Today's Daf Yomi
April 18, 2023 | כ״ז בניסן תשפ״ג
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.
Sotah 20
Today’s daf is dedicated for Yom HaShoah in memory of all those who died in the Holocaust.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in loving memory of her father, Ivor Rhodes, Yisrael ben Meir and Sarah on his 13th yahrzeit. “Dad was hard-working, caring, generous and honest to a fault, with a wicked sense of humor and a lifelong addiction to puns. Today I pledge to make as many terrible puns as I can in his honor.”
Another contradiction is noted between the two braitot that quote Rabbi Akiva’s opinion. A woman who refuses to drink the water from a position of strength is generally viewed as admitting she is guilty and does not drink the water. But what if she changes her mind, do we then believe that she was not previously admitting her guilt and was just scared, or not? Something bitter is added to the water as is derived from a verse. What is done with the scroll and the meal offering if the woman refuses to drink before the scroll was erased? What if she admits she is guilty after the scroll is erased? If she refuses to drink after the scroll is erased, she is forced to drink. If her face turns green after drinking and her eyes start bulging, she is immediately removed from the Temple so as not to cause impurity. If she has merits, then she can live up to three years, depending upon what merits she has. Ben Azai says that one should teach his daughter Torah specifically because of this so that she won’t mistakenly think that the sotah waters don’t work. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that one who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her tiflut. Rabbi Meir was a scribe and would add copper sulfate to his ink when he would write a sefer Torah to make sure it wouldn’t be erased. There are different versions regarding who was his teacher at first who didn’t complain about this practice and which was his second teacher who was against this practice as the scroll of the sotah needs to be with ink that could be erased. In one version Rabbi Akiva is the first teacher and Rabbi Yishmael is the second and in the other, it is the reverse. Can the contradictions between the two versions be resolved? Two tannaim disagree about whether Rabbi Meir held one could add copper sulfate to the ink for writing a Torah, just not for the section about the sotah, or is the issue only for a scroll written for the sotah ceremony. The debate is really about whether or not one can take a section written for a Torah and use it for the sotah ceremony. Is this based on another tannaitic debate about whether the sotah scroll needs to be written lishma, for a particular woman? This suggestion is rejected in two ways. When the Mishna said they need to immediately remove the woman from the Temple after drinking the water, according to whose opinion was this stated? Initially, they suggest Rabbi Shimon who held the meal offering is sacrificed before the drinking of the water, but the part about the merits delaying her death is not Rabbi Shimon as he doesn’t hold that merits can push off her death. They conclude the Mishna is like Rabbi Akiva who agreed with Rabbi Shimon about the first point and disagreed about the second. What impurity are they concerned about when they remove her from the Temple? It is not an impurity of death, since she is outside the azara and dead people are allowed to be in other areas of the Temple outside the azara. They conclude that it must be out of concern that the shock to the body may cause her to menstruate. The section in the Mishna about the merits delaying her death for up to three years doesn’t seem to match any of the tannaitic opinions about this, as some say three months, some say nine months and others say twelve months, but none hold up to three years.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף-יומי-לנשים): Play in new window | Download
קשיא דרבי עקיבא אדרבי עקיבא התם אמר מחיקה מעכבא והכא אמר קומץ מעכב
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.
תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי עקיבא
The Gemara responds: There is a dispute between two tanna’im, 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.
איבעיא להו אמרה איני שותה מחמת בריותא וחזרה ואמרה שותה אני מהו כיון דאמרה איני שותה טמאה אני קאמרה וכיון דאחזיק נפשה בטומאה לא מציא הדרה בה או דילמא כיון דאמרה שותה אני גליא דעתה דמחמת ביעתותא הוא דאמרה תיקו
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.
אמר אבוה דשמואל צריך שיתן מר לתוך המים מאי טעמא דאמר קרא מי המרים שמרים כבר:
Shmuel’s 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: “And he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness” (Numbers 5:23), indicating that they are already bitter before the scroll is erased.
מתני׳ עד שלא נמחקה המגילה אמרה איני שותה מגילתה נגנזת ומנחתה מתפזרת על הדשן ואין מגילתה כשרה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת נמחקה המגילה ואמרה טמאה אני המים נשפכין ומנחתה מתפזרת על בית הדשן נמחקה המגילה ואמרה איני שותה מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה בעל כרחה
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.
