Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sotah, 26

1) WHAT WOMAN WOULD WANT TO MAKE HERSELF A SOTAH

QUESTION: The Gemara cites three opinions concerning what the verse, "v'Niksah v'Nizre'ah Zara" (Bamidbar 5:28), teaches. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that this verse teaches that an Ailonis does not drink the Mei Sotah because she is not fit to have children. Rebbi Akiva says that if the woman was an Akarah (childless) until now, then she will be blessed and have children. Rebbi Yishmael challenges Rebbi Akiva's view and asks that if the verse is promising the blessing of children for every childless woman who drinks the Mei Sotah and emerges innocent, then all unscrupulous, childless women will seclude themselves with another man after Kinuy in order to have children and they will benefit from their sin, while an Akarah who is modest and G-d-fearing will lose out as a result of her virtuousness! Rather, Rebbi Yishmael says that the verse teaches that if the woman has given birth in pain in the past, then she will give birth easily, or if she has given birth in the past to ugly children, she will give birth to attractive children.

How does Rebbi Yishmael answer his own question on Rebbi Akiva? His question still applies to his own interpretation of the verse! Those who have given birth in pain will seclude themselves after Kinuy in order to gain the blessing of an easy birth, and the G-d-fearing woman who has given birth in pain will lose out because of her virtuousness! (TOSFOS DH Amar Lo)

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARSHA in Berachos (31b) answers that a woman would only make herself a Sotah out of desperation, since the process of a Sotah involves undergoing terrible torment and disgrace before meriting the blessing of "v'Niksah v'Nizre'ah Zara." A woman would only consider making herself a Sotah if she stands to gain a very significant benefit -- such as having children when she is childless -- that would outweigh the torment and disgrace of the Sotah process. She would not undergo such an ordeal simply to be able to bear children with less pain during childbirth.

The TZELACH (Berachos 31b) and the HAFLA'AH (Kuntrus Acharon 115:11; Panim Yafos, Parshas Naso) add that by making herself a Sotah, the woman risks losing her husband entirely since he might decide not to bring her to drink the Mei Sotah and he will divorce her instead. A woman would not risk losing her husband just to gain the blessing of giving birth easily. If, however, she is an Akarah, then she stands to lose her husband anyway, since the Torah gives the right to the husband to divorce his wife after ten years of childlessness. Since she does not risk losing anything, she will make herself a Sotah in order to gain the blessing of having children.

(b) The BEN YEHOYADA answers that a painful birth is not necessarily brought about by the physiological condition of the woman, nor is the tendency to give birth to ugly or to feminine children dependent on her physical state. A woman would not consider undergoing the ordeal of a Sotah in order to prevent the possibility that she will have pain, or an ugly child, from her next birth. However, a childless woman knows that she will not have children because of her physiological condition, and thus she is willing to take the drastic action of making herself a Sotah.

RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ adds that when Rebbi Yishmael says that if a woman gave birth in pain, she will give birth with ease, he is not referring to past births. Rather, he is referring to future births. He means that if the woman was *destined* to have a birth that is painful, drinking the Mei Sotah (and emerging innocent of sin) will change her destiny and she will give birth with ease. Since no woman knows her destiny in advance, she will not make herself a Sotah.

This might be the intention of TOSFOS as well when he asks his question specifically from the case of the women who have painful births. Why does Tosfos not ask from the other cases that Rebbi Yishmael mentions -- women who give birth to feminine children or to ugly children? Those women, too, will want to seclude themselves and undergo the procedure of a Sotah in order to change the way they give birth (MINCHAS KENA'OS)! According to the Ben Yehoyada's approach, the answer is clear: a woman knows that her past births have no bearing on her next birth; her next birth might be an attractive child, or a masculine child. Tosfos asks only from the case of women who have painful births, because sometimes painful births *are* dependent on a woman's physical nature (see Bava Basra 16b, Yevamos 65b). Such a woman should still want to become a Sotah to cure herself, according to Rebbi Yishmael.

(See also MAHARITZ CHIYUS, EINI SHMUEL, and YOSEF DA'AS.)

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that the wife of a Seris drinks the Mei Sotah. The Gemara asks that this is obvious -- why should she not be able to drink the Mei Sotah? The Gemara answers that we might have thought that she does not meet the requirement of the verse, "Mibal'adei Ishech" (Bamidbar 5:20), which implies that the Sotah's husband must be able to have relations in order for the Sotah to drink the Mei Sotah. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches that the wife of a Seris *does* drink the Mei Sotah.

RASHI addresses the obvious question on the Gemara -- why is it that the wife of a Seris indeed does drink the Mei Sotah? Why is she not excluded from the laws of Sotah because of the verse that the Gemara cites, "Mibal'adei Ishech," that implies that her husband must be fit for Shechivah in order for the laws of Sotah to apply?

Rashi explains that the verse is not teaching that the husband must be fit for Shechivah, but rather it is teaching that the Shechivas ha'Ba'al must precede the Shechivas ha'Bo'el. Rashi adds that a Seris *does* satisfy the requirement that the Sotah's husband be fit for Shechivah; it is just that he is unable to impregnate his wife.

