## Sotah Daf 16a

###### Sotah 16a:1
[Sotah 16a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:1)

שִׁילֹה נוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shiloh, Nob, and Gibeon, and** also **the Eternal House,** i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem. The dust for the *sota* is still brought from the ground of the Sanctuary wherever it is located, even after the Jewish people are no longer in the wilderness.


###### Sotah 16a:2
[Sotah 16a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:2)

אִיסִי בֶּן מְנַחֵם אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ: וּמָה בְּטוּמְאָה קַלָּה לֹא חָלַק הַכָּתוּב — בְּטוּמְאַת אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ חֲמוּרָה, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן״ — שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ קוּפָּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Isi ben Menaḥem says: There is no need** to derive this *halakha* from the verse. It may be learned by an *a fortiori* inference: **With regard to** the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary in a state of **impurity, a lenient** matter for which there is no court-imposed capital punishment, **the Torah does not differentiate.** It is prohibited for an impure person to enter the Tabernacle no matter where it stands. Therefore, **with regard to the impurity of a married woman,** which is **stringent** and carries the penalty of strangulation, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that the Torah does not differentiate? The dust must be brought from the Sanctuary no matter where it stands. **If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states:** “And of the dust that is **on the floor of the Tabernacle”?** It teaches **that one should not bring** dust **from his** own **basket** and place it directly into the water; he must first place it on the floor.


###### Sotah 16a:3
[Sotah 16a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:3)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אֵין שָׁם עָפָר, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן אֵפֶר? אַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּאָמְרִי: לֹא מָצִינוּ אֵפֶר שֶׁקָּרוּי ״עָפָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If **there is no dust there, what is** the *halakha*? May one **place ashes** in the vessel instead? The Gemara responds: There is **no** need to **raise the dilemma** if one holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai, as they say: We never find ashes referred to as dust** in the Torah.


###### Sotah 16a:4
[Sotah 16a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:4)

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל דְּאָמְרִי: מָצִינוּ אֵפֶר שֶׁקָּרוּי ״עָפָר״, מַאי? אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיקְּרִי ״עָפָר״, הָכָא ״בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן״ כְּתִיב, אוֹ דִילְמָא הַאי ״בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן״ לְכִדְאִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה וּלְכִדְאִיסִי בֶּן מְנַחֵם הוּא דְּאָתֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When you raise the dilemma,** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel, who say: We** do **find ashes referred to as dust** in the context of the red heifer (Numbers 19:17). They likewise hold that ashes may also be used instead of dust to cover the blood of a slaughtered bird or undomesticated animal (see Leviticus 17:13). **What** is the *halakha* here, with regard to the water of a *sota*? May ashes replace dust? **Although** elsewhere ashes may be **referred to as dust, here it is written: “On the floor of the Tabernacle,”** indicating that dust in particular is required, since dust comes from the ground. **Or perhaps** the phrase **“on the floor of the Tabernacle” comes** only to teach that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the teaching of **Isi ben Yehuda or in accordance with** the teaching of **Isi ben Menaḥem.** If so, perhaps ashes are acceptable as well.


###### Sotah 16a:5
[Sotah 16a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הֲלָכָה עוֹקֶבֶת מִקְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** evidence from **that** which **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In three instances the *halakha* supersedes the verse,** i.e., the tradition alters the straightforward meaning of the verse.


###### Sotah 16a:6
[Sotah 16a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:6)

הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּ״עָפָר״, וַהֲלָכָה בְּכׇל דָּבָר. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּ״תַעַר״, וַהֲלָכָה בְּכׇל דָּבָר. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה ״סֵפֶר״, וַהֲלָכָה בְּכׇל דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Torah states:** “And whatsoever man…that takes in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it **in dust”** (Leviticus 17:13), **but the *halakha* is** that the blood may be covered **in anything** similar to dust. **The Torah states** with regard to the nazirite: “All the days of his vow of naziriteship there shall be no **razor** come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), **but the *halakha* is** that the nazirite may not remove his hair **with anything. The Torah states:** “That he writes her a **bill [*sefer*]** of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:1). The word *sefer* denotes a scroll, **but the *halakha* is** that the husband may inscribe the bill of divorce **on anything** that is detached from the ground and suitable to be written upon, not only on a scroll.


###### Sotah 16a:7
[Sotah 16a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:7)

וְאִם אִיתָא — לִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is so** that ashes may be placed in the water of a *sota* despite the verse’s stipulation of dust, **consider this** fourth case **as well** to be a *halakha* that supersedes the verse. Since it is omitted from Rabbi Yishmael’s statement, it seems that ashes may not be used.


