Dedicate Daf 15b to:



דשמעיה לר' מאיר
Following
Rabbi Meir
teaching:

דקאמר
For
Rabbi Meir
:

היא האכילתו מעדני עולם לפיכך קרבנה מאכל בהמה
"
Since
she fed him delicacies, her offering is comprised of fodder
(barley)
."

א"ל
The Sages
said back
to Rabban Gamliel:

התינח עשירה
This
explains why
a rich woman
who can afford to feed her adulterer delicacies must bring a barley sacrifice,

עניה מאי איכא למימר
But
why should
a poor woman
bring sacrifice made from barley?

אלא כשם שמעשיה מעשה בהמה כך קרבנה מאכל בהמה:
Rather,
the reason is that
just
as an immoral woman
behaved like an animal, so too her offering is the food of an animal.

 
 
 

Mishna
:מתני':
Mishna

היה מביא פילי של חרס ונותן לתוכה חצי לוג מים מן הכיור
The Kohen
would bring an earthenware cup, and would pour into it a half a Lug of water from the Kiyor.

 
Since the water must have been previously sanctified in a vessel.
 
 
ר' יהודה אומר רביעית
Rabbi Yehuda said
that the Kohen would pour only
a Reviyis
of water from the Kiyor into the cup
,

כשם שממעט בכתבכך ממעט במים
For
just as
Rabbi Yehuda
minimizes the amount of writing
required for the scroll
, so too he minimizes the
amount of
water
required
.

נכנס להיכל ופנה לימינו
The Kohen
would go into the Beis Hamikdash and turn to the right,

ומקום היה שם אמה על אמה וטבלא של שיש וטבעת היתה קבועה בה

כשהוא מגביה ונוטל עפר מתחתיה ונותן כדי שיראה על המים
The Kohen
would pick up
the plate
and take dust from under it, and would place enough of
the dust
that ,

שנאמר ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן יקח הכהן ונתן אל המים:
As
the verse says
"and of the dust that is on the floor of the Mishkan the Kohen shall take, and put it into the water."

Gemara
:גמ':
Gemara

תנא
A Braisa taught:

פילי של חרס חדשה דברי רבי ישמעאל
Rabbi Yishmael
holds
that the
Sotah's
earthenware cup must be new.

מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל
Why?

גמר כלי כלי ממצורע
He derives
this law
from a Gezeira Shava between
the words
"vessel" and "vessel",
one of which discusses the vessel of the Sotah, while the other discusses the vessel of a
Metzora,

מה להלן חרס חדשה אף כאן חרס חדשה
Just
as a Metzora's cup
must
be made from
new earthenware, so too
the Sotah's cup
must
be made from
new earthenware.

 
The obvious question is:
 
 
והתם מנלן
And how do we know
that a Metzora must use only new earthenware?

דכתיב ושחט את הצפור האחת אל כלי חרש על מים חיים
The verse says
"slaughter one of the birds into an earthen vessel over running water."

מה מים חיים שלא נעשתה בהן מלאכה אף כלי שלא נעשתה בו מלאכה
From which the Gemara derives that
just as the "living waters" must not have any labor done to them
prior to their use in the Metzora procedure
, so too the
Metzora's
vessel may not have any
prior
labor done to it.

 
If there's a Gezeira Shava between the Metzora and the Sotah, then,
 
 
אי מה להלן מים חיים אף כאן מים חיים
Just as
"living waters"
are required for the Metzora procedure, so too should
close
Such as spring water
"living waters"
be required for the Sotah procedure?

 
 
 
לרבי ישמעאל הכי נמי
That is true according to Rabbi Yishmael
(who holds that the cup must be new)
.

דאמר ר' יוחנן מי כיור
For Rabbi Yochanan said
that there is an argument from where may
the Kiyor's water come:

רבי ישמעאל אומר מי מעיין הן
Rabbi Yishmael said
that the Kiyor water must be
spring water,

וחכ"א משאר מימות הן
But the sages say
that the Kiyor water may
come from other sources
(such as a Mikvah.)

 
Since the Sotah's water comes from the Kiyor, it is automatically spring water.
 
However, the Gemara asks:
 
 
איכא למיפרך מה למצורע שכן טעון עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת
You can disprove
the Gezeira Shava since
a Metzora requires cedar wood, hyssop, and a silk
thread which the Sotah procedure doesn't
.

 
As the Gezeira Shava doesn't work, the Gemara will find another source for requiring a new vessel for the Sotah:
 
 
אמר רבה אמר קרא בכלי חרס
Rabbah said
that the source that the vessel must be new is
from the verse "in an earthen vessel",

כלי שאמרתי לך כבר
- It must be in the type of
vessel discussed earlier
(Metzora)
.