Rashi continues and says that the Mishnah must be referring to a "Seris Chamah" who was born a Seris, because if the husband was a "Seris Adam" (who was made into a Seris after he was born), then he is not permitted to remain married to his wife, and therefore she should not be able to drink the Mei Sotah, just like the case of a woman married to a Mamzer.

Rashi appears to be writing this explanation in order to refute another possible way of interpreting the Mishnah. We might have thought that there is another way for a Seris to fulfill the requirement of having the Shechivas ha'Ba'al precede the Shechivas ha'Bo'el -- if the husband was not a Seris at the time that he was married, and then he later became a Seris Adam! Rashi rejects this explanation because in such a case the wife of the Seris would not be able to drink the Mei Sotah because she is prohibited to remain married to him.

The problem is that Rashi himself on the Mishnah (24a, DH Eshes Seris) gives this very explanation that here he is trying to reject! Rashi there explains that the Mishnah is referring to a Seris who became a Seris *after* he married his wife, and that is how the Shechivas ha'Ba'al preceded the Shechivas ha'Bo'el! How can the words of Rashi be reconciled?

In addition, according to Rashi on the Mishnah, what is the Chidush of Eshes Seris? If the husband became a Seris after the marriage, then the Gemara's question remains -- it is obvious that the wife of the Seris should drink the Mei Sotah, because the requirement that the Shechivas ha'Ba'al precede the Shechivas ha'Bo'el was fulfilled, and the husband *was* fit to have children at that point!

Third, how does Rashi on the Mishnah answer the question that he poses here on the Gemara, that the wife of a Seris Adam should not drink the Mei Sotah because she is prohibited to remain married to him?

ANSWERS:

(a) The MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Sotah 2:6, DH v'Eshes Seris) answers that Rashi on the Mishnah is explaining the Mishnah according to the way the Gemara initially understands the Mishnah, before it asks that this Halachah is obvious. It is only after the Gemara asks that this Halachah is obvious that the Gemara changes its interpretation of the Mishnah and explains that it is referring to a person who was always a Seris, and that the Seris is nevertheless considered a "Bar Shechivah" (able to have relations).

However, the Mishneh l'Melech does not answer the third question we asked above, that the wife of a Seris Adam should be prohibited to him and should not be able to drink the Mei Sotah.

In addition, if Rashi understands that the Gemara's answer is that a Seris *is* a "Bar Shechivah," then why does Rashi need to add in our Sugya that the verse of "Mibal'adei Ishech" is teaching the requirement that the husband's Shechivah must precede the adulterer's, and not that the husband must be fit for Shechivah? Rashi should have said that the verse "Mibal'adei Ishech" *does* teach that the husband must be fit for Shechivah but that the Seris *is* fit Shechivah (RASHASH)!

(b) The RASHASH suggests that Rashi in our Sugya is really suggesting two independent approaches. The beginning of the comments of Rashi -- when he says that the verse teaches that the Shechivas ha'Ba'al must precede the Shechivas ha'Bo'el -- is following the approach that Rashi on the Mishnah takes, that the husband became a Seris later. In the end of his comments, Rashi is giving an alternate explanation (and should contain the words "Iy Nami") and is eventually rejecting his first explanation (because of the question that his wife will be prohibited to him and thus will not be able to drink the Mei Sotah).

The TOSFOS HA'ROSH takes a similar approach, but he says that Rashi actually changed his mind, and that our text of Rashi is a combination of two different explanations: Rashi's original explanation, and Rashi's conclusion in which he rejects his original explanation. Rashi on the Mishnah and the first half of Rashi here follow Rashi's original explanation (see Introduction to Eruvin, where we point out that this is a common occurrence in Rashi).

The ME'IRI also cites these as two distinct explanations.

According to Rashi on the Mishnah, who says that the husband became a Seris later, the Chidush of the Mishnah is that we might have thought that the husband must be a "Bar Shechivah" not only before the Setirah, but even at the time of the Setirah. The Mishnah teaches that it is enough if he was a "Bar Shechivah" before the Setirah, and his Shechivas ha'Ba'al preceded the Shechivas ha'Bo'el.

How does Rashi on the Mishnah justify the fact that the wife of a Seris is permitted to her husband and can drink the Mei Sotah? The Rishonim suggest a number of answers.

1. The ME'IRI explains that the Seris mentioned in the Mishnah might be referring to a man who became a Seris later in life at the hands of G-d ("b'Yidei Shamayim") and not due to any act of man (or disease). The Me'iri apparently is referring to the Gemara in Yevamos (75b) that says that a Patzu'a Dakah who became so b'Yidei Shamayim is permitted to remain married to his wife. Rashi explains there that this refers to a person whose organs withered out of fright from hearing a sudden, terrifying loud noise.

2. The Me'iri suggests further that the Mishnah might be referring to a Seris who is married to a Giyores (convert) or a Meshuchreres (freed maidservant) who is permitted to remain married to him. (However, the Mishnah in Eduyos 5:6 cites a Machlokes Tana'im whether a Giyores may drink the Mei Sotah.)

3. TOSFOS (DH Eshes) implies that the Mishnah might be discussing a Seris who lost the ability to have children by drinking a sterilizing potion (see Tosfos 24a, DH she'Einah). Since no physical damage was done to his organs, he is permitted to remain married to his wife. (However, the Mishnah usually refers to such a person as an "Akar" (or "Akarah") and not as a "Seris.")

26b