אינה מספקת לשתות עד שפניה מוריקות ועיניה בולטות והיא מתמלאת גידין והם אומרים הוציאוה שלא תטמא העזרה
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.
אם יש לה זכות היתה תולה לה יש זכות תולה שנה אחת יש זכות תולה שתי שנים יש זכות תולה שלש שנים מכאן אומר בן עזאי חייב אדם ללמד את בתו תורה שאם תשתה תדע שהזכות תולה לה רבי אליעזר אומר כל המלמד בתו תורה (כאילו) לומדה תפלות
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].
רבי יהושע אומר רוצה אשה בקב ותפלות מתשעה קבין ופרישות הוא היה אומר חסיד שוטה ורשע ערום ואשה פרושה ומכות פרושין הרי אלו מבלי עולם:
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.
גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי מאיר כשהייתי למד תורה אצל רבי עקיבא הייתי מטיל קנקנתום לתוך הדיו ולא אמר לי דבר כשבאתי אצל רבי ישמעאל אמר לי בני מה מלאכתך אמרתי לו לבלר אני אמר לי בני הוי זהיר שמלאכתך מלאכת שמים היא שמא תחסיר אות אחת או תתיר אות אחת נמצאת אתה מחריב את כל העולם כלו
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.
אמרתי לו דבר אחד יש לי שאני מטיל לתוך הדיו וקנקנתום שמו אמר לי וכי מטילין קנקנתום לתוך הדיו התורה אמרה ומחה כתב שיוכל למחות
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: “And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness” (Numbers 5:23). This indicates that the Torah requires writing that can be blotted out.
מאי קאמר ליה ומאי קא מהדר ליה
Since Rabbi Meir’s remark about iron sulfate seems unrelated to Rabbi Yishmael’s previous statement, the Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yishmael saying to Rabbi Meir, and what is Rabbi Meir replying to Rabbi Yishmael?
הכי קאמר ליה לא מבעיא בחסירות ויתירות דבקי אנא אלא אפילו למיחש לזבוב דדילמא אתי ויתיב אתגיה דדלית ומחיק ליה ומשוי ליה ריש דבר אחד יש לי שאני מטיל לתוך הדיו וקנקנתום שמו
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.
איני והא תניא אמר רבי מאיר כשהייתי למד תורה אצל רבי ישמעאל הייתי מטיל קנקנתום לתוך הדיו ולא אמר לי דבר כשבאתי אצל רבי עקיבא אסרה עלי
The Gemara questions the initial part of Rabbi Meir’s statement: Is that so? But isn’t 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.
קשיא שמוש אשמוש קשיא אסרה אאסרה
The Gemara points out that there are two separate contradictions between the two statements: Rav Yehuda’s 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’s 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.
בשלמא שמוש אשמוש לא קשיא מעיקרא אתא לקמיה דרבי עקיבא כיון דלא מצי קם אליביה אתא לקמיה דרבי ישמעאל וגמר גמרא הדר אתא לקמיה דרבי עקיבא סבר סברא
The Gemara answers: Granted, the apparent contradiction between Rav Yehuda’s statement with regard to Rabbi Meir’s 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.
אלא אסרה אאסרה קשיא קשיא
However, the contradiction between Rav Yehuda’s 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.
תניא רבי יהודה אומר אומר היה רבי מאיר לכל מטילין קנקנתום לתוך הדיו
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,
חוץ מפרשת סוטה בלבד רבי יעקב אומר משמו חוץ מפרשת סוטה של מקדש מאי בינייהו אמר רבי ירמיה למחוק לה מן התורה איכא בינייהו
except for the ink used to write the Torah passage about the sota, even when written in a Torah scroll. Rabbi Ya’akov 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’akov, 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.
והני תנאי כי הני תנאי דתניא אין מגילתה כשירה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת רבי אחי בר יאשיה אומר מגילתה כשירה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת
The Gemara assumes that according to Rabbi Ya’akov 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’im are parallel to the opinions of those tanna’im, 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 Aḥai 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.
אמר רב פפא דילמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר תנא קמא התם אלא כיון דאינתיק לשום רחל לא הדרא מינתקא לשום לאה אבל תורה דסתמא כתיבה הכי נמי דמחקינן
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.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דילמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אחי בר יאשיה התם אלא במגילה דאיכתוב לשום אלות בעולם אבל תורה דלהתלמד כתיבה הכי נמי דלא מחקינן
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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 Aḥai 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.
