## Sotah Daf 47b

###### Sotah 47b:1
[Sotah 47b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:1)

עַד יָמָיו הָיָה פַּטִּישׁ מַכֶּה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. וּבְיָמָיו אֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל עַל הַדְּמַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Until his days the hammer** of smiths **would strike in Jerusalem** on the intermediate days of a Festival, but he banned the practice. **And** furthermore, **in his days there was no need to inquire about doubtfully tithed produce [*demai*],** as everyone was careful to tithe.


###### Sotah 47b:2
[Sotah 47b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם נֶעֶרְפָה הָעֶגְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַהוֹרֵג שֶׁאֵין פּוֹטֶרֶת אוֹתוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלָאָרֶץ לֹא יְכֻפַּר לַדָּם אֲשֶׁר שֻׁפַּךְ בָּהּ כִּי אִם בְּדַם שֹׁפְכוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught: From where** is it derived **that if the heifer’s neck was broken and afterward the killer was found,** then the breaking of the neck **does not exempt him** from punishment? **The verse states: “And the land shall not be atoned, for the blood that was spilled in it, but by the blood of he who spilled it”** (Numbers 35:33).


###### Sotah 47b:3
[Sotah 47b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:3)

עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר רָאִיתִי אֶת הַהוֹרֵג כּוּ׳. טַעְמָא דְּמַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ, הָא לָא מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ — עֵד אֶחָד מְהֵימַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught that if **one witness says: I saw the killer,** and another testifies: You did not see him, they would break the heifer’s neck. The Gemara infers: **The reason** they break the neck **is** because the second witness **contradicts him, but** if **no** one **contradicts him, one witness is relied upon,** and they do not break the heifer’s neck.


###### Sotah 47b:4
[Sotah 47b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:4)

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא נוֹדַע מִי הִכָּהוּ״. הָא נוֹדַע מִי הִכָּהוּ, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם — לֹא הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁרָאוּ אֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּ״, וַהֲלֹא רָאוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers that it is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: It states with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken: **“It is not known who has smitten him”** (Deuteronomy 21:1). **Consequently,** if **it was known who smote him, even** if it was only **one** person **at the end of the world** who knew, **they would not break the neck** of the heifer. **Rabbi Akiva says: From where** is it derived **that** if the members of the **Sanhedrin** themselves **saw one** person **kill someone, but they do not recognize him,** then **they would not break the neck** of the heifer? **The verse states: “Nor did our eyes see”** (Deuteronomy 21:7), **and** did they **not see?** Seeing the murder alone obviates the need for the performance of the ritual.


###### Sotah 47b:5
[Sotah 47b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:5)

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ עֵד אֶחָד מְהֵימַן, אִידַּךְ חַד הֵיכִי מָצֵי מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ? וְהָאָמַר עוּלָּא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד — הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם! אָמַר לָךְ עוּלָּא, תְּנִי: ״לֹא הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין״. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, תְּנִי: ״לֹא הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question: **Now that you have said** that in this case **one witness is relied upon,** if so, **how is the other one able** to **contradict him? Didn’t Ulla say: Wherever the Torah relies on one witness, there is** the equivalent of the testimony of **two** witnesses **here,** and **the statement of one** witness **has no** standing **in a place where** it is contradicted by **two** witnesses. The Gemara answers: **Ulla** could have **said to you** that the text of the mishna should be emended and **teach** the mishna in this way: **They would not break the neck** of the heifer. **And Rabbi Yitzḥak also said** to **teach: They would not break the neck.**


###### Sotah 47b:6
[Sotah 47b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:6)

וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר, תְּנִי: ״הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין״. וּלְרַבִּי חִיָּיא קַשְׁיָא דְּעוּלָּא! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּבַת אַחַת, כָּאן בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ḥiyya said** that one should **teach: They would break the neck.** The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Ḥiyya,** the above ruling **of Ulla** is **difficult.** The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as **here,** in the mishna, the case is discussing when two witnesses came **simultaneously,** and therefore both of their testimonies are rejected; whereas **there,** with regard to the statement of Ulla, it is referring to a case when they testified **one after the other.** Ulla rules that once the testimony of the first witness has been accepted the testimony of the second witness cannot nullify it.


