ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sotah 14
SOTAH 14 - L"iluy Nishmas Rachel bas Moshe Potack, a woman of valor who was
a source of inspiration to all who met her. She will be sorely missed by all
those who were Zocheh to be touched by her presence. (Dedicated anonymously)
(a) Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina makes a number of D'rashos. He learns from
the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Lo Yada *Ish* es Kevuraso" and "ve'Zos ha'Berachah
Asher Beirach Moshe *Ish* ha'Elokim es B'nei Yisrael" - that even Moshe does
not know the location of his own grave.
(b) The reason he gives for Moshe being buried beside the idol Ba'al Pe'or
is - in order to atone for Yisrael's sin of Ba'al Pe'or (with the daughters
of Mo'av, Yisrael's last major sin before his death).
(c) And he interprets the Pasuk "Acharei Hashem Elokeichem Teilechu" - to
mean that one should go in Hashem's ways (regarding Mitzvos between man and
(d) This Pasuk cannot be understood literally - because the Pasuk in
Va'eschanan describes Hashem as a consuming fire (immediately behind which
one can hardly be expected to walk).
(a) We find Hashem ...
1. ... clothing the naked - with regard to Adam and Chavah (as we explained
on the previous Amud).
(b) Rav and Shmuel argue over the Pasuk (in connection with the clothes that
Hashem made for Adam and Chavah) "Kosnos Or". According to one of them, it
means 'something made from skin' - namely, wool, which is shorn from the
skin of a sheep.
2. ... visiting the sick - after Avraham Avinu's B'ris (at the beginning of
3. ... comforting the mourners - when he came to visit Yitzchak after
Avraham's death (in Chayei-Sarah).
4. ... burying the dead - when he buried Moshe Rabeinu (as we explained on
the previous Amud).
(c) According to the other one, it means - something from which a person's
skin benefits (because it is usually worn close to the skin), namely linen.
(d) When we say that the Torah begins and ends with Chesed - we are
referring to Hashem's clothing Adam and Chavah and His burying Moshe (which
we have just discussed).
(a) Moshe's eagerness to enter Eretz Yisrael was not in order to taste its
luscious fruits - but to observe the many Mitzvos that can only be observed
***** Hadran Alach ha'Mekanei *****
(b) Hashem's reply is explained by Yeshayah. Having said "Lachein Achalek Lo
be'Rabim", He nevertheless needed to add "ve'es Atzumim Yechalek Shalal" -
to make it clear that Moshe would receive reward on a par with Avraham,
Yitzchak and Ya'akov (who were spiritually mighty).
(c) When Yeshayah said ...
1. ... "Tachas Asher He'erah Nafsho La'mus" - he was referring to Moshe's
willingness to die to save Klal Yisrael (when he said "ve'Im Ayin, Mecheini
Na mi'Sifrecha") following the sin of the Golden Calf.
(d) "ve'Hu Chet Rabim Nasa" refers to his success in obtaining pardon for
the sin of the Golden Calf. Since "Yafgi'a" is a Lashon of prayer,
"u'le'Posh'im Yifgi'a" means - that he prayed on behalf of the sinners in
2. ... "ve'es Posh'im Nimneh" - that he, like the generation that left
Egypt, was unable to enter Yisrael.
***** Perek Hayah Meni'ach *****
(a) The Sotah's husband brought her Korban Minchah on her behalf. He would
give it to her to hold - in order to wear her down, to make her confess to
her guilt (provided of course, she was guilty).
(b) According to Aba Chanin in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the reason for
making the Sotah hold the Minchah to tire her and make her admit, is due to
Hashem's pity on her, to prevent the water from 'examining' her. He
extrapolated from there - that if Hashem has pity on a sinner, how much more
so on those who perform His will.
(c) He declines to learn that the reason is to prevent the Name of Hashem
from being blotted out unnecessarily Like the Tana of our Mishnah) - because
he in his opinion, the Sotah drinks the water before bringing her Minchah
(in which case, the Name of Hashem has already been blotted out)?
(a) Most other Menachos were placed into a K'li Sha'res, where they remained
until they were sacrificed; they required oil and frankincense and they
consisted of wheat flour. The Sotah's Korban differed - inasmuch as it was
first placed in a cheap wickerwork basket, it did not require oil and
frankincense and it consisted of barley flour.
(b) One other exception was the Minchas ha'Omer, which consisted of barley.
The Minchas Sotah differed from it - inasmuch as it was not sifted; whereas
the Minchas ha'Omer *was* (and is therefore described as "Geres" [which is
to barley as 'So'les' is to wheat]).
(c) The Minchas ha'Omer was sifted thirteen times.
(d) According to Raban Gamliel, the Minchas Sotah consisted of barley -
because, since she behaved like an animal, her Korban too, consisted of
(a) The Beraisa describes the procedure of how the Minchah was prepared. The
owner brought it from his house to the Beis Hamikdash - in a silver or
(b) Before adding oil and frankincense and giving it to the Kohen - he would
sanctify it by placing it in a K'li Sha'res (this will be explained later).
