The Elliot B. Sitt edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. Masechet Sotah has been dedicated by our good friends and talmid (student), Mr. Jaime and Dina Dana, Hashem yishmerem veyechayem, for the success of their children, and especially refuah shelemah for Moshe ben Dina, ule'ilui nishmat Yosef ben Sarina, David ben Frida, Meir ben Zohara, Moshe ben Feiga Ruth, Sarah bat Esther, Feiga Ruth bat Esther, and Esther bat Yocheved. Ruach Hashem tenuchem beGan Eden, amen. Tizku lemitzvot.
Today's daf (page) is being studied in honor of the wedding of Elisheva and Robert Kadoorie Elias from Sydney, Australia, dedicated by our good friends David and Ilana Meyer, Hashem yishmerem veyechayem, amen. Daf Kaf. Today's daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat Marat zekenati Yaffa bat Sarah, umor zekeni Yosef ben Sarah, and verabbi Avraham ben Esther. Ruach Hashem tenuchem beGan Eden, amen. Today's daf is being studied lirefuah shelemah Rachel bat Sarah, Rachel, Sarah bat Rachel, Sarah Ruchamah bat Rachel, and Moshe ben Dina. El na refa na lahem (Please, God, heal them), refuat hanefesh urefuat haguf (healing of soul and body), refuatam kerovah lavo vechen yehi ratzon venomar amen (May their healing come soon; so may it be).
We begin today's daf on yud-tet amud bet (19b), three, four, five, six lines before the text gets wide. Just to review where we're holding in this sugya (discussion), we learned the opinion above of Rabbi Akiva. His opinion was that if the Megillat Sotah was erased before its time—that is, before the minchah was brought—although normally you have to erase the Megillat Sotah after her minchah is brought, and they erased it early, then she comes along and says she doesn't want to drink. She claims she doesn't want to drink, so Rabbi Akiva said, “Sorry, once the Megillat Sotah is erased, we force her to drink the Megillat Sotah.” She's forced. So the Gemara is going to challenge that premise: do you actually force her?
The Gemara says, “Vesavar Rabbi Akiva mashkin otah be'al korchah” (and does he hold)? Does Rabbi Akiva indeed hold that you give her to drink against her will? “Vahatanya”—we have a beraita—“Rabbi Yehudah omer: kalbus shel barzel matilin letoch piha.” They used to put a certain metal apparatus, probably shaped like a horseshoe, in her mouth to keep it wide open. It was curved, with two points at the end; they would wedge it in her mouth to hold it open. Why would they do this? The Gemara says it was in order to give her to drink against her will.
Read that inside. The Gemara's language is: “Kalbus shel barzel,” an iron kalbus; “matilin letoch piha,” in the event that the megillah was erased, “ve'amrah,” and she said, “eini shotah,” “I don't want to drink,” “me'ar'erin otah umashkin otah be'al korchah.” You force it down her against her will.
Rabbi Akiva says, “No: kelum anu tzerichim ela lebodkah?” What's the whole purpose of the waters? You want to check her out to see if she's innocent or not. “Vehalo bedukah ve'omedet!” By her not wanting to drink, that's tantamount to an admission. Why wouldn't she want to drink? It must be because she knows she's going to blow up. By not drinking, it's as if she's saying, “I did it.” Therefore, Rabbi Akiva says in this beraita that you never have to force it down her. Once she says no, it's finished: game over, divorce, and finished.
So the question is: how did Rabbi Akiva tell me earlier that you force her to drink against her will, when in this beraita he says that when she says she doesn't want to drink, that's equivalent to an admission that she did it? How do we square off the two statements?
The beraita continues. Before we answer, the Gemara continues: “Ela, ad shelo karev hakometz,” before the kometz (offering handful), which is the minchah, is brought, “yecholah lachazor bah,” she can retract. However, “mishekarev hakometz, einah yecholah lachazor bah.” Rabbi Akiva makes a statement that the Gemara will analyze immediately: it depends. Before the kometz, she has the right to retract, but after the kometz is brought, it's too late; she cannot retract.
The Gemara asks a question on the beraita itself: “Mishekarev hakometz einah yecholah lachazor bah.” You told me that once the kometz is brought, she can't say, “I'm not drinking.” Why not? “Vehalo bedukah ve'omedet.” I thought that according to Rabbi Akiva, once she says she's not drinking, it's over, as if she admitted it. So what are you telling me in the beraita itself? Once the kometz is brought, the din is that she has to drink? Why does she have to drink? Once she says she's not drinking, that's already the biggest proof that she did it. It seems that Rabbi Akiva is contradicting himself. In one place, you're telling me that once she says, “I'm not drinking,” it's an admission. So what do I care if it's after the kometz? She says, “I'm not drinking,” and it should be an admission. Why, then, does he say that once the kometz is brought, she cannot refuse to drink anymore and has to drink?
The Gemara says, “No, I'll explain it to you.” “Lo kashya”: “ha dehadra bah machamat retita, veha dehadra bah machamat briyuta.” It depends why she doesn't want to drink. Either she's confidently refusing to drink, or she's not drinking out of fear. The Gemara explains: “Vehachi ka'amar”: if the reason she doesn't want to drink is that she's confident, sure of herself, and not scared—“kelal kelal lo shatya”—then I don't care when she says she doesn't want to drink. We assume she's guilty, and that she never intended to drink. She was pulling us along the whole time: “Yeah, yeah, I'm going to drink,” while in her mind she knew good and well she wasn't going near those waters. She's confident she's not touching them.
