OpenGemara > Gemara > Sotah

האומרת טמאה אני ושבאו לה עדים שהיא טמאה

One who

admits that she was immoral

Witnesses testify that she

was immoral.

 
Again...

The Gemara Asks:

דאתו עדים אימת

When do these witnesses come?

אילימא מקמי דתקדוש תיפוק לחולין

If they came before

the Mincha

was sanctified, it can go back to being unsanctified

(and doesn't have to be burned)!

 
There are two stages in sanctifying items: 
 
1. Verbally sanctifying it ("I will offer this as a sacrifice") 
2. Putting it into a service vessel. 
 
The first only sanctifies the financial worth of the item (you have to bring the worth of that item to the   Beis Hamikdash 

), and can be redeemed, while the second sanctifies the item directly.

אלא לבתר דקדוש

Rather,

the witnesses must have came

after the Mincha was sanctified.

 
Which is why it can't be unsanctified .

אי אמרת בשלמא מים בודקין אותה אלמא בת מקדש ומקרב היא

If the water checks her

despite there being witnesses

, then

the Mincha

was fit for sanctification and offering,

וכי קדוש מעיקרא שפיר קדוש ומשום הכי מנחתה נשרפת

(

As when it was sanctified, it was sanctified properly

(the waters would have tested her had the witnesses never arrived in court)

and

for that reason

the Mincha

must

be burned

אלא אי אמרת אין המים בודקין אותה תיגלי מילתא למפרע דכי קדוש מעיקרא בטעות קדוש ותיפוק לחולין

But if

witnesses prevent the

waters

from

checking her, it should be shown retroactively that the sanctification of the Mincha was in error. Therefore,

upon discovery of witnesses, the Mincha

should become unsanctified

and shouldn't require burning.

The Gemara will now cite two answers why the Mincha must be burned (even if witnesses retroactively disqualify the Sotah test):

אמר רב יהודה מדיסקרתא כגון שזינתה בעזרה דכי קדוש מעיקרא שפיר קדוש

Rav Yehuda from Diskarta answered,

the case is that

she was immoral in the

Temple

courtyard

itself,

so the originally sanctification was

valid.

 
She was suspected of immorality, taken to the   Beis Hamikdash 

, sanctified her   Mincha, 

then was immoral.

The Gemara asks:

מתקיף לה רב משרשיא והלא פירחי כהונה מלוין אותה

Rav Mesharshia asked that

how could she be immoral in the Beis Hamikdash courtyard? Didn't

young Kohanim would escort her?

The Gemara has two answers:

שזינתה מפירחי כהונה עצמן

She was immoral with the

one of those

young Kohanim.

רב אשי אמר כגון שנצרכה לנקביה

Rav Ashi answered that she

was immoral

when she

needed privacy to

used the restroom.

 
She was suspected of immorality, was taken to the   Beis Hamikdash 

, sanctified the   Mincha, 

requested to use the restroom, and had illicit relations there.

דאטו פירחי כהונה בכיפה תלי לה

For do the young Kohanim hang onto her hat

at all times?

 
According to either answer, she was immoral a second time, and cannot be vindicated by drinking the bitter waters (but the original sanctification was proper, since at that time, she was still able to be tested.)

The Gemara will now give the second answer why the Mincha must be burned:

רב פפא אמר לעולם כדאמרינן מעיקרא

Rav Papa said that the

question

was

based on a faulty premise:

ודקאמרת תיפוק לחולין מדרבנן גזירה שמא יאמרו מוציאין מכלי שרת לחול

And

as for the question of why it does not lose its sanctity retroactively,

there's a Rabbinic decree

against doing so

lest people say that

sacrifices

de-sanctified even after they were placed in a service vessel.

 
So the witnesses testified about the original seclusion, and the   Mincha 

should retroactively lose its sanctity, but the Rabbis prohibit it. 
 
