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

Daf Yomi

April 4, 2023 | 讬状讙 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.

Sotah 6

 

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Mona & David Schwartz and family in loving memory of their mother and grandmother Mary Horowitz – Miriam Etel bat Aharon Halevi & Mirel on her 29th yahrzeit. 鈥淎 woman whose home personified hachnasat orchim. May her neshama have an Aliyah.鈥

After bringing the third version of Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation of the law regarding the brother of a man who accused his wife of being a sotah who died childless before she drank the water, who is obligated to do chalitza but cannot do yibum, Rava brings a different explanation. Abaye questions that as well, but Rava resolves the difficulty. The Mishna lists other cases where a woman will be disqualified from eating truma but will not be able to drink the Sotah water, such as a woman who admits to having had relations with the man in question, if witnesses came who witnessed the couple having relations, or if she refuses to drink or the husband refuses her to drink or he has relations with her on the way to the Temple. Rav Sheshet says a law that Rav Amram tries to prove from the Mishna. The sotah water doesn’t work to prove the guilt or innocence of a sotah if there are witnesses abroad who saw she had relations. Rav Yosef rejects Rav Amram鈥檚 proof from the Mishna. What is the root of the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef? Several questions are raised against Rav Sheshet鈥檚 position. The difficulties are resolved and a braita is brought to strengthen Rav Sheshet鈥檚 position.

诪讬 拽讗 专诪讬谞谉 诇讛 注诇讬讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛


Do we impose on him an obligation to marry her against his will? Unlike levirate marriage, there is no obligation for another man to marry her. Therefore, the verse is not instructing him to do so.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻转讜讘 拽专讗讜 讗讞专 砖讗讬谉 讘谉 讝讜讙讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 砖讝讛 讛讜爪讬讗 专砖注讛 诪讘讬转讜 讜讝讛 讛讻谞讬住 专砖注讛 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讗转 讗诪专转 转转讬讘诐 谞诪讬 讬讘讜诪讬


And there are those who say that Rav Yosef said differently: The verse calls a man who marries a woman after she was divorced from her first husband due to suspicion of adultery 鈥渁nother man,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house and goes and becomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). This indicates that one who subsequently marries her is not a peer of her first husband because this one, the first husband, removed an evil woman from his house, and that one brought an evil woman into his house. There is an implied criticism of the second husband in the verse; and yet you say that the verse instructs that she should also enter into levirate marriage.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜诪转 讘诇讗 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 转转讬讘诐 讚讛讻转讜讘 拽专讗讜 讗讞专 讙讘讬讛 讚讛讗讬 诪讬讛讗 讘砖诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗


Abaye said to him: If that is so, then if she married another man and he died without children, then she should not enter into levirate marriage with the brother of her second husband even if she did not commit adultery during the second marriage, since the verse calls the second husband 鈥渁nother man,鈥 which excluded the possibility of levirate marriage. Rav Yosef answered Abaye: With regard to that one, i.e., this second husband, at least she remained with a good name. Since she did not engage in illicit behavior during her second marriage, she can enter into levirate marriage with the brother of her second husband.


专讘讗 讗诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 谞讗住专讛 讘诪讜转专 诇讛 讘讗住讜专 诇讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rava says a different reason why a sota cannot enter into levirate marriage: This prohibition can be deduced through an a fortiori inference: If, due to the suspicion of adultery, she becomes forbidden to the one who was previously permitted to her, i.e., her first husband, then with regard to one who was forbidden to her, i.e., the husband鈥檚 brother, is it not all the more so that she remains forbidden to him?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讬讚砖 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜诪转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗 转转讬讘诐 讗诐 谞讗住专讛 讘诪讜转专 诇讛 讘讗住讜专 诇讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Abaye said to him: If that is so, if this a fortiori reasoning is the basis of the prohibition against her entering into levirate marriage, then in the case of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, which he is prohibited from doing, and he died before the marriage took place, and he has a brother who is a common priest, who is permitted to marry a widow, she should still not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage with him, since the same inference can be stated: If she becomes forbidden to the one who was permitted to her, i.e., her husband the High Priest, who was prohibited from marrying a widow, then with regard to one who was forbidden to her, i.e., his brother, the common priest who wishes to enter into levirate marriage with her, is it not all the more so that she should be forbidden?


谞讗住专讛 讛讗 讗住讬专讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诪讜转专 诇讛 讗住讜专 诇讛 讛讜讗


The Gemara refutes this inference. In the case of the High Priest, can one say: She becomes forbidden? But she was forbidden to him and remains forbidden to him. She did not become forbidden to her husband, the High Priest, due to the marriage. Furthermore, in the case of the High Priest, can one say: Permitted to her? But the High Priest is forbidden to her always. Therefore, the case of the High Priest does not serve as a refutation of the a fortiori inference.


讗诇讗 讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖谞讗谞住讛 讜诪转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讞诇诇 诇讗 转转讬讘诐 讗诐 谞讗住专讛 讘诪讜转专 诇讛 讘讗住讜专 诇讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rather, the refutation is as follows: In the case of a priest鈥檚 wife who was raped, who becomes forbidden to her husband, and then her husband dies; and he has a brother who is a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [岣lal], who is not bound by the restrictions on marriage given to a priest, then she should not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage with him. If she becomes forbidden to the one who was permitted to her, i.e., her husband the priest, then with regard to one who was forbidden to her, i.e., her brother-in-law, is it not all the more so that she remains forbidden to him?