Therefore, when she comes along and tells the kohanim (priests) later on, “I'm not drinking,” we say right away, “This lady here is guilty.” It doesn't matter when she says it, before or after the kometz. If it's clear that she's not scared and is doing it because she's confident, then the din is that she's guilty immediately, and therefore she does not drink.
However, the Gemara says, “Machamat retita”—if you see that the reason she doesn't want to drink is really that she's scared. In her mind, perhaps she believes she's innocent and would drink the waters, but she's scared. She doesn't think the waters are going to work; she thinks maybe it will backfire, and even though she's innocent, she might still blow up. She's nervous to drink because she doesn't trust that the waters won't make her blow up regardless. You see her shaking. The Gemara says: until the kometz was brought, while the megillah had not yet been erased—or if it was erased mistakenly and early, by the kohanim who erased it—she can retract. But once the kometz was brought, and the kohanim erased it properly, she cannot retract.
The Gemara is coming out with a conclusion like this. Here's the clarity you need in this sugya. According to Rabbi Akiva, it all depends on one factor: why is she retracting? There are two possibilities. She's either retracting because she's confident and not scared, or she's nervous.
Let's discuss both scenarios again. The lady may not want to drink, and may never have intended to drink. They erase the megillah and carry out the whole process, and she comes along and says very confidently, “I'm not drinking.” We interpret that, no matter when she says it, as meaning she's guilty. She knows these waters are going to work, and therefore she doesn't want to drink; she never intended to drink. That's why she was cool the whole time. She knew she wasn't drinking these waters. Guilty, goodbye, next case. That's when Rabbi Akiva says you don't force her.
In what case did Rabbi Akiva say you force her? When you can see her attitude. She comes into the Beit HaMikdash initially and says, “I'll drink,” but you see she's nervous. Then, when they're about to give her the drink, she says, “No, no, no, no, no, I don't want to drink,” and you see she's shaking. You can assume this lady may really be innocent; she's just nervous and doesn't want to drink the waters. We give her a dispensation. If she says she doesn't want to drink before the kometz is brought, then we say, “Okay, you don't have to drink.” We'll give her a break. She won't have to drink the waters; we're not going to force her.
However, if she does that even out of fear after the kometz is brought, it's too late. You're already deep into the process. Even if she retracted out of fear, she is still forced to drink. So above, when we learned that Rabbi Akiva says you force her, that's in one case: fear after the kometz. In any other case—fear before the kometz, or confidence at any time—you do not force her to drink.
Now the Gemara says, “Kashya deRabbi Akiva ad'Rabbi Akiva.” We have a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Akiva and another. What's the question? “Hatam amar mechikah me'akeva, vehacha amar kometz me'akev.” It's a technical question. Above, we said the proper time when the lady can no longer retract is when they erase it. The first beraita said Rabbi Akiva holds that once they erase it, there's no more retraction. Now this beraita says she can retract all the way until the kometz is brought. Make up your mind.
We're not changing the case: it's talking about a case where she's scared and is retracting. But you gave a different cutoff point. Earlier, the cutoff point was once it's erased; now you give me the cutoff point as when the kometz is brought. The Gemara answers very simply: “Trei tanna'ei ve'aliba deRabbi Akiva.” There are two students with different opinions about what Rabbi Akiva said. That happens a lot in Shas, where a rabbi will make contradictory statements. The way we answer it is that two students learned from that rabbi, and each student understood or heard him differently. They were both reporting what they heard. One student heard Rabbi Akiva say the cutoff point is once they erase it: after they erase it, she cannot retract anymore. Another student heard, “No, until they bring the kometz.”
“Iba'ya lehu”: the Gemara has a question. Let's say the lady says, “eini shotah machmat briyutah”—she's confident. She comes along and tells the kohanim, “I'm not drinking,” and we see she's not nervous at all. What do we normally say in that case? That's it: guilty, goodbye, go home, get a divorce. It's as if she said she did it. “Vechazrah ve'amrah shotah ani”: but then she comes along and says, “No, no, no, no, no, I changed my mind. I'm going to drink.” Now how do you interpret her changing her mind?
“Mai?” Since she said, “I'm not drinking,” “tme'ah ani ka'amrah”: she's saying, “I am impure.” Finished. It's as if she's saying, “I'm guilty.” Once she establishes herself as impure, she cannot retract. Once you admit guilt, there's no recanting your testimony.
Or maybe we can say this: since she retracts and says, “I'll drink,” perhaps that reveals that when she initially said she didn't want to drink, it was only out of fear. Maybe her later statement that she wants to drink helps us understand that when she said she didn't want to drink before, she was only afraid, because now she's saying she'll drink. If that's the case, then we distinguish: if she's really saying it out of fear, we let her drink. We don't automatically say she's impure.
Get the question again. We have a lady who was confident and said, “I'm not drinking.” Normally we say, “Game over. You're not drinking; you're impure. Goodbye.” But in this case she said, “I'm not drinking,” and later changed her mind: “You know what? I'll drink.” There are two options. Either we say it's too late: once you said you're not drinking, you admitted that you're impure. Finished. You cannot change what you said. Or do we say that since she later comes along and says, “No, I'll drink,” perhaps that tells us that earlier, when she said she wasn't drinking, she was scared. If that's why she said she didn't want to drink, what does the law say? We allow her to drink. As long as it's out of fear, there's no issue.
