Commento su Sotah 2:8

היה מביא – the husband.

Introduction As part of the Sotah ritual, Numbers 5:15 states, “And he shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. No oil shall be poured upon it and no frankincense shall be laid on it, for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of remembrance which recalls transgression.” From this passage we can already see that this meal-offering differs from other meal-offerings and that it is not a “fancy” offering, but rather base. Most of our mishnah is based on this passage, but the sages add a few flourishes of their own to the baseness of this meal-offering.

את מנחתה – as it is written (Numbers 5:15): “[The man shall bring his wife to the priest.] And he shall bring as an offering for her [one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour].”

[The husband] brings her meal-offering in a basket of palm-twigs and places it upon her hands in order to weary her. With all other meal-offerings, their beginning and their end are in ministering vessels; but with this, its beginning is in a basket of palm-twigs and its end in a ministering vessel. Numbers 5:18 states that the husband places the meal offering on his wife’s hands. The mishnah reads this as an attempt to tire her out, and thereby convince her to admit her guilt and avoid the ceremony. Again, we see that the rabbis are trying to avoid at all costs the enactment of the ceremony, for this will cause God’s name to be rubbed out. The mishnah adds to the humiliation, or at least lack of adornment of the ceremony, by stating that unlike all other meal-offerings, which are brought and then brought back in ministering vessels of gold and silver, this one is initially put into a simple reed basket.

בכפיפה מצרית – a basket made from palm bark [from] the soft that grew around the palm tree.

All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense, but this requires neither oil nor frankincense. This rule is stated explicitly in the verse from Numbers.

כדי ליגעה – that she should confess [her sin of adultery] and not blot out the Name [of God] on the [bitter] waters. And according to the one who says that at the beginning, they would cause her to drink [the bitter waters], and afterwards bring her meal offering, even though the Name [of God] was blotted out, from when she hired, in order that she would confess and not die a disgraced–disfigured death, and even though the scroll was blotted out, if she said, “I am ritually impure,” she does not drink [the waters of bitterness].

All other meal-offerings come from wheat, but this comes from barley. Barley was considered a much coarser grain than wheat. The fact that the Torah demands that the Sotah’s meal-offering be brought from barley is again evidence of the fact that it is almost like animal food, as Rabban Gamaliel states below.

תחלתן וסופן בכלי שרת – not in actual vessels dedicated to Temple service–sacred vessels is spoken of for a person does not bring his meal-offering from the midst of his home in sacred vessels but rather in women’s work baskets of silver or of gold which are appropriate for use as sacred vessels.

The meal-offering of the Omer, although it comes from barley, was in the form of sifted flour; but this comes from unsifted flour. The mishnah notes that there is one other meal-offering that was also brought from barley. What distinguishes the Omer offering from that of the Sotah is the fact that the former is sifted and the latter is not.

וזו בכפיפה מצרית – And this is in a basket made of palm-twigs for it is not appropriate to make from it sacred vessels for it is similar to (Malachi 1:8): “Just offer it to your governor.”

Rabban Gamaliel says: just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so her offering [consisted of] animal's fodder. The final note of our mishnah is clearly where the whole passage was headed. The meal-offering of the Sotah is symbolic of her (albeit) alleged crime of adultery. Uncontrolled sexuality is not proper behavior for human beings; it is behavior fit for an animal. To symbolize this, the Torah and Rabbis made the Sotah’s meal-offering close to animal food.

כל המנחות טעונות שמן ולבונה – In the Gemara (Tractate Sotah 14b), the objection is raised: But this is the meal offering of sin-offering, as it is written about it (Leviticus 5:11): “he shall not add oil to it or lay frankincense on it, [for it is a sin offering].” But, that which we teach [in this Mishnah]: "כל המנחות באות חטים" –”All meal offerings derive from wheat,” is difficult, for this meal offering of the Omer comes from barley. And the Gemara (Talmud Sotah 14b) resolves the difficulty – one should not teach anything singly but rather, wrapped up–combined and it is taught and this is what it said: all of the meal offerings require oil and frankincense–"כל המנחות טעונות שמן ולבונה", but those that don’t require oil and frankincense come from wheat and the sin meal-offering comes from sifted fine flour, even though it does not require oil and frankincense, it comes from wheat and sifted fine flour.

