Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 10, 2015 | 讻状讞 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sotah 15

Details about the meal offering the Sotah has to bring and its comparison to other meal offerings. Study Guide Sotah 15


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜诪拽讟讬专讜 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讟讬专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪注诇讛讜 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讛拽讟讬专讜

and burns it in the service vessel. The Gemara asks: Does he really burn it in a service vessel? Rather, say: He brings it up to the altar in a service vessel in order to burn it.

讜诪讜诇讞讜 讜谞讜转谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讬砖讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞转讱 讘诪诇讞 转诪诇讞 讜讙讜壮

The baraita continues: And he salts it and places it on the fires. The Gemara cites the source: As it is written: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering of yours you shall season with salt鈥 (Leviticus 2:13).

拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 砖讬专讬讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讗讝讻专转讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讜转专转 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜

The baraita continues: After the handful is sacrificed, the remainders of the meal-offering are eaten. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests鈥and the priest shall make the memorial part thereof smoke upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). The memorial part is the handful. And it is written afterward: 鈥淏ut that which is left of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons鈥 (Leviticus 2:3).

拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 诇诪专 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇诪专 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转诪专 讛拽讜诪抓 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪转讬专 砖讬专讬讬诐 讘讗讻讬诇讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪砖转砖诇讜讟 讘讜 讛讗讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖转讬爪转 讛讗讜专 讘专讜讘讜

The baraita uses the phrase: After the handful is sacrificed. This phrase can be understood according to one Sage as he holds, and according to another Sage as he holds. As it is stated that there is a dispute between the Sages: From when does the sacrifice of the handful render the remainder of the meal-offering permitted for consumption by the priests? Rabbi 岣nina says: It is when the fire takes hold of it, i.e., when it ignites. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is when the fire consumes most of the handful. Each of these amora鈥檌m understands the baraita in accordance with his opinion.

讜专砖讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诇讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪砖讞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The baraita continues: And the priests are permitted to put wine and oil and honey in the remainder of the meal-offering. What is the reason? The verse states with regard to the gifts given to the priests: 鈥淎nd I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumotfor a consecrated portion鈥 (Numbers 18:8). The phrase 鈥渇or a consecrated portion鈥 indicates that the gifts are given as a mark of greatness and should be eaten in the manner that the kings eat.

讜讗讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诪诇讞诪抓 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 讞诇拽诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽诐 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓

The baraita concludes: And they are prohibited only from allowing the meal-offering to become leavened. The Gemara cites the source: As it is written with regard to meal-offerings: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion I have given it of My offerings made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: One should read the verse as if the phrase 鈥渢heir portion鈥 is part of the same phrase as the prohibition of baking with leaven. This teaches that even their portion, i.e., the portion given to the priests, shall not be baked with leaven.

讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讻讜壮 讜讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讬转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛

搂 The mishna states: All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense. The Gemara asks: But do all other meal-offerings actually require oil and frankincense? But isn鈥檛 there the meal-offering of a sinner, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:11).

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讜讘讗讜转 住诇转 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讞讟讬谉 讜讘讗讛 住诇转 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讘讗讛 讙专砖 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讜讘讗讛 拽诪讞

The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna is saying: All meal-offerings other than that of the sota require oil and frankincense, and they are brought from wheat; and they are also brought from fine flour. However, the meal-offering of a sinner, even though it does not require oil and frankincense, must still be brought from wheat and brought from fine flour. Similarly, the omer meal-offering, even though it is brought from barley, requires oil and frankincense, and it is brought as groats. But this one, the sota meal-offering, requires neither oil nor frankincense, and it is brought from barley and brought as unsifted flour. While the meal-offering of a sinner and the omer meal-offering are similar to other meal-offerings in one of these respects, the sota meal-offering is different in both respects.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:10) that Rabbi Shimon said: By right, it should have been the halakha that the meal-offering of a sinner requires oil and frankincense, so that a sinner should not stand to gain by not having to pay for them. For what reason does the verse not require them? It is so that his offering will not be of superior quality.

讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专

And by right, it should have been the halakha that a sin-offering brought for transgression of a prohibition punishable by karet, e.g., consumption of forbidden fat, requires fine flour and libations of oil, and wine. Just as burnt-offerings and peace-offerings require these, a sin-offering should require them as well so that a sinner should not stand to gain by not having to pay for them. For what reason does it not require them? It is so that his offering will not be of superior quality.

讗讘诇 讞讟讗转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讜讗砖诪讜 讟注讜谞讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 注诇 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讙注讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讛转诐 诪谞讙注讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻驻专 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗砖转专讜讬讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬

But the sin-offering of a leper and his guilt-offering require libations, as they are not brought on account of a sin. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani say that Rabbi Yonatan says: Leprosy comes on account of seven matters. Leprosy develops on account of sin, so by extension the leper鈥檚 offerings are also brought on account of sin. The Gemara answers: There, from the time he contracts his leprosy he gains atonement for his sin through the plague of leprosy itself. Consequently, when he brings the offering, he brings it only in order to permit him to eat sacrificial food.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讟讗转 谞讝讬专 转讛讗 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then the sin-offering of a nazirite should require libations, because it is not brought on account of a sin. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who says: The nazirite is also a sinner, since he denies himself wine unnecessarily.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 住讜驻专讬诐 讛谞讬讞讜 诇讬 讜讗讚专砖谞讛 讻诪讬谉 讞讜诪专

The mishna states that Rabban Gamliel says: Just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so too, her offering is animal food. It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Scribes, permit me, and I will explain it as a type of decorative wreath [岣mer], i.e., an allegory.

讚砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽讗诪专 讛讬讗 讛讗讻讬诇转讜 诪注讚谞讬 注讜诇诐 诇驻讬讻讱 拽专讘谞讛 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛转讬谞讞 注砖讬专讛 注谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讻砖诐 砖诪注砖讬讛 诪注砖讛 讘讛诪讛 讻讱 拽专讘谞讛 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛

And why did Rabban Gamliel speak up? It was because he heard Rabbi Meir saying an alternative explanation: She fed him, i.e., her paramour, delicacies from around the world; therefore, her offering is animal food. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Your explanation works out well in the case of a rich sota, but with regard to a poor sota, who cannot afford such delicacies, what is there to say? Rather, the reason she brings an offering of animal food is: Just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so too her offering is animal food.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 诪讘讬讗 驻讬诇讬 砖诇 讞专住 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讻讬讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讻砖诐 砖诪诪注讟 讘讻转讘 讻讱 诪诪注讟 讘诪讬诐

MISHNA: The priest would bring an earthenware drinking vessel [peyalei] and he would pour into it half a log of water from the basin in the Temple. Rabbi Yehuda says: The priest would pour only a quarterlog of water. Just as Rabbi Yehuda minimizes the writing, as he requires that less be written on the scroll of the sota than do the Rabbis, so too he minimizes the amount of water to be taken from the basin for the erasing of the text.

谞讻谞住 诇讛讬讻诇 讜驻谞讛 诇讬诪讬谞讜 讜诪拽讜诐 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讜讟讘诇讗 砖诇 砖讬砖 讜讟讘注转 讛讬转讛 拽讘讜注讛 讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讙讘讬讛 讜谞讜讟诇 注驻专 诪转讞转讬讛 讜谞讜转谉 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 注诇 讛诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪谉 讛注驻专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讘拽专拽注 讛诪砖讻谉 讬拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讜谞转谉 讗诇 讛诪讬诐

The priest would enter the Sanctuary and turn to his right. And there was a place there, on the Sanctuary floor, with an area of a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet [tavla] was there, and a ring was fastened to the tablet to assist the priest when he would raise it. And the priest would take loose dust from underneath it and place the dust into the vessel with the water, so that the dust would be visible upon the water, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water鈥 (Numbers 5:17).

