Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Sotah 4:2

כיצד הוא מקנא לה אמר לה בפני שנים אל תדברי עם איש פלוני ודיברה עמו עדיין מותרת לביתה ומותר' לוכל בתרומה נכנסה עמו לבית הסתר

know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves.2 In Palestine they said: Also the Key of Sustenance, for it is said, Thou openest thy hand etc.3 Why does not R. Johanan include also this [key]? — Because in his view sustenance is [included in] Rain.4 R. ELIEZER SAYS: ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE FEAST etc. The question was asked, Whence did R. Eliezer derive this? Did he learn it from Lulab5 or from the Libation of Water?6 If he learnt it from Lulab, then just as the obligation of the use of the Lulab comes into force on the [first] day of Tabernacles, so too should we begin to make mention of rain on that day. Or perhaps he learnt it from Libation. [If so, then] just as Water Libation may be [carried out] on the evening [preceding the first day] — (for a Master [interpreting the verse], And the meal-offering thereof and their drink-offerings,7 said, Even by night)-so too should one begin to make mention of rain on that evening!8 — Come and hear: R. Abbahu said: R. Eliezer deduced it from Lulab only. Some there are who say: R. Abbahu had a tradition. Whilst others say: He based it on a Baraitha. Which is the Baraitha? — It has been taught: ‘When do we [begin to] make mention of Rain? R. Eliezer says: From the time of the taking up of the Lulab; R. Joshua says, From the time when the Lulab is discarded.9 Said R. Eliezer: Seeing that these Four Species are intended only to make intercession for water,10 therefore as these cannot [grow] without water so the world [too] cannot exist without water. R. Joshua said to him: Is not rain on the Feast a sure sign of [God's] anger? R. Eliezer replied: I too did not say to pray but to make mention. And just as one makes mention of the Revival of the Dead all the year round11 although it will take place only in its proper time, so too should mention be made of the Power of Rain all the year round although it comes only in its due season. Therefore if one desires to make mention all the year round he may do so. Rabbi says: I hold the view that when one ceases to pray [for rain]12 one should also no longer make mention of it. R. Judah b. Bathyra says: On the second day of the Feast one [begins] to make mention. R. Akiba says: On the sixth day of the Feast. R. Judah says in the name of R. Joshua: The last to step before the Ark 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. Did not then R. Eliezer reply well to R. Joshua?- R. Joshua can answer you: It is quite in order to make mention of the Revival of the Dead [all the year round], since any day may be its time, but is rain seasonable at all times? Have we not learnt: Should Nisan terminate and then rain fall it is a sign of [God's] anger, for it is said, Is it not wheat harvest to-day etc.?13 ‘R. Judah b. Bathyra says: on the second day of the Feast one [begins] to make mention’. What is R. Judah b. Bathyra's reason? — It has been taught: R. Judah b. Bathyra says, Of the second day of the Feast, Scripture Says, we-niskehem,14 [‘and their drink-offerings’] and of the sixth day, u-nesakeah15 [‘and its drink-offerings’] and of the seventh day, kemishpatam16 [according to their rule]. Note [the letters] Mem, Yod, Mem which form the word mayim [‘water’].17 Here you have the biblical allusion to the Libation of Water. And what makes him [R. Judah b. Bathyra] fix it on the second day? — Because [the first of the allusions to the Water Libation] is found in connection [with the order for] the second day. Hence why we should [begin] to make mention on the second day. R. Akiba says: On the sixth day of the Feast one [begins] to make mention, for of the sixth day Scripture says, And its drink-offerings.18 Scripture thus speaks of two libations,19 the Libation of Water and the Libation of Wine. Perhaps both Libations must be of wine? — He [R. Akiba] is of the same opinion as R. Judah b. Bathyra who said, There is an allusion to water.2

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthias: It says, “but if the woman was not impure but was pure100Num. 5:28..” Would we not know that if she was not impure she was pure? Why does the verse say, “but she was pure”101In Sifry Num. 19, the double expression is justified: R. Ismael holds that she only is permitted to her husband if the procedure had shown her innocence. An anonymous source notes that if she got a divorce after the procedure or her husband died, she was free to marry the man she was suspected of having an affair with; if she was divorced for adultery, the adulterer would be forbidden to her.
The Yerushalmi text is copied in Num. rabba 9(50).
? Only that at the end the Omnipresent rewards her for the abuse, that if she was sterile she will become pregnant102In the Babli, 36a, and Sifry Num. 19, the first clause, about the sterile becoming pregnant, is R. Aqiba’s; all the others are attributed to R. Ismael. In the Babli Berakhot 31b, the attributions are switched., [if she] was having difficult births she will have easy ones, [if she] had ugly children she will have good looking ones103This clause is missing in the parallels. In Babylonian historical spelling, it would be כעורים., black ones she will have white ones, short ones she will have tall ones, females she will have males, single children she will have twins. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish104This attribution to a second generation Amora is quite impossible in a tannaїtic text; in the Babli and Sifry Num. the argument is R. Ismael’s. It seems that the Yerushalmi refers to R. Simeon ben Ioḥai, quoted in the next sentence. said to him: If it were so then all women should be misbehaving in order to become pregnant! But does Rebbi Simeon not interpret “she will be found innocent and become pregnant with seed”? He does, legitimate seed, not illegitimate105In Halakhah 4:1, a similar (anonymous) argument is quoted to show that a divorcee married to a priest cannot be subjected to the procedure of the suspected wife because even if she was innocent she could not have legitimate seed from the husband forbidden to her; her children from the priest are desecrated..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull Chapter