Skip to main content
Iyun in Sota -
Lesson 17

Iyun Masechet Sota: 17b Part 1

Text file

 

In the previous shiur, we focused upon the mixture of the earth and water that create the special waters of sota ("hamayim hamearerim").  In this installment, we shall turn our attention to the next stage in the process - the dissolving of the parashat sota in these waters. 

 

This involves two stages: a. Writing the text of parashat sota on a megila, thereby creating a "megilat sota" and b. dissolving/erasing the text into the water.  As we shall see, the sugyot deal with both elements: 17a-b focus upon the writing of the megila, while 20a-b discuss the halakha of erasure.  The two are inextricably interwoven and the relationship between the two stages will be a major concern of our discussion.

 

The Mishna (17a) determines that the text of the megila must be written upon a klaf and cannot be written on any other object.  Tosfot (17a d.h. lo) question this requirement, basing themselves upon the halakhot of a get, for although a get is also characterized by the Torah as a "sefer kritut," it need not be written on klaf.  Actually, there is a machloket in the Mishna in Gittin (19a) whether a get can be written on anything (Chachamim in the Mishna) or that all possible materials are kosher except for wild animals (R. Yossi Haglilli).  Either way, the maximal requirement of "sefer" in Gittin is that the get should not be written on a live animal, while the requirement of "sefer" in our sugya necessitates a klaf. 

The simplest explanation for this contrast is the realization that the purpose of the written text in a get is to transmit a message, while in sota there is a need to create a document.  Any medium that conveys the message, even if it as bizarre as the horn of a bull, suffices, while megilat sota requires parchment to establish itself as an official document.  This answer, though, is incomplete for two reasons.  First, it applies only to Chachamim's opinion but not to R. Yossi Haglilli's position that there is an element of "sefer" and not only "sippur" in get.  Second, Tosfot point out that the Gemara in Gittin draws a distinction between the word "sefer" (as in "sefer kritut") that refers to the tale being told and "basefer" (as is written in parashat sota) that implies a document.  Therefore, Tosfot's query must be understood as questioning the halakha of klaf after taking into account the distinction between text and document and rejecting it.

 

The fact that a text from the Torah is being written on klaf immediately raises the obvious suggestion that we are dealing here in sota with a requirement for kedushat stam, (the sanctity of Scripture), above and beyond a regular document, and that is at the root of the need for klaf.  This, though, requires us to determine that kedushat stam is necessary and to explain why this should be so. 

 

The basic source regarding the status of megilat sota vis a vis kedushat stam is the safek of the Yerushalmi, quoted by Tosfot, whether megilat sota causes tumat yadayim or not.  As this halakha, although a rabbinic injunction, is the litmus test normally used by Chazal as an indicator of kedushat stam, it would seem that this is precisely the Yerushalmi's dilemma. 

 

Essentially, the issue at hand is the function of the megila within the water.  One possibility is to view the water as a vehicle to deliver a message from the husband to the wife.  The role of the ceremony is to restore their interpersonal relationship after the crisis brought about by the kinui and setira by clearing the air and determining the woman's faithfulness or unfaithfulness.  Viewed as such, it is the husband, rather than the kohen, who is responsible for her drinking the sota waters.  A component of this procedure is a personal message that the water conveys to the wife from the husband. 

 

Alternately, the role of the megila can be understood as metaphysically "charging" the water with the power of kedusha that causes the water to smite the unfaithful woman.  The drinking of the water, according to this interpretation, is a judgement and punishment upon the woman enforced by Bet Din and is not a personal message to her.

 

These two approaches are reflected in all of the discussions regarding megilat sota.  Thus, the previous Mishna (17a) records a machloket between the Tanaim as to the text from the Torah that was written in the megila.  R. Yehuda insists that only the punishment described in the Torah be transcribed while Tana Kama (R. Meir) and R. Yossi include the portion that addresses the wife's alleged behavior as well.  R. Yehuda assumes that the text is needed to grant the water metaphysical retributory powers and must record only the punitive element while R. Meir who includes the issue of her behavior and R. Yossi who also adds her acceptance of the judgement may be understood as requiring a personal element as well.

