(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 23

SOTAH 21-25 - These Dafim have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham-Fauer in honor of the first Yahrzeit (18 Teves 5761) of her father, Reb Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner). May the merit of supporting and advancing the study of the Talmud be l'Iluy Nishmaso.



(a) A Sotah does not drink the Mei Sotah if she admits that she is guilty, if witnesses testify to that effect - or if she refuses to drink.

(b) Neither does she drink if her husband does not want to her to - or if he was intimate with her on the way.

(c) The Minchah of a Yisre'eilis who is married to a Kohen is burned and not eaten by the Kohanim - because the Torah writes in Tzav "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tihyeh Lo Se'afeh".

(d) The Minchah of a Kohenes who is married to a Yisrael or to a Levi, or one who is divorced or widowed - is eaten by the Kohanim, because the word "Minchas Kohen" does not incorporate Kohenes.

(a) The Tana lists another three distinctions between a Kohen and a Kohenes. One of them is 'Kohenes Mis'chaleles, ve'Ein Kohen Mis'chalel' - meaning that in the event that a Kohen marries a Gerushah, Zonah or Chalulah, his wife is a Chalalah (as well as his children), but he is not a Chalal.

(b) One of the two remaining distinctions concerns Tum'ah, the other, Kodshim - a Kohen is forbidden to become Tamei Meis, a Kohenes is not; a Kohen is permitted to eat Kodshei Kodshim (Chatas, Asham and Minchah), whereas a Kohenes is not.

(a) The Tana also lists eight distinctions between a man and a woman. When the Tana says 'ha'Ish Porei'a u'Porem, ve'Ein ha'Ishah Porei'a u'Poremes' - he is referring to the Mitzvah of a Metzora letting his hair grow and tearing his clothes, which does not apply to a Metzora'as.

(b) The two Dinim regarding ...

1. ... Nezirus that pertain to a man but not to a woman are - that a man can be Madir his son to be a Nazir, whereas a woman cannot, and a man can use for his own Nezirus, the animals that his father designated for his Nezirus before he died, whereas a woman cannot.
2. ... a daughter that pertain to a man and not to a woman - are that a father can accept Kidushin for his daughter and that he can sell her (as long as she has not yet become a Bogeres), whereas her mother cannot.
(c) The Din that pertains to a man but not to a woman regarding ...
1. ... stoning is - that a man is stoned without clothes, but a woman is not.
2. ... hanging is - that a man who is stoned is briefly hanged after the stoning, but a woman is not.
(d) The last difference listed by the Tana between a man and a woman is - that a man who cannot afford to pay for his theft is sold, but a woman is not.
(a) If a woman is married to a Kohen, we learned in our Mishnah that her Minchah is completely burned - because it is her husband who brings the Korban on her behalf. Consequently, despite the fact that it is his wife's Minchah, he has a share in it.

(b) The Minchah of a Kohen requires Kemitzah. His wife's Koran however - does, because the Korban is hers.

(c) The Kometz of her Minchah and the remainder of the Korban are each burned independently.

(a) The problem with bringing the Kometz as well the rest of the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach - lies in the principle that any Korban of which part goes on the Mizbe'ach, must be eaten and may not be burned.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi initially answers this Kashya according to Rebbi Elazar, who Darshens in a Beraisa from the words "le'Rei'ach Nicho'ach" - that if the limbs of a Chatas became mixed up with those of an Olah, the Kohen brings them all on the Mizbe'ach, specifically considering the meat of the Chatas as if it was wood of the Ma'arachah (because one only transgresses for bringing what should be eaten on the Mizbe'ach, if it is brought as flesh).

(c) The Kashya is not answered however, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Elazar - who say that even if the Kohen specifically considers the meat as if it were wood, he nevertheless transgresses the La'av.

(d) To answer the Kashya according to the Rabbanan therefore, we explain that the remainder of the Minchah is treated in the same way as the Minchas Chotei of a Kohen according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - who says that the Kometz is brought on the Mizbe'ach and the remainder of the Minchah is burned in the Beis ha'Deshen (in the Azarah).

