The Edie B. Sit edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Masechet Sotah, has been dedicated by our good friends and students, Mr. Chaimy and Dina Dana, may Hashem Yishmerem V'yichayem, for the success of their children, and especially for a complete recovery for Moshe ben Dina. Additionally, it is dedicated for the elevation of the souls of Yosef ben Sarina, David ben Frida, Meir ben Zohara, Moshe ben Feiga Ruth, Sarah bat Esther, Feiga Ruth bat Esther, and Esther bat Yocheved. May the spirit of Hashem rest upon them in the Garden of Eden. Amen. May you merit to perform good deeds. Today’s Daf is Gimmel. This Daf is being studied in honor of our dear friend Mr. Morris Dwek. Thank you for your continued support and hard work in spreading the teachings of Torah across the globe. The Daf is also being studied in memory of my revered teacher and grandfather, Rabbi Yosef ben Sarah and V'Avraham ben Esther. May the spirit of Hashem rest upon them in the Garden of Eden. Amen. Today’s Daf is studied for a complete recovery for Sarah Ruchama bat Ahava and Sarah bat Rachel. We beseech, Elna Refa Na Lah, may her healing come swiftly, both for her soul and body. May their healing be near and may it be God’s will, and we say Amen.
We begin today’s Daf on Bet Amud Bet, starting with the words of Reish Lakish, three lines from the bottom: Amar Reish Lakish: “What is the meaning of the term Kinui?” We learned in the Mishnah that the husband must give a warning to his wife to initiate the Sotah process. This warning is called a Kinui. However, the Torah does not refer to it as a Hatra’ah, which is a warning. Thus, the question arises: where does the term Kinui come from? It is explained as something that incites jealousy between her and others, as stated: Davar Hamatil Kin'ah Beina Le-vein Acheirim. This indicates that Kinui means anger, or Ka’as. The verse in Devarim states: Hem Kin'uni B'lo El, meaning they angered Me. This warning creates tension between her and others. When she stops socializing, people will wonder what happened to her, leading to their anger.
It follows that this opinion holds that Kinui can be done solely by the husband. If the Kinui is done privately, the public will remain unaware. Therefore, they may question why she is distancing herself from them, which will lead to their anger. V’amrei — they will say: “What is going on here? Why is she suddenly isolating herself?” This implies that the Kinui can only be executed by the husband, as it remains a private matter. Consequently, it causes anger between her and others.
In contrast, Rav Yeimar bar Rav Shelemaya in the name of Abaye states: Davar Hamatil Kin'ah Beino L'veina, asserting that the anger of Kinui is between the husband and wife. This suggests that it is done with two witnesses. When there are two witnesses, the situation becomes public. Everyone will be aware that the husband suspects his wife of impropriety, which leads to anger between them. Therefore, both opinions interpret the term Kinah or Kinui as an expression of negative anger. Thus, both opinions conclude that it is forbidden to make a Kinui, as it causes this type of anger.
However, for the opinion that permits Kinui, how do they interpret the term? Amar Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak states: Ein Kinui Ella Lashon Hatra’ah. Kinui means a warning, not anger. This is supported by the verse in Yoel: Vayikaneh Hashem Le'artzo, where God warns the people regarding His land. Thus, Kinui is understood as a warning. This represents a disagreement among the opinions: if one believes that Kinui is forbidden, it is understood as an expression of anger; if one believes it is permitted, it is understood as a warning.
The Mishna states that a person commits a sin in private, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu will ensure that this sin becomes known publicly. The case of the Sotah illustrates this; she may think her actions are hidden, but God will instill suspicion in her husband. As a result, her actions will be revealed. The verse states: Ve'avar Alav Ruach Kinah, indicating that God will make it public. The Gemara states that Reish Lakish declares that a person does not commit a sin unless a spirit of insanity overtakes him. This means that one cannot sin without being influenced by a temporary madness, as indicated by the verse: ish ish ki tisteh ishto, which implies she has veered off the path.
It is noted that the term tisteh implies a state of foolishness, suggesting that a person does not sin unless they are overtaken by a spirit of insanity. This teaching extends beyond the case of the Sotah and serves as a foundational principle for all sins. The question arises, however, of how one can be held liable for sins if they are under the influence of temporary insanity. The commentators, including the Chida, address this by explaining that punishment is not for the sin itself but for placing oneself in a position that leads to such insanity. An analogy is drawn to a driver who speeds and causes an accident; while he may not be able to stop the car, he is still responsible for putting himself in a situation where he could not stop.
This principle applies not only to the case of the Sotah but to all cases of sin. The Gemara continues with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who holds that it is forbidden to create a Kinui. The verse indicates that a person will not commit a Kinui unless they are influenced by a spirit of insanity. The Gemara then discusses why the Torah allows one witness in the case of Sotah. The Torah grants credibility to one witness in matters of tumah, following the verse: Ve'ed Ein Bah. This leads to the understanding that one witness is sufficient for tumah but not for stirah, which requires two witnesses.
In summary, the Mishna clarifies that for stirah, two witnesses are required, while for tumah preceded by kinui and stirah, one witness suffices. The Gemara concludes with a reminder that the laws of tumah and stirah are governed by distinct principles, emphasizing the importance of proper testimony in halachic matters. The discussion highlights the nuanced understanding of Kinui, stirah, and tumah, illustrating how halachic rulings are derived from textual analysis and interpretation.