Sotah 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

He gives

the woman to drink 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 the offering has been brought. If she confesses in the meantime, she does not die—

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

for if it were because of

the erasure of the

scroll,

the Torah would not have instructed that the offering remain in her hand even after the drinking, until it is brought, for

it has already been erased

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

We learned in the Mishna:

All the meal-offerings

begin and end in a service vessel. But this one begins in an Egyptian wicker basket and ends in a service vessel:

And we raise a contradiction

from a beraita in which we learned otherwise:

It is written [Leviticus 2:1]: "

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

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

This is the law of the meal-offering: The sons of Aaron shall bring it before the Lord, to the front of the altar. 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 upon the altar as a pleasing fragrance, its memorial portion to the Lord. The remainder of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons. 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 holy of holies, like the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. Every male among the sons of Aaron may eat it; it is an eternal statute throughout your generations from the fire-offerings of the Lord. Whatever touches them shall become holy."

The order of meal-offerings

brought as vows or freewill-offerings—

how is it?

a.

A person brings a meal-offering from his home in baskets

[like baskets]

of silver and 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 substance

in a service vessel.

c.

And he places upon it

the Israelite

its oil and frankincense.

d.

And he carries it

the Israelite

to the priest.

e.

And

the

priest carries it to the altar

of the burnt-offering.

f.

And he brings it near—

the priest brings the vessel containing the offering—

at the corner

of the

southwestern

corner of the altar,

opposite its point,

the southwestern point

of the

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 has accumulated

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 with a second sanctification

in a service vessel.

j.

And he gathers

the priest

its frankincense

of the offering,

and places it on top of it

of the handful.

k.

And he brings it up

the priest—the handful together with the frankincense upon it—

and burns it in a service vessel.

This is explained later in the Gemara.

l.

And he salts it—

the handful together with the frankincense upon it, with salt—

and places it upon the fires

[the altar fire].

m. Once

the handful has been sacrificed, its remainder

of the offering

is eaten

by the priests.

n.

The priests are permitted to place into it

of “the remainder of the meal-offering,”

wine, oil, and honey.

o.

And they are prohibited

the priests

only from leavening

the remainder.

In any event, it teaches

in this beraita: "

A person brings a meal-offering from his home

in baskets of silver and baskets of gold,"

whereas in our Mishna we learned: All the meal-offerings begin and end in a service vessel!?

He said

he answered:

Rav Pappa:

Say

that the Mishna should be interpreted as follows: All the meal-offerings begin and end

in vessels fit to be

fit to become

service vessels,

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

The Gemara asks:

By implication

you learn that

an Egyptian wicker basket—

in which the husband of the sotah brings her offering—

is not fit

to be a service vessel.

If so, it is difficult: Our Mishna

according to whom

according to whose view was it stated?

For it must necessarily be

not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda!

For

it is

taught in a beraita: Service vessels that one made of wood—

Rabbi disqualifies, and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda deems valid.

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

The Gemara explains that this is not so. Rather:

You may even say

that our Mishna follows the view of

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda

.

For

when did Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda say

that even a wooden vessel is fit to be a service vessel?

With

vessels that are

important.

But

with

vessels that are

inferior,

such as an Egyptian wicker basket—

who said

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

For

does

he

not hold, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

[does he not accept what is stated in the verse:] “When you offer a blind animal for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil?

Present it, now, to your governor

[a ruler or governor]; will he be pleased with you, or will he show you favor”?

If so, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda certainly agrees that an inferior vessel, such as an Egyptian wicker basket, is not fit to be a service vessel. It follows that our Mishna, which says that an Egyptian wicker basket is not fit to be a service vessel, applies even according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara explains here the remaining laws stated in the beraita concerning “the order of the meal-offerings”: b.

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

And the Gemara asks: Is it possible to infer

from this

from the baraita that

sacred vessels sanctify only with awareness

[meaning that one who places an item in a sacred vessel must place it in the vessel with the intention of sanctifying it]? For this is what the baraita seems to imply: that he sanctifies it in the sacred vessel by placing it inside !?

And the Gemara explains that this is not so, for the baraita does not mean that he should place the meal-offering in a sacred vessel with the intention of sanctifying it. Rather,

say

[interpret the baraita as follows]:

He places it in a sacred vessel

to sanctify it in a sacred vessel.

That is, when we learned in the baraita, “and he sanctifies it in a sacred vessel,” this does not mean that the sanctification is effected intentionally by the one placing it into the vessel. Rather, this explains what the baraita said, “He places it in a sacred vessel”: through this, the meal-offering becomes sanctified in it. In any event, the meal-offering is sanctified automatically through the sacred vessel

c.

And he places upon it

the Israelite

its oil and frankincense

, and a priest is not required 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 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.”

d.

And he takes it

the Israelite

to a priest, as it is written

[there]: “And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron

to the sons of Aaron

the priests.”

e.

And the priest takes it to the altar:

As it is written

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

and bring it to the altar.”

f.

He brings it near at the southwestern corner, opposite the corner’s edge, and that suffices:

And the Gemara explains:

From where do we derive

that the bringing near is performed at the southwestern corner?

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

The entire width of the Sanctuary was situated at the midpoint of the width of the Temple courtyard, from north to south.

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

The Entrance Hall was built in front of the Sanctuary, on its eastern side, and its entrance was twenty cubits wide; it corresponded to the width of the Sanctuary’s interior.

