Yerushalmi Sotah 1:2 ירושלמי סוטה א׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: How does he declare his jealousy? If he said to her in front of two [witnesses]: Do not speak with the man X, and she spoke with him, she still is permitted to her house⁷²To sleep with her husband. and to eat heave⁷³If her husband is a Cohen, she is not desecrated.. If she enters a hidden room together with him and remains there long enough for impurity⁷⁴The minimal time needed to start intercourse, for the genitals to touch; cf. Yebamot Chapter 4, Note 59., she is forbidden to her house⁷²To sleep with her husband. and forbidden to eat heave; if he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate⁷⁵If the husband dies childless before the situation is resolved, she cannot be permitted to the levir since she was forbidden to the husband. But since she was not divorced, she cannot be free to marry outside the family without the formality of ḥalîṣah..

HALAKHAH: “How does he declare his jealousy,” etc. Does this mean only, until she talks with him? That would imply, if she went to a secluded place with him without talking, that going to a secluded place would count for nothing⁷⁸Since only talking to Mr. X was forbidden to her. That conclusion seems to be ridiculous.? It comes to tell you more: Even if she talked to him but was not with him in a secluded place, she still is permitted to her house and to eat heave, since the Mishnah uses chaste language: Do not be alone with Mr. X⁷⁹From the start, the husband did not say “do not talk” but “do not be alone”. The Babli, 5b, holds that even if the husband says “talking”, it is interpreted as meaning “being alone in a hidden room”; cf. Tosafot 5b, s. v. הא..

May he declare his jealousy with respect to two men together? Rebbi Yudan said, that is in dispute. He who says that he may declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son⁸⁰Cf. Note 37., [says] that he may declare his jealousy with respect to two men together. Rebbi Yose asked: May he declare his jealousy with respect to a hundred men⁸¹On Mishnah Qiddushin 4:12, which states that a woman may be alone with two other men, the Yerushalmi notes: “That is, if they are decent men. But if they are amoral, she should not be alone even with a hundred simultaneously.” R. Yose denies that anybody may hold that a man cannot declare his jealousy simultaneously with regard to two men.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him: If he said to her, do not enter the synagogue, she enters⁸²It depends on the circumstances. If the husband wants to prohibit any social interaction to his wife, she may force a divorce through his fault (Ketubot 7:5, fol. 31b, line 46; Babli 72a)..

“With him.⁸³This refers to the Mishnah which states “If she enters a hidden room together with him”.” Rebbi Mana said, it only said “with him.” Therefore, not one after the other⁸⁴If they are witnesses that she and her paramour entered at different times, the husband has no case.. Rebbi Abin said, even one after the other since anyhow it is obvious⁸⁵The Mishnah forbids her to her husband any time she was together with her paramour in any more or less hidden place; examples are given.: On a road⁸⁶Greek πλατεῖα “open place”. during the night, in a ruin during daytime, in dark passageways during daytime.