And it comes from grits–unsifted flour, and this does not require oil or frankincense and comes from barley and is derived from flour.

גרש – it is sifted and winnowed in thirteen sieves like a kind of fine sifted flour with wheat.

קמח – everything is combined like it is grinded.

היה מביא – the Kohen.

Introduction The mishnah continues to describe the Sotah process. This mishnah is an expansion of that described in Numbers 5:17.

פיילי – a cup in the Greek language (see Talmud Sotah 15b).

[The priest] takes an earthenware bowl and pours half a log of water into it from the laver. Rabbi Judah says: a quarter [of a log]. Just as [Rabbi Judah] reduces the amount of writing, so he reduces the quantity of water. We should note that the mishnah is now beginning to follow the order of the verses which describe the Sotah ritual in Numbers 5. Verse 15 describes the minhah sacrifice (yesterday’s mishnah) and verse 17 describes the water in the earthenware bowl, into which the name of God will be rubbed out. The verse only says that the priest takes some water, but it does not say where he takes it from. The mishnah adds that it is taken from the laver (the sink, for those of you who speak normal English). There is a debate about how much water is to be put into the bowl, but in either case the amount of water is just sufficient to absolve the ink from God’s name. Rabbi Judah gives a smaller measurement for the water since he prescribes the least amount of writing (see tomorrow’s mishnah).

מן הכיור – as it is written (Numbers 5:17): “[The priest shall take] sacral water [in an earthenware vessel],” but there is nothing sacred other than that which was sanctified in a utensil.

[Then the priest] enters the temple and turns to his right and there was a place there [on the floor] that was a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet, to which a ring was attached. When he would lift this up, he would take some dust from beneath it which he puts [into the bowl] so that it would be seen on top of the water; as it is said, “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17). The Torah states that the priest should take some dust from the floor of the Tabernacle and put it into the bowl. In the Temple floor was a special tile with a ring attached to it so that the priest would have dirt available. The priest would pull on the ring, lift up the tile and take from the dust underneath. In other words, the Temple was built so that this ceremony could take place with relative ease. As far as the function of the earth, it seems likely that it was considered to be imbued with a certain holy power that would aid in testing the guilt/innocence of the Sotah.

כשם שממעט – Rabbi Yehuda, in the writing of the scroll (see Tractate Sotah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 3), further on in our Mishnah, so he lessens here [the amount of] the water, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

מקום היה שם – amidst the rest of the floor of the Temple.

וטבעת קבועה בה – to grab hold of the its ring and to lift it from the rest of the floor which was all of marble flagstone.

כדי שיראה – he has to place in it a measure that will be seen and recognized on the face of the water.

ונתן אל המים – since it is not written: “and place it in the water,” but rather (Numbers 5:17): “[the priest shall put it] into the water,” implying that it should not be absorbed into it.

מאם לא שכב איש אותך וגו' – the clean–pure; which are the curses that come on account of blessings that imply that surely if a man laid, you would not be clean.

Introduction After putting the meal offering on the hand of the woman, the priest begins to write the curse on a scroll (Numbers 5:23). Later, he will state this curse or curses to the woman and then the writing will be rubbed out into the water and she will drink the mixture. In our mishnah there is a debate about how much he writes on the scroll.

ואינו כותב והשביע הכהן וגו' – for this is not other than a commandment upon the Kohen to have her take an oath.

He now comes to write the scroll.
From what place [in Scripture] does he write? From “If no man has lain with you … but if you have gone astray while married to your husband” (Numbers 5:19-20). He does not write, “Then the priest shall cause the woman to swear” (v. 21), but continues, “May the Lord make you a curse and an imprecation … And may this water that induces the spell enter your body make your belly swell, and your thigh to sag.” (vs. 21-22) He does not write “And the woman shall say, ‘amen, amen’” (vs. 22). Rabbi Yose says: he makes no omissions. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, the priest does not begin with the curses which begin in verse 21, but begins to copy into the scroll a couple of verses earlier, with the circumstances of her being brought for the test, mentioned in verses 19-20. However, anything that is a directive to the priest about what to do, he does not write. Rabbi Yose says that he does not omit anything, but rather writes straight from verse 19 through the end of verse 22.

ולא היה כותב ואמרה האשה אמן אמן – it is nothing other than a receipt that the woman accepts upon herself the oaths and we derive it as it is written (Numbers 5:23): “[The priest shall put] these curses down in writing and rub it into the water of bitterness],” "האלות"–the curses – to include curses that come on account of the blessings. [The word] "האלה"–these – to exclude [the instructions] and the affirmations (see Talmud Sotah 17a – by the woman saying “Amen”).

Rabbi Judah says: he writes nothing except, ““May the Lord make you a curse and an imprecation … And may this water that induces the spell enter your body make your belly swell, and your thigh to sag.” (vs. 21-2 He does not write “And the woman shall say, ‘amen, amen’” (vs. 22). Rabbi Judah disagrees regarding the point from where the priest begins to write. Verses 19-20 are not part of the curses mentioned in verse 23, and hence they are not written.

ר' יוסי אומר אינו מפסיק – from when he starts: (Numbers 5:19): “If no man has lain with you” until (Numbers 5:24): “Amen, amen.” And he writes the instructions of (Numbers 5:21): “Here the priest shall administer the curse of adjuration to the woman” and the affirmations (Numbers 5:22): “And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, amen,’” for he expounds the word "את" (verse 19) to include instructions and affirmations.

רבי יהודה אומר כל עצמו אינו כותב – meaning to say that he was careful so as not to write other than "אלות"–oaths, and not curses that come on account of the blessings and not instructions nor affirmations, for he expounds [the word] "האלות"–the oaths – and not curses that come on account of these blessings to exclude instructions and affirmations.

לוח – of wood.

Introduction This mishnah teaches upon what material the priest writes the curses and with what type of ink.

נייר – of grasses–herbs that they pound–crush them and make them like a kind of leather.

He writes neither on a [wooden] tablet nor on papyrus nor on rough parchment but on a [parchment] scroll, as it is said, “In a scroll” (Numbers 5:23). The Torah states “sefer” which means a scroll made of parchment (animal hide). Hence other materials cannot be used.

דפתרא – a hide which is not worked completely through which is prepared with salt and flour but not with gall-nut [juice].

Nor does he write with a [preparation of] gum or sulphate of copper or with anything which makes an impression [on the parchment] but with ink, as it is said, “And he will blot it out” (ibid.) writing which is capable of being blotted out. The writing on the scroll will eventually be rubbed out into the water. Hence, he cannot use permanent types of ink, which can’t be rubbed out. He also cannot use something which scratches/indents the scroll for then even after being erased, the curses will be left on the scroll.

בספר – on parchment.

קומוס – resin of the tree which is melted in water.

קנקנתום – IRMINT and in the foreign language “vitriol.”

ולא בכל דבר שהוא רושם – and it is absorbed in the parchment and one cannot erase it for gum and vitriol make a lasting impression.

אמן שלא שטיתי ארוסה ונשואה – through the rule permitting the court to insert in an oath an affirmation to which the person concerned could not have been compelled directly, he places the burden upon her unchastity while betrothed and even though he did not have regarding him warnings of jealousy (given to the suspected wife) and a married woman’s retirement with a man under suspicious circumstances. And from here, this insertion of an oath to which a person could not have been compelled to take directly is from the Torah.

Introduction After the curses are recited, the woman responds “Amen, amen”. “Amen” is a Biblical expression of agreement. Due to it frequent use in prayer, it is to this day one of the most familiar Hebrew words (my mother says that when pregnant with me I used to kick when my father said “amen”☺). Our mishnah deals with the repetition of the word “amen”. Why does she say the same word twice? To what exactly is she responding “Amen, amen”? Note that the mishnah accepts a multiplicity of answers to these questions, for they do not necessarily contradict each other.

שומרת יבם וכנוסה – if she was his sister-in-law (i.e., the widow of his brother who died without issue) and he brought her into a levirate marriage and he was jealous of her and she retired with a man under suspicious circumstances, he inserts a claim of ritual impurity which she could not have been compelled to take directly that she had become defiled while she was awaiting levirate marriage . And our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Akiva who said that a woman awaiting levirate marriage is unchastity–lewdness, but it is not the Halakha but rather a woman awaiting levirate marriage who ran about as a prostitute is permitted to the levir. Therefore, he does not make this condition upon her if she was unchaste as a woman awaiting levirate marriage.