The altar was thirty-two cubits long [from north to south, not including the ramp to its south], and the altar stood in the courtyard before the Entrance Hall, on its 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, since the latter too measured thirty-two cubits and were centered in the middle of the courtyard’s width.

At the four corners of the altar were projecting horns, each horn measuring one cubit by one cubit.

As it is written: “And this is the law of the meal-offering: bring it near

the sons of Aaron shall bring it

—this refers to bringing it near—

before the Lord, to the front of the altar.”

And it was taught in a baraita: Since the verse says

“before the Lord,”

before the Lord

one might have thought

that he should bring it near

on the west

—that he should bring it to the western wall of the altar, opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary [visible through the entrance of the Entrance Hall], where nothing intervenes between it and the interior of the Sanctuary, in order to fulfill “before the Lord”!?

The verse states: “

to the front of the altar,”

which means “the front face of the altar,” namely, on its southern side, where the ramp was.

If “

to the front of the altar,”

one might have thought

that he should bring it near

on the south

—on the southern wall of the altar, wherever he wishes.

The verse states: “

before the Lord,”

opposite the Sanctuary.

How, then

are these two verses to be reconciled?

He brings it near at the southwestern corner, opposite the corner’s edge, and that suffices

for this.

Rabbi Elazar says [he expounds the verses differently and disputes the law that it must be brought near opposite the corner’s edge]:

Since both “before the Lord” and “to the front of the altar” are stated,

could one have thought:

he may bring it near to the western side of the corner or to the southern side of the corner

—on whichever side he wishes, he should bring it near?

You have said:

Whenever you find two

verses

when

one

of the verses

fulfills

its

own wording, and fulfills

also

the words of the other, and

if

one fulfills

only

its own wording and nullifies the words of the other—

We do not say that he may do it however he wishes. Rather,

we set aside the

verse

that fulfills

its

own wording and nullifies that of the other, and adopt the

verse

that fulfills

its

own wording and fulfills

also

that of the other.

For

when you say

“before the Lord,”

which is

on the west,

you have

nullified

“to the front of the altar,”

which is

on the south.

And

if

when you say

“to the front of the altar,”

which is

on the south, you have fulfilled

“before the Lord,”

which is

on the west,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

How, then

should he act?

He brings it near to the southern side of the corner

of the southwest corner, since in this way both verses are fulfilled.

And the Gemara explains:

And where have you fulfilled

the verse “before the Lord” by bringing it near on the southern side of the corner, when the southern side of the altar lies outside the line corresponding to the thickness of the Sanctuary’s walls!?

He said,

explained

Rav Ashi: This tanna holds

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

the entire altar

was in the north

of the courtyard

stood

[it was situated there].

That is, from the courtyard’s midpoint northward, it follows that throughout the southern side of the altar [which is “the front of the altar”], “before the Lord” is fulfilled as well, since it stands opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary. Nevertheless, in order to fulfill “before the Lord” in the fullest sense, he brings it near at the southwestern corner, which is closest to the Sanctuary.

And the Gemara further explains:

What

does “And he brings it near at the southwestern corner, opposite the corner’s edge,

and that suffices” mean?

The word “suffices” implies that one might have thought that he would have to perform an additional act, and it teaches us that he need not perform it; rather, this bringing near is sufficient?

Rav Ashi said: It was necessary

to state “and that suffices,” because

it might have entered our minds that the meal-offering itself must be brought near

[I might have thought that the meal-offering itself must be brought near], and it would not suffice to bring near the vessel containing the meal-offering; rather, he would have to tilt the vessel so that the flour itself would touch the altar.

Therefore,

it teaches us

the baraita, by stating “and that suffices,” \-

that the meal-offering itself need not touch the altar.

The Gemara discusses the words of the baraita:

But say that this too is so

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

And it explains:

The verse states: “And he shall present it to the priest, and bring it near to the altar.”

And just as

what

is

presenting it to a priest

is performed

with a vessel, so the bringing near to the altar

need only be performed

with a vessel.

z.

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

In order that

[so that]

he should not scoop

the frankincense

together with the meal-offering

[so that the frankincense would not be scooped together with the flour of the meal-offering], for if some frankincense enters his handful, the handful becomes invalid—

as we learned in the Mishna: If he scooped, and a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense came up in his hand

, that is a handful

that is invalid,

because the handful is lacking the space occupied by the pebble, the salt, or the particle of frankincense, and it does not contain the measure of a full handful.

ḥ.

And he scoops

from the place where its oil has accumulated:

And we explain:

From where do we derive

[from where do we know this law] that he scoops specifically from the place where its oil has accumulated?

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 scoop from it his full handful,

from its fine flour and from its oil”—

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

from its crushed kernels and from its oil.”

t.

And he places it

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

And we challenge this:

Why do I need

to place the handful once again in a sacred vessel in order to sanctify it

!?

It was already sanctified once

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

!?

And we answer:

Is it comparable

to

what occurred with the blood

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

Just as

the blood, although the knife sanctified it

in the neck of the animal

[the knife—which was a sacred vessel—gave the blood its initial sanctification while the blood 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, since the animal’s blood is received in a sacred vessel]—

So too

here

with regard to the handful,

likewise, it is no different.

Therefore, although he initially sanctified the entire meal-offering in a sacred vessel, he nevertheless again sanctifies the handful with a second sanctification in a sacred vessel.

y.

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

As it is written: “And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall bring it near before the Lord, to the front of the altar. And he shall remove 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 the altar’s pleasing fragrance, its memorial portion, to the Lord.”

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