When the Mishna said that the man also dies when the woman drinks the sotah water, it could not be referring to her husband because if the husband has done wrongdoing, the sotah water doesn’t work to kill the woman. From where is this derived? From here they conclude it is the adulterer who will die when the sotah drinks the water. Is this derived from the word “and they came (referring to the waters)” which appears twice or because of the addition of the “and”? They conclude that Rabbi Akiva derives it from “and” and then proceed to explain the six drashot that Rabbi Akiva learns from the three mentions of “and they came” – as each one coming to teach two things. Rebbi doesn’t derive anything from “and” and therefore derives only three things from the fact that the same words appear three times. From where does he derive that the man gets punished as well? A braita is brought explaining what Rabbi Akiva learns from the three verses that say “and the woman was impure.” Rabbi Yishmael raises a question against Rabbi Akiva, although the Gemara will later have to explain the question as it is not very clear. He also shows how we derive that the sotah is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the water and proves her innocence. He then makes a kal vachomer argument from sotah to a sheretz that a sheretz should also be forbidden even in a case of doubt. However, this is limited to cases that are similar to sotah – where the doubt is in the private domain and theoretically there is someone who knows whether or not it became impure.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Sotah 28
דְּאִי אִית בֵּיהּ עָוֹן בָּדְקִי לֵיהּ מַיָּא, כִּי אִית בֵּיהּ עָוֹן בְּדִידֵיהּ מִי בָּדְקִי לַהּ מַיָּא לְדִידַהּ? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״וְנִקָּה הָאִישׁ מֵעָוֹן וְהָאִשָּׁה הַהִיא תִּשָּׂא אֶת עֲוֹנָהּ״. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵין הָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!
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 isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse: “And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity” (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?
וְאֶלָּא לְבוֹעֵל, לִיתְנֵי כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל!
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.
לְעוֹלָם לַבּוֹעֵל, וְרֵישָׁא — אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא ״אוֹתָהּ״, תָּנֵי ״אוֹתוֹ״. סֵיפָא — אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא ״בַּעַל״, תְּנָא ״בּוֹעֵל״.
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 act by 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.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבָאוּ״ ״וּבָאוּ״. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״בָּאוּ״ ״וּבָאוּ״ קָאָמַר, אוֹ ״וּבָאוּ״ ״וּבָאוּ״ קָאָמַר?
§ In the mishna Rabbi Akiva proves that the water evaluates the paramour as well, as it is stated: “And the water that causes the curse shall enter into her” (Numbers 5:24), and: “And the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter” (Numbers 5:27). A dilemma was raised before the Sages concerning the precise wording of the mishna: Does the mishna state: “Shall enter [ba’u],” “and shall enter [uva’u]”? 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: “And shall enter,” “and shall enter,” indicating that this halakha is derived from the repetition of the phrase in two separate verses?
תָּא שְׁמַע: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״וְנִטְמָאָה״.
Come and hear a proof from Rabbi Akiva’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: “Is defiled [nitma’a],” “And is defiled [venitma’a]” (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.
וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי: ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״נִטְמָאָה״ קָאָמַר, אוֹ ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״וְנִטְמָאָה״ קָאָמַר?
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 “is defiled,” “is defiled,” in two different verses (Numbers 5:14, 29), or does he state that the halakha is derived from the superfluous vav in the phrase “is defiled,” rendering it “and is defiled” (Numbers 5:29)?
תָּא שְׁמַע מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה ״וְנִטְמָאָה״ ״וְנִטְמָאָה״ — אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וָוֵי קָדָרֵישׁ.
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 wife’s defilement is stated in the passage, namely: “And he warns his wife, and she is defiled” (Numbers 5:14), and the later verse: “When a wife, being under her husband, goes astray and is defiled” (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.
הִלְכָּךְ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שִׁיתָּא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי:
Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since the phrase “and the water…shall enter” 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.
חַד לְצַוָּאָה דִּידַהּ, וְחַד לְצַוָּאָה דִּידֵיהּ.
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.
חַד לַעֲשִׂיָּיה דִּידַהּ, וְחַד לַעֲשִׂיָּיה דִּידֵיהּ.
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.
חַד לִידִיעָה דִּידַהּ, וְחַד לִידִיעָה דִּידֵיהּ.
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.
וְרַבִּי, תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: חַד — לְצַוָּאָה, וְחַד — לַעֲשִׂיָּיה, וְחַד — לִידִיעָה.
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.
וְרַבִּי, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, מְנָא לֵיהּ?
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?
נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּתַנְיָא: ״לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ״, בִּטְנוֹ וִירֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּטְנוֹ וִירֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּטְנָהּ וִירֵיכָהּ שֶׁל נִבְעֶלֶת? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְצָבְתָה בִטְנָהּ וְנָפְלָה יְרֵכָהּ״, הֲרֵי בִּטְנָהּ וִירֵיכָהּ שֶׁל נִבְעֶלֶת אָמוּר, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ״ — בִּטְנוֹ וִירֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל.
The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: “And cause the belly to swell and the thigh to fall away” (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: “And her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away” (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: “And cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall away”? Clearly, it is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour.