Opinion Why Doesn't The   Mincha 

Lose Holiness How Could She Be Immoral There? 
Rav Yehuda from Diskarta Immoral in Temple Mount - 
- - From the   Kohanim 

themselves 
Rav Ashi - She went to restroom 
Rav Papa Rabbinic Decree -

The Gemara Asks:

מתיב רב מרי

Rav Mari asked a question

from the following

Mishna

 
Is there really a decree against letting sacrifices losing their sanctification? The following   Mishna 
implies

otherwise! 
 
The   Mishna 

lists six cases of what can happen to the   Mincha:

נטמאת מנחתה

a Sotah's

Mincha became impure:

עד שלא קדשה בכלי הרי היא ככל המנחות ותפדה

Before it was placed into a service vessel, it can be redeemed.

משקדשה בכלי הרי היא ככל המנחות ותשרף

After it was sanctified in a service vessel, it

must be

burned.

קדש הקומץ ולא הספיק להקריבו עד שמת הוא או עד שמתה היא הרי היא ככל המנחות ותשרף

If the Kometz was sanctified, but the sacrifice was not

offered

before either

the husband

passed away or

the wife

passed away, the Mincha must be burned.

קרב הקומץ ולא הספיק לאכול שירים עד שמת הוא או עד שמתה היא הרי היא ככל המנחות ותאכל שעל הספק באת מתחילה

If the Kometz was offered but the sacrifice wasn't eaten before either

the husband

died or

the wife

died, it may be eaten ( as

the sacrifice

was originally brought only out of doubt.)

כיפרה ספיקה והלכה לה

And the sacrifice was done properly, just for a side reason, the wife was unable to drink the bitter water,

באו לה עדים שהיא טמאה מנחתה נשרפת

If witnesses said that

the wife

was impure, the Mincha is burned.

נמצאו עדיה זוממין מנחתה חולין

If the witnesses were

As in other witnesses testified that the first ones were with them in a different place at the time. , the Mincha looses its sanctity

automatically.

 
Which implies that a   Mincha 
may 

loose its sanctity, and there is no decree against it.

The Gemara Answers:

עדים זוממין קאמרת

You're asking about

false witnesses?

עדים זוממין קלא אית להו

False witnesses

are publicly known, so everyone understands why the Mincha lost its sanctity. However, as the public won't hear how witnesses testified that a Sotah was immoral, her Mincha may not be de-sanctified and must be burned.

 
The   Gemara 

has refuted Rav Sheshes' proof

from the   Mishna, 

and his verse

was used by the   Gemara 

for a different

exposition. 
 
However...

תניא כוותיה דרב ששת ולאו מטעמיה

A Braisa taught

Rav Sheshes's

law

but for a different reason:

 
The   Gemara 
will

will explain that the survivor of the   Sotah 

test receives a blessing. 
 
The   Braisa 

says that not all survivors receive this blessing, listing three exceptions:

טהורה ולא שיש לה עדים במדינת הים

1. The word

" Tehora "

- is pure - excludes

one who has oversees witnesses.

וטהורה ולא שתלתה לה זכות

2. The addition Vav

of VeTehorah

(and is pure) excludes one who's

merits delayed

her punishment.

היא ולא שישאו ויתנו בה מוזרות בלבנה

3. The word

"She"

excludes

one about whom weavers talk about to the

light of the moon

 
Since the verse had to say that one who had witnesses oversees does not receive blessings, must be that such a   Sotah 

would survive.

ורבי שמעון נהי דוי"ו לא דריש

And Rabbi Shimon doesn't expound the Vav

(as he doesn't believe that merits delay punishment),

 
Rabbi Shimon doesn't expound the extra Vav (exegesis #2

) because he holds that merits don't help delay punishment, so as not to ruin the reputation of those who passed the test. 
 
However, in contrast to the previous

discussion, here Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who has witnesses oversees does survive. 
 
Why is he not concerned...

The Gemara Asks:

והא איכא

But

what about

Opinion	Why Doesn't The Mincha Lose Holiness	How Could She Be Immoral There?
Rav Yehuda from Diskarta	Immoral in Temple Mount	-
-	-	From the Kohanim themselves
Rav Ashi	-	She went to restroom
Rav Papa	Rabbinic Decree	-