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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 15, 2015 | 讙壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sotah 20

Does the Sotah drink before the meal offering of the opposite?聽At what point can the woman be forced to drink the water?聽What if she confesses right before? And famous statements about whether or not a father can/should teach his daughter Torah.


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

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛转诐 讗诪专 诪讞讬拽讛 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛讻讗 讗诪专 拽讜诪抓 诪注讻讘

The Gemara asks: The statement of Rabbi Akiva is difficult, as it is contradicted by another statement of Rabbi Akiva: There, in the first baraita, he said that erasure prevents the authorities from compelling the woman to drink the water if she retracted her decision to drink, and here he says that the sacrifice of the handful prevents the authorities from compelling the woman to drink the water. In other words, according to the first baraita the woman can retract her decision to drink until the scroll is erased, whereas according to the second baraita she can retract her decision until the handful is sacrificed.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara responds: There is a dispute between two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. They disagree with regard to what point in time, according to Rabbi Akiva, is the final moment at which a woman can refuse to drink the bitter water without being forced to do so.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪讞诪转 讘专讬讜转讗 讜讞讝专讛 讜讗诪专讛 砖讜转讛 讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 拽讗诪专讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞讝讬拽 谞驻砖讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 诪爪讬讗 讛讚专讛 讘讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讛 砖讜转讛 讗谞讬 讙诇讬讗 讚注转讛 讚诪讞诪转 讘讬注转讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讛 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If she initially said: I will not drink, while in a state of good health, and then she retracted her statement and said: I will drink, what is the halakha? Does one say that when she said: I will not drink, it is as if she confessed and said: I am defiled, and since she established herself as defiled she cannot retract her statement? Or perhaps when she said: I will drink, she revealed her thoughts that it was only due to fear that she said she will not drink? The Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 诪专 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讬 讛诪专讬诐 砖诪专讬诐 讻讘专

Shmuel鈥檚 father says: It is necessary for one to put a bitter substance into the water that the sota drinks. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness鈥 (Numbers 5:23), indicating that they are already bitter before the scroll is erased.

诪转谞讬壮 注讚 砖诇讗 谞诪讞拽讛 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪讙讬诇转讛 谞讙谞讝转 讜诪谞讞转讛 诪转驻讝专转 注诇 讛讚砖谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转 谞诪讞拽讛 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 讛诪讬诐 谞砖驻讻讬谉 讜诪谞讞转讛 诪转驻讝专转 注诇 讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 谞诪讞拽讛 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛

MISHNA: If before the scroll was erased she said: I will not drink, the scroll that was written for her is sequestered, and her meal-offering is burned and scattered over the place of the ashes, and her scroll is not fit to give to another sota to drink. If the scroll was erased and afterward she said: I am defiled, the water is poured out, and her meal-offering is scattered in the place of the ashes. If the scroll was already erased and she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.

讗讬谞讛 诪住驻拽转 诇砖转讜转 注讚 砖驻谞讬讛 诪讜专讬拽讜转 讜注讬谞讬讛 讘讜诇讟讜转 讜讛讬讗 诪转诪诇讗转 讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 砖诇讗 转讟诪讗 讛注讝专讛

When a guilty woman drinks she does not manage to finish drinking before her face turns green and her eyes bulge, and her skin becomes full of protruding veins, and the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure by dying there.

讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讝讻讜转 讛讬转讛 转讜诇讛 诇讛 讬砖 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 砖谞讛 讗讞转 讬砖 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讬砖 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讗讜诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇诇诪讚 讗转 讘转讜 转讜专讛 砖讗诐 转砖转讛 转讚注 砖讛讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪诇诪讚 讘转讜 转讜专讛 (讻讗讬诇讜) 诇讜诪讚讛 转驻诇讜转

The mishna limits the scope of the previous statement: If she has merit, it delays punishment for her and she does not die immediately. There is a merit that delays punishment for one year, there is a larger merit that delays punishment for two years, and there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. From here Ben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit she has delayed punishment for her. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity [tiflut].

