Sotah 4: בְעַד־אִשָּׁ֥ה זוֹנָ֗ה עַֽד־כִּכַּ֫ר־לָ֥חֶם

For the source text click/tap here: Sotah 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In order for the laws of a sota to come into play, the husband must warn his wife that she should not be secluded with a certain man, and his warning notwithstanding, she does exactly that. In order for the seclusion to be considered significant, it must be long enough for the man and woman to have engaged in at least the beginning of an act of sexual intercourse.

Several suggestions are raised with regard to the definition of that length of time.

The Gemara continues with a profound insight explaining that adultery is much more than a sin of sexual lust.

Rather it often is the result of arrogance - of thinking one can basically do what one wants.

Even more difficult is the teaching equating neglect to wash one's hand before a meal to adultery itself. "Whoever eats bread without washing one's hands it is as if they had relations with a harlot" (Sotah 4b).

The Gemara actually brings scriptural support for such a position: "'For on account of a harlot [a man is brought to] a loaf of bread" (Mishlei 6:26).

We explore the notion of a dangerous woman in Mishlei as well as the way the scribes shaped our interpretations.

We end with an analysis of Bialik’s Megilas Eish/Scroll of Fire

Sotah 3: קַרְיָא לְשׁוּמְשְׁמָא

For the source text click/tap here: Sotah 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Gemara brings a number of statements in the name of Rav Ḥisda, whose origins are found in the halakha of a sota:

“Adulterous behavior in the home is like a worm in the sesame,” i.e. just as the worm destroys the sesame, adultery destroys the fabric of the family.

“Anger in the home is like a worm in the sesame.”

Before the Jewish People sinned, the heavenly presence was manifest in every person, as the Torah teaches (Devarim 23:15) that God walks in the camp; once the Jewish People sinned, God’s presence was removed, as that pasuk concludes, that no promiscuity should be shown, or He will leave you.

We continue our introduction to the masechta with some scholarly reviews

Sotah 2: בַּת פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי

For the source text click/tap here: Sotah 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first Mishna in Massekhet Sota opens with the words hamekanneh le-ishto – one who issues a warning to his wife – describing the process of a husband warning his wife, in front of witnesses, not to be secluded with a specific man, a process that will lead to her drinking the bitter water of sota if she does so.

The gemoro begins with a discussion about why we are learning Masechet Sota. Why is it placed at this point in Nashim? How is it related to Masechet Nazir, which we just finished? Are the rabbis implying that a person who partakes in a part of the sota ritual should become a nazirite?

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: Forty days before the formation of a child, a Heavenly voice is issued and pronounces: “The daughter of this individual is designated for that man,” and “This house is designated for So-and-so,” and “This field is designated for So-and-so.” (Evidently, whom a man will marry is decided upon his conception, prior to knowing whether he will be righteous or not!?)

We explore this notion of predestined matchmaking and the modern iteration of the shidduch crisis.

Nazir 66: Samuel and Samson

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The last mishnah of tractate Nazir deals with the question of whether Samuel, the biblical prophet, was a nazirite.

The case of Samuel is truly puzzling: was he or wasn’t he a nazirite? When Hana prays to God to give her a child, she promises that if she does have a male child, no “morah (razor) shall ever touch his head.” The obvious meaning seems to be that just as Samson’s mother was promised that he would have a child and that her boy was to become a nazirite and “no razor shall touch his head”, so too Samuel’s mother was promising that he would be a nazirite. This is the gist of Rabbi Nehorai’s argument. However, unlike Samson’s mother, Samuel’s mother does not promise the other two nazirite prohibitions, that her son will not become defiled through contact with the dead or eat/drink anything from the vine. Samuel is not subsequently referred to as a nazirite, nor does he seem to act as one.

The Tosafot Yom Tov suggests that the correct place for this Mishna would have been as an introductory statement at the beginning of the Massekhet, although Rabbeinu chose not to put it there since identifying Shmu’el as a nazir is a matter of disagreement.

We explore the differences between Shmuel and Shimshon.

Nazir 65: Methodology in Psak

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz writes:

The two Mishnayot that appear on our daf teach halakhot that are based on the same principle that we were introduced to in the previous mishnayot – she-raglayim la-davar – that recognizing the doubt that exists in a given situation, there is a basis for anticipating the matter. The three cases that appear on our daf deal with:

nega’im – leprosy

zav – a type of venereal disease

someone who injures another person.