⁸⁷An extended text in Tosephta Taharot 6:17.“They asked Ben Zoma: Why is a doubt in a private domain considered impure⁸⁸This is a question about ritual impurity, not the moral impurity of the straying wife. But since adultery is called “impurity” in the paragraph of the straying wife (Num. 5:13,14,19,20, 27,28,29), the rules of ritual impurity and of moral impurity must be identical. The undisputed rule is that if a question arises in matters of ritual impurity it must be resolved by a presumption of impurity in a private domain but of purity in the public domain (cf. Babli, Soṭa 28a/b, Avodah Zarah 37b, Ḥulin 9b). The argument presented by the Tosephta is rejected by the Babli in Soṭa in the name of R. Aqiba; in Avodah Zarah and Ḥulin the rule is accepted as an old tradition devoid of scriptural basis. Cf. Tosafot Soṭa 28b, s. v. מכאן.? He said to them: Where is the suspected wife? In a private domain⁸⁹A place adequate for intercourse must by definition be private. As the preceding examples show, the definition of “private place” for all kinds of impurity are different from the rules of “private place” in civil matters and regarding the Sabbath (Shabbat Chapter 1).. He said to them, we find that she is forbidden for her house⁹⁰In her intimate relations with her husband, she is considered an adulteress even though there remains a doubt whether she actually committed adultery in the hidden room..” The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband⁹¹In the Babli, Yebamot 33b, the formulation is: The seduction of a minor girl is rape. The rape victim is explicitly cleared from the guilt of adultery in Num. 5:13.
The Medieval authorities make it difficult to understand the position of the Babli in this matter. According to R. Abraham ben David in his glosses to the Code of Maimonides (Issure Bi’a 3:2, Soṭa 2:4), the Babli accepts the opinion of the Yerushalmi. Maimonides holds that the underage girl is forbidden to her husband. As usual, he gives no reason for his decision. In the opinion of Don Vidal de Tolosa, approved by Joseph Caro, this is not because of the girl but because the husband forbade her on himself as stated in Ketubot 9a for any case in which the husband accuses his wife of infidelity. In the case of an underage girl, this refers only to a girl married off by her father, whose marriage in valid by biblical standards, cf. Yebamot 1, Note 118.. But did we not state:⁹²Mishnah Taharot 3:6. “In any case where there is no mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure⁹³Even in a private domain.”? Therefore, if there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is impure. But here, even while there is a mind to be asked, the doubtful case is pure!⁹⁴The argument of the Tosephta is rejected since the minor can tell what happened even if she legally has no will (or at least the seducer could in theory be asked.) ⁸⁷An extended text in Tosephta Taharot 6:17.“Why is a doubt in a public domain considered pure? He said to them: We find that the public prepare their Passah [as in] purity when most of them are impure⁹⁵If most of Israel are impure, the public service in the Temple is performed in impurity. The only private sacrifice which has the status of a public offering is the Passah lamb (Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:6).. If known impurity was permitted in public⁹⁶This is a matter of dispute in the Babli (e. g. Yoma 6b), whether for public sacrifices the rules of impurity are pushed aside or eliminated. Following the first opinion, the invasion of impurity has to be held to a minimum. This opinion is not found in the Yerushalmi. In the second opinion, the one expressed here, the rules of impurity are disregarded; it is as if impurity were purity. Under the influence of the Babli, the commentators unanimously emend “in purity” to “in impurity” and even J. Sussman here indicates a corruption. The emendation is totally unnecessary., so much more for a case of doubtful impurity.”

