The audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically the Masechet Sotah, has been dedicated by our esteemed friends and students, Mr. Chaimy and Dina Dana, for the success of their children and particularly for a complete recovery for Moshe Ben Dina, and in memory of Yosef Ben Sarina, David Ben Frida, Meir Ben Zohara, Moshe Ben Feiga Rut, Sara Bat Esther, Feiga Rut Bat Esther, and Esther Bat Yocheved. May their souls be at peace in Gan Eden, Amen. Today’s daf, Daf Yud Chet, is studied in their merit and for the complete recovery of Marat Ruchama Bat Rachel and Sara Bat Rachel. May they be healed, and may their healing come swiftly. We begin today’s daf on Daf Yud Zayin Amud Bet starting from the Gemara.
Amar Rava: If the Megillat Sotah was written at night, it is invalid. What is the reason? We derive this through a gezeirah shavah, connecting the term Torah in two contexts. It is written here regarding the Sotah: “And the priest shall perform all of this Torah.” And it is written there regarding the Beit Din: “According to the Torah which they instruct you.” Just as judgment is performed during the day, so too, the Megillat Sotah must be written specifically during the day. The Gemara continues: If it was written backwards, meaning the words were inverted, it is invalid. Rashi explains that if the verse is written out of order, it cannot be considered valid. Therefore, if the writing is not in the correct order, it is disqualified.
The Gemara elaborates: If it was written before she accepts the oath, it is invalid. As we learned previously, the priest administers an oath to her, affirming her innocence or guilt, and she responds, “Amen.” It is only after this that the Megillat Sotah is written. If it was written before she accepted the oath, it is invalid, as it states, “And he shall swear, and then write.” The Megillat Sotah must follow the oath. If it was written like a letter, without the necessary lines, it is also invalid. The Torah refers to it as a sefer, indicating that it must have the proper formatting, akin to a Sefer Torah. Rashi notes that it is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai that all scrolls must have these lines.
The Gemara continues: If it was written on two sheets, it is invalid. The Torah states “sefer,” meaning one scroll and not two or three. The Megillat Sotah is concise enough to be written on a single sheet. The Gemara asks: If one wrote a letter and erased it, then wrote another letter and erased it, is that valid? The answer is no; it is invalid. The writing must be done all at once and then erased. The Gemara raises a question: If the writing was done separately and then mixed together, what is the status? Rava asks if the writing must be done specifically for each Sotah, requiring that the erasing be done for each one as well. Rashi clarifies that the erasing must also be specific, indicating that it must be done separately for each case.
The Gemara continues with a case where two Megillot were written for two Sotot and both were erased into one cup. Is this valid? The question arises whether the writing must be for the sake of each Sotah, or whether the erasing must also be specific. If the erasing was not specific, it would not be valid. Rava further questions if the erasing was done in two cups and then mixed, does that maintain the requirement for the erasing to be specific? The Gemara leaves this question unresolved.
Next, Rava asks about the case of the Sotah drinking from a straw or tube. Is that acceptable? The concern is whether this constitutes a separation between the cup and her mouth, which could invalidate the drinking. The Gemara also discusses if some of the mixture spilled and only remnants were left. Can she drink the remnants, or must she drink from the entire mixture? This question remains unresolved as well.
The Gemara discusses the two oaths mentioned in the Sotah. What is the purpose of these two oaths? One is before the Megillah is erased, and one is after. Rava explains that one oath is without a curse, while the other includes a curse. The first oath does not have the term “alah,” while the second does. Rashi clarifies that the curse implies a consequence if she is guilty. The Gemara continues to analyze the implications of these oaths and their connection to the woman’s actions.
As the Gemara progresses, it raises questions regarding the validity of the oaths and their implications for the woman’s status. It highlights the need for clarity regarding the nature of the oaths and the conditions under which they are administered. The discussions illustrate the complexities involved in the legal and spiritual implications of the Sotah process, emphasizing the importance of precision in the administration of these laws.
The Gemara concludes with a discussion on the authority of the Rabbi’s interpretations regarding the oaths and their implications for the woman’s status. It underscores the need for careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding each case, illustrating the depth of inquiry and analysis that characterizes the study of halacha.