###### Sotah 47b:7
[Sotah 47b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:7)

תְּנַן: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״רָאִיתִי אֶת הַהוֹרֵג״, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״לֹא רָאִיתָ״ — הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין. הָא חַד וְחַד — לֹא הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: If **one witness says: I saw the killer, and two say: You did not see, they would break the neck.** This cannot be stated just to teach us this *halakha*, as the fact that two witnesses override one witness is well known. The Gemara assumes that it is stated for the following inference: **Therefore,** if **one** testified, **and** the other **one** then testified, **they would not break the neck.** This appears to be **a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** who has the text of: They would break the neck.


###### Sotah 47b:8
[Sotah 47b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:8)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״רָאִינוּ״, וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא רְאִיתֶם״ — לֹא הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין. הָא חַד וְחַד — הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **And according to your reasoning** that the mishna states its cases in order to teach an inference, **say the latter clause** of the mishna: If **two** witnesses **say: We saw, and one** witness **says: You did not see, they would not break the neck.** The Gemara makes an inference from this clause: **Therefore,** if **one** came **and** then the other **one** came, i.e., they did not come simultaneously, **they would break the neck.** The two inferences from the different clauses of the mishna consequently contradict one another, and the mishna needs to be explained differently.


###### Sotah 47b:9
[Sotah 47b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:9)

אֶלָּא: מַתְנִיתִין כּוּלַּהּ בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת, וְכִדְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת, וְעָשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד כִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the correct understanding is that **the entire mishna** is not dealing with valid witnesses and stating an obvious *halakha* in order to enable an inference, but instead it is dealing **with** people who are **disqualified** from **bearing witness** and is also teaching us a novel ruling. **And** the mishna is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Neḥemya, who says: Wherever the Torah relies on one witness, follow the majority of opinions.** In other words, if the testimonies of two disqualified witnesses conflict, the court rules in accordance with the testimony provided by more witnesses, whether or not they are qualified to testify. **And they established** that with regard to the testimony of **two women,** who are usually disqualified from testifying, when they testify **against one man,** it should be **like** that of **two men against one man,** and the court will rule in accordance with the testimony of the two women.


###### Sotah 47b:10
[Sotah 47b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:10)

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כׇּל הֵיכָא דַּאֲתָא עֵד אֶחָד — כָּשֵׁר מֵעִיקָּרָא, אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה נָשִׁים כִּי אֶחָד דָּמְיָין. וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דַּאֲתַאי אִשָּׁה מֵעִיקָּרָא. וְתָרְצַהּ לִדְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הָכִי: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת, וְעָשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת כִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד, אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד — כִּי פַּלְגָא וּפַלְגָא דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** a different version of Rabbi Neḥemya’s opinion: **Anywhere that one valid witness came at the outset, even one hundred women** who later contradict him **are considered like one** witness, and do not override his testimony. **And with what are we dealing here** in the mishna? A case **where a woman came at the outset,** and testified that she saw the killer. Then two other women arrived to contradict her statement. **And** according to this interpretation you must **emend the** statement **of Rabbi Neḥemya** so that it reads **like this: Rabbi Neḥemya says: Wherever the Torah relies on one witness, follow the majority of opinions. And they established** that **two women against one woman** are **like two men against one man. But two women** in opposition **to one man** who is a valid witness **is like half** of a pair of witnesses **and half** of a pair of witnesses, and the mishna did not address that case.


###### Sotah 47b:11
[Sotah 47b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:11)

וְתַרְתֵּי פְּסוּלֵי עֵדוּת, לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת — לְחוּמְרָא, אֲבָל לְקוּלָּא — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question on these two interpretations of the mishna: **And why do I** need **two** cases in the mishna to teach the *halakha* that the majority opinion of **those disqualified** from **bearing witness** is followed? The Gemara explains: It is necessary, **lest you say** that **when we follow the majority opinion** in the case of invalid witnesses, this is when it results in a decision **to be stringent** and require the performance of the ritual. **But** when it results in a decision **to be lenient** and say that the ritual is not required, we do **not** follow the majority opinion, and the performance of the ritual is required even if there is one witness saying that the killer was not seen. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that there is no difference in this regard, and the majority opinion is followed in any case.


###### Sotah 47b:12
[Sotah 47b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:12)

מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָרוֹצְחִין כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָרוֹצְחָנִין — בָּטְלָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא עַל הַסָּפֵק. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָרוֹצְחָנִין בְּגָלוּי — בָּטְלָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **from** the time **when murderers proliferated,** the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken was nullified. **The Sages taught: From** the time **when murderers proliferated,** the ritual of **the heifer whose neck is broken was nullified, because it comes only for** a case involving **uncertainty** with regard to the identity of the murderer. Therefore, **when there was an increase of murderers** acting **openly** so that their identities were known, the ritual of **the heifer whose neck is broken was nullified.**


###### Sotah 47b:13
[Sotah 47b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:13)

מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הַנּוֹאֲפִין כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנִקָּה הָאִישׁ מֵעָוֹן״, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵין הָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְאוֹמֵר: ״לֹא אֶפְקוֹד עַל בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תִזְנֶינָה כּוּ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna also taught that **from** the time **when adulterers proliferated,** the performance of the ritual of the bitter water of a *sota* was nullified. **The Sages taught:** It states: **“And the man shall be cleared of transgression,** and that woman shall bear her transgression” (Numbers 5:31), which indicates that **when the man is clear of transgression the waters evaluate** if **his wife** was unfaithful, but **if the man is not clear of transgression the waters do not evaluate** if **his wife** was unfaithful. **And it states: “I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry,** nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for they consort with lewd women, and they sacrifice with prostitutes; and the people that is without understanding is distraught” (Hosea 4:14).


###### Sotah 47b:14
[Sotah 47b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:14)

מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא עָוֹן דִּידֵיהּ — אִין, דִּבְנֵיהּ וְדִבְנָתֵיהּ — לָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״לֹא אֶפְקוֹד עַל בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תִזְנֶינָה וְעַל כַּלּוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תְנָאַפְנָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What is** the purpose of the addition of: **And it states?** What is lacking in the exposition from the verse of the Torah? The Gemara explains: **And if you would say** that based on the verse: “And the man shall be cleared of transgression,” the *halakha* would be that with regard to **his transgression, yes,** it will cause the waters to be ineffective, but the transgression **of his sons and daughters** does **not** impact the effectiveness, **come** and **hear** the verse: **“I will not punish your daughters,”** i.e., I will not punish your wives, due to your daughters, **“when they commit harlotry, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery.”**


###### Sotah 47b:15
[Sotah 47b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:15)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: עֲוֹן אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ — אִין, עָוֹן דִּפְנוּיָה — לָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״כִּי הֵם עִם הַזֹּנוֹת יְפָרֵדוּ וְעִם הַקְּדֵשׁוֹת יְזַבֵּחוּ וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say:** With regard to the **transgression of** adultery with **a married woman, yes,** it will cause the waters to be ineffective, but the **transgression of** one who engaged in sexual intercourse with **an unmarried woman** does **not** impact the effectiveness, **come** and **hear** the continuation of the verse: **“For they consort with lewd women, and they sacrifice with prostitutes.”**


###### Sotah 47b:16
[Sotah 47b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:16)

מַאי ״וְעָם לֹא יָבִין יִלָּבֵט״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָמַר לָהֶם נָבִיא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: אִם אַתֶּם מַקְפִּידִין עַל עַצְמְכֶם — מַיִם בּוֹדְקִין נְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין נְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara turns its attention to the end of the verse. **What is** the meaning of: **“And the people that is without understanding is distraught”? Rabbi Elazar says: The prophet said to the Jewish people: If you are particular about yourselves, the water evaluates your wives; but if not, the water does not evaluate your wives.** This would make people distraught, as they would not know how to overcome their suspicion if they are concerned that their wives have been unfaithful.