There⁹⁷Mishnah Keritut 2:4. “Incest” always includes adultery., we have stated: “In all matters of incest, He made him who touches⁹⁸The man whose genital touches the woman’s. This is a technical term, cf. Yebamot Chapter 6, Note 11. equal to him who completes and one is guilty for each single intercourse⁹⁹This refers to the rules concerning a slave girl (Lev. 19:20–22) who according to some opinions is partially manumitted (cf. Babli Keritut11a.). The Babli’s tradition eliminates the rules from practical importance by restricting them to a girl living with a Hebrew slave. Since the institution of Hebrew slaves was abolished with the Babylonian exile, never to be reinstituted, the frequent discussions of the rules are purely theoretical. However, in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 5(1), at least one opinion describes the slave girl engaged to a free man in the expectation of her manumission.
As a slave, the girl can not marry and therefore she is free to have guiltless sex with any man not a Jew (cf. Terumot Chapter 8, Note 347). Upon manumission, she becomes a free Jewish woman and able to contract a valid marriage with any Jew who is not a priest. She is permitted to live with a Hebrew slave (Ex. 21:4). Since her relationship with the slave is not a marriage, her affair with another man is not adultery. From the man’s side, the affair with the slave girl is the only sin which can be atoned for by a sacrifice if committed intentionally. A purification sacrifice is possible only for inadvertent sins; the relation with the semi-free girl can be atoned for by a reparation sacrifice. (An intentional sin can only be cleansed by God’s mercy in response to repentance.) For inadvertent sins, a purification sacrifice is due for each single transgression; one reparation sacrifice covers the entire affair.. He was more stringent with the slave girl since in her case He treated the intentional as unintentional.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamai in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen,” until he ejaculates¹⁰⁰Lev. 19:20: “If a man sleep with a woman by flow of semen …” The intercourse of a free man with the slave girl is not punishable unless there was an ejaculation.. Here is written “flow of semen”, and here is written “flow of semen.¹⁰¹In the case of the straying wife, Num. 5:13 reads: “A man slept with her with flow of semen.” Nevertheless, the wife becomes impure and forbidden to her husband already if her paramour’s penis touches her genitals. This seems to contradict our principle that equal expressions used in different circumstances must have equal meanings.” Here¹⁰²In the case of the slave girl., you say “flow of semen” until he ejaculates. And here¹⁰³In the case of the straying wife., you say so? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for it is written¹⁰⁴Num. 5:13.: “She was hidden and became impure.” From the moment she was hidden, the Torah calls her “impure”. But here¹⁰²In the case of the slave girl., “flow of semen,” until he ejaculates. For what reason is written¹⁰³In the case of the straying wife. “flow of semen”? For measures¹⁰⁵To measure how long the wife must be hidden together with her paramour to be impure and subject to the ordeal. In another connection this is quoted in the Babli, 2b., as it is stated¹⁰⁴Num. 5:13.: “She was hidden and became impure”; what is counted as hiding¹⁰⁶Babli 4a. The Babli discusses why all these expressions have to be used.? Time to become impure. What is the time for impurity? Time for intercourse. What is the time for intercourse? Time for ‘touching’⁹⁸The man whose genital touches the woman’s. This is a technical term, cf. Yebamot Chapter 6, Note 11..

¹⁰⁷This baraita exists in several versions: Babli 4a, Sifry Num. 7, Sifry Zuṭa 13, Tosephta 1:1, Tanḥuma and Tanḥuma Buber Naśo; Num. rabba 9(6).“How long is ‘touching’? Rebbi Eliezer says, [time needed] to walk around a date palm¹⁰⁸In Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa: R. Ismael.; Rebbi Joshua says, to mix a cup [of wine]¹⁰⁹In Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa: R. Eliezer.; Ben Azai says, to drink it¹¹⁰In Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa: R. Joshua. In the Tosefta: Ben Azai says, mixing a cup to drink it.; Rebbi Aqiba says, [time needed] rolling an egg¹¹¹In Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa: Ben Azai says, to fry an egg. The Tosephta, which ascribes the statement to R. Aqiba, also has: to fry an egg. The usual explanation of לגלגל is: To boil an egg softly so it can roll when taken out of its shell. A soft-boiled chicken egg is considered the egg which is most quickly prepared for human consumption [Rashi in Babli Šabbat 80b, cf. Yerushalmi 8:7 (fol. 11b line 70)].
Babli and Sifry, Sifry Zuṭa have an additional entry: R. Aqiba says, to sip one (soft-boiled) egg.; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, to sip three rolled eggs one after the other; Rebbi Eleazar ben Phineas¹¹²In Babli and Tosephta: R. Eleazar ben Jeremiah. This reading is suspect since this name is not reported anywhere else in talmudic literarture while R. Eleazar ben Phineas is quoted several times. Because of the dependence of the Tosephta on the Babli [cf. Epilogue in the author’s edition of Ma‘aser Šeni, Ḥallah, Orlah, Bikkurim (SI 23)], Babli and Tosephta cannot be considered as two independent sources.
This and the following entries are missing in Sifry. says, [time needed] for the weaver to bind a thread; Miniamin¹¹³A student of R. Aqiba. In Babli, Tanḥuma, Tanḥuma Buber, Sifry Zuṭa: Polemon. Babli, Tosephta, and the Tanḥumas have another entry: Ḥanin ben Phineas says, that she may extract a splinter from her mouth (in Tanḥumas: Rebbi Ḥanin, Tanḥumas Buber: Ḥanan) says, that she can stretch out her hand and lift a loaf of bread from the basket. And though there is no proof, at least there is a hint: ‘For a whoring woman up to a loaf of bread.’¹¹⁴Prov. 6:26.” Rebbi Yose said, all these measurements [of time] are after she removes her underpants¹¹⁵Meaning and etymology of the word סינר are in doubt. The translation follows Arukh (s. v. סנר I) and Rashi (Šabbat 92b): “Small pants which she wears for decency”. {This meaning may be compared with Arabic سنوّر “armor”.} Maimonides (Commentary to Šabbat 10:4), following a Gaonic commentary (B. M. Levin Oṣar HaGeonim Šabbat, Oṣar HaPerušim p. 51): “sash”. It is reported in Megillah 4:1 (75a, line 30) that from the time of the return from Babylonia, Jewish women wore a sinār; according to Rashi’s tradition they wore gowns and under them pants from the hips to the knees; according to Maimonides they wore long pants and a sash covering their legs front and back down from the hips. Maimonides’s interpretation is the source of the acceptation in modern Hebrew: Apron. {Cf. Greek συνωρίς, -ίδος, ἡ, “pair of horses”, also “pair of anything (fetters, manacles)”, referring to a pair of sashes or pants? (E. G.)}
R. Yose’s remark makes all the examples given meaningless for practical applications.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, each of them judged by his own experience¹¹⁶Babli 4b.. But did Ben Azai ever marry¹¹⁷What does he know about sex? He is the example of a man studying 24 hours a day, not having time for anything else.? Some want to say, he had an erection. But some want to say, he was married and gave it up¹¹⁸This contradicts the story in the Babli, Ketubot 63a, that he was engaged to R. Aqiba’s daughter who wanted to marry him after he had become the time’s most outstanding scholar but that he died before he had attained that goal.. Some want to say, “the secret of the Eternal is for those who fear Him, to inform them about His covenant.¹¹⁹Ps. 25:14.”

