Skip to main content
Iyun in Sota -
Lesson 16

Iyun Masechet Sota: 15b

Text file

 

In the previous shiur, we dealt with a recognized halakhic mechanism that is familiar to us from many other areas aside from sota, and we attempted to understand its position within the world of sota.  Is it the classic mincha that the sota brings or is it a special and different offering that she brings to the Mikkdash, unique to the sota alone.  In this week's shiur, the situation facing us in the sugya is the opposite.  The topic of the shiur – the combining of the water and dirt to create the sota waters – is a unique halakha that exists only in sota.  Therefore, comparison, rather than contrast, will be a more efficient vehicle to fathom the depths of these waters.

 

The starting point of the gemara's discussion is R. Yishmael's statement that the kli cheres - the earthenware vessel that Rashi describes as a "cup of water" – must be brand new and cannot be a used vessel.  The source of R. Yishmael's halakha is a comparison that he draws between the sota ceremony of drinking holy water and the process of purification (tahara) of a metzora that requires spring water and a new vessel.  There, too, the need for an unused vessel is not explicit in the Torah but is derived from a drasha that imposes the requirements incumbent on the water to the vessel.  Thus, just as the water has not been previously utilized for any other purpose, so, too, the vessel itself must never have served in any other capacity.

 

The logic behind this requirement is rooted in the concept of tahara.  Kedusha and tahara, though often coupled together (e.g. "vekhulam potchim et pihem be'kedusha u've-tahara") are very different concepts.  The former is rooted in the man-God relationship that transcends nature while the latter is the expression of uncorrupted pure nature that is God's creation.  Kedusha exists only upon withdrawal from nature, when man meets God as an autonomous spiritual creature in a non-natural artificial setting that reflects human separateness and distinctness from the natural world, while tahara is the removal of the contamination and corruption that has accumulated within nature and its restoration to its pure original state. 

 

Kedusha, therefore, requires an artificial setting created by man; thus, mechitzot, kli sharet, bigdei kehuna etc. are required to bestow kedusha on an object, for by removing himself from nature and establishing himself as a unique non-brutish being, man sets up the conditions for a world of his own in which he confronts God as a spiritual being.  It is within this world of artifacts that serve man that objects can achieve kedusha.  Tahara, in contrast, can only be achieved through the medium of nature since the process of tahara is the return of nature to its original state.  The act of tevila is immersion in a natural body of water in a natural state after removal of the artifacts that humans clothe themselves with.  Unlike kedusha that is contingent upon clothing – a kohen is not considered a kohen without his garments – tahara requires their removal.  Only in his natural state can a human being become tahor.  The essential "mikve" is natural flowing spring waters; the conventional mikve is an attempt to emulate natural conditions by creating a body of natural (rain) water without any assistance of artificial tools (therefore, "ritual pool" would have been a preferable translation to the accepted "ritual bath").  Conversely, tuma does not exist in the natural world; only man and his world of food and artifacts can receive tuma ("adam umeshamshei adam") but not animals or natural objects.

[For further elaboration and development of this topic, see my [Hebrew] article "be'kedusha u've-tahara" in Daf Kesher no. 432.]

 

This duality will enable us to understand the double ceremony that the Torah instituted for the metzora who must bring a series of karbanot after he has already undergone the ceremony of the bird sending.  The bird-sending relates to the element of tahara that the metzora must perform to rid himself of the tuma while the korbanot which he offers are designed to achieve the kedusha that is a function of presenting oneself in front of the KBH in the Mikdash (since tzara'at is a spiritual failure of the metzora and not only the metaphysical "defeat" of nature). 

 

This is the reason that the ceremony of the bird-sending is within a natural wild setting.  The essence of the ritual is the regeneration of the live bird and its release back into nature, after immersion in the blood of the slaughtered bird.  The blood that is sprinkled on the metzora purifies him after natural elements (the live bird and various plants) have been dipped into it.  The water that is used in the ceremony is mayim chayim i.e. natural spring water, since it, too, reflects the return to nature to achieve tahara.  Therefore, the gemara deduces that the earthenware vessel must also be a new vessel, since it, too, is participating in a ceremony whose purpose is the purifying return to nature.  The source (pardon the pun) of this is the equation that R. Yishmael draws between the water (that is unchanged) and the vessel that must, therefore, also be unchanged.  Actually, this is the reason that an earthenware, and not a metallic, vessel is required.  [In contrast, the kli sharet in the Mikdash must be a metallic vessel (see 14b), since the use of metal, in halakha, as in anthropology, is indicative of human design and development.]

 

The gemara's dilemma regarding the vessel of the sota ceremony should be understood in light of these considerations.  The Torah describes the situation of the sota as tuma, a state of affairs that presumably requires an act of tahara to rectify it, yet it also mandates the sacrifice of a korban and calls the water "mayim kedoshim".  Therefore, each element in the process of the sota ceremony must be scrutinized to determine whether it participates in the ceremony as a tahara or a kedusha medium.  This duality, as we shall see in the forthcoming shiurim, will accompany us in many of our discussions of the sota ceremony.

 

Let us now examine the gemara's discussion, stage by stage. 

1.  R. Yishmael requires a new, unused and, hence, unaltered vessel for the sota as for the metzora, since he perceives that the purpose of the water in the sota ceremony is to serve as a purifying agent to remove the sota's tuma, as is its function in the metzora ceremony.  If so, not only the vessel but also the water itself must conform to the idea of tahara as an uncorrupted natural phenomenon, as is the case in metzora that requires spring water.  Therefore, the Gemara questions R. Yishmael's claim, since the water for the sota is drawn from the kior (temple basin), which is a kli sharet that belongs to the world of mikdash and kedusha rather than nature and tahara. The Gemara answers that according to R. Yishmael the water of the kior are spring water (that maintain their identity as spring water, despite their flowing into the kior).

 

2.  The next stage questions the analogy to metzora, since the metzora is required to bring other natural elements from the plant world to accompany the birds and the water while the sota is associated with the world of mikdash.  Thus, although both avail themselves of water in a kli cheres, the two ceremonies cannot be compared since they belong to two different worlds; the metzora to the world of tahara and the sota to the world of kedusha.  This is the essence of the observation that the metzora must bring an etz erez, ezov and a shni tola'at while the sota ceremony does not include these elements (even though the gemara mentions only the metzora half of the equation).

 

3.  Rashi (d.h. "lo shanu") assumes that Rabanan (who do not require spring water for the kior from which the sota's water are taken) disagree with R. Yishmael and allow the use of a used earthenware vessel.  Presumably, this is because they view the sota ceremony as belonging to the world of kedusha rather than tahara.  However, Rava's subsequent statement that the vessel must retain its original color and that if it has lost its color through use it is disqualified raises the possibility that Rabanan also accept the basic idea of R. Yishmael that an unchanged kli cheres, emblematic of nature is required, and that they only disagree if an actual brand-new vessel is necessary or whether even a used, but unchanged, kli cheres suffices to represent the idea of natural purity.

 

4.  Thus, it would seem that the subject of Rava's query whether according to Rabanan recycled earthenware vessels qualify for the sota ceremony or not, is precisely the dilemma whether Rabanan essentially accept R. Yishmael's approach and differ only in the details or that they reject his entire concept.  If a recycled vessel can be used, this would support the latter option, since a recycled vessel is twice removed from the original natural state; however, if Rabanan do accept R. Yishmael's approach that an unchanged natural vessel is necessary, a vessel that has been returned to the furnace does not conform to the natural standard, even according to Rabanan.

 

Tosfot (d.h. "nitakhmu") are disturbed by two "systematic" questions regarding Rava's dilemma.  A. The gemara's disregard of a similar dilemma in masekhet Sukka regarding the mitzva of arba'at haminim and B. an analogous scenario in Zevakhim regarding priestly garments (bigdei kehuna) that have been mended is not considered problematic and the garments are acceptable for use in the Mikdash, whereas in our sugya, the issue remains unresolved.  Tosfot do not answer either of the questions; however, if we follow the logic presented above, both questions are resolved quite simply since the source of the dilemma in our sugya is rooted in the dual message that the Torah presents regarding sota.  These considerations are obviously irrelevant in other halakhic areas, so that a separate discussion and independent conclusions are necessary.  (Moreover, bigdei kehuna are a classic example of the man-made kedusha milieu associated with Mikdash; therefore, repaired begadim are valid and cannot serve to support similar conclusions in sota.)

 

II

 

A similar machloket repeats itself in the gemara's discussion of the dirt that is mixed with the water.  The first view mentioned in the sugya and repeated by Issi ben Menachem is that the dirt must be taken from the floor of the Mikdash, while the second braitah and Issi ben Yehuda are willing to accept dirt from a box that is brought into the Mikdash.  Taking into account the above discussion of the water and the need for it to represent nature, it is now clear that the same issue is at the core of the issue of the necessary dirt for the ceremony.  The requirement to take it from the ground of the Mikdash is rooted in the duality of the sota ceremony; it must be from the ground and cannot be brought in a box since there is a need for a natural element, yet it must be from the Mikdash since there is an element of kedusha in the ceremony as well (just as the water is holy spring water).  Issi ben Yehuda, though, agrees with Rabanan (who do not require a new earthenware vessel or spring water) that there is no natural motif present in the sota water and, therefore, any dirt that is brought to the Mikdash to be mixed with the water suffices.

 

In light of the above, we can now analyze the gemara's discussion regarding the replacement of the dirt with ashes.  If we view ashes and dirt as two distinct objects that lack any common characteristics, it is impossible to use ashes for the ceremony, since the necessary ingredient of dirt is lacking.  Therefore, it is clear to the gemara that Bet Shammai cannot accept ashes in lieu of dirt.  According to Bet Hillel, though, who recognize the replacement of dirt with ashes in kisui hadam, the option of using ashes in the sota ceremony, nevertheless, remains in doubt, since although ashes and dirt share common characteristics (small particles that combine together to form a larger whole), dirt represents the natural unchanged primeval world while ashes, of course, are the final course of artificial involvement and change.  Since the halakhic requirement of kisui hadam is designed to cover the animal's blood after shechita, any object that totally covers the blood, be it dirt or ashes suffices, while sota may require a natural element so that only dirt can be used.  Thus, it is quite possible, (and even probable, if we accept R. Yishmael and Issi ben Menachem's theory) to claim that ashes are invalid for the sota, even though they are valid for kisui hadam.  Essentially, the issue at hand in the safek regarding ashes is the need for natural elements in the sota ritual or not.

[An alternative interpretation would be to view the gemara's dilemma as rooted in the nature of kisui hadam, rather than sota.  On the one hand, kisui hadam may also be understood to require a natural element to cover the blood of the animal; if so, it can be proved from Bet Hillel's position that ashes are also considered part of the natural cycle and are valid for sota.  Alternately, it can be denied that kisui hadam requires natural means, so that the use of ashes in kisui hadam is irrelevant to sota that must use the dirt of the earth.

 

Personally, it seems to me that the first option is the more reasonable of the two, but both are offered here for the reader's choice.]

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!