讙诪壮 转谞讗 驻讬诇讬 砖诇 讞专住 讞讚砖讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讙诪专 讻诇讬 讻诇讬 诪诪爪讜专注 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞专住 讞讚砖讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞专住 讞讚砖讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It must be a new earthenware vessel; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael derives this by means of a verbal analogy between 鈥渧essel鈥 in the case of the sota (Numbers 5:17) and 鈥渧essel鈥 from the case of a leper (Leviticus 14:5). Just as there, with regard to the leper, a new earthenware vessel is required, so too here, a new earthenware vessel is required.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛爪驻讜专 讛讗讞转 讗诇 讻诇讬 讞专砖 注诇 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 砖诇讗 谞注砖转讛 讘讛谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗祝 讻诇讬 砖诇讗 谞注砖转讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛

And there, with regard to the leper, from where do we derive that a new vessel is required? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water鈥 (Leviticus 14:5). Just as running water has not been used beforehand for work, i.e., once used it is no longer considered to be running, so too the vessel must not have been used for work.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: If this verbal analogy is extended, then just as there, running water from a flowing spring is required, so too here, with regard the sota, running water from a spring should be required for the water of a sota.

诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 讻讬讜专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讬 诪注讬讬谉 讛谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讗专 诪讬诪讜转 讛谉

The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yishmael it is indeed so, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to the water of the basin in the Temple Rabbi Yishmael says: It is collected from spring water. And the Rabbis say: It may also be from any other type of water and need not be collected from spring water.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪爪讜专注 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转

The Gemara asks: The verbal analogy can be refuted: One cannot apply halakhot stated with regard to a leper to a sota, as what is unique about a leper is that he requires cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet wool for the performance of his purification ritual, and these are not required of the sota. Why, then, should a new vessel be required by the sota?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻诇讬 讞专住 讻诇讬 砖讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讻讘专

Rabba said: The verse cited in the mishna states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel鈥 (Numbers 5:17). The Torah makes no prior mention of the need for the priest to bring with him an earthenware vessel. Therefore, the verse must mean that the water should be placed in the vessel that I have already told you about, i.e., the vessel used for the leper.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞转讗讻诪讜 驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 谞转讗讻诪讜 驻谞讬讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讜 讗祝 讻诇讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讛

Rava says: Even according to the opinion that a new vessel is not required, they taught that the earthenware vessel is taken only when its exterior was not blackened from usage. But if its exterior was blackened, then it is unfit for use by the sota. What is the reason for this? Its requirements are similar to those of water: Just as the water must be clear and unchanged in appearance, so too the vessel must be unchanged in appearance.

讘注讬 专讘讗 谞转讗讻诪讜 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇转讜讱 讻讘砖谉 讛讗砖 讜谞转诇讘谞讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讚讞讜 讗讬讚讞讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讜专 讛讚讜专

Rava raised a dilemma: If the vessel鈥檚 exterior was blackened, and it was returned to the furnace and became white again, what is the halakha? Do we say that once it has been disqualified, it is disqualified forever and can never be rendered fit for use? Or perhaps since it has returned to a white appearance it has returned to a state of fitness.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 砖讛驻砖讬诇 讘讛谉 拽讜驻转讜 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛讗 讛转诐 讛讚专讬 讜诪驻砖讟讬

Come and hear evidence from that which Rabbi Elazar says: If the leper tied the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet wool for his purification to his basket behind him, so as to carry it on his back, they are disqualified, since their form has changed. But there, after those items have been tied, they can be smoothed out again as if they had never been used, and still they are unfit. Evidently, after being disqualified an item cannot become fit again.

讛转诐 讚讗讬拽诇讜祝 讗讬拽诇讜驻讬

The Gemara answers: There, the items are permanently unfit because they are peeled due to tying and can never truly return to their original appearance. That case does not provide proof.

谞讻谞住 诇讛讬讻诇 讜驻谞讛 诇讬诪讬谞讜 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 驻讬谞讜转 砖讗转讛 驻讜谞讛 诇讗 讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉

The mishna states: The priest would enter the Sanctuary and turn to his right. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he should do so? The Gemara responds: As the Master said: All turns that you turn should be only to the right.

诪拽讜诐 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗诪讛 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诪谉 讛注驻专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讬讻讜诇 讬转拽谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讬讻谞讬住

The mishna continues: There was a place there, on the Sanctuary floor, with an area of a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet was there and a ring was fastened to the tablet so that it could be raised. When the priest would raise the tablet, he would take loose dust from underneath it and place the dust into the vessel with the water, so that the dust would be visible upon the water, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water鈥 (Numbers 5:17). The Sages taught in a baraita: If the verse had stated only: 鈥淎nd of the dust that is on the floor,鈥 one might have thought that the priest could prepare the concoction from dust from outside the Sanctuary and bring it in afterward.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽专拽注 讛诪砖讻谉 讗讬 讘拽专拽注 讛诪砖讻谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讞驻讜专 讘拽专讚讜诪讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讬砖 砖诐 讛讘讗 讗讬谉 砖诐 转谉 砖诐

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,鈥 indicating that the dust must be from inside the Sanctuary. If the verse had stated only: 鈥淥n the floor of the Tabernacle,鈥 one might have thought that the priest may dig with axes to loosen the dust there. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,鈥 indicating that the dust must be lying there loosely. How so? If there is already loose earth there on the Sanctuary floor, bring it; if there is none there, then place loose dust there from elsewhere, and then pick it up and use it.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜诪谉 讛注驻专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讜讙讜壮 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讛 诪转拽谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜诪讻谞讬住 讘拽专拽注 讛诪砖讻谉 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛讘讬讗 拽专拽注

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle鈥; the fact that the verse does not explicitly state to take the dust from the floor of the Tabernacle teaches that the priest would prepare dust from outside and bring it into the Sanctuary. When the verse states: 鈥淭he dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,鈥 Isi ben Yehuda says that this phrase serves to include the floor of the Tabernacle when it stood in

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sotah 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 15

讜诪拽讟讬专讜 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讟讬专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪注诇讛讜 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讛拽讟讬专讜

and burns it in the service vessel. The Gemara asks: Does he really burn it in a service vessel? Rather, say: He brings it up to the altar in a service vessel in order to burn it.

讜诪讜诇讞讜 讜谞讜转谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讬砖讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞转讱 讘诪诇讞 转诪诇讞 讜讙讜壮

The baraita continues: And he salts it and places it on the fires. The Gemara cites the source: As it is written: 鈥淎nd every meal-offering of yours you shall season with salt鈥 (Leviticus 2:13).

拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 砖讬专讬讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讗讝讻专转讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讜转专转 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜

The baraita continues: After the handful is sacrificed, the remainders of the meal-offering are eaten. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests鈥and the priest shall make the memorial part thereof smoke upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). The memorial part is the handful. And it is written afterward: 鈥淏ut that which is left of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons鈥 (Leviticus 2:3).

拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 诇诪专 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇诪专 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转诪专 讛拽讜诪抓 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪转讬专 砖讬专讬讬诐 讘讗讻讬诇讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪砖转砖诇讜讟 讘讜 讛讗讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖转讬爪转 讛讗讜专 讘专讜讘讜

The baraita uses the phrase: After the handful is sacrificed. This phrase can be understood according to one Sage as he holds, and according to another Sage as he holds. As it is stated that there is a dispute between the Sages: From when does the sacrifice of the handful render the remainder of the meal-offering permitted for consumption by the priests? Rabbi 岣nina says: It is when the fire takes hold of it, i.e., when it ignites. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is when the fire consumes most of the handful. Each of these amora鈥檌m understands the baraita in accordance with his opinion.

讜专砖讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诇讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪砖讞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The baraita continues: And the priests are permitted to put wine and oil and honey in the remainder of the meal-offering. What is the reason? The verse states with regard to the gifts given to the priests: 鈥淎nd I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumotfor a consecrated portion鈥 (Numbers 18:8). The phrase 鈥渇or a consecrated portion鈥 indicates that the gifts are given as a mark of greatness and should be eaten in the manner that the kings eat.

讜讗讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诪诇讞诪抓 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 讞诇拽诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽诐 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓

The baraita concludes: And they are prohibited only from allowing the meal-offering to become leavened. The Gemara cites the source: As it is written with regard to meal-offerings: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion I have given it of My offerings made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: One should read the verse as if the phrase 鈥渢heir portion鈥 is part of the same phrase as the prohibition of baking with leaven. This teaches that even their portion, i.e., the portion given to the priests, shall not be baked with leaven.

讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讻讜壮 讜讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讬转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛

搂 The mishna states: All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense. The Gemara asks: But do all other meal-offerings actually require oil and frankincense? But isn鈥檛 there the meal-offering of a sinner, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:11).

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讜讘讗讜转 住诇转 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讞讟讬谉 讜讘讗讛 住诇转 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讘讗讛 讙专砖 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讜讘讗讛 拽诪讞

The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna is saying: All meal-offerings other than that of the sota require oil and frankincense, and they are brought from wheat; and they are also brought from fine flour. However, the meal-offering of a sinner, even though it does not require oil and frankincense, must still be brought from wheat and brought from fine flour. Similarly, the omer meal-offering, even though it is brought from barley, requires oil and frankincense, and it is brought as groats. But this one, the sota meal-offering, requires neither oil nor frankincense, and it is brought from barley and brought as unsifted flour. While the meal-offering of a sinner and the omer meal-offering are similar to other meal-offerings in one of these respects, the sota meal-offering is different in both respects.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:10) that Rabbi Shimon said: By right, it should have been the halakha that the meal-offering of a sinner requires oil and frankincense, so that a sinner should not stand to gain by not having to pay for them. For what reason does the verse not require them? It is so that his offering will not be of superior quality.

讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专

And by right, it should have been the halakha that a sin-offering brought for transgression of a prohibition punishable by karet, e.g., consumption of forbidden fat, requires fine flour and libations of oil, and wine. Just as burnt-offerings and peace-offerings require these, a sin-offering should require them as well so that a sinner should not stand to gain by not having to pay for them. For what reason does it not require them? It is so that his offering will not be of superior quality.

讗讘诇 讞讟讗转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讜讗砖诪讜 讟注讜谞讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 注诇 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讙注讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讛转诐 诪谞讙注讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻驻专 诇讬讛 讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗砖转专讜讬讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬

But the sin-offering of a leper and his guilt-offering require libations, as they are not brought on account of a sin. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani say that Rabbi Yonatan says: Leprosy comes on account of seven matters. Leprosy develops on account of sin, so by extension the leper鈥檚 offerings are also brought on account of sin. The Gemara answers: There, from the time he contracts his leprosy he gains atonement for his sin through the plague of leprosy itself. Consequently, when he brings the offering, he brings it only in order to permit him to eat sacrificial food.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讟讗转 谞讝讬专 转讛讗 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then the sin-offering of a nazirite should require libations, because it is not brought on account of a sin. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who says: The nazirite is also a sinner, since he denies himself wine unnecessarily.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 住讜驻专讬诐 讛谞讬讞讜 诇讬 讜讗讚专砖谞讛 讻诪讬谉 讞讜诪专

The mishna states that Rabban Gamliel says: Just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so too, her offering is animal food. It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Scribes, permit me, and I will explain it as a type of decorative wreath [岣mer], i.e., an allegory.