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 专讜爪讛 讗砖讛 讘拽讘 讜转驻诇讜转 诪转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜驻专讬砖讜转 讛讜讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讞住讬讚 砖讜讟讛 讜专砖注 注专讜诐 讜讗砖讛 驻专讜砖讛 讜诪讻讜转 驻专讜砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讘诇讬 注讜诇诐

Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship [tiflut] rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. He would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman [perusha], and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 诇诪讚 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讬转讬 诪讟讬诇 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讘专 讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诪讛 诪诇讗讻转讱 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 诇讘诇专 讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 讛讜讬 讝讛讬专 砖诪诇讗讻转讱 诪诇讗讻转 砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 砖诪讗 转讞住讬专 讗讜转 讗讞转 讗讜 转转讬专 讗讜转 讗讞转 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 诪讞专讬讘 讗转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻诇讜

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Meir: When I was studying Torah before Rabbi Akiva, as his disciple, I used to put iron sulfate into the ink with which I wrote Torah scrolls, and he did not say anything to me in protest. Afterward, when I came to learn Torah before Rabbi Yishmael, he said to me: My son, what is your vocation? I said to him: I am a scribe [lavlar] who writes Torah scrolls. He said to me: My son, be careful in your work, as your work is the work of Heaven, lest you omit a single letter from the Torah scroll or add a single letter, and in this you are found to be destroying the entire world if the mistake alters the meaning of the verse and results in blasphemy.

讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜拽谞拽谞转讜诐 砖诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬 讜讻讬 诪讟讬诇讬谉 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜诪讞讛 讻转讘 砖讬讜讻诇 诇诪讞讜转

Rabbi Meir continues: I said to Rabbi Yishmael: I have one substance that I put into the ink, and it is called iron sulfate, which prevents the writing from being erased. He said to me: And may iron sulfate be put into the ink? The Torah clearly said with regard to the scroll of the sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness鈥 (Numbers 5:23). This indicates that the Torah requires writing that can be blotted out.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛

Since Rabbi Meir鈥檚 remark about iron sulfate seems unrelated to Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 previous statement, the Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yishmael saying to Rabbi Meir, and what is Rabbi Meir replying to Rabbi Yishmael?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讘讞住讬专讜转 讜讬转讬专讜转 讚讘拽讬 讗谞讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讬讞砖 诇讝讘讜讘 讚讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讜讬转讬讘 讗转讙讬讛 讚讚诇讬转 讜诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜拽谞拽谞转讜诐 砖诪讜

The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Meir is saying to him: It is not necessary to say that I do not err in omissions and additions, as I am an expert. Rather, there is not even any reason for concern with regard to a fly lest it come and sit on the protrusion of the letter dalet and erase it, thereby rendering it the letter reish, which could be a critical error. There is no concern of this erasure occurring, since I have a certain substance that I put into the ink and that prevents the writing from being erased, and it is called iron sulfate.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 诇诪讚 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬转讬 诪讟讬诇 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讘专 讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗住专讛 注诇讬

The Gemara questions the initial part of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement: Is that so? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: When I was studying Torah before Rabbi Yishmael, I used to put iron sulfate into the ink with which I wrote Torah scrolls, and he did not say anything to me. Afterward, when I came to learn Torah with Rabbi Akiva, he prohibited me from doing so.

拽砖讬讗 砖诪讜砖 讗砖诪讜砖 拽砖讬讗 讗住专讛 讗讗住专讛

The Gemara points out that there are two separate contradictions between the two statements: Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to Rabbi Meir first serving Rabbi Akiva as a disciple is difficult, as it is contradicted by the statement of the baraita with regard to his first serving Rabbi Yishmael. Furthermore, Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement is difficult, since he states that it was Rabbi Yishmael who prohibited the addition of iron sulfate, and this is contradicted by the statement of the baraita that it was Rabbi Akiva who prohibited it.

讘砖诇诪讗 砖诪讜砖 讗砖诪讜砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 拽诐 讗诇讬讘讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讙诪专 讙诪专讗 讛讚专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 住讘专讗

The Gemara answers: Granted, the apparent contradiction between Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 serving Rabbi Akiva first, and the statement of the baraita with regard to serving Rabbi Yishmael first, poses no difficulty. Initially, he came before Rabbi Akiva to study, but since he could not comprehend his extremely complicated method of learning, he came before Rabbi Yishmael and learned the oral tradition from him. Afterward, he returned and came before Rabbi Akiva and studied his method of logical reasoning in order to understand the reasons behind the halakhot he had already learned.