To what does she respond “Amen, amen”?
“Amen” over the curse and “amen” over the oath; Verse 19 contains an oath to which she must agree. The oath is that she is not guilty of the sin of adultery. Verse 21 uses the word “alah”, a curse that if she has committed adultery the following things shall happen to her. According to the first interpretation of “amen, amen” in our mishnah, the first “amen” is to the curse and the second “amen” is to the oath.

אמן שלא נטמאתי וכו' – My explanation is made for the “Amen” on the imprecation, “Amen” on the oath, as we taught above (in this Mishnah). And this is what it said: “Amen” that I did not become ritually impure – that is the “Amen” on the oath that the Kohen imposed upon her: “I impose upon you the oath that you did not become ritually impure.

“Amen” with respect to this man and “amen” with respect to any other man. Although the warning she received not to seclude herself, had been specific to a certain man, i.e. “don’t seclude yourself with so-and-so” (see chapter one, mishnah one), our mishnah teaches that when she drinks the water, it tests her for adultery with others as well.

ואם נטמאתי יבואו בי – and if I become I became defiled, it should come upon me,” meaning the acceptance of the imprecation that the Kohen related to her and if you were ritually defiled, all of these curses will come upon you.

“Amen” that I did not go astray as a betrothed girl or married woman or a shomeret yavam or a woman taken into [her yavam’s] house. She must affirm that she did not commit adultery at any point in the marriage. In a regular marriage this means both during betrothal and after marriage. In a levirate marriage this means from the time that her husband died while she was waiting for her brother-in-law to marry her (this is the “shomeret yavam”, for more info see the intro to Yevamoth), or after she had entered her yavam’s (her brother-in-law’s) house as his levirate wife.

אמן שלא אטמא – that if you become ritually impure afterwards, the water will contest her, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

“Amen” that I have not been defiled and if I have, may [these curses] come upon me. This is a different type of interpretation of the words “amen, amen”. The first “amen” is her affirmation that she did not commit adultery; the second “amen” is her acceptance of the curses that will be visited upon her. Some commentators say that this section is an expansion of the first section.

Rabbi Meir says: “Amen” that I have not been defiled and the “amen” that I will not become defiled in the future. Rabbi Meir believes that the waters are effective even for future adultery. At this point she affirms that she has not committed adultery in the past and that should she do so in the future, the waters will bring their curse upon her at that later time.

ולא משנתגרשה – for if she ran about as a prostitute–was unchaste after she was divorced, and he retracted [from his decision to divorce her] and restored her [as his wife] and he was jealous of her, and she retired with a man under suspicious circumstances, the [bitter] waters do not examine her on prostitution that is after divorce, for the divorced woman who engaged in prostitution is permitted to return to her husband, for the All-Merciful (i.e., God) suspended [the prohibition] on Kiddushin–betrothal, [not] on intercourse, as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:2): “She leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man.” Therefore, when she was betrothe to another man, even though she had not had sexual intimacy, she is prohibited to return to her husband, but if she had sexual intercourse without Kiddushin–betrothal, she is permitted to return to her husband.

Introduction Toward the end of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that when the woman says “amen, amen” she is agreeing not just to the fact that she didn’t already commit adultery with the person, but that she will not do so in the future. Our mishnah limits the stipulations to which her husband can make her swear.

All agree that he cannot make a stipulation with her with regard to the time before she was betrothed or after she is divorced. The husband cannot use this oath to make her swear that she didn’t have pre-marital relations or that she won’t have post-marital relations with the person about whom he warned her, or with any other person for that matter. As we see at the end of this mishnah, the husband cannot use this opportunity to prevent her from having permitted sexual relations.

If she secludes herself [with the man about whom she was warned, but after being divorced] and was defiled and subsequently [her husband] took her back, he cannot make a stipulation with her [in regard to this]. In this case, the husband warned her not to be secluded with a certain man, and then he divorced her. She then went and had relations with that man, which was permitted now that she is divorced. Subsequently the original husband remarried her. Note that she can remarry her first husband so long as she has not been remarried (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4). If she were now again to be secluded with the other man, she becomes a sotah. However, her husband cannot make her swear that she didn’t have relations with the other man during the in-between period, before she was remarried.

This is the general rule: any with whom she has intercourse and was not prohibited to him [at that time] the husband cannot make a stipulation on this. As we have already stated, the husband cannot make a stipulation to which she must swear with regard to any sexual relations which was permitted when it took place. This section summarizes that rule.