OpenGemara > Gemara > Sotah

Learn a Daf of Sotah daily

כדלעת מני

Who

writes the opinion that a Metzora must be shaved

like a gourd?

ר"ע היא דדריש ריבויי ומיעוטי

Rabbi Akiva, who expounds "inclusion" and "exclusions".

 
So there's no contradiction, and the   Braisa 

didn't leave out any cases, as it argues on Rabbi Yishmael. 
 
The   Gemara 

will now show the difference between the two:

דתניא

a different exposition of the verses

was taught

in a Braisa

והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו ריבה

"And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair" -

An inclusion,

את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות ע יניו מיעט

"His head and his beard and his eyebrows" - excludes.

ואת כל שערו יגלח חזר וריבה

"And all his hair he shall shave" -

another

inclusion.

ריבה ומיעט וריבה

This verse can be expounded through the rule of

"Inclusion, Exclusion, Inclusion":

ריבה הכל

The opening inclusion

includes everything

(All hair.)

מאי ריבה

What does

"he shall shave his hair"

include?

ריבה דכוליה גופיה

It includes the whole body

of the Metzora

ומאי מיעט

What does

"his head and his beard and his eyebrows"

exclude?

מיעט שיער שבתוך החוטם

It excludes

the Metzora's

nose-hair

(which is the only part of the body which isn't required to be shaved).

 
But either way, the   Gemara 

disproved the earlier

assertion that the   Braisa 

wasn't exhaustive, which implies that one may not use anything except for real dust. 
 
But the   Gemara 

continues to ask

מאי הוי עלה

What's the conclusion

regarding if ashes can be used for the Sotah?

ת"ש דאמר רב הונא בר אשי אמר רב

Rav Huna bar Ashi said in the name of Rav:

אין שם עפר מביא רקבובית ירק ומקדש

If there is no dust

available for the Sotah, the Kohen may

bring a rotten vegetable and sanctify it.

 
If one can use a rotten vegetable, all the more so ashes!

ולא היא

But

this teaching is not a correct conclusion,

רקבובית ירק הוא דהואי עפר אפר לא הואי עפר:

For

while

a rotten vegetable is dust, ashes

are

not

considered

dust.

כדי שיראה על המים

Source in Mishna

Enough dust must be placed in the water

that it may be seen on the surface.

תנו רבנן

The Sages taught

in a Braisa

שלשה צריכין שיראו

Three

items are required

to be visible:

עפר סוטה

The dust of a Sotah

mixture

ואפר פרה

The ashes of the Red Heifer,

ורוק יבמה

And the spit of the Yevamah.

משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף דם צפור

They said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that the blood of the

Metzora

bird

must also be visible in the water

מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל

Why?

דכתיב וטבל אותם בדם הצפור וגו'

The verse says

"and dip them in the blood of the slain bird,

and in the running water

ותניא

A Braisa was taught

regarding this verse

בדם יכול בדם ולא במים

"In the blood" -

One

could

think that one should dip the Metzora's bundle

into the blood and not in the water,

ת"ל במים

So the verse adds

"in the water".

אי מים יכול במים ולא בדם

the verse would have just said

"in the water",

one

could

have thought that

that

one dips the Metzora's bundle

into the water and not into the blood

of the slaughtered bird

ת"ל בדם

So the verse

says "in the blood".

הא כיצד

How

to resolve the contradiction?

מביא מים שדם ציפור ניכר בהן

One

uses only

enough water that the blood of a bird

would still be

visible

in it

וכמה

How much

water

is that?

רביעית

A Reviyis

ורבנן

And

what do the

Sages

do with this exposition?

ההוא לגופיה

The words "and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water" teach the simple Halacha -

דהכי קאמר רחמנא אטביל בדם ובמים

The Torah simply says to

dip

the bundle

into the blood and

into

the water.

ורבי ישמעאל

And

why doesn't

Rabbi Yishmael

expound the verse simply?

אם כן לכתוב רחמנא וטבל בהם

the Torah would have wanted to teach only that one must dip the bundle into the water and blood,

the verse

should have said

"and he should dip

the mixture

them

בדם ובמים למה לי

Why

does the verse write

"in the blood ... and

the water?"

לניכר

To teach that

they have to be recognizable.

ורבנן

And why don't

the sages

expound the verse the same way as Rabbi Yishmael?

 
As, unlike Rabbi Yishmael, they hold that the blood doesn't have to be recognizable.

אי כתב רחמנא וטבל בהם

If the Torah would have said "you shall dip ... in them"

הוה אמינא האי לחודיה והאי לחודיה

One

could have thought that

the Kohen may dip the Metzora's mixture

into each one

of the above as they stand

alone,

כתב רחמנא בדם ובמים לערבן

To teach that

"the blood and in the water" must be mixed,

the verse has to say

in them

ור' ישמעאל לערבן

And

where does

Rabbi Yishmael

derive that the blood and water must be

mixed?

קרא אחרינא כתיב ושחט את הצפור האחת וגו'

He derives it from the verse

"shall slaughter one bird

in an earthen vessel over running water

ורבנן

Why don't

the Sages

derive that the blood and water of the Metzora must be mixed from the above verse?

