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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 23, 2015 | ื™ืดื ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sotah 28

From where do we derive that the man with whom the Sotah sinned gets the same punishment? ย Sotahย is an example of a case where there is doubt and yet the woman is forbidden to be with her husband. ย This serves the basis for deriving the halacha regarding doubtful situations of tumah, impurity, coming from a sheretz.

Torah verses of Sotah for Daf 28


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

ื“ืื™ ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื“ืงื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ื›ื™ ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ ื‘ื“ืงื™ ืœื” ืžื™ื ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื•ื ืงื” ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืืฉื” ื”ื”ื™ื ืชืฉื ืืช ืขื•ื ื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืื™ืฉ ืžื ื•ืงื” ืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžื ื•ืงื” ืžืขื•ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ืืฉืชื•

that if he has committed a similar iniquity the water evaluates his actions, this is difficult, as in a case where he has committed a similar iniquity does the water even evaluate her fidelity? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that the verse: โ€œAnd the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquityโ€ (Numbers 5:31), indicates that only when the man is clear of iniquity does the water evaluate the fidelity of his wife, but if the man is not clear of iniquity the water does not evaluate the fidelity of his wife?

ื•ืืœื ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื›ืฉื ืฉืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื›ืš ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ

And if the mishna is rather referring to the alleged paramour, who is also evaluated by the water that the woman drinks, then let the mishna teach as is taught in its latter clause: Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too is she forbidden to her paramour. Just as there the paramour is mentioned explicitly, so too here, the mishna should have stated: Just as the water evaluates whether she was unfaithful, so too, it evaluates whether the paramour committed this iniquity.

ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ื•ืจื™ืฉื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ืื•ืชื” ืชื ื™ ืื•ืชื• ืกื™ืคื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ืขืœ ืชื ื ื‘ื•ืขืœ

The Gemara answers: The entire mishna actually does refer to the paramour, and the reason he is not mentioned explicitly in the first clause of the mishna is because since it teaches that the water evaluates whether the wife was unfaithful by using the direct object her, it also teaches that the water evaluates whether the paramour committed the by act using the direct object him, without mentioning the paramour explicitly. In the latter clause of the mishna, on the other hand, since it teaches explicitly that the woman is forbidden to her husband, it also teaches explicitly that she is forbidden to her paramour.

ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื‘ืื• ื•ื‘ืื• ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ืื• ื•ื‘ืื• ืงืืžืจ ืื• ื•ื‘ืื• ื•ื‘ืื• ืงืืžืจ

ยง In the mishna Rabbi Akiva proves that the water evaluates the paramour as well, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the water that causes the curse shall enter into herโ€ (Numbers 5:24), and: โ€œAnd the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitterโ€ (Numbers 5:27). A dilemma was raised before the Sages concerning the precise wording of the mishna: Does the mishna state: โ€œShall enter [baโ€™u],โ€ โ€œand shall enter [uvaโ€™u]โ€? According to this version of the mishna, it is derived from the superfluous conjoining prefix vav that the paramour is also evaluated by the water. Or, alternatively, does the mishna state: โ€œAnd shall enter,โ€ โ€œand shall enter,โ€ indicating that this halakha is derived from the repetition of the phrase in two separate verses?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื›ืฉื ืฉืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื›ืš ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื”

Come and hear a proof from Rabbi Akivaโ€™s second statement in the mishna, where he says: Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too is she forbidden to her paramour, as it is stated: โ€œIs defiled [nitmaโ€™a],โ€ โ€œAnd is defiled [venitmaโ€™a]โ€ (Numbers 5:29). Here it seems that Rabbi Akiva derives his interpretation from the superfluous prefix vav rather than from the repetition of the phrase. Therefore, the first derivation should be understood in the same manner.

ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ื ื˜ืžืื” ื ื˜ืžืื” ืงืืžืจ ืื• ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื” ืงืืžืจ

The Gemara asks: But still, let the dilemma be raised with regard to this halakha too: Does Rabbi Akiva state that the source for the halakha is the mention of the phrase โ€œis defiled,โ€ โ€œis defiled,โ€ in two different verses (Numbers 5:14, 29), or does he state that the halakha is derived from the superfluous vav in the phrase โ€œis defiled,โ€ rendering it โ€œand is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:29)?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ืคืขืžื™ื ื”ืืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืจืฉื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื” ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื•ื™ ืงื“ืจื™ืฉ

Come and hear a proof from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The two times that the wifeโ€™s defilement is stated in the passage, namely: โ€œAnd he warns his wife, and she is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:14), and the later verse: โ€œWhen a wife, being under her husband, goes astray and is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:29), indicate that there are two prohibitions due to her defilement. One is to forbid her to her husband and one is to forbid her to her paramour. By inference from the fact that the dissenting derivation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is from the repetition of the entire phrase, evidently Rabbi Akiva derives this halakha from the superfluous vav.

ื”ืœื›ืš ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืฉื™ืชื ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™

Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since the phrase โ€œand the waterโ€ฆshall enterโ€ is mentioned three times in the passage, and the prefix vav, written each time, is expounded as though the phrase were mentioned twice, the phrase is treated as though it were written in six verses, as follows.

ื—ื“ ืœืฆื•ืื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœืฆื•ืื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

One of the mentions (Numbers 5:24) is interpreted for the command concerning her, the woman, meaning that God empowered the waters to punish the woman; and one, the prefix vav in that same verse, is expounded for the command concerning him, the paramour, i.e., that he too shall be punished by the water if he is guilty.

ื—ื“ ืœืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

One mention of the phrase, in the description of the drinking of the bitter water of a sota (Numbers 5:27), is interpreted for the execution of her punishment, as the punishment will go into effect so long as the process was performed properly; and one, the prefix vav in that verse, is expounded for the execution of his punishment.

ื—ื“ ืœื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

One mention (Numbers 5:22) is for her knowledge, i.e., the priest informs her that this punishment will be the result; and one, the prefix vav, is for his knowledge.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืชืœืชื ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื—ื“ ืœืฆื•ืื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ื“ื™ืขื”

But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that only three verses worthy of exposition are written with regard to the water entering the woman; he does not derive anything additional from the prefix vav that introduces the various mentions of this matter. He therefore interprets one for the command, and one for the execution, and one for the knowledge, all with regard to the woman herself.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืฉื ืฉื”ืžื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื›ืš ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžื ื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive the principle in the mishna that just as the water evaluates whether she was unfaithful, so too, it evaluates whether he committed the sin?

ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืฆื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ืœื ืคืœ ื™ืจืš ื‘ื˜ื ื• ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื•ืขืœ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื˜ื ื• ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื•ืขืœ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื˜ื ื” ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ื ื‘ืขืœืช ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืฆื‘ืชื” ื‘ื˜ื ื” ื•ื ืคืœื” ื™ืจื›ื” ื”ืจื™ ื‘ื˜ื ื” ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ื ื‘ืขืœืช ืืžื•ืจ ื•ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืœืฆื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ืœื ืคืœ ื™ืจืš ื‘ื˜ื ื• ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื•ืขืœ

The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: โ€œAnd cause the belly to swell and the thigh to fall awayโ€ (Numbers 5:22), is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour. Do you say that the intention is the belly and the thigh of the paramour, or is it only the belly and the thigh of the adulteress? When it says later: โ€œAnd her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall awayโ€ (Numbers 5:27), the belly and thigh of the adulteress are explicitly stated. And therefore, how do I realize the meaning of the former verse: โ€œAnd cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall awayโ€? Clearly, it is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื•ื“ืข ืœื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื“ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ืจืš ืฉืœื ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืœืขื– ืขืœ ื”ืžื™ื ื”ืžืจื™ื

And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Akiva, interpret the repetition of verses? The former verse indicates that the priest informs her that her belly will be afflicted first and then her thigh, so as not to cast aspersions on the bitter water of a sota, i.e., to prevent people from claiming that the guilty womanโ€™s death was not due to the bitter water but rather to some other cause. The reason people might claim this is that the priest says to the woman: โ€œThe Lord will make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away, and your belly swellโ€ (Numbers 5:21). This seems to imply that her thigh is supposed to be afflicted before her belly. Therefore, when her belly swells first, people might conclude that it is not due to the water. It is for this reason that the priest needs to inform her that her belly will swell first.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื‘ื˜ื ื” ื•ื™ืจื›ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ื™ืจืš ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ

And why does the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagree with Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: If it is so that the verse: โ€œAnd cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall awayโ€ (Numbers 5:22), is referring to the woman, the verse should have written: Her bellyโ€ฆand her thigh. What is meant by the phraseology of โ€œthe bellyโ€ฆand the thighโ€? Conclude from it that it is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืœื™ ืœื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื˜ื ื• ื•ื™ืจื›ื• ืžืื™ ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ื™ืจืš ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara asks: And say that the entire verse comes for this, to indicate that the water evaluates the paramour as well, and does not teach the order of the punishment? The Gemara answers: If so, the Torah should have written: His bellyโ€ฆand his thigh. What is the meaning of the general wording: โ€œThe bellyโ€ฆand the thighโ€? Conclude from it two conclusions: That the paramour is punished and that the priest informs the woman with regard to the order of the punishment.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื›ืš ื”ื™ื” ื“ื•ืจืฉ ื–ื›ืจื™ื” ื›ื•ืณ

ยง It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua said: That was how Zekharya ben HaKatzav would interpret it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The two times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage indicate that there are two prohibitions due to her defilement; one is to forbid her to her husband and one is to forbid her to her paramour.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืœืฉ ืคืขืžื™ื ื”ืืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืจืฉื” ืื ื ื˜ืžืื” ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœืžื” ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืชืจื•ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the three times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage, namely: โ€œIf she is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:27), โ€œand he warns his wife, and she is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:14), and โ€œwhen a wife being under her husband goes astray and is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:29), why are all three necessary? One is to prohibit her to her husband, and one is to prohibit her to her paramour, and one is to prohibit her from partaking of teruma, even if she is the wife or daughter of a priest. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืฉืžื•ืชืจืช ืœืชืจื•ืžื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื–ื• ืฉืืกื•ืจื” ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืืกื•ืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื”

Rabbi Yishmael said: It is unnecessary to derive from a verse that it would also be prohibited for this woman to marry a priest, as it can be derived a fortiori: If a divorced daughter of a priest, who is permitted to partake of teruma, is nevertheless forbidden to marry into the priesthood, then with regard to this sota, who is forbidden to partake of teruma, is it not logical that it is also prohibited for her to marry into the priesthood?

ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœืžื” ืฉื•ืชื” ืื ืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœืžื” ืžืฉืงื” ืžื’ื™ื“ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืฉื”ืกืคืง ืืกื•ืจื”

The baraita continues by citing additional expositions involving the verse: โ€œAnd she is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:14): What is the meaning when the verse states with regard to the cases in which a husband can compel his wife to drink the bitter water of a sota: โ€œAnd he warns his wife, and she is defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he warns his wife, and she is not defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:14)? If she is defiled, why does she need to drink? And if she is not defiled, why does he make her drink? The baraita answers: The verse tells you that it is discussing a case when there is uncertainty as to whether the woman was faithful to her husband, yet it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband until the matter is clarified.

ืžื›ืืŸ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืœืฉืจืฅ ื•ืžื” ืกื•ื˜ื” ืฉืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื›ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ืื•ื ืก ื›ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืกืคืง ื›ื•ื“ืื™ ืฉืจืฅ ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื›ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ืื•ื ืก ื›ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ืกืคืง

From here you can derive the halakha in a case of uncertainty with regard to whether the carcass of a creeping animal has imparted ritual impurity: Just as in the case of a sota, where the Torah does not consider unwitting adultery like intentional adultery, and rape is not treated like a willing transgression, because if a married woman committed adultery unwittingly or was raped she is not punished, yet still the Torah considers an uncertain case of adultery like a certain violation inasmuch as the woman is forbidden to her husband until the truth is clarified; so too, with regard to a creeping animal or other agents of ritual impurity, where the Torah does consider unwitting contact with impure items like intentional contact, as one contracts impurity whether or not his contact was intentional and an accident is treated like willing contact, is it not logical that the Torah must also consider an uncertain case of transmission of ritual impurity

ื›ื•ื“ืื™

like a case of certain contact with an impure item? Accordingly, any cases of uncertain ritual impurity should be treated like certain impurity.

