سوطا — تلمود یروشلمی

سوطا

سوطا — تلمود یروشلمی در Beth HaMidrash: متن عبری و ترجمهٔ فارسی‌اش، با راشی و مفسران بزرگ. رایگان، آنلاین.

משנה: הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מְקַנֵּא עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וּמַשְׁקֶה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר מְקַנֵּא עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וּמַשְׁקֶה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם.MISHNAH: If a man declares his jealousy 5. Since the ordeal involves a sacrifice and it is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple precinct, the wife has to be warned in due form not to associate with the man the husband suspects to be his wife’s paramour. His right to bring his wife to the Temple can be established only by the testimony of two witnesses of good standing. to his wife, Rebbi Eliezer says, he declares his jealousy in front of two [witnesses] and takes her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony. Rebbi Joshua says, he declares his jealousy in front of two [witnesses] and takes her to drink by the testimony of two [witnesses].

הלכה: הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כול׳. כְּתִיב וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וגו׳. שֶׁלֹּא יְקַנֵּא לָהּ לֹא מִתּוֹךְ שְׂחוֹק וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂיחָה וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ מִתּוּן. אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ דָּבָר שֶׁל אֵימָה. עָבַר וְקִינֵּא לָהּ בְּאֶחָד מִכָּל הַדְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ. מַה אִיתְאֲמָרַת. לְמִצְוָה. לְעִיכּוּב. אִין תֵּימַר לְמִצְוָה. קִינּוּיוֹ קִינּוּי. אִין תֵּימַר לְעִיכּוּב. אֵין קִינּוּייוֹ קִינּוּי. אַתְיָיא כְהָדָא. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר חוּקָּה תּוֹרָה מְעַכֵּב.HALAKHAH: “If a man declares his jealousy to his wife,” etc. It is written 5:14.: “A spirit of jealousy overcame him and he declared his jealousy to his wife;” this implies that he should not declare his jealousy jokingly, or in the middle of a conversation, or lightly, or in a friendly manner but in a way that inspires fear. If he transgressed and declared his jealousy in one of the aforementioned ways: was this said as an obligation or as a necessity? If you say as an obligation, his declaration of jealousy is valid. If you say as a necessity, his declaration of jealousy is invalid. This is resolved referring to the statement 19a. Any procedure that is described as תּוֹרָה or חֻקָּה in the Torah must be executed to the letter or it is invalid; quoted also in Soṭah 2:3 (18a), Pesaḥim 7:2 (34b).It follows that for the Yerushalmi, any declaration of jealousy that is not executed in a spirit of gravity is invalid.: Anywhere “law” or “teaching” is mentioned, it is an absolute necessity.

הַקִּינּוּי. רִבִּי יהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. חוֹבָה. רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ אָמַר רְשׁוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. אַתְיָיא דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוָה. מָצָא בָהּ דְּבָרִים כְּאוּרִין. לְגָרְשָׁהּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל שֶׁלֹּא מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוָה. לְקַיְימָהּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל שֶׁמָּצָא בָהּ דְּבָרִים כְּאוּרִין. לְפוּם כֵּן הוּא אוֹמֵר. חוֹבָה. וְהָא תַנֵּי מִשּׁוּם בֵּית שַׁמַּי. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵאת מִשֵּׁם עֶרְוָה. מְנַיִין הַיּוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ וּצְדָדֶיהָ מְפְוּרָמִין וּזְרוֹעוֹתֶיהָ חֲלוּצוֹת. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קִיַימְתִּיהָ בְּעֵדִים. וְכָאן שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים.The declaration of jealousy, Rebbi Joshua said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, is obligatory; but Rebbi Joshua said, it is optional. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, it turns out that Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel 9:11; Sifry Deut. #269.. As the House of Shammai say, a man may not divorce his wife except if he found in her a matter of nakedness. If he found her behavior ugly 7:7 (fol. 31c), Babli Yebamot 24b/25a an example is given, that the husband comes home and sees a pedlar leave the house and his wife getting dressed. Our sources indicate that in such a case the husband may divorce his wife without paying, claiming the divorce is his wife’s fault. It is not mentioned that in the absence of witnesses to the presumed sex act, the House of Shammai prohibit the divorce. This may qualify the entire argument as homiletic., he cannot divorce her since he found no proof of adultery; he cannot keep her since he found her behavior ugly. Therefore, he says, it is obligatory. But was it not stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s [hair] is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare 90a/b, this is a statement of R. Meïr, following the House of Hillel.? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this if there are witnesses, but not if there are no witnesses.

וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִׁילוֹ. לְפוּם כֵּן הוּא אוֹמֵר. רְשׁוּת. רָצָה לְקַנְאוֹת יְקַנֶּא. רָצָה לְגָרֵשׁ יְגָרֵשׁ.“And Rebbi Joshua [follows] the House of Hillel.” For the House of Hillel say, even if she burned his food 9:11; Sifry Deut. #269.. Therefore, he says it is optional. If he wants to declare his jealousy, he declares his jealousy; if he wants to divorce her, he divorces her 7:6 spells out that the husband can divorce his wife for cause (without payment) if he can prove indecent conduct. If he divorces her because she is a bad cook, he has to pay..

וּמַה טַעְמָא דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. עֶרְוָה זוֹ סְתִירָה. דָּבָר זֶה קִינּוּי. דָּבָר דָּבָר. מַה דָבָר הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. אַף דָּבָר הָאָמוּר כָּאן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. וּמַשְׁקֶה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ. בִּתְנָאִים שֶׁהִיתְנָה עִמָּהּ עַל פִּי אֲחֵרִים.What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “For he found in her a word of nakedness.. “Nakedness”, that is the rendez-vous. “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “Word, word”; just as “word” mentioned there requires two witnesses 19:15: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a word (fact, circumstance) be confirmed.” The argument is based on the second hermeneutical rule (Sifra Introduction) that the meaning of words is unchanged from one occurrence to the other.In the Babli, Giṭṭin 90a, this is quoted as the argument of the House of Shammai., so “word” mentioned here requires two witnesses. “But he can take her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness. 5:12. The root מעל denotes the sin of embezzlement or fraud (Lev. 5:15, Num. 5:6; cf. Arabic مغالة) or general mischief (Lev. 26:40, Ez. 18:24, Ezr. 9:4; cf. Arabic معالة).”, about the conditions spelled out to her through the mouth of others. 5:14. Therefore, the breach of contract is that the wife went to a rendez-vous with the man forbidden to her by the declaration of jealousy in front of two witnesses. The clause (Num. 5:12) that she breached her contract with him is read to mean that he is empowered to prosecute this breach before the Temple priests..

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah.1.1