POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sotah 6
1) A SOTAH DOES CHALITZAH
(a) Answer (Rav Yosef): Her next husband is not commanded to
2) SOTOS THAT ARE FOREVER FORBIDDEN
(b) Version #3 - Answer (Rav Yosef): The Torah calls her next
husband "a different man" - he is unlike the 1st husband!
1. The 1st husband expelled evil from his home - the
2nd one brought evil into his home!
(c) Answer #2 (to question 3:b on Daf 5B - Rava): A Kal
va'Chomer says that she may not do Yibum.
i. You cannot say, the Torah commands the Yavam do
2. Question (Abaye): According to this, if she married
a 2nd husband, and he died without children, she
should not fall to Yibum, for the Torah
(disparagingly) calls one who will marry her
3. Answer: Since she behaved properly while married to
the 2nd husband, it is no longer improper to marry
1. If she became forbidden to the one she was permitted
to (i.e. her husband), all the more so, she becomes
(permanently forbidden) to the one she was forbidden
to (the Yavam).
(d) Question #1 (Abaye): If so, a Kohen Gadol that engaged a
widow, and his brother is a regular Kohen, she should not
do Yibum, for she became forbidden to her husband!
(e) Answer: She did not become forbidden to him - she was
forbidden from the start of the engagement; she was never
permitted to him!
(f) Question #2 (Abaye): Rather - a Kohen's wife was raped;
if his brother is a Chalal, she should not do Yibum, for
she became forbidden to her husband!
(g) Answer: The wife of a Yisrael does not become forbidden
if she is raped; regarding the brother, who is as a
Yisrael, she did not become forbidden, so the Kal
va'Chomer does not apply.
(a) (Mishnah): If she says 'I am forbidden to you'; or, if
witnesses testified that she became Teme'ah; or, if she
refuses to drink; or, if her husband refuses to make her
drink; or, if her husband had relations with her after
the seclusion (before she drank) - she is (forever)
forbidden to eat Terumah.
(b) (Gemara - Rav Sheshes): If there are witnesses (even)
overseas that know that she is Teme'ah, the water does
not test her.
1. "She became Teme'ah, there is not a witness on her"
- to exclude when witnesses know about her.
(c) Rav Sheshes supports his law from our Mishnah - 'if
witnesses came that she became Teme'ah ...'
1. Question: When did they come?
(d) Rejection (Rav Yosef): This is no support; we can say,
the water will test her; she did not yet die because of
i. Suggestion: If before she drank - she is a
Zonah (obviously, she is forbidden to eat
2. Answer: Rather, after she drank.
3. We understand, according to Rav Sheshes - the water
did not test her, the witnesses' testimony is true.
4. Question: If you will say, the water tests her even
when witnesses know of her guilt - retroactively, we
see that they testified falsely (so why is she
forbidden to eat Terumah?)!
(e) Rav Sheshes and Rav Yosef argue regarding sickness when
merits delay her death.
1. (Mishnah - Rebbi): A Sotah that was Teme'ah, but had
merits, her death is delayed;
(f) Question (Rav Simi bar Ashi - Mishnah): R. Shimon says,
merit cannot delay the death - if it could, women would
not be afraid to drink, and people may say that women
that survive are really Teme'ah!
i. She will not give birth or improve, rather she
gets increasingly sick; eventually, she dies
according to the curse (the stomach
2. Rav Sheshes holds that Chachamim agree to Rebbi,
that she gets increasingly sick (and it is always
clear when merit delays the death).
3. Rav Yosef holds that Chachamim argue, and say that
when merit suspends the death, she can appear well.
1. If the test does not work when there are witnesses
overseas - also according to R. Shimon, people may
suspect that surviving women are Teme'ah, just that
there are witnesses overseas!
(g) Answer (for Rav Sheshes): True, R. Shimon holds that
witnesses do not hinder the test, just as merit does not
suspend the death (Rav Sheshes said his law according to
(h) Question (Rava - Mishnah): The Minchah (flour-offering)
of any the following Sotos is burned: she says 'I am
Teme'ah; or, if witnesses testified that she became
1. Question: When did witnesses come?
(i) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah of Diskarata): The case is, she
had relations in the Mikdash (after making the Minchah
i. Suggestion: If before the Minchah was made
Hekdesh - it would be Chulin!
2. Answer: Rather, after it was made Hekdesh.
3. We understand, if the water tests her even when
witnesses know of her guilt - she was fitting to be
tested, it was a proper Hekdesh, therefore it must
4. Question: According to Rav Sheshes, the water could
not test her - the Hekdesh was invalid, it should be
Chulin - why is it burned?
1. Question (Rav Mesharshiya): But young Kohanim
accompany her, how could she have relations in the
(j) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): Really, the Hekdesh was invalid
because the water could not test her.
2. Answer #1: She had relations with one of those young
3. Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): She said she had to (leave the
Mikdash to) move her bowels - the Kohanim do not
lock her up!
1. The offering is burned by Rabbinic decree, so people
should not say that something sanctified in a
service vessel can revert to Chulin.
(k) Question (Rav Mari - Beraisa): If the Minchah became
Tamei before it was sanctified in a service vessel, it
may be redeemed; (if it became Tamei) after it was
sanctified in a service vessel, it is burned.
1. If the handful was taken off, and the husband or
wife died before it was offered, the Minchah is
(l) Answer: Zomemim is different - everyone hears about them,
they will know why the offering reverts to Chulin, there
is no need for a decree.
2. If the handful was offered, and the husband or wife
died before the remainder was eaten, the remainder
may be eaten, for the offering was brought because
of a doubt; it achieved its atonement.
3. If witnesses came and testified that she is Teme'ah,
her offering is burned; if the witnesses (that saw
her seclusion) were found to be Zomemim (they were
not there to see the seclusion), her offering is
Chulin (we do not make the decree of Rav Papa)!
(m) A Beraisa supports Rav Sheshes' law, but argues on his
1. (Beraisa): "Tehorah" - and not that witnesses
overseas know that she is Teme'ah; "u'Tehorah" - and
not that merit is suspending her death; "She" - and
not that women are talking about her guilt as they
spin thread in the moonlight.
2. Granted, R. Shimon argues on this Tana, he does not
expound the (extra) Vav (u'Tehorah - he says, merit
does not suspend her death).