(a) The Rabbanan say - that the Minchas Chotei of a Kohen is burned whole (without taking a Kemitzah) like his Nedavah.

(b) The Minchas Chotei of a Kohen is - the Korban Oleh ve'Yored (of a very poor Kohen in the case of Shemi'as Kol, Bituy Sefasayim or Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav).

(c) They agree however, with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in the case of a Minchas Kohenes - because, unlike the Kohen's Minchas Chotei, it is not possible to bring it whole because of the part of the Korban that belongs to the Kohenes (as we explained above).




(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Lo *Yechalel* Zar'o be'Amav" - that although a Kohen who marries a woman who is Pasul li'Kehunah renders her and the children who are born to them Chalalim, he does not become a Chalal.
2. ... "Emor el ha'Kohanim *B'nei Aharon*" - that the warning against a Kohen becoming Tamei Meis is confined to Kohanim, but does not extend to Kohanos.
3. ... "Kol Zachar bi'V'nei Aharon Yochlenah" - that only Kohanim are permitted to eat Kodshei Kodshim, but not Kohanos.
(b) And we learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "*ve'ha'Tzaru'a* Asher Bo he'Nega"(which is superfluous) - that the Tzara'as of Nesakin (Tzara'as in the place where hair grows) applies to women as well as to men.
2. ... "Ish Tzaru'a Hu" (written in the previous Pasuk) - that 'Peri'ah and Perimah' (which we described in our Mishnah) do not apply to women.
(a) We know that a man can ...
1. ... declare his son a Nazir, but not a woman - from Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.
2. ... bring his deceased father's Korbenos Nazir for his own Nezirus, but not a woman - from the same source (both of which Rebbi Yochanan taught).
(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh" - that a girl (who is not yet a Bogeres) can be married off by her father, but not by her mother.
2. ... "Ki Yimkor Ish es Bito le'Amah" - that a girl (who is not yet a Bogeres) can be sold by her father, but not by her mother.
(c) The Torah writes in Ki Seitzei (regarding S'kilah) "Ve'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'Hu O es ha'Ishah ha'Hi". We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ve'Ragmu *Oso*" - that a man is stoned without clothes but not a woman.
2. ... "Ve'salisa *Oso* al Eitz" - that a man who has been stoned to death must be momentarily hanged, but not a woman.
3. ... in Mishpatim "Ve'nimkar bi'Geneivaso" - that a man is sold for having stolen (assuming he cannot repay what he stole), but not a woman.
***** Hadran Alach Hayah Notel *****

***** Perek Arusah *****


(a) The Pasuk "Asher Tisteh Ishah Tachas Iyshah" comes to preclude a girl who is betrothed but not yet married and a Yevamah from drinking the Mei Sotah.

(b) They are nevertheless subject to Kinuy and S'tirah (seeing as the Pasuk only precludes them from drinking). The Yevamah would then be warned - by the Yavam.

(c) They do not receive their Kesuvah - the Arusah, because she caused herself to become Asur to her Arus, the Yevamah ...

(d) ... even assuming that we do not follow the opinion of Rav Hamnuna (who forbids a Yevamah who had committed adultery with another man on the Yavam) - because the Yavam is quite entitled to decline to marry a Zonah.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah lists the following: 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot, Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael, u'Bas Yisrael le'Mamzer u'le'Nasin' - to teach us that they all do not drink, but neither do they receive their Kesuvah.

(b) The reason that they do not drink is - because "Ki Sisteh *Ishto*" implies a woman with whom he is fit to live (but one one whom he is obligated to divorce).

(c) A regular Almanah le'Kohen Gadol - does receive a Kesuvah.

(d) This one however does loses it - because her seclusion with another man after having been warned not to, would have forbidden her on him even if he woiuld have been previously permitted.

Next daf


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