Sotah 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

For it was taught that

Rabban Gamliel said

to Rabbi Meir,

who says in the beraita above, on 8b: “Rabbi [Meir] says: From where is it derived that with the measure by which a person measures, it is measured to him, and so you find with a sota:

she,

the sota,

fed

her paramour

delicacies of the world; therefore her offering is animal food.”

the delicacies of the world; therefore, her offering is animal fodder.”

See what the Ya'avetz and the Mahartz Chayut wrote here.

And

Rabban Gamliel said to

Rabbi Meir:

That works for

a wealthy woman,

who indeed fed him delicacies of the world.

But a poor woman,

who does not have delicacies of the world,

what can be said—

why does she bring animal food?!

Rather,

the reason that her offering is of barley is:

Just as her deeds are the deeds of an animal, so her offering is animal food.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues to explain the procedure for giving the sota to drink.

It is written in the passage of the sota: “And the kohein shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. And the kohein shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel, and of the dust that shall be on the floor of the Tabernacle, the kohein shall take and put it into the water.”

The kohein

would

bring a peily [

a cup of water]

of earthenware, and put into it half a log of water from the basin

that was in the Temple courtyard.

Rabbi Yehuda says: A quarter

of a log alone did he put into it.

Just as Rabbi Yehuda reduces

Rabbi Yehuda

the writing

that he writes in the scroll of the sota, as will be explained in the following Mishna,

so Rabbi Yehuda reduces

Rabbi Yehuda

the water.

The kohein left the courtyard and

entered the Sanctuary, turned to his right, and there was a place

that was visible and distinguishable from the rest of the Sanctuary floor—

one cubit by one cubit, and

there was

a marble slab there, with a ring fixed in it [

in the slab], in order to lift the slab with it.

And when he lifted it

the slab,

he took

dust from beneath it, and put

of the dust an amount large enough

that it could be seen

the dust

above the water.

As it is stated: And from the dust that is on the floor of

As it is stated: ‘And of the dust that shall be on the floor

of the Sanctuary, the kohein shall take and put it into the water,’

and since the verse did not say, “and put it in the water,” but rather, “and put it into the water,” it implies that the dust should not be absorbed into the water.

Gemara:

A tanna

taught in a beraita:

He would bring

a new earthenware peily,

meaning one in which no work had been performed,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Thus it appears from the continuation of the Gemara, and so is it in the wording of the Rambam (Sotah 3:9) ;

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Yishmael’s reason?

The passage concerning the purification of the metzora at the end of the period during which he is confined [Leviticus 14:2]:

“This shall be the law of the metzora on the day of his purification: He shall be brought to the kohein. And the kohein shall command, and he shall take for the one who is to be purified two living, pure birds, cedar wood, crimson wool, and hyssop. And the kohein shall command, and he shall slaughter the one bird into an earthenware vessel over living water [spring water in which no work has been performed]. As for the living bird, he shall take it, together with the cedar wood, the crimson wool, and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird into the blood of the slaughtered bird over the living water. And he shall sprinkle seven times upon the one being purified from the leprosy, and purify him, and send the living bird into the open field.”

Because he

derived

by a gzera shava “vessel, vessel”

“vessel, vessel”

from the metzora

on the day of his purification:

Just as there—

with regard to the metzora—he puts the living water into a

new earthenware vessel,

so here—

with regard to the sota—he puts the water into a

new earthenware vessel.

And we explain:

And there,

with regard to the metzora,

from where do we know

that he puts it into a new earthenware vessel in which no work has been performed? Because

it is written: “

And he shall slaughter the one bird into an earthenware vessel over living water,”

so the vessel is equated with the water, to teach:

Just as living water has not had work performed with it,

as it is stated, “living.”

So too, a vessel in which no work has been performed.

And we raise an objection: Since you derive it by a gzera shava from the metzora, say also:

If it is so there,

with regard to the metzora, the Torah requires

“living water,”

that is, spring water—

so here,

with regard to the sota, he should put into the earthenware vessel

living water?!

And we answer:

According to Rabbi Yishmael,

who derives it by a gzera shava from the metzora,

it is indeed so [

indeed, he takes living water for the sota, for, as explained in our Mishna, the sota water is taken from the basin, and according to Rabbi Yishmael all basin water is spring water].

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The water of the basin

from where did it come?

Rabbi Yishmael says: It is spring water.

And the Sages say:

Even

it may be from other waters,

if he wishes to put into it water from a ritual bath, he may.

And we still raise an objection against Rabbi Yishmael, who derives it by a gzera shava from the metzora:

But

there is a basis to refute it:

And since this gezera shava is not directed [it is general], therefore even though they learn from it, if there is an answer they answer; see Tosafot.

What is true of the metzora is that he requires cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson wool;

can you say the same with regard to the sota, who does not require all of these?!

Rather,

Rabba said

in explanation of Rabbi Yishmael’s reason for requiring a new peily for the sota:

Because

the verse says in the passage of the sota, “And the kohein shall take holy water

in an

earthenware vessel,” and since the verse did not say, “And he shall take an earthenware vessel and put water in it,” it implies that he should put it in

the vessel that I already told you about [

which was mentioned elsewhere], and that is the vessel mentioned with regard to the metzora.

Rava said:

They taught

Our teacher Rabbi Akiva Eiger objected: If so, why do we need "clay"? For since the meaning of the verse is "the vessel that I told you in the metzorah," we already know that he took in an earthen vessel, as in the metzorah! — and in the notes of HaGaon Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aleyshiv of blessed memory he answers, that if it were not specified "earthen vessel" I would say the reference is to the vessel that I mentioned in Parah "and he put living waters into a vessel", and therefore it is written "in an earthen vessel" so from this we know that the reference is to another case that requires an "earthen vessel," namely the metzorah, and not to the vessel of the waters of the cow which is not earthen.

They taught

the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael and maintain that an old vessel is valid for the sota water—

only

in a vessel

that

one cooked in, but its

surface has not yet blackened [

become dark]

because of the fire,

But

as a result of the fire. But

if he put the water into a vessel whose

surface had blackened

because of the fire, those waters are

invalid.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because we require the vessel of the sota to be

analogous to the water

of the sota:

Just as the water has not changed,

Rava raises a question:

so too, the vessel must not have changed.

Rashi wrote: "The Sages considered the waters of the sotah not as 'living,' since they are kiyor waters that are valid in other waters, provided they have not been altered, and likewise we require a vessel that has not been altered." But the Tosafot wrote that this is only an informal inference, for if kiyor waters have had their appearance altered they are valid, as they proved.

Rava raised a dilemma:

An earthenware vessel whose surface

had blackened, and they returned it into the furnace

of

the fire, in which new earthenware vessels are fired,

and the vessels became white again

there,

what is the law

as to whether the vessels become fit for putting sota water in them?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma:

Do we say: Since it was disqualified, it was disqualified,

since it was rejected, it can no longer become fit?

Or perhaps: Since it returned, it returned,

since it became white again, it returned to being fit for sota water?

Come and hear that the vessels are not valid once they have been rejected:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson wool,

which are required for sprinkling the waters of the red heifer,

that

one slung his basket over his back with them,

meaning, he hung his basket behind him using them, those items are

invalid,

since they became bent through the burden, and changed.

But there, they straighten out again [

they return to being straight], and nevertheless they remain permanently invalid. This shows that we say: “Once it was rejected, it was rejected.”

And we reject this proof:

There,

in that beraita, we are dealing with a case

where they became peeled [

their outer layer peeled off]; this change does not reverse, and therefore they are invalid.

We learned in the Mishna:

He entered the Sanctuary and turned to his right:

And we explain:

What is the reason

that he turns to his right?

For the master said: All turning

We learned in the Mishna:

that you turn should be only toward the right.

a. The source of this law is elucidated in Zevachim 62b. b. The precise reading (in early printings of different books) is: "fonot" in the sense of turning.

We learned in the Mishna:

There was a place there, one cubit by one cubit,

and a marble slab, with a ring fixed in it; and when he lifted it, he took dust from beneath it and put in enough that it could be seen on the water:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage of the sota: “

And of the dust that shall be

on the floor of the Sanctuary, the kohein shall take and put it into the water.” -

One might have thought that he could prepare [

provide dust]

from outside and bring it in

the dust into the interior of the Sanctuary and put it into the water, and that this would suffice, since the dust had been in the Sanctuary—

Therefore

the Torah says: “And of the dust that shall be

on

the floor of the Sanctuary,” which implies the floor of the Sanctuary, since the verse did not say, “And of the dust that shall be in the Sanctuary.”

If “

on the floor of the Sanctuary,”

meaning, if the verse had said only, “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Sanctuary,”

one might have thought,

for then I would say:

He may dig with pickaxes

into the floor of the Sanctuary to take dust from there; therefore

the Torah says: “

That shall be.”

How is this resolved?

which is'".

Explained according to the glosses of the BaCh in the opinion of Rashi.

How is this accomplished?

If

there is

loose dust there in the Sanctuary [that is, in the Sanctuary proper],

bring it

from the floor of the Sanctuary.

But if

there is none

loose dust there, bring dust from outside and

put it there

on the floor of the Sanctuary, and from there put it into the water.

Another beraita was taught,

and we learn another beraita in which the tannaim disagree whether it accords with the first beraita or not:

It is written: “

And of the dust that shall be

on the floor of the Sanctuary”; and since the verse did not say, “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Sanctuary he shall take,” this

teaches that he would prepare [

provide dust]

from outside and bring it

into the Sanctuary and put it into the water, without first placing it on the floor of the Sanctuary.

If so, why is “

on the floor of the Sanctuary” stated, since he brings dust from outside and does not even place it on the floor of the Sanctuary?!

why is it said, since he brings dust from outside, and even does not put it in the floor of the Mishkan!?