אי מההוא הוה אמינא לישחטיה סמוך למנא ונינקטינהו לוורידין ולקבליה לדם במנא אחרינא

If that verse would be the only source, one

could

have thought that the Kohen may

slaughter

the bird

to the vessel

with the water

, grasp the veins

so none of the blood will flow out

, and receive the blood in another vessel.

קמ"ל

So another verse teaches that the blood and water must be mixed

 
Opinion "and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water 

" "shall slaughter one bird in an earthen vessel over running water 

" 
Rabbi Yishmael Both blood and water have to be recognizable. Both blood and water have to be mixed. 
The Sages Both Blood and water have to be mixed The   Kohen 

can't slaughter over the water, but collect the blood in a different container.

בעא מיניה ר' ירמיה מר' זירא

Rabbi Yirmiya asked Rabbi Zeira:

גדולה ומדחת את המים קטנה ונדחית מפני המים מהו

What

is the Halacha if the Metzora brings

a large bird which

drowns out

the

Reviyis of

water, or a small bird which gets

drowns out

by the

Reviyis of

water?

 
The   Gemara 
says

that according to Rabbi Yishmael, the   Metzora's 

bird must be slaughtered into a   Reviyis 

of water, so that it will be recognizable. 
 
Rabbi Yirmiya asked how could he be so certain that a   Reviyis 

of water is the right amount? What if there is too much blood or too much water?

א"ל

Rabbi Zeira

answered

Rabbi Yirmiya

לאו אמינא לך לא תפיק נפשך לבר מהילכתא

Did I not tell you not to take yourself outside the

measurements determined by the Sages

בצפור דרור שיערו רבנן אין לך גדולה שמדחת את המים

The sages estimated that there is no

A large bird bird which is so big that its

blood

will

drown out

the water,

ואין לך קטנה שנדחית מפני המים

And there is no

bird

so small that will be

drowned out

by the water.

ת"ר

A Braisa

was taught:

הקדים עפר למים פסול

If one placed the dust before the water,

the water is

unfit

for use by a Sotah

 
Because the verse says "He will place the water", implying that the water goes first.

ור' שמעון מכשיר

But Rabbi Shimon permits

the resultant water

מ"ט דרבי שמעון

What's the Rabbi Shimon's

reason?

דכתיב ולקחו לטמא מעפר שרפת החטאת

The verse says

"And for the impure they shall take from the dust of the burning of the

The Red Heifer ",

ותניא אמר ר"ש

And a Braisa taught

in the name of

Rabbi Shimon:

וכי עפר הוא והלא אפר הוא

Are the results of the burning

dust?

Aren't they

ash?

שינה הכתוב במשמעו לדון הימנו גזירה שוה

The verse changed the word

of the verse

to teach a Gezeira Shava :

נאמר כאן עפר ונאמר להלן עפר

It says

the word

"dust"

in the verse discussing the Red Heifer

, and it says

the word

dust

in the verse discussing the Sotah

מה להלן עפר על גבי מים אף כאן עפר על גבי מים

Just

as the Red Heifer's ashes

go on top of the water, so too

the Sotah's

dust goes on top of the water.

 
So Rabbi Shimon agrees that the water should go first, but...

ומה כאן הקדים עפר למים כשר אף להלן הקדים עפר למים כשר

And just

as if the Red Heifer's ashes

were placed before the water

the resultant mixture may be used

, so too if one placed the dust

of the Sotah

before the water

the resultant mixture may be used for the Sotah

 
But this itself requires proof:

והתם מנלן

And how do we know

that if the Red Heifer's ashes were placed before the water that the mixture may be used?

תרי קראי כתיבי

There are two verses written

regarding the Red Heifer

כתיב עליו אלמא אפר ברישא

One verse says

"On it", which implies that the

Red Heifer's

ashes first,

וכתיב מים חיים אל כלי אלמא מים ברישא

And

another verse writes

"and running water shall be put in a vessel", which implies that the water goes first.

הא כיצד

How

can this contradiction be resolved?

רצה זה נותן רצה זה נותן

If one wants, he

can

put

the water first, and if

one wants, he

can

put

the ashes first

ורבנן אל כלי דוקא

And the Sages

argue, and say that

"to the vessel"

teaches that the water must go first

 
The Sages hold that just as placing the dust into the   Sotah 

mixture before the water invalidates the mixture, so too placing the ash before the water invalidates the Red Heifer mixture.

עליו לערבן

And the word

"On it"

teaches that the Sotah's mixture must be

mixed.

ואימא עליו דוקא

Why

did the Sages not interpret the word

"On it"

as being specific, and that the ashes must go first

אל כלי שתהא חיותן בכלי

While the words

"Into the vessel"

teach

that spring

must flow directly

into the vessel

(and not be drawn with another vessel)?

מה מצינו בכל מקום מכשיר למעלה

The general rule is that

the permitting substance must be

placed

on top

of the water

 
Both the   Sotah's 

dust and the bird's blood administrated during the   Metzora's 

purification must be placed before the water,

אף כאן מכשיר למעלה:

So too

the ashes of the Sotah

must be on the top.

Opinion	"and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water "	"shall slaughter one bird in an earthen vessel over running water "
Rabbi Yishmael	Both blood and water have to be recognizable.	Both blood and water have to be mixed.
The Sages	Both Blood and water have to be mixed	The Kohen can't slaughter over the water, but collect the blood in a different container.