ורבי אחי בר יאשיה לית ליה כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך מצאו בן עירו ואמר לו שמי כשמך ושם אשתי כשם אשתך פסול לגרש בו
The Gemara asks: And doesn’t Rabbi Aḥai 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’s name is the same as your wife’s 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.
אמרי התם וכתב לה אמר רחמנא בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא נמי ועשה לה מאי עשייה מחיקה:
The Sages say in response: There, with regard to a bill of divorce, the Merciful One states: “And he shall write for her a bill of divorce” (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: “And the priest shall perform with her all of this law” (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.
אינה מספקת לשתות עד שפניה [כו׳]: מני רבי שמעון היא דאמר מקריב את מנחתה ואחר כך משקה דכמה דלא קרבה מנחתה לא בדקי לה מיא דכתיב מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון
§ 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: “And he shall bring her offering for her…for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of remembrance, a reminder of iniquity” (Numbers 5:15).
אימא סיפא יש לה זכות היתה תולה לה אתאן לרבנן דאי רבי שמעון האמר אין זכות תולה במים המרים
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’t he say: Merit does not delay punishment in the case of the bitter water of a sota?
אמר רב חסדא הא מני רבי עקיבא היא דאמר מקריב את מנחתה ואחר כך משקה ובזכות סבר לה כרבנן:
Rav Ḥisda 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.
והם אומרים הוציאוה וכו׳: מאי טעמא דדילמא מתה למימרא דמת אסור במחנה לויה
§ 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’s courtyard, where she drinks the water, impure. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a corpse is prohibited from being in the women’s courtyard, which has the same status as the Levite camp in the desert?
והתניא טמא מת מותר ליכנס למחנה לויה ולא טמא מת בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו מת עצמו שנאמר ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו עמו במחיצתו
But isn’t 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: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19), which is interpreted to mean: With him, in his vicinity, even though Moses was in the Levite camp.
אמר אביי שמא תפרוס נדה למימרא דבעיתותא מרפיא אין דכתיב ותתחלחל המלכה מאד ואמר רב שפירסה נדה והא אנן תנן חרדה מסלקת דמים פחדא צמית ביעתותא מרפיא:
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: “And the Queen was exceedingly pained” (Esther 4:4), and Rav says: This means that she began to menstruate. The Gemara asks: But didn’t 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.
יש לה זכות היתה וכו׳: מני מתניתין לא אבא יוסי בן חנן ולא רבי אלעזר בן יצחק איש כפר דרום ולא רבי ישמעאל
§ The mishna states: If she has merit, it delays punishment…for one year…for two years…for three years. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Abba Yosei ben Ḥanan, and not the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yitzḥak of Kefar Darom, and not the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
דתניא אם יש לה זכות תולה לה שלשה חדשים כדי הכרת העובר דברי אבא יוסי בן חנן רבי אלעזר בן יצחק איש כפר דרום אומר תשעה חדשים שנאמר ונקתה ונזרעה זרע ולהלן הוא אומר זרע יעבדנו יספר זרע הראוי לספר
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 Ḥanan. Rabbi Elazar ben Yitzḥak of Kefar Darom says: Merit delays punishment for nine months, as it is stated: “Then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” (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: “A seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation” (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.
רבי ישמעאל אומר שנים עשר חדש ואף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר דכתיב להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עליך וחטיך בצדקה פרק ועויתך במחן ענין
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’s dream concerning the evil which would befall him: “Therefore, 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 sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sotah 20
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
קשיא דרבי עקיבא אדרבי עקיבא התם אמר מחיקה מעכבא והכא אמר קומץ מעכב
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.
תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי עקיבא
The Gemara responds: There is a dispute between two tanna’im, 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.
איבעיא להו אמרה איני שותה מחמת בריותא וחזרה ואמרה שותה אני מהו כיון דאמרה איני שותה טמאה אני קאמרה וכיון דאחזיק נפשה בטומאה לא מציא הדרה בה או דילמא כיון דאמרה שותה אני גליא דעתה דמחמת ביעתותא הוא דאמרה תיקו
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.