讗诇讗 讗住专讛 讗讗住专讛 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

However, the contradiction between Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement that it was Rabbi Yishmael who prohibited the addition of iron sulfate and the statement of the baraita that it was Rabbi Akiva who prohibited it still poses a difficulty. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the matter is difficult.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讻诇 诪讟讬诇讬谉 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Meir would say: Iron sulfate may be put into the ink that is used for all sacred writings, i.e., Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot,

讞讜抓 诪驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪砖诪讜 讞讜抓 诪驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 砖诇 诪拽讚砖 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇诪讞讜拽 诇讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

except for the ink used to write the Torah passage about the sota, even when written in a Torah scroll. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says in the name of Rabbi Meir: It is except for the ink used to write the scroll with the sota passage used in the Temple. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two opinions? The Gemara replies: Rabbi Yirmeya says that there is a difference between them with regard to whether it is permitted to erase the passage for the sota from a Torah scroll. According to Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Meir holds that this is permitted, and therefore the passage in the Torah scroll must be written with ink that does not contain iron sulfate, so that it can be erased. By contrast, according to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, Rabbi Meir holds that it is prohibited to erase the passage from a Torah scroll, and therefore the passage may be written with ink containing iron sulfate.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara assumes that according to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov it is prohibited to erase the passage from a Torah scroll, since he holds that the scroll must be written for the sake of the sota, whereas Rabbi Yehuda, who permits this, holds that the scroll need not be written for the sake of the sota. And therefore, the opinions of these tanna鈥檌m are parallel to the opinions of those tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The scroll of one sota is not fit to be used in the preparation of the water to give to another sota to drink, as it was not written for the sake of the other sota. Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya says: Her scroll is fit to be used in the preparation of the water to give to another sota to drink, since it does not need to be written for the sake of the sota.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞转讬拽 诇砖讜诐 专讞诇 诇讗 讛讚专讗 诪讬谞转拽讗 诇砖讜诐 诇讗讛 讗讘诇 转讜专讛 讚住转诪讗 讻转讬讘讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讞拽讬谞谉

Rav Pappa said: Perhaps that is not so, and the two disputes are not comparable. It is possible that the first tanna of the baraita states that the scroll may not be used for another sota only there, in the case if a scroll written for a specific woman; since it was originally designated in the name of one woman, e.g., Rachel, it cannot again be designated in the name of another woman, e.g., Leah. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which is written without specifying anyone, indeed we may erase the passage to prepare the water for a sota even though it was not written for her sake.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讚讗讬讻转讜讘 诇砖讜诐 讗诇讜转 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 转讜专讛 讚诇讛转诇诪讚 讻转讬讘讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讞拽讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the comparison between the two disputes can be refuted for a different reason: Perhaps that is not so. It is possible that Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya states that the scroll may be used for another sota only there, with regard to the scroll written for a specific sota, as it was written for the purpose of the curses of a sota in general. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which is written to be learned from, indeed we may not erase it for a sota, as it was not written for the sake of a sota at all.

讜专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 诪爪讗讜 讘谉 注讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讬 讻砖诪讱 讜砖诐 讗砖转讬 讻砖诐 讗砖转讱 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜

The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya hold in accordance with that which is taught in a mishna (Gittin 24a): With regard to one who wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, if a resident of his city found him and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife鈥檚 name is the same as your wife鈥檚 name; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, it is unfit to divorce the other woman with it. The reason for this is that it was written for the sake of another woman. Seemingly, the same principle should apply with regard to the scroll of a sota.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讜讻转讘 诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讜注砖讛 诇讛 诪讗讬 注砖讬讬讛 诪讞讬拽讛

The Sages say in response: There, with regard to a bill of divorce, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd he shall write for her a bill of divorce鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). This teaches that we require the writing to be performed for the sake of the specific woman. However, no similar requirement is mentioned with regard to a sota. The Gemara asks: Here, too, with regard to the sota, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall perform with her all of this law鈥 (Numbers 5:30), indicating that the ritual must be performed for the sake of the specific woman. The Gemara answers: What is the performance referred to in the verse? It is referring to the erasure, whereas the writing need not be done for the sake of a specific woman.

讗讬谞讛 诪住驻拽转 诇砖转讜转 注讚 砖驻谞讬讛 [讻讜壮] 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛 讚讻诪讛 讚诇讗 拽专讘讛 诪谞讞转讛 诇讗 讘讚拽讬 诇讛 诪讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪谞讞转 讝讻专讜谉 诪讝讻专转 注讜谉

搂 The mishna states: When a guilty woman drinks she does not manage to finish drinking before her face turns green and her eyes bulge, and her skin becomes full of protruding veins. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna, which indicates that the water evaluates her while she is still drinking? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink, because according to the opinion of the Rabbis the meal-offering is sacrificed only after she drinks, and as long as her meal-offering has not been sacrificed the water does not evaluate her, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bring her offering for her鈥or it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of remembrance, a reminder of iniquity鈥 (Numbers 5:15).

