Sotah 14b — the Talmud in English

He gives her to drink

the woman with water in which the sacred Name has been erased,

and afterward brings her offering,

but she is not yet tested by the water that she has already drunk, until after they bring the offering. And if she admits in the meantime, she does not die—

and if so, necessarily it is not because the scroll should not be erased,

for if it were because of

the erasure of the

scroll,

the Torah would not have said to leave the offering in her hand even after the drinking and until it is brought, for

it has already been erased [

for behold, the scroll has already been erased together with the Name ]. Rather, certainly the reason for the matter is so that she will admit and not die when the offering is brought.

We learned in the Mishna:

All the offerings

beginning and end in a service vessel. But this one, its beginning is in an Egyptian basket, and its end is in a service vessel:

And we raise a contradiction

against this from a baraita in which we learned otherwise:

It is written [Leviticus 2:1]: "

And when a person brings [a vow or a freewill offering] a meal-offering to the Lord, his offering shall be fine flour. And he shall pour oil upon it, and place frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the priests. And he shall take from it his full handful, from its fine flour and from its oil, together with all its frankincense, and the priest shall burn its memorial portion [the handful] upon the altar, an offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord. And the remainder of the offering shall be for Aaron and his sons, most holy, from the fire-offerings of the Lord."

And it is further written [Leviticus 6:7]: "

And this is the law of the meal-offering: The sons of Aaron shall bring it before the Lord, to the front of the altar. And he shall lift from it with his handful, from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil, and all the frankincense that is upon the meal-offering; and he shall burn it on the altar, a pleasing fragrance, its memorial portion to the Lord. And its remainder shall Aaron and his sons eat. It shall be eaten as unleavened bread in a holy place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it. It shall not be baked leavened; I have given it as their portion from My fire-offerings; it is most holy, like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering. Every male among the sons of Aaron shall eat it; an eternal statute throughout your generations from the fire-offerings of the Lord; everything that touches them shall become holy."

The order of the offerings

that come as vows or freewill offerings—

how is it?

a.

A person brings an offering from his home, in baskets [

like baskets ]

of silver and of gold.

b.

And he places it

the Israelite in the Temple courtyard

into a service vessel, and sanctifies it

there with the sanctity of the body

in a service vessel.

c.

And he places upon it

the Israelite

its oil and its frankincense.

d.

And he brings it

the Israelite

to a priest.

e.

And

the

priest brings it to the altar

of the burnt-offering.

f.

And he presents it—

the priest brings the vessel in which the offering is located—

at the corner

of the

southwestern

corner of the altar,

opposite its point,

the southwestern point

of the

corner,

and that is sufficient

for this.

g.

And he moves the frankincense to one side

of the vessel.

h.

And he takes a handful

the priest

from the place where its oil is increased

of the offering.

i.

And he places it

the priest places the handful in his hand

into a service vessel, and sanctifies it

the handful, a second sanctification

in a service vessel.

j.

And he gathers

the priest

its frankincense

of the offering,

and places it upon it,

upon the handful.

k.

And he brings it up

the priest—the handful with the frankincense upon it—

and burns it in a service vessel.

And the Gemara explains it further.

l.

And he salts it—

the handful with the frankincense upon it, with salt—

and places it upon the fires [

the fire of the altar ].

m. Once

the handful has been brought, its remainder

of the offering

is eaten

by the priests.

n.

And the priests are permitted to put into it

of “the remainder of the offering,”

wine, oil, and honey.

o.

And they are prohibited

the priests

only from causing

the remainder

to become leavened. It teaches, in any event

in this baraita: "

A person brings an offering from his home,

in baskets of silver and in baskets of gold,"

whereas in our Mishna we learned: All the offerings have their beginning and end in a service vessel!?

Said

he answered

Rav Pappa:

Say

that this is how you should interpret our Mishna: All the offerings, their beginning and end are

in vessels fit to be

fit to be

service vessels,

whereas the offering of the sota begins in a vessel that is not fit to be a service vessel.