וְאִידַּךְ, הַהוּא דְּמוֹדַע לַהּ כֹּהֵן דְּבֶטֶן בְּרֵישָׁא וַהֲדַר יָרֵךְ, שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים.
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 woman’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: “The Lord will make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away, and your belly swell” (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.
וְאִידַּךְ: אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״בִּטְנָהּ וִירֵכָהּ״, מַאי ״בֶּטֶן״ וְ״יָרֵךְ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְבוֹעֵל.
And why does the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagree with Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: If it is so that the verse: “And cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall away” (Numbers 5:22), is referring to the woman, the verse should have written: Her belly…and her thigh. What is meant by the phraseology of “the belly…and the thigh”? Conclude from it that it is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour.
וְאֵימָא (כולי) [כּוּלֵּיהּ] לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב ״בִּטְנוֹ״ וִ״ירֵכוֹ״. מַאי ״בֶּטֶן״ וְ״יָרֵךְ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
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 belly…and his thigh. What is the meaning of the general wording: “The belly…and the thigh”? 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כָּךְ הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ זְכַרְיָה כּוּ׳.
§ 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה ״אִם נִטְמְאָה״, ״נִטְמָאָה״, ״וְנִטְמָאָה״, לָמָּה? אֶחָד לַבַּעַל, וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל, וְאֶחָד לִתְרוּמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the three times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage, namely: “If she is defiled” (Numbers 5:27), “and he warns his wife, and she is defiled” (Numbers 5:14), and “when a wife being under her husband goes astray and is defiled” (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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁמּוּתֶּרֶת לִתְרוּמָה — אֲסוּרָה לִכְהוּנָּה, זוֹ שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בִּתְרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לִכְהוּנָּה?
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?
מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״, ״וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה״ — אִם נִטְמְאָה לָמָּה שׁוֹתָה? אִם לֹא נִטְמְאָה לָמָּה מַשְׁקָהּ? מַגִּיד לְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהַסָּפֵק אֲסוּרָה.
The baraita continues by citing additional expositions involving the verse: “And she is defiled” (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: “And 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 defiled” (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.
מִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְשֶׁרֶץ: וּמָה סוֹטָה, שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָּהּ שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד וְאוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן — עָשָׂה בָּהּ סָפֵק כְּוַדַּאי, שֶׁרֶץ, שֶׁעָשָׂה בּוֹ שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד וְאוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ סָפֵק
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
כְּוַדַּאי.
like a case of certain contact with an impure item? Accordingly, any cases of uncertain ritual impurity should be treated like certain impurity.
וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאתָ: מָה סוֹטָה רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — אַף שֶׁרֶץ רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד.
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.
וּמָה סוֹטָה דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל — אַף שֶׁרֶץ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל.
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.
וּמִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵיקוֹ טָמֵא, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר. וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר.
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.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא תְּרוּמָה, וּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ כְּהוּנָּה?
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 woman’s being prohibited to marry into the priesthood, which was not mentioned by Rabbi Akiva at all.
וְתוּ: לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כְּהוּנָּה מְנָא לֵיהּ? וְכִי תֵּימָא כְּהוּנָּה לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא,
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,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Minnesota, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Sotah 28
דְּאִי אִית בֵּיהּ עָוֹן בָּדְקִי לֵיהּ מַיָּא, כִּי אִית בֵּיהּ עָוֹן בְּדִידֵיהּ מִי בָּדְקִי לַהּ מַיָּא לְדִידַהּ? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״וְנִקָּה הָאִישׁ מֵעָוֹן וְהָאִשָּׁה הַהִיא תִּשָּׂא אֶת עֲוֹנָהּ״. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵין הָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!
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 isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse: “And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity” (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?
וְאֶלָּא לְבוֹעֵל, לִיתְנֵי כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל!
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.
לְעוֹלָם לַבּוֹעֵל, וְרֵישָׁא — אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא ״אוֹתָהּ״, תָּנֵי ״אוֹתוֹ״. סֵיפָא — אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא ״בַּעַל״, תְּנָא ״בּוֹעֵל״.
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 act by 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.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבָאוּ״ ״וּבָאוּ״. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״בָּאוּ״ ״וּבָאוּ״ קָאָמַר, אוֹ ״וּבָאוּ״ ״וּבָאוּ״ קָאָמַר?
§ In the mishna Rabbi Akiva proves that the water evaluates the paramour as well, as it is stated: “And the water that causes the curse shall enter into her” (Numbers 5:24), and: “And the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter” (Numbers 5:27). A dilemma was raised before the Sages concerning the precise wording of the mishna: Does the mishna state: “Shall enter [ba’u],” “and shall enter [uva’u]”? 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: “And shall enter,” “and shall enter,” indicating that this halakha is derived from the repetition of the phrase in two separate verses?
תָּא שְׁמַע: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״וְנִטְמָאָה״.
Come and hear a proof from Rabbi Akiva’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: “Is defiled [nitma’a],” “And is defiled [venitma’a]” (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.
וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי: ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״נִטְמָאָה״ קָאָמַר, אוֹ ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״וְנִטְמָאָה״ קָאָמַר?