###### Sotah 16a:8
[Sotah 16a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:8)

תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר. וּמַאי שַׁיַּיר דְּהַאי שַׁיַּיר? שַׁיַּיר מְצוֹרָע, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יְגַלַּח אֶת כׇּל שְׂעָרוֹ״ — כְּלָל, ״אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְאֶת זְקָנוֹ וְאֵת גַּבֹּת עֵינָיו״ — פְּרָט, ״וְאֶת כָּל שְׂעָרוֹ יְגַלֵּחַ״ — חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל — אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט. מָה פְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ: מְקוֹם כִּינּוּס שֵׂעָר וְנִרְאֶה — אַף כׇּל מָקוֹם כִּינּוּס שֵׂעָר וְנִרְאֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yishmael **taught** some cases **and omitted** others; his list is not exhaustive. The Gemara asks: **What** else **did he omit that he omitted this?** It is not reasonable that he would provide a list lacking only one item. The Gemara answers: **He omitted the leper, as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Nega’im* 1:9): In the verse: **“And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave off all his hair”** (Leviticus 14:9), the phrase “all his hair” is **a generalization.** The phrase that follows: **“His head and his beard and his eyebrows,”** is **a detail.** And with the following phrase: **“Even all his hair he shall shave off,”** the verse **then generalized** again. In any case of **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail. Just as the detail is explicitly** referring to **areas** where there is **a collection of hair which is visible, so too all areas** on the leper that have **a collection of hair which is visible** must be shaven.


###### Sotah 16a:9
[Sotah 16a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:9)

מָה רַבִּי — רַבִּי שְׂעַר הָרַגְלַיִם. מַאי מִיעֵט — מִיעֵט דְּבֵית הַשֶּׁחִי וּדְכוּלֵּיהּ גּוּפֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To **what** otherwise excluded case does this *baraita* **extend** the *halakha*? It **extends** the *halakha* of hair to include **pubic hair. What** does the *baraita* **exclude? It excludes armpit hair,** which is not visible, **and body hair** that is not collected. This is the straightforward meaning of the verse.


###### Sotah 16a:10
[Sotah 16a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:10)

וְהִלְכְתָא: מְגַלֵּחַ כְּדַלַּעַת. דִּתְנַן: בָּא לוֹ לְהַקִּיף אֶת הַמְצוֹרָע — מַעֲבִיר תַּעַר עַל כׇּל בְּשָׂרוֹ, וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְגַלְּחוֹ תִּגְלַחַת שְׁנִיָּה כְּתִגְלַחַת רִאשׁוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** yet **the *halakha* is:** The leper **shaves like a gourd,** i.e., his entire body must be shaved. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Nega’im* 14:2): When the priest **comes to shave the leper, he passes a razor over all of his flesh. And** in **the latter clause,** the mishna **teaches: On the seventh day he shaves** the leper again. **The second shaving is** just **like the first shaving.** The verse previously analyzed is referring to the second shaving, and its straightforward meaning is that not all of the leper’s flesh needs to be shaved. However, the mishna states that the leper must shave all of his flesh in the second shaving as well. This is another instance where the *halakha* supersedes the straightforward meaning of the verse, yet it is omitted from Rabbi Yishmael’s list.


###### Sotah 16a:11
[Sotah 16a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:11)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כִּי קָא חָשֵׁיב, הֲלָכָה עוֹקֶבֶת מִקְרָא, הָא עוֹקֶבֶת מִדְּרַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** Rabbi Yishmael consciously omitted the *halakha* of the leper because he **counted** only instances where the ***halakha* supersedes** the straightforward meaning of the **verse. This** *halakha* of the leper, however, **is** an instance where the *halakha* **supersedes** only an exegetical interpretation **of the Sages.**


###### Sotah 16a:12
[Sotah 16a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:12)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כִּי קָא חָשֵׁיב הֲלָכָה עוֹקֶבֶת וְעוֹקֶרֶת, הָא עוֹקֶבֶת וּמוֹסֶפֶת הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** Rabbi Yishmael **counted** only cases where the ***halakha*** both **supersedes and uproots** the straightforward meaning of the verse. **This,** however, is an instance where the *halakha* **supersedes and adds.** The *halakha* does not overrule the verse but rather adds an additional requirement, i.e., that the whole body must be shaved.


###### Sotah 16a:13
[Sotah 16a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/16a:13)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הָא מַתְנִיתָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, דְּדָרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: This *baraita*,** which teaches that only certain parts of the body must be shaved, **is** in accordance with **whose** opinion? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets** verses by means of the principle of **generalizations and details.** According to this interpretation, only collected areas of hair that are visible must be shaven.