That's the Gemara's question. The Gemara answers: no answer. It says, “teiku.” You have to wait for Eliyahu HaNavi to answer this question.
Let's quickly review this sugya before we go to the next issue. According to Rabbi Akiva, sometimes you'll force her to drink against her will. Actually, there's one case: the lady comes along and says, “I'm not drinking,” and she's scared—you can see she's scared. Then you force her, because she's scared; maybe she's really innocent, and she's just nervous to drink because she doesn't know what will happen with the waters. However, if she's confident and says, “I'm not drinking,” then it's as if she's saying she's impure. There's nothing to force her. What are we going to force her to do? She's saying she's impure.
The Gemara now asks a question. It says, “amar avu,” “teiku,” “amar avuh deShmuel” (Shmuel's father said), “tzarich sheyiten mar letoch hamayim.” New point: you have to put something bitter into the waters. Why? The verse says, “mei hamarim”—the waters are called the bitter waters, which means they are already bitter, even before you erase the name of God into the waters. How are they bitter? The Gemara is learning that you have to put something bitter into the waters to make them bitter from the beginning.
The next Mishnah says, “Ad shelo nimchekah hamegillah.” Now we move a little faster. Until the megillah was erased, if she says, “I don't want to drink,” what do you do with the megillah? “Megilatah nignezet.” They haven't erased it yet, so there's no problem. She says, “I don't want to drink,” so they put the megillah in genizah, a certain area next to the heichal (sanctuary). They had a place where they would put old kitvei kodesh that there was no use for anymore, so that they wouldn't become humiliated or degraded. They would put them in genizah.
“Uminchatah mitpazeret al hadeshen.” What do you do with the minchah? You can't bring the minchah anymore, because she's not going to drink and doesn't want to go through the process. They have to scatter the minchah in a place called the place of the ashes. That's in the azarah, the courtyard of the Beit HaMikdash. That's where they would burn psulei kodshei kodashim. So you have to burn the minchah in the place of the ashes, not on the mizbe'ach (altar). “Ve'ein megilatah kesherah lehashkot bah sotah acheret”: you can't use the megillah of the sotah for another lady. Once it was made with the intention for one lady, you can't use it again for someone else.
“Nimchekah hamegillah”: but once the megillah was erased, as we just learned, “ve'amrah tme'ah ani”—she comes and admits, saying, “I did it.” She's not saying she doesn't want to drink; she's saying, “I did it.” So it's over. “Hamayim nishpachin.” You've got to pour out the waters; you can't use them anymore, because now you don't have a safek (doubt). You only drink the waters when we don't know if she's innocent or guilty. In this case, we know good and well that she's guilty. “Uminchatah mitpazeret al beit hadeshen”: they take her minchah and scatter it over the beit hadeshen, the place of the ashes.
Next case: “Nimchekah hamegillah,” let's say the megillah was erased into the water, “ve'amrah eini shotah.” That's the case we just had. She says, “I'm not drinking,” and, as we learned above, it's talking about when you see that she's nervous and scared. What do you do? “Me'ar'erin otah”: you force her. “Umashkin otah be'al korchah”: you have to put it down her throat against her will.
“Einah maspeket lishtot”: now she starts to drink. Let's say she takes a sip of the water. “Ad shepaneha morikot”: all of a sudden, her face starts to turn green. “Ve'eineha boltot”: all of a sudden, her eyes start to bulge out. “Vehi mitmalet gidin”: all of a sudden, all her veins start to pop out. You see the veins coming out of her face and all over her body. As the Mishnah says, the veins in her cheeks start to swell, and you see the lines coming out of her skin as she's drinking. That means she's going to blow up any second.
What does the Mishnah say you do? The kohanim say, “Hotzi'uha,” get her out of here, “shelo tetame azarah,” because we don't want her to defile the azarah. If she dies there, she'll be tamei met (impure through contact with a corpse). You can't have her in the Beit HaMikdash in that area. We'll see exactly why not later on, but they say, “Get her out of here,” and move her to a different location.
“Im yesh lah zechut”: that's a concept we learned earlier in the masechet, on daf vav. Now the Gemara is going to go into it. If she has a zechut, we'll see exactly what type of zechut later on—she has a merit—“haitah tolah lah”: the zechut would suspend the punishment. It wouldn't get her off completely; it would just suspend the punishment to a later time. The Gemara explains: sometimes a zechut suspends the punishment for one year; sometimes for two years; and sometimes for three years.
“Mikan omer Ben Azzai.” Because of this law, Ben Azzai taught, “chayav adam lelamed et bito Torah”—a father has an obligation to teach his daughter Torah. Why? “She'im tishteh teda shehazchut tolah lah”: she might encounter this Mishnah and learn that sometimes the waters will be suspended if she has a zechut.
