Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A SOTAH DOES CHALITZAH

(a) Answer (Rav Yosef): Her next husband is not commanded to marry her!
(b) Version #3 - Answer (Rav Yosef): The Torah calls her next husband "a different man" - he is unlike the 1st husband!

1. The 1st husband expelled evil from his home - the 2nd one brought evil into his home!

i. You cannot say, the Torah commands the Yavam do to Yibum!

2. Question (Abaye): According to this, if she married a 2nd husband, and he died without children, she should not fall to Yibum, for the Torah (disparagingly) calls one who will marry her "different"!
3. Answer: Since she behaved properly while married to the 2nd husband, it is no longer improper to marry her.

(c) Answer #2 (to question 3:b on Daf 5B - Rava): A Kal va'Chomer says that she may not do Yibum.

1. If she became forbidden to the one she was permitted to (i.e. her husband), all the more so, she becomes (permanently forbidden) to the one she was forbidden to (the Yavam).

(d) Question #1 (Abaye): If so, a Kohen Gadol that engaged a widow, and his brother is a regular Kohen, she should not do Yibum, for she became forbidden to her husband!
(e) Answer: She did not become forbidden to him - she was forbidden from the start of the engagement; she was never permitted to him!
(f) Question #2 (Abaye): Rather - a Kohen's wife was raped; if his brother is a Chalal, she should not do Yibum, for she became forbidden to her husband!
(g) Answer: The wife of a Yisrael does not become forbidden if she is raped; regarding the brother, who is as a Yisrael, she did not become forbidden, so the Kal va'Chomer does not apply.

(a) (Mishnah): If she says 'I am forbidden to you'; or, if witnesses testified that she became Teme'ah; or, if she refuses to drink; or, if her husband refuses to make her drink; or, if her husband had relations with her after the seclusion (before she drank) - she is (forever) forbidden to eat Terumah.
(b) (Gemara - Rav Sheshes): If there are witnesses (even) overseas that know that she is Teme'ah, the water does not test her.

1. "She became Teme'ah, there is not a witness on her" - to exclude when witnesses know about her.

(c) Rav Sheshes supports his law from our Mishnah - 'if witnesses came that she became Teme'ah ...'

1. Question: When did they come?

i. Suggestion: If before she drank - she is a Zonah (obviously, she is forbidden to eat Terumah)!

2. Answer: Rather, after she drank.
3. We understand, according to Rav Sheshes - the water did not test her, the witnesses' testimony is true.
4. Question: If you will say, the water tests her even when witnesses know of her guilt - retroactively, we see that they testified falsely (so why is she forbidden to eat Terumah?)!

(d) Rejection (Rav Yosef): This is no support; we can say, the water will test her; she did not yet die because of her merits.
(e) Rav Sheshes and Rav Yosef argue regarding sickness when merits delay her death.

1. (Mishnah - Rebbi): A Sotah that was Teme'ah, but had merits, her death is delayed;

i. She will not give birth or improve, rather she gets increasingly sick; eventually, she dies according to the curse (the stomach explodes...).

2. Rav Sheshes holds that Chachamim agree to Rebbi, that she gets increasingly sick (and it is always clear when merit delays the death).
3. Rav Yosef holds that Chachamim argue, and say that when merit suspends the death, she can appear well.

(f) Question (Rav Simi bar Ashi - Mishnah): R. Shimon says, merit cannot delay the death - if it could, women would not be afraid to drink, and people may say that women that survive are really Teme'ah!

1. If the test does not work when there are witnesses overseas - also according to R. Shimon, people may suspect that surviving women are Teme'ah, just that there are witnesses overseas!

(g) Answer (for Rav Sheshes): True, R. Shimon holds that witnesses do not hinder the test, just as merit does not suspend the death (Rav Sheshes said his law according to Chachamim).
(h) Question (Rava - Mishnah): The Minchah (flour-offering) of any the following Sotos is burned: she says 'I am Teme'ah; or, if witnesses testified that she became Teme'ah ...

1. Question: When did witnesses come?

i. Suggestion: If before the Minchah was made Hekdesh - it would be Chulin!

2. Answer: Rather, after it was made Hekdesh.
3. We understand, if the water tests her even when witnesses know of her guilt - she was fitting to be tested, it was a proper Hekdesh, therefore it must be burned.
4. Question: According to Rav Sheshes, the water could not test her - the Hekdesh was invalid, it should be Chulin - why is it burned?

(i) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah of Diskarata): The case is, she had relations in the Mikdash (after making the Minchah Hekdesh).

1. Question (Rav Mesharshiya): But young Kohanim accompany her, how could she have relations in the Mikdash?
2. Answer #1: She had relations with one of those young Kohanim.
3. Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): She said she had to (leave the Mikdash to) move her bowels - the Kohanim do not lock her up!

(j) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): Really, the Hekdesh was invalid because the water could not test her.

1. The offering is burned by Rabbinic decree, so people should not say that something sanctified in a service vessel can revert to Chulin.

(k) Question (Rav Mari - Beraisa): If the Minchah became Tamei before it was sanctified in a service vessel, it may be redeemed; (if it became Tamei) after it was sanctified in a service vessel, it is burned.

1. If the handful was taken off, and the husband or wife died before it was offered, the Minchah is burned;
2. If the handful was offered, and the husband or wife died before the remainder was eaten, the remainder may be eaten, for the offering was brought because of a doubt; it achieved its atonement.
3. If witnesses came and testified that she is Teme'ah, her offering is burned; if the witnesses (that saw her seclusion) were found to be Zomemim (they were not there to see the seclusion), her offering is Chulin (we do not make the decree of Rav Papa)!

(l) Answer: Zomemim is different - everyone hears about them, they will know why the offering reverts to Chulin, there is no need for a decree.
(m) A Beraisa supports Rav Sheshes' law, but argues on his reasoning.

1. (Beraisa): "Tehorah" - and not that witnesses overseas know that she is Teme'ah; "u'Tehorah" - and not that merit is suspending her death; "She" - and not that women are talking about her guilt as they spin thread in the moonlight.
2. Granted, R. Shimon argues on this Tana, he does not expound the (extra) Vav (u'Tehorah - he says, merit does not suspend her death).