Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Sotah 3:1

מהו שישלמו לא מכוחן היא מפסדת כתובתה. או ייבא כיי דמר רבי בא רבי יהודה בשם שמואל אין למידין דבר מדבר בעדים זוממין. והכא כן נסתרה בעד אחד בשחרית ובעד א' בין הערבים. ייבא כהדא נתייחדה עמו בפני שנים. צריכה הימנו גט שני. באחד אינה צריכה הימיני גט שני. בא' בשחרית ואחד בין הערבים זה היה מעשה ושאל ר' לעזר בן תדאי את החכמים ואמרו אין זה ייחוד. קינא לה בעד אחד בשחרית ובעד אחד בין הערבים מאחר שהוא איש והיא אשה אין קינויו קינוי. ייבא כהדא אין מקבלין מן העדים אלא אם כן ראו שניהן כאחת. רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר ואפילו באו זה אחר זה. רבי ירמיה רבי שמואל בר יצחק בשם רב מודין חכמים לרבי יהושע בן קרחה בעידי הבכורה ובעידי החזקה. רבא בשם רבי ירמיה אף בעידי סימנין כן. מה דא פשיטא שזה אמר ראיתי שתי שערות בגבו. וזה אומר ראיתי שתי שערות בגפו. זה אומר ראיתי שערה אחת בגבה. וזה אומר ראיתי שערה א' בכריסה לאו כלום כל שכן גבו וגפו.

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east; SIGN OF [GOD'S] ANGER3 WHY MAKE MENTION OF IT? THEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID TO HIM: I ALSO DID NOT SAY TO PRAY4 BUT TO MAKE MENTION [IN THE WORD] ‘HE CAUSETH THE WIND TO BLOW AND THE RAIN TO FALL’5 -IN ITS DUE SEASON. HE [R. JOSHUA] REPLIED TO HIM: IF THAT IS SO ONE SHOULD AT ALL TIMES MAKE MENTION OF IT. WE PRAY FOR RAIN ONLY CLOSE TO THE RAINY SEASON. R. JUDAH SAYS: THE LAST TO STEP BEFORE THE ARK6 ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FEAST MAKES MENTION, THE FIRST DOES NOT; ON THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER THE FIRST MAKES MENTION, THE LAST DOES NOT. GEMARA. What has the Tanna [in mind] when he teaches WHEN etc.?7 -The Tanna refers to [a Mishnah] elsewhere which teaches: We make mention of the Power of Rain in the [benediction of] the Revival of the Dead,8 and we pray for [rain] in the Benediction of the Years9 and [we insert] the Habdulah10 in [the benediction] ‘Thou favourest man with knowledge’.11 [With that passage in mind] the Tanna now teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain? Would it not have been more appropriate to teach it there, why did he leave it until now? — [Say] rather, because the Tanna had just completed [learning the Tractate] Rosh Hashanah12 where we have learnt: And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water. And, [as there] he taught: ‘And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water,’ therefore there he teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain. But let him teach: When do we [begin] to make mention of Rain: why, the Power of Rain?-R. Johanan said: Because Rain comes down by the Power [of God], as it is said, Who doeth great things und unsearchable, marvellous things without number.13 And it is [further] written, Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields.14 Where [in these verses is this idea] implied? — Rabbah b. Shila replied: It is derived from the analogous use of the word heker in verses treating of Creation. Here it is written, ‘Who doeth great things and unsearchable’. And there it is written, ‘Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, The Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out.15 And [of Creation] it is [also] written, Who by Thy strength settest fast the mountains, Who art girded about with might.16 Whence do we know that mention of Rain is to be made in the Prayer?17 - It has been taught: To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart.18 What is Service of Heart? You must needs say, Prayer. And the verse following reads, That I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain.19 R. Johanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands and not entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of Childbirth, and the Key of the Revival of the Dead. The Key of Rain, for It is written, The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season,20 The Key of Childbirth, for it is written, And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

MISHNAH: He1The husband; Num. 5:15. The volume of the offering was 1/10 of an epha or about one US Gallon. Cf. also Chapter 1, Note 239. brought her flour offering in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and then puts it on her hands to tire her out. All flour offerings are from start to finish in a Temple vessel except this which at the start is in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and at the end in a Temple vessel2All other offerings must be in a Temple vessel when given to a Cohen to be processed. It is true that the soṭah-offering also must be in a Temple vessel once the Cohen takes it, but as long as the Cohen is still occupied with the preliminaries it may not be in a Temple vessel.. All flour offerings need oil and incense except this one which needs neither oil nor incense3This is not quite correct; the offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11) is likewise without olive oil and incense.. All flour offerings come from wheat except this one which only comes from barley. The ‘omer flour offering, even though it comes from barley, comes as roasted kernels but this one comes as flour. Rabban Gamliel said, since she behaved like an animal so her offering is animal feed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah

It follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagrees with Ben Azzai, as we have stated there9Mishnah Soṭah3:4. R. Eleazar ben Azariah does not agree that women come to study Torah equally with the men.: “From here Ben Azzai said, a person is obligated to teach Torah to his daughter, that in case she would drink she knows that merit suspends.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May the oath of a deviant woman78The suspected adulteress who is put under oath by the Cohen, Num. 5:22. be liable for a blurted oath? Where do we hold? If she is in error in sin and oath she is not deviant79If she slept with a man thinking it was her husband and swears while in this belief, she is not forbidden to her husband and not deviant.. If she is intentional in sin and error there is no sacrifice80There is no sacrifice for an intentional false oath.. Rav follows Rebbi Aqiba81This refers to Halakhah 3:1. R. Aqiba admits the possibility of sacrifices for inadvertent blurted oaths (Lev. 5:4) referring to past events as well as future ones but R. Ismael allows only future- directed blurted oaths. Rav (Chapter 3 Note 7) admits only past-directed blurted oaths; as just shown this is not possible in the case of the deviant woman.. If Rebbi Ismael82R. Meïr explains the repetition “Amen, Amen” in Num. 5:22 that the first one is past directed, the second future directed. R. Ismael might agree that this is a special case where a biblical verse also requires the inclusion of references to past events. Then the question of R. Joḥanan might make sense since the possibility of an oath by a deviant woman depends on past events but the designation as blurted oath must depend on future happenings, not covered by the previous argument. would argue like Rebbi Meïr it would follow, since Rebbi Meïr said83Mishnah Soṭah3:1.: “Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.” But you may question this84Since practice would follow neither R. Ismael nor R. Meïr there seems to be no point for R. Joḥanan’s question..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Peah

Available for Premium members only
Full Chapter