Torah Community Connections

Week 79 - Friday - 1 June 2001

SOTAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 5

R. Shimon says, Merit does not suspend concerning the bitter water. For if you say: Merit does suspend concerning the curse-causing water, you will enfeeble the waters before all the women who drink, and you will cast aspersion on all undefiled women who have drunk, for it will be said: They were defiled, but merit has suspended for them. Rabbi says, Merit suspends concerning the curse-causing water, but she does not bear children and does not improve, but wastes away gradually and finally dies that death.

Kehati

R. Shimon says, Merit does not suspend concerning the bitter water - he disagrees with the Sages, holding that no merit can stall the effect of the bitter water on the sotah, For if you say - since if this were the case that merit does suspend concerning the curse-causing water - as claimed by the Sages in the previous mishnah, you will enfeeble the waters - you will tarnish the water's luster and reduce its value, before all the women who drink so that those women who have committed adultery will think that they have merit whereupon the water will certainly fail to test them, with the result that they will be indifferent to the drink - and you will cast aspersion on all undefiled women who have drunk, for it will be said - by the public: they were defiled, but merit has suspended for them - they no doubt sinned, but since merit has suspended their punishment, the water has failed to affect them.

Rabbi says, Merit suspends concerning the curse-causing water - the possession of merit would certainly delay the water's effect upon her, but she does not bear children and does not improve - i.e., she nevertheless differs from an undefiled woman, about whom it is stated (Num. 5:28): "then she shall be exonerated and produce offspring" - i.e., bear children and thrive, whereas the adulteress whose merit suspends punishment will remain childless and will not improve. But wastes away gradually - her health deteriorates with the passage of time, and finally dies that death - after one, two or three years, once the efficacy of her merit has lapsed, she will die the very death that overtakes a sotah: her belly will swell and her thigh fall away. Hence, even if you assume that merit suspends punishment, you do not diminish the water's significance, nor defame the undefiled woman who drank it, since the water invariably tests the sotah and distinguishes between the guilty and the innocent.

The Amoraim in the Gemara disagreed (Sotah 6a): According to R. Yosef, the Sages held that merit suspends punishment completely and she does not waste away; hence Rabbi differs with the Sages: but According to R. Sheshet, the Sages agree that she will waste away, and Rabbi merely explains their statement. However, according to Rashi, R. Sheshet, too, holds that the Sages disagree with Rabbi's final clause: "she will finally die that death," which represents Rabbi's personal view alone.

SOTAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 6

If her meal-offering became ritually unclean before it was sanctified in a vessel, it is like all meal-offerings, and may be redeemed; but if after it was sanctified in a vessel, it is like all meal-offerings and must be burnt. The meal-offerings of these must be burnt: One who says, "I am defiled to you," or one about whom witnesses testify that she was defiled, or one who says, "I will not drink," or whose husband does not want to make her drink, or whose husband had cohabited with her on the way. All the meal-offerings of all those married to priests must be burnt.

Kehati

As learned above (mishnah 3:3), if after sanctification of the sotah's meal-offering in a service vessel, she is not given to drink, e.g., should the sotah state, prior to the erasure of the scroll, "I will not drink," or even after the scroll has been erased, if she said: "I am defiled" - "her meal-offering is scattered on the ash-heap," i.e., it is burnt in the Temple courtyard's inner ash-house which served for the burning of invalidated most holy sacrifices. This mishnah teaches that the sotah's meal-offering was burnt for any of the following reasons:

1. Due to impurity, i.e., if the meal-offering becomes unclean after sanctification in a service vessel.
2. Due to cancellation of the sotah's drinking ritual, as specified above.
3. On account of the priests, i.e., if a priest's wife brings a sotah's or any other type of meal-offering, it is burnt, as explained in the mishnah.

If her meal-offering - of a sotah - became ritually unclean before it was sanctified in a service vessel, it is like all meal-offerings - which have become unclean prior to sanctification in a service vessel - and may be redeemed - the unclean meal-offering is redeemable with money and becomes non-holy, and another meal-offering is purchased with the money; since the former had not been sanctified in a service vessel, it is not consecrated as such, but merely for its value and hence if it becomes unclean, it must be redeemed.

But if after it was sanctified in a service vessel - it became unclean - it is like all meal-offerings - which became unclean after sanctification in a service vessel, and must be burnt - for once sanctified in a service vessel, the offering is consecrated as such, and is irredeemable, and being unfit for offering, it must be burnt in the ash-house, as explained above.

The meal-offerings of these must be burnt - since they are unfit to be offered and cannot be redeemed: One who says, "I am defiled to you," - which she said after the meal-offering had been sanctified in a service vessel; or one about whom witnesses testify - after the meal-offering had been sanctified - that she was defiled - or one who says, "I will not drink," - where after the meal-offering had been sanctified the sotah refuses to drink, even though she is innocent, or whose husband does not want to make her drink - having changed his mind after the meal-offering has been sanctified, or whose husband had cohabited with her on the way - and this only became known after the meal-offering had been sanctified in a service vessel; in all these cases the sotah is not made to drink (see below, mishnah 4:2), whereupon her meal-offering is not fit to be offered up, and since it is irremediable once sanctified in a service vessel, it must be burnt in the ash-house.

All the meal-offerings of all those married to priests must be burnt - since unlike all other meal-offerings, no handful is taken from a priest's meal-offering. It is burnt entirely on the altar, thus (Lev. 6:16): "And every meal-offering of a priest shall be completely burnt; it shall not be eaten." But unlike priestly meal-offerings, that of the priest's wife is not burnt completely on the altar; rather a handful is removed as with other meal-offerings. However, after the handful has been duly offered up, the remainder of the meal-offering is not eaten as with all the other meal-offerings; rather it is treated as a priest's meal-offering which is not eaten, since her priestly husband has a share in her meal-offering; hence, the remainder is burnt in the ash-house.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives