Skip to main content
Iyun in Sota -
Lesson 1

Iyun Masechet Sota: 2a

Text file

Sources:

Sota 2a mishna.

Bemidbar 5, 11-31, Rashi.

Devarim 24, 1-4, Rashi.

Yevamot 11a "Amar Rav Yehuda amar Rav...ktiv ba (11b).

 

Prior to beginning our actual study of massekhet Sota, a brief introduction to define the actual Sota and the problem that the Torah associates with her will not be out of place.  Although our use of the phrase "Sota" is usually understood to refer to the case of the woman who is obligated to undergo the ordeal of drinking the oath water (ha-mayim ha-mearerim) in the Mikdash in consequence of her suspicious behavior and parashat Sota is regarded as the chapter in Bamidbar that details the process, there are actually two kinds of Sota in Halakha and two separate sections in the Torah that detail their respective halakhot – the Sota vadai (the proven Sota) and the Sota safek (the suspected Sota).  The above-mentioned parasha in Bamidbar presents the case of the "Sota safek" i.e. there are no witnesses to the actual event, only to the circumstances leading up to it, while the "Sota vadai" is the woman who has been proven to be unfaithful.  Although the degree of certainty is an issue that sets them apart, we must inquire whether this is the only significant variable that separates the two cases.  Are they essentially dealing with the same problem, the difference between them a quantitative one as to the quality of the evidence or are they addressing different problems and therefore generating issurim that are independent of each other.

 

This inquiry arises mainly due to the fact that the Gemara (Yevamot 11b) claims that the prohibition regarding the union of the husband with the Sota vadai is not derived from the classic parasha of Sota in Bamidbar, as we would expect, rather it is included in the negative prohibition of Devarim 24:4 that prevents a husband from remarrying his wife after she has been defiled ("achrei asher hutam'a").  Its prohibition, therefore, is not limited to an issur aseh (a prohibition inferred from a positively phrased commandment) but carries the full weight of a bona fide issur lav (a direct negative command prohibiting the proscribed action).  Thus, there are two separate sources as well as differing levels of severity that would seem to suggest that there may be a basic qualitative differential between the twin categories of Sota vadai and Sota safek and not merely a quantitative one.  For that matter, what is true of the Chumash also holds true in the Shas, as it, too, splits its treatment of the two sotot, dealing with the Sota vadai in massekhet Yevamot, mostly, while devoting an independent massekhet to Sota safek that is unconcerned with Sota vadai. 

 

[A brief explanation as to the mechanism of the drasha, at first glance so surprising, that derives the prohibition of cohabitation with an adulterous wife from the pasuk that prohibits remarriage with a divorced wife who married another man in the interim. is called for, as it is hard to see how the Sota vadai is included in it.

 

Actually, the drasha can be understood in two ways.  The first possibility is that the pasuk actually includes a dual prohibition since there are two separate cases that the pasuk addresses:

a.  "lo yuchal ba'alah ha-rishon lashuv lekachta" – reunion with his divorcee;

b.  "[ve]achrei asher hutam'a" – a woman who has been defiled.  As tum'a cannot occur within the context of a legitimate marital relationship, the Torah's reference to a defiled woman cannot relate to a married woman, so that we must postulate an additional case in which tum'a did occur, i.e. adultery.  Thus, the pasuk is forced to include two separate prohibitions within it and it must be read as if the opening phrase of "lo yuchal" refers to the second element as well, as if it was written "VElo yuchal lekachta achrei asher hutam'a."  This is the approach that most Rishonim chose; see the Tosfot (s.v. lerabot) who explain the need to interpret the pasuk as including a double prohibition and the Ramban's commentary on the Chumash, as well as Ritva (s.v. lerabot) for the mechanism of the drasha.

