Kollel Iyun Hadaf Answers to Review Questions: Sotah 26-30

 Kollel Iyun Hadaf Answers to Review Questions: Sotah 26-30

________________________________________________________________



ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS



by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler

Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim

Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

________________________________________________________________



Sotah 26



(a) The Tana draws a distinction between a young man whose elderly wife or one who is unable to have children is a Sotah who has another wife - in which case he is permitted to retain her and she drink, and one who does not - in which case she is unfit to retain and does not drink.
1)
(b) In the latter case she her husband gives her a Get, but she loses her Kesuvah.



(c) The Tana obligates a Sotah who is pregnant or feeding to drink the Mei Sotah (or to accept a Get and lose her Kesuvah) - even though this will result in her fetus or her baby dying too.

(d) What 'Eshes Mamzer l'Mamzer, Eshes Nasin l'Nasin, Eshes Ger v'Eved Meshuchrar v'Ailonis' have in common is - that they either drink the Mei Sotah or they receive a Get, and lose their Kesuvah.



2)

(a) Rav Nachman (who holds that even the Rabanan of Rebbi Eliezer agree that an Ailonis does not drink) holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who learns from the Pasuk "ve'Niksah ve'Nizre'ah Zara" - a woman who is unfit to have children does not drink the Mei Sotah.

(b) Rebbi Akiva learns from this Pasuk - that if the woman had previously been barren, she will now bear children.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael objects to this Derashah - because it will serve as an incentive for women who are unable to have children to contravene their husband's instructions and seclude with other men to enable them to bear children (as indeed Chanah threatened to do, as we learned in Berachos).

(d) So he modifies the Derashah to learn from the Pasuk - that if until now, she was used to having painful births, she will from now on, bear children painlessly, and if she was used to bearing girls, or short or ugly children, she will from now on give birth to, tall and good-looking boys.



3)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah included a Pasul woman who is married to a Mamzer in the Din of drinking, as well as the wife of a convert and a a freed slave. He found it necessary to include ...

1. ... a Pasul woman who is married to a Mamzer - because we might otherwise have thought that (bearing in mind that the main function of the water is to make peace between the man and his wife) it would be better for her not to drink, so as not to encourage them to reunite and bring more Mamzerim into the world.

2. ... the wife of a convert and a a freed slave - because the Torah introduces the Parshah of Sotah with the words "Daber el Bnei Yisrael ... ", implying 'but not converts'.

(b) His source for including them - is the word "v'Amarta” (see Tosfos).

(c) He also includes the wife of a Kohen. We might have otherwise Darshened from the Pasuk "*v'Hi* Lo Nispasah" (bearing in mind that "v'Hi" is a Mi'ut [which comes to preclude]) - only a bas Yisrael (to whom the inference v'Hi Lo Nispasah", 'Ha Nispasah [b'Ones] Muteres' applies) is subject to the Dinim of Sotah, but not a bas Kohen (to whom it does not).



4)

(a) The Tana states further (with regard to the wife of a Kohen) 'u'Muteres l'Ba'alah', which he finds necessary to insert in the Mishnah - because he is speaking when, immediately after the Sotah drunk, she began to deteriorate, conveying the impression that she is a Zonah who is forbidden to her husband.

(b) Nevertheless, it is not at all obvious that she is indeed guilty (and that she did not die on account of her merits) - because the Mishnah is speaking when the water affected other parts of her body than her stomach and thighs (e.g. her head became heavy ... ) ...

(c) ... and the Tana is coming to teach us - that we do not consider the fact that the water is affecting her via limbs other than her stomach and thighs as an indication that she had relations with the man concerned, only she was an Ones (which would render her forbidden to her husband who is a Kohen).



5)

(a) The Tana also says 'Eshes Seris Shoseh'. This is not a case of the Shechivah of the adulterer preceding that of the husband (in which case, the water will not have any effect) - because although a Seris cannot impregnate his wife, he can be intimate with her.

(b) The Tana must be referring to a Seris Chamah (who was born a Seris) and not a Seris Adam (who became one through an accident) - because the latter is forbidden to retain his wife (due to the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Yavo Petzu'a Daka u'Kerus Shafchah bi'Kehal Hashem"), and we have already learned that a woman who is forbidden to her husband does not drink.

(c) We might have thought that Kinuy will not apply to an adulterer who is a close relative - because "v'Nitma'ah” “V'Nitma'ah" ('Echad l'Ba'al v'Echad l'Bo'el) implies that the adulterer (like her husband) becomes forbidden through it, to preclude one who is forbidden to her anyway.

(d) We refute this proposition - on the grounds that the Pasuk comes to forbid the adulterer should he have been permitted until the seclusion, but not to preclude from the prohibition one who was forbidden already (because there is no word in the Pasuk that precludes).



26b-------------------26b



6)

(a) The word "Ish" - comes to preclude a woman from the Din of Sotah if the Bo'el is a Katan.

(b) The Tana includes veshe'Eino Ish' together with a Katan. Initially we suggest that this means a Shachuf. 'Shachafas' is - tuberculosis (a wasting disease which leaves the patient able to perform Bi'ah, but unable to impregnate).

(c) But we reject this proposition on account of Shmuel - who qualifies a Shachuf  both as a Bo'el in the Din of Sotah and as fit to disqualify a bas Kohen from eating Terumah.