ื•ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉื‘ืืช ืžื” ืกื•ื˜ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืืฃ ืฉืจืฅ ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“

The baraita continues: And since the case of sota is the source for the halakha with regard to uncertain ritual impurity, the details of the halakha are also derived from the case of sota. Therefore, from the place that you came from, i.e., from the source, it is derived that just as the prohibition with regard to a sota applies only when the uncertainty arises in the private domain, i.e., when she has secluded herself with the alleged paramour, so too, uncertain contact with the carcass of a creeping animal renders an item impure only if the contact was in the private domain.

ื•ืžื” ืกื•ื˜ื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืขืช ืœื™ืฉืืœ ืืฃ ืฉืจืฅ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืขืช ืœื™ืฉืืœ

And furthermore, just as a sota is an entity that has awareness in order for her to be asked whether she actually committed adultery, so too, contact with a creeping animal renders an item impure only if it is an entity that has awareness in order for it to be asked, i.e., a person, or an item that may have contracted impurity in a place where a person was present and could have known.

ื•ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืขืช ืœื™ืฉืืœ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืกืคื™ืงื• ื˜ืžื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืกืคื™ืงื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื“ืขืช ืœื™ืฉืืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืกืคื™ืงื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจ

The baraita concludes: And from here the Sages stated that if an entity that has awareness in order for it to be asked may have contracted impurity in the private domain, its uncertain impurity renders it impure; but if it may have contracted impurity in the public domain, its uncertain impurity leaves it pure. And with regard to an entity that lacks awareness in order for it to be asked, whether the uncertainty arose in the private domain or in the public domain, its uncertain impurity is deemed pure, as it is not similar to a sota.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื”ื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื”

The Gemara begins its discussion of the baraita by inquiring about the exchange between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva: And what was the intention of Rabbi Yishmael? Apparently, he commented on a statement of Rabbi Akiva, who said that it is prohibited for a sota to partake of teruma, and he answered him concerning the matter of the womanโ€™s being prohibited to marry into the priesthood, which was not mentioned by Rabbi Akiva at all.

ื•ืชื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื

And furthermore, from where does Rabbi Akiva derive that it is prohibited for a sota to marry into the priesthood? And if you would say that with regard to her prohibition against marrying into the priesthood a verse is not necessary,

  • 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 Shlemah 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 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 28

ื“ืื™ ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื“ืงื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ื›ื™ ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ ื‘ื“ืงื™ ืœื” ืžื™ื ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื•ื ืงื” ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืืฉื” ื”ื”ื™ื ืชืฉื ืืช ืขื•ื ื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืื™ืฉ ืžื ื•ืงื” ืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžื ื•ืงื” ืžืขื•ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ืืฉืชื•

that if he has committed a similar iniquity the water evaluates his actions, this is difficult, as in a case where he has committed a similar iniquity does the water even evaluate her fidelity? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that the verse: โ€œAnd the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquityโ€ (Numbers 5:31), indicates that only when the man is clear of iniquity does the water evaluate the fidelity of his wife, but if the man is not clear of iniquity the water does not evaluate the fidelity of his wife?

ื•ืืœื ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื›ืฉื ืฉืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื›ืš ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ

And if the mishna is rather referring to the alleged paramour, who is also evaluated by the water that the woman drinks, then let the mishna teach as is taught in its latter clause: Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too is she forbidden to her paramour. Just as there the paramour is mentioned explicitly, so too here, the mishna should have stated: Just as the water evaluates whether she was unfaithful, so too, it evaluates whether the paramour committed this iniquity.

ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ื•ืจื™ืฉื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ืื•ืชื” ืชื ื™ ืื•ืชื• ืกื™ืคื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ืขืœ ืชื ื ื‘ื•ืขืœ

The Gemara answers: The entire mishna actually does refer to the paramour, and the reason he is not mentioned explicitly in the first clause of the mishna is because since it teaches that the water evaluates whether the wife was unfaithful by using the direct object her, it also teaches that the water evaluates whether the paramour committed the by act using the direct object him, without mentioning the paramour explicitly. In the latter clause of the mishna, on the other hand, since it teaches explicitly that the woman is forbidden to her husband, it also teaches explicitly that she is forbidden to her paramour.

ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื‘ืื• ื•ื‘ืื• ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ืื• ื•ื‘ืื• ืงืืžืจ ืื• ื•ื‘ืื• ื•ื‘ืื• ืงืืžืจ

ยง In the mishna Rabbi Akiva proves that the water evaluates the paramour as well, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the water that causes the curse shall enter into herโ€ (Numbers 5:24), and: โ€œAnd the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitterโ€ (Numbers 5:27). A dilemma was raised before the Sages concerning the precise wording of the mishna: Does the mishna state: โ€œShall enter [baโ€™u],โ€ โ€œand shall enter [uvaโ€™u]โ€? According to this version of the mishna, it is derived from the superfluous conjoining prefix vav that the paramour is also evaluated by the water. Or, alternatively, does the mishna state: โ€œAnd shall enter,โ€ โ€œand shall enter,โ€ indicating that this halakha is derived from the repetition of the phrase in two separate verses?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื›ืฉื ืฉืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื›ืš ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื”

Come and hear a proof from Rabbi Akivaโ€™s second statement in the mishna, where he says: Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too is she forbidden to her paramour, as it is stated: โ€œIs defiled [nitmaโ€™a],โ€ โ€œAnd is defiled [venitmaโ€™a]โ€ (Numbers 5:29). Here it seems that Rabbi Akiva derives his interpretation from the superfluous prefix vav rather than from the repetition of the phrase. Therefore, the first derivation should be understood in the same manner.

ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ื ื˜ืžืื” ื ื˜ืžืื” ืงืืžืจ ืื• ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื” ืงืืžืจ

The Gemara asks: But still, let the dilemma be raised with regard to this halakha too: Does Rabbi Akiva state that the source for the halakha is the mention of the phrase โ€œis defiled,โ€ โ€œis defiled,โ€ in two different verses (Numbers 5:14, 29), or does he state that the halakha is derived from the superfluous vav in the phrase โ€œis defiled,โ€ rendering it โ€œand is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:29)?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ืคืขืžื™ื ื”ืืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืจืฉื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื” ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื•ื™ ืงื“ืจื™ืฉ

Come and hear a proof from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The two times that the wifeโ€™s defilement is stated in the passage, namely: โ€œAnd he warns his wife, and she is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:14), and the later verse: โ€œWhen a wife, being under her husband, goes astray and is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:29), indicate that there are two prohibitions due to her defilement. One is to forbid her to her husband and one is to forbid her to her paramour. By inference from the fact that the dissenting derivation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is from the repetition of the entire phrase, evidently Rabbi Akiva derives this halakha from the superfluous vav.

ื”ืœื›ืš ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืฉื™ืชื ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™

Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since the phrase โ€œand the waterโ€ฆshall enterโ€ is mentioned three times in the passage, and the prefix vav, written each time, is expounded as though the phrase were mentioned twice, the phrase is treated as though it were written in six verses, as follows.

ื—ื“ ืœืฆื•ืื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœืฆื•ืื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

One of the mentions (Numbers 5:24) is interpreted for the command concerning her, the woman, meaning that God empowered the waters to punish the woman; and one, the prefix vav in that same verse, is expounded for the command concerning him, the paramour, i.e., that he too shall be punished by the water if he is guilty.

ื—ื“ ืœืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

One mention of the phrase, in the description of the drinking of the bitter water of a sota (Numbers 5:27), is interpreted for the execution of her punishment, as the punishment will go into effect so long as the process was performed properly; and one, the prefix vav in that verse, is expounded for the execution of his punishment.

ื—ื“ ืœื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

One mention (Numbers 5:22) is for her knowledge, i.e., the priest informs her that this punishment will be the result; and one, the prefix vav, is for his knowledge.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืชืœืชื ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื—ื“ ืœืฆื•ืื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ื“ื™ืขื”

But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that only three verses worthy of exposition are written with regard to the water entering the woman; he does not derive anything additional from the prefix vav that introduces the various mentions of this matter. He therefore interprets one for the command, and one for the execution, and one for the knowledge, all with regard to the woman herself.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืฉื ืฉื”ืžื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื›ืš ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžื ื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive the principle in the mishna that just as the water evaluates whether she was unfaithful, so too, it evaluates whether he committed the sin?

ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืฆื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ืœื ืคืœ ื™ืจืš ื‘ื˜ื ื• ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื•ืขืœ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื˜ื ื• ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื•ืขืœ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื‘ื˜ื ื” ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ื ื‘ืขืœืช ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืฆื‘ืชื” ื‘ื˜ื ื” ื•ื ืคืœื” ื™ืจื›ื” ื”ืจื™ ื‘ื˜ื ื” ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ื ื‘ืขืœืช ืืžื•ืจ ื•ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืœืฆื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ืœื ืคืœ ื™ืจืš ื‘ื˜ื ื• ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื• ืฉืœ ื‘ื•ืขืœ

The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: โ€œAnd cause the belly to swell and the thigh to fall awayโ€ (Numbers 5:22), is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour. Do you say that the intention is the belly and the thigh of the paramour, or is it only the belly and the thigh of the adulteress? When it says later: โ€œAnd her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall awayโ€ (Numbers 5:27), the belly and thigh of the adulteress are explicitly stated. And therefore, how do I realize the meaning of the former verse: โ€œAnd cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall awayโ€? Clearly, it is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื•ื“ืข ืœื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื“ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื™ืจืš ืฉืœื ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืœืขื– ืขืœ ื”ืžื™ื ื”ืžืจื™ื

And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Akiva, interpret the repetition of verses? The former verse indicates that the priest informs her that her belly will be afflicted first and then her thigh, so as not to cast aspersions on the bitter water of a sota, i.e., to prevent people from claiming that the guilty womanโ€™s death was not due to the bitter water but rather to some other cause. The reason people might claim this is that the priest says to the woman: โ€œThe Lord will make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away, and your belly swellโ€ (Numbers 5:21). This seems to imply that her thigh is supposed to be afflicted before her belly. Therefore, when her belly swells first, people might conclude that it is not due to the water. It is for this reason that the priest needs to inform her that her belly will swell first.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื‘ื˜ื ื” ื•ื™ืจื›ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ื™ืจืš ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ

And why does the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagree with Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: If it is so that the verse: โ€œAnd cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall awayโ€ (Numbers 5:22), is referring to the woman, the verse should have written: Her bellyโ€ฆand her thigh. What is meant by the phraseology of โ€œthe bellyโ€ฆand the thighโ€? Conclude from it that it is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืœื™ ืœื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื˜ื ื• ื•ื™ืจื›ื• ืžืื™ ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ื™ืจืš ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara asks: And say that the entire verse comes for this, to indicate that the water evaluates the paramour as well, and does not teach the order of the punishment? The Gemara answers: If so, the Torah should have written: His bellyโ€ฆand his thigh. What is the meaning of the general wording: โ€œThe bellyโ€ฆand the thighโ€? Conclude from it two conclusions: That the paramour is punished and that the priest informs the woman with regard to the order of the punishment.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื›ืš ื”ื™ื” ื“ื•ืจืฉ ื–ื›ืจื™ื” ื›ื•ืณ

ยง It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua said: That was how Zekharya ben HaKatzav would interpret it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The two times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage indicate that there are two prohibitions due to her defilement; one is to forbid her to her husband and one is to forbid her to her paramour.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉืœืฉ ืคืขืžื™ื ื”ืืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืจืฉื” ืื ื ื˜ืžืื” ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœืžื” ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ื•ืขืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืชืจื•ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the three times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage, namely: โ€œIf she is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:27), โ€œand he warns his wife, and she is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:14), and โ€œwhen a wife being under her husband goes astray and is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:29), why are all three necessary? One is to prohibit her to her husband, and one is to prohibit her to her paramour, and one is to prohibit her from partaking of teruma, even if she is the wife or daughter of a priest. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืฉืžื•ืชืจืช ืœืชืจื•ืžื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื–ื• ืฉืืกื•ืจื” ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืืกื•ืจื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื”

Rabbi Yishmael said: It is unnecessary to derive from a verse that it would also be prohibited for this woman to marry a priest, as it can be derived a fortiori: If a divorced daughter of a priest, who is permitted to partake of teruma, is nevertheless forbidden to marry into the priesthood, then with regard to this sota, who is forbidden to partake of teruma, is it not logical that it is also prohibited for her to marry into the priesthood?

ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœืžื” ืฉื•ืชื” ืื ืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ืœืžื” ืžืฉืงื” ืžื’ื™ื“ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืฉื”ืกืคืง ืืกื•ืจื”

The baraita continues by citing additional expositions involving the verse: โ€œAnd she is defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:14): What is the meaning when the verse states with regard to the cases in which a husband can compel his wife to drink the bitter water of a sota: โ€œAnd he warns his wife, and she is defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he warns his wife, and she is not defiledโ€ (Numbers 5:14)? If she is defiled, why does she need to drink? And if she is not defiled, why does he make her drink? The baraita answers: The verse tells you that it is discussing a case when there is uncertainty as to whether the woman was faithful to her husband, yet it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband until the matter is clarified.

ืžื›ืืŸ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืœืฉืจืฅ ื•ืžื” ืกื•ื˜ื” ืฉืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื›ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ืื•ื ืก ื›ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืกืคืง ื›ื•ื“ืื™ ืฉืจืฅ ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื›ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ืื•ื ืก ื›ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ื• ืกืคืง

From here you can derive the halakha in a case of uncertainty with regard to whether the carcass of a creeping animal has imparted ritual impurity: Just as in the case of a sota, where the Torah does not consider unwitting adultery like intentional adultery, and rape is not treated like a willing transgression, because if a married woman committed adultery unwittingly or was raped she is not punished, yet still the Torah considers an uncertain case of adultery like a certain violation inasmuch as the woman is forbidden to her husband until the truth is clarified; so too, with regard to a creeping animal or other agents of ritual impurity, where the Torah does consider unwitting contact with impure items like intentional contact, as one contracts impurity whether or not his contact was intentional and an accident is treated like willing contact, is it not logical that the Torah must also consider an uncertain case of transmission of ritual impurity

ื›ื•ื“ืื™

like a case of certain contact with an impure item? Accordingly, any cases of uncertain ritual impurity should be treated like certain impurity.

ื•ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉื‘ืืช ืžื” ืกื•ื˜ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืืฃ ืฉืจืฅ ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“

The baraita continues: And since the case of sota is the source for the halakha with regard to uncertain ritual impurity, the details of the halakha are also derived from the case of sota. Therefore, from the place that you came from, i.e., from the source, it is derived that just as the prohibition with regard to a sota applies only when the uncertainty arises in the private domain, i.e., when she has secluded herself with the alleged paramour, so too, uncertain contact with the carcass of a creeping animal renders an item impure only if the contact was in the private domain.

ื•ืžื” ืกื•ื˜ื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืขืช ืœื™ืฉืืœ ืืฃ ืฉืจืฅ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืขืช ืœื™ืฉืืœ

And furthermore, just as a sota is an entity that has awareness in order for her to be asked whether she actually committed adultery, so too, contact with a creeping animal renders an item impure only if it is an entity that has awareness in order for it to be asked, i.e., a person, or an item that may have contracted impurity in a place where a person was present and could have known.

ื•ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ืขืช ืœื™ืฉืืœ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืกืคื™ืงื• ื˜ืžื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืกืคื™ืงื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื“ืขืช ืœื™ืฉืืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืกืคื™ืงื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจ

The baraita concludes: And from here the Sages stated that if an entity that has awareness in order for it to be asked may have contracted impurity in the private domain, its uncertain impurity renders it impure; but if it may have contracted impurity in the public domain, its uncertain impurity leaves it pure. And with regard to an entity that lacks awareness in order for it to be asked, whether the uncertainty arose in the private domain or in the public domain, its uncertain impurity is deemed pure, as it is not similar to a sota.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื”ื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื”

The Gemara begins its discussion of the baraita by inquiring about the exchange between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva: And what was the intention of Rabbi Yishmael? Apparently, he commented on a statement of Rabbi Akiva, who said that it is prohibited for a sota to partake of teruma, and he answered him concerning the matter of the womanโ€™s being prohibited to marry into the priesthood, which was not mentioned by Rabbi Akiva at all.

ื•ืชื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื

And furthermore, from where does Rabbi Akiva derive that it is prohibited for a sota to marry into the priesthood? And if you would say that with regard to her prohibition against marrying into the priesthood a verse is not necessary,

Scroll To Top