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讬砖 诇讛 讝讻讜转 讛讬转讛 转讜诇讛 诇讛 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讛诪专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Say the latter clause of the mishna: If she has merit, it delays her punishment for her. We arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, as, if this statement were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didn鈥檛 he say: Merit does not delay punishment in the case of the bitter water of a sota?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛 讜讘讝讻讜转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉

Rav 岣sda said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: The priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink. With regard to the order of the ritual he holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, and with regard to the matter of merit delaying punishment, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讜讛诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讚讬诇诪讗 诪转讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪转 讗住讜专 讘诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛

搂 The mishna states: And the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is lest she die there immediately and render the women鈥檚 courtyard, where she drinks the water, impure. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a corpse is prohibited from being in the women鈥檚 courtyard, which has the same status as the Levite camp in the desert?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讟诪讗 诪转 诪讜转专 诇讬讻谞住 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 讜诇讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪转 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 注爪诪讜转 讬讜住祝 注诪讜 注诪讜 讘诪讞讬爪转讜

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted to enter the Levite camp. And the Sages said this not only with regard to one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; rather, even a corpse itself may be brought into the Levite camp, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Moses took the bones of Joseph with him鈥 (Exodus 13:19), which is interpreted to mean: With him, in his vicinity, even though Moses was in the Levite camp.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪讗 转驻专讜住 谞讚讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘注讬转讜转讗 诪专驻讬讗 讗讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜转转讞诇讞诇 讛诪诇讻讛 诪讗讚 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖驻讬专住讛 谞讚讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讞专讚讛 诪住诇拽转 讚诪讬诐 驻讞讚讗 爪诪讬转 讘讬注转讜转讗 诪专驻讬讗

Abaye said: The woman is removed not due to a concern that she will die there but lest the fear of the water cause her to begin to menstruate, and it is prohibited for a menstruating woman to enter the Levite camp. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that fear causes muscular relaxation and menstrual bleeding? The Gemara responds: Yes, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Queen was exceedingly pained鈥 (Esther 4:4), and Rav says: This means that she began to menstruate. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nidda 39a) that trepidation eliminates the flow of menstrual blood? Presumably, the sota experiences trepidation. The Gemara answers: Trepidation generated by extended worry contracts the muscles and prevents the blood from flowing, but sudden fear relaxes the muscles and causes the blood to flow.

讬砖 诇讛 讝讻讜转 讛讬转讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讞谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讚专讜诐 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

搂 The mishna states: If she has merit, it delays punishment鈥or one year鈥or two years鈥or three years. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Abba Yosei ben 岣nan, and not the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yitz岣k of Kefar Darom, and not the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讻讚讬 讛讻专转 讛注讜讘专 讚讘专讬 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讚专讜诐 讗讜诪专 转砖注讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 讝专注 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讝专注 讬注讘讚谞讜 讬住驻专 讝专注 讛专讗讜讬 诇住驻专

This is as it is taught in a baraita: If she has merit, it delays punishment for her for three months, equivalent to the time necessary to recognize the fetus; this is the statement of Abba Yosei ben 岣nan. Rabbi Elazar ben Yitz岣k of Kefar Darom says: Merit delays punishment for nine months, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28). It is possible to infer from this that if she has merit she will be cleared temporarily, for the length of time required to conceive a child, and there, in Psalms, it says: 鈥淎 seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation鈥 (Psalms 22:31). This indicates that the seed must be fit to tell of the Lord once it matures, and a child can live only if it is born after the culmination of nine months in the womb.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛谉 诪诇讻讗 诪诇讻讬 讬砖驻专 注诇讬讱 讜讞讟讬讱 讘爪讚拽讛 驻专拽 讜注讜讬转讱 讘诪讞谉 注谞讬谉

Rabbi Yishmael says: Merit delays punishment for twelve months. And although there is no explicit proof for the concept of merit delaying punishment for twelve months, there is an allusion to the concept, as it is written that Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar after interpreting Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 dream concerning the evil which would befall him: 鈥淭herefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, and redeem your sins with charity, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor;