 

The same issue seems to be at the root of the sugya (20a-b) that discusses the option of using a text that was cut and pasted from a real sefer Torah rather than being specially written for this occasion.  The Gemara there presents a machloket between R. Yehuda and R. Ya'akov whether R. Meir was willing to dissolve the portion from Bemidbar into the water or not.  Since the text that R. Meir requires, as was pointed out in the previous paragraph, may be understood as relating to the interpersonal element as well as the retributive, yet can also be viewed as accepting R. Yehuda's approach that only the punishment is inscribed on the megila in principle while arguing on the details, it is not surprising to discover such a machloket.  R. Yehuda, who claims that R. Meir allows the use of a sefer Torah, is consistent in his conceptual approach that the function of the text is to "charge" the waters and therefore claims that there is no need for a special megila, since the kedusha of the sefer Torah itself serves this purpose just as well.  On the contrary, the essential kedusha is that of the sefer Torah; the option of writing a special megilat sota is simply a convenient allowance to achieve this kedushah without having to write an entire sefer.  R. Ya'akov, though, disagrees because he considers the purpose of megilat sota the transmission of a personal message that cannot use the medium of the sefer Torah, since the sefer Torah is a general halakhic description and not a text that was specifically created for these circumstances.

 

Thus, the sugya (20b) draws an analogy between the machloket regarding sefer Torah and an additional dispute regarding the possibility of switching a megila that was written for one sota to another.  In both cases, there is a "cheftza" of parashat sota, i.e. the requisite text that expresses the metaphysical intolerance of tuma, but there is no personal message.  In halakhic terminology, there is a lishma on the cheftza or chalut shem but not a personal lishma.  Accordingly, if the role of the megila is to charge the water, the non-personal text, be it from a sefer Torah or be it a recycled megila, should suffice, while if it is a personal message, there is a need for a personal megila written with the individual sota in mind.

 

Rav Papa and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak attempt to disconnect the two machlokot, but their arguments do not affect the basic reasoning presented here, since they too assume that there is no personal message involved.  The next stage, though, in which the Gemara attempts to clarify the relationship between get and megilat sota is very interesting.  The Mishna in Gittin (24a) that is the foundation for the entire concept of "lishma" in a get explicitly states that the lishma must be personal, since the writing of the get relates to the breakdown of the relationship between husband and wife. Although certain opinions in Tosfot [Gittin 20a d.h. ei meshum] disagree with the idea of a personal lishma, it is, nevertheless, the straightforward interpretation of the issue.  For an extensive treatment of this topic, see my article "Devarim Shebeino Levaina – Ketiva Unetina Keyotzrei Umatiri Kritut Begittin Vekiddushin" in Alon Shvut 148.) The Gemara questions R. Achi's ruling that the megilat sota need not be personal, because the halakhot of get teach us that lishma under such circumstances must be personal.  This is based upon the axiom that sota and get are analogous in this regard.  The obvious solution to this argument would be to claim that R. Achi denies the comparison and does not require a personal element in sota. 

 

The Gemara's answer, though, is that the personal lishma is required for mechika and not for ketiva.  Upon reflection, we realize that this is not merely a change of drasha but an answer that is intrinsic to the logic of the sugya.  Essentially, what is being claimed is the following: if the purpose of the megila is to "charge" the water, the need for lishma relates to the ketiva which is the act that creates the kedusha that we are seeking.  The significance of the megila is in its being a written text of Torah.  If, however, the sota ceremony is intended to reestablish the frayed relationship, it is not achieved by means of the text but through the medium of the ceremony and its outcome.  Therefore, it is the mechika, rather the ketiva, that is significant. 

 

Returning to our original question regarding the need for klaf and/or kedushat stam, the line of reasoning is now obvious.  If the purpose of the megila is to metaphysically "charge" the water, it is indeed kedushat stam that is sought and the megila has all the halakhot of kedushat stam.  Therefore, it must be written on the hide of a kosher animal and it causes tumat yadayim, as one option suggested by the Yerushalmi.  This, though, is predicated on the assumption that the purpose of the ketiva is the creation of a holy text rather than the embedding of a personal message within the water.

 

Adoption of the latter alternative that mechika is paramount implies that kedushat stam is not the aim of the megila, so that the requirements of kedushat stam are unnecessary (and may also be unattainable in a text designated for obliteration).  The upshot of this is that megilat sota does not need kedushat stam and does not achieve such a status.  The rationale for klaf must, therefore, be sought elsewhere as the raw material of a document or as a medium for transmitting texts.  However, the insistence upon klaf alone remains problematic.  The Rav, in a published article on the topic (reprinted in the volume of his collected articles, Kovetz Chiddushei Torah), suggests that there is a need for klaf because of the Name that is written in the parsha, even if there is no tumat yadayim since the parsha as a whole lacks kedushat stam.  This explains the Rambam's position that klaf is required even though there is no tumat yadayim, but not the opinion in the Yerushalmi that non kosher parchment may be used.   

 

It is, of course, possible to claim that megilat sota requires both kedushat stam and a personal element.  Thus, there is a need for klaf, on the one hand but this does not preclude the need for a personal lishma as well.  The dual nature of the sota ceremony shall continue, b"n, to occupy us in the coming shiurim.

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!