח ִרוֹנים ָצִר ְיך ׁ ֶשַיּ ׁ ְש ִּפיל וכו׳ keeps his hands directed downward while washing and does not raise them, or if one washes his hands three times, then fingertips must be directed downward (Rambam Sefer Ahava, there is no concern, and one need not raise his hands. Other Hilkhot Berakhot 6:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 181:5).

פרק א׳ דף ד: . sota . perek I . 4b 24 HALAKHA Rabbi Abbahu says: Anyone who eats bread without wiping ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ַא ָּב ּהו: ָּכל ָה ֵאוֹכל ַּפת ְּבלֹא ָּכל – his handsHN dry aft er washing them causes the bread to become Anyone who eats bread without wiping his hands ,After washing one’s hands for bread : ָה ֵאוֹכל ַּפת ְּבלֹא ִנ ּג ּוב ָי ַד ִים ִנ ּיג ּוב ָי ַד ִים – ְּכ ִא ּיל ּו ֵאוֹכל ֶל ֶחם ָט ֵמא, repulsive and is considered as if he were eating impure bread, -one must dry them before eating. One who eats without dry ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר: ַ״ויֹּ ֶאמר ה' ָּכ ָכה יֹ ְאכ ּלו ְב ֵני since the verse refers to repulsive bread as impure bread, as it is ,ing his hands is considered as if he were eating impure bread ִי ְׂשָר ֵאל ֶאת ַל ְח ָמם ָט ֵמא״ וגו'. stated: “And the Lord said: Even thus shall the children of as noted in the Gemara. In the Shulĥan Arukh it states that if Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations where I will one would wash his hands in a manner where there is no pos- drive them” (Ezekiel :). Eating bread with wet hands causes sibility of his hands becoming impure, e.g., if he dipped them the bread to become repulsive. Th e verse deems eating in an in a ritual bath or poured on them a large amount of water, uncouth manner, as did the gentiles among whom the Jewish equal to or greater than a quarter-log, then there is no need to dry one’s hands afterward. The Maharshal, however, disagrees, people were exiled, as akin to eating ritually impure bread. explaining that the primary reason one must dry his hands is not due to concerns of impurity but to the repulsiveness of Th e Gemara now continues the interpretation of the above eating wet bread. Therefore, the requirement to dry one’s hands § ּו ַמאי ְ״ו ֵא ׁ ֶשת ִא ׁיש ֶנ ֶפ ׁש ְי ָקָרה ָת ּצוד״? -quoted verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought applies even when there is no possibility of the hands becom ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ִח ָיּיא ַּבר ַא ָּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ing impure. See the discussion of this issue in the Mishna Berura to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs :). Th e Gemara asks: And ָיוֹח ָנן: ָּכל ָאָדם ׁ ֶשֵיּ ׁש ּבוֹ ַּג ּס ּות ָה ּרוח – what is the meaning of the continuation of the verse: “But the (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:20; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 158:12–13). adulteress hunts for the precious life”? Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba ְל ַב ּסוֹף ִנ ְכ ׁ ָשל ְּב ֵא ׁ ֶשת ִא ׁיש, ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר: ְ״ו ֵא ׁ ֶשת ִא ׁיש ֶנ ֶפ ׁש ְי ָקָרה ָת ּצוד״. says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: Any person who has arrogance NOTES within him will eventually stumble by sinning with an adult- ָּכל – Anyone who eats bread without wiping his hands Rashi explains that touching bread : ָה ֵאוֹכל ַּפת ְּבלֹא ִנ ּיג ּוב ָי ַד ִים eress, as it is stated: “But the adulteress hunts for the precious life,” i.e., she sins with one who considers himself precious. with wet hands causes the food to become repulsive, which is akin to impurity. Rabbeinu Ĥananel adds that wet hands Rava said: Th is phrase: “Th e precious life,” is not how the verse moisten the food and consequently make it susceptible to ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא: ַהאי ֶ״נ ֶפ ׁש ְי ָקָרה״. ֶ״נ ֶפ ׁש N would present this idea. It should have stated: An arrogant life. contracting ritual impurity, as food does not contract impurity ְּג ָבוֹהה״ ִמ ָּיב ֵﬠי ֵל ּיה! ְועוֹד, ִ״היא ָת ּצוד״ And further, it should have stated: A precious life, she hunts for unless first moistened by one of the seven liquids, one of which .is water ִמ ָּיב ֵﬠי ֵל ּיה! ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא: ָּכל ַה ָּבא the adulteress, indicating that the precious soul will entrap the ּ : ֶנ ֶפ ׁש ְּג ָבוֹהה ִמ ָּיב ֵﬠי ֵל ּיה – adulteress, and not vice versa, as the verse indicates as writt en. It should have stated: An arrogant life ַﬠל ֵא ׁ ֶשת ִא ׁיש, ֲא ִפיל ּו ָל ַמד ּת ָוֹרה, Rather, Rava says that the verse should be interpreted as follows: The Maharsha explains that an arrogant person is one who is ִ ּד ְכ ִתיב ָּב ּה: ְ״י ָקָרה ִהיא ִמ ְּפ ִנ ִינים״ – Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress, excessively concerned with his appearance, who dresses in ִמ ּכֹ ֵהן ָּגדוֹל ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכ ָנס ִל ְפ ַני ְו ִל ְפ ִנים, ִהיא fancy clothing, and who adorns himself with jewelry. This type even if that man studied Torah, about which it is writt en: “She of person eventually entraps women, as exemplified by the ְּת ּצוֶד ּנ ּו ְלִד ָינ ּה ׁ ֶשל ֵּג ִיה ָּנם. is more precious than rubies [peninim]” (Proverbs :), which, biblical narrative about Joseph (see Rashi on Genesis 39:6). based on its etymological connection with the Hebrew term for The : ְּכ ִא ּיל ּו ֵעוֹבד ֲﬠ ָבוֹדה ָזָרה – As if he were an idol worshipper the Holy of Holies, lifnai velifnim, is interpreted by the Sages Tanya explains at length that idolatry is essentially the attribu- to mean that one who studies Torah is more precious than a tion of independent significance to an entity, separating it from High Priest, who enters the innermost sanctum, still, this its place within God’s world. Similarly, an arrogant individual transgression of adultery will entrap him into the judgment essentially turns his own personality into a form of idolatry by of Gehenna, and the Torah he studied will not be able to save attributing significance to his successes. The Maharal : ְּכ ִא ּיל ּו ָּב ָנה ָּב ָמה – him. As if he built a personal altar explains that the arrogant individual separates himself from Rabbi Yoĥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai: others, as he places himself on a pedestal, and he is therefore ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן ִמ ּׁש ּום ַר ִּבי ׁ ִש ְמעוֹן ֶּבן likened to one who has built an altar to himself. The Maharsha Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if ַיוֹחי: ָּכל ָאָדם ׁ ֶשֵיּ ׁש ּבוֹ ַּג ּס ּות ָה ּרוח – N notes that the word used here for altar, bama, is used in the he were an idol worshipper, as it is writt en here: “Everyone Bible in reference to a high place, and therefore is used here as ְּכ ִא ּיל ּו ֵעוֹבד ֲﬠ ָבוֹדה ָזָרה; ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא: that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs a metaphor for one who views himself as higher than others. :and it is writt en there concerning the destruction of idols ,(: ּ״ת ֲוֹﬠ ַבת ה' ָּכל ְּג ַב ּה ֵלב״, ּו ְכ ִתיב ָה ָתם: And you shall not bring an abomination into your house” BACKGROUND“ ְ״ולֹא ָת ִביא ֵתוֹﬠ ָבה ֶאל ֵּב ֶית ָך״. While some : ְּכ ִא ּיל ּו ָּב ָנה ָּב ָמה – Deuteronomy :). As if he built a personal altar) early commentaries interpret this to refer to an altar for idol And Rabbi Yoĥanan said his own statement: Any person who worship, Rashi in tractate Yevamot (109b) understands it to ְוַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן ִ ּד ֵיד ּיה ָא ַמר: ְּכ ִא ּיל ּו ָּכ ַפר has arrogance within him is considered as if he has denied the mean building an altar to worship God at a time when such ָּב ִﬠ ָּיקר, ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר: ְ״וָרם ְל ָב ֶב ָך ְו ׁ ָש ַכ ְח ָּת altars are forbidden. core belief in God’s existence, as it is stated: “Th en your heart ֶאת ה' ֱאלֹ ֶה ָיך״ וגו'. be lift ed up, and you forget the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy :).