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 20

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛转诐 讗诪专 诪讞讬拽讛 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛讻讗 讗诪专 拽讜诪抓 诪注讻讘

The Gemara asks: The statement of Rabbi Akiva is difficult, as it is contradicted by another statement of Rabbi Akiva: There, in the first baraita, he said that erasure prevents the authorities from compelling the woman to drink the water if she retracted her decision to drink, and here he says that the sacrifice of the handful prevents the authorities from compelling the woman to drink the water. In other words, according to the first baraita the woman can retract her decision to drink until the scroll is erased, whereas according to the second baraita she can retract her decision until the handful is sacrificed.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara responds: There is a dispute between two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. They disagree with regard to what point in time, according to Rabbi Akiva, is the final moment at which a woman can refuse to drink the bitter water without being forced to do so.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪讞诪转 讘专讬讜转讗 讜讞讝专讛 讜讗诪专讛 砖讜转讛 讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 拽讗诪专讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞讝讬拽 谞驻砖讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 诪爪讬讗 讛讚专讛 讘讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讛 砖讜转讛 讗谞讬 讙诇讬讗 讚注转讛 讚诪讞诪转 讘讬注转讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讛 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If she initially said: I will not drink, while in a state of good health, and then she retracted her statement and said: I will drink, what is the halakha? Does one say that when she said: I will not drink, it is as if she confessed and said: I am defiled, and since she established herself as defiled she cannot retract her statement? Or perhaps when she said: I will drink, she revealed her thoughts that it was only due to fear that she said she will not drink? The Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 诪专 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讬 讛诪专讬诐 砖诪专讬诐 讻讘专

Shmuel鈥檚 father says: It is necessary for one to put a bitter substance into the water that the sota drinks. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness鈥 (Numbers 5:23), indicating that they are already bitter before the scroll is erased.

诪转谞讬壮 注讚 砖诇讗 谞诪讞拽讛 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪讙讬诇转讛 谞讙谞讝转 讜诪谞讞转讛 诪转驻讝专转 注诇 讛讚砖谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转 谞诪讞拽讛 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 讛诪讬诐 谞砖驻讻讬谉 讜诪谞讞转讛 诪转驻讝专转 注诇 讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 谞诪讞拽讛 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛

MISHNA: If before the scroll was erased she said: I will not drink, the scroll that was written for her is sequestered, and her meal-offering is burned and scattered over the place of the ashes, and her scroll is not fit to give to another sota to drink. If the scroll was erased and afterward she said: I am defiled, the water is poured out, and her meal-offering is scattered in the place of the ashes. If the scroll was already erased and she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.

讗讬谞讛 诪住驻拽转 诇砖转讜转 注讚 砖驻谞讬讛 诪讜专讬拽讜转 讜注讬谞讬讛 讘讜诇讟讜转 讜讛讬讗 诪转诪诇讗转 讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 砖诇讗 转讟诪讗 讛注讝专讛

When a guilty woman drinks she does not manage to finish drinking before her face turns green and her eyes bulge, and her skin becomes full of protruding veins, and the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure by dying there.

讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讝讻讜转 讛讬转讛 转讜诇讛 诇讛 讬砖 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 砖谞讛 讗讞转 讬砖 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讬砖 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讗讜诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇诇诪讚 讗转 讘转讜 转讜专讛 砖讗诐 转砖转讛 转讚注 砖讛讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪诇诪讚 讘转讜 转讜专讛 (讻讗讬诇讜) 诇讜诪讚讛 转驻诇讜转

The mishna limits the scope of the previous statement: If she has merit, it delays punishment for her and she does not die immediately. There is a merit that delays punishment for one year, there is a larger merit that delays punishment for two years, and there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. From here Ben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit she has delayed punishment for her. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity [tiflut].

