Skip to main content
Iyun in Sota -
Lesson 18

Iyun Masechet Sota: 17b Part 2

Text file

 

This week's shiur will continue to deal with the issues that were discussed last week regarding megilat sota and the tension between the megila's role as an element within the water and its independent mission as a conduit for delivery of a personal message.

 

The sugya's starting point is Rava's statement that megilat sota must be written in daytime, since it a judicial procedure that is disqualified at night.  In the Gemara's phrase, "Just as a court hearing is in the day, so too megilat sota must be in the day."  Clearly, this is assuming that the ceremony is a trial for the woman and that megilat sota has a judicial role.  The megila is required as the yardstick by which to assess the woman's behavior and to establish the lethal contradiction between it and the standards that the Torah insists upon.  Moreover, it is the megila that injects the water with the potency of kedusha that smites the woman upon drinking.  Therefore, the Gemara assumes that even the writing – and not only the actual drinking – must conform to the halakhot that mandate judicial procedure.

 

Interestingly, Rashi quotes a pasuk that relates not to a criminal trial but to civil, monetary procedures, thereby diminishing the punitive aspect of the ceremony, while Tosfot insist upon a source that reflects the nature of the ceremony as judging a capital offense (it is unclear whether Rashi totally denies this premise or just prefers a different source).  The Rambam, though, explains that the writing and drinking of the megila are a function of their association with her korban, and the requirement of daytime does not reflect any judicial element at all.  Although it is a reasonable claim per se, it is definitely not the Gemara's explanation, as his commentators all point out. 

 

Rava's second statement that the megila must be written in sequence from beginning to end would seem to reflect the other element, that of a personal message that the megila is supposed to convey from husband to wife.  Texts that express a message, e.g. kriat shema or megilat Esther, must be recited in order for the expression of the idea to be meaningful, while acts that must only create a finished text, e.g. writing a sefer Torah, can be written in any sequence, since the end result is produced.  The fact that the megila must be written in sequence indicates that the act of writing includes the delivery of a message from husband to wife and is not only the creation of a text to be injected into the water. 

 

However, the requirement of sequence is derived from the phrase "ha'alot ha'eleh" that refers to the punishment to be expected by the woman if she is indeed tamei.  This may indicate that there is a need to notify the woman of the consequences of drinking the water, thereby requiring a text that delivers this notification in a manner that can be understood by the woman as such.  This would create a requirement for the writing of the megila in its original order as a legal warning.  In other words, the problem of reverse sequence during the act of writing may be rooted in the warning (hatra'a") of the kohen rather than the personal message of the husband.

 

If so, it would fit in very well with Rava's next statement that the megila must be written after the administration of the kohen's oath (but see our discussion of the oath in next week's shiur, b"n).

 

Last week's other idea, the nature of megilat sota as a formal text that has "kedushat stam" and not only as a personal message, is evident in the next halakha that disqualifies a megila informally written as a letter ("iggeret") without clearly being formatted as a document that conforms to the formal "stam" requirements (this the halakha of "sirtut," which means either marking straight lines on the parchment, which is the standard explanation of this phrase or formatting the margins of the page, as suggested by R. Tam).  Since sirtut is a well known requirement of stam (see Tosfot and Rishonim in Gittin 6b and Menachot 32b for further details) and is due to megilat sota's nature as a formal document, the obvious explanation of this halakha is the need for kedushat stam in megilat sota.

 

These two alternate interpretations of megilat sota seem to be readily evident in the machloket between Rashi and Tosfot about the meaning of the next detail in the sugya - Rava's statement that the megila must be written on one page.  Rashi explains this to mean that they must be written in the same column and cannot be split into two columns as a sefer Torah.  Tosfot, though, argue from the fact that a get is valid if written in two columns that the halakha of one page means that the text of the megila must be on the same physical piece of klaf, no matter how many columns.  In other words, according to Tosfot, megilat sota is compared to a get and to a sefer Torah, since all require a continuous text that conveys a message, which is a condition that is satisfied by a two column format, while Rashi, who views the megila as a formal document that has requirements other than a textual continuity, arrives at a result that is analogous to a mezuzah.  Tosfot in Menachot (33a d.h. ketava) also compare megilat sota to get but then comment: "this [comparison] can be rejected since by get the phrase is "sefer" (which can be interpreted as story) but in sota it is written "ba-sefer" (which must mean a book), whose meaning is a special book, to the exclusion of two columns in a single klaf." Thus, the Tosfot in Menachot do suggest the distinction between get and sota that the Tosfot in Sota deny.

 

If we shall pause for a moment to review the data that we have so far amassed, Rava opens the Gemara's discussion by postulating an element of judgement and punishment that exist within the writing and drinking of the megilat sota.  In last week's shiur, we associated the punitive element of the sota waters with the megila's kedusha that "charges" the water.  Thus, the additional halakhot in our sugya that are designed to establish the nature of the megila as kitvei hakodesh, e.g. sirtut and the formatting of the lines according to Rashi, reflect the nature of sota as a process of judgement.  In addition, there are two (or three) details that relate to the textual message of the megila: the sequence, oath prior to writing (and the formatting of the lines according to Tosfot). 

 

Reconciling the textual element with the punitive can be achieved by choosing one of two possible approaches:

a.   Postulating "tsvei dinim" in sota and recognizing both the personal and the judicial element as residing side by side in the sota waters;

b.   Subordinating the textual aspect to the punitive by treating it as prior warning to the woman from the kohen and not as a personal message from her spouse. 

The choice between these two options is precisely Rava's dilemma in the safek that he introduces after concluding the list of halakhot (18a).

 

Rava queries whether two megilot (for two different sotot) can be dissolved into the same cup or not.  The underlying issue is explained by the Gemara as a question whether the requirement of lishma that characterizes the megilat sota relates to the writing of the megila (ketiva lishma) or to its dissolution in the water (mechika lishma).  Actually, this is the basic doubt regarding the relationship between the water and the megila that we have discussed numerous times: if the purpose of the megila is to "charge" the waters with kedusha, the function of the lishma is to create the necessary object of the mayim ha-marrerim by specifying their purpose.  For this, it is irrelevant if the water is intended for one or many sotot.  As long as the megila is inserted into the water with the sota idea in mind, the requisite kedusha is "injected" into the water.  The ceremony is intended as a punishment for the woman (and a purification for Am Yisrael) but there is no marital issue between her and her husband at stake in this stage of the affair.  However, if the megila is intended to deliver a personal message from the husband to the sota, it must be a private message intended for her alone.  The husband dissolves into the water his statement to her, and the lishma serves the role of customizing the message.  It is not the lishma that creates and defines objects, as in a sefer Torah, but the personal lishma that makes a standard text into a personal one, akin to the lishma of a get.  The text is indeed standard, but the relationship and the situation are an interpersonal drama unique to them that is acted out by the husband's imposing the water upon his wife.  Therefore, it is the dissolving rather than the writing that reflects the personal element.  Accordingly, a mixture of waters intended for two different sotot is worthless.  Thus, Rava's dilemma regarding this issue sheds light on the logic behind the previous statements as well.

 

The next dilemma in the sugya continues the same line of thought, but presents it as two possible alternatives regarding the nature of the megila's dissolution itself.  Here, the Gemara takes into account the possibility that even if we require mechika lishma, it is only to determine the nature of the object as sota waters and is not an expression of a personal message.  Therefore, the former option assumes that if each megila was independently dissolved, thereby creating the sota water, we are unconcerned who drinks which water, as long as the water that she drinks is characterized as sota water (and, therefore, has the necessary potency) while the latter option is faithful to the concept of mechika relaying a personal message and, therefore, insists that each woman drink the water intended for her alone.

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!