(d) We attempted to preclude a Shachuf (as well as a Saris - see Tosfos DH 'Shachuf') from the Din of Sotah - from the Pasuk "v'Shachav Ish Osach *Shichvas Zera*".



7)

(a) The Pasuk "v'Lo Yechalel *Zar'o*" does not come to preclude  a Shachuf from disqualifying a bas Kohen from eating Terumah (because, like a Saris, he is able to be intimate (as we explained), neither does it come to preclude the Bi'ah of a Nochri, because of a statement by Rav Hamnuna, who qualifies a Shachuf both as a Bo'el in the Din of Sotah and as fit to disqualify a bas Kohen from eating Terumah..

(b) We might have thought that he does not qualify as a Bo'el in the Din of Sotah (just as we learned above regarding a Saris), and that, based on the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar", his Bi'ah does not disqualify a bas Kohen from Terumah either - because "Ki Sihyeh" implies that it is only the Bi'ah of someone with whom Kidushin is effective who disqualifies her.

(c) However, Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh Almanah u'Gerushah v'Zera Ein Lah, v'Shavah El Beis Avihah" - that it is only a man whose divorce and death render the bas Kohen a divorcee or a widow, respectively, who permit her to return to her father's house to eat Terumah, but not the Bi'ah of a Nochri, whose divorce and death will not affect her.



8)

(a) So the 'Mi she'Eino Ish' in our Mishnah – refers to an animal, who does not qualify as a Bo'el from the Pasuk "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o" (because Znus with an animal is not called Znus [even though it carries with it an Isur Sekilah]).

(b) The Tana of a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Lo Savi Esnan Zonah u'Mechir Kelev ... Gam *Sheneihem*" - that this Pasuk is restricted to two cases, and does not incorporate four (meaning that there is no such thing as Esnan Kelev or Mechir Zonah.

(c) The case of ...

1. ... Esnan Kelev - is when a man gives a prostitute a lamb in exchange for having relations with his dog.

2. ... Mechir Zonah - is when a man swaps his prostitute slave-girl for a lamb.

(d) Having included a Shachuf and a Saris in the Din of Sotah, we have a problem as to why the Torah writes "Shichvas Zera". It cannot come to preclude a case where a husband warned his wife not to ...

1. ... perform an unnatural Bi'ah with the adulterer (like Rav Sheshes suggests) - because the Torah writes "Mishkevei Ishah" (in Acharei-Mos) comparing an unnatural Bi'ah to a natural one (thereby including such a warning in the Din of Sotah).

2. ... lie with him in close proximity, without performing Bi'ah (like Rava suggests - according to our initial understanding) - because even though this may well be an indecent act, there is no reason why it should render a woman a Sotah.



9)

(a) Abaye explains that "Shichvas Zera comes to preclude Neshikah - the first stage of Bi'ah (which entails no more than the touching of the genitals).

(b) We object to Abaye's explanation - on the grounds that although his explanation is acceptable according to those who explain Ha'ara'ah (a partial Bi'ah which the Torah compares to a complete Bi'ah) as 'Hachnasas Atarah' (the entry of the limb), but according to those who explain it to be Neshikah, how can we preclude from the Din of Sotah a case which the Torah has already compared to Bi'ah?

(c) In order to accommodate those who interpret Ha'ara'ah as Neshikah, we reinstate Rava's answer (that it comes to preclude when the husband warned his wife not to lie with the adulterer in close proximity, without performing Bi'ah). If not for the Pasuk, we may well have thought - that the Torah takes its cue from the whim of the husband (and whatever he is fussy about, renders her a Sotah).







________________________________________________________________



ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS



by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler

Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim

Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

________________________________________________________________



Sotah 27



1)

(a) According to Shmuel, one should rather marry a Domah than the daughter of a Domah. A Domah is a woman about whose permissiveness everyone talks.

(b) Shmuel's reason is - because whereas she is from Kosher parents, her daughter's father may well be a Nochri or a Mamzer.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan permits marrying the daughter - who has a Chezkas Kashrus (due to the principle 'Most Be'ilos are attributed to her husband', for which reason, he is not concerned about a 'Tipah Pesulah'), whereas her mother, who is known to go out with other men, does not.



2)

(a) We refute the proof for Shmuel from the Beraisa 'Nosei Adam Domah' - by pointing out that we need to change the text anyway, seeing as one may certainly not marry a Domah l'Chatchilah. Consequently, one needs to change the wording to 'Im Nasa Adam Domah Mutar' ...

(b) ... in which case, we may as well change it to read 'Im Nasa Bas Domah Mutar'.

(c) We rule like Rebbi Yochanan on the basis of a Beraisa quoted by Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arava in front of Rebbi Avahu - who said that the children of a permissive woman are Kosher, because most of a woman's Be'ilos are attributed to her husband.



3)

(a) Rav Amram asks whether one may marry the daughter of a Domah who is highly licentious, which might be forbidden even according to Rebbi Yochanan - because it is no longer possible to attribute most of the Be'ilos to her husband.

(b) This She'eilah is not applicable according to those who hold that a woman becomes pregnant only a short while before her Veses (period) - because seeing as her husband does not know when her Veses is due, he cannot keep check of her movements whenever it occurs (and the answer to the She'eilah is obvious).

(c) It applies however - according to those who hold that a woman becomes pregnant shortly after her Tevilah, in which case, it is possible for her husband keep check of her movements.

(d) Despite the fact that her husband is able to keep track of her movements, it might nevertheless be forbidden to marry her daughter - because when a woman is excessively licentious, even her husband cannot possibly keep track of all her escapades, and we may well no longer attribute most of her Be'ilos to her husband.



4)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "*Ish Ish* Ki Sisteh Ishto" - that whenever the husband is unable to warn his wife, then Beis-Din take his place.

(b) The Tana Kama learns from "v'Heivi *ha'Ish* Es Ishto" that Beis-Din's warning will only suffice for her to lose her Kesuvah, but not to drink the Mei Sotah. According to Rebbi Yosi - it will even be effective to make her drink, though only under the auspices of her husband, when he is freed from jail.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we Darshen from "v'Kina v'Heivi" that the one who makes her drink must be the one who warned her (the Chachamim) or not (Rebbi Yosi).

(d) We do not preclude the Beis-Din warning her from "v'Kinei ha'Ish Es Ishto", implying that only her husband can warn her - because the Ribuy "Ish Ish" includes them.



5)

(a) Rav Sheshes, Rav Ashi and Mar bar Rav Ashi, respectively, learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "v'Ne'elam *me'Einei* Ishah" - that a woman whose husband is blind cannot become a Sotah, from ...

2. ... "*v'He'emid* ha'Kohen Es ha'Ishah Lifnei Hashem, v'Nasan Al *Kapehah*" - that a woman who is lame or who has no hands cannot become a Sotah either, and from ...

3. ... "*v'Amrah* ha'Ishah Amen Amen" - that a mute woman cannot become a Sotah.

(b) The Beraisa learns from the Hekesh "Asher Tisteh *Ishah* Tachas *Ishah*" - that we compare the man to the woman and vice-versa in all the above regards.



***** HADRAN ALACH ARUSAH *****



***** PEREK K'SHEM *****



27b----------------27b



6)

(a)  Rebbi Akiva learns from ...

1. ... "u'Va'u ... u'Va'u" - that just as the water examines the Sotah, so too, does it examine the Bo'el.

2. ... the extra 'Vav' in "Nitme'ah v'Nitma'ah" - that just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too, is she forbidden to the Bo'el.

(b) The latter Derashah is based on the two Pesukim "v'Kinei Es Ishto v'Hi Nitma'ah" and "v'Haysah Im Nitma'ah". We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitma'ah" - that the Sotah is considered Vadai Tamei if there is one witness who testifies that she is guilty.

2. ... "Asher Tisteh Ishah ... v'Nitma'ah" - that, if she is a Kohenes, she is forbidden to eat Terumah.

(c) These two Derashos are not inserted in this Mishnah - because the Tana only brings the two "V'Nitma'ah" that it does to teach us the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi.

(d) Rebbi learns the latter Derashah of Rebbi Akiva - (not from the 'Vav', like Rebbi Akiva does, but) from the repetition of the word "Nitma'ah".



7)

(a) 'On that day', Rebbi Akiva made other Derashos (which will now be discussed). 'On that day' refers to - the day that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah took over the Nesi'us from Raban Gamliel. The latter would only permit people whom he knew to be totally sincere into the Beis ha'Midrash. But when the former took over, he opened the doors wide, allowing entry to anyone who wished to learn. The result was an upsurge of Talmidim in the Beis ha'Midrash, and they in turn, clarified many Halachos that had previously been obscure.

(b) He learned from the Pasuk "u'Kli Cheres Asher Yipol Mehem el Tocho, Kol Asher b'Socho *Yitma*" (instead of "Tamei") - that a loaf of bread in an earthenware oven does not only become a Sheni l'Tum'ah, but it also render whatever it touches a Shlishi (the source of a Shlishi l'Tum'ah both by Chulin and by Terumah, according to Rebbi Akiva).

(c) The Tana cites the current Derashos here - because the Derashah of "Nitma'ah" "V'Nitma'ah" it appears, was also Darshened 'on that day'.

(d) When Rebbi Yehoshua said 'Mi Yegaleh Afar me'Einecha Raban Yochanan ben Zakai! - he meant who would enlighten him and tell him Rebbi Akiva's Derashah, because he had stated that there will come a generation who will declare a loaf that is a Shlishi Tahor, since there is no Pasuk that renders it Tamei.



8)

(a) Everyone agrees that the one thousand Amos surrounding the cities of the Leviyim constitute empty space. According to Rebbi Akiva, the second Pasuk which gives the Shi'ur as two thousand Amos, is referring to Techum Shabbos (and not to the space surrounding the Leviyim's cities). Rebbi Eliezer Beno Shel Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili reconciles the two Pesukim - by establishing the latter as an extras thousand Amos for the planting of fields and vineyards for the benefit of the Leviyim

(b) Techum Shabbos according to him - is only mid'Rabanan.



9)

(a) Rebbi Akiva also explained the Pasuk "Az Yashir Moshe ... *Leimor* to mean that Yisrael all repeated the Shirah after him phrase by phrase, like one recites Hallel. Rebbi Nechemyah says - that they repeated it after him like one recites the Shema (both opinion will be explained later).

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua learns from the Pasuk "Hein Yikteleini Lo Ayachel" that Iyov served Hashem with love. He nevertheless requires 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 (since sometimes the word "Lo", even when it is spelt with a 'Vav', means 'not' [as if it was spelt with an 'Alef']).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua commented - that, based on the Pasuk "Ish Tam v'Yashar Yerei Elokim v'Sar me'Ra", Raban Yochanan ben Zakai Darshened that Iyov served Hashem out of fear, but not out of love; and here was his Talmid (himself, Rebbi Yehoshua), Darshening from a Pasuk that he also served Hashem out of love.







________________________________________________________________



ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS



by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler

Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim

Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

________________________________________________________________



Sotah 28



1)

(a) When Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah says 'k'Shem sheha'Mayim Bodkin Osah, Kach ha'Mayim Bodkim Oso', he cannot be referring to the husband - because if the husband is guilty of immoral behavior, the water will not affect his wife.

(b) And the reason that he says 'Oso', rather than 'Bo'el', like he does in the Seifa ('k'Shem she'Asurah l'Ba'al, Kach Asurah l'Bo'el') is - because it balances with 'Bodkin *Osah*' (with which he began - whereas in the Seifa, it balances with 'k'Shem she'Asurah *l'Ba'al*' with which the statement began there).



2)

(a) We ask whether Rebbi Akiva learns his Derashah from the double expression "u'Va'u" "u'Va'u", or from the 'Vav' in "u'Va'u". The answer lies in the second case of "V'Nitma'ah" "v'Nitma'ah" - where Rebbi (who comes to argue with Rebbi Akiva) specifically compares Bo'el to Ba'al from the double wording, in which case Rebbi Akiva must learn it from the extra 'Vav'.

(b) In that case, Rebbi Akiva contends with six Pesukim (three times the word "U'Va'u" and the three 'Vavin', and Rebbi with three. The purpose of the three initial Pesukim is for the 'Yedi'ah', for the 'Tzava'ah' and for the 'Asi'ah'. He learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "U'Va'u ha'Mayim ha'Me'arerim ha'Eleh b'Me'ayich La'tz'bos Beten Ve'lanpil Yarech" - the Yedi'ah, to inform her that  the water will first effect her stomach, and then her thighs. This is to avoid the likelihood of people attributing the effect of the water to natural causes, due to the fact that the order did not follow that of the curse (which in turn, represented the order in which she sinned).

2. ... "Ve'hishkah Es ha'Ishah Es Mei ha'Me'arerim, U'Va'u Vah ha'Mayim" - the Tzava'ah, Hashem's commanding the water to examine her and to perform its task in the event of her guilt.

3. ... "Ve'Hishkah Es ha'Mayim, Ve'haysah Im Nitme'ah ... U'Va'u ... " - the Asi'ah, to instruct the Kohen what to do and what will subsequently happen.

(c) Rebbi learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'tzavsah Bitnah Ve'naflah Yereichah" - that the water will cause the Sotah to suffer the consequences of her actions.

2. ... "La'tz'bos Beten Ve'lanpil Yarech" - that whatever happens to the Sotah will also happen to the Bo'el.

(d) Rebbi learns ...

1. ... the Yedi'ah (to inform her that  the water will first effect her stomach, and then her thighs [which Rebbi Akiva learns from this  Pasuk]) - from the basic words of the Pasuk, and from the Lashon "Beten" and "Yarech" (rather than "Bitnah" amd "Yereichah", he includes the Beten and Yerech of the Bo'el.

2. ... that the Pasuk also comes for the Tza'avah regardimg the woman (and not just to teach us the punishment of the Bo'el) - from the Lashon "Beten and Yarech (rather than "Bitno" and Yerecho").



3)

(a) We already learned in our Mishnah that Rebbi Akiva Darshens the three times "V'Nitma'ah" to teach us that she is forbidden to the husband, to the Bo'el and to eat Terumah. Based on the Isur Terumah - Rebbi Yishmael learns from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Gerushah, who is forbidden to marry a Kohen, even though she is *permitted* to eat Terumah, that a Sotah, who is *forbidden* to eat Terumah, should certainly be forbidden to subsequently marry a Kohen in the event of her husband's death.

(b) The problem with the two Pesukim "v'Kinei es Ishto v'Hi Nitma'ah" and "O Avar Alav ... v'Hi Lo Nitma'ah" is - that 'Mah Nafshach', if she is Tamei (guilty) why should she need to drink; and if she is Tahor, why does her husband give her to drink in the first place?

(c) We solve this problem - by establishing the Pasuk by a Safek, and the Pasuk is actually warning his wife who is perhaps Tamei ... and perhaps not.

(d) The major ruling that now emerges from this explanation is - that a Safek Sotah is forbidden to her husband as if she was a Vadai.



28b------------------------28b



4)

(a) The 'Kal va'Chomer from a Safek Sotah with regard to a Safek Tum'as Sheretz is - that if we are strict with regard to a Safek Sotah, in spite of the fact that she would be Patur if she was a Shogeg, then we should certainly be stringent by Safek Tum'as Sheretz, which renders Tamei even b'Shogeg.

(b) We learn that 'Safek Tum'ah Tamei' is confined to Safek Tum'ah in a Reshus ha'Yachid - from Sotah, who only has the Din of Sotah after secluding herself with the Bo'el in a private location.

(c) The other qualification that we learn from Safek Sotah is - that Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Yachid is only Tamei when the Safek is able to ask whether it is Tamei or not (i.e. if it involves either a person, or an object that is accompanied by a person).



5)

(a) Rebbi Yishmael extrapolates from a 'Kal va'Chomer' that if the Sotah is Asur to eat Terumah, then she is certainly Asur to marry a Kohen. The initial problem with this is - how can Rebbi Yishmael come to argue with Rebbi Akiva, seeing as the latter did not state any opinion in this matter?

(b) We cannot answer that Rebbi Akiva forbids a Sotah to marry a Kohen because she is a Safek Zonah - because if that were so, she would be forbidden to eat Terumah for the same reason, and Rebbi Akiva would not require "V'Nitma'ah" to teach us that.





________________________________________________________________



ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS



by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler

Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim

Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

________________________________________________________________



Sotah 29



1)

(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar" - that the *Bi'ah* of any man (even without betrothal) who is unfit to marry a bas Kohen makes her a Zonah and forbids her to eat Terumah and to marry a Kohen.

(b) Rebbi Akiva ultimately learns the Isur of a Sotah to her husband, the Bo'el, to a Kohen and the Isur to eat Terumah from four Pesukim - the three "Nitma'ah" and the one 'Vav' in "V'Nitma'ah".



2)

(a) Rebbi Yishmael does not Darshan the 'Vav' in "Venit'ama'h", so he only has the three Pesukim of "Nitma'ah" - from which he Darshens 'le'Ba'al', 'leBo'el' and 'li'Terumah'.

(b) In fact, he learns Kehunah from a 'Kal va'Chomer'. He prefers to learn Terumah from a Pasuk and Kehunah from a 'Kal va'Chomer', rather then Kehunah from a Pasuk in which case, the Sotah would be permitted to eat Terumah - because it is logical to establish the third Derashah by Terumah, which like Ba'al and Bo'el, applies in the lifetime of the husband, rather than by Kehunah, which only applies after his death.

(c) Rebbi Akiva on the other hand, requires four Pesukim. The reason that the Torah needs four Pesukim, and will not suffice with three plus the 'Kal va'Chomer' (like Rebbi Yishmael) may be because he disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael's Sevara (that the third Derashah must be similar to Ba'al and Bo'el). Alternatively, to answer the Kashya, we might rely on the principle - 'Milsa d'Asya b'Kal va'Chomer, Tarach v'Kasav Lah K'ra' (the Torah specifically included a Pasuk for Kehunah, despite the fact that we would have known it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Terumah anyway).



3)

(a) We can extrapolate from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel" - that if it is only a Safek Tum'ah, then one may eat it (without becoming Tamei).

2. ... "veha'Basar Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" - that if it is a Safek Tamei, then one cannot eat it (without becoming Tamei).

(b) Rav Gidal Amar Rav learns from this apparent contradiction - that when the Safek is able to ask, he is Tamei in the Reshus ha'Yachid, whereas when it is not, it is Tahor.

(c) In view of ...

1. ... Rav Gidal's Derashah, we nevertheless need to learn the Din of Da'as Lisha'el from Sotah - to confine the Tum'ah in a case of 'Ein Lah Da'as Lishaeil' to a Reshus ha'Yachid, like by Sotah.

2. ... the source of Sotah, we nevertheless need Rav Gidal's Derashah - to teach us that Da'as Lisha'el is Tamei even if it is only the Safek that is able to ask, whereas from Sotah we would have derived that both the Safek and the Tamei 'object' must both be in that category in order to be Tamei.



4)

(a) The problem with Raban Yochanan ben Zakai in our Mishnah, who holds that everyone agrees with the concept of a Shlishi l'Tum'ah at least in Terumah; however, since he could not find a Pasuk for it, a generation would arise who would declare it Tahor. The problem with this is - if he had no Pasuk for a Shlishi l'Tum'ah, why should they not declare it Tahor?

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav cites a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Tvul Yom - who is permitted to eat Chulin, yet he invalidates Terumah, a Sheni, which is Pasul by Chulin, should certainly make a Terumah a Shlishi.

(c) We cannot apply the principle of 'Dayo' (to restrict the level of Tum'ah to a Sheni, because we start off with a loaf which is a Sheni, so we cannot learn anything beyond a Sheni from the 'Kal va'Chomer') because we know that a Sheni makes Terumah Pasul without a Kal va'Chomer, and our Gemara maintains that where the 'Kal va'Chomer' will not achieve anything new if 'Dayo' is applied, then we do not apply it.



5)

(a) We refute ...

1. ... the 'Kal va'Chomer' however - on the grounds that a Tvul-Yom (a Tamei person who has Toveled and who is waiting for nightfall) is an Av ha'Tum'ah, whereas a loaf that is a Sheni is only a Toldah.

2. ... the suggestion that we are speaking about a Tvul-Yom of a Sheretz, who is only a Sheni, and who nevertheless, invalidates Terumah - on the grounds that even a Tvul Yom of a Sheretz (i.e. a person) is of the species that can become an Av ha'Tum'ah (through contact with a corpse); whereas a loaf which is a Sheni is not.

(b) Food cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah - because when the Torah speaks about a Tamei Mes becoming an Av, it has just spoken about Taharah b'Mikvah, and food cannot be purified in a Mikvah.



29b-----------------------29b



6)

(a) It is in order to bring a support for the 'Mah Matzinu' from a Tvul-Yom of a Sheretz, from earthenware vessels (which cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah), in spite of the fact that they are different, inasmuch as they are not permitted by Chulin (like a Tvul-Yom of a Sheretz is) - because since we are basically learning a Chumra, it does not matter that they do not possess the Kula which sparks off the 'Mah Matzinu'. All that matters is that they don't possess the Chumra which creates the Pircha.

(b) We refute the suggestion to learn a loaf which is a Sheni from an earthenware vessel (which cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah, and yet it can invalidate Terumah on the grounds that earthenware vessels are different) - inasmuch as they can receive Tum'ah from the inside (even when there is no physical contact between them).

(c) Raban Yachanan ben Zakai ultimately learns that a loaf of bread that is a Sheni can make a Shlishi in Terumah - from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' (a combination of a Tvul-Yom and earthenware vessels (which are both permitted by Chulin but render Pasul by Terumah).



7)

(a) We change the current text of the 'Mah ha'Tzad' (from she'Mutarin b'Chulin u'Poslin bi'Terumah') to 'she'Temei'in u'Poslin bi'Terumah'. We initially attempt to explain 'u'Poslin bi'Terumah' with regard to Klei Cheres - by establishing the case by earthenware vessels that are covered and sealed tightly shut, in which case the vessel protects Chulin that it contains from Ohel ha'Mes, but not Terumah.

(b) One of the reasons for refuting this explanation is because the implications from a Sugya in Chagigah are that it protects Terumah, too. The second reason is - because the phrase 'u'Poslin bi'Terumah' would then be inappropriate (since the correct wording would have been 've'Eino Matzeles bi'Terumah).

(c) Our main objection to the current text 'she'Mutarin b'Chulin' is - because 'she'Mutarin l'Chulin' is a Kula and not a Chumra.



8)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "U'va ha'Shemesh *Ve'taher*" - that  a Tvul Yom is considered Tamei.

(b) The later generation, that declares a Shlishi l'Tum'ah Tahor, according to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, will reject the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' because of the Pircha of 'Tzad Chamur' (which *he* does not consider a Pircha) - meaning that each of the Pirchos is particularly radical, and can therefore not combine to include a Sheni l'Tum'ah, which does not possess such a radical Chumra.



9)

(a) Rebbi Yosi learns from the Pasuk "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga *b'Chol Tamei*, Lo Ye'achel" - that there is a Shlishi in Chulin (seeing as the Pasuk incorporates meat that touches a Sheni).

(b) He goes on to learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mechusar Kipurim, that a Revi'i ba'Kodesh is Pasul - because, if a Mechusar Kipurim, who is permitted to eat Terumah, renders Kodesh Pasul, then a Shlishi, who is Pasul to eat Terumah, should certainly render Kodesh, Pasul.

(c) We might have applied here the principle of 'Dayo Lavo Min ha'Din Liheyos ka'Nadun' - and restrict the Derashah to making a Shlishi, like a Mechusar Kipurim, from which we are learning it.

(d) We do not however, apply it - because, as we explained earlier, whenever 'Dayo' renders the 'Kal va'Chomer ineffective, we ignore it (and here too, we already know that a Shlishi is Pasul.



10)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Rebbi Yosi from the opinion of the Rabanan in a Beraisa, who say that food of Kodesh or Terumah that touched a Tvul-Yom is Pasul, yet it does not make a Revi'i ba'Kodesh. Rebbi Meir considers a Tvul-Yom a Sheni with regard to Kodesh (like with regard to Terumah). Practically, this means - that it is Metamei one and Pasels one.

(b) Aba Shaul says - that a Tvul-Yom has the Din of a Rishon as regards Tum'ah, which means that it is Metamei two, and Pasels one



11)

(a) Rav Papa suggests that Rebbi Yosi holds like Aba Shaul. He mentions Aba Shaul (and not Rebbi Meir) as if to say 'Who says that Rebbi Yosi is not even as strict as Aba Shaul'?

(b) We answer that if Rebbi Yosi held like Aba Shaul, he would learn a Revi'i ba'Kodesh from food that touched a Tvul-Yom (rather than from a Mechusar Kipurim) - because if food that comes from a Tvul-Yom (which is itself permitted to eat Chulin) makes a Revi'i, then a Shlishi that comes from a Sheni (who is forbidden to eat Chulin), should certainly make a Revi'i.

(c) We refute the Kashya that we cannot learn from a Tvul-Yom, since it is an Av ha'Tum'ah (like we asked above) - since it is clear that Rebbi Yosi does not consider this a Kashya.







________________________________________________________________



ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS



by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler

Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim

Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

________________________________________________________________



Sotah 30



1)

(a) Rav Asi (or Rabah bar Isi) Amar Rav says that Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yosi, Rebbi Yehoshua, Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Eliezer all hold - that a Sheni cannot make a Shlishi in Chulin.

(b) When Rebbi Meir says ...

1. ... 'Kol ha'Ta'un Bi'as Mayim mi'Divrei Sofrim ... ' - he means those things that are Tahor min ha'Torah, but on which the Rabanan decreed Tum'ah (as listed in the first chapter of Shabbos - such as someone whose head and most of him enters into drawn water, or unwashed hands).

2. ... 'Metamei Es ha'Kodesh u'Posel Es ha'Terumah' - he means that they have the Din of a Sheni l'Tum'ah, to make whatever they touch a Shlishi, which is considered Tamei by Kodesh (because it can still make a Revi'i), but Pasul by Terumah (since there is no Revi'i by Terumah).

(c) They do not affect Chulin and Ma'aser-Sheni at all. Consequently, Chulin and Ma'aser-Sheni which touch them may be eaten.

(d) The Chachamim however - place Ma'aser Sheni in the same category as Terumah.



2)

(a) We extrapolate from Rebbi Yosi above (who learns a Shlishi la'Kodesh min ha'Torah, u'Revi'i mi'Kal va'Chomer') that there is no Shlishi by Chulin - because if there would be, then he ought to have learned a Revi'i la'Kodesh min ha'Torah, and a Chamishi from a 'Kal va'Chomer'.

(b) In a Mishnah in Taharos, Rebbi Eliezer says 'ha'Ochel Ochel Rishon, Rishon; Sheni, Sheni; Shlishi, Shlishi' (even for Terumah); according to Rebbi Yehoshua - someone who eats either an Ochel Rishon or a Sheni becomes a Sheni.

(c) If he eats a Shlishi, Rebbi Yehoshua declares him a Sheni l'Kodesh - but not if he eats Terumah.



3)

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua is speaking about 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah' (by a Kohen who wishes to train himself to eat his Terumah b'Taharah). He says that 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh' - remains Chulin.

(b) In any event, we learn from here that there is no Shlishi by ordinary Chulin.



4)

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa, a Rishon l'Chulin, li'Terumah or l'Kodesh  are Metamei two levels and render one Pasul (to make a Revi'i) by Kodesh ...

1. ... one level and render one Pasul (to make a Shlishi) by Terumah.

2. ... one level and render one, Pasul (to make a Sheni) by Chulin.



5)

(a) In a Mishnah in Chalah, Rebbi Eliezer discusses separating Chalah on a dough that became Tamei be Meizid. He separates it - from another Tahor Tevel dough.

(b) When we say that Chalah must be taken 'min ha'Mukaf' - we mean that when one separates Chalah from one dough to exempt another dough, the two doughs must be touching.

(c) One then proceeds to separate Chalah from the Tahor dough to exempt the Tamei dough too - by placing the one close to the other and joining them with a third small dough less than a k'Beitzah.



30b----------------------30b



6)

(a) According to the text of the Beraisa, the owner places dough that is less than a k'Beitzah in the middle - because, although less than a k'Beitzah can receive Tum'ah, it cannot transmit it.

(b) Another Beraisa citing the same Halachah - permits it it even if the dough in the middle is a k'Beitzah.



7)

(a) Assuming that both Tana'im agree that 'Chulin ha'Tevulin l'Chalah Lav k'Chalah Dami' (Chulin that is Tavul l'Chalah is not considered like Chalah), we initially explain that - according to Rebbi Eliezer, a Sheni does not make a Shlishi in Chulin, whereas according to the Rabanan, it does.

(b) The Tana of the first Beraisa nevertheless requires the dough in the middle to be less than a k'Beitzah, either because it is a Mitzvah to minimize the level of Tum'ah on the middle dough - or because he is afraid that if it is a k'Beitzah, the owner may allow the dough which he has separated as Chalah to touch it, and it is forbidden to make Chalah, Tamei.

(c) Rav Mari Brei d'Rav Kahana rejects the above interpretation of the Machlokes. In his opinion, both Tana'im agree that a Sheni cannot make a Shlishi, and the reason that the Chachamim nevertheless forbid it is - because they hold 'Chulin ha'Tevulin l'Chalah k'Chalah Dami' (Chulin that is Tevel for Chalah has the Din of Chalah).

(d) Alternatively, both Tana'im might hold 'Chulin ha'Tevulin l'Chalah Lav k'Chalah Dami', and 'Ein Sheni Oseh Shlishi' - and the Chachamim forbid (not because of the Tahor dough that is Tavul l'Chalah, but) - because of the dough in the middle, which becomes a Sheni, since Chazal forbade causing Chulin in Eretz Yisrael to become Tamei.



8)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that, according to Rebbi Akiva, they sang the Shirah like one recites Hallel. When ...

1. ... the Tana of the Beraisa explains 'like a Gadol who recites Hallel with the Tzibur', he means - that Moshe sang the Shirah, phrase by phrase, and Yisrael responded, after each phrase, with 'Ashirah la'Hashem', in the form of a chorus.

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer Beno Shel Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili (who argues with Rebbi Akiva in the Beraisa) explains 'like a Katan who recites Hallel with the Tzibur', he means - that they repeated each phrase after Moshe.

3. ... Rebbi Nechemyah (who argues with Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah)explains 'like a Sofer who is Pores al Shema in Shul', he means that they all sang it together.

