{"id":11840,"date":"2008-06-19T15:56:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-19T15:56:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_sotah_2733\/"},"modified":"2015-10-29T09:48:18","modified_gmt":"2015-10-29T14:48:18","slug":"masechet_sotah_2733","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_sotah_2733\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Sotah 27a – 33b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

This month\u2019s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris, The Lewy Family Foundation, and Marilyn and Edward Kaplan<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Sotah 27a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Gemara<\/a> discusses the question of whether it is appropriate to marry a dumah<\/em> or the daughter of a dumah<\/em>. A dumah<\/em> is an Aramaic<\/a> word that – in our context – refers to a woman about whom there are rumors that she is unfaithful to her husband. Shmuel<\/a> permits marrying such a woman, but not her daughter, who may be the product of a forbidden relationship. Rabbi Yohanan<\/a> permits marrying the daughter, about whom there are no rumors, and forbids marrying the mother, who has developed an unenviable reputation.<\/p>\n

Rashi<\/a> and others make the point that neither Shmuel nor Rabbi Yohanan actually forbid marriage to these women, but rather offer strong recommendations against marrying one or the other. It appears that the point of argument is whether the greater concern is with the daughter, given her uncertain status that will never be resolved, or with the mother, who gives every reason to be concerned lest she commit adultery when she is married.<\/p>\n

Our Gemara comes to a clear conclusion that marrying the daughter is permitted, since – as Rav Tachlifa bar Ma’arva taught Rabbi Abahu<\/a> – even if we are certain that a woman committed adultery, we do not cast aspersions on her children, since we rule rov be’ilot ahar ha-ba’al<\/em> \u2013 that the majority of her sexual encounters were with her husband, so the children are most likely his.<\/p>\n

The Rambam<\/a> (Hilkhot Isurei Bi’ah<\/em> 15:20<\/a>) accepts the Gemara’s ruling and concludes that a person can marry the daughter with no compunctions (unless she is perutzah be-yoter <\/em>– unusually promiscuous). The Me’iri<\/a>, however, deems it appropriate for a person who wants to avoid unpleasant situations to avoid both the mother and the daughter since we have reason to suspect that the daughter will follow in her mother’s footsteps.<\/p>\n

\n

Sotah 28a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The fifth perek<\/em> of Masechet<\/a> Sotah<\/a><\/em>, which began with the Mishnah<\/a> on daf<\/em> 27b, is a collection of homiletic interpretations of a number of biblical passages. The thread that holds these interpretations together is the fact that they were all said bo ba-yom<\/em> – “on that day” – which is to say, on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah<\/a> was appointed to the position of nasi<\/a><\/em> of the Sanhedrin<\/a> (see Masechet Brachot<\/a><\/em> 28a).<\/p>\n

The first of these teachings relates to the laws of Sotah<\/em>, where we find that Rabbi Akiva<\/a> learns from passages in the parashah<\/a><\/em> of Sotah<\/em> (see Bamidbar<\/a> 5:12-31<\/a>) that the “bitter waters” examine not only her behaviors, but his, as well. Although the pronoun is unclear, our Gemara<\/a> concludes that when Rabbi Akiva says that the “bitter waters” examine “his” behaviors, he must be referring to her lover and not her husband. That is to say, if the woman had, in fact, committed adultery, not only would she die the horrible death described in the Torah<\/a>, but the man with whom she committed adultery would suffer that death as well. It cannot be understood as referring to her husband – i.e. that her husband would be punished if he had been unfaithful or committed some sexual crime – because the Sages had a tradition, based on the last pasuk<\/em> in the parsha<\/em> (Bamidbar 5:31<\/a>), that if the husband had committed such a crime, the “bitter waters” would simply be ineffective.<\/p>\n

According to the Rambam<\/a> (Hilkhot Sotah 2:8<\/a><\/em>), this rule applies to any sexual misdeed. If at any point in his life the husband engaged in a sinful sexual act, the Sotah<\/em> ceremony will not work on his wife. Many of the commentaries disagree with this position, ruling that it is only if the forbidden act related to his wife that the “bitter waters” would have no effect. In his commentary on the Torah, the Ramban<\/a> argues that this rule applies to the entire family, so that if anyone in the family had transgressed a sexual prohibition, the waters would not work.<\/p>\n

\n

Sotah 29a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s Daf Yomi is dedicated in honor of the yahrzeit<\/em> of Morris Lewy (19 Sivan).<\/strong><\/p>\n

As we learned on yesterday’s daf<\/a><\/em>, the fifth perek<\/em> of Masechet<\/a> Sotah<\/a> <\/em>is a collection of homiletic interpretations of a number of biblical passages. The thread that holds these interpretations together is the fact that they were all said bo ba-yom<\/em> – “on that day” – which is to say, on the day that Rabban Gamli’el<\/a> was removed from his post as head of the Sanhedrin<\/a> and replaced by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah<\/a>. On that day a large number of open questions were examined and clarified – many of which appear in Masechet Eduyot<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

It appears that the shift from Rabban Gamliel to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah included a change in the method of learning in the bet midrash<\/a><\/em>. \u00a0This allowed for greater freedom among the scholars to present their own learning and interpretations, which brought up teachings that had never been shared before. While the first teaching of Rabbi Akiva<\/a> that appears in our perek<\/em> – which was, according to Rashi<\/a>, taught bo ba-yom<\/em> – relates directly to Sotah<\/em>, the ones that follow deal with a wide variety of subjects.<\/p>\n

The second bo ba-yom<\/em> teaching brought in the name of Rabbi Akiva focuses on the question of tumah<\/em> – ritual defilement – and specifically how far removed an object might be from the source of tumah<\/em>, and still retain an element of ritual defilement. Generally speaking, the levels of tumah<\/em> work as follows:<\/p>\n