###### Sotah 47b:17
[Sotah 47b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:17)

מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ בַּעֲלֵי הֲנָאָה, נִתְעַוְּתוּ הַדִּינִין וְנִתְקַלְקְלוּ הַמַּעֲשִׂים וְאֵין נוֹחַ בָּעוֹלָם. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ רוֹאֵי פָנִים בַּדִּין, בָּטַל ״לֹא תָגוּרוּ״, וּפָסַק ״לֹא תַכִּירוּ״, וּפָרְקוּ עוֹל שָׁמַיִם וְנָתְנוּ עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹל בָּשָׂר וָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites statements similar to those of the mishna. **From** the time **when those who accept benefit** from others **proliferated, the laws became twisted and deeds became corrupted, and there was no comfort in the world. From** the time **when those who look at** the **faces** of the litigants **in judgment,** in order to rule based on the appearance of the litigants, **proliferated,** the fulfillment of the verse: **“You shall not fear** the face of any man” (Deuteronomy 1:17), **ceased, and** the fulfillment of the verse: **“You shall not respect** faces in judgment” (Deuteronomy 1:17), **halted, and they removed the yoke of Heaven** from themselves, **and placed upon themselves the yoke of flesh and blood.**


###### Sotah 47b:18
[Sotah 47b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:18)

מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ לוֹחֲשֵׁי לְחִישׁוֹת בַּדִּין — רָבָה חֲרוֹן אַף בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה הַשְּׁכִינָה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״אַחֲרֵי בִצְעָם לִבָּם הֹלֵךְ״ — רַבּוּ ״הָאוֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב וְלַטּוֹב רָע״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״הָאוֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב וְלַטּוֹב רָע״ — רַבּוּ ״הוֹי הוֹי״ בָּעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From** the time **when those who whisper whisperings in judgment,** advising judges surreptitiously, **proliferated, fierce anger proliferated in Israel, and the Divine Presence departed, because it is stated:** “God stands in the congregation of God; **in the midst of the judges He judges”** (Psalms 82:1). The Divine Presence that dwells among judges leaves if they judge improperly. **From** the time **when** those who are referred to in the verse: **“Their heart goes after their covetousness”** (Ezekiel 33:31), **proliferated, “Those who say to evil good, and to good evil”** (Isaiah 5:20) **proliferated,** i.e., those who treat wicked people as though they were righteous proliferated as a result. **From** the time **when** the fulfillment of the verse: **“Those who say to evil good, and to good evil,” proliferated,** the cry of: **Woe, woe, proliferated in the world.** There was an increase in troubles that cause people to cry out.


###### Sotah 47b:19
[Sotah 47b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:19)

מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מוֹשְׁכֵי הָרוֹק — רַבּוּ הַיְּהִירִים וְנִתְמַעֲטוּ הַתַּלְמִידִים, וְהַתּוֹרָה חוֹזֶרֶת עַל לוֹמְדֶיהָ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הַיְּהִירִים — הִתְחִילוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִיהִירִים, שֶׁאֵין דּוֹרֵינוּ רוֹאֶה אֶלָּא לַפָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From** the time **when those who** show their arrogance by **drawing** out **spittle proliferated,** the number of **haughty people** in general **proliferated, and the** number of **students decreased,** as they would say haughtily that there was nothing left for them to learn, **and the Torah** needs to **go around to** seek **those who study it,** as people do not learn of their own initiative. Furthermore, **from** the time **when haughty people proliferated, the daughters of Israel began marrying haughty men, as our generation looks only at the face,** i.e., the external aspects of a person, and ignores the inner aspects of a person.


###### Sotah 47b:20
[Sotah 47b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:20)

אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר מָר: הַאי מַאן דְּמִיַּהַר — אֲפִילּוּ אַאִינָשֵׁי בֵּיתֵיהּ לָא מִיקַּבַּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גֶּבֶר יָהִיר וְלֹא יִנְוֶה״, לֹא יִנְוֶה אֲפִילּוּ בַּנָּוֶה שֶׁלּוֹ! מֵעִיקָּרָא קָפְצָה עֲלֵיהּ, לְסוֹף מִיתְּזִיל עֲלַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Is that so?** Do women wish to marry arrogant men? **But didn’t the Master say: One who is haughty is not even accepted by the members of his household, as it is stated: “The haughty man abides not”** (Habakkuk 2:5)? **“Abides [*yinaveh*] not”** means that **even in his abode [*naveh*],** he is not accepted. The Gemara explains: **Initially, she jumps at** the chance to marry **him,** because he appears to be a great person to her, but **in the end,** once she gets to know him, **he is demeaned in her eyes.**