Why does she have to learn Torah for this reason? Different interpretations have been given. One interpretation is that she'll know the law and won't make fun of the waters. She may have a friend whom she knows is guilty, who did it and committed the avon, and she'll see her friend go to the Beit HaMikdash, drink the waters, and have nothing happen to her. If this lady didn't learn Torah, she'd say, “Ah, the waters! They tell me this is going to make her blow up; they tell me there's a whole business here. Ah, the whole thing's a fake; it doesn't work.” By teaching your daughters Torah, they'll know all the details, not only the basics. They'll know there's an inyan of zechut; perhaps this girl had a mitzvah, and therefore the punishment is suspended. So it's a mitzvah to teach the girls Torah, so they won't speak disparagingly against the waters when they see that sometimes it doesn't work. At least then they're educated and know exactly why.
That's Ben Azzai's opinion: you have to teach your daughters Torah. The Gemara brings a totally opposite opinion: “Rabbi Eliezer omer, kol hamelamed bito Torah”—anybody that teaches their daughter Torah—let's get the right text here; we'll go with the text of our Mishnah—“lomdah tiflut”: you're teaching her immorality.
This is a very difficult statement to understand. It's one thing to say maybe you can't teach your daughter Torah, but how is teaching a girl Torah teaching her immorality? We'll wait for the Gemara to explain exactly what that means. We continue: “Rabbi Yehoshua omer, rotzah ishah bekav vetiflut.” A lady would rather have less money—a kav is a small measure of money—but she wants a husband's companionship. The mefarshim explain that she'd rather have the companionship of the husband, to be with him, even though he might not be able to support her so well. Again, she'd rather have a small measure of parnasah (livelihood) but companionship with the husband than “mitish'at kavin,” more than nine measures of parnasah, and “ufrishut,” abstention, with the husband not being with her. The Gemara will explain what this has to do with our Mishnah.
“Hu hayah omer.” Rabbi Yehoshua used to say that there are different people who are considered mevalei olam, destructive characters. We're just going to read them now and wait for the Gemara to explain each one later. The first character is a “chasid shoteh,” a foolish pietist. He makes himself seem like a chasid (pious person), but he's a fool. Then there's a “rasha arum,” a wicked man who's cunning; “ve'ishah perushah,” a woman who abstains and makes herself seem very modest; and “makot perushim,” a fellow who bangs his head against the wall. He acts like a tzaddik (righteous person) who doesn't even look where he's walking, walks into the wall, and bangs his head. We'll see exactly what this means: he wants to show that he's “anav vetzanua.” “Harei eilu mevalei olam”: the common denominator about all these characters is that they destroy the world.
Now we begin the Gemara's analysis of the Mishnah. “Amar Rabbi Yehudah, amar Shemuel mishum Rabbi Meir.” The Gemara tells us a story about Rabbi Meir. He says, “Keshehayeeti lomed Torah eitzel Rabbi Akiva,” when I studied Torah with Rabbi Akiva, my rabbi, “hayeeti matil kankantum letoch hadyo.” I used to put kankantum, a chemical, perhaps gallnuts, into the ink, which made the ink unerasable. “Velo amar li davar”: Rabbi Akiva never said anything to me. It seems he knew I was doing it and was fine with it.
“Ucheshebati eitzel Rabbi Yishmael”: however, when I came before Rabbi Yishmael, “amar li: beni, mah melachtecha?” Rabbi Yishmael asked me, “What do you do? What's your career?” I told him, “I'm a sofer, a scribe.” He told me, “My son, hevei zahir, be very careful in this profession, shemelachtecha melechet Shamayim hi. Your work is the work of God. Be careful, shema tachsir ot achat”—you might miss one letter in the Torah by mistake—“o tatir ot achat,” or add one letter. “Nimtzetah atah machariv et kol ha'olam kulo”: you'll destroy the entire world.
For example, Rashi gives an example. The pasuk says, “Hashem Elokim emet.” If you're going to make a mistake and miss the letter alef, instead of saying the word emet, you'll say met—God forbid. “Elokim,” and then the word “met”? Be very careful. If you miss the letter heh from the word Elokim, you'll write “elim,” which is obviously not God. You'll change the name. Or you might add a letter. If, instead of “Bereishit bara Elokim” (In the beginning God created), you add a vav and write “Bereishit bar'u Elokim,” you'll make it seem, chas veshalom, that there is more than one God, that the gods created. So Rabbi Yishmael warned Rabbi Meir, “Be careful. You have a very sensitive job; you're doing melechet Shamayim. Be careful not to add or subtract a letter.”
Rabbi Meir said, “You know what I told Rabbi Yishmael? Davar echad yesh li she'ani matil letoch hadyo.” I want you to know, Rabbi, that there's an item I put in the ink, “vekankantum shemo,” and it's called kankantum. Does he give you the English for the word kankantum? Just kankantum? Okay, it's a type of chemical they would put into the ink, solidifying it so it wouldn't be erased.
Rabbi Yishmael said, “Vechi matilin kankantum letoch hadyo?” Hold it! Do you put kankantum in the ink? “Hatorah amrah umacha.” When it comes to the sotah (suspected adulteress), you have to be able to erase the passage of the sotah. “K'tav sheyuchal lehimachot”: it has to be written in a type of ink and with a type of writing that can be erased. He asked him, “What are you putting kankantum in the ink for? You won't be able to erase the passage of the sotah.” Those are the two stories.
Now the Gemara asks, “Mai ka'amar leh u'mai ka'mehader leh?” What was Rabbi Yishmael saying to him, and what did Rabbi Meir answer? The conversation was a little strange. Rabbi Yishmael tells him, “Listen, are you a sofer? Be very careful. You're involved in melechet Shamayim. You'd better be careful not to add or take away a letter.” Rabbi Meir says, “Don't worry, Rabbi. I put kankantum in the ink.” What was he answering? He's telling him one thing and Rabbi Meir is telling him about kankantum in the ink. The Gemara doesn't understand the dialogue between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Meir.
