Sotah 038

1:
This mishnah is difficult to translate conveniently since it contains many simple terms which are liable to be translated in a misleading manner. Therefore it seems useful to explain such terms before we explain the mishnah itself. When we studied tractate Kiddushin we studied the following mishnah [Kiddushin 4:1] –

This mishnah, which is probably idealized to a certain extent, seeks to classify the "Returnees" [Shavei Zion], who returned to Judah from the Babylonian Exile under the leadership of Zerubabel into ten classes of pedigree. The first Bet Mikdash was destroyed in the summer of the year 587 BCE and there was a general transportation of the Judean population to Babylon by the conquerors, representing King Nebuchadrezzar. Perhaps less than 10% of the original population were actually left on Judean soil, and they were of the very lowest echelons of the socio-economic hierarchy. In Babylon the exiles seem to have maintained themselves in separate social groups and to have maintained to a very large extent their ethnic identity. Some 50 years later, in late September and early October of the year 536 BCE, the Persian war-lord, Cyrus, conquered Babylon in a lightening campaign and found himself master of an Empire that stretched from the Mediterranean seaboard to Afghanistan. Realizing that he simply did not have the logistical or technical means of maintaining control over so large an area by force, he posed not as conqueror but as the Liberator of all the subject peoples from the Babylonian yoke: all groups of exiles were free to return home. Life in Babylon could not have been bad since only a minority of the exiles actually returned to Judah under the leadership of Zerubabel (a legitimate claimant to the Davidic throne) and Joshua (the legitimate High Priest). In the society that these "Returnees" established in Judah, the "in people" were those who had been through the experience of Exile; the "out people" [Am ha-Aretz] were the indigenous population that had stayed put. In all historical probability it is this social dichotomy that mishnah Kiddushin 4:1 seeks to reflect and perpetuate – though we must recall that the mishnah dates from a period some seven hundred years after Shivat Zion.

2:
Priest [Kohen]: a man who was a member of the priestly clan that traced its descent back to Aaron, Moses' brother, the first High Priest.

Levite [Levi]: a man who was a member of the tribe of Levi but who was not a member of the priestly clan within that tribe.

Israelite [Yisra'el]: a Jew of impeccable pedigree who was not a Kohen or a Levi.

Ĥallal: The son of a Kohen and a woman with whom he was prohibited to copulate because he was a Kohen (for instance, she was a divorcee). Ĥallalim ceased to enjoy priestly status in perpetuum, but no other disability applied. (Daughters of such a union were also, of course, 'ĥallalot', but that had even less practical meaning.)

The rest of the classes mentioned have no relevance to our present mishnah [Sotah 3:7]

3:
Priests, Levites and Israelites – Jews of presumed pure Jewish pedigree – may freely intermarry – i.e. even in a case where some law specifically prohibits the marriage (such as a Kohen to a divorcee), if contracted the marriage is valid.

Levites, Israelites, Ĥallalim, Proselytes and Ĥarurim may freely intermarry – i.e. Kohanim are prohibited from marrying Ĥallaliot, Proselytes and Manumitted Canaanite servants. To all intents and purposes there are no restrictions on Levites as such.

To be continued.

Mishnah 4 mentioned deprecatingly 'the lashes of the Pharisees'. Michael Lewyn asked: Why does the Mishnah go out of its way to condemn Pharisees (as opposed to self-flagellators generally)? I had always thought that the rabbis of the Mishnah and Gemara considered themselves either Pharisees or the spiritual heirs of the Pharisees.

Meir Noach writes:

Does not the Talmud [Sotah 22b – SR] speak of seven types of Pharisees? – five of them negative, the sixth one who is a Pharisee out of Fear and the seventh one is a Pharisee who out of love (of God).

I have heard that the term Pharisees is usually negative in the Talmud. But that we defend them because the Christian Bible attacks them.

This bothers me because in the Christian Bible Pharisees warned the son of Yoseph when his live was in danger. Also, according to their bible Gamli'el the leader of the Pharisees saved the lives of eleven leaders of this movement. In addition in Chaim Potock's book 'Wanderings' I read that The Pharisees even sent envoys to Rome to save the live of James. The Karites said they were Sadducees thus the rabbis as a matter of course see themselves more as heirs of the Pharisees. It was a Gamli'el who taught that we feed the poor, visit the sick and bury the dead of the Goyim [non-Jews – SR]

I comment:

Even though it has no direct bearing on the thesis propounded by Meir Noach I do not know why he attributes the feeding of non-Jewish poor etc to Rabban Gamli'el. His source must be the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Gittin 33a] where the information is provided anonymously [Tanna Kamma].

Meir Noach mentions 'the son of Joseph' meaning Jesus of Nazareth. He also mentions the embassy that the pharisees sent to defend James the bother of that same 'son of Joseph' – the very James whose ossuary has almost certainly been discovered recently, making an enormous theological problem for the Roman Catholic Church.

During the month of November I am on vacation. I shall do my best to post shiurim whenever I can, but at best it will be sporadic. I shall do my best to respond to private messages but some of them may have to wait until my return.