אמר אבוה דשמואל צריך שיתן מר לתוך המים מאי טעמא דאמר קרא מי המרים שמרים כבר:
Shmuel’s 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: “And he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness” (Numbers 5:23), indicating that they are already bitter before the scroll is erased.
מתני׳ עד שלא נמחקה המגילה אמרה איני שותה מגילתה נגנזת ומנחתה מתפזרת על הדשן ואין מגילתה כשרה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת נמחקה המגילה ואמרה טמאה אני המים נשפכין ומנחתה מתפזרת על בית הדשן נמחקה המגילה ואמרה איני שותה מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה בעל כרחה
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.
אינה מספקת לשתות עד שפניה מוריקות ועיניה בולטות והיא מתמלאת גידין והם אומרים הוציאוה שלא תטמא העזרה
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.
אם יש לה זכות היתה תולה לה יש זכות תולה שנה אחת יש זכות תולה שתי שנים יש זכות תולה שלש שנים מכאן אומר בן עזאי חייב אדם ללמד את בתו תורה שאם תשתה תדע שהזכות תולה לה רבי אליעזר אומר כל המלמד בתו תורה (כאילו) לומדה תפלות
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].
רבי יהושע אומר רוצה אשה בקב ותפלות מתשעה קבין ופרישות הוא היה אומר חסיד שוטה ורשע ערום ואשה פרושה ומכות פרושין הרי אלו מבלי עולם:
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.
גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי מאיר כשהייתי למד תורה אצל רבי עקיבא הייתי מטיל קנקנתום לתוך הדיו ולא אמר לי דבר כשבאתי אצל רבי ישמעאל אמר לי בני מה מלאכתך אמרתי לו לבלר אני אמר לי בני הוי זהיר שמלאכתך מלאכת שמים היא שמא תחסיר אות אחת או תתיר אות אחת נמצאת אתה מחריב את כל העולם כלו
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.
אמרתי לו דבר אחד יש לי שאני מטיל לתוך הדיו וקנקנתום שמו אמר לי וכי מטילין קנקנתום לתוך הדיו התורה אמרה ומחה כתב שיוכל למחות
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: “And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness” (Numbers 5:23). This indicates that the Torah requires writing that can be blotted out.
מאי קאמר ליה ומאי קא מהדר ליה
Since Rabbi Meir’s remark about iron sulfate seems unrelated to Rabbi Yishmael’s previous statement, the Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yishmael saying to Rabbi Meir, and what is Rabbi Meir replying to Rabbi Yishmael?
הכי קאמר ליה לא מבעיא בחסירות ויתירות דבקי אנא אלא אפילו למיחש לזבוב דדילמא אתי ויתיב אתגיה דדלית ומחיק ליה ומשוי ליה ריש דבר אחד יש לי שאני מטיל לתוך הדיו וקנקנתום שמו
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.
איני והא תניא אמר רבי מאיר כשהייתי למד תורה אצל רבי ישמעאל הייתי מטיל קנקנתום לתוך הדיו ולא אמר לי דבר כשבאתי אצל רבי עקיבא אסרה עלי
The Gemara questions the initial part of Rabbi Meir’s statement: Is that so? But isn’t 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.
קשיא שמוש אשמוש קשיא אסרה אאסרה
The Gemara points out that there are two separate contradictions between the two statements: Rav Yehuda’s 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’s 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.
בשלמא שמוש אשמוש לא קשיא מעיקרא אתא לקמיה דרבי עקיבא כיון דלא מצי קם אליביה אתא לקמיה דרבי ישמעאל וגמר גמרא הדר אתא לקמיה דרבי עקיבא סבר סברא
The Gemara answers: Granted, the apparent contradiction between Rav Yehuda’s statement with regard to Rabbi Meir’s 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.
אלא אסרה אאסרה קשיא קשיא
However, the contradiction between Rav Yehuda’s 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.
תניא רבי יהודה אומר אומר היה רבי מאיר לכל מטילין קנקנתום לתוך הדיו
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,
חוץ מפרשת סוטה בלבד רבי יעקב אומר משמו חוץ מפרשת סוטה של מקדש מאי בינייהו אמר רבי ירמיה למחוק לה מן התורה איכא בינייהו
except for the ink used to write the Torah passage about the sota, even when written in a Torah scroll. Rabbi Ya’akov 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’akov, 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.