 

A second option is to assume that there is a single prohibition in this pasuk, although there are two cases that are prohibited, since there is a common denominator between the two instances.  Essentially, the Torah is relating to a case in which a single woman has a simultaneous intimate relationship with two men and decreeing that such a situation is termed "tum'a."  The circumstances under which such a scenario can be realized are either adultery or the "sandwiching" of a second wife between his first and second marriage to his original love, in which case it is clear that he has retained a relationship with the first wife even when married to the second, so that upon remarriage to the original wife, it is considered as if the first marriage was never really terminated (needless to say, this is an emotional rather than legal determination).  The idea that this is the tum'a that is involved is suggested by the Ramban in his explanation of the pasuk according to pshutu shel mikra.

 

At any rate, there is a definite issur of Sota vadai that appears in Devarim, independent of the section in Bamidbar that presents the episode of Sota safek in great detail.  The reason for this split speaks to the heart of the matter of the Sota.  The pasuk in Devarim speaks explicitly of tum'a as being the rationale for the issur of Sota, as the woman has been metaphysically defiled by having a sexual relationship with two men.  The parsha in Bamidbar, though, is much more ambiguous as to the essence of the Sota phenomenon, whether it is the suspected tum'a and the attempt to uncover it that sets in motion the halakhot of Sota, or whether another element is at the center of the Sota process.

 

This dilemma is best presented though a reading of the pesukim in the parsha.  The opening verse states that:

 

"a man whose wife has strayed and betrayed him.  And a man shall lay her with his seed, unbeknownst to her husband, and she is hidden and she has been defiled but there are no observers and she has not been discovered."

 

As can be observed, the Torah mentions the unfaithfulness of the woman who betrays her husband and then proceeds to describe the chain of events that lead up to the assumed adulterous act.  Thus, one possible reading of these verses is to regard the phrase that describes the breach of trust as "background information" that leads us to the description of the woman's actual behavior, the characterization of her as unfaithful, thereby to be understood as no more than a narrative need that explains the willingness of the woman to participate in the events that are subsequently described in the sequence of the pesukim.  There is, though, no independent significance to the judgement that is passed upon her as unfaithful.  The focal point, according to this interpretation, is the presumed sexual relationship with the stranger that brings about the tum'a of sexual impurity that we have already met in Devarim.  Essentially, the problem of a Sota safek is the exact same concern of tum'a that exists in Sota vadai, the only difference being that the evidence is lacking in the Sota safek, so that an elaborate mechanism has to be devised to verify or refute the suspicions. 

 

An alternative to this reading would be to claim that the appraisal of the woman as unfaithful is the cause of her Halakhic status, rather than the character trait that allows her to commit the sin of adultery.  The very fact that she is disloyal to her mate, not the metaphysical tum'a that her faithlessness has brought about is the reason that they cannot continue to live together as a married couple.  Simply put, it is the breakdown of the interpersonal relationship between the man and woman that bars them from prolonging their marital state, so that the Torah's definition of the woman as unfaithful is the root of the matter. 

 

A famous ruling of the Maharik expresses this idea quite clearly.  The Maharik was asked about a woman who committed adultery due to the fact that she was under the impression that the Torah did not prohibit such acts, whether her status was that of a shogeget (one who has committed an issur unintentionally, who is not prohibited from continuing the marital relationship) since she thought that it was a permissible action or whether she is considered a mazidah (one who has intentionally engaged in a violation and is banned from living with her husband) because the act was done intentionally.  Maharik responded that had the Torah banned her relations with her husband as a consequence of the issur that was violated, then the fact that the issur was performed under the misconception that it is permissible (omer mutar in Halakhic terminology) would indeed render her status as a shogeget.  However, claimed Maharik, this is not the case since the Torah emphasized the BETRAYAL vis a vis her husband towards whom she has been unfaithful as the motivating force that creates the issur.  Since an adulterous relationship, whether assumed to be halakhically permissible or prohibited, is, undoubtedly, a breach of trust and a breakdown of the mutual relationship between husband and wife, she is judged as having betrayed the relationship and therefore is prohibited from any sexual union with her husband.  In other words, she may have been faithful to God but she sure wasn't loyal to her mate.  [It should be pointed out that there are Achronim who are of the opinion that the Rashba disagrees.]