Rabbi Ĥama bar Ĥanina says: Any person who has arrogance ַר ִּבי ָח ָמא ַּבר ֲח ִנ ָינא ָא ַמר: ְּכ ִא ּיל ּו ָּבא within him is considered as if he engaged in sexual intercourse ַﬠל ָּכל ָה ֲﬠָריוֹת; ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא: ּ״ת ֲוֹﬠ ַבת with all of those with whom relations are forbidden, as it is ה' ָּכל ְּג ַב ּה ֵלב״, ּו ְכ ִתיב ָה ָתם: ִּ״כי ֶאת writt en here: “Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomina- tion to the Lord” (Proverbs :), and it is writt en there, at the ָּכל ַה ּת ֵוֹﬠבוֹת ָה ֵאל״ וגו'. end of the passage concerning forbidden sexual relationships: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done” (Leviticus :).

-Ulla says: Any person who has arrogance within him is consid ּעו ָּלא ָא ַמר: ְּכ ִא ּיל ּו ָּב ָנה ָּב ָמה, ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר: N B ered as if he built a personal altar for idol worship, as it is ִ״ח ְד ּלו ָל ֶכם ִמן ָה ָא ָדם ֲא ׁ ֶשר ְנ ׁ ָש ָמה ,stated: “Cease you from man, in whose nostrils there is breath ְּב ַא ּפוֹ ִּכי ַב ֶּמה ֶנ ְח ׁ ָשב ּהוא״, ַאל ִּת ְיקֵרי for how litt le [bammeh] is he to be accounted” (Isaiah :), Reconstruction of a Jewish altar found in Tel Be’er Sheva, Israel ּ referring to an arrogant person. Do not read the verse as it is ַ״ב ֶּמה״ ֶא ָלא ָּ״ב ָמה״. writt en, bammeh, how litt le. Rather, read it as bama, altar. sota . Perek I . 4b 25 . פרק א׳ דף ד: NOTES Having interpreted the phrase: “Everyone who is proud in heart is מַ אי ״יָד לְ יָד לֹא ּיִנָקֶ ה״? אָמַ ר רַ ב: ָ ּכל -an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs :), the Gemara inter ּכְאַבְרָהָ ם אָבִ ּינו – .Just as Abraham our forefather, etc הַבָּ א ﬠַ ל אֵשׁ ֶ ת אִ ׁיש, אֲ פִ ּילוּ הִקְ נָ ּהו The reference to Abraham is interpreted by the Meiri :וכו׳ prets the continuation of the verse. What is the meaning of: “Hand לְהַ ָּק ׁדוֹש בָּ רוּךְ הוּא שׁ ָמַ יִ ם וָאָרֶ ץ as referring to one who does great deeds and publicly to hand, he shall not be unpunished” (Proverbs :)? Rav says: ּכְאַבְרָהָ ם אָבִ ּינו, דִּ כְתִ יב בֵּ ּיה: ״הֲרִ ימֹתִ י spreads the message of God’s greatness, as was done by Abraham. Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress, even if he were to have att ributed possession of heaven and earth יָדִ י אֶ ל ה' אֵ ל ﬠֶלְ יוֹן קֹנֵה שׁ ָמַ יִם וָאָרֶ ץ״, to the Holy One, Blessed be He, just as Abraham our forefatherN לֹא ּיִנָקֶ ה מִ דִּ ינ ָּה שׁ ֶ ל ֵּג ִ יה ָ ּנם. did, that it is writt en with regard to him: “I have lift ed up my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth” (Genesis :), he will not be unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna. Abraham is described as one whose hands were lift ed 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.”

Th is interpretation poses a diffi culty to the Sages of the school קַשׁ ְ יָא לְ ּהו לִדְבֵ י רַבִּ י שׁ ֵ ָ ילא: הַ אי ״יָד of Rabbi Sheila: Th is phrase: “Hand to hand, he shall not be לְ יָד לֹא ּיִנָקֶ ה״, ״יָדִ י״ מִ יבָּﬠֵ י לֵ ּיה! 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.

Rather, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Sheila say: Th is teaches אֶ ָ ּלא אָמְרִ י דְבֵ י רַ בִּ י שׁ ֵ ָ ילא: אֲ פִ ּילוּ -that even if one who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulter קִ ֵּ יבל ּת ָ וֹרה ְ ּכמֹשֶׁ ה רַבֵּ ּינו, דִּ כְתִ יב בֵּ ּיה: ess had received the Torah from the hand of God like Moses our ִ״מ ִימינוֹ אֵשׁ ְ דָּ ת לָ מוֹ״, לֹא ּיִנָקֶ ה מִ דִּ ינ ָּה teacher did, that it is writt en with regard to him: “At His right hand was a fi ery law unto them” (Deuteronomy :), i.e., God שׁ ֶ ל ֵּג ִ יה ָ ּנם. 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.