The Gemara says, “Hachi ka'amar leh”: “Don't worry, Rabbi, about chaserot veyiterot, missing or adding a letter, because I'm an expert. I know exactly which words have which letters. Rather, I'm even worried about a fly, and took a precaution in case a fly comes while the ink is still wet. Maybe it will sit on the letter dalet, on the crown of the dalet that protrudes from the letter in the words ‘Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad’ (Hear, Israel: Hashem is our God, Hashem is One). It might sit on that dalet and scratch off its corner, making it into a resh, so that, God forbid, the verse will read ‘Hashem is another.’”
He says, “Davar acher yesh li”: therefore I took care of that. How? “She'ani matil letoch hadyo,” I put it into the ink, “vekankantum shemo.” By putting kankantum in the ink, even if the fly erases something, there will still be a mark on the klaf itself, because once you put in kankantum, you can't erase it completely. Rabbi Meir says, “I'm not only careful about chaserot veyiterot, missing or adding a letter; I put kankantum in the ink just in case a fly erases a little of the dalet, so it won't be read as ‘another.’ The kankantum won't let it be erased completely, so there will be a trace of the original letter.”
Now we understand the conversation. Rabbi Yishmael told him, “You'd better be careful.” Rabbi Meir said, “I'm not only careful about what you're talking about; I'm even careful about the far-fetched case of a fly scratching off the dalet. I took a precaution by putting kankantum in the ink so that won't happen, because the fly won't be able to erase the entire letter. There will always be a trace.”
Let's review where we're holding. Rabbi Meir went to Rabbi Akiva and told him, “I put kankantum in the ink.” Rabbi Akiva didn't tell him anything. He went to Rabbi Yishmael, who said, “What? You put kankantum in the ink? What are you talking about? How could you do that? The Megillat Sotah has to be erased; it has to be erasable. This is not erasable.”
The Gemara says, “Ini,” we have a contradiction. The third wide line: “Vehatanya amar Rabbi Meir”: Rabbi Meir said, “Keshehayeeti lamed Torah etzel Rabbi Yishmael,” when I studied Torah with Rabbi Yishmael, “hayeeti matil kankantum letoch hadyo,” I put kankantum into the ink, “velo amar li davar,” and he didn't say anything to me. Right away you have a contradiction. We just said that when Rabbi Meir went to Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yishmael asked him, “What are you doing?” But now we have a story saying Rabbi Yishmael didn't tell him anything.
“Kesheh bati etzel Rabbi Akiva”: when I came to Rabbi Akiva, “asrah alai,” he forbade it. That's the exact opposite. In the first story, Rabbi Akiva didn't tell him anything; in this story, Rabbi Akiva forbade it. The Gemara says, “Kashya shimush ashimush, kashya asrah aasrah.” The Gemara has a double question. First, where did Rabbi Meir learn? It seems that in the first story he went to learn with Rabbi Akiva first, and then to Rabbi Yishmael. In the second story, he first went to Rabbi Yishmael to study, and then to Rabbi Akiva. So besides the contradiction in opinions, there's a contradiction in the history: who did Rabbi Meir study with first, Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Yishmael? And there's another question: in one case Rabbi Akiva didn't tell him anything, while in the other he told him it was forbidden to put in kankantum.
The Gemara says, “Bishlama shimush ashimush lo kashya”: we have no problem with the history. “Me'ikara ata lekameh deRabbi Akiva”: initially, we can say Rabbi Meir learned with Rabbi Akiva. “Kevan delo matzei ka'i alibeh”: but he couldn't understand him. Rabbi Akiva was such a genius that he could show, on any halachah, reasons why it should be impure and reasons why it should be pure, reasons why it should be permitted and reasons why it should be forbidden. Rabbi Meir became confused about every halachah. He didn't understand the logic because Rabbi Akiva could spin it any way possible. So he said, “You know what? I need clarity about the law first. I need to get my halachot clear, to know what the law is. Then perhaps I'll go back to Rabbi Akiva and study it in depth.”
It says, “Vegamar gemara, ata lekameh deRabbi Yishmael”: he went before Rabbi Yishmael and learned the halachot. Rashi says he learned the problematic Mishnayot, as they had received them from their teachers, and the Gemara says, “Vehadar ata lekameh deRabbi Akiva, savar sevara”: then he went back to Rabbi Akiva and learned the reasons and logic. Look at the last Rashi, “la'amod al ikar ta'amei hamishnah”: when he went back to Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Akiva explained the reasons for the Mishnah. Why is this impure and this pure? “Zeh mutar”—this is permitted—and what is each matter based on? What is the source for each law, and from which verse? This was considered the Oral Talmud in the times of the tannaim: to understand one matter from another.
So let's review Rabbi Meir's learning history. He started with Rabbi Akiva, but Rabbi Akiva was too confusing: impure, pure, permitted, forbidden, and so on. Rabbi Meir said, “You know what? Let me get my Mishnayot clear and learn all the laws first, what was said.” He went to Rabbi Yishmael for that. After leaving Rabbi Yishmael, he went back to Rabbi Akiva to gain clarity about the reasons behind the law.
Now the Gemara says, “Ela asrah aasrah kashya.” We still have a question about Rabbi Akiva himself. Initially, Rabbi Akiva didn't object when Rabbi Meir put in the kankantum. In the second version, Rabbi Akiva told him it was forbidden. The Gemara says, “Kashya.” We leave that as a question. There could be an answer, and Rabbi Akiva may have changed his opinion at a later date, but the point is that the Gemara leaves it as a contradiction.
I want to make one point very clear. Rabbi Meir said, “I put kankantum in the ink.” At one point Rabbi Akiva told him, and at another point Rabbi Yishmael told him the same thing: you can't do that for the Megillat Sotah. What does that teach us? They used to erase the Megillat Sotah from the sefer Torah itself. They weren't writing it on a parchment; they must have been erasing it from the Torah itself. Rabbi Meir said, “I write sifrei Torah and use kankantum.” They said, “How could you do that? The Megillat Sotah!” Wait, what's one got to do with the other? It must be that they erased it from the sefer Torah itself. That's a point that has to be made.
The Gemara says, “Tanya.” We have a beraita: “Rabbi Yehudah omer.” Rabbi Yehudah says, “Omer hayah Rabbi Meir”: Rabbi Meir used to say, “Lechol matilin kankantum letoch hadyo.” You put kankantum in the ink for everything—sefer Torah, tefillin (phylacteries), and mezuzot (doorpost scrolls)—“chutz miparashat sotah bilvad,” except for the passage of the sotah alone. When they wrote the sefer Torah, when it came to the passage of the sotah, they used different ink, without kankantum, so it could be completely erased. That's Rabbi Meir's opinion.
“Rabbi Ya'akov omer mishemo”: he says, “No, no. When it says ‘except for the passage of the sotah,’ it doesn't mean the passage of the sotah in the sefer Torah. It means that when they wrote the passage of the sotah on parchment in the Beit HaMikdash, that passage on the parchment was written without kankantum.” The first opinion says they wrote it in the sefer; the second says they wrote it on parchment in the Beit HaMikdash.
The Gemara asks, “Mai beinihu?” What's the nafka mina between the two opinions? Rabbi Yirmeyah says, “Limchok lah min haTorah ika beinihu.” The dispute is whether you erase the passage from the sefer Torah or not. According to the first opinion, you erase it from the Torah, which is why that passage cannot be written with kankantum. According to the second opinion, they didn't erase it from the sefer; they erased it only from a klaf. “I don't care how you write the sefer, even with kankantum. The point is that when you write the megillah, make sure there's no kankantum.”
The Gemara says, “Vehani tanna'ei”: these tannaim we just quoted, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Ya'akov—Rabbi Yehudah is actually quoting Rabbi Meir—so Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Ya'akov, “hani tanna'ei kihani tanna'ei,” follow the following tannaim, two tannaim who have a similar machloket. “Detanya: ein megilatah kesherah lehashkot bah sotah acheret.” The first opinion says that when you write the Megillat Sotah, it's kasher only for the lady you wrote it for. You cannot give it to another lady. Rabbi Acha bar Yoshiyah says, “Megilatah kesherah lehashkot bah sotah acheret.” No, you can give it to a different sotah.
We see that there's indeed a machloket about whether the megillah has to be written lishmah. So now we can say that the opinion that says you have to write the megillah lishmah holds that you have to write it on a separate parchment, so you can write the megillah for that lady's sake. According to the opinion that says you don't need to write it lishmah, you can even use it from the sefer Torah, because when you wrote the sefer Torah, you didn't have any lady in mind. Therefore, the machloket about whether you can use it from the sefer is really another machloket: does the Megillat Sotah have to be written for the lady's sake or not? If he holds it has to be written for the lady's sake, then you have to write it on a separate parchment. If he holds it doesn't have to be written for the lady's sake, and that if you wrote it for one lady you could use it for another, it can even be used from a sefer Torah itself, because the sefer Torah wasn't written for a specific lady. That's how the Gemara wants to say these disputes are interdependent.
The Gemara says, “No.” Rav Pappa says, “Dilma lo hi.” Maybe not. The tanna kamma's statement there, that if you write a Megillat Sotah for one lady you can't use it for another, may be talking about when you wrote it for Rachel's sake; now you can't use it for Leah's sake. But maybe he'll agree that you could use a sefer Torah, because it was written without a specific intention, for nobody. It's worse when you write it for Rachel and then change your mind and want to use it for Leah, but maybe a sefer Torah is better because it was written without anyone in mind. So maybe he'll agree that you could use a sefer Torah.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says we can take another approach: “Dilma lo hi.” Maybe Rabbi Acha bar Yoshiyah's leniency applies only when you're writing the Megillat Sotah on a separate parchment, because at least you wrote it for use in the case of a sotah, for the sake of the curses that the sotah should have. But maybe he holds that you cannot use the sefer Torah. Why? “De'itlamad ketivah.” Because when you wrote the sefer Torah, you didn't write it for the passage of the sotah to be used; you wrote it for learning purposes. Maybe you can't erase it. Don't make these two disputes interdependent. I can tell you that even the opinion that says you have to write the megillah lishmah will say you can use the sefer Torah, because the sefer Torah isn't a problem: it was written without a specific intention. And I can tell you the other way: the opinion that says you don't need lishmah will say you can't use the sefer Torah. Although you don't need lishmah, you need the megillah to be written at least for the purpose of a sotah. The megillah in the sefer Torah wasn't written for the purpose of a sotah; it was written for learning purposes. Therefore, you can't make these disputes interdependent.
