The Eri B. Sitt Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masekhet Sotah, has been dedicated by our good friends and students, Mr. Haimie and Dina Dana, for the success of their children, and especially for the complete recovery of Moshe ben Dina, and in memory of Yosef ben Sarina, David ben Frida, Neir ben Zohara, Moshe ben Feigarut, Sarah bat Esther, Feigarut bat Esther, and Esther bat Yochevet. May their souls be bound in the bond of life. Amen. May you merit to perform many commandments.
We are studying a passage in the Gemara where Shmuel states, "A man may marry a 'Duma' but not a 'Bat Duma'." This refers to a situation where a man has a limited choice between two women, both of whom present potential issues. The Gemara will explain why these choices are problematic, but if forced to choose, Shmuel advises marrying the Duma.
What are a Duma and a Bat Duma? Rashi explains that a Duma is a woman about whom there are rumors of adultery. These are mere rumors, not confirmed by witnesses. She might be a married woman who was divorced, or a single woman engaging in forbidden relations. The key is that her actions are unconfirmed. A Bat Duma is the daughter of such a woman.
If one must choose between marrying a Duma or a Bat Duma, Shmuel says to marry the Duma. Why? The Gemara explains that the Duma, despite the rumors, at least comes from "kosher seed"; her parents were legally married. However, the Bat Duma might come from "pasul seed." If the Duma had relations with a mamzer (a child born from certain forbidden unions), her children would be mamzerim. If she had relations with an idolater, the child would also be considered pasul in certain respects. While a child born to a Jewish woman and an idolater is permitted to marry a Jew, a child born to a Jewish woman and a mamzer is forbidden to all Jews. In the case of a Duma, where there are only rumors and no witnesses, she is halachically permitted, even to a Kohen, and so is her daughter. Nevertheless, given the choice, the Duma is preferred because her lineage is known to be legitimate, whereas the Bat Duma's lineage is uncertain due to her mother's rumored promiscuity.
It is important to emphasize that halachically, both women should be permissible because there are only rumors, not witnesses. Yet, if a choice must be made, the Duma is preferred. There is a risk in marrying a Duma, as she might continue her rumored behavior and potentially ruin the marriage. However, the choice is still to take the Duma over the Bat Duma.
Rabbi Yochanan offers a different perspective, saying, "No, marry the daughter, don't marry the rumored lady." His reasoning is that the Duma, despite her questionable status, is technically permissible. If she were married, she would be permissible to her husband. We assume that the majority of marital relations occur with the husband. Therefore, if a Duma becomes pregnant and has a daughter, it is fair to assume the daughter came from her legitimate father. Thus, the Bat Duma has a better chance of being legitimate. The concern with marrying the Duma herself is that she might continue her illicit activities without her husband's knowledge, potentially leading to forbidden relations for him if she becomes forbidden to him. Rabbi Yochanan is being practical: the Bat Duma is probably not tainted, as her mother's relations were likely with her husband. But if you marry the rumored Duma, she might continue her behavior, and you would not know. So, which of the two is better to take?
The Gemara then asks, "What do you mean?" citing a Beraita that states, "A man may marry a Duma." This Beraita appears to support Shmuel. Amar Papa responds, "How can you consider this Beraita legitimate? The Beraita says 'marry her' (nose), implying it is a positive instruction. But we know we are only discussing a case where there is no other choice. Therefore, you must read it as 'if you did it, it is okay' (leket'chila). Once you are changing the language of the Beraita, you might as well change the entire Beraita to say 'Bat Duma' instead of 'Duma'." Rashi points out that both Shmuel and Yochanan also spoke in terms of "leket'chila" (initially), but they are referring to a situation where there are no other options. In such a post-facto (b'di'avad) scenario, one of these two must be chosen. No one is advocating marrying either of these tainted girls initially. The entire discussion is a question of which one to take if there is no other choice.
What is the bottom line? According to Rabbi Yochanan, a woman who commits illicit acts, if there are no witnesses, her children are still considered kosher. This is because we assume the majority of relations are with the husband, so the child is presumed to be from the husband and therefore legitimate.
A new case is presented: What if this woman is very promiscuous (perutzah b'yoter)? In such a case, one could argue that the assumption of "majority of relations with the husband" might not apply, and perhaps the Bat Duma is not the better choice. It could be that the majority of her relations were with other men. The Gemara then analyzes this, referencing a famous dispute in Masekhet Niddah regarding a woman's most fertile period. One opinion holds that a woman is most likely to conceive close to her period. The other opinion states she is most likely to conceive close to her immersion (tevilah) in the mikvah, specifically the night and day following. If we follow the opinion that she is prone to conceive close to her period, the husband might not know when her period will come and thus cannot watch her closely. If she is very promiscuous, we might assume she became pregnant from someone else. However, if we follow the opinion that she conceives close to her tevilah, the husband knows when she immersed and can watch her. In this scenario, even if she is very promiscuous, the baby can be assumed to be from the husband because he can control her, at least on the night of the tevilah. Or, perhaps, even then, a promiscuous woman cannot be controlled and will find a way. The Gemara leaves this question unresolved (Tiku).
The Torah tells us in the passage of the Sotah (a woman suspected of adultery), "If any man's wife goes astray" (Ish ish ki tiste ishto). The double language "ish ish" (a man, a man) comes to include cases where the husband is a deaf-mute (cheresh), insane (shoteh), bewildered (meshuga), or has a similar lack of mental capacity, or if he is overseas or in jail. In such situations, there is a chance the wife might engage in illicit acts because her husband is not present or capable. The Beit Din (rabbinical court) can intervene on the husband's behalf, make a kinui (a warning not to seclude herself with a specific man), and prevent her from drinking the bitter waters. But if witnesses come and testify that she was indeed secluded (nistar), is the Beit Din also allowed to bring her to drink the bitter waters?
Rabbanan answer that only the husband can bring his wife to the Kohen (priest) to drink. The commentators understand this to mean only the one who makes the kinui can administer the drink. Rashi explains, "The one who makes the kinui is the one who gives her the drink." If the Beit Din made the kinui, then the husband cannot administer the drink. Rabbi Yosef, however, says that even if the Beit Din made the kinui, the husband can still give her the drink. This means that when the husband returns from jail, based on the Beit Din's kinui, he can complete the process and bring her to the Beit Hamikdash to drink. What is the dispute between Rabbanan and Rabbi Yosef? The Rabbanan believe that the kinui and the act of bringing (havaa) must be done by the same person, the husband. The verse states, "and he shall warn his wife" (v'kineh et ishto) and "and he shall bring his wife" (v'hevi et ishto). This implies that the husband must do both the kinui and the bringing. However, we have a gezeirah shavah (a halachic derivation based on identical words in different verses) from "ish ish" that includes the Beit Din in making the kinui. But regarding the drinking, it must be the husband who brings her. This is the dispute: can a woman ultimately drink the waters of Sotah when the kinui was made by an external force, the Beit Din?
The Mishnah then states, "Just as the waters check her, so too do the waters check him." The "him" here refers either to the husband or the man with whom she committed the illicit act (bo'el). The verse uses an extra letter "vav" (u'va'u - "and they shall come") to teach us that the waters affect not only her but also him. Some interpret this from the double occurrence of "u'va'u" in the Torah. The Mishnah continues, "Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too is she forbidden to the bo'el." This means that if she is divorced from her husband, she cannot then marry the bo'el. How do we know this? Rabbi Akiva derives it from the double mention of "nitme'ah v'nitme'ah" (she became defiled and she became defiled), implying defilement to both the husband and the bo'el. Rabbi Yishmael derives it from the phrase "as in the days of Zechariah ben Hakatzav." Rashi clarifies that the verse "nitme'ah v'nitme'ah" is mentioned four times in the Torah. Rabbi Akiva uses two mentions for the husband and the bo'el, one for a woman who becomes forbidden to eat terumah (a priestly offering) once she is secluded, and one for a separate law mentioned earlier in the Masekhet regarding a single witness. Here, in our Mishnah, we are discussing the two instances that refer to the husband and the bo'el.
The Gemara then reviews the concept of "Bo Bayom" (on that day). This refers to the day when Rabban Gamliel was deposed as president of the Yeshiva of Yavneh, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was elected. On that day, many benches were added to the Yeshiva, and a tremendous amount of Torah learning occurred, clarifying many unclear halachot as many people came to give testimonies. Whenever the Gemara says "Bo Bayom," it refers to this day. The Gemara now digresses to other subjects, such as tumah (ritual impurity), because the first derasha (sermon) was also given "Bo Bayom."
We know the laws of tumah. A clay vessel (keli cheres) only becomes impure through its airspace (metameh mitcho). If an impure creeping creature (sheretz), which is an av tumah (primary source of impurity), touches the outside of a keli cheres, nothing happens. It only becomes impure if the sheretz enters its airspace. A sheretz, as an av tumah, makes the keli a rishon (first degree of impurity). A rishon can make food and liquids impure, while an av tumah can make people and vessels impure. If a piece of bread is in a keli cheres and a sheretz is suspended in its airspace, the keli becomes a rishon, and the bread becomes a sheni (second degree of impurity).
The Torah's language states, "kol asher yipol b'tocho yitma" (anything that falls into it shall become impure). The word "yitma" implies not only that it becomes impure but that it has the ability to transfer impurity to the next level. This means if this piece of bread (a sheni) touches another piece of bread, the second piece of bread will become a shlishi (third degree of impurity). Although we generally hold that a shlishi is only affected in the context of terumah (the more holy an item, the more sensitive it is to impurity), and that a sheni cannot make a shlishi for ordinary food (chullin), Rabbi Akiva teaches otherwise. Since the verse says "yitma," it means it can make another piece of chullin a shlishi.
"Bo Bayom," Rabbi Akiva expounded: "A clay vessel into which any of them falls, anything that is in it shall become impure." It does not say "tameh" (impure), but "yitma" (it shall become impure), which means "to impart impurity to others." From this, you learn that a loaf of bread that became a sheni can make another loaf of chullin a shlishi. Rabbi Yehoshua exclaimed, "Who can reveal the dust from the eyes of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai?" Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, who lived much earlier, used to say that a future generation would come and not be able to prove from a biblical source that a loaf of terumah could become a shlishi. He was concerned they would only know it through a kabbalah (tradition). But here, his student's student, Rabbi Akiva, not only proves it for terumah but even for chullin from a verse!
Next subject: "Bo Bayom," Rabbi Akiva expounded: "And you shall measure outside the city two thousand cubits on the east side." Another verse states, "And you shall measure outside the city, for the cities of the Levites, a thousand cubits." What is the meaning of this? Do we measure 2,000 or 1,000? And what are we measuring for? The 1,000 cubits refer to the open space (migrashim) around the cities of the Levites, for greenery and parks, as part of the city's beautification. The 2,000 cubits refer to the Shabbat boundary (tchum Shabbat), which is the maximum distance one can walk outside the city on Shabbat. So, these are two different laws: 1,000 cubits for city beautification, and 2,000 cubits for Shabbat. Another opinion states that both verses refer to the beautification of the city, but the 2,000 cubits are divided: 1,000 cubits for open space (migrash) and another 1,000 cubits for fields and vineyards. So, according to this, the Levites received 2,000 cubits of property, divided into two types of land.
Next, "Bo Bayom," Rabbi Akiva expounded: "Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song to the Lord, and they spoke, saying (vayomeru lemor)." Usually, "lemor" means "to say to someone else." But here, they were singing a song. To whom were they saying it? The Gemara explains that they were responding to Moshe Rabbeinu. He would begin, and they would answer, singing the chorus. It was a call-and-response situation. Some say they read the "Az Yashir" (Song of the Sea) like they read the Shema, but we will wait for the Gemara to explain this later.
Also "Bo Bayom," Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hurkanos gave a derasha. He expounded on the service of Iyov (Job). Iyov was a man of immense wealth and blessings who was tested by Satan, losing everything. Yet, his faith remained intact. The question is whether Iyov's religiosity stemmed from fear of punishment or from love. Serving God out of love means continuing to serve Him regardless of personal suffering or death. Serving out of fear of punishment is a lower level. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hurkanos expounded on Iyov's service, citing a verse from Iyov: "Even if He slays me, I will trust in Him." The word "lo" (not) in this verse can be read in two ways: "lo" with an aleph (לא) meaning "not," or "lo" with a vav (לו) meaning "to Him." If read as "lo" with an aleph, it means "Even if you kill me, I will not anticipate You," implying fear of punishment. But if read as "lo" with a vav, it means "Even if you kill me, I will anticipate You and serve You," showing unconditional love. Rashi explains the ambiguity. The verse can be understood as "I am not willing" (to serve if punished) or "I am willing" (to serve even if punished). However, another verse in Iyov clarifies: "Until I die, I will not remove my integrity from me." This unequivocally shows that Iyov served God out of unconditional love, even unto death. Thus, Iyov served God out of love (me'ahavah), without stipulations or conditions.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya then exclaimed, "I wish my teacher, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, were alive now! Take the dirt off his eyes!" He used to say that Iyov served God only from fear, as the verse calls him "Yireh Elohim" (one who fears God). But here, your student's student (referring to Rabbi Akiva, who was a student of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hurkanos, who was a student of Rabbi Akiva, though historically Rabbi Akiva was not a direct student of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai; this is said out of respect) has proven that Iyov served God out of love. The Gemara will now take each section of the Mishnah, which essentially has four sections, and provide an announcement for each. This provides the concepts we will analyze on the coming page.