Torah Community Connections

Week 79 - Thursday - 31 May 2001

SOTAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 3

If before the scroll has been erased she said: "I will not drink," her scroll is hidden away and her meal-offering is scattered on the ash-heap. Her scroll is not valid to give thereby any other sotah to drink. If the scroll has been erased and she says: "I am defiled," the water is poured out and her meal-offering is scattered on the ash-heap. If the scroll has been erased and she says: "I will not drink," they force her to drink against her will.

Kehati

This mishnah deals with a sotah who on the point of drinking after her meal-offering has been sanctified in a service vessel, declares: "I will not drink," or: "I am defiled."

If before the scroll has been erased - i.e., blotted out through the water, she - the sotah - said: "I will not drink" - although she does not say "I am defiled," as long as the scroll has not been erased, they do not force her to drink. What is done with her scroll and her meal-offering? her scroll is hidden away - in the genizah which was next to the sanctuary in the Temple, since all holy writings unfit for reading must be stored away, so as to avoid disrespectful treatment (Rashi).

Others explain (according to the Jerusalem Talmud) that it was placed under the hinge of the sanctuary door "in order to wear it away," i.e., to obliterate the writing on these; and her meal-offering is scattered - i.e., incinerated - on the ash-heap - once sanctified in a service vessel, the meal-offering must be burned in the Bet Hadeshen (the ash house) in the Temple courtyard, where all invalidated sacrifices are burned.

Her scroll is not valid to give thereby any other sotah to drink -because a sotah's scroll is written specifically for a particular sotah, as it is stated (Num. 5:30): "and the priest shall do this entire law" to her. The Sages interpreted la (to her) to mean for her personally. Hence the above ruling: "her scroll is stored away."

If the scroll has been erased and she says: "I am defiled," - if after the scroll has been erased with the bitter water she confesses she has been defiled and as a result she is forbidden to her husband, she does not drink the water, since there is nothing further to verify, and the bitter water merely serves to clarify a doubt (Rashi) - the water is poured out - although the scroll has been erased in it, it has no sanctity (Hameiri), and her meal-offering is scattered on the ash-heap - as explained above.

If the scroll has been erased and she says: "I will not drink," - however, if after the erasure she did not plead guilty but declines to drink the water, we do not say that she fears the trial by water because she is guilty and need therefore not drink, but rather we say: Perhaps she is innocent and only out of fear rejects the drink, and since she has remained silent until now, causing the erasure of the Holy Name through the water, they force her - some explain: they shock (i.e., confuse) her and force her mouth open; others explain: they pour the water into her mouth, and make her drink against her will - as indicated in the previous mishnah this law was derived from the repetition of the expression "to make drink" in the sotah passage. "And he shall make the woman drink the bitter curse-causing waters (Num. 5:14); "And when he has made her drink the water" (ibid. v.27).

The Sages interpreted the second verse to mean that if the scroll had been erased, and she said: "I will not drink," they would make her drink; "Nevertheless, they first try to persuade her to drink it voluntarily explaining that if she is certain of her innocence she need not fear the water, which is much like powder placed on one's flesh; if it is wounded, it penetrates, but if sound, it has no effect" (Hameiri, in accordance with Sotah 7b; see also Tosefot Yom Tov).

SOTAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 4

She does not contrive to imbibe before her face turns yellow and her eyes bulge and she is replete with veins, and they call: Take her out, take her out! lest she defile the Temple Courtyard. If she had any merit, it would suspend her punishment. Certain merits suspend it for one year, others suspend it for two years, others suspend it for three years. Hence, Ben Azzai says, A man is required to teach his daughter Torah so that if she must drink, she will know that the merit suspends it for her. R. Eliezer says, Whoever teaches his daughter Torah, is as though he taught her lewdness. R. Yehoshua says, A woman prefers one kab and carnal indulgence rather than nine kabs and abstinence. He used to say, A foolish pious person, a cunning evildoer, a sanctimonious woman and the blows of the Pharisees, these ruin the world.

Kehati

This mishnah describes how the water tests a sotah who committed adultery.

