סוטה טו

סוטה טו

וּמַקְטִירוֹ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת מַקְטֵיר לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מַעֲלֵהוּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת לְהַקְטִירוֹ.

and burns it in the service vessel. The Gemara asks: Does he really burn it in a service vessel? Rather, say: He brings it up to the altar in a service vessel in order to burn it.

וּמוֹלְחוֹ וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִישִּׁים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָתְךָ בַּמֶּלַח תִּמְלָח וְגוֹ׳״.

The baraita continues: And he salts it and places it on the fires. The Gemara cites the source: As it is written: “And every meal-offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13).

קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת אַזְכָּרָתָהּ וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַמִּנְחָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״.

The baraita continues: After the handful is sacrificed, the remainders of the meal-offering are eaten. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests…and the priest shall make the memorial part thereof smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 2:2). The memorial part is the handful. And it is written afterward: “But that which is left of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons” (Leviticus 2:3).

קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ. לְמָר כִּדְאִית לֵיהּ וּלְמָר כִּדְאִית לֵיהּ. דְּאִיתְּמַר: הַקּוֹמֶץ, מֵאֵימָתַי מַתִּיר שִׁירַיִים בַּאֲכִילָה? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: מִשֶּׁתִּשְׁלוֹט בּוֹ הָאוּר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִשֶּׁתִּיצַּת הָאוּר בְּרוּבּוֹ.

The baraita uses the phrase: After the handful is sacrificed. This phrase can be understood according to one Sage as he holds, and according to another Sage as he holds. As it is stated that there is a dispute between the Sages: From when does the sacrifice of the handful render the remainder of the meal-offering permitted for consumption by the priests? Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is when the fire takes hold of it, i.e., when it ignites. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is when the fire consumes most of the handful. Each of these amora’im understands the baraita in accordance with his opinion.

וְרַשָּׁאִין הַכֹּהֲנִים לִיתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְמׇשְׁחָה״ — לִגְדוּלָּה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים אוֹכְלִין.

The baraita continues: And the priests are permitted to put wine and oil and honey in the remainder of the meal-offering. What is the reason? The verse states with regard to the gifts given to the priests: “And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot…for a consecrated portion” (Numbers 18:8). The phrase “for a consecrated portion” indicates that the gifts are given as a mark of greatness and should be eaten in the manner that the kings eat.

וְאֵין אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלְּחַמֵּץ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תֵאָפֶה חָמֵץ חֶלְקָם״, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אֲפִילּוּ חֶלְקָם לֹא תֵאָפֶה חָמֵץ.

The baraita concludes: And they are prohibited only from allowing the meal-offering to become leavened. The Gemara cites the source: As it is written with regard to meal-offerings: “It shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion I have given it of My offerings made by fire” (Leviticus 6:10). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: One should read the verse as if the phrase “their portion” is part of the same phrase as the prohibition of baking with leaven. This teaches that even their portion, i.e., the portion given to the priests, shall not be baked with leaven.

כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת כּוּ׳. וְכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? וְהָאִיכָּא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״!

§ The mishna states: All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense. The Gemara asks: But do all other meal-offerings actually require oil and frankincense? But isn’t there the meal-offering of a sinner, with regard to which the Merciful One states: “He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering” (Leviticus 5:11).

הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, וּבָאוֹת מִן הַחִיטִּין, וּבָאוֹת סֹלֶת. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה — בָּאָה מִן הַחִטִּין וּבָאָה סֹלֶת. מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין — טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה וּבָאָה גֶּרֶשׂ. וְזוֹ, אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה, וּבָאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין, וּבָאָה קֶמַח.

The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna is saying: All meal-offerings other than that of the sota require oil and frankincense, and they are brought from wheat; and they are also brought from fine flour. However, the meal-offering of a sinner, even though it does not require oil and frankincense, must still be brought from wheat and brought from fine flour. Similarly, the omer meal-offering, even though it is brought from barley, requires oil and frankincense, and it is brought as groats. But this one, the sota meal-offering, requires neither oil nor frankincense, and it is brought from barley and brought as unsifted flour. While the meal-offering of a sinner and the omer meal-offering are similar to other meal-offerings in one of these respects, the sota meal-offering is different in both respects.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה — שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ מְהוּדָּר.

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:10) that Rabbi Shimon said: By right, it should have been the halakha that the meal-offering of a sinner requires oil and frankincense, so that a sinner should not stand to gain by not having to pay for them. For what reason does the verse not require them? It is so that his offering will not be of superior quality.

וּבְדִין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא חַטַּאת חֵלֶב טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה — שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ מְהוּדָּר.

And by right, it should have been the halakha that a sin-offering brought for transgression of a prohibition punishable by karet, e.g., consumption of forbidden fat, requires fine flour and libations of oil, and wine. Just as burnt-offerings and peace-offerings require these, a sin-offering should require them as well so that a sinner should not stand to gain by not having to pay for them. For what reason does it not require them? It is so that his offering will not be of superior quality.

אֲבָל חַטָּאתוֹ שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע וַאֲשָׁמוֹ טְעוּנִין נְסָכִים, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין עַל חֵטְא. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: עַל שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים נְגָעִים בָּאִין וְכוּ׳! הָתָם מִנִּגְעֵיהּ הוּא דְּאִיכַּפַּר לֵיהּ, כִּי מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן — לְאִשְׁתְּרוֹיֵי בְּקָדָשִׁים הוּא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי.

But the sin-offering of a leper and his guilt-offering require libations, as they are not brought on account of a sin. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani say that Rabbi Yonatan says: Leprosy comes on account of seven matters. Leprosy develops on account of sin, so by extension the leper’s offerings are also brought on account of sin. The Gemara answers: There, from the time he contracts his leprosy he gains atonement for his sin through the plague of leprosy itself. Consequently, when he brings the offering, he brings it only in order to permit him to eat sacrificial food.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חַטַּאת נָזִיר תְּהֵא טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא! סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר, דְּאָמַר: נָזִיר נָמֵי חוֹטֵא הוּא.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then the sin-offering of a nazirite should require libations, because it is not brought on account of a sin. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who says: The nazirite is also a sinner, since he denies himself wine unnecessarily.

רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לַחֲכָמִים: סוֹפְרִים, הַנִּיחוּ לִי וְאֶדְרְשֶׁנָּה כְּמִין חוֹמֶר.

The mishna states that Rabban Gamliel says: Just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so too, her offering is animal food. It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Scribes, permit me, and I will explain it as a type of decorative wreath [ḥomer], i.e., an allegory.

דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּקָאָמַר: הִיא הֶאֱכִילַתּוּ מַעֲדַנֵּי עוֹלָם — לְפִיכָךְ קׇרְבָּנָהּ מַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה. אָמַר לוֹ: הָתִינַח עֲשִׁירָה, עֲנִיָּה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר! אֶלָּא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ מַעֲשֵׂה בְהֵמָה — כָּךְ קׇרְבָּנָהּ מַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה.

And why did Rabban Gamliel speak up? It was because he heard Rabbi Meir saying an alternative explanation: She fed him, i.e., her paramour, delicacies from around the world; therefore, her offering is animal food. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Your explanation works out well in the case of a rich sota, but with regard to a poor sota, who cannot afford such delicacies, what is there to say? Rather, the reason she brings an offering of animal food is: Just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so too her offering is animal food.

מַתְנִי׳ הָיָה מֵבִיא פְּיָלִי שֶׁל חֶרֶס וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָהּ חֲצִי לוֹג מַיִם מִן הַכִּיּוֹר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רְבִיעִית. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּמַעֵט בַּכְּתָב, כָּךְ מְמַעֵט בַּמַּיִם.

MISHNA: The priest would bring an earthenware drinking vessel [peyalei] and he would pour into it half a log of water from the basin in the Temple. Rabbi Yehuda says: The priest would pour only a quarter–log of water. Just as Rabbi Yehuda minimizes the writing, as he requires that less be written on the scroll of the sota than do the Rabbis, so too he minimizes the amount of water to be taken from the basin for the erasing of the text.

נִכְנַס לַהֵיכָל וּפָנָה לִימִינוֹ, וּמָקוֹם הָיָה שָׁם אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה, וְטַבְלָא שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ, וְטַבַּעַת הָיְתָה קְבוּעָה בָּהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא מַגְבִּיהַּ, וְנוֹטֵל עָפָר מִתַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנוֹתֵן כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה עַל הַמַּיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן יִקַּח הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶל הַמָּיִם״.

The priest would enter the Sanctuary and turn to his right. And there was a place there, on the Sanctuary floor, with an area of a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet [tavla] was there, and a ring was fastened to the tablet to assist the priest when he would raise it. And the priest would take loose dust from underneath it and place the dust into the vessel with the water, so that the dust would be visible upon the water, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17).

גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: פְּיָלִי שֶׁל חֶרֶס חֲדָשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? גָּמַר ״כְּלִי״ ״כְּלִי״ מִמְּצוֹרָע: מָה לְהַלָּן חֶרֶס חֲדָשָׁה — אַף כָּאן חֶרֶס חֲדָשָׁה.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It must be a new earthenware vessel; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael derives this by means of a verbal analogy between “vessel” in the case of the sota (Numbers 5:17) and “vessel” from the case of a leper (Leviticus 14:5). Just as there, with regard to the leper, a new earthenware vessel is required, so too here, a new earthenware vessel is required.

וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַצִּפּוֹר הָאֶחָת אֶל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ עַל מַיִם חַיִּים״, מָה ״מַיִם חַיִּים״ — שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶשְׂתָה בָּהֶן מְלָאכָה, אַף ״כְּלִי״ — שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶשְׂתָה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה.

And there, with regard to the leper, from where do we derive that a new vessel is required? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And he shall slaughter one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water” (Leviticus 14:5). Just as running water has not been used beforehand for work, i.e., once used it is no longer considered to be running, so too the vessel must not have been used for work.

אִי: מָה לְהַלָּן מַיִם חַיִּים, אַף כָּאן מַיִם חַיִּים?!

The Gemara asks: If this verbal analogy is extended, then just as there, running water from a flowing spring is required, so too here, with regard the sota, running water from a spring should be required for the water of a sota.

לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָכִי נָמֵי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֵי כִיּוֹר, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מֵי מַעְיָין הֵן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מִשְּׁאָר מֵימוֹת הֵן.

The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yishmael it is indeed so, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to the water of the basin in the Temple Rabbi Yishmael says: It is collected from spring water. And the Rabbis say: It may also be from any other type of water and need not be collected from spring water.

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִמְצוֹרָע, שֶׁכֵּן טָעוּן עֵץ אֶרֶז וְאֵזוֹב וּשְׁנִי תוֹלָעַת!

The Gemara asks: The verbal analogy can be refuted: One cannot apply halakhot stated with regard to a leper to a sota, as what is unique about a leper is that he requires cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet wool for the performance of his purification ritual, and these are not required of the sota. Why, then, should a new vessel be required by the sota?

אָמַר רַבָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס״, כְּלִי שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ כְּבָר.

Rabba said: The verse cited in the mishna states: “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel” (Numbers 5:17). The Torah makes no prior mention of the need for the priest to bring with him an earthenware vessel. Therefore, the verse must mean that the water should be placed in the vessel that I have already told you about, i.e., the vessel used for the leper.

אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאַכְּמוּ פָּנָיו, אֲבָל נִתְאַכְּמוּ פָּנָיו — פְּסוּלִין. מַאי טַעְמָא, דּוּמְיָא דְּמַיִם: מָה ״מַיִם״ — שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּנּוּ, אַף ״כְּלִי״ — שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּנָּה.

Rava says: Even according to the opinion that a new vessel is not required, they taught that the earthenware vessel is taken only when its exterior was not blackened from usage. But if its exterior was blackened, then it is unfit for use by the sota. What is the reason for this? Its requirements are similar to those of water: Just as the water must be clear and unchanged in appearance, so too the vessel must be unchanged in appearance.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: נִתְאַכְּמוּ וְהֶחְזִירָן לְתוֹךְ כִּבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ וְנִתְלַבְּנוּ, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִידְּחוֹ אִידְּחוֹ, אוֹ דִילְמָא כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדוּר הֲדוּר?

Rava raised a dilemma: If the vessel’s exterior was blackened, and it was returned to the furnace and became white again, what is the halakha? Do we say that once it has been disqualified, it is disqualified forever and can never be rendered fit for use? Or perhaps since it has returned to a white appearance it has returned to a state of fitness.

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: עֵץ אֶרֶז וְאֵזוֹב וּשְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת שֶׁהִפְשִׁיל בָּהֶן קוּפָּתוֹ לַאֲחוֹרָיו — פְּסוּלִין. וְהָא הָתָם הָדְרִי וּמִפַּשְׁטִי!

Come and hear evidence from that which Rabbi Elazar says: If the leper tied the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet wool for his purification to his basket behind him, so as to carry it on his back, they are disqualified, since their form has changed. But there, after those items have been tied, they can be smoothed out again as if they had never been used, and still they are unfit. Evidently, after being disqualified an item cannot become fit again.

הָתָם דְּאִיקְּלוּף אִיקְּלוֹפֵי.

The Gemara answers: There, the items are permanently unfit because they are peeled due to tying and can never truly return to their original appearance. That case does not provide proof.

נִכְנַס לַהֵיכָל וּפָנָה לִימִינוֹ וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר מָר: כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין.

The mishna states: The priest would enter the Sanctuary and turn to his right. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he should do so? The Gemara responds: As the Master said: All turns that you turn should be only to the right.

מָקוֹם הָיָה שָׁם אַמָּה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה״, יָכוֹל יְתַקֵּן מִבַּחוּץ וְיַכְנִיס.

The mishna continues: There was a place there, on the Sanctuary floor, with an area of a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet was there and a ring was fastened to the tablet so that it could be raised. When the priest would raise the tablet, he would take loose dust from underneath it and place the dust into the vessel with the water, so that the dust would be visible upon the water, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17). The Sages taught in a baraita: If the verse had stated only: “And of the dust that is on the floor,” one might have thought that the priest could prepare the concoction from dust from outside the Sanctuary and bring it in afterward.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן״. אִי ״בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן״, יָכוֹל יַחְפּוֹר בְּקַרְדּוּמּוֹת — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? יֵשׁ שָׁם — הָבֵא, אֵין שָׁם — תֵּן שָׁם.

Therefore, the verse states: “The dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,” indicating that the dust must be from inside the Sanctuary. If the verse had stated only: “On the floor of the Tabernacle,” one might have thought that the priest may dig with axes to loosen the dust there. Therefore, the verse states: “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,” indicating that the dust must be lying there loosely. How so? If there is already loose earth there on the Sanctuary floor, bring it; if there is none there, then place loose dust there from elsewhere, and then pick it up and use it.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה וְגוֹ׳״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה מְתַקֵּן מִבַּחוּץ וּמַכְנִיס. ״בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן״, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְהָבִיא קַרְקַע

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle”; the fact that the verse does not explicitly state to take the dust from the floor of the Tabernacle teaches that the priest would prepare dust from outside and bring it into the Sanctuary. When the verse states: “The dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle,” Isi ben Yehuda says that this phrase serves to include the floor of the Tabernacle when it stood in