(b) The word "Leimor" refers ...

1. ... according to Rebbi Akiva - to the first phrase of the Shirah only ("Ashirah la'Hashem"),.

2. ... according to Rebbi Eliezer Beno Shel Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili - to each phrase.

(c) Rebbi Nechemyah derives his opinion from - the word "*Va'yomru* Leimor.

(d) He interpret "Leimor" to mean - that Yisrael only took their cue from Moshe, once he had begun.



9)

(a) Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili explains "Zeh Keli v'Anveihu" - with reference to the babies and children, who stopped drinking from their mothers' breasts and playing, to point at the Shechinah which was revealed at the Yam-Suf and say "Zeh Keili Ve'anveihu", because they recognized Him from their earlier encounter in Egypt (as we discussed above in Perek ha'Mekanei). Incidentally, we can learn from here that there is no pleasure in this world that can match seeing the Shechinah.

(b) 'Yonek' is a feeding baby - whereas 'Olel' is a small child.

(c) Rebbi Meir, based on the Pasuk "b'Makheilos Barchu Elokim, Hashem *mi'Mekor* Yisrael", adds to the above Derashah - that even the unborn fetuses pointed upwards and announced "Zeh Keili Ve'anveihu".

(d) They were able to see through the wall of their mothers' stomachs - which became miraculously transparent.

Please Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Ben Gvir, Mr. Smotrich and Mr. Gallant unite and bring Hashem’s Righteousness back to the Har HaBayit? Under HaShem’s Righteousness the Har HaBayit shall become a Prayer House for all peoples. Jews, Muslims, and Christians when they put away Avoda Zara and their false doctrines…… By annulling that covenant made with the Islamic authorities in ’67 on the Har Habayit and all other covenants, banning all crimes and abominations by PA, Hamas and Islamic Jihad with an Iron fist declaring Jewish Sovereignty in all the Land Hashem gave the Jewish People in ’67.

בבקשה מר נתניהו, מר בן גביר, מר סמוטריץ' ומר גלנט תתאחדו והחזירו את צדקת ה' להר הבית,? תחת צדקת השם הר הבית יהפוך לבית תפילה לכל העמים: יהודים, מוסלמים ונוצרים כשהם מסירים עבודה זרה ואת דוקטרינות השקר שלהם... על ידי ביטול הברית שנכרתה עם השלטונות האיסלאמיים בשנת 67' על הר הבית וכל שאר הבריתות, איסור על כל הפשעים והתועבות שנעשות על ידי הרשות הפלסטינית, חמאס והג'יהאד האסלאמי. והכרזת ריבונות יהודית על כל ארץ ישראל.

Come let us Pray that Hashem's Righteousness shall 'return' to the Har haBayit and the whole of Eretz Israel.

בוא נתפלל שצדקת ה' 'תשוב' להר הבית ולארץ ישראל כולה.
Free to study all Jewish Scripture:
חופשי ללמוד את כל כתבי הקודש היהודיים:
Sefaria Calendar - לוח שנה ספריה



   
Our Prayer and hope: All the gates to the Har haBayit have to be opened for Jews and non-Jews seven days in the week 24 hours a day. The Jews need to have the freedom to go with Tefillin, Tallit and Torah Scroll up on the Mountain to serve Hashem. And do קידה ('Kidah' prostate, laying down, before Hashem) Everyone showing his/her respect for the Jewish and all other religions. But NOT for the words/deeds/sins spoken against any word of the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu and the 'real' teachings of the Jewish Rabbis. The Jews must be the guardians of the Har haBayit.



תפילתנו ותקוותנו: כל שערי הר הבית צריכים להיפתח עבור יהודים ולא-יהודים שבעה ימים בשבוע 24 שעות ביממה. ליהודים צריך להיות חופש ללכת עם תפילין, טלית וספר תורה במעלה ההר כדי לשרת את ה' ולקוד קידה .מתוך הפגנת כבוד ליהודים ולכל הדתות האחרות, אבל לא למילים/למעשים/לחטאים הנאמרים נגד תורת משה רבנו. מלמודי רבנים, היהודים חייבים להיות שומרי הר הבית.


   
Let's pray for a death sentence for the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah and for the continuation of the Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. The Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah must disappear. Enough of the hatred from the world (the USA, the European Union, and the UN!) against the Jewish people.
 



בואו נתפלל לגזר דין מוות לרשות הפלסטינית, חמאס, חיזבאללה ולמען התיישבות יהודית ביהודה ושומרון. הרשות הפלסטינית, חמאס וחיזבאללה חייבים להעלם. די לשנאה מהעולם (ארה"ב, האיחוד האירופי והאו"ם!) נגד העם היהודי!




The Jews have the mission to change the Har HaBayit, from her situation now, into a Prayer House for all peoples based on the Torah Law of Moshe Rabbeinu.
 




על היהודים מוטלת המשימה לשנות את הר הבית, ממצבו הקיים, לבית תפילה לכל העמים על פי חוק התורה של משה רבנו.
 
Ariel, hopefully your Representee
אריאל, מקווה שהנציג שלך
 
 
Click: If you have Prayer Requests
By Har HaBait Jewish Sovereign for all Israel
I pray as a Jew when I bring your prayers.