(c) After carrying it to the south-western corner of the Mizbei'ach, the
1. ... would remove all the frankincense to one side.
(d) Finally - he would place the Kometz into another K'li Sha'res to
sanctify it, re-place the frankincense, salt it and place it on the
2. ... would perform the Mitzvah of Kemitzah (take a fistful from the
section that contained the most oil) - and place the Kometz into another
(a) We reconcile the Tana of our Mishnah (who says that all Menachos were
placed in a K'li Sha'res from beginning to end) with the Tana of this
Beraisa (who specifically writes that the owner brings his Minchah in a
[private] silver or golden basket before placing it into a K'li Sha'res) -
by establishing the former by a vessel that is not necessarily itself a K'li
Sha'res, but that is fit to be one.
(b) We suggest that the author of our Mishnah must then be Rebbi and not
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - because he declares wooden vessels unfit to
serve as K'lei Sha'res, whereas Rebbi validates them.
(c) We nevertheless reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah -
whose concession does not extend to cheap wickerwork baskets, as the Pasuk
writes "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha" ('Since you would have the audacity to
offer it to a human king, don't bring it to Hashem either').
(a) 'Nosnah li'K'li Sha'res u'Mekadshah bi'Ch'li Sha'res' implies that he
places the Minchah into a Kli Sha'res in order to make it Hekdesh. We amend
the Beraisa to read 'Nosnah li'K'li Sha'res Le'kadshah bi'Ch'li Sha'res' -
because otherwise, we would have a proof from our Mishnah that a K'li
Sha'res only sanctifies its contents if the owner specific intents it to
(and it is clear from other places in Shas, that this is a Machlokes
Amora'im which does not have a source in a Mishnah).
(b) The Minchah requires sanctification in a K'li Sha'res, despite the fact
that the owner already sanctified it before bringing it to the Beis
ha'Mikdash - because that sanctification was 'Kedushas Peh' (which only has
the status of Kedushas Damim. A K'li Sha'res, on the other hand, gives it
the status of 'Kedushas ha'Guf'.
(c) The ramifications of 'Kedushas ha'Guf' (as opposed to 'Kedushas Damim')
are - that it becomes Pasul through contact with a T'vul-Yom, Yotze (through
leaving its permitted confines) or Linah (staying overnight off the
Mizbei'ach), and is irredeemable should it become Tamei.
(a) The Torah writes "ve'Zos Toras ha'Minchah Hakreiv Osah B'nei Aharon
Lifnei Hashem el P'nei ha'Mizbei'ach".
1. "Lifnei Hashem (in this context) - means on the west side of the
Mizbei'ach (directly in front of the Heichal).
(b) To reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements ...
2. "el P'nei ha'Mizbei'ach" - on the south side of the Mizei'ach (where the
ramp was placed).
1. ... the Tana of our Mishnah (as well as the Tana Kama of the Beraisa)
explains - that he actually brought the Minchah to the south-western tip of
the Keren (the block on the corner) of the Mizbei'ach.
(c) Rebbi Elazar declines to concede that one has a choice to bring the
Minchah either to the western side or to the southern side of the
Mizbei'ach - because by bringing it to the southern side, he satisfies both
Pesukim (as we shall now see), whereas by bringing it to either one, he does
2. ... Rebbi Elazar explains - that he brought it to the south side of the
(d) He permits taking the Minchah to the southern side - because he holds
like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in Zevachim, that the entire Mizbei'ach was on
the north of the Azarah, in which case, the south-western Keren was
literally in front of the Heichal.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa adds 've'Dayo' to the phrase 'u'Magishah
be'Keren Ma'aravis Deromis ... ' - because we might otherwise have thought
that he needs to bring the Minchah itself (without the K'li Sha'res) to the
south-western tip of the Mizbei'ach.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'hikrivah el ha'Kohen ... ve'Higishah el
ha'Mizbei'ach" - that just as the owner brings the Minchah to the Kohen in a
K'li Sha'res, so too, does the Kohen bring it to the Mizbei'ach in a K'li
(c) He initially moved the frankincense to one side before taking the
Kemitzah - because if any frankincense (or salt) were to enter his fist
together with the flour, it would be a Chatzitzah (an interruption), and
would invalidate the Kemitzah.
(d) We learn from the Pasuk "mi'Saltah u'mi'Shamnah, mi'Girsah
u'mi'Shamnah" - that the Kohen had to take the Kemitzah from the part of the
Minchah which contained the most oil.
(a) The Tana requires placing the Minchah into a second K'li Sha'res. We
have a precedent for this - by the Shechitah of Korbanos, where the knife
(which was considered a K'li Sha'res) sanctified the blood, yet the Kohen
had to receive the blood in another K'li Sha'res.
(b) The problem we have with the Beraisa's statement 'u'Ma'aleihu bi'Ch'li
Sha'res' - is that the Minchah has not yet been salted, so (in view of the
Pasuk "Al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach") how can it be sacrificed?
(c) We therefore amend the statement to read 'Ma'aleihu bi'Ch'li Sha'res