讗讜谞住 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讜讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 诪讬讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗:


The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, this a fortiori inference is not applicable here because a raped woman is completely permitted to an Israelite. Therefore, a married woman raped by another man may remain with her Israelite husband. And with regard to this person, i.e., the brother of the deceased, who is a 岣lal, in any event there is no prohibition. The fact that the woman was forbidden to her 岣lal brother-in-law while she was married to her husband is immaterial. This is because, had she been raped while she was married to the 岣lal, it would not render her forbidden to him, as he has the status of an Israelite with regard to marriage. Consequently, this case cannot be compared to the case of the mishna, as a woman who commits adultery is forbidden to any husband, not only a priest.


诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讗住讜专讜转 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讜砖讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讛讗讜诪专转 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 讜砖讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜砖讘注诇讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱:


MISHNA: And these are women who, despite being married to priests, are prohibited from partaking of teruma due to suspicion of adultery: A woman who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she admitted to having committed adultery with another man; and in a case where witnesses came forth and testified that she is defiled; and a woman who says after a warning and seclusion: I will not drink the bitter water of a sota; and in a case where her husband does not want to force her to drink the water even after she secluded herself with another man after his warning; and in a case where her husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the way to bringing her to the Temple to drink the bitter water, as in such a case the water will not be effective in evaluating whether she was unfaithful, due to the husband鈥檚 own prohibited act.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗谞讛专 诇谉 注讬讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 住讜讟讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞住转专讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜注讚 讗讬谉 讘讛 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬讚注 讘讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讬讚注 讘讛


GEMARA: Rav Amram says: Rav Sheshet told us this matter, and he enlightened our eyes for us by citing support for his statement from the mishna: In the case of a sota for whom there are witnesses concerning her in a country overseas, who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse, the bitter water of a sota does not evaluate whether or not she was unfaithful. Although she committed adultery, the water evaluates her fidelity only when there is no possibility of proving her guilt in court. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd a man lie with her carnally, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was defiled secretly, and there was no witness against her鈥 (Numbers 5:13). This indicates that the bitter water is given only when there is no one who knows about her action, to the exclusion of the case of this woman who is not given the bitter water, as there are those who know about her.


讜讗谞讛专 诇谉 注讬讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讜砖讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讚讗转讜 注讚讬诐 讗讬诪转 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬 讚转砖转讬 讝讜谞讛 讛讬讗


And Rav Sheshet enlightened our eyes for us by adducing support for his ruling from the mishna, as it teaches: And where witnesses came forth and testified that she is defiled, this is one of the women who can no longer partake of teruma, Rav Sheshet asks: This is a case where the witnesses came when? If we say that they came before she drank, then what is novel about the fact that it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma? She is a woman who had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona], as she is a confirmed adulteress, and it is obviously prohibited for her to partake of teruma.


讗诇讗 诇讘转专 讚砖转讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 转讬讙诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 谞讬谞讛讜


Rav Sheshet answers: Rather, it must be referring to a case where the witnesses testified after she already drank. Granted, if you say that the bitter water of a sota does not evaluate her in a case where there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify with regard to her infidelity, it is well. But if you say that the water evaluates her in a case where there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify with regard to her infidelity, then it should be revealed retroactively that they are false witnesses, as the fact that she survived the drinking of the bitter water would indicate that she never committed adultery.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讛讗 讗讬诪讜专 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 诇讛


Rav Yosef said to Rav Sheshet: Actually, I will say to you that the bitter water evaluates her in a case where there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify with regard to her infidelity. Nevertheless, the fact that the woman survived the drinking of the water does not prove her innocence, and one can say that this woman who already drank had merit that delayed the punishment for her. According to some opinions, if an unfaithful woman has certain merits, she will not die immediately upon drinking the water. Therefore, if witnesses were to testify to her infidelity after she drank the water without dying, it is not clear that their testimony is false.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讚专讘讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讛诪专讬诐 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪砖讘讞转 讗诇讗 诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇住讜祝 砖讛讬讗 诪转讛 讘讗讜转讛 诪讬转讛


The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef disagree? With regard to whether she deteriorates [mitnavvena], as explained by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as we learned in a mishna (22a): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Merit delays punishment with regard to the bitter water of a sota. Even if a woman actually committed adultery, she will not die immediately due to the merit that she has. But she will not give birth, and she will not improve in terms of her physical condition after having drunk the bitter water. Rather, she will progressively deteriorate until she ultimately dies in the same manner of death as suffered by a sota who drank the bitter water without having merit.


专讘 砖砖转 住讘专 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讛讜讬讗 诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 住讘专 诇专讘讬 讛讜讬讗 诪转谞讜讜谞讛 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪转谞讜讜谞讛


Rav Sheshet holds: Both according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him, she begins to deteriorate despite her merit. Therefore, if she doesn鈥檛 begin to deteriorate immediately, the witnesses who testified subsequent to her drinking must be false witnesses. And Rav Yosef holds: Only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is it so that she begins to deteriorate when she has merit. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, she does not begins to deteriorate. Therefore, Rav Yosef explains that the mere fact that she survived the drinking of the bitter water and didn鈥檛 begin deteriorating does not prove that the testimony was false.


诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讛诪专讬诐 讜讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讛诪专讬诐 诪讚讞讛 讗转讛 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讛砖讜转讜转 讜讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛讟讛讜专讜转 砖砖转讜 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讛讬讜 讗诇讗 砖转诇讛 诇讛谉 讝讻讜转


Rav Shimi bar Ashi raises an objection from the aforementioned mishna (22a), which also teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Merit does not delay punishment with regard to the bitter water of a sota, and if you say that merit delays punishment with regard to the bitter water, then you push aside the deterrent force of the bitter water before all the women who must drink it, as guilty women will rely on their merit to protect them from the immediate consequences. And furthermore, you defame the untainted women who drank and survived. People will not view this as proof of their innocence, and they will say: They are defiled, but their merit delayed the punishment for them.


讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 谞诪讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛讟讛讜专讜转 砖砖转讜 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讛讬讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐


After quoting the statement of Rabbi Shimon, Rav Shimi bar Ashi now explains his objection: And if it is so that the bitter water of a sota does not evaluate the faithfulness of a women about whom there are witnesses in a country overseas, then the same claim can be made as well: You defame the untainted women who drank and survived. People will not view this as proof of their innocence, and they will say: They are defiled, but there are witnesses about them in a country overseas.


诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专转 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讚讝讻讜转 诇讗 转诇讬讗 注讚讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 转诇讜


The Gemara responds: Do you say this according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Indeed, according to Rabbi Shimon, from the same logic that merit does not delay punishment, witnesses in a country overseas do not delay it either, and Rav Sheshet would concede that his statement would not be accepted by Rabbi Shimon.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讜讗诇讜 砖诪谞讞讜转讬讛谉 谞砖专驻讜转


Rav raises an objection from the latter clause of the mishna there (22a), which teaches: And these are the sota women whose meal-offerings are burned and not offered on the altar:


讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 讜砖讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛


One who says: I am defiled, and witnesses came forth and testified with regard to her that she is defiled.


讚讗转讜 注讚讬诐 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬 讚转拽讚讜砖 转讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉


Rav clarifies: In the case where witnesses came forth, when did they come forth? If we say that they came forth before the meal-offering was sanctified, as all meal-offerings become sanctified only when placed in the service vessels used in the Temple service, then the testimony should obviate the need for the sota rite, and the meal-offering should be transferred to non-sacred status, as any meal-offering that was found to be consecrated in error before it was sanctified in a service vessel reverts to non-sacred status. Therefore, Rav infers that the witnesses could not have testified before the offering鈥檚 sanctification, or the meal-offering would not be burned.


讗诇讗 诇讘转专 讚拽讚讜砖 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗诇诪讗 讘转 诪拽讚砖 讜诪拽专讘 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 拽讚讜砖 诪注讬拽专讗 砖驻讬专 拽讚讜砖 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪谞讞转讛 谞砖专驻转


Rav states his objection: Rather, the witnesses must have come forth after the meal-offering was sanctified. Granted, if you say the bitter water of a sota evaluates whether she was unfaithful in a case where there are witnesses to her infidelity, even if they have not testified, evidently the meal-offering is suitable to be sanctified and sacrificed; and when it was sanctified at the outset, although there were witnesses who could have testified, it was properly sanctified, and due to that reason her meal-offering is burned, because once an offering has been properly sanctified it cannot be transferred to non-sacred status.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 转讬讙诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚讻讬 拽讚讜砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讘讟注讜转 拽讚讜砖 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉


But if you say that the bitter water does not evaluate whether she was unfaithful so long as there are witnesses to her infidelity, then once the witnesses come forth, the matter should be revealed retroactively that when the meal-offering was sanctified at the outset, it was sanctified in error. And the meal-offering should therefore be transferred to non-sacred status, not burned.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬住拽专转讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讝讬谞转讛 讘注讝专讛 讚讻讬 拽讚讜砖 诪注讬拽专讗 砖驻讬专 拽讚讜砖


Rav Yehuda from Diskarta said, in response, that the mishna concerning meal-offerings is referring to a case where the woman committed adultery in the Temple courtyard after the meal-offering had been sanctified in a service vessel, as at the outset, when the meal-offering was sanctified due to the previous seclusion, it was properly sanctified, as the witnesses were to the infidelity that occurred in the Temple courtyard, not to infidelity during the seclusion.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讜讛诇讗 驻讬专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 诪诇讜讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 诪驻讬专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 注爪诪谉


Rav Mesharshiyya objects to this explanation: But how can she commit adultery in the Temple courtyard? Don鈥檛 young priests [pir岣i kehunna] accompany her to the place where she drinks? The Gemara answers: This is a case where she committed adultery with the young priests themselves.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖谞爪专讻讛 诇谞拽讘讬讛 讚讗讟讜 驻讬专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讘讻讬驻讛 转诇讬 诇讛


Rav Ashi said differently: It is a case where she needed to relieve herself and the accompanying young priest allowed her to go relieve herself in private, and she committed adultery there, for is that to say that the young priests hold her in a cell? Since there are times when she is out of their sight, there remains a possibility that she will commit adultery with others even when accompanied by the young priests.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讚拽讗诪专转 转讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讞讜诇


Rav Pappa said differently: Actually, the explanation is as we initially said, that the witnesses testify that she had been defiled during the initial seclusion for which she must drink, and not for adultery committed in the Temple courtyard. And that which you say, that if the bitter water does not evaluate a woman about whom there are witnesses concerning her infidelity, and therefore the offering was sanctified in error and it should be transferred to non-sacred status, you are correct that by Torah law it is non-sacred. However, it is considered sacred by rabbinic law, due to a rabbinic decree, lest people who do not know that the sanctification was done in error will mistakenly say: One can transfer a meal-offering to non-sacred status without it being redeemed even after it had been sanctified in a service vessel.