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 专讜爪讛 讗砖讛 讘拽讘 讜转驻诇讜转 诪转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜驻专讬砖讜转 讛讜讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讞住讬讚 砖讜讟讛 讜专砖注 注专讜诐 讜讗砖讛 驻专讜砖讛 讜诪讻讜转 驻专讜砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讘诇讬 注讜诇诐

Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship [tiflut] rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. He would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman [perusha], and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 诇诪讚 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讬转讬 诪讟讬诇 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讘专 讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诪讛 诪诇讗讻转讱 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 诇讘诇专 讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 讛讜讬 讝讛讬专 砖诪诇讗讻转讱 诪诇讗讻转 砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 砖诪讗 转讞住讬专 讗讜转 讗讞转 讗讜 转转讬专 讗讜转 讗讞转 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 诪讞专讬讘 讗转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻诇讜

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Meir: When I was studying Torah before Rabbi Akiva, as his disciple, I used to put iron sulfate into the ink with which I wrote Torah scrolls, and he did not say anything to me in protest. Afterward, when I came to learn Torah before Rabbi Yishmael, he said to me: My son, what is your vocation? I said to him: I am a scribe [lavlar] who writes Torah scrolls. He said to me: My son, be careful in your work, as your work is the work of Heaven, lest you omit a single letter from the Torah scroll or add a single letter, and in this you are found to be destroying the entire world if the mistake alters the meaning of the verse and results in blasphemy.

讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜拽谞拽谞转讜诐 砖诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬 讜讻讬 诪讟讬诇讬谉 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜诪讞讛 讻转讘 砖讬讜讻诇 诇诪讞讜转

Rabbi Meir continues: I said to Rabbi Yishmael: I have one substance that I put into the ink, and it is called iron sulfate, which prevents the writing from being erased. He said to me: And may iron sulfate be put into the ink? The Torah clearly said with regard to the scroll of the sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness鈥 (Numbers 5:23). This indicates that the Torah requires writing that can be blotted out.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛

Since Rabbi Meir鈥檚 remark about iron sulfate seems unrelated to Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 previous statement, the Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yishmael saying to Rabbi Meir, and what is Rabbi Meir replying to Rabbi Yishmael?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讘讞住讬专讜转 讜讬转讬专讜转 讚讘拽讬 讗谞讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讬讞砖 诇讝讘讜讘 讚讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讜讬转讬讘 讗转讙讬讛 讚讚诇讬转 讜诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜拽谞拽谞转讜诐 砖诪讜

The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Meir is saying to him: It is not necessary to say that I do not err in omissions and additions, as I am an expert. Rather, there is not even any reason for concern with regard to a fly lest it come and sit on the protrusion of the letter dalet and erase it, thereby rendering it the letter reish, which could be a critical error. There is no concern of this erasure occurring, since I have a certain substance that I put into the ink and that prevents the writing from being erased, and it is called iron sulfate.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 诇诪讚 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬转讬 诪讟讬诇 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讘专 讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗住专讛 注诇讬

The Gemara questions the initial part of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement: Is that so? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: When I was studying Torah before Rabbi Yishmael, I used to put iron sulfate into the ink with which I wrote Torah scrolls, and he did not say anything to me. Afterward, when I came to learn Torah with Rabbi Akiva, he prohibited me from doing so.

拽砖讬讗 砖诪讜砖 讗砖诪讜砖 拽砖讬讗 讗住专讛 讗讗住专讛

The Gemara points out that there are two separate contradictions between the two statements: Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to Rabbi Meir first serving Rabbi Akiva as a disciple is difficult, as it is contradicted by the statement of the baraita with regard to his first serving Rabbi Yishmael. Furthermore, Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement is difficult, since he states that it was Rabbi Yishmael who prohibited the addition of iron sulfate, and this is contradicted by the statement of the baraita that it was Rabbi Akiva who prohibited it.

讘砖诇诪讗 砖诪讜砖 讗砖诪讜砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 拽诐 讗诇讬讘讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讙诪专 讙诪专讗 讛讚专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 住讘专讗

The Gemara answers: Granted, the apparent contradiction between Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 serving Rabbi Akiva first, and the statement of the baraita with regard to serving Rabbi Yishmael first, poses no difficulty. Initially, he came before Rabbi Akiva to study, but since he could not comprehend his extremely complicated method of learning, he came before Rabbi Yishmael and learned the oral tradition from him. Afterward, he returned and came before Rabbi Akiva and studied his method of logical reasoning in order to understand the reasons behind the halakhot he had already learned.