Th is interpretation also poses a diffi culty to Rabbi Yoĥ anan: Th is קַשׁ ְ יָא לֵ ּיה לְרַבִּ י ָ יוֹחנָן: הַ אי ״יָד לְ יָד״, phrase “hand to hand” is not how the verse would present this ״יָד מִ יָּד״ מִ יבָּﬠֲ יָא לֵ ּיה! idea. It should have stated: Hand from hand, as that is the term employed in the verse with regard to Moses.

:Rather Rabbi Yoĥanan says אֶ ָ ּלא אָמַ ר רַבִּ י ָ יוֹחנָן:

Perek I Daf 5 Amud a

HALAKHA Even if the one who committ ed adultery performs charitable אֲ פִ ּילוּ ֶׂ עוֹשה צְדָקָ ה בַּסֵּתֶ ר, דִּ כְתִ יב: The deeds secretly, as alluded to in the phrase “hand to hand,” and : אַ זְהָרָ ה לְגַסֵּ י הָ רוּחThe warning of the arrogant –  ַ ״מ ָּ תן בַּסֵּתֶ ר יִכְ ֶּ פה אָ ף״ וגו', לֹא ּיִנָקֶ ה proper path is that one not only be modest, but one should ,even if one might think that one who does so will go unpunished מִ דִּ ינ ָּה שׁ ֶ ל ֵּג ִ יה ָ ּנם. conduct himself with great humility. An arrogant person is like one who denies the very existence of God. One who as it is writt en with regard to charity of this kind: “A gift in secret is even a little bit arrogant should be excommunicated pacifi es wrath” (Proverbs :), nevertheless, he will not be (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 2:3). unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna.

Th e Gemara previously discussed the impropriety of the trait of § אַ זְהָרָ ה לְגַסֵּ י הָ רוּח מִ ּנַיִן? אָמַ ר רָבָ א אָמַ ר NOTES .arrogance. Now the Gemara discusses the source of its prohibition זְﬠֵ ֵ ירי: ׁ ״שִמְ ּעו וְהַאֲ זִ ּינו אַ ל ִּ תגְבָּ הוּ״. רַ ב וְרָ ם לְבָבֶ ךָ – Then your heart be lifted up and you forget -From where is the warning derived, i.e., what is the source prohib נַחְמָ ן בַּ ר יִצְחָ ק אֲמַ ר, מֵהָכָ א: ״וְרָ ם The Smag counts this verse as an independent :וְשׁ ָכַחְ ָּת prohibition, prohibiting one from being arrogant due to iting the behavior of the arrogant?H Rava says that Ze’eiri says: Th e source is from the verse: “Hear, you, and give ear, be not לְבָבֶ ךָ וְשׁ ָכַחְ ָּ ת״, וּכְתִ יב: ִ ״ה ׁ ּשָמֶ ר לְךָ ֶּ פן ,his wealth, as this will lead to forgetting God. By contrast proud, for the Lord has spoken” (Jeremiah :). Rav Naĥman ּתִשׁ ְ ַ ּכח אֶ ת ה' אֱ לֹהֶ ָ יך״. -the Ramban holds that this is not an independent prohibi tion, but it is rather a detail within the general prohibition bar Yitzĥak said the warning is from here: “Th en your heart be against forgetting God, as arrogance is a trait that results N in forgetting God. lift ed up, and you forget the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy :), and it is also writt en in that same passage: “Beware lest you forget the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy :).

Th e Gemara explains: And these sources are in accordance with a וְכִדְרַבִּ י אָבִ ין אָמַ ר רַבִּ י אֶ ילְﬠָ א, דְּאָמַ ר statement that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, as Rabbi רַבִּ י אָבִ ין אָמַ ר רַבִּ י אֶ ילְﬠָ א: ָ ּכל מָ קוֹם Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Wherever it is stated in a verse שׁ ֶ ּנֶאֱמַ ר ִ ״ה ׁ ּשָמֵ ר״ ֶּ״פן״ וְ ַ״אל״, אֵ ינוֹ אֶ ָ ּלא “beware,” “lest,” or “not,” this is nothing other than a prohibition. Since these verses employ these terms in the context of one who is בְּ לֹא תַﬠֲשֶׂ ה. arrogant, they serve as sources for the prohibition. פרק א׳ דף ה. . sota . perek I . 5a 26