诪转讬讘 专讘 诪专讬 谞讟诪讗转 诪谞讞转讛 注讚 砖诇讗 拽讚砖讛 讘讻诇讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜转驻讚讛 诪砖拽讚砖讛 讘讻诇讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜转砖专祝


Rav Mari raises an objection to Rav Pappa鈥檚 interpretation from a baraita in the Tosefta (2:4鈥6) that states: If the meal-offering of a sota became ritually impure, its status is determined by when it became impure. If it became impure before it was sanctified by being placed in a service vessel, it is like all other meal-offerings that became impure prior to sanctification, and it should be redeemed by a replacement offering brought in its stead. If it became impure after it had been sanctified by being placed in a service vessel, it is like all other meal-offerings that became impure after sanctification and must be burned.


拽讚砖 讛拽讜诪抓 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讛拽专讬讘讜 注讚 砖诪转 讛讜讗 讗讜 注讚 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜转砖专祝


The baraita continues: If, after the meal-offering was sanctified by being placed in a service vessel, the priest removed a handful from it to be sacrificed on the altar, and the handful was sanctified by being placed in its own service vessel, but the priest did not manage to sacrifice it before he, the husband, died, or before she, the wife, died, rendering the offering irrelevant, then it is like all other meal-offerings that are invalidated between the removal of the handful and its being sacrificed, and it must be burned.


拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 注讚 砖诪转 讛讜讗 讗讜 注讚 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜转讗讻诇 砖注诇 讛住驻拽 讘讗转 诪转讞讬诇讛 讻讬驻专讛 住驻讬拽讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛


The baraita continues: If the handful was sacrificed but the priest did not manage to eat the remainder of the meal-offering before the husband died, or before the wife died, it is like all other meal-offerings that become invalidated after the handful has been sacrificed, and it must be eaten by the priests. The baraita explains why, despite the death of the husband or wife, which renders this meal-offering irrelevant as the woman will not drink the bitter water, the meal-offering still is eaten: Because this meal-offering initially came due to an uncertainty as to whether the woman had been unfaithful, and it atoned for its uncertainty and left, i.e., it fulfilled its purpose of being sacrificed at the time when the husband and wife were still alive, it remains valid afterward as well.


讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 诪谞讞转讛 谞砖专驻转 谞诪爪讗讜 注讚讬讛 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪谞讞转讛 讞讜诇讬谉


The baraita continues: If witnesses came forth before the handful was offered and testified with regard to her that she is defiled, her meal-offering is burned. If the witnesses who testified about her infidelity are later found to be conspiring, her meal-offering is transferred to non-sacred status. This final clause teaches that if the witnesses to the wife鈥檚 infidelity are found to be conspiring witnesses, then the meal-offering is transferred to non-sacred status even after it was already sanctified in a service vessel. This is difficult for Rav Pappa, for he said that in a similar case, where witnesses testified about her infidelity after the offering was sanctified, the Sages decreed that the offering should be burned, in order to prevent people from saying that a meal-offering that has been sanctified in a service vessel may be transferred afterward to non-sacred status.


注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 拽讗诪专转 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜


The Gemara refutes this objection: Do you say that one can question Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement from a ruling concerning conspiring witnesses? The cases are not comparable, as conspiring witnesses generate publicity. Since the circumstances of these cases are well publicized, everyone knows that the offering was sanctified in error.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛


After attempting to question Rav Sheshet鈥檚 novel ruling, that in the case of a sota with regard to whom there are witnesses in a country overseas who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse, the bitter water does not evaluate whether she was unfaithful, the Gemara attempts to adduce support for his ruling: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, but not due to his reasoning, rather based upon the explication of a verse.


讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 砖讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐


The baraita expounds several words in the verse concerning a sota who survives the drinking of the bitter water and is found to have been faithful: 鈥淎nd if the woman be not defiled, but be clean [utehora hee], then she shall be cleared and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28). Noting that the phrase 鈥渂ut be clean,鈥 is apparently redundant, the baraita explains: The usage of the word 鈥渃lean [tehora]鈥 in the verse indicates that only one who survived the drinking of the bitter water due to her fidelity will conceive a child, but this will not happen in a case where she did not die because there are witnesses for her in a country overseas who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse.


讜讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 砖转诇转讛 诇讛 讝讻讜转


Additionally, from the additional letter vav in the word utehora,鈥 meaning 鈥渂ut be clean,鈥 another case is excluded. Only one who survived the drinking of the bitter water due to her fidelity will conceive a child, but this will not happen in a case where merit delays punishment for her, and she consequently doesn鈥檛 die immediately after drinking the bitter water.


讛讬讗 讜诇讗 砖讬砖讗讜 讜讬转谞讜 讘讛 诪讜讝专讜转 讘诇讘谞讛


The baraita continues: The next word in the verse, 鈥渟he [hee],鈥 excludes a third case: But not where she, i.e., her infidelity, is discussed by weavers [mozerot] in the moonlight. Women would sit in groups while spinning thread in the moonlight and gossip about the goings-on in the city. If they discuss her having committed adultery, then it is considered public knowledge, and the bitter water would not evaluate her in that case, as evaluation is not needed.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞讛讬 讚讜讬讜 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗


After citing this baraita as proof for the ruling of Rav Sheshet, albeit from a different source, the Gemara questions how Rabbi Shimon could deny the ability of the woman鈥檚 merit to delay the sota punishment due to fear that it will discredit the whole sota rite, being that there is another case that prevents the bitter water from evaluating a woman, i.e., where witnesses in a country overseas are able to testify. And Rabbi Shimon, granted that he does not interpret the letter vav, as he holds that its addition is not significant, and therefore he holds that her merit does not delay her punishment, but there is


  • Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sotah: 2-6 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we start a new Masechet, we will learn who is considered a Sota, a woman suspected of adultery. The...
talking talmud_square

Sotah 6: Adultery in the Temple (wait, really?!)