We explore the methodology of psak Halacha with reference to Rabbi J.D. Bleich’s analysis.

Nazir 64: Exhumation

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches that if a corpse is found on its own, it can be dislodged along with at least three fingerbreadths of earth surrounding it and reburied elsewhere. If two bodies are found, the same halacha applied. If three bodies are found near each other in rows, though, the site is assumed to be a ceremony and the builders must search for other bodies within a 20 cubit radius.

We explore the ramifications of exhumation especially in the case of Treblinka and Jedwabne (Lomze county) Poland.

Nazir 63: טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A nazirite shaves and then discovers that he was defiled: If the defilement was certain, it voids [the naziriteship], But if it is a defilement of the depth, it is not rendered void.

If after having shaved at the completion of his naziriteship, the nazirite discovers that he had contracted corpse defilement while he was still a nazirite, if the defilement was certain, he loses his whole period of naziriteship. However, if the defilement was “defilement of the depth”, it does not void his naziriteship. This seems to be a leniency due to the nature of this type of defilement and the situation (he has already shaved).

We explore the mythic history of the tehom, in the ancient near east and the Bible.

Nazir 62: Force Feeding

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches that there is greater stringency regarding the vows of slaves than the vows of women, for men can nullify their wives vows on the day that they are heard. Such a nullification is permanent, even if she is divorced or widowed.

If a man tries to nullify his slave's vow, the slave is permitted to complete his nazirut once he is freed.

The Gemara examines when a person is permitted to limit his slave's vows and when he is not.

A final Mishna is offered where Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagree about the fate of a slave who runs away from his owner after his vow has been interrupted by the owner. Is he forbidden to drink, for his vow of nazirut takes effect (he is free), or is his prohibited from drinking, as his vow's status is still in effect (put on hold by his owner until he is emancipated)?

A master may force his servants to drink wine but if does not force him he must keep the Nezirus. (Rambam Hilchos Nezirus 2:17)

We explore the notion of force feeding slaves from the African Slave ships from Europe to the Lelouh ritual of Mauritius

Nazir 61: (?Gentile Parents)

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Torah specifically says that both men and women can become nezirim (see Bamidbar 6:2). The first Mishna in the ninth perek of Massekhet Nazir teaches that non-Jews (Canaanites) cannot become nezirim, although avadim – non-Jews who are slaves and owned by Jews – can, theoretically, accept nezirut upon themselves.

On our daf, we find that a nonJew is not commanded to honor his father. Rashi explains that non-Jews don’t have halachic fathers. But for Jews it is important to recall that the Yerushalmi calls the mitzvah of Kibud Av the weightiest of all mitzvos!

We explore the command as it applies to gentiles especially referencing the biblical model of kibud Av…that of Eisav.

Nazir 60: Askesis ἄσκησις

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

There is a good deal of background information that will help (some) in understanding this mishnah. The topic of the mishnah is someone who is not only a doubtfully defiled nazirite, but a doubtful metzorah, one who has scale disease (which I will, for convenience sake, call leprosy). The process of the “leper” is as follows. When the priest checks him and decides that he does have the disease, he sits outside of the camp for seven days.

A nazirite who was in doubt whether he had been defiled and in doubt whether he had been a confirmed leper, may eat consecrated food after sixty days, and drink wine and come into contact with the dead after one hundred and twenty days, since shaving on account of leprosy overrides [the prohibition against] the shaving of the nazirite only when [the leprosy] is certain, but when it is doubtful it does not override it.

The mishnah explains what is to happen in this situation. First of all, he must wait thirty days after he has been purified from having potentially come into contact with the dead and then he may shave his first shaving for leprosy. He could not shave earlier for he may not have been a leper and he may have been a pure nazirite in which case the leprosy shaving would not override the prohibition for a nazirite to shave, as the mishnah states at the end. Then he counts another seven days at which point he normally could shave his second leprosy shaving, but he cannot for the same reason.

We explore the notion of askesis or self discipline and asceticism in late antiquity among Jews and Early Church Fathers.

Nazir 59: Women Bearing Arms

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

What is the meaning when the verse states this? If it teaches only that a man may not put on a woman’s garment, and a woman may not wear a man’s garment, it is already stated in explanation of this prohibition that “it is an abomination to the Lord your God,” and there is no abomination here in the mere act of wearing a garment.