She does not contrive to imbibe - the sotah barely swallows the water, before her face turns yellow - literally: green, and her eyes bulge and she is replete with veins - her swelling body appears to be covered with veins, and they say - those present who notice her face turning yellow and her body covered with veins call out: Take her out, take her out! - remove the sotah! - lest she defile the Temple Courtyard

The Gemara explains that they fear this might precipitate menstruation, and since a niddah renders the Women's Courtyard ritually unclean, they remove her from the Courtyard, beyond the limits of the Temple Mount, "because men or women suffering from a discharge, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter therein" (Kel. 1:8). This was how the water tested a sotah who was guilty of adultery; but if innocent, the contrary occurred: her face would radiate, and if ailing, she would gain strength (Gemara; Rambam, Hil. Sotah 3:22).

If she had any merit - the Gemara explains, e.g., bringing her children to school to learn Bible and Mishnah, or waiting for her husband who left his home town to study Torah - it would suspend her punishment - of the sotah who was guilty, i.e., it would delay it so that it would be exacted only at a later period.

R. Shimon (see below, mishnah 5) disagrees with this mishnah, holding that "merit does not suspend the effect of the bitter waters." Hence, according to the Gemara, this mishnah expresses the view of R. Akiva who, while supporting R. Shimon (see above, mishnah 2) regarding "he offered her meal-offering and then would make her drink", disagrees with him on the point of merit suspending punishment." But according to the Sages who maintain that (ibid.): "he would make her drink and then offer her meal-offering," the sotah could only be tested after offering the meal-offering, since it is generally agreed that there can be no test by water without a meal-offering, as it is stated in (Num. 5:15): "a remembrance offering, reminding of sin."

Certain merits suspend it - i.e., defer her punishment - for one year, others suspend it for two years, others suspend it for three years - in accordance with the trouble and effort invested in her children's and her husband's Torah study, as explained above, since one cannot compare a substantial endeavor to a meager one (see Avot 3:15): "Everything depends on the abundance of good deeds."

Hence, Ben Azzai says, A man is required to teach his daughter Torah - that is, it befits him to teach her Torah (Hameiri), so that if she must drink - and the water fails to test her, even though she is guilty, she will know that the merit suspends it for her - and she will not denounce the water as ineffective, once familiar with the Rabbinic interpretation of (Num. 5:28) "then she shall be exonerated, and produce offspring" thus: "then she shall be exonerated" by her merit so that she "shall beget offspring"; i.e., merit suspends her punishment for nine months, and according to others, even beyond that (Rashi).

R. Eliezer says, Whoever teaches his daughter Torah, is as though he taught her lewdness - the term tiflut refers to the trifling and immodest; the Torah might enhance her acumen with which to disguise her actions (Rashi; Bartenura).

Others explain: "by reaching beyond her intellectual capacity, she somewhat sharpens her wit and though her intelligence does not suffice for proper understanding she assumes she has grasped it all and demonstrates her wisdom to all" (Hameiri). Rambam writes: "A woman who has learned Torah is rewarded, but unlike the man's reward, since she has not been commanded…and even though she is rewarded, the Sages ordained man not to teach his daughter Torah, "since most women's minds are not attuned to study; rather they derive from the Torah pointless matters in accordance with their limited perception; the Sages said: whoever teaches his daughter Torah, is as though he taught her lewdness. To what does this refer? To the Oral Torah, but as for the Written Torah, though he ought not to teach her in the first place, if he does teach her, it is not as if he taught her lewdness" (Hil. Talmud Torah 1:13).

R. Yehoshua says, A woman prefers one kab and carnal indulgence - i.e., a woman is prepared to lower her standard of living provided her husband remains in her company rather than nine kabs and abstinence - i.e., a higher standard and a husband who abstains from her; such preferences render a person unfit to learn Torah. He - R. Yehoshua - used to say, A foolish pious person - whose exaggerated piety prompts him not to rescue a drowning woman so as not to look at her - a cunning evildoer - who sins with guile, e.g., who craftily presents his case to the judge before his fellow litigant arrives; or one who is lenient toward himself but strict with others (Gemara; for further examples, see ibid.) a sanctimonious woman - whose moral pretensions merely hide her witchcraft (Hameiri based on the Gemara); or one who conducts herself with exaggerated abstinence (Tiferet Yisrael) - and the blows of the Pharisees - i.e., such hypocritical Pharisees whose self-inflicted tortures and lashings serve as artificial trappings of a false religiosity - these ruin the world - all of these undermine society because their deceptions are likely to lead others astray.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives