Dedicate Daf 6b to:

האומרת טמאה אני ושבאו לה עדים שהיא טמאה
One who
admits that she was immoral
Witnesses testify that she
was immoral.

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
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)
for that reason
the Mincha
be burned

אלא אי אמרת אין המים בודקין אותה תיגלי מילתא למפרע דכי קדוש מעיקרא בטעות קדוש ותיפוק לחולין
But if
witnesses prevent the
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
so the originally sanctification was

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 was
based on a faulty premise:

ודקאמרת תיפוק לחולין מדרבנן גזירה שמא יאמרו מוציאין מכלי שרת לחול
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
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 :

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

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

Which implies that a Mincha
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' from the Mishna, and was used by the Gemara for a exposition.
תניא כוותיה דרב ששת ולאו מטעמיה
A Braisa taught
Rav Sheshes's but for a different reason:

The Gemara 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
one about whom weavers talk about to the .

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 ) 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 discussion, here Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who has witnesses oversees does survive.
Why is he not concerned...
The Gemara Asks:
והא איכא
what about

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

Last build: ldb-5030086:lbc-6daa664:lsc-fe49e21