Skip to main content
Iyun in Sota -
Lesson 6

Iyun Masechet Sota: 5a

Text file

 

Our sugya, the locus classicus of the issur of ga'ava served as the basis for a very famous passage in the Smag (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol by R. Moshe of Koucy, composed a few years after 1240).

 

In the concluding passage of the introduction to his work, R. Moshe relates a dream:

 

Also regarding the codification of mitzvot lo ta'aseh, I had a vision in a dream which stated to me "you have forgotten the most important thing – 'Beware lest you forget Hashem, your God' (Devarim 8:11), It had not been my intention to count it as a mitzvat lo ta'aseh nor did Rabbi Moshe [the Rambam] count it in his list.  In the morning, upon reflection, I realized that it is a basic principle ("eikar gadol") in the fear of God, so I established it as a major concept in its proper place.  God knows that I am not lying regarding my dreams, to the best of my understanding.

 

The same tale is repeated by him in the sixty-fourth mitzvat lo ta'aseh when he fulfils his pledge and lists ga'avah as a negative prohibition.  There, he writes as follows:

 

The ethical significance of anava (humility) I preached to the masses, but it did not occur to me to list it as a mitzva, nor did Rabbi Moshe mention it or list it as a negative prohibition.  Yet when I reached this point in the list of the mitzvoth lo ta'aseh, I had a nocturnal vision "you have forgotten the most important thing – 'beware lest you forget Hashem, your God'.  In the morning, upon reflection, I realized that it is a basic principle ("yesod gadol") in Yirat Hashem, so I included it as mitzva with the help of He who grants wisdom to the wise.

 

A few days later, I looked up the gemara in the first perek of Sota, and it is explicitly stated there: From whence is derived a prohibition to the haughty? R. Nachman bar Yitzchak said: The source is from the verse "And you shall feel mighty and will forget Hashem, your God"; in addition, it is written, "Beware lest you forget Hashem, your God"

 

Indeed, our sugya deals at length and with great severity with the issue of ga'ava.  Aside from the above quoted passages, it figures prominently in discussions of the topic in the medieval ethical literature.  Thus, the Rambam (Hilkhot Deot 2:3) quotes from our sugya in his treatment of the golden mean, the Meiri deals with it at length in his Chibbur Hateshuva, as do others.

 

Actually, the subject of our sugya can be understood to refer to either of two interrelated states of mind: personal arrogance towards fellow human beings, or human hubris in its relationship to the KBH.  The starting point of the discussion (and the reason that it is included in Sota) - a negative judgment on a person who has sexual relations with a married woman – would seem to indicate that the issue at stake is the arrogance that the haughty personality displays towards fellow human beings, yet most of the pesukim that the gemara subsequently quotes and discusses deal with the man-God relationship and its corruption by human hubris. 

 

The pasuk in Mishlei that God despises the haughty heart ("toavat Hashem kol geva lev") appears in the context of a series of pesukim that relate to the proper relationship to the KBH, so that its inclusion, as well as the two pesukim quoted from Yeshayahu and Yirmiyahu, support the claim that the issue at hand is man's appraisal of himself vis a vis his Creator and the sense of humility expected from his position.  Needless to say, the pesukim from Devarim mentioned in our gemara that the Smag focused upon also relate to man's relation to God.

 

Rishonim differed on this question.  The Smag understood the sugya as discussing man's sense of gratitude or ingratitude towards the KBH and the dangers of an improper sense of self-sufficiency and/or the rewards of an appropriate sense of dependence.  The entire text of prohibition 64, too long to be quoted here, indicates quite clearly that its topic is not the bein adam la-chaveiro issue of arrogance but the bein adam la-makom concern of hubris.

 

The Meiri, on the other hand, interpreted the gemara as dealing with interpersonal human relationships:

 

"Ga'ava is the trait of superiority over other human beings – exercised not for the furtherance of spiritual goals but motivated by arrogance, jealousy, contentiousness and denial of any positive qualities in others - about which the sugya states that it is as if he is an idol worshipper since his jealousy and evil nature will cause him to deny the truth on any matter in order to humiliate his interlocutor..."

 

There is, therefore, a machloket Rishonim regarding the import of our sugya.  Nevertheless, it is important not to overdo the significance of this machloket.  Essentially, the argument is interpretive in nature - the Smag interprets the sugya as treating a certain negative spiritual phenomenon, while the Me'iri understands it as considering a different problem.  However, this does not lead to the conclusion that each denies the issur that concerns the other.  Undoubtedly, the Me'iri wholeheartedly agrees that hubris is an acute religious malady and the Smag would not deny for a moment that arrogance is an ethical flaw that the Torah prohibits as part of its ethical system.  Therefore, a statement such as appears in the Encyclopedia Talmudit's treatment of our topic that

"regarding the nature of the issur of ga'ava, there are Rishonim who wrote that it is not to feel proud when God has granted us a plentiful bounty...and there are those who claim that the essential issur is directed to fellow humans, that the great should not treat the humble haughtily..."

is misguided.  The assertion that the machloket refers to the definition of ga'ava is inaccurate.  Whether we call one form of behavior ga'ava and refer to the other as gasut ha-ruach or any other phrase does not diminish this point.  Therefore, for the machloket between the Me'iri and the Smag to be of significance and not merely semantics, it must relate to the referent of the statements in the gemara and not the choice of either alternative as the essence of the prohibition.

 

If, though, we do ask ourselves why did the gemara include in its discussion both instances of ga'ava (i.e. the case of eishet ish as an interpersonal issue and the pesukim that address the issue of hubris), the answer is that man's self-centeredness that places his ego at the focus of existence and his sense of self importance and achievement are the common denominator of both of these flaws.  The sense of superiority over fellow man and the hubris towards the KBH are both expressions of man's false sense of his own importance that dwarfs the worth of others in his eyes and leads him to the delusion of human self-sufficiency.  Therefore, the phrase "geva lev" or "gasut ha-ruach" that the gemara uses enable it to include both phenomenon in its discussion, since it relates to the state of mind rather than to the actual expression, thereby enabling the transition in the sugya from the concrete case of adultery to the condemnation of the abstract quality of gova ha-lev that is supported by pesukim relating to cases that are drawn from the man-God realm and not from human relationships.

 

Sources for next week's shiur:

 

1) Sota 5b-6a until the mishna.

2) Yevamot 67b Hay-yabam (10 lines from bottom) ...kinyan de-achiv. Tosafot s.v. kinyan (first two rows).

3) Yevamot 92b Amar Rav (top of the page) ...ein kiddushin tofsim be-yevama.

4) Yevamot 20a Almana le-Kohen Gadol ... chayavei keritot lo tofsei behu kiddushin.

5) Rambam Hilkhot Yibbum 6:19 (Rav Chayim al ha-Rambam)

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!