Sotah 114

13:
Our tractate draws to its close. Several factors seems to have contributed to the decision to conclude the tractate with this teaching of Rabbi Pinĥas ben-Ya'ir. First of all, this sage has already been mentioned in this baraita, so it is but natural that another teaching attributed to him also be attached: we have seen this kind of 'teaching by association' many times in our studies of the Mishnah (and it is even more pronounced in the Gemara).

14:
There is, perhaps, a very remote connection between this teaching and what was the main topic of the tractate when it first began. The main topic of the teaching is the hierarchy of spiritual progression, and one of the stages in this spiritual progression is 'reserve'. This 'reserve' does have a general connotation within the religious framework of the sages. It is said that above the entrance to the Pythian Oracle in Delphi the ancient Greeks had written "Nothing Too Much" (though there are also different statements handed down in this connection). With this the sages would certainly have agreed, and in the Middle Ages Rambam made the "Golden Mean" the path in life to be desired by everybody. But, in rabbinic parlance, the term which I have translated 'reserve' has a distinctly sexual connotation. This 'reserve' is perhaps best expressed by Rambam in his Mishneh Torah [De'ot 5:4] where he explains that while a husband and wife are always 'permitted to each other' the husband should practice 'reserve' and not constantly be with his wife 'like a rooster'; this last expression is a reference to the language of the sages in the Gemara [Berakhot 22a and elsewhere]. Is it too much to suggest that maybe there is here a hint that if the woman who is the subject of our tractate had practiced 'reserve' her fate may have been very different?

15:
But surely the main reason why our tractate ends with this teaching of Rabbi Pinĥas ben-Ya'ir is in order to conclude on a positive note. The suffering brought about by some of the topics dealt with in this tractate – Sotah, War, Destruction and so forth – will find their recompense in the resurrection which will be heralded by the re-appearance of the prophet Elijah, who – as is taught by the last of the prophets, will return to announce "the great and dreadful day of the Lord" [Malachi 3:23].

16:
This teaching of Rabbi Pinĥas ben-Ya'ir became more well-known than might have been expected. Rabbi Moshe Ĥayyim Luzzatto [1707-1746] [Ramĥal] enshrined this teaching in his book "Mesillat Yesharim", "The Path of the Upright" – and 18th century homily on the almost impossibly saintly life. It had a profound influence on the Musar Movement in Ultra-Orthodox Jewry in the 19th century. To this day he book is studied in almost all Yeshivot and is considered the finest such work ever written. Indeed, Rabbi Israel Salanter [1810-1883], the founder of the Musar Movement (which stressed the study of such books on piety) said, "All the classical works of Musar demonstrate that man must fear God. The Mesillat Yesharim tells us how." Over two hundred years ago, Rabbi Eliahu, the famed Vilna Gaon, declared that Rabbi Moshe Ĥayyim Luzzatto had the most profound understanding of Judaism that any mortal human could attain. He furthermore stated that if Luzzatto were alive in his generation, he would go by foot from Vilna to Italy to sit at his feet and learn from him.

In Sotah #110 I wrote: these decrees were of the nature of a sumptuary law: that is to say that their intention was to reduce costly and unnecessary finery at a time of great sorrow, anguish and suffering for the general population.

Ze'ev Orzech writes:

It was interesting to read about the sumptuary laws which the Sages decreed as a sign of moral support, and possibly fund-raising for the war effort in Eretz Israel. In Europe, from the late Middle Ages to the 18th century CE, many kehillot also passed sumptuary laws. But these were in response to anti-Jewish agitation stemming from displays of luxury, ostentation, and conspicuous consumption. These laws specified to the minutest detail the kind of clothes women could wear, the kind of jewelry they could put on and even the way they could fix their hair – no curls, ringlets, false hair or powdered hair. (Several of these restrictions were relaxed for the bride and the mother of the bride while under the huppah. Thus either of them could wear up to four rings, three more than the usual limit.) Equally detailed proscriptions were passed for men. An especially interesting one states that, "No Bar Mitzvah should stand before the Torah wearing a wig." The sanctions for failure to comply were severe: in many other places it was excommunication!

This concludes our study of Tractate Sotah. I shall update the web archive as soon as possible. Next week I shall post details concerning the choices for our next tractate and all participants will be invited to vote, as we have done in the past. (If you have special requests, now is the time to let me know of them!)

It only remains for me to wish everybody a Chag Same'ach and Shabbat Shalom.