Daf: Sotah 10-11

There is so much to see and say here, and no time to write it all down in a clear form. Here is some of it, anyway:

10b
On the line, “Better to throw one’s self into an oven than to embarrass another person publicly,” Rashi takes our gemara simply: We see that one should let himself be put in an oven rather than embarrass someone else, since Tamar was willing to suffer this fate. Tosafos in Bava Metzia 59a points out that this is seen in the Torah’s pasuk itself, in which the word מוצאת does not have any vowels on the א, so that the word is actually מוצת, to be kindled (a la ויצת אש בציון – Eichah 4).

The gemara notes the recurrence of הכר נא in the book of Bereishit linking the sale of Yosef with Yehudah/Tamar, but there are many more borrowed phrases and images unifying Bereishit (as well as the Torah itself), and giving the lie to the Documentary Hypothesis. A few quick examples: The young goats (Yaakov’s meal for Yitzchak, the goat’s blood for Yosef’s tunic, Tamar’s fee), the link of עלי קללתך and עלי היו כלנה, the numerous references to walking in the דרך ה', and the cross-biblical theme of צדקה ומשפט which carries us from Bereishit 18:19 all the way through Devarim 33:21 and then into the neviim.

The gemara talks about Yehudah being named for his future admission/הודאה, but the Torah gives a reason for his name – it’s הפעם אודה את ה', Leah’s thanks to Gd! Maharsha says she would have named him אודה under her original reason; HaShem inspired her to call him יהודה.

I am puzzled by the gemara’s declaration that Yehudah sanctified the Name of HaShem by publicly admitting his wrong; we are taught אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה (and see the Rambam in the beginning of Hilchot Teshuvah on this point) that one should not divulge private sin to the masses, lest it actually cause a desecration and desensitization!

11a
See the Maharsha on the gemara's analysis of the pasuk describing Miriam's wait for Moshe.

Why do we bring a pasuk from Yeshayah מי נח זאת לי as proof that won’t destroy the world with water, instead of bringing the post-Flood biblical pledge, לא אוסיף להכות את כל חי?! Perhaps because that earlier pasuk isn't water-specific?

The gemara here regarding Yisro's reward for refusing to participate in Paroh’s persecution indicates that Yisro's descendants, or at least some of them, did become Jewish. (See our discussion on Yael.) But then why did they live next to Amalek, per Shemuel I on Shaul’s war with Amalek?

Some have the minhag of blowing a Teruah Gedolah at the end of Yom Kippur. This mirrors Rashi here, that the Jews heard a Teruah at Har Sinai, since the shofar blast at the end of the Revelation at Har Sinai (במשוך היובל המה יעלו בהר) is one of the sources for the shofar blast at the end of Yom Kippur.

Rashi's two approaches to translating the gemara on ערי מסכנות take the Gemara’s line in opposite directions – one is that it's about the building in Egypt, the other is that it's about construction in general.

On “resembling thorns in their eyes,” the Maharsha's approach (the Egyptians resembled thorns in their own eyes) seems to fit the wording more accurately than Rashi (the Egyptians felt punctured by thorns).

11b
The pasuk brought here, תחת התפוח עוררתיך שמה חבלתך אמך שמה חבלה יולדתך, is one source for the myth that the fruit in the garden was the apple, from a mis-reading of the Hebrew root ח-ב-ל as corruption – “Under the apple tree, your mother corrupted you.” It should be read like חבלי לידה, “your mother birthed you.” (There is also a second source, the Latin “mal” which is associated with the apple/malus.)

The Maharsha explains why I might be more or less likely to identify Miriam or Elisheva as the second of the meyaldot.

The Gemara’s derash readings of חיות depend on reading it with a patach under the ח, instead of the actual kamatz.

The gemara that says Miriam gave birth to Chur after her illness must not be referring to her illness with tzaraat, but rather to a childhood illness, for Chur was dead (per midrash) by the time she experienced her tzaraat. This also fits 12a; see Rashi on 12a עזובה.

Daf: Nazir 59-63 - Women, Weapons and non-Jewish nazirites

Getting toward the end of Nazir here. Some very interesting discussions of cross-dressing, as well as women carrying weapons, and a non-Jewish nazir.

59a
The discussion of cross-dressing and of women carrying (let alone wielding) weapons of war begs the question of Yael the Keini’s actions in killing Sisera. Pseudo-Rashi here offers the standard explanation, that this is why Yael used a tent peg rather than a dagger. It isn’t clear that the whole story is a problem in the first place, though, since Yael, it may be argued, was not Jewish. This is subject to the debate of whether Yitro, Yael’s ancestor, returned home and converted his family, or not.
Note that when the Jews went to war against Amalek under Shaul in Shemuel II 15, they asked the Keini to move away from Amalek first. It certainly sounds as though the Keini did not consider themselves Jewish.
For more on the issue of women and weapons of war, see Abarbanel on Devorah, as well as Tzitz Eliezer 20:31:1 on Devorah. See also Targum to Shoftim 5:26 on Yael. For modern applications, see Yechaveh Daat 5:55, Igrot Moshe 4:9 and 4:75:3, and Tzitz Eliezer 18:63.

See Tosafot חזינא and ההוא, and the Rosh, regarding the status of scissors for male shaving of פיאות.

The title of בר פחתי is, of course, reminiscent of הקריבהו נא לפחתך. The word פחה is linked to pasha, I believe.

59b
See the Rosh explaining how this was supposed to sharpen the minds of the students.

60b
The last five lines on the page appear to be a restatement of what we know from before? Noet that the Rosh has לישנא אחרינא here.

61a
I am troubled by the statement, from the Erchin discussion, that בני ישראל is global rather than Jewish-specific – it’s only because of the additional word איש that we are able to say it is universal in the ערכין case! But I’ve never found an answer for this.

61b
Tosafos quotes a pasuk to show that an עכו"מ does not have the פרה אדומה ritual.

Lest anyone ask how the Torah could legislate such a prohibition for an עכו"מ, outside the 7 mitzvos bnei noach, I’d point out that we have prohibitions against עכו"מ learning Torah (Sanhedrin 59a) and observing Shabbat (Sanhedrin 58b).

62b
Note, on the first mishnah, that when the אדון forces the עבד כנעני to break his vow and drink, the vow remains binding such that when the עבדות ends, the vow is reinstated. (Rosh, and gemara later)

Note the reversal of the names of Abbaye and Rava. This is standard, based on the idea that since Abbaye started out as Rava’s rebbe, he does not respond to Rava’s ideas, but rather Rava responds to his. Sometimes Rava’s name is edited to “Rabbah” for the same reason.

63a
The use of רגלים לדבר here is odd. The phrase means that we have observed an event or a fact which indicates that certain results or associated events/facts are also likely. It comes from the term רגל as “cause” (as well as “foot,” much as עקב is also “cause” as well as “heel”). Here, though, the term רגלים לדבר doesn’t fit. The Rosh notes as much.