And the Gemara asks:

From this

you learn

that an Egyptian basket—

in which the husband of the sota brings her offering—

is not fit [

is not fit ] to be a service vessel.

And if so, it is difficult: Our Mishna—

according to whom

according to whose view was it stated?

For it must necessarily be

not according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda!

For

behold,

it was taught: Service vessels that he made of wood—

Rabbi declares them invalid, and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda declares them valid.

And according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, even an Egyptian basket is fit to become a service vessel.

And the Gemara explains that this is not so, but rather:

Even say,

you can say that our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda

it is.

For

if you say that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda said

that even a wooden vessel is fit to become a service vessel—

with

vessels

of importance.

But

with

vessels

of inferior quality,

like an Egyptian basket—

who said

that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda considers them fit to become service vessels!?

But

does

he

not have, according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, [

does he not hold what is stated in the verse ] “And when you offer [an animal that is] blind for sacrifice, is it not evil [in your eyes], and when you offer lame and sick, is it not evil?

Offer it, now, to your governor [

a prince and ruler ]; will he be pleased with you, or will he show you favor”!?

And if so, certainly Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda too agrees that an inferior vessel, such as an Egyptian basket, is not fit to be a service vessel; and it follows that our Mishna, which says that an Egyptian basket is not fit to be a service vessel, applies even according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara explains here the rest of all the laws explained in the baraita of “the order of the offerings”: b.

And he places it in a service vessel, and sanctifies it in a service vessel:

And the Gemara asks: Is it possible that

you may infer from this

from the beraita that

sacred vessels sanctify only with awareness [that one who places something in a sacred vessel must place it in the vessel for the sake of sanctification]? For this is what is implied: that he sanctifies it in the sacred vessel by placing it in it!?

[that is, one who places an item in a sacred vessel must place it there with the intention of sanctifying it]? For this is what the statement seems to mean: he sanctifies it in the sacred vessel by placing it in it

And the Gemara explains that this is not so, for the intention of the beraita is not to say that he should place the meal-offering in a sacred vessel with the intention of sanctifying it, but rather

say [that this is how you should interpret the beraita]:

[that the beraita should be understood as follows]:

He places it in a sacred vessel —

to sanctify it in a sacred vessel.

That is to say, what we learned, “and sanctifies it in a sacred vessel,” does not mean that the sanctification is performed intentionally by the one placing it into the vessel. Rather, it is an explanation by the beraita of what it said, “he places it in a sacred vessel,” for through this the meal-offering becomes sanctified in it. But in any event, the meal-offering becomes sanctified by itself through the sacred vessel.

And he places upon it

the Israelite

its oil and its frankincense,

and a priest is not needed for this. Since

it is stated: “

And when a person brings an offering of a meal-offering to the Lord, his offering shall be fine flour,

and he shall pour oil upon it, and place frankincense upon it,”

and afterward it is written: “And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the priests.”

And he leads it

the Israelite

to a priest, as it is written [there]: “

there: “

And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron

the priests.”

And a priest leads it to the altar:

For it is written

in connection with the pan-baked meal-offering: “And you shall bring the meal-offering that shall be made from these to the Lord, and he shall bring it to the priest,

and he shall present it to the altar.”

He presents it at the southwestern corner, opposite the point of the corner, and that suffices:

And the Gemara explains:

From where do we know

that the presentation is at the southwestern corner?

The width of the interior of the Sanctuary together with the thickness of its walls was altogether thirty-two cubits [six cubits being the thickness of each wall, and the width of the interior of the Sanctuary being twenty cubits].

The entire width of the Sanctuary was in the middle of the width of the courtyard, from north to south.

The entrance of the Sanctuary was in its middle, and was ten cubits wide.

The hall was built before the Sanctuary on its eastern side, and its entrance was twenty cubits wide, and it corresponded to the width of the interior of the Sanctuary.