讗诇讗 讗住专讛 讗讗住专讛 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

However, the contradiction between Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement that it was Rabbi Yishmael who prohibited the addition of iron sulfate and the statement of the baraita that it was Rabbi Akiva who prohibited it still poses a difficulty. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the matter is difficult.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讻诇 诪讟讬诇讬谉 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Meir would say: Iron sulfate may be put into the ink that is used for all sacred writings, i.e., Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot,

讞讜抓 诪驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪砖诪讜 讞讜抓 诪驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 砖诇 诪拽讚砖 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇诪讞讜拽 诇讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

except for the ink used to write the Torah passage about the sota, even when written in a Torah scroll. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says in the name of Rabbi Meir: It is except for the ink used to write the scroll with the sota passage used in the Temple. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two opinions? The Gemara replies: Rabbi Yirmeya says that there is a difference between them with regard to whether it is permitted to erase the passage for the sota from a Torah scroll. According to Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Meir holds that this is permitted, and therefore the passage in the Torah scroll must be written with ink that does not contain iron sulfate, so that it can be erased. By contrast, according to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, Rabbi Meir holds that it is prohibited to erase the passage from a Torah scroll, and therefore the passage may be written with ink containing iron sulfate.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara assumes that according to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov it is prohibited to erase the passage from a Torah scroll, since he holds that the scroll must be written for the sake of the sota, whereas Rabbi Yehuda, who permits this, holds that the scroll need not be written for the sake of the sota. And therefore, the opinions of these tanna鈥檌m are parallel to the opinions of those tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The scroll of one sota is not fit to be used in the preparation of the water to give to another sota to drink, as it was not written for the sake of the other sota. Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya says: Her scroll is fit to be used in the preparation of the water to give to another sota to drink, since it does not need to be written for the sake of the sota.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞转讬拽 诇砖讜诐 专讞诇 诇讗 讛讚专讗 诪讬谞转拽讗 诇砖讜诐 诇讗讛 讗讘诇 转讜专讛 讚住转诪讗 讻转讬讘讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讞拽讬谞谉

Rav Pappa said: Perhaps that is not so, and the two disputes are not comparable. It is possible that the first tanna of the baraita states that the scroll may not be used for another sota only there, in the case if a scroll written for a specific woman; since it was originally designated in the name of one woman, e.g., Rachel, it cannot again be designated in the name of another woman, e.g., Leah. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which is written without specifying anyone, indeed we may erase the passage to prepare the water for a sota even though it was not written for her sake.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讚讗讬讻转讜讘 诇砖讜诐 讗诇讜转 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 转讜专讛 讚诇讛转诇诪讚 讻转讬讘讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讞拽讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the comparison between the two disputes can be refuted for a different reason: Perhaps that is not so. It is possible that Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya states that the scroll may be used for another sota only there, with regard to the scroll written for a specific sota, as it was written for the purpose of the curses of a sota in general. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which is written to be learned from, indeed we may not erase it for a sota, as it was not written for the sake of a sota at all.

讜专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻转讘 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜谞诪诇讱 诪爪讗讜 讘谉 注讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讬 讻砖诪讱 讜砖诐 讗砖转讬 讻砖诐 讗砖转讱 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜

The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya hold in accordance with that which is taught in a mishna (Gittin 24a): With regard to one who wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, if a resident of his city found him and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife鈥檚 name is the same as your wife鈥檚 name; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, it is unfit to divorce the other woman with it. The reason for this is that it was written for the sake of another woman. Seemingly, the same principle should apply with regard to the scroll of a sota.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讜讻转讘 诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讜注砖讛 诇讛 诪讗讬 注砖讬讬讛 诪讞讬拽讛

The Sages say in response: There, with regard to a bill of divorce, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd he shall write for her a bill of divorce鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). This teaches that we require the writing to be performed for the sake of the specific woman. However, no similar requirement is mentioned with regard to a sota. The Gemara asks: Here, too, with regard to the sota, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall perform with her all of this law鈥 (Numbers 5:30), indicating that the ritual must be performed for the sake of the specific woman. The Gemara answers: What is the performance referred to in the verse? It is referring to the erasure, whereas the writing need not be done for the sake of a specific woman.

讗讬谞讛 诪住驻拽转 诇砖转讜转 注讚 砖驻谞讬讛 [讻讜壮] 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛 讚讻诪讛 讚诇讗 拽专讘讛 诪谞讞转讛 诇讗 讘讚拽讬 诇讛 诪讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪谞讞转 讝讻专讜谉 诪讝讻专转 注讜谉

搂 The mishna states: When a guilty woman drinks she does not manage to finish drinking before her face turns green and her eyes bulge, and her skin becomes full of protruding veins. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna, which indicates that the water evaluates her while she is still drinking? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink, because according to the opinion of the Rabbis the meal-offering is sacrificed only after she drinks, and as long as her meal-offering has not been sacrificed the water does not evaluate her, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bring her offering for her鈥or it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of remembrance, a reminder of iniquity鈥 (Numbers 5:15).