Rather, it means that a man may not wear a woman’s garment and thereby go and sit among the women; and a woman may not wear a man’s garment and sit among the men. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: From where is it derived that a woman may not go out with weapons to war? The verse states: “A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman’s garment,” which indicates that a man may not adorn himself with the cosmetics and ornaments of a woman, and similarly a woman may not go out with weapons to war, as those are for the use of males.

We explore the ramifications of women bearing arms from a halachic perspective we well as the Alice Miller case in Israel and religious objections to women in the Israeli army.

Nazir 58: Tzitzis/Techeles

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One of the sources offered by the Gemara for the idea of aseh doheh lo ta’aseh is the commandment of tzitzit. Although the Torah forbids sha’atnez (a mixture of wool and linen fibers – see Devarim 22:11), immediately following we find the commandment to place gedilim (tzitzit) on one’s clothing (see verse 12).

This is understood by the Sages to permit sha’atnez when placing tzitzit on a garment.

The Shiṭṭah Meḳubbeẓet offers two explanations for this case. One is simply that wool tzitzit are placed on a linen garment, which is permitted for the mitzva even though the two fibers will be connected. The second suggestion is that the strand of tekhelet – the blue strand – which is always made of wool, can be combined with strands of linen when tying the tzitzit.

We explore the various opinions regarding the recently discovered murex shells and techeles.

Nazir 57: Hova, Wife of Rav Huna

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned (see daf 41) Jewish law forbids a man from rounding, or removing the hair around, his head – pe’at roshkhem – and from shaving his beard – pe’at zekanekhah (see Vayikra 19:27).

These prohibitions do not apply to women, since they do not have beards, nor do they apply to children. Nevertheless, Rav Huna teaches that an adult who cuts a child’s hair in the forbidden manner will be held liable.

In a rather disturbing passage, the Gemara relates that Rav Adda bar Ahava asked Rav Huna who cuts his children’s hair in such a manner, to which he replied that Hova – his wife – was the one who did it. Rav Adda bar Ahava responded “Hova should bury her children!” Following this exchange, the Gemara concludes that as long as Rav Adda bar Ahava lived, Rav Huna’s children passed away at a young age.

The Gemara infers from here that there is no Isur d'Oraisa which prohibits a woman from shaving the head of a Katan. Similarly, the Gemara in Bava Metzia (10b) teaches that the Torah does not prohibit a woman from shaving the head of a Katan.

We investigate this tragic Amora and his wife’s curse and Richard Kalmin’s piece on changing attitudes to authority among amoraim..

Nazir 56: Mesorah

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Further discussing our Mishnah we employ a dispute revolving around a kal vachomer.

The reasoning here is that if a lesser thing (the tiny piece of bone) carries a certain power, all the more so should the greater thing (the small amount of blood).

Rabbi Eliezer responds to Rabbi Akiva by telling him that we don’t make this type of argument here. Rabbi Eliezer is known as being an arch-conservative in halakhic matters. He typically rejects reason as a source of new halakhot, relying strictly on tradition. Rabbi Joshua, on the other hand, is known more typically as the innovator, ready to modify traditions if so persuaded. However, over here, he too does not feel able to modify the halakhah that a quarter-log of blood does not make a nazirite liable to shave.

While he accepts Rabbi Akiva’s reason, he says that since the Sages ruled based on their traditions, this halakhah cannot be changed.

We review Rav Lichtenstein’s view on the relative weight of Torah vs Mitzvot and other views on Mesorah.

Nazir 55: Leaving Eretz Yisrael

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although a nazir cannot allow himself to become tameh met, not all situations of tum’at met will force him to begin his nezirut over again.

According to the Mishna there are many cases where the nazir may formally become tameh met, but he will not need to begin his nezirut over again, rather he will have to wait a week and undergo the process of taharah .

One such case is tum’at eretz ha-amim – the ritual defilement of foreign lands. There are two suggestions made by the Gemara to explain this enactment of the Sages. Tum’at eretz ha-amim is either mishum avira – “because of its air” – or mishum gusha – “because of its earth.” Rashi explains these positions as technical statements.

The Gemara is asking whether a person must step on the ground outside of the land of Israel to become tameh, or whether even traveling through its air would be enough to subject the individual to rabbinic tum’ah.

