ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sotah 4
(a) Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa gives the Shiur of S'tirah (the time that of
seclusion that renders the woman a Sotah) as 'K'dei Tum'ah, K'dei Bi'ah,
K'dei Ha'ara'ah, K'dei Hakafas Dekel'. 'K'dei Tum'ah' alone will not
suffice. Rebbi Yishmael needs to add ...
1. ... 'K'dei Bi'ah' - because we would have otherwise added the time it
takes to seduce the woman to the time of the actual Bi'ah.
(b) In spite of having stated 'K'dei Bi'ah, K'dei Ha'ara'ah', Rebbi Yishmael
nevertheless needs to mention 'K'dei Tum'ah' - to preclude the seduction
2. ... 'K'dei Ha'ara'ah - to teach us that the time it takes to perform
Ha'ara'ah will suffice (since one is already Chayav for Ha'ara'ah, even
without completing the Bi'ah).
(c) Despite the fact that he anyway found it necessary to conclude 'K'dei
Hakafas Dekel, he nevertheless needed to insert the other three
descriptions - otherwise we would not know whether the Chiyuv S'tirah is
K'dei Bi'ah or K'dei Ha'ara'ah (Rashi).
(a) In the current Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer gives the Shiur of S'tirah as
'K'dei Mezigas ha'Kos (the time it takes to dilute a glass of wine), whereas
in another Beraisa, he gives it as 'Chazaras Dekel'.
1. Abaye reconciles the fact that his opinion in the second Beraisa appears
to coincide with the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael, whereas in the current
Beraisa, he argues with him - by actually differentiating between 'K'dei
Hakafas Dekel' (which refers to a person walking round the date-palm), and
'K'dei Chazaras ha'Dekel' (which refers to the time it takes for a branch
that was bent by the wind to return to its place).
(b) The two possible interpretations of 'K'dei Chazaras ha'Dekel' - are
either the moment the branch returns to its former location, or only after
it stops reverberating.
2. The Sugya resolves the apparent contradiction in Rebbi Eliezer himself -
by pointing out that the two Shiurim are one and the same.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua gives the Shiur as 'K'dei Lishtoso'. We reconcile this
with his opinion in the second Beraisa ('K'dei Mezigas ha'Kos') - by
combining the two 'K'dei Limzog ha'Kos ve'Lishtoso'.
(b) We cannot answer that the two are equivalent - because then, his opinion
would coincide with that of Rebbi Eliezer.
(c) ben Azai gives the Shiur as 'K'dei Litzlos Beitzah'. We reconcile this
with his Shiur in the second Beraisa, which is 'K'dei Lishtoso' - by
pointing out that the two Shiurim are one and the same.
(a) Rebbi Akiva gives the Shiur as 'K'dei Legom'ah' (to gulp down the
partially-roasted egg of ben Azai). We reconcile this with his opinion in
the second Beraisa, where he says 'K'dei Litzlos Beitzah' - by combining the
two 'K'dei Litzlos Beitzah u'Legom'a'.
(b) We cannot answer that the two are equivalent - because then it would
coincide with the opinion of ben Azai.
(c) And we will reconcile the Shiur of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, who says
in the first Beraisa 'K'dei Ligmo'a Shalosh Beitzim, whereas in the second,
he follows Rebbi Akiva's 'K'dei Litzlos Beitzah' with 'K'dei Legom'ah' - by
interpreting his second statement as a comment to Rebbi Akiva, as if to say
'Why do you need to come on to a combination of roasting and gulping down
(one egg), when you could just as well confine the Shiur to gulping down
(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yirmiyah, the Shiur S'tirah is the time
it takes to tie two ends of a thread that have come apart - Rav Ashi asks
whether he is speaking when the ends are close to each other or when they
are far apart and must also be brought together, and the She'eilah remains
(b) According to Chanin ben Pinchas, the Shiur is the time it takes for a
woman to place her hand in her mouth and remove a splinter, and according to
P'limu, it is the time it takes for her to place her hand in a basket of
loaves of bread and take out a loaf. Rav Ashi asks with regard to both
cases - whether the object (the splinter and the loaf respectively) are
loose (and easily removable) or tight (and need to be prized out).
(c) He also asks whether the basket is new or old, and whether the bread is
hot or cold. The difference whether ...
1. ... the basket is new or old is - that an old basket is smooth, and the
bread comes out readily, whereas a new basket still has twigs protruding
from it which catch the loaves and make their removal more difficult.
(d) The final two She'eilos posed by Rav Ashi regarding P'limu's example
are - whether he is referring to wheat-loaves (which is smooth and slips out
of the hands) or barley-loaves (which is rough), and whether he is referring
to bread made from a soft dough (which slips out of the fingers) or from a
hard dough (which are easier to grasp).
2. ... whether the bread is hot or cold is - that hot bread is still soft,
causing it to slip out of a person's hands whilst cold bread is easier to
(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains that each of the above Tana'im presented a Shiur
S'tirah that they took from their personal experience. This is problematic
with regard to ben Azai - because, although he was betrothed (to Rebbi
Akiva's daughter), he never married (her).
(b) Alternatively - he could have heard the Shiur from his Rebbi or through
(c) We know that Hashem sometimes reveals hidden things to those who fear
Him - from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Sod Hashem li'Yerei'av".
(a) Rav Avira, sometimes citing Rebbi Ami, sometimes Rebbi Asi, explains the
Pasuk "Ki be'Ad Ishah Zonah ad Kikar Lechem" to mean - that someone who
fails to wash his hands before eating bread will eventually end up having
illicit relations with a prostitute.
(b) Rava objects to this explanation on the grounds - that the Pasuk should
then have been inverted to read "be'Ad Kikar Lechem ad Ishah Zonah".
(c) So *he* explains the Pasuk to mean - that anyone who has illicit
relations with a prostitute, will eventually have to search for a loaf of
(d) Rebbi Zerika Amar Rebbi Elazar says that someone who treats the Mitzvah
of Netilas Yadayim with scorn - will eventually be uprooted from the world.
(a) Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav requires raising one's hands after Netilas
Yadayim - and lowering them after Mayim Acharonim.
(b) After Mayim ...
1. ... Rishonim, one should hold one's hands upwards - so that, should he
not pour the second time over the water that ran up his wrist (and which
consequently remains Tamei until he does), then, when he lowers his hands,
that Tamei water will run back on to his hands making them Tamei again.
(c) Rebbi Avahu says that someone who does not dry his hands properly after
Netilas Yadayim (and who then goes on to eat with wet hands) - is considered
as if he had eaten something disgusting (which the Pasuk sometimes refers to
2. ... Acharonim, he should hold them downwards - so that the Melach Sedomis
which is on them (which is the main reason for washing Mayim Acharonim and
which is capable of blinding a person) is washed off his hands.
(a) Based on the Pasuk in Mishlei "ve'Eishes Ish Nefesh Yekarah Titzod",
Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that someone who is conceited
will eventually commit adultery.
(b) Rava objects to Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Pasuk, partially
because the word "Yekarah" has different connotations, and partially,
because "Titzod" implies the opposite. He therefore explain the Pasuk to
mean - that someone who commits adultery, even if he studied a lot of Torah
(about which the Pasuk in Mishlei writes "Yekarah Hi mi'Peninim" [meaning
that Torah is more precious than the Kohen Gadol, who would enter 'Lifnai
ve'Lifnim']), will eventually be trapped by her and will be sentenced to go
(a) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learn from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "To'avas Hashem Kol G'vah Leiv", "ve'Lo Savi So'eivah el
Beisecha" - that someone who is conceited is considered as if he had
(b) Rebbi Yochanan himself learns from the Pasuk "ve'Ram Levavecha,
ve'Shachachta es Hashem Elokecha" - that it is as if he had denied Hashem
(by virtue of his having forgotten Him).
(c) Rebbi Chama bar Chanina learns from another 'Gezeirah-Shavah that
someone who is conceited is considered as if he had committed adultery with
all the Arayos. Based on a play on words on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Chidlu
Lachem min ha'Adam Asher Neshamah be'Apo ki *ba'Meh* Nechshav Hu" - Ula
considers him as having built a Bamah (to idolatry).
(a) Earlier, we quoted the Pasuk "To'avas Hashem Kol G'vah Leiv". Rav
explains the continuation of the Pasuk "Yad le'Yad Lo Yinakeh" (in
conjunction with the Pasuk in Lech-Lecha "Harimosi *Yadi* el Hashem Keil
Elyon Koneh Shamayim va'Aretz" - that even if a conceited man ascribes
heaven and earth to Hashem (like Avraham did), it will not save him from
being sentenced to Gehinom.
(b) de'Bei Rebbi Shiloh objects to Rav's D'rashah, on the grounds that the
Navi ought then to have written "Yadi Lo Yinakeh". He therefore explains the
Pasuk to mean - that even if he had received the Torah from the Hand of
Hashem like Moshe, the conceited man would not be spared from having to go
(c) Rebbi Yochanan in turn, objects to de'Bei Rebbi Shilo's explanation, on
the grounds that the Navi should then have written "Yad mi'Yad (rather than
*le'Yad*) Lo Yinakeh". So he explains it to mean - that even if he tended to
give Tzedakah in secret (from his hand to the hand of the poor man), an act
which, under normal circumstances would save him from the Divine wrath (as
it is written in Mishlei "Matan be'Seiser Yichpeh Af"), the conceited man
will be sentenced to Gehinom.