讚砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽讗诪专 讛讬讗 讛讗讻讬诇转讜 诪注讚谞讬 注讜诇诐 诇驻讬讻讱 拽专讘谞讛 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛转讬谞讞 注砖讬专讛 注谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讻砖诐 砖诪注砖讬讛 诪注砖讛 讘讛诪讛 讻讱 拽专讘谞讛 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛

And why did Rabban Gamliel speak up? It was because he heard Rabbi Meir saying an alternative explanation: She fed him, i.e., her paramour, delicacies from around the world; therefore, her offering is animal food. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Your explanation works out well in the case of a rich sota, but with regard to a poor sota, who cannot afford such delicacies, what is there to say? Rather, the reason she brings an offering of animal food is: Just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so too her offering is animal food.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 诪讘讬讗 驻讬诇讬 砖诇 讞专住 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讻讬讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讻砖诐 砖诪诪注讟 讘讻转讘 讻讱 诪诪注讟 讘诪讬诐

MISHNA: The priest would bring an earthenware drinking vessel [peyalei] and he would pour into it half a log of water from the basin in the Temple. Rabbi Yehuda says: The priest would pour only a quarterlog of water. Just as Rabbi Yehuda minimizes the writing, as he requires that less be written on the scroll of the sota than do the Rabbis, so too he minimizes the amount of water to be taken from the basin for the erasing of the text.

谞讻谞住 诇讛讬讻诇 讜驻谞讛 诇讬诪讬谞讜 讜诪拽讜诐 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讜讟讘诇讗 砖诇 砖讬砖 讜讟讘注转 讛讬转讛 拽讘讜注讛 讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讙讘讬讛 讜谞讜讟诇 注驻专 诪转讞转讬讛 讜谞讜转谉 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 注诇 讛诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪谉 讛注驻专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讘拽专拽注 讛诪砖讻谉 讬拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讜谞转谉 讗诇 讛诪讬诐

The priest would enter the Sanctuary and turn to his right. And there was a place there, on the Sanctuary floor, with an area of a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet [tavla] was there, and a ring was fastened to the tablet to assist the priest when he would raise it. And the priest would take loose dust from underneath it and place the dust into the vessel with the water, so that the dust would be visible upon the water, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water鈥 (Numbers 5:17).

讙诪壮 转谞讗 驻讬诇讬 砖诇 讞专住 讞讚砖讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讙诪专 讻诇讬 讻诇讬 诪诪爪讜专注 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞专住 讞讚砖讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞专住 讞讚砖讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It must be a new earthenware vessel; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael derives this by means of a verbal analogy between 鈥渧essel鈥 in the case of the sota (Numbers 5:17) and 鈥渧essel鈥 from the case of a leper (Leviticus 14:5). Just as there, with regard to the leper, a new earthenware vessel is required, so too here, a new earthenware vessel is required.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛爪驻讜专 讛讗讞转 讗诇 讻诇讬 讞专砖 注诇 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 砖诇讗 谞注砖转讛 讘讛谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗祝 讻诇讬 砖诇讗 谞注砖转讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛

And there, with regard to the leper, from where do we derive that a new vessel is required? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water鈥 (Leviticus 14:5). Just as running water has not been used beforehand for work, i.e., once used it is no longer considered to be running, so too the vessel must not have been used for work.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: If this verbal analogy is extended, then just as there, running water from a flowing spring is required, so too here, with regard the sota, running water from a spring should be required for the water of a sota.

诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 讻讬讜专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讬 诪注讬讬谉 讛谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讗专 诪讬诪讜转 讛谉

The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yishmael it is indeed so, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to the water of the basin in the Temple Rabbi Yishmael says: It is collected from spring water. And the Rabbis say: It may also be from any other type of water and need not be collected from spring water.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪爪讜专注 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转

The Gemara asks: The verbal analogy can be refuted: One cannot apply halakhot stated with regard to a leper to a sota, as what is unique about a leper is that he requires cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet wool for the performance of his purification ritual, and these are not required of the sota. Why, then, should a new vessel be required by the sota?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻诇讬 讞专住 讻诇讬 砖讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讻讘专

Rabba said: The verse cited in the mishna states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel鈥 (Numbers 5:17). The Torah makes no prior mention of the need for the priest to bring with him an earthenware vessel. Therefore, the verse must mean that the water should be placed in the vessel that I have already told you about, i.e., the vessel used for the leper.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞转讗讻诪讜 驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 谞转讗讻诪讜 驻谞讬讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讜 讗祝 讻诇讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讛

Rava says: Even according to the opinion that a new vessel is not required, they taught that the earthenware vessel is taken only when its exterior was not blackened from usage. But if its exterior was blackened, then it is unfit for use by the sota. What is the reason for this? Its requirements are similar to those of water: Just as the water must be clear and unchanged in appearance, so too the vessel must be unchanged in appearance.