Now the Gemara says, “VeRabbi Acha bar Yoshiyah, leit lei katav legaresh et ishto venimlech metza'o ben iro ve'amar lo shemi keshimcha veshem ishti keshem ishtecha pasul legaresh bo?” You just told me that according to Rabbi Acha bar Yoshiyah, a Megillat Sotah written for one lady can be used for another lady. That means you don't need lishmah for a Megillat Sotah. So what are you talking about? Rabbi Acha, don't you agree with the law of gerushin (divorce)?
The halachah is that a guy writes a get, a Jewish divorce document, for his wife: his name, her name, and the name of the city. He decides he doesn't want to get divorced anymore. Another guy in the city says, “Oh, perfect! I have the same name as you, my wife has the same name as your wife, and we come from this city. Can I use it?” Everybody holds that by a get, you can't use it. The question is, why? If you tell me that for sotah you don't need lishmah, what's the difference between sotah and a get?
What's the question based on? The verse says, “vechatav lah” (and he shall write for her), and the Gemara expounds: “vechatav lah,” for her sake. It also says “lah” by sotah: “ve'asah lah” (and he shall do for her). So that should require lishmah as well. What's your distinction between sotah and gerushin?
The Gemara says, “Amrei”: there it says “vechatav lah,” Rachmana (the Merciful One) said it about gittin (divorce documents), and we require the writing to be lishmah. Since they wrote it for one couple, they can't use it for another. But here it says “ve'asah lah.” That sounds as if it also has to be lishmah. The Gemara says no: what part has to be done for her sake? The erasing. So even though it was written for Rachel and now you want to use it for Leah, so what? “But it says ‘lah.’” Yes, what needs to be lishmah in the sotah is the erasing. Once I erase it for the right lady's sake, it's okay. That's an essential difference between sotah and gerushin.
Remember that we learned in the Mishnah that once they see her starting to blow up, they carry her out of the Beit HaMikdash because they don't want to defile it. Here's some background: the problem the Gemara is going to have is that she's in an area where tumah is not a problem. She's standing by the Gate of Nicanor, right by the azarah. Not only is a person who is impure allowed to stand in that section, but the Gemara is going to say even a corpse is allowed there. So what are you worried about? That section is called machaneh Leviyah, the Levite section of the Beit HaMikdash. We know that even a corpse is permitted in machaneh Leviyah. So what are you saying? You have to rush her out before she dies so she won't contaminate the Beit HaMikdash? What's the explanation?
The Gemara says, “Einah maspeket.” Actually, I got ahead of myself a little. Let's read the Gemara: “Einah maspeket lishtot ad shepaneha...” What did we say? She starts drinking, and all of a sudden her face starts to change.
Let's review: when does the explosion take place? Only after the minchah is brought. That means she's at the end of the process, because once the minchah is brought, if she has an avon, the minchah activates the waters, so to speak. The minchah is called “mazkeret avon.” It reminds the avon, it remembers the avon, so to speak. So the Mishnah says she starts to blow up and they have to bring her out.
The Gemara says, “Mani?” Who's the author? It must be Rabbi Shimon, who says the order of the sotah is that she brings her minchah and afterward drinks. Until she brings the minchah, the waters don't test her. The verse says, “Minchat zikaron mazkeret avon.” So the beginning of the Mishnah must follow shitat Rabbi Shimon: when it says she's going to blow up and they have to get her out of the Beit HaMikdash, it must be speaking about after the minchah was brought. That follows shitat Rabbi Shimon that the order is minchah first, then drinking.
According to the other position, that of the rabbis, you drink first and then bring the minchah. Therefore, she wouldn't be blowing up immediately as she's drinking. Our Mishnah seems to say that she puts the water to her mouth and starts to blow up. That must mean the minchah was already brought, because according to the rabbis, she would drink and then they would bring the minchah, so she wouldn't blow up immediately when she starts drinking. Our Mishnah is following shitat Rabbi Shimon.
The only problem is the end of the Mishnah. What does it say at the end? “Eima seifa yesh lah zechut haytah tolah lah.” The end of the Mishnah sounds as if it follows the rabbis. Why? We learned earlier in the masechet that Rabbi Shimon does not hold that zechut suspends the punishment; he doesn't go along with this idea of “zechut tolah.” But our Mishnah says that we do. Make up your mind: the beginning of the Mishnah is Rabbi Shimon, and the end isn't following Rabbi Shimon. Usually, you don't like to have a Mishnah take one opinion and then contradict it at the end.
The Gemara says, “No problem. We found a third opinion.” Rav Chisda says the author is Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva holds both positions: like Rabbi Shimon regarding bringing the minchah and then drinking, and like the rabbis regarding zechut suspending the punishment. So if somebody asks you who the author of our Mishnah is, it is Rabbi Akiva. It can't be Rabbi Shimon, because Rabbi Shimon would be contradicting himself.
The Gemara says, “Vehem omrim hotzi'uha”: they tell her, “Get her out of the Beit HaMikdash.” Why? Because maybe she'll die. Does that mean a corpse is forbidden in machaneh Leviyah? The Gemara brings a teaching: “Tamei met mutar lehikanes le-machaneh Leviyah.” Someone impure through contact with a corpse is allowed in machaneh Leviyah. And they said not only someone impure through contact with a corpse, but even “met atzmo,” a corpse itself, is allowed there.
It says, “Vayikach Moshe et atzmot Yosef imo.” Moses took Joseph's bones with him when they came out of Egypt. What does “with him” mean? In his section. Where did Moshe Rabbeinu live in the Mishkan (Tabernacle)? In machaneh Leviyah. And the bones of Yosef were with him. So what do you see? In machaneh Leviyah, you're allowed to have a corpse. If that's the case, why do they have to rush her out of the Beit HaMikdash?
Abaye says, “Shema tifros niddah.” We're not worried about a corpse, but we worry that in the meantime she'll get scared and might become a niddah (menstruant). The halachah says that while a corpse is permitted, “ki gezeirat hakatuv”: as a scriptural decree, a corpse is permitted in machaneh Leviyah, but a niddah is not. Therefore, you have to get her out of there; she might become a niddah.
Why should she become a niddah? The Gemara asks, “Lememra devi'ututa marpya?” Are you telling me fear causes her to become a niddah? She's getting scared. Are you telling me that causes the niddah to come? The Gemara says, yes indeed. It says, “Vatitchalchal hamalkah me'od,” and Rav says she became a niddah. We learn this about Queen Esther: when she got the news about the impending danger to the Jewish people, it says “vatitchalchal.” The Gemara understands “vatitchalchal” from the word “chalal,” something inside her, meaning that her niddah came. She wasn't expected to get niddah soon, but fear caused it to come. Similarly, here, she's about to drink the waters of the sotah, doesn't know what's going to happen to her, and might become nervous, bringing on her niddah.
The Gemara says, “What are you talking about?” We have another Gemara that says, “Charadah mesaleket damim”: fear actually causes the niddah to go away. The Gemara there is talking about a woman in a war, in a bunker and in hiding. She won't get her niddah because she's under fear, so it goes away. Make up your mind: does fear bring the niddah or stop it?
The Gemara distinguishes: “Pachad tzamit, bi'ututa marpya.” If it's a constant state of fear, the niddah will not come; but a sudden shock or sudden fear will bring it. Esther was suddenly shocked when Mordechai told her the news. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, she got scared. It was a shock, and the niddah came. The same thing in this case: the lady is about to drink, and all of a sudden fear grips her; the niddah will come. The other case, where we say the niddah is held back, is talking about a constant state of fear.
Before we conclude this daf, it's worth saying one devar Torah (Torah insight), one chiddush (novel insight), on this last point of the Gemara. The Rishonim have a famous question. We know that Shevet Levi was the smallest of all the tribes. Why was the tribe of Levi the smallest? Different opinions have been given.
One opinion is that the Torah gave a blessing: “Ka'asher ye'anu oto ken yirbeh vechen yifrotz”—the more Par'oh tortured the Jewish people, the more they multiplied. It seems there was a connection: if you were tortured, you were part of the blessing that they multiplied. Since Shevet Levi wasn't working and was exempt from the hard labor, they didn't have the curse of “ka'asher ye'anu,” so they didn't have the blessing either of “ken yirbeh vechen yifrotz.” That's one interpretation.
Another interpretation is brought down because the Levi'im were in charge of carrying the aron (Ark). We know that carrying the aron, even though it was a great privilege, was also very risky. The aron is very holy, and the Levi'im were very zealous; they all wanted to carry it. As a result, they might push each other a little to get in there, showing a little disrespect in front of the aron, and die as a result. The Gemara says, “Ha'aron mechaleh et nos'av”: the aron would actually destroy those who carried it. It was a great privilege, but also a great risk. Therefore, the tribe of Levi was reduced just because of the risky job they had.
I saw another interpretation based on an opinion brought down by the Arizal. One of the plagues in Egypt was “makat dam.” We know that the plagues in Egypt were based on “middah keneged middah.” What was the measure-for-measure reason for the plague of blood? The mefarshim explain as follows: Par'oh knew that when Jewish women became niddah, they went to the mikveh (ritual bath). It seems they already had a mikveh; they kept the laws of taharat hamishpachah even before the Torah was given.
So Par'oh said, “How do I limit the population? I shut down the mikva'ot. Once a woman becomes niddah, her husband won't be allowed to be with her, and that's it. Without making any sinister plot, I'm able to limit the population without killing anybody.” Nice! Par'oh looks good: “Just close the mikva'ot, and automatically there'll be no more Jews.” But Par'oh didn't know this Gemara. The Jewish people were in a constant state of fear because they were working in Egypt. What was happening? The women weren't getting their niddah, because we say that when you're in a constant state of fear, it doesn't come. Therefore, they didn't need the mikveh and were able to be with their husbands. They were giving birth regardless.
But there was one tribe that wasn't in a state of fear: Shevet Levi. Since they weren't in a state of fear, their wives were regularly getting niddah, and since the mikva'ot were closed, their husbands couldn't be with them. Hence the tribe of Levi had the smallest number. So using this Gemara, we can understand exactly what happened to the tribe of Levi.
Baruch Adonai le'olam, amen ve'amen.
Just for clarity, kankantum is copper sulfate, for those who want to know exactly what the item is: kankantum, copper sulfate.