AS IT IS SAID 'AND SHALL ENTER' TWICE. The question was asked: Does [the teacher in the Mishnah] mean 'shall enter and shall enter' or 'and shall enter and shall enter'?4 — Come and hear: JUST AS SHE IS PROHIBITED TO THE HUSBAND SO IS SHE PROHIBITED TO THE PARAMOUR; AS IT IS SAID, DEFILED … AND IS DEFILED.5 But it is still questionable whether [the teacher in the Mishnah] draws the conclusion from the repetition of 'defiled' or from the conjunction in 'defiled … and is defiled'! — Come and hear: Since he states in the continuation, RABBI SAYS: THE WORD DEFILED OCCURS TWICE IN THE SCRIPTURAL PORTION, ONE REFERRING TO THE HUSBAND AND THE OTHER TO THE PARAMOUR, it follows that it is R. Akiba who expounds the conjunction 'and'. Consequently for R. Akiba there are six texts [containing the phrase 'and shall enter']6 — one for the command regarding her7 and one for the command regarding him;8 one for the action regarding her and one for the action regarding him;9 one for the notification10 regarding her and one for the notification regarding him. For Rabbi,11 on the other hand, there are three texts — one for the command, one for the action and one for the notification.12 But whence does Rabbi derive the teaching: JUST AS THE WATER PROVES HER SO THE WATER PROVES HIM? — He derives it from [the following teaching]: For it has been taught: And make the belly to swell and the thigh to fall away,13 i.e., the belly and thigh of the paramour. You say it is the belly and thigh of the paramour; perhaps it is not so, but the belly and thigh of the adulteress! Since it is stated and her belly shall swell and her thigh shall fall away,14 here it is clearly the belly and thigh of the adulteress which are referred to; so how am I to explain 'and make the belly to swell and the thigh to fall away'? It refers to the belly and thigh of the paramour. And the other?15 — It indicates that the priest informs her that [the water] affects the belly first and then the thigh so as not to discredit the water of bitterness.16 And the other?17 — If that were so, It should have been written 'her belly and her thigh'; what means 'belly and thigh' [without specification]? Conclude that the reference is to the paramour. But am I to suppose that [the phrase without specification] is intended only for this?18 — If that were so, it should have been written 'his belly and his thigh'; what means 'belly and thigh'? Draw two inferences therefrom.19
R. JOSHUA SAID, THUS USED ZECHARIAH etc. Our Rabbis taught: Why is it mentioned three times in the Scriptural portion if she be defiled,20 she be defiled,21 and she is defiled?22 One [to make her prohibited] to the husband, one to the paramour, and one for partaking of the heave-offering. This is the statement of R. Akiba. R. Ishmael said: It is an a fortiori conclusion; if a divorced woman,23 who is allowed to partake of the heave-offering, is prohibited [to marry into] the priesthood, how much more must a woman who is prohibited from partaking of the heave-offering24 be prohibited [to marry into] the priesthood!25 For what purpose26 is it stated and she be defiled … and she be not defiled?27 If she be defiled, why should she drink; and if she be not defiled, why does he make her drink! Scripture informs you that in a doubtful case she is prohibited. From this you can draw an analogy [with respect to the defilement caused] by a creeping thing:28 if in the case of a suspected woman, where the effect is not the same should the act be in error or in presumption, under compulsion or of free will,29 there is the consequence [of being prohibited] when there is a doubt as when there is certainty; how much more so must there be the consequence [of defilement] in a case of doubt as in a case of certainty with a creeping thing where the effect is the same whether [the contact was] in error or in presumption, or whether it was under compulsion or of free will!
Sotah 28bAnd from the position you have taken up1 [proceed to draw the following deductions]: As [the case of doubt in connection with] the suspected woman can only occur in a private domain [where seclusion takes place],2 so [the case of doubt in connection with] a creeping thing can only occur [when the contact takes place] in a private domain.3 And as [the case in connection with] a suspected woman is a matter where there is a rational being to be interrogated,4 so [in the case of doubt in connection with] a creeping thing it must be a matter where there is a rational being to be interrogated.5 Hence [the Rabbis] said: Where there is a rational being to be interrogated, should a doubtful [case of defilement] occur in a private domain it is regarded as unclean, but should it occur in a public place as clean; and when there is no rational being to be interrogated whether it occurs in a private domain or in a public place a doubtful [case of defilement] is regarded as clean.6
R. Akiba dealt above with [the woman being prohibited to partake] of the heave-offering, and R. Ishmael answers him with a statement about the priesthood!7 And further, whence does R. Akiba derive [the rule that the suspected woman cannot marry into] the priesthood? Should you answer that with reference to [this rule about] the priesthood a Scriptural text is not necessary,
- To Next Folio -