###### Sotah 47b:21
[Sotah 47b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:21)

מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מַטִּילֵי מְלַאי עַל בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים — רָבָה הַשּׁוֹחַד וְהַטָּיַית מִשְׁפָּט, וּפָסְקָה טוֹבָה. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״מְקַבְּלֵנִי טוֹבָתְךָ״ וּ״מְחַזְּקֵנִי טוֹבוֹתֶיךָ״ — רַבּוּ ״אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״. שְׁפָלִים הוּגְבְּהוּ, וְהַגְּבוֹהִים הוּשְׁפְּלוּ, וּמַלְכוּתָא אָזְלָא וְנָוְלָא. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ צָרֵי עַיִן וְטוֹרְפֵי טֶרֶף — רַבּוּ מְאַמְּצֵי הַלֵּב וְקוֹפְצֵי יָדַיִם מִלְּהַלְווֹת, וְעָבְרוּ עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **From** the time **when there was an increase** in those who **placed upon homeowners** the obligation to designate the profits from **merchandise** for the upkeep of judges, **bribery and corruption of judgment proliferated and good ceased. From** the time **when** those judges and leaders who say: **I accept your favor, and: I hold your favor, proliferated,** the fulfillment of the verse: **“Every man did that which was right in his eyes”** (Judges 17:6), **proliferated. Lowly ones were raised and lofty ones were lowered, and the monarchy is increasingly on the decline. From** the time **when misers and those greedy for profit proliferated, those hardened of heart and who closed their hands from lending proliferated, and they transgressed that which is written in the Torah:** “You shall not harden your heart, nor shut your hand from your needy brother…**Guard yourself in case** there is a base thought in your heart…and you do not give him” (Deuteronomy 15:7, 9).


###### Sotah 47b:22
[Sotah 47b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:22)

מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״נְטוּיוֹת גָּרוֹן וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת עֵינָיִם״ — רַבּוּ מַיִם הַמָּרִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁפָּסְקוּ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת — נִתְמַעֲטוּ הַיָּמִים וְנִתְקַצְּרוּ הַשָּׁנִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשׂוֹנֵא מַתָּנֹת יִחְיֶה״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ זְחוּחֵי הַלֵּב — רַבּוּ מַחֲלוֹקֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי שַׁמַּאי וְהִילֵּל שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימְּשׁוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן — רַבּוּ מַחְלוֹקוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנַעֲשֵׂית תּוֹרָה כִּשְׁתֵּי תוֹרוֹת. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מְקַבְּלֵי צְדָקָה מִן הַנׇּכְרִי — הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעְלָה וְהֵם לְמַטָּה, יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנִים וְהֵם לְאָחוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From** the time **when** women with **“stretched-forth necks and wanton eyes”** (Isaiah 3:16) **proliferated, the bitter waters** of a *sota* **proliferated,** as more people were suspected of committing adultery; **but they** eventually **ceased** when licentiousness became too widespread. **From** the time **when those who accept gifts proliferated, the days decreased and the years shortened, as it is written: “And he who hates gifts lives”** (Proverbs 15:27). **From** the time **when those with boastful [*zeḥuḥei*] hearts proliferated, dispute proliferated in Israel. From** the time **when the students of Shammai and Hillel who did not serve** their Rabbis **sufficiently proliferated, dispute proliferated in Israel, and the Torah became like two Torahs. From** the time **when those who accept charity from gentiles proliferated, the Jewish people were above and they below; the Jewish people ahead and they behind.** This last statement is a euphemism; it was the Jewish people that were below and behind, but the Gemara did not want to say so explicitly.


###### Sotah 47b:23
[Sotah 47b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/47b:23)

מִשֶּׁמֵּת יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר כּוּ׳. מַאי ״אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, אִישׁ שֶׁהַכֹּל בּוֹ. יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֶעֱבִיר הוֹדָיַית הַמַּעֲשֵׂר כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין אוֹתוֹ כְּתִיקּוּנוֹ. דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר דְּיָהֲבִי לִלְוִיִּם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **from** the time **when Yosei ben Yo’ezer died** the clusters ceased. The Gemara poses a question: **What is** the meaning of **clusters [*eshkolot*]? Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** It means **a man who contains all [*ish shehakol bo*]** elements of Torah and mitzvot. The mishna further taught that **Yoḥanan the High Priest took away the declaration of the tithe.** The Gemara poses a question: **What is the reason** he did this? **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Because they did not give** the tithe **in the proper manner** as stated by the Torah. In what way is that? **As the Merciful One states** in the Torah **that they should give** the first tithe **to the Levites,**