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讬砖 诇讛 讝讻讜转 讛讬转讛 转讜诇讛 诇讛 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讛诪专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Say the latter clause of the mishna: If she has merit, it delays her punishment for her. We arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, as, if this statement were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didn鈥檛 he say: Merit does not delay punishment in the case of the bitter water of a sota?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛 讜讘讝讻讜转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉

Rav 岣sda said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: The priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink. With regard to the order of the ritual he holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, and with regard to the matter of merit delaying punishment, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讜讛诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讚讬诇诪讗 诪转讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪转 讗住讜专 讘诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛

搂 The mishna states: And the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is lest she die there immediately and render the women鈥檚 courtyard, where she drinks the water, impure. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a corpse is prohibited from being in the women鈥檚 courtyard, which has the same status as the Levite camp in the desert?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讟诪讗 诪转 诪讜转专 诇讬讻谞住 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 讜诇讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪转 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 注爪诪讜转 讬讜住祝 注诪讜 注诪讜 讘诪讞讬爪转讜

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted to enter the Levite camp. And the Sages said this not only with regard to one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; rather, even a corpse itself may be brought into the Levite camp, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Moses took the bones of Joseph with him鈥 (Exodus 13:19), which is interpreted to mean: With him, in his vicinity, even though Moses was in the Levite camp.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪讗 转驻专讜住 谞讚讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘注讬转讜转讗 诪专驻讬讗 讗讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜转转讞诇讞诇 讛诪诇讻讛 诪讗讚 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖驻讬专住讛 谞讚讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讞专讚讛 诪住诇拽转 讚诪讬诐 驻讞讚讗 爪诪讬转 讘讬注转讜转讗 诪专驻讬讗

Abaye said: The woman is removed not due to a concern that she will die there but lest the fear of the water cause her to begin to menstruate, and it is prohibited for a menstruating woman to enter the Levite camp. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that fear causes muscular relaxation and menstrual bleeding? The Gemara responds: Yes, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Queen was exceedingly pained鈥 (Esther 4:4), and Rav says: This means that she began to menstruate. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nidda 39a) that trepidation eliminates the flow of menstrual blood? Presumably, the sota experiences trepidation. The Gemara answers: Trepidation generated by extended worry contracts the muscles and prevents the blood from flowing, but sudden fear relaxes the muscles and causes the blood to flow.

讬砖 诇讛 讝讻讜转 讛讬转讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讞谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讚专讜诐 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

搂 The mishna states: If she has merit, it delays punishment鈥or one year鈥or two years鈥or three years. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Abba Yosei ben 岣nan, and not the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yitz岣k of Kefar Darom, and not the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讻讚讬 讛讻专转 讛注讜讘专 讚讘专讬 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讚专讜诐 讗讜诪专 转砖注讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 讝专注 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讝专注 讬注讘讚谞讜 讬住驻专 讝专注 讛专讗讜讬 诇住驻专

This is as it is taught in a baraita: If she has merit, it delays punishment for her for three months, equivalent to the time necessary to recognize the fetus; this is the statement of Abba Yosei ben 岣nan. Rabbi Elazar ben Yitz岣k of Kefar Darom says: Merit delays punishment for nine months, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28). It is possible to infer from this that if she has merit she will be cleared temporarily, for the length of time required to conceive a child, and there, in Psalms, it says: 鈥淎 seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation鈥 (Psalms 22:31). This indicates that the seed must be fit to tell of the Lord once it matures, and a child can live only if it is born after the culmination of nine months in the womb.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 讚讻转讬讘 诇讛谉 诪诇讻讗 诪诇讻讬 讬砖驻专 注诇讬讱 讜讞讟讬讱 讘爪讚拽讛 驻专拽 讜注讜讬转讱 讘诪讞谉 注谞讬谉

Rabbi Yishmael says: Merit delays punishment for twelve months. And although there is no explicit proof for the concept of merit delaying punishment for twelve months, there is an allusion to the concept, as it is written that Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar after interpreting Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 dream concerning the evil which would befall him: 鈥淭herefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, and redeem your sins with charity, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor;

Scroll To Top