Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah

Folio 46a

GEMARA. But that a blemish disqualified a heifer may be deduced by a fortiori reasoning from the instance of the [red] cow:³  if a blemish disqualifies a cow which is not disqualified on account of age,⁴  how much more must a blemish disqualify a heifer which is disqualified on account of age! — It is different there, because Scripture stated: Wherein is no blemish⁵  — a blemish disqualifies [a red cow] but does not disqualify a heifer. According to this argument,⁶  the other disqualifications on account of work having been done by it should not apply [to the red cow];⁷  why, then, did Rab Judah say in the name of Rab, If a person laid a bundle of sacks upon it,⁸  it is disqualified, but with a heifer [it is not disqualified] until it draws [a load]!⁹  — It is different with a [red] cow, because we derive the meaning of the term 'yoke' [in connection with a red cow] from its occurrence in connection with a heifer.¹⁰  But let [the deduction that a blemish disqualifies] a heifer be also drawn from the instance of a [red] cow on the basis of a common use of the term 'yoke'! — Behold the All-Merciful has excluded that by using the word 'wherein' [bah]. But with the heifer it is likewise written 'wherewith' [bah]!¹¹  — This is required to exclude animals destined as sacrifices which are not disqualified by having been used for work; because it might have occurred to you to say: Let us draw a conclusion by a fortiori reasoning from the heifer: if a heifer which is not disqualified by a blemish is disqualified by having been used for work, how much more must animals destined as sacrifices, which are disqualified by a blemish, be disqualified by having been used for work! It can, however, be objected: This is right for a heifer because it is also disqualified by an age-limit! — Do you mean to say, then, that there are no animals destined as sacrifices which are disqualified by an age-limit? Hence a text is necessary for those offerings which are disqualified by an age-limit.¹²  Is, however, [the regulation that] animals destined as sacrifices are not disqualified by having been used for work derived from here?¹³  Surely it is derived from the following: Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the Lord¹⁴  — these ye shall not offer, but you may offer animals as sacrifices which have been used for work! — [This verse]¹⁵  is necessary, because it might have occurred to you to say: This only applies where they have been used for permissible work, but where it was for prohibited work¹⁶  conclude that they are forbidden [as sacrifices]! So it was necessary [to have this verse from which we infer that the animals may be offered even if they had been used for prohibited work]. But it could likewise have been derived from the following: Neither from the hand of a stranger shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these¹⁷  — these you shall not offer, but you may offer animals which have been used for work! — [This verse]¹⁵  is necessary, because it might have occurred to you to say: This only applies when they were worked while they were still not designated as sacrifices, but when they were worked after having been designated as sacrifices conclude that they are forbidden! So it was necessary [to have this verse from which we infer that even then they are acceptable as offerings].

The above text [teaches]: 'Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If a person laid a bundle of sacks upon it, it is disqualified; but with a heifer [it is not disqualified] until it draws [a load]'. It is objected: Yoke¹⁸  — I have only mention of a yoke; whence is it that there are other [disqualifications on account of] work having been done by it? You may argue by a fortiori reasoning: if a heifer which is not disqualified by a blemish is disqualified by having been used for work, how much more must a [red] cow, which is disqualified by a blemish, be disqualified by having been used for various kinds of work! And if you like you may argue:¹⁹  It is stated here 'yoke' and there [with the heifer] it is stated 'yoke', as there the various kinds of work disqualify, so here [with the red cow] the various kinds of work disqualify. But why have this alternative argument?²⁰  — Because you might reply [as mentioned above], 'It can, however, be objected: This is right for a heifer because it is also disqualified by an age-limit'. Or it might also [be objected] that the case of animals destined as sacrifices proves [the contrary, thus:] a blemish disqualifies them but the fact that they were used for work does not disqualify them. [Therefore the alternative line of reasoning is employed:] It is stated here 'yoke' and there [with the heifer] it is stated 'yoke'; as there the various kinds of work [disqualify], so here [with the red cow] the various kinds of work [disqualify].

Now from the same line of reasoning: You may conclude as there [with the heifer it is not disqualified] until it draws [a load], so here [with the red cow it is not disqualified] until it draws [a load]!²¹  — This is a matter disputed by Tannaim. Some of them deduce it from the instance of the heifer,²²  while others deduce it from [the law of the red] cow itself.²³  For it has been taught: 'Yoke' — I have mention only of a yoke; whence is it that various kinds of work [disqualify]? There is a text to state, Upon which never came yoke²⁴  i.e., [work] of any sort. If that is so, why is 'yoke' specified? A yoke disqualifies whether during the time of work or not during the time of work,²⁵  but the various kinds of work only disqualify during the time of work.²⁶  But say that 'upon which never came' is general and 'yoke' is particular, and where there is a case of general and particular, only what is in the particular is in the general²⁷  — viz., a yoke only [disqualifies] and nothing else! The phrase 'which' is inclusive [of various kinds of work], and there is a similar teaching in connection with the heifer as follows: Yoke²⁸  — I have mention only of a yoke; whence is it that various kinds of work [disqualify]? There is a text to state, 'Which hath not been wrought with' — i.e., [work] of any sort. If that is so, why is 'yoke' specified? A yoke disqualifies whether during the time of work or not during the time of work, but the various kinds of work only disqualify during the time of work. But say that 'which hath not been wrought with' is general and 'yoke' is particular, and where there is a case of general and particular, only what is in the particular is in the general — viz. a yoke [disqualifies] and nothing else!²⁹  — The phrase 'which' is inclusive [of various kinds of work].