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 “is defiled,” “is defiled,” in two different verses (Numbers 5:14, 29), or does he state that the halakha is derived from the superfluous vav in the phrase “is defiled,” rendering it “and is defiled” (Numbers 5:29)?
תָּא שְׁמַע מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה ״וְנִטְמָאָה״ ״וְנִטְמָאָה״ — אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וָוֵי קָדָרֵישׁ.
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 wife’s defilement is stated in the passage, namely: “And he warns his wife, and she is defiled” (Numbers 5:14), and the later verse: “When a wife, being under her husband, goes astray and is defiled” (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.
הִלְכָּךְ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שִׁיתָּא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי:
Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since the phrase “and the water…shall enter” 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.
חַד לְצַוָּאָה דִּידַהּ, וְחַד לְצַוָּאָה דִּידֵיהּ.
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.
חַד לַעֲשִׂיָּיה דִּידַהּ, וְחַד לַעֲשִׂיָּיה דִּידֵיהּ.
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.
חַד לִידִיעָה דִּידַהּ, וְחַד לִידִיעָה דִּידֵיהּ.
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.
וְרַבִּי, תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: חַד — לְצַוָּאָה, וְחַד — לַעֲשִׂיָּיה, וְחַד — לִידִיעָה.
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.
וְרַבִּי, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, מְנָא לֵיהּ?
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?
נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּתַנְיָא: ״לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ״, בִּטְנוֹ וִירֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּטְנוֹ וִירֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּטְנָהּ וִירֵיכָהּ שֶׁל נִבְעֶלֶת? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְצָבְתָה בִטְנָהּ וְנָפְלָה יְרֵכָהּ״, הֲרֵי בִּטְנָהּ וִירֵיכָהּ שֶׁל נִבְעֶלֶת אָמוּר, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ״ — בִּטְנוֹ וִירֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל.
The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: “And cause the belly to swell and the thigh to fall away” (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: “And her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away” (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: “And cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall away”? Clearly, it is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour.
וְאִידַּךְ, הַהוּא דְּמוֹדַע לַהּ כֹּהֵן דְּבֶטֶן בְּרֵישָׁא וַהֲדַר יָרֵךְ, שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים.
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 woman’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: “The Lord will make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away, and your belly swell” (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.
וְאִידַּךְ: אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״בִּטְנָהּ וִירֵכָהּ״, מַאי ״בֶּטֶן״ וְ״יָרֵךְ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְבוֹעֵל.
And why does the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagree with Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: If it is so that the verse: “And cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall away” (Numbers 5:22), is referring to the woman, the verse should have written: Her belly…and her thigh. What is meant by the phraseology of “the belly…and the thigh”? Conclude from it that it is referring to the belly and thigh of the paramour.
וְאֵימָא (כולי) [כּוּלֵּיהּ] לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב ״בִּטְנוֹ״ וִ״ירֵכוֹ״. מַאי ״בֶּטֶן״ וְ״יָרֵךְ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
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 belly…and his thigh. What is the meaning of the general wording: “The belly…and the thigh”? 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כָּךְ הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ זְכַרְיָה כּוּ׳.
§ 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה ״אִם נִטְמְאָה״, ״נִטְמָאָה״, ״וְנִטְמָאָה״, לָמָּה? אֶחָד לַבַּעַל, וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל, וְאֶחָד לִתְרוּמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the three times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage, namely: “If she is defiled” (Numbers 5:27), “and he warns his wife, and she is defiled” (Numbers 5:14), and “when a wife being under her husband goes astray and is defiled” (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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁמּוּתֶּרֶת לִתְרוּמָה — אֲסוּרָה לִכְהוּנָּה, זוֹ שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בִּתְרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לִכְהוּנָּה?
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?
מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״, ״וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה״ — אִם נִטְמְאָה לָמָּה שׁוֹתָה? אִם לֹא נִטְמְאָה לָמָּה מַשְׁקָהּ? מַגִּיד לְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהַסָּפֵק אֲסוּרָה.
The baraita continues by citing additional expositions involving the verse: “And she is defiled” (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: “And 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 defiled” (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.
מִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְשֶׁרֶץ: וּמָה סוֹטָה, שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָּהּ שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד וְאוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן — עָשָׂה בָּהּ סָפֵק כְּוַדַּאי, שֶׁרֶץ, שֶׁעָשָׂה בּוֹ שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד וְאוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ סָפֵק
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
כְּוַדַּאי.
like a case of certain contact with an impure item? Accordingly, any cases of uncertain ritual impurity should be treated like certain impurity.
וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאתָ: מָה סוֹטָה רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — אַף שֶׁרֶץ רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד.
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.
וּמָה סוֹטָה דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל — אַף שֶׁרֶץ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל.
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.
וּמִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵיקוֹ טָמֵא, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר. וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר.
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.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא תְּרוּמָה, וּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ כְּהוּנָּה?
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 woman’s being prohibited to marry into the priesthood, which was not mentioned by Rabbi Akiva at all.
וְתוּ: לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כְּהוּנָּה מְנָא לֵיהּ? וְכִי תֵּימָא כְּהוּנָּה לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא,
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,