We explore the halachic issues in leaving Eret Yirsoel for Eretz Ha’Amim

Nazir 54: Tumah of Chutz La’aretz

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A dilemma was raised before the sages: Did the sages decree the land of the nation’s impure with regard to the air? Or perhaps they decreed it impure with regard to the earth?

When a nazir sets foot outside of Israel, do they contract impurity by stepping on the ground (impure with regard to the earth)? Or even by passing through in a carriage which means they never set foot on the ground (impure with regard to the air)?

According to one sage, the nazir contracts ritual impurity even by riding in a carriage and keeping their feet off the ground, though if they enclose themselves completely in a box for the entire journey then they can avoid this impurity. However, this opinion is disputed.

We review the notion of Eretz Amin and Tumah as well as the issue of Cohanim flying over airspace.

Nazir 53: Body Parts

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Limb from a Corpse

The Mishnah had stated that a limb from a corpse and a limb from a living person upon which there is a sufficient amount of flesh (for the limb to regenerate.

this is necessary by the limb from a corpse as well) obligates the nazir to shave. The Gemora asks: What would the halachah be if there was not a sufficient amount of flesh on them? Rabbi Yochanan said: The nazir will not be required to shave. Rish Lakish said: The nazir will be obligated to shave. The Gemora explains: Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the nazir will not be required to shave, for the Mishnah stated that a limb from a corpse and a limb from a living person upon which there is a sufficient amount of flesh obligates the nazir to shave. Evidently, if it does not have a sufficient amount of flesh, he will not be required to shave.

We explore the need for burial of body parts and the forensic determination of exhumation following genocide.

Nazir 52: Skull and Spine

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a nazir comes in touch with a dead body, he loses his previous days, has to shave, must bring sacrifices, and then restart. How much of a dead body? One of the examples is a skull and spine - just bones, even if they have no meat on them.

The Mishna had stated: For these tumos the nazir shaves: For the spinal column and for the skull. The Gemora inquires: Are both the spinal column and the skull necessary in order to transmit tumah, or does the Mishna mean that either the spinal column or the skull can transmit tumah?

The Gemora attempts to resolve this inquiry from the following braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said: Six things were declared tamei by Rabbi Akiva, and the Chachamim ruled tahor, and Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion.

We explore the Halacha of Cohanim visiting hospitals museums and death camps as well as the curious discussion as to the location of mythic Luz bone in the vertebral column.

Nazir 51: וּמְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A ladleful of corpse-dust.

The Gemora asks: And what is its size? Chizkiyah said: A palmfull. Rabbi Yochanan said: A handfull. It has been taught in a braisa: The ladleful of corpsedust mentioned is from the base of the fingers and upwards; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

The Sages say: A handfull. Now, Rabbi Yochanan at least agrees with the Sages; but with whom does Chizkiyah agree, neither with Rabbi Meir, nor with the Sages?

The Gemora answers: They say: A palmfull and from the joints of the fingers and upwards is the same measure.

We explore the development of Halacha and the intersection of Qumran texts…regarding laws of Tuma’h.

The pathology of human decomposition is also reviewed.

Nazir 50: Unfit for a Dog

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna had stated: And for a k’zayis (olive’s volume) from a corpse and for a k’zayis of netzel. The Gemora asks: What is netzel? The Gemora answers: The flesh of a corpse that has congealed, and liquid secretion from a corpse that bubbles when it is heated.

Abaye inquired of Rabbah: Is there a concept of netzel by an animal or not (will the decomposed flesh of an animal transmit tumah just like the carcass of an animal, known as neveilah)? Do we derive the halachah from a human corpse or not? The Gemora notes: This inquiry could be resolved according to the opinion who holds that a strict tumah (such as neveilah which can transmit tumah to people and utensils) transmits tumah until it is unfit to be eaten by a human; however, a lenient tumah (foods or liquids that are tamei, which can transmit tumah only to other foods and liquids) can still transmit tumah to other objects until it is unfit to be eaten by dogs (and since we are discussing neveilah, the netzel cannot be tamei for it is unfit for human consumption).

However, the inquiry remains according to the opinion who maintains that a strict tumah transmits tumah until it is unfit to be eaten by a dog (for a dog will still eat the netzel).

We explore the cultural valence dogs in the ancient world as well as in talmud.