והני תנאי כי הני תנאי דתניא אין מגילתה כשירה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת רבי אחי בר יאשיה אומר מגילתה כשירה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת
The Gemara assumes that according to Rabbi Ya’akov 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’im are parallel to the opinions of those tanna’im, 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 Aḥai 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.
אמר רב פפא דילמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר תנא קמא התם אלא כיון דאינתיק לשום רחל לא הדרא מינתקא לשום לאה אבל תורה דסתמא כתיבה הכי נמי דמחקינן
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.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דילמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אחי בר יאשיה התם אלא במגילה דאיכתוב לשום אלות בעולם אבל תורה דלהתלמד כתיבה הכי נמי דלא מחקינן
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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 Aḥai 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.
ורבי אחי בר יאשיה לית ליה כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך מצאו בן עירו ואמר לו שמי כשמך ושם אשתי כשם אשתך פסול לגרש בו
The Gemara asks: And doesn’t Rabbi Aḥai 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’s name is the same as your wife’s 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.
אמרי התם וכתב לה אמר רחמנא בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא נמי ועשה לה מאי עשייה מחיקה:
The Sages say in response: There, with regard to a bill of divorce, the Merciful One states: “And he shall write for her a bill of divorce” (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: “And the priest shall perform with her all of this law” (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.
אינה מספקת לשתות עד שפניה [כו׳]: מני רבי שמעון היא דאמר מקריב את מנחתה ואחר כך משקה דכמה דלא קרבה מנחתה לא בדקי לה מיא דכתיב מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון
§ 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: “And he shall bring her offering for her…for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of remembrance, a reminder of iniquity” (Numbers 5:15).
אימא סיפא יש לה זכות היתה תולה לה אתאן לרבנן דאי רבי שמעון האמר אין זכות תולה במים המרים
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’t he say: Merit does not delay punishment in the case of the bitter water of a sota?
אמר רב חסדא הא מני רבי עקיבא היא דאמר מקריב את מנחתה ואחר כך משקה ובזכות סבר לה כרבנן:
Rav Ḥisda 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.
והם אומרים הוציאוה וכו׳: מאי טעמא דדילמא מתה למימרא דמת אסור במחנה לויה
§ 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’s courtyard, where she drinks the water, impure. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a corpse is prohibited from being in the women’s courtyard, which has the same status as the Levite camp in the desert?
והתניא טמא מת מותר ליכנס למחנה לויה ולא טמא מת בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו מת עצמו שנאמר ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו עמו במחיצתו
But isn’t 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: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19), which is interpreted to mean: With him, in his vicinity, even though Moses was in the Levite camp.
אמר אביי שמא תפרוס נדה למימרא דבעיתותא מרפיא אין דכתיב ותתחלחל המלכה מאד ואמר רב שפירסה נדה והא אנן תנן חרדה מסלקת דמים פחדא צמית ביעתותא מרפיא:
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: “And the Queen was exceedingly pained” (Esther 4:4), and Rav says: This means that she began to menstruate. The Gemara asks: But didn’t 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.
יש לה זכות היתה וכו׳: מני מתניתין לא אבא יוסי בן חנן ולא רבי אלעזר בן יצחק איש כפר דרום ולא רבי ישמעאל
§ The mishna states: If she has merit, it delays punishment…for one year…for two years…for three years. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Abba Yosei ben Ḥanan, and not the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yitzḥak of Kefar Darom, and not the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
דתניא אם יש לה זכות תולה לה שלשה חדשים כדי הכרת העובר דברי אבא יוסי בן חנן רבי אלעזר בן יצחק איש כפר דרום אומר תשעה חדשים שנאמר ונקתה ונזרעה זרע ולהלן הוא אומר זרע יעבדנו יספר זרע הראוי לספר
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 Ḥanan. Rabbi Elazar ben Yitzḥak of Kefar Darom says: Merit delays punishment for nine months, as it is stated: “Then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” (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: “A seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation” (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.
רבי ישמעאל אומר שנים עשר חדש ואף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר דכתיב להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עליך וחטיך בצדקה פרק ועויתך במחן ענין
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’s dream concerning the evil which would befall him: “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, and redeem your sins with charity, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor;