 

The same point is evident in a well-known position of R. Tam regarding the status of a married woman who had sexual relations with a non-Jew.  Although the halakha is that the Sota is prohibited from cohabiting with the boel as well as the ba'al (i.e. the paramour as well as the husband), R. Tam ruled (Tosfot Ketuvot 3b s.v. velidrosh) that if the adulterous act was committed with a non-Jew, it is permissible for the woman and man to marry (after he has converted) since sexual relations with a non-Jew lack the Halakhic significance to bring about the issur of the Sota to marry her lover.  In response, the Ri stacks up a long list of proof texts against his uncle's claim, all of which prove explicitly that the prohibition of Sota is in effect, even when a non-Jew was involved.  At first glance, his proofs are overwhelming; so much so that one is led to wonder how could as great a Tosafist as R. Tam err in such an obvious matter.  However, upon further examination, we notice that all of these texts relate to the prohibition regarding the husband and wife and do not address the issue of the boel.  Thus, R. Tam's logic becomes clear.  The issur of the woman to the boel is a function of the tum'a that is generated by the prohibition, an issue that R. Tam thought was inapplicable to non-Jews; therefore, the couple could reunite after gerut.  The, same calculation applies to the husband as well.  Here, though, there is the additional consideration of the BETRAYAL that must be taken into account.  For even if her acts do not constitute a prohibition which results in her being prohibited to her husband, the infidelity and faithlessness themselves prohibit her from cohabiting with her husband, as the interpersonal bond between them has been violated, so that we can split the p'sak and permit marriage to the boel, yet not to the ba'al.

 

Having introduced the dual concepts of prohibition and breach of trust through these two opinions in Rishonim, let us now return to the Gemarah's discussion of the two Sotas.  The sugya in Yevamot states that a Sota cannot undergo yibbum and need not undergo chalitza if her husband died childless, since her status is similar to that of ariot (incestuous relationships that are exempt from yibum and chalitza) as they both bring about tum'a.  The gemara then questions this statement by quoting a mishna in Sota that, in direct contradiction to the above ruling, requires a Sota to perform chalitza, if necessary.  As the source in Sota relates to a Sota safek who has been submitted to the process of kinui and stirah that bring about her status as a Sota, but there has been no direct testimony, the underlying premise of the question is that the Sota safek and the Sota vadai share the essential characteristic of having undergone the contamination of tum'a, with the only difference between them being the mechanism of determining that the tum'a occurred.  Therefore, both bring about a similar result regarding chalitzah and the two can be compared. 

 

The gemara's response is to deny the validity of this premise and to claim that the rationale guiding the case of Sota safek is different from that of Sota vadai.  The reason for this distinction is that the idea of Sota vadai is tum'a while that of Sota safek is unfaithfulness and not tum'a, to which the final remark recorded in the sugya disagrees and insists that Sota safek is also an issue of metaphysical tum'a and not only a betrayal of trust within an interpersonal relationship.  Thus, the gemara's debate that revolves around the ability to compare the two cases is essentially an argument as to the essence of the Sota safek. 

 

The inquiry into the nature of Sota safek will concern us throughout the massekhet, as it is applicable to all aspects of the Sota process, be it the mechanism that creates the original status, the process that she subsequently undergoes in Bet Din, the ceremony in the Mikdash and all of the other elements.  As we begin a detailed analysis of the massekhet in the next shiur, b"n, we shall begin our investigation of these issues.

 

 

Sources and questions for the next shiur:

 

The next shiur will deal with kinui and setira and their relationship to tum'a. 

See Sota Gemara 2a-2b, and 3b "Tenan hatam...eidim shenayim."

Sota 26b "Lechedetanya shikhvat zera... u-ba'al ha kapid ka mashma lan."

Sota 25a "Ta shema arusa... le-osra alav."

Sota 18b "Amar Rav Hamnuna... leit hilkheta keRav Hamnuna."

Rambam Hilkhot Sota 2:2.

Rambam Hilkhot Yibum 2:20.

Beit HaLevi Chelek Bet Siman 40.

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!