Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת סוטה דף ט״ו, but we will start with the last word of דף י״ד עמוד ב׳. The גמרא here is in the middle of explaining the ברייתא that tells us the whole procedure of the קרבן מנחה. And the גמרא brought down here piece by piece of the ברייתא and explained it and brought the different פסוקים that are the sources of the דינים of the ברייתא. And now the גמרא will explain the part of the ברייתא where it says ומעלהו ומקטירו בכלי שרת. In the ברייתא it said that after you take off the קומץ, you take off the handful of flour, you put it into a כלי שרת, then you collect the לבונה and you put it on top of it. Then the ברייתא said, ומעלהו ומקטירו בכלי שרת, you bring it up and you are מקטיר it, you offer it with the כלי שרת. Then it says ומולחו, you salt it, ונותנו על גבי האישים, and you put it on the fire. So the גמרא quotes from the ברייתא the words ומעלהו ומקטירו בכלי שרת, that you bring it up and you are מקטיר it in a כלי שרת, and the גמרא asks, בכלי שרת מקטר ליה? How could you say you are מקטיר it in the כלי שרת? When you are מקטיר it on the מזבח, you take it off the כלי שרת and then you put it on the מזבח, but from the ברייