(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Sotah 6



(a) In the third Lashon, Rav Yosef infers from the Torah's expression "ve'Yatz'ah le'Ish Acher" - that, since the Torah refers to the man who marries the Sotah as 'Acher' (insinuating that he is inferior to the first husband who divorced her), how could it then order the Yavam to take her.

(b) The Torah nevertheless obligates her to perform Yibum, should the second husband die without children - because whilst she was married to him, she did not commit adultery, in which case we presume that she did Teshuvah, and anyone who marries her after she is divorced or after her husband's death will not therefore be called 'Acher'.

(a) According to Rava, we can learn the Sotah's exemption from Yibum from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from her husband - because if she becomes forbidden to her husband (to whom she was previously permitted), then she certainly becomes forbidden to the Yavam, to whom she was forbidden.

(b) By the same token, Abaye asks Rava, a Kohen Gadol who betrothed an Almanah should be forbidden to perform Yibum when her husband dies. We refute this Kashya however - because to say 'she *became forbidden* to her husband' (on which the 'Kal va'Chomer' s built), is inaccurate, seeing as (a Kohen Gadol may not marry a widow and) she was forbidden to him all the time.

(c) Abaye then asks on Rava from the wife of a Kohen who was raped - that by the same token, if she becomes forbidden to her husband (to whom she was previously permitted), then she should certainly be forbidden to the Yavam (to whom she was forbidden).

(d) We refute this Kashya too - on the grounds that unlike a Sotah, she did not sin, and in the same way as she would have been permitted to her husband had he been a Yisrael, so too, is she permitted to the Yavam; whereas when she committed adultery, the same sin that forbids her to her husband, forbids her to the Yavam, seeing as her ties to the Yavam stem from her marriage to his brother.

(a) Five cases of Sotah become forbidden to eat Terumah: a woman who confesses to her husband that she committed adultery, one on whom witnesses testify to that effect and a woman who refuses to drink. The remaining two are - when her husband refuses to make her drink the Mei Sotah and if he was intimate with her after her seclusion with the man against whom he warned her.

(b) The reason that in the last case, the Mei Sotah will be ineffective is - because the Torah writes "ve'Nikah ha'Ish me'Avon" (the husband too, must be free from sin, but should he be guilty, then the water will not work.

(c) Rav Amram quoting Rav Sheishes extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah *ve'Eid Ein Bah*" - that if there are witnesses overseas who know that she is guilty and who arrive only after she has drunk, she remains forbidden to eat Terumah.

(d) He uses the Pasuk for this D'rashah, even though we have already learned other things from it (that one witness is believed by Tum'as Sotah and that a Sotah Vaday does not drink) - because of the principle 'Ein Mikra Yotzei Mi'yedei Peshuto' (though one will need to clarify when we apply *this* principle, and when we apply the principle that a Pasuk which is needed intrinsically cannot be used for a D'rashah).

(a) Rav Sheishes proves his Chidush from the case in our Mishnah when witnesses testify that she committed adultery - which clearly speaks when they arrived after she had already drunk the water - because if they arrived beforehand, then she would be a Zonah, and it is obvious that she will forbidden to eat Terumah. Consequently, he must be speaking after she drank, and we see from here that witnesses who are overseas negate the power of the water, which proves that we do not consider them to be false witnesses, and she will remain forbidden to eat Terumah even though she has already drunk the water.

(b) According to Rav Yosef, even though the Tana must be speaking when the witnesses came after she had already drunk, we nevertheless suspect the witnesses of being false - and the reason that nothing happened to her after she drank is because, as we shall see later, there are a number of merits that might shield her and save her from death.

(c) Based on a Mishnah, where Rebbi says that even if she is spared from death, she nevertheless deteriorates from the moment she drinks until finally, she dies the death of a Sotah, the basis of the Machlokes between Rav Sheishes and Rav Yosef is - whether the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi (Rav Sheishes) with regard to the Sotah's deterioration or not (Rav Yosef).

(d) Consequently, establishing our Mishnah like the Rabbanan ...

1. ... will help to explain why the witnesses are not believed according to Rav Yosef - because according to him the author of our Mishnah will be the Rabbanan. Consequently, it may well be because of the merit that the water proved ineffective, whereas as far as the witnesses are concerned, the water may well have performed its task in spite of them.
2. ... would make no difference according to Rav Sheishes - since they, like Rebbi, hold that she would have deteriorated, and since she did not, it can only be because when there are witnesses, the water does not take effect.
(a) Rebbi Shimon rejects the entire concept of merits that will save the Sotah from death - because then, everyone will challenge the innocence of the Sotah (which is the real objective of the water). Whenever nothing happens to her, he argues, people will attribute that to the merit that save her from death (rather than to her innocence).

(b) Rav Sheishes did indeed state his Chidush according to the Rabbanan, who do not take account of Rebbi Shimon's fears - but not according to Rebbi Shimon (who put the overseas witnesses on a par with merits).




(a) The Beraisa states two cases when the Sotah's Minchah has to be burned, one of them when the Sotah confessed to having sinned - the other, if witnesses arrive who testify to her guilt.

(b) This Beraisa cannot be speaking before she sanctified the Minchah in a holy vessel - because then there would be no reason for her not to simply redeem it (and avoid having to burn it).

(c) Despite the fact that the Tana speaks after she sanctified it, the Minchah cannot be brought ...

1. ... on her behalf - because it only comes to test the guilt of a Sotah whose guilt is unknown, but not one who has already been proved guilty.
2. ... as a Minchas Nedavah - because a Minchah that comprises barley can only be brought as a Minchas Sotah or as a Minchas ha'Omer (on Pesach), but not as a Nedavah (which comprises wheat-flour).
(d) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Rav Sheishes, according to whom witnesses render a Sotah unfit to drink the water. In that case - when the witnesses arrive, her Minchah should become invalid retroactively.
(a) Rav Yehudah from Diskarta answers that the Beraisa is speaking when she committed adultery in the Azarah (not the first time, but) -a second time, and it is on this second act that the witnesses testify. Consequently, even though her Minchah is valid, it is burned, seeing as she is pronounced guilty for her second act of adultery anyway.

(b) We initially dispense with the Kashya of Rav Mesharshaya, who points out that the young Kohanim were accompanying her, and asks how could she possibly commit adultery without their knowledge - by establishing the Beraisa when she committed adultery with one of those very Kohanim.

(c) Rav Ashi dispenses with the Dochek of saying that she committed adultery in the Azarah - by establishing the Beraisa when she left the Azarah (with permission) in order to relieve herself, and committed adultery whilst she was outside.

(d) Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa by the initial act of adultery, like we originally thought, yet the Minchah must be burned - (according to Rav Sheishes, who holds that it is not Kadosh retroactively) mi'de'Rabbanan - because not everyone knows that the witnesses prevent a Sotah from drinking (and people will think that a Kadosh Minchah is going out to Chulin without justification).

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa says that a Minchas Sotah that became Tamei ...
1. ... before 'Kidush K'li' - is like all other Menachos and can be redeemed.
2. ... after Kidush K'li - is like all other Menachos and must be burned (off the Mizbei'ach).
(b) In a case where they had already been Mekadesh the Kometz, but her husband or she died before there was time ...
1. ... to bring it on the Mizbei'ach - it is like all other Menachos and must be burned (off the Mizbei'ach).
2. ... to eat the remainder of the Minchah, even though the Kometz had been brought on the Mizbei'ach - it is like all other Menachos and the Kohanim may eat it, because it was brought be'Hechsher and will remain Kasher unless some intrinsic P'sul occurs to render is Pasul.
(c) If witnesses testified ...
1. ... that she had committed adultery before the Kometz was burned - it must be burned off the Mizbei'ach.
2. ... that the witnesses (of S'tirah) were Zomemin - her Minchah is Chulin (retroactively).
(d) Rav Sheishes will agree here, that the Minchah does not need to be burned (mi'de'Rabbanan), on account of what people may think -because Eidim Zomemin has a 'Kol' (becomes public knowledge) so nobody will think that a Kadosh Minchah is going out to Chulin without justification.
(a) Another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "(u)'Tehorah" - that she will not give birth if the reason that the water was ineffective is because there are witnesses overseas who know that she is guilty.
2. ... "u('Tehorah)" - that she will not give birth if the reason that the water was ineffective is because she had a merit.
3. ... "Hi" - that she will not give birth if the reason that the water was ineffective is because everyone knew about her guilt and they were all talking about it.
(b) We prove from this Beraisa - that the Tana holds like Rav Sheishes, though (not from the same source as Rav Sheishes ["ve'Eid Ein Bah"], but) from a different one.

(c) According to this, Rebbi Shimon, whom we saw earlier, is worried about the good name of the Sotah, is not worried that people may ascribe nothing having happened to witnesses overseas, and not to her innocence - because witnesses overseas is an uncommon phenomenon and people are unlikely to do that.

(d) It is true that earlier, we explained that just as Rebbi Shimon doesn't ascribe nothing happening to the Sotah's merits, he doesn't ascribe it to witnesses either - but that was before we knew about the current D'rashah (of "u'Tehorah Hi". Now that we do, it seems logical to say that even though he may not agree with the D'rashah of the 'Vav', he certainly Darshens the word "Tehorah".

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,