R. Abbahu said: I asked R. Johanan, To what extent must there be drawing by a yoke [to constitute a disqualification]?³⁰  — He replied: The full extent of the yoke. The question was asked: Does this mean its length or breadth? One of the Rabbis, named R. Jacob, answered: The statement of R. Johanan was explained to me as indicating drawing by a yoke to the extent of a handbreadth in its breadth. Then [R. Johanan] should have said: A handbreadth!-He intended to inform us that the minimum of a yoke [in its breadth] is a handbreadth. For what purpose does he deduce this? — For buying and selling.

R. Johanan b. Saul said: Why does the Torah mention that he should bring a heifer into a ravine? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let something which did not produce fruit³¹  have its neck broken in a place which is not fertile and atone for one who was not allowed to produce fruit. What [does this last word] 'fruit' mean? If I answer [that it means] offspring, then according to this argument we should not break a heifer's neck if [the man found dead] was old or castrated! Therefore [by 'fruit' must be understood the performance of] commandments.³²

AND BRING IT DOWN TO A RAVINE WHICH IS STONY 'ETHAN' IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN ITS LITERAL SENSE OF 'HARD'. Our Rabbis taught: Whence is it that 'ethan' means 'hard'? As it is said,

1. Deut. XXI, 8.
2. Ibid.
3. Num. XIX. How can the Mishnah declare that a blemish does not disqualify it?
4. It may be more than a year old.
5. Ibid. 2.
6. That 'wherein' (bah) is a restrictive particle.
7. Since it is merely stated 'upon which never came yoke' and not, as with the heifer, 'wherewith (bah) it hath not been wrought and which hath not drawn (Deut. XXI, 3), the 'wherewith' restricting it to the heifer.
8. The red cow, and no yoke was placed upon it.
9. Because the text states explicitly 'which hath not drawn'.
10. And the restrictive word 'wherewith', stated with the heifer, is required for another purpose.
11. Cf. p. 236, n. 7.
12. E.g., the lambs offered on the Passover are specified as being of the first year, (Num. XXVIII, 19).
13. From the restrictive particle written with the heifer.
14. Lev. XXII, 22.
15. The 'wherewith' stated with the heifer.
16. E.g., on the Sabbath.
17. Ibid. 25.
18. Num. XIX, 2.
19. Not by a fortiori reasoning but from the analogous occurrence of 'yoke'.
20. Why does not the first suffice?
21. Which refutes Rab Judah.
22. This is the Tanna of the Baraitha cited. He will accordingly not disqualify the cow until it draws.
23. The Tanna who follows.
24. Num. XIX, 2.
25. If he put the yoke on the animal to ease the load and not for the purpose of drawing it.
26. If, e.g., he put sacks upon it not as a burden, there is no disqualification. Where, however, the sacks were placed as a load there is immediate disqualification, even though the cow did not draw. This is in agreement with Rab Judah.
27. The general rule must be restricted in application to what is contained in the particular.
28. Deut. XXI, 3.
29. This is one of the principles of hermeneutics according to R. Ishmael. V. B.K., 54a.
30. With a heifer.
31. A heifer less than a year old could not bring forth young.
32. Which produces a harvest of merit; and he was prevented by his murder from doing this.

THEY THEN BREAK ITS NECK WITH A HATCHET FROM BEHIND. What is the reason [that it is done from behind]? — He derives it by the analogous word 'breaking' [stated] in the case of a bird brought as a sin-offering.⁴

THE SITE MAY NEVER BE SOWN OR TILLED. Our Rabbis taught: Which is neither plowed nor sown⁵  — this refers to the past; such is the statement of R. Joshiah. R. Jonathan says: It refers to the future. Raba said: Nobody disputes as to the future since it is written: It shall not be sown;⁶  when they differ as to the past, R. Joshiah argues, Is it written: 'And it shall not be tilled'?⁷  And R. Jonathan argues, Is it written: 'Which has not been tilled'?⁸  And [how does] R. Joshiah [meet R. Jonathan's argument]? — The relative pronoun 'which' must be understood of the past.⁹  And R. Jonathan? — 'Which' is employed in an inclusive sense.¹⁰