It was stated¹²⁰In the Babli, 28a, and in Sifry Zuṭa(Naśo 14), in the name of R. Aqiba. A complementary version, that three times “if she was not impure” is mentioned to permit her to her husband, presumed paramour (after the husband’s death), and heave, is in Sifry Num. 19.: Rebbi said, three times is “impurity” said in the paragraph¹²¹According to Rashi, once each in Num. 5:14, 27, 29., one for the husband, one for the paramour¹²²That she could not marry him even if divorced or widowed., and one for heave¹²³If she is married to a Cohen or is the childless daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel, who on becoming a widow would otherwise be permitted heave. Any woman who ever slept with a man whom she could not marry on the spot (even if raped) is desecrated and permanently barred from priestly status since she cannot “return to her father’s house as in her youth’ (Lev. 22:13). Since a married woman cannot marry another man without a divorce, an adulteress is automatically desecrated.. For heave? Do we find that a woman is forbidden to her house⁷²To sleep with her husband. and permitted to eat heave? Why not? If the daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israel and raped, is she not permitted to her house¹²⁴Since the Israel has no sacred status, his relation to his wife is not changed if she is raped. but forbidden heave? We never find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave¹²⁵If A implies B it does not follow that B implies A. Therefore, the example given as objection is irrelevant. Since the wife cannot live with her husband until she is cleared from the accusation of adultery, she cannot eat heave until she is cleared.! Rebbi Abin said, it was said: One for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for the levir¹²⁶If the husband died childless after his wife was in a hidden place with another man and before she was cleared of the suspicion of adultery.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah says so: “If he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Abin stated before Rebbi Jonathan: “‘If you deviated from under your husband.’¹²⁷Num. 5:20. The baraita is not quoted elsewhere. The other sources point out that the raped wife is expressly excluded by v. 13: “And she was not kidnapped” (Sifry Num. 7). This excludes rape.” How do you understand this? He said to him: Just as she is “under your husband” by her consent, so also in this case by her consent.

¹²⁸Text from Yebamot 10:1, Notes 49–67. Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rebbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him⁶³Since one pubic hair does not make the person an adult, there is no witness who testifies to the person being an adult.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted to her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.