A new mishnah! At what point is a woman who's a sotah not permitted to eat terumah? Plus, a list...
on second thought thumbnail

Difficult to Match – On Second Thought

What is the connection between a shidduch & the splitting of the sea? On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya...
ayelet eng sotah

Intro to Masechet Sotah

https://youtu.be/GqUnAdNSxKM Introduction to Masechet Sotah by podcast: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hadran/IntroductionSotahEng.mp3

Sotah 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 6

诪讬 拽讗 专诪讬谞谉 诇讛 注诇讬讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛


Do we impose on him an obligation to marry her against his will? Unlike levirate marriage, there is no obligation for another man to marry her. Therefore, the verse is not instructing him to do so.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻转讜讘 拽专讗讜 讗讞专 砖讗讬谉 讘谉 讝讜讙讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 砖讝讛 讛讜爪讬讗 专砖注讛 诪讘讬转讜 讜讝讛 讛讻谞讬住 专砖注讛 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讗转 讗诪专转 转转讬讘诐 谞诪讬 讬讘讜诪讬


And there are those who say that Rav Yosef said differently: The verse calls a man who marries a woman after she was divorced from her first husband due to suspicion of adultery 鈥渁nother man,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house and goes and becomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). This indicates that one who subsequently marries her is not a peer of her first husband because this one, the first husband, removed an evil woman from his house, and that one brought an evil woman into his house. There is an implied criticism of the second husband in the verse; and yet you say that the verse instructs that she should also enter into levirate marriage.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜诪转 讘诇讗 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 转转讬讘诐 讚讛讻转讜讘 拽专讗讜 讗讞专 讙讘讬讛 讚讛讗讬 诪讬讛讗 讘砖诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗


Abaye said to him: If that is so, then if she married another man and he died without children, then she should not enter into levirate marriage with the brother of her second husband even if she did not commit adultery during the second marriage, since the verse calls the second husband 鈥渁nother man,鈥 which excluded the possibility of levirate marriage. Rav Yosef answered Abaye: With regard to that one, i.e., this second husband, at least she remained with a good name. Since she did not engage in illicit behavior during her second marriage, she can enter into levirate marriage with the brother of her second husband.


专讘讗 讗诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 谞讗住专讛 讘诪讜转专 诇讛 讘讗住讜专 诇讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rava says a different reason why a sota cannot enter into levirate marriage: This prohibition can be deduced through an a fortiori inference: If, due to the suspicion of adultery, she becomes forbidden to the one who was previously permitted to her, i.e., her first husband, then with regard to one who was forbidden to her, i.e., the husband鈥檚 brother, is it not all the more so that she remains forbidden to him?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讬讚砖 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜诪转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗 转转讬讘诐 讗诐 谞讗住专讛 讘诪讜转专 诇讛 讘讗住讜专 诇讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Abaye said to him: If that is so, if this a fortiori reasoning is the basis of the prohibition against her entering into levirate marriage, then in the case of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, which he is prohibited from doing, and he died before the marriage took place, and he has a brother who is a common priest, who is permitted to marry a widow, she should still not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage with him, since the same inference can be stated: If she becomes forbidden to the one who was permitted to her, i.e., her husband the High Priest, who was prohibited from marrying a widow, then with regard to one who was forbidden to her, i.e., his brother, the common priest who wishes to enter into levirate marriage with her, is it not all the more so that she should be forbidden?


谞讗住专讛 讛讗 讗住讬专讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诪讜转专 诇讛 讗住讜专 诇讛 讛讜讗


The Gemara refutes this inference. In the case of the High Priest, can one say: She becomes forbidden? But she was forbidden to him and remains forbidden to him. She did not become forbidden to her husband, the High Priest, due to the marriage. Furthermore, in the case of the High Priest, can one say: Permitted to her? But the High Priest is forbidden to her always. Therefore, the case of the High Priest does not serve as a refutation of the a fortiori inference.


讗诇讗 讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖谞讗谞住讛 讜诪转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讞诇诇 诇讗 转转讬讘诐 讗诐 谞讗住专讛 讘诪讜转专 诇讛 讘讗住讜专 诇讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rather, the refutation is as follows: In the case of a priest鈥檚 wife who was raped, who becomes forbidden to her husband, and then her husband dies; and he has a brother who is a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [岣lal], who is not bound by the restrictions on marriage given to a priest, then she should not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage with him. If she becomes forbidden to the one who was permitted to her, i.e., her husband the priest, then with regard to one who was forbidden to her, i.e., her brother-in-law, is it not all the more so that she remains forbidden to him?


讗讜谞住 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讜讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 诪讬讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗:


The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, this a fortiori inference is not applicable here because a raped woman is completely permitted to an Israelite. Therefore, a married woman raped by another man may remain with her Israelite husband. And with regard to this person, i.e., the brother of the deceased, who is a 岣lal, in any event there is no prohibition. The fact that the woman was forbidden to her 岣lal brother-in-law while she was married to her husband is immaterial. This is because, had she been raped while she was married to the 岣lal, it would not render her forbidden to him, as he has the status of an Israelite with regard to marriage. Consequently, this case cannot be compared to the case of the mishna, as a woman who commits adultery is forbidden to any husband, not only a priest.


诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讗住讜专讜转 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讜砖讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讛讗讜诪专转 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 讜砖讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜砖讘注诇讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱:


MISHNA: And these are women who, despite being married to priests, are prohibited from partaking of teruma due to suspicion of adultery: A woman who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she admitted to having committed adultery with another man; and in a case where witnesses came forth and testified that she is defiled; and a woman who says after a warning and seclusion: I will not drink the bitter water of a sota; and in a case where her husband does not want to force her to drink the water even after she secluded herself with another man after his warning; and in a case where her husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the way to bringing her to the Temple to drink the bitter water, as in such a case the water will not be effective in evaluating whether she was unfaithful, due to the husband鈥檚 own prohibited act.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗谞讛专 诇谉 注讬讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 住讜讟讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞住转专讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜注讚 讗讬谉 讘讛 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬讚注 讘讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讬讚注 讘讛


GEMARA: Rav Amram says: Rav Sheshet told us this matter, and he enlightened our eyes for us by citing support for his statement from the mishna: In the case of a sota for whom there are witnesses concerning her in a country overseas, who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse, the bitter water of a sota does not evaluate whether or not she was unfaithful. Although she committed adultery, the water evaluates her fidelity only when there is no possibility of proving her guilt in court. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd a man lie with her carnally, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was defiled secretly, and there was no witness against her鈥 (Numbers 5:13). This indicates that the bitter water is given only when there is no one who knows about her action, to the exclusion of the case of this woman who is not given the bitter water, as there are those who know about her.


讜讗谞讛专 诇谉 注讬讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讜砖讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讚讗转讜 注讚讬诐 讗讬诪转 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬 讚转砖转讬 讝讜谞讛 讛讬讗


And Rav Sheshet enlightened our eyes for us by adducing support for his ruling from the mishna, as it teaches: And where witnesses came forth and testified that she is defiled, this is one of the women who can no longer partake of teruma, Rav Sheshet asks: This is a case where the witnesses came when? If we say that they came before she drank, then what is novel about the fact that it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma? She is a woman who had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona], as she is a confirmed adulteress, and it is obviously prohibited for her to partake of teruma.


讗诇讗 诇讘转专 讚砖转讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 转讬讙诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 谞讬谞讛讜


Rav Sheshet answers: Rather, it must be referring to a case where the witnesses testified after she already drank. Granted, if you say that the bitter water of a sota does not evaluate her in a case where there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify with regard to her infidelity, it is well. But if you say that the water evaluates her in a case where there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify with regard to her infidelity, then it should be revealed retroactively that they are false witnesses, as the fact that she survived the drinking of the bitter water would indicate that she never committed adultery.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讛讗 讗讬诪讜专 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 诇讛


Rav Yosef said to Rav Sheshet: Actually, I will say to you that the bitter water evaluates her in a case where there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify with regard to her infidelity. Nevertheless, the fact that the woman survived the drinking of the water does not prove her innocence, and one can say that this woman who already drank had merit that delayed the punishment for her. According to some opinions, if an unfaithful woman has certain merits, she will not die immediately upon drinking the water. Therefore, if witnesses were to testify to her infidelity after she drank the water without dying, it is not clear that their testimony is false.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讚专讘讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讛诪专讬诐 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪砖讘讞转 讗诇讗 诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 诇住讜祝 砖讛讬讗 诪转讛 讘讗讜转讛 诪讬转讛


The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef disagree? With regard to whether she deteriorates [mitnavvena], as explained by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as we learned in a mishna (22a): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Merit delays punishment with regard to the bitter water of a sota. Even if a woman actually committed adultery, she will not die immediately due to the merit that she has. But she will not give birth, and she will not improve in terms of her physical condition after having drunk the bitter water. Rather, she will progressively deteriorate until she ultimately dies in the same manner of death as suffered by a sota who drank the bitter water without having merit.


专讘 砖砖转 住讘专 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讛讜讬讗 诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 住讘专 诇专讘讬 讛讜讬讗 诪转谞讜讜谞讛 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪转谞讜讜谞讛


Rav Sheshet holds: Both according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him, she begins to deteriorate despite her merit. Therefore, if she doesn鈥檛 begin to deteriorate immediately, the witnesses who testified subsequent to her drinking must be false witnesses. And Rav Yosef holds: Only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is it so that she begins to deteriorate when she has merit. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, she does not begins to deteriorate. Therefore, Rav Yosef explains that the mere fact that she survived the drinking of the bitter water and didn鈥檛 begin deteriorating does not prove that the testimony was false.


诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讛诪专讬诐 讜讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讻讜转 转讜诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讛诪专讬诐 诪讚讞讛 讗转讛 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讛砖讜转讜转 讜讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛讟讛讜专讜转 砖砖转讜 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讛讬讜 讗诇讗 砖转诇讛 诇讛谉 讝讻讜转


Rav Shimi bar Ashi raises an objection from the aforementioned mishna (22a), which also teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Merit does not delay punishment with regard to the bitter water of a sota, and if you say that merit delays punishment with regard to the bitter water, then you push aside the deterrent force of the bitter water before all the women who must drink it, as guilty women will rely on their merit to protect them from the immediate consequences. And furthermore, you defame the untainted women who drank and survived. People will not view this as proof of their innocence, and they will say: They are defiled, but their merit delayed the punishment for them.


讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 谞诪讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛讟讛讜专讜转 砖砖转讜 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讛讬讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐


After quoting the statement of Rabbi Shimon, Rav Shimi bar Ashi now explains his objection: And if it is so that the bitter water of a sota does not evaluate the faithfulness of a women about whom there are witnesses in a country overseas, then the same claim can be made as well: You defame the untainted women who drank and survived. People will not view this as proof of their innocence, and they will say: They are defiled, but there are witnesses about them in a country overseas.


诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专转 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讚讝讻讜转 诇讗 转诇讬讗 注讚讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 转诇讜


The Gemara responds: Do you say this according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Indeed, according to Rabbi Shimon, from the same logic that merit does not delay punishment, witnesses in a country overseas do not delay it either, and Rav Sheshet would concede that his statement would not be accepted by Rabbi Shimon.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讜讗诇讜 砖诪谞讞讜转讬讛谉 谞砖专驻讜转


Rav raises an objection from the latter clause of the mishna there (22a), which teaches: And these are the sota women whose meal-offerings are burned and not offered on the altar:


讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 讜砖讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛


One who says: I am defiled, and witnesses came forth and testified with regard to her that she is defiled.


讚讗转讜 注讚讬诐 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬 讚转拽讚讜砖 转讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉


Rav clarifies: In the case where witnesses came forth, when did they come forth? If we say that they came forth before the meal-offering was sanctified, as all meal-offerings become sanctified only when placed in the service vessels used in the Temple service, then the testimony should obviate the need for the sota rite, and the meal-offering should be transferred to non-sacred status, as any meal-offering that was found to be consecrated in error before it was sanctified in a service vessel reverts to non-sacred status. Therefore, Rav infers that the witnesses could not have testified before the offering鈥檚 sanctification, or the meal-offering would not be burned.


讗诇讗 诇讘转专 讚拽讚讜砖 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗诇诪讗 讘转 诪拽讚砖 讜诪拽专讘 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 拽讚讜砖 诪注讬拽专讗 砖驻讬专 拽讚讜砖 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪谞讞转讛 谞砖专驻转


Rav states his objection: Rather, the witnesses must have come forth after the meal-offering was sanctified. Granted, if you say the bitter water of a sota evaluates whether she was unfaithful in a case where there are witnesses to her infidelity, even if they have not testified, evidently the meal-offering is suitable to be sanctified and sacrificed; and when it was sanctified at the outset, although there were witnesses who could have testified, it was properly sanctified, and due to that reason her meal-offering is burned, because once an offering has been properly sanctified it cannot be transferred to non-sacred status.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 转讬讙诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚讻讬 拽讚讜砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讘讟注讜转 拽讚讜砖 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉


But if you say that the bitter water does not evaluate whether she was unfaithful so long as there are witnesses to her infidelity, then once the witnesses come forth, the matter should be revealed retroactively that when the meal-offering was sanctified at the outset, it was sanctified in error. And the meal-offering should therefore be transferred to non-sacred status, not burned.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬住拽专转讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讝讬谞转讛 讘注讝专讛 讚讻讬 拽讚讜砖 诪注讬拽专讗 砖驻讬专 拽讚讜砖


Rav Yehuda from Diskarta said, in response, that the mishna concerning meal-offerings is referring to a case where the woman committed adultery in the Temple courtyard after the meal-offering had been sanctified in a service vessel, as at the outset, when the meal-offering was sanctified due to the previous seclusion, it was properly sanctified, as the witnesses were to the infidelity that occurred in the Temple courtyard, not to infidelity during the seclusion.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讜讛诇讗 驻讬专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 诪诇讜讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 诪驻讬专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 注爪诪谉


Rav Mesharshiyya objects to this explanation: But how can she commit adultery in the Temple courtyard? Don鈥檛 young priests [pir岣i kehunna] accompany her to the place where she drinks? The Gemara answers: This is a case where she committed adultery with the young priests themselves.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖谞爪专讻讛 诇谞拽讘讬讛 讚讗讟讜 驻讬专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讘讻讬驻讛 转诇讬 诇讛


Rav Ashi said differently: It is a case where she needed to relieve herself and the accompanying young priest allowed her to go relieve herself in private, and she committed adultery there, for is that to say that the young priests hold her in a cell? Since there are times when she is out of their sight, there remains a possibility that she will commit adultery with others even when accompanied by the young priests.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讚拽讗诪专转 转讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讞讜诇


Rav Pappa said differently: Actually, the explanation is as we initially said, that the witnesses testify that she had been defiled during the initial seclusion for which she must drink, and not for adultery committed in the Temple courtyard. And that which you say, that if the bitter water does not evaluate a woman about whom there are witnesses concerning her infidelity, and therefore the offering was sanctified in error and it should be transferred to non-sacred status, you are correct that by Torah law it is non-sacred. However, it is considered sacred by rabbinic law, due to a rabbinic decree, lest people who do not know that the sanctification was done in error will mistakenly say: One can transfer a meal-offering to non-sacred status without it being redeemed even after it had been sanctified in a service vessel.


诪转讬讘 专讘 诪专讬 谞讟诪讗转 诪谞讞转讛 注讚 砖诇讗 拽讚砖讛 讘讻诇讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜转驻讚讛 诪砖拽讚砖讛 讘讻诇讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜转砖专祝


Rav Mari raises an objection to Rav Pappa鈥檚 interpretation from a baraita in the Tosefta (2:4鈥6) that states: If the meal-offering of a sota became ritually impure, its status is determined by when it became impure. If it became impure before it was sanctified by being placed in a service vessel, it is like all other meal-offerings that became impure prior to sanctification, and it should be redeemed by a replacement offering brought in its stead. If it became impure after it had been sanctified by being placed in a service vessel, it is like all other meal-offerings that became impure after sanctification and must be burned.


拽讚砖 讛拽讜诪抓 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讛拽专讬讘讜 注讚 砖诪转 讛讜讗 讗讜 注讚 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜转砖专祝


The baraita continues: If, after the meal-offering was sanctified by being placed in a service vessel, the priest removed a handful from it to be sacrificed on the altar, and the handful was sanctified by being placed in its own service vessel, but the priest did not manage to sacrifice it before he, the husband, died, or before she, the wife, died, rendering the offering irrelevant, then it is like all other meal-offerings that are invalidated between the removal of the handful and its being sacrificed, and it must be burned.


拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 注讚 砖诪转 讛讜讗 讗讜 注讚 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜转讗讻诇 砖注诇 讛住驻拽 讘讗转 诪转讞讬诇讛 讻讬驻专讛 住驻讬拽讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛


The baraita continues: If the handful was sacrificed but the priest did not manage to eat the remainder of the meal-offering before the husband died, or before the wife died, it is like all other meal-offerings that become invalidated after the handful has been sacrificed, and it must be eaten by the priests. The baraita explains why, despite the death of the husband or wife, which renders this meal-offering irrelevant as the woman will not drink the bitter water, the meal-offering still is eaten: Because this meal-offering initially came due to an uncertainty as to whether the woman had been unfaithful, and it atoned for its uncertainty and left, i.e., it fulfilled its purpose of being sacrificed at the time when the husband and wife were still alive, it remains valid afterward as well.


讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 诪谞讞转讛 谞砖专驻转 谞诪爪讗讜 注讚讬讛 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪谞讞转讛 讞讜诇讬谉


The baraita continues: If witnesses came forth before the handful was offered and testified with regard to her that she is defiled, her meal-offering is burned. If the witnesses who testified about her infidelity are later found to be conspiring, her meal-offering is transferred to non-sacred status. This final clause teaches that if the witnesses to the wife鈥檚 infidelity are found to be conspiring witnesses, then the meal-offering is transferred to non-sacred status even after it was already sanctified in a service vessel. This is difficult for Rav Pappa, for he said that in a similar case, where witnesses testified about her infidelity after the offering was sanctified, the Sages decreed that the offering should be burned, in order to prevent people from saying that a meal-offering that has been sanctified in a service vessel may be transferred afterward to non-sacred status.


注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 拽讗诪专转 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜


The Gemara refutes this objection: Do you say that one can question Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement from a ruling concerning conspiring witnesses? The cases are not comparable, as conspiring witnesses generate publicity. Since the circumstances of these cases are well publicized, everyone knows that the offering was sanctified in error.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛


After attempting to question Rav Sheshet鈥檚 novel ruling, that in the case of a sota with regard to whom there are witnesses in a country overseas who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse, the bitter water does not evaluate whether she was unfaithful, the Gemara attempts to adduce support for his ruling: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, but not due to his reasoning, rather based upon the explication of a verse.


讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 砖讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐


The baraita expounds several words in the verse concerning a sota who survives the drinking of the bitter water and is found to have been faithful: 鈥淎nd if the woman be not defiled, but be clean [utehora hee], then she shall be cleared and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28). Noting that the phrase 鈥渂ut be clean,鈥 is apparently redundant, the baraita explains: The usage of the word 鈥渃lean [tehora]鈥 in the verse indicates that only one who survived the drinking of the bitter water due to her fidelity will conceive a child, but this will not happen in a case where she did not die because there are witnesses for her in a country overseas who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse.


讜讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 砖转诇转讛 诇讛 讝讻讜转


Additionally, from the additional letter vav in the word utehora,鈥 meaning 鈥渂ut be clean,鈥 another case is excluded. Only one who survived the drinking of the bitter water due to her fidelity will conceive a child, but this will not happen in a case where merit delays punishment for her, and she consequently doesn鈥檛 die immediately after drinking the bitter water.


讛讬讗 讜诇讗 砖讬砖讗讜 讜讬转谞讜 讘讛 诪讜讝专讜转 讘诇讘谞讛


The baraita continues: The next word in the verse, 鈥渟he [hee],鈥 excludes a third case: But not where she, i.e., her infidelity, is discussed by weavers [mozerot] in the moonlight. Women would sit in groups while spinning thread in the moonlight and gossip about the goings-on in the city. If they discuss her having committed adultery, then it is considered public knowledge, and the bitter water would not evaluate her in that case, as evaluation is not needed.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞讛讬 讚讜讬讜 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗


After citing this baraita as proof for the ruling of Rav Sheshet, albeit from a different source, the Gemara questions how Rabbi Shimon could deny the ability of the woman鈥檚 merit to delay the sota punishment due to fear that it will discredit the whole sota rite, being that there is another case that prevents the bitter water from evaluating a woman, i.e., where witnesses in a country overseas are able to testify. And Rabbi Shimon, granted that he does not interpret the letter vav, as he holds that its addition is not significant, and therefore he holds that her merit does not delay her punishment, but there is


Scroll To Top