BUT IT IS PERMITTED TO CARD FLAX AND CHISEL STONES THERE. Our Rabbis taught: 'Which is neither plowed nor sown' — I have here only sowing; whence is it that the other kinds of agricultural work [are prohibited]? There is a text to state, 'which is neither plowed' — i.e., [agricultural labour] in any form. If that is so, why is it stated 'nor sown'?¹¹  Its purpose is to inform us that as sowing is special since it is connected with the soil itself, so everything which is connected with the soil itself [is forbidden], to the exclusion of carding flax and chiselling stones which are not connected with the soil itself. But argue that 'which is neither plowed' is general and 'nor sown' particular, and where there is a case of general and particular, only what is in the particular is in the general — viz. sowing only [is forbidden] but nothing else! — The term 'which' is employed in an inclusive sense.

THE ELDERS OF THAT CITY THEN WASH THEIR HANDS etc. Our Rabbis taught: And all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley.¹²  There was no need to state, 'whose neck was broken'!¹³  Why, then, is 'whose neck was broken' added? [It signifies], Over the place of the heifer's neck where it was broken. They then declare, 'Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it'. But can it enter our minds that [the members of a] Court of Justice shed blood! [The meaning of their statement is], however, [The man found dead] did not come to us for help and we dismissed him without supplying him with food, we did not see him and let him go without an escort.

It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: We may compel a person to escort [a traveller],¹⁴  because the reward for escorting is limitless; as it is said: And the watchers saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Shew us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and we will deal kindly with thee.¹⁵  It continues, And he shewed them the entrance into the city.¹⁶  What was the kindness they did to him? They slew the whole of the city at the edge of the sword, but let that man and his family go.

And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and built a city, and called the name thereof Luz: which is the name thereof unto this day.¹⁷  It has been taught: That is the Luz in which they dye the blue;¹⁸  that is the Luz against which Sennacherib marched without disturbing it,¹⁹  against which Nebuchadnezzar marched without destroying it, and even the Angel of Death has no permission to pass through it, but when the old men there become tired of life²⁰  they go outside the wall and then die. For is not the matter²¹  an a fortiori inference? If this Canaanite, who did not utter a word or walk a step,²²  caused deliverance to come to himself and his seed unto the end of all generations, how much more so he who performs the act of escorting by actually going with the person! How did he show them [the way]? — Hezekiah said: He just curved his mouth for them;²³  R. Johanan said: He pointed for them with his finger. There is a teaching in agreement with R. Johanan, viz., Because this Canaanite pointed with his finger, he caused deliverance to come to himself and his seed unto the end of all generations.

R. Joshua b. Levi said: Whoever is on a journey and has no escort should occupy [his mind] with Torah;²⁴  as it is said: For they shall be a chaplet of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.²⁵  R. Joshua b. Levi also said: Because of the four paces with which Pharaoh accompanied Abraham, as it is said: And Pharaoh gave men charge concerning him etc.,²⁶  he [was allowed to] enslave the latter's descendants for four hundred years, as it is said: And shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years.²⁷  Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Whoever accompanies his neighbour four cubits in a city will come to no harm [when on a journey]. Rabina accompanied Raba b. Isaac four cubits in a city; danger threatened him but he was saved.

Our Rabbis taught: A teacher [accompanies] his pupils until the outskirts²⁸  of a city; one colleague [accompanies] another up to the Sabbath-limit;²⁹  a pupil [accompanies] his master a distance without limit.³⁰  But how far?³¹  — R. Shesheth said: Up to a parasang. This only applies when his master is not a distinguished scholar; but should his master be a distinguished scholar [he accompanies him] three parasangs.

R. Kahana once accompanied R. Shimi b. Ashi from Pum-Nahara to Be-Zinyatha.³²  When they arrived there, he said to him, 'Is it true what you say, that these palms of Babylon are from the time of Adam?' He answered: 'You have reminded me of something which R. Jose b. Hanina said, viz., What means that which is written: Through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt?³³  Since no man passed through it, how could anyone dwell there, and since nobody dwelt there how could anyone pass through it! But [the meaning is], A land concerning which Adam decreed that it should be inhabited has become inhabited, and a land concerning which Adam did not so decree has not been inhabited'.³⁴  R. Mordecai accompanied R. Ashi from Hagronia³⁵  to Be-Kafi;³⁶  another version is to Be-Dura.³⁷ 

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Meir: Whoever does not escort others or allow himself to be escorted is as though he sheds blood; for had the men of Jericho escorted Elisha he would not have stirred up bears against the children, as it is said: And he went up from thence unto Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.³⁸  What they said to him was, 'Go up, thou who hast made this place bald for us!'³⁹  What means 'little children'?⁴⁰  — R. Eleazar said: Ne'arim [children] means they were bare [menu'arim] of precepts; 'little' means they were little of faith.⁴¹  A Tanna taught: They were youths [ne'arim] but they behaved like little children. R. Joseph demurred to this: But perhaps they were so called after the name of the place; for is it not written: And the Syrians had gone out in bands, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid,⁴²  and the question is asked by us a maid [na'arah] and little?⁴³  And R. Pedath explained: She was a little girl from a place called Ne'uran!⁴⁴  — In this passage her place is not specified,⁴⁵  but in the other their place is specified.⁴⁶

And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord.⁴⁷  What did he see? — Rab said: He actually looked upon them, as it has been taught: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Wherever the Sages set their eyes there is either death or calamity.⁴⁸  Samuel said: He saw that their mothers had all become conceived with them on the Day of Atonement.⁴⁹  R. Isaac the smith said: He saw that their hair was plaited as with Amorites.⁵⁰  R. Johanan said: He saw that there was no sap of the commandments in them. But perhaps there would have been such in their descendants!⁵¹  — R. Eleazar said: Neither in them nor in their descendants unto the end of all generations.

And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them.⁵²

1. Num. XXIV, 21.
2. Micah VI, 2. 'Foundations', being parallel to 'mountains', has a similar meaning.
3. Jer. V, 15. The true meaning here is 'enduring', but the word is taken as defined by what follows.
4. Cf. Lev. V, 8 where the Hebrew is 'from the back of the neck'.
5. Deut. XXI, 4.
6. So the Hebrew literally. They all agree that the site may not be sown or tilled after the ceremony has taken place there.
7. Since the text has not this form, it must refer to the past.
8. Consequently it can only refer to the future.
9. Since it would not be used if a command were implied, and the Torah would have stated: 'it shall not be tilled'.
10. To include all kinds of agricultural work, as explained below.
11. Since sowing is included in agricultural labour.
12. Deut. XXI, 6.
13. The words seem redundant.
14. [Or the court compels a town to provide escorts for travellers.]
15. Judg. I, 24.
16. Ibid. 25.
17. Ibid. 26.
18. For the fringes (Num. XV, 38). The purpose of this statement and what follows is to illustrate the words 'which is the name thereof unto this day', showing that the city survived destruction and still exists.
19. By not plundering it and exiling the inhabitants.
20. Lit., 'their mind becomes loathsome to them'.
21. That the reward for escorting is limitless.
22. It merely states 'he showed them'.
23. I.e., he made inarticulate sounds.
24. As a means of protection.
25. Prov. I, 9. The Hebrew word for chaplet is the same as for 'escort'.
26. Gen. XII, 20.
27. Ibid. XV, 13.
28. [I.e., seventy cubits and two thirds beyond the outer range of the houses of the city. V. Ned. 56a.]
29. V. p. 136, n. 7.
30. [It is one of those deeds of kindliness to the performance of which no maximum is set; v. next note.]
31. [I.e., what minimum distance must he accompany his teacher?]
32. [Lit., 'Among the Palms', the former was near the Tigris, the latter was the district of the old city of Babylon, to which Sura belonged and which was rich in palms; cf. Sanh. 96b (Obermeyer, op. cit. p. 295).]
33. Jer. II, 6.
34. Accordingly Adam must have decreed that those palms should grow there.
35. Outside Nehardea.
36. [Be Kufai. A village four parasangs west of Bagdad, v. Obermeyer, op. cit. p. 267.]
37. [Be-Duraja, S.W. of Bagdad. This would be about two hours beyond Be Kafi; (Obermeyer, op. cit., p. 268)]. This is cited to show how far a disciple escorted his teacher.
38. II Kings II, 23. 'He went up' implies that he was unaccompanied.
39. He had sweetened the waters in that place (ibid. 19ff.) and so had caused loss to the people of the vicinity who had profited by selling drinkable water. Hence the ill-feeling against him.
40. 'Little' appears to be superfluous.
41. Because they worried about their livelihood since they could no longer sell water.
42. Ibid. V, 2.
43. Na'arah implies that she was young (v. Glos.).
44. Therefore it is suggested that in the other verse ne'arim means 'men of Ne'uran'. In Josh. XVI, 7 there is a town called Naarath.
45. It is merely stated 'out of the land of Israel', so Na'arah could possibly indicate a place name.
46. We gather from the context that the children belonged to Jericho.
47. II Kings II, 24.
48. It was believed that the Rabbis were endowed with this power and the Talmud relates several anecdotes on the subject.
49. When cohabitation is forbidden.
50. Lit., 'he saw they had a belorith'. They aped heathen manners. On belorith v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 114. n. 5.
51. So why should they have perished on that account?
52. II Kings II, 24.