讘注讬 专讘讗 谞转讗讻诪讜 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇转讜讱 讻讘砖谉 讛讗砖 讜谞转诇讘谞讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讚讞讜 讗讬讚讞讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讜专 讛讚讜专

Rava raised a dilemma: If the vessel鈥檚 exterior was blackened, and it was returned to the furnace and became white again, what is the halakha? Do we say that once it has been disqualified, it is disqualified forever and can never be rendered fit for use? Or perhaps since it has returned to a white appearance it has returned to a state of fitness.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 砖讛驻砖讬诇 讘讛谉 拽讜驻转讜 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛讗 讛转诐 讛讚专讬 讜诪驻砖讟讬

Come and hear evidence from that which Rabbi Elazar says: If the leper tied the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet wool for his purification to his basket behind him, so as to carry it on his back, they are disqualified, since their form has changed. But there, after those items have been tied, they can be smoothed out again as if they had never been used, and still they are unfit. Evidently, after being disqualified an item cannot become fit again.

讛转诐 讚讗讬拽诇讜祝 讗讬拽诇讜驻讬

The Gemara answers: There, the items are permanently unfit because they are peeled due to tying and can never truly return to their original appearance. That case does not provide proof.

谞讻谞住 诇讛讬讻诇 讜驻谞讛 诇讬诪讬谞讜 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 驻讬谞讜转 砖讗转讛 驻讜谞讛 诇讗 讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉

The mishna states: The priest would enter the Sanctuary and turn to his right. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he should do so? The Gemara responds: As the Master said: All turns that you turn should be only to the right.

诪拽讜诐 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗诪讛 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诪谉 讛注驻专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讬讻讜诇 讬转拽谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讬讻谞讬住

The mishna continues: There was a place there, on the Sanctuary floor, with an area of a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet was there and a ring was fastened to the tablet so that it could be raised. When the priest would raise the tablet, he would take loose dust from underneath it and place the dust into the vessel with the water, so that the dust would be visible upon the water, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water鈥 (Numbers 5:17). The Sages taught in a baraita: If the verse had stated only: 鈥淎nd of the dust that is on the floor,鈥 one might have thought that the priest could prepare the concoction from dust from outside the Sanctuary and bring it in afterward.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽专拽注 讛诪砖讻谉 讗讬 讘拽专拽注 讛诪砖讻谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讞驻讜专 讘拽专讚讜诪讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讬砖 砖诐 讛讘讗 讗讬谉 砖诐 转谉 砖诐

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,鈥 indicating that the dust must be from inside the Sanctuary. If the verse had stated only: 鈥淥n the floor of the Tabernacle,鈥 one might have thought that the priest may dig with axes to loosen the dust there. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,鈥 indicating that the dust must be lying there loosely. How so? If there is already loose earth there on the Sanctuary floor, bring it; if there is none there, then place loose dust there from elsewhere, and then pick it up and use it.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜诪谉 讛注驻专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讜讙讜壮 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讛 诪转拽谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜诪讻谞讬住 讘拽专拽注 讛诪砖讻谉 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛讘讬讗 拽专拽注

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle鈥; the fact that the verse does not explicitly state to take the dust from the floor of the Tabernacle teaches that the priest would prepare dust from outside and bring it into the Sanctuary. When the verse states: 鈥淭he dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,鈥 Isi ben Yehuda says that this phrase serves to include the floor of the Tabernacle when it stood in

Scroll To Top