The length of the altar [from north to south, not including the ramp that was to its south] was thirty-two cubits, and the altar stood in the courtyard before the hall on the eastern side, with it [the altar, not including the ramp] centered in the middle of the courtyard.

It follows that the length of the altar corresponded to the width of the Sanctuary together with the thickness of its walls, for they too were thirty-two cubits, and they were centered in the middle of the width of the courtyard.

At the four corners of the altar, horns projected, each horn one cubit by one cubit.

For it is written: “

And this is the law of the meal-offering: bring it near” —

that is, presentation —

the sons of Aaron, before the Lord, to the face of the altar.”

And it was taught in a beraita:

Since the verse said

“before the Lord,”

one might have thought

that he should present it

on the west,

bringing it to the western wall of the altar, opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary [which is visible through the entrance of the hall], for at this place nothing intervenes between it and the interior of the Sanctuary, in order to fulfill “before the Lord”?

The verse says: “

to the face of the altar,”

which implies “the front of the altar,” that is, on the southern side where the ramp was.

If “

to the face of the altar,”

one might have thought

that he should present it

on the south,

at the southern wall of the altar, wherever he wishes?

The verse says “

before the Lord,”

opposite the Sanctuary.

How is this

that these two verses are to be reconciled?

He presents it at the southwestern corner, opposite the point of the corner, and that suffices

for this.

Rabbi Elazar says [he expounds the verses differently, and disagrees with the law that it is to be presented opposite the point of the corner]:

[he expounds the verses differently and disagrees with the law that it must be brought near opposite the corner’s edge]:

Since it was stated both “before the Lord” and “to the face of the altar,”

one might have thought that he should present it to the west of the corner, or to the south of the corner,

on whichever side he wishes, he should present it?

You have said:

Whenever you find two

verses,

when

one

of the verses

fulfills

the

itself, and fulfills

also

the words of its fellow,

and if the

one fulfills

only

itself, and nullifies the words of its fellow —

We do not say that he should do as he wishes, but rather

we set aside the

verse

that fulfills

its

itself and nullifies its fellow, and we take the

verse

that fulfills

its

itself, and fulfills

also

its fellow.

For

when you say “‘

before the Lord,’”

which is

on the west,

you have

nullified “‘

to the face of the altar,’”

which is

on the south.

And

if

when you say “‘

to the face of the altar,’”

which is

on the south, you have fulfilled “‘

before the Lord,’”

which is

on the west, as the Gemara explains and proceeds.

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

How is this

to be done?

He presents it to the south of the corner

of the southwestern corner, since through this both verses are fulfilled.

And the Gemara explains:

And where have you fulfilled

through presenting it at the south of the corner the verse “before the Lord”? After all, the south of the altar stands outside the area opposite the thickness of the walls of the Sanctuary!?

He said:

Rav Ashi explained:

This tanna holds [Rabbi Elazar] that the altar was not centered and standing between the north of the courtyard and its south, but rather

[Rabbi Elazar holds] that the altar was not centered between the north and south of the courtyard. Rather,

the entire altar —

stands in the north

of the courtyard

[it] stands [was standing].

[it was situated there].

That is to say, from the middle line of the courtyard and northward, it follows that throughout the southern side of the altar [which is “the face of the altar”], “before the Lord” is also fulfilled, since it stands opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary. Nevertheless, in order to fulfill “before the Lord” literally, he presents it at the southwestern corner, which is closest to the Sanctuary.

And the Gemara further explains:

What is meant by “And he presents it at the southwestern corner, opposite the point of the corner,

does the statement mean: “He brings it near at the southwest corner, opposite the corner’s edge,

and that suffices”?

For the word “suffices” indicates that there might have been reason to say that he must perform another act, and it teaches us that he need not perform it, but this presentation suffices?