 
This verse (unlike the verse) doesn't link all of the laws of Metzora to Sotah, just the laws about the cup.
 
 
אמר רבא
Rava said:

לא שנו אלא שלא נתאכמו פניו
This is only true only
if
the vessel
wasn't blackened
due to fire
,

אבל נתאכמו פניו פסולין
But if
the vessel
was blackened,
all (even the Sages) agree that
it's unfit
for use by the Sotah
.

מאי טעמא
Why?

דומיא דמים
The Sotah's vessel
must be similar to the
Sotah's
water -

מה מים שלא נשתנו אף כלי שלא נשתנה
Just as the
Sotah's
waters may not
have
been changed
due to work,
so too the vessel must not have been changed
due to work
.

 
Even though the Rabbis don't require that the Sotah's water be spring water, they require that it be fresh water, so just as the water must be fresh, the cup must be fresh.
 
 
בעי רבא
Rava asked:

נתאכמו והחזירן לתוך כבשן האש ונתלבנו מהו
What
is the Halacha
if
the earthenware cup
blackened
but was
placed back into the fire
to
become fresh again?

 
Perhaps we should see this cup as a new cup?
 
 
מי אמרינן כיון דאידחו אידחו
Should we say that since
the cup
was
made invalid
, it stays invalid.

או דילמא כיון דהדור הדור
Or perhaps since
the cup is now valid
, it's valid?

 
The Gemara answers from a Braisa:
 
 
ת'ש'
The Braisa
taught:

רבי אלעזר אומר עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת שהפשיל בהן קופתו לאחוריו פסולין
Rabbi Elazar said that the
if one tied
cedar wood, hyssop, and a silk
thread to a package and swung it
behind his back,
thereby using those ingredients for work, they become
invalid
for use for the Red Heifer
.

 
Implying that they become permanently disqualified.
 
 
והא התם הדרי ומפשטי
But there
the wood
can be straighten out?

 
Obviously, once something is invalid, it stays invalid.
 
 
התם דאיקלוף איקלופי
The Braisa's case is if
he peeled
the cedar wood, which is an action which can't be undone
.

 
Therefore, there is no resolution to the case asked: Where one can undo damage of use.
 
 
 
: נכנס להיכל ופנה לימינו וכו':
The Kohen
would enter the Beis Hamikdash and turn to the right

מ"ט
Why
would the Kohen turn to the right?

דאמר מר כל פינות שאתה פונה לא יהו אלא דרך ימין:
Because master said
that one may only
turn right
in the Beis Hamikdash
.

 
The Gemara derives this from the verse's description of the twelve golden oxen which were in the first Beis Hamikdash , where the verse listed them going from left to right.
 
 
 
מקום היה שם אמה כו':

תנו רבנן
The Rabbis taught:

ומן העפר אשר יהיה
The Kohen must gather
"Of the dust that is
there
."

יכול יתקן מבחוץ ויכניס
Had the verse said "on the ground of the Mishkan", one
could
have thought that the Kohen may
take outside dust and bring it
into the Beis Hamikdash (without digging)
,

תלמוד לומר בקרקע המשכן
So the verse says
"in the ground of the Mishkan",
teaching that the dust must be gathered from the ground.

אי בקרקע המשכן יכול יחפור בקרדומות
If the verse would have said only
"in the ground of the Mishkan"
and not said "shall be" , one
could
have thought
that one
is permitted to
dig
the Mishkan ground
with axes
if there is no dust,

תלמוד לומר אשר יהיה
For that the verse the verse says
"that will be",
and it must be there originally.

הא כיצד
How
does one reconcile these two requirements?

יש שם הבא
If
there is dust available, use
it,

אין שם תן שם
If there isn't any
dust there,
put some
dust
there
and then take it
.

תניא אידך
Another Braisa taught:

 
Which shows that the above derivation is actually subject to an argument between the Sages.
 
 
ומן העפר אשר יהיה וגו' מלמד שהיה מתקן מבחוץ ומכניס
The verse
"From the dust that is there" teaches that
the Kohen
would prepare
the dust
outside
the Beis Hamikdash
and bring it into the
Beis Hamikdash .

בקרקע המשכן
"In the ground of the Mishkan",

איסי בן יהודה אומר להביא קרקע
Issi Ben Yehuda said
that this verse
includes






Translation copyright by the OpenGemara project. If you would like permission to use our data, please contact us

Dedicated in loving memory of Leah Rivka Bas Reb Dovid HaKohen A"H.
Last build: 2019-01-31T02:13:57Z