ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sotah 31
SOTAH 31-35 - These Dafim have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham-Fauer
in honor of the first Yahrzeit (18 Teves 5761) of her father, Reb Mordechai
ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner). May the merit of supporting and advancing the
study of the Talmud be l'Iluy Nishmaso.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah, that on that day, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Hurkanus
Darshened from the Pasuk "Hein Yikteleini Lo Ayachel" that Iyov served
Hashem with love, but he required the Pasuk "Ad Egva Lo Asir Tumasi Mimeni"
(declaring that his perfection will never leave him) - because we might
otherwise have interpreted the first Pasuk to mean that if Hashem kills him,
he will no longer hope for His salvation. Examining the word to see whether
it is spelt with an 'Alef' or with a 'Vav' will not help - because sometimes
the word "Lo", even when it is spelt with a 'Vav', means 'not' (as if it was
spelt with an 'Alef').
(b) We prove this from the Pasuk "ve'Chol Tzarasam Lo Tzar" - which means
that Hashem suffers whenever Yisrael suffer, even though "Lo" is spelt with
an Alef' (see Agados Maharsha).
(a) The Pasuk "Zera Avraham Ohavi", indicates that the Pasuk "Ata Yada'ti Ki
Yerei Elokim Atah" - does not confine Avraham to one who only feared G-d,
but who loved Him too (one could explain this to mean that the fear of G-d
here is 'Yir'as ha'Romemus' (fear of G-d Himself, i.e. fear of 'hurting'
Hashem), as opposed to 'Yir'as ha'Onesh' (fear of punishment).
(b) Rebbi Meir learns from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Yerei Elokim" "Yerei
Elokim") - that "Yerei Elokim" mentioned by Iyov also incorporates love.
(c) Based on the Pesukim "Notzer Chesed la'Alafim le'Ohavai u'le'Shomrei
Mitzvosai" and "u'le'Shomrei Mitzvosai le'Elef Dor", Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar
distinguishes between someone who serves Hashem out of fear and someone who
serves Him out of love - in that Hashem sometimes rewards the former's
descendants up to a thousand generations, whereas those of the latter might
receive their reward up to as much as two thousand generations later.
(d) He proves his point from the Pasuk itself - which places "le'Ohavai"
next to "la'Alafim" and "u'le'Shomrei Mitzvosai" (the equivalent of 'Yir'ei
Elokim') to "le'Elef Dor".
(a) This Sugya is not synonymous with 'Parush me'Ahavah' and 'Parush
mi'Yir'ah' which we discussed above in Perek Notel - which is referring to
the love of reward and the fear of punishment (not of Hashem Himself).
***** Hadran Alach ke'Sheim she'ha'Mayim *****
(b) When one Talmid dreamt the Pasuk "Mah Rav Tuvcha Asher Tzafanta
li'Yere'echa", and the other, the Pasuk there "Ve'yismechu Kol Chosei Vach
... Ve'ya'altzu Becha Ohavei Shemecha", Rava commented - that they were both
perfect Tzadikim, only the one served Hashem out of love, and the other, out
***** Perek Mi she'Kinei *****
(a) Following their respective opinions in the opening Mishnah in the
Masechta, if someone heard from a bird in flight that his wife had
contravened his warning and secluded with another man ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer holds - that he is obligated to divorce his wife,
though she does not lose her Kesuvah.
(b) The significance of 'Ad she'Yis'u ve'Yitnu Bah Muzaros' is - that if
people are talking about her, it is as good as two witnesses as far as the
obligation to divorce her is concerned (due to the Pasuk "u'Tehorah Hi"
which precludes her from remaining with her husband).
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua - requires two witnesses even for that.
(a) If, in the previous case, one witness adds that she committed adultery -
she does no longer drinks, but goes out without her Kesuvah.
(b) We will believe ...
1. ... even an Eved or a Shifchah in this case.
(c) The Halachah in the previous two groups of cases differs - inasmuch as
in the former group, she loses her Kesuvah, whereas in the latter group, she
does not, because, although the Torah believes any witness regarding
prohibiting her from her husband, we cannot believe this group with regard
to money-matters, because they all hate her.
2. ... even her mother-in-law, her husband's sister or brother's wife, her
rival wife or her husband's daughter.
(d) These last-mentioned five have in common - that they are not believed to
testify that her husband died.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Eid Ein Bah" - that even if there are no two
witnesses, but only one, she is forbidden, provided she was not raped.
(b) If not for the Pasuk, we have thought that one witness is not believed -
because, if he is not believed by the S'tirah (which does not forbid her on
her husband permanently [until she drinks the water]), then he should
certainly not be believed by the Tum'ah, which does.
(c) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (from Mamon) "Ki Matza Bah Ervas
*Davar*", "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim Yakum *Davar*" - that one witness is not
believed by the S'tirah.
(d) If not for the Pasuk, we would have thought that one witness is
believed - 'Kal va'Chomer from the Din of Tum'ah, which forbids her forever,
yet he is.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states that in a case where one witness
testifies that she is Tamei and another witness testifies that she is not -
she drinks (because the two witnesses cancel each other out, and the woman
remains a Safek.
(b) The Din ...
1. ... in the previous case when the two witnesses are women - is exactly
the same as when they are men.
2. ... if one witness testifies that she is Tamei and two, that she is not
(because, they claim, they were with him when he witnessed the S'tirah and
that his testimony is untrue) - she drinks.
3. ... if two witnesses testify that she is Tamei, and one witness, that she
is not - she does not drink.
(a) We extrapolate from the Pasuk "ve'Eid Ein *Bah*" - "Bah", 've'Lo
be'Kinuy', "Bah", 've'Lo bi'S'tirah', which teaches us that one witness is
not believed with regard to Kinuy and S'tirah.
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah - does not really quote the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Davar" "Davar" from Mamon regarding this Din at all. He actually cites the
D'rashah of "Bah ... ", 've'Lo be'Kinuy', "Bah", 've'Lo bi'S'tirah', which
we need to add to the text.
(c) He cites the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - to teach us that, when there was no
Kinuy and S'tirah, one witness is not believed to say that a woman committed
adultery (as we might otherwise have learned from Sotah that he is).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Lo Yakum *Eid Echad be'Ish"* - that whenever
the Torah writes "Eid" S'tam, it means two witnesses.
(b) Consequently, when the Torah writes "ve'Eid Ein Bah" - it means that
there are not two witnesses, but only one, teaching us that one witness is
believed by Tum'ah of Sotah (as we cited earlier).
(c) Ula says that whenever the Torah believes one witness - he has the
strength of two.
(d) Consequently, he (and Rebbi Yitzchak) amend our Mishnah 'Eid Omer
Nitmeis, ve'Eid Omer Lo Nitmeis, Haysah Shosah' - to 'Lo Haysah Shosah'
(seeing as the first witness, who testified that she is Tamei, has the power
of two witnesses).
(a) Rebbi Chiya retains the original version of our Mishnah ('Haysah
Shosah') - because he establishes the Mishnah when the second witness
testified 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the first one, in which case, the testimony
of the first witnesses has not yet been accepted. Ula's Din on the other
hand, will apply when the second witness testified only after the testimony
of the first one had been accepted.
(b) We can extrapolate from the case of 'Eid Omer Nitmeis, u'Shenayim Omrim
Lo Nitmeis, Haysah Shosah' - that if there were two single witnesses, she
would not drink (like Ula's text).
(c) Rebbi Chiya will counter this proof against him - by making the exact
opposite inference from the final case 'Shenayim Omrim Nitmeis, ve'Echad
Omer Lo Nitmeis, Lo Haysah Shosah', 'Ha Chad ve'Chad, Haysash Shosah' (like
(d) He does not remain with the original assumption, that the Tana's
intention is to teach us the inferences, and the third case speaks when the
second witness came after Toch K'dei Dibur of the first (like he explained
in the Reisha) - because 'u'Shenayim Omrim Lo Nitmeis' implies 'Lo Nitmeis
be'Fanecha' (as we explained in the Mishnah), in which case all the
witnesses came together to Beis-Din.
(a) Seeing as the Tana clearly does not come to teach us the inferences, he
must be speaking when in both cases, the two witnesses are women, and the
Chidush is - that whenever the Torah believes one witness, we always go
after the majority opinion, even if it is two women versus one man.
Consequently, when the Tana says ...
1. ... Echad Omer Nitmeis, u'Shenayim Omrim Lo Nitmeis, Haysah Shosah' - he
means that one man testifies 'Nitmeis' and two women, 'Lo Nitmeis'.
(b) The author of our Mishnah will then be - Rebbi Nechemyah.
2. ... 'Shenayim Omrim Nitmeis, ve'Echad Omer Lo Nitmeis, Lo Haysah
Shosah' - that two women testify 'Nitmeis, and one man, "Lo Nitmeis'.
(a) According to the second Lashon - we amend Rebbi Nechemyah to read - 'Kol
Makom she'He'eminah Torah Eid Echad, Halach Achar Rov Dei'os ve'Asu Sh'tei
Nashim be'Ishah Achas, ki'Shenei Anashim be'Ish Echad'.
The Tana finds it necessary to teach us the Din of 'Sh'nayim Omrim Nitmeis,
ve'Echad Omer Lo Nitmeis', after having already informed us that we follow
the majority opinion in the reverse case - because we would otherwise have
restricted the ruling to the first case, where we go le'Chumra and make her
drink, but we would not perhaps follow the majority opinion to go le'Kula
and absolve her from drinking.
(b) According to this Lashon, if one man testifies that she is Tamei, and
two women (or even a hundred) that she is not assuming that ...
1. ... they came together - the Din will be exactly the same as one against
one; they cancel each other out and she is obligated to drink.
(c) In the case of 'Eid Echad Omer Nitmeis, u'Shenayim Omrim Lo Nitmeis,
Haysah Shosah', the Tana must be speaking when the two witnesses came after
'Toch K'dei Dibur' - because if they came together, then she would drink
even if it was one against one.
2. ... one of them came after 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the other - then
whichever testified first will be believed like two, and the one that
followed will not be believed.
(d) The Chidush is therefore - that even though the woman testified first,
the two men who came after her negate her testimony, and she is obligated to
***** Hadran Alach Mi she'Kinei *****