Rav Ashi said: It was necessary

to say “and that suffices,” because

it might have entered your mind to say: the meal-offering itself requires presentation [I might have thought that it is necessary to present the meal-offering itself], and it is not sufficient to present the vessel containing the meal-offering, but it is necessary to incline the vessel

in such a manner that the flour itself touches the altar.

Therefore

it teaches us

the beraita by saying “and that suffices” —

that it is not necessary for the meal-offering itself to touch the altar.

And the Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

But say that this is indeed so [perhaps it is indeed necessary to present the meal-offering itself]?

[perhaps the meal-offering itself must be brought near]?

And it explains:

The verse says “‘

And he shall bring it to the priest, and he shall present it to the altar.’”

Just as

the

bringing to the priest

is performed

in a vessel, so too the presentation to the altar

is sufficiently performed

in a vessel.

And he moves its frankincense to one side:

In order that

[so that]

he not take the frankincense by handful

the frankincense

together with the meal-offering [so that he should not take the frankincense in his hand together with the flour of the meal-offering], for if he raises in his handful also some of the frankincense, the handful portion becomes disqualified —

[so that the frankincense will not be taken in his hand together with the meal-offering’s flour], because if some frankincense enters his handful, the handful becomes disqualified—

as we learned: If he took a handful, and a pebble, or a grain of salt, or a bit of frankincense came into his hand,

it is a handful portion

that is disqualified,

because the handful portion is found to be lacking the place occupied by the pebble, or the place occupied by the salt, or the place occupied by the bit of frankincense, and it does not contain the measure of the fullness of his handful.

And he takes a handful —

from the place where its oil has increased:

And we explain:

From where do we know [from where do we know this law] that he takes a handful specifically from the place where its oil has increased?

[how do we know this law] that he takes a handful specifically from the place where its oil was plentiful?

Because

it is written: “And when a person brings an offering of a meal-offering to the Lord. And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the priests, and he shall take from it the fullness of his handful,

from its fine flour and from its oil.”

from its fine flour and from its oil” —

And it is written further [Leviticus 2:14]: “And if you bring a meal-offering of first fruits [the meal-offering of the omer] to the Lord, roasted new grain, crushed [grain], ripe grain, you shall bring the meal-offering of your first fruits. And the priest shall burn its memorial portion

from its crushed grain and from its oil.”

And he places it

the handful portion

into a sacred vessel, and sanctifies it in a sacred vessel:

And we challenge:

Why do I need

to place the handful portion again in a sacred vessel in order to sanctify it!?

It was already sanctified once [after all, the meal-offering had already become sanctified once], when he placed the entire meal-offering in a sacred vessel!?

[the meal-offering was already sanctified once], when he placed the entire meal-offering in a sacred vessel!?

And we answer:

Is it comparable

as

there was the blood [the handful portion should be compared to the blood of the offerings]!

[the handful should be compared to the blood of offerings]?

Just as

blood, even though a knife sanctified it

in the neck of the animal [the knife — which was a “sacred vessel” — gave the blood its first sanctification when the blood was in the neck of the animal], nevertheless

[the knife—which was a sacred vessel—gave the blood its first sanctity while it was in the animal’s neck], nevertheless

he again sanctifies it in a sacred vessel

[he again sanctifies the blood in a second sacred vessel, for the blood of the animal is received in a sacred vessel] —

So too

here

with regard to a handful portion,

also, it is no different.

Therefore, although he already sanctified the entire meal-offering at first in a sacred vessel, nevertheless he returns and sanctifies the handful portion with a second sanctification in a sacred vessel.

And he gathers its frankincense and places it on top of it:

For it is written: “And this is the law of the meal-offering: bring it near, sons of Aaron, before the Lord, to the face of the altar. And he shall raise from it with his handful, from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil,

and

and

all the frankincense that is upon the meal-offering,

and he shall burn it on the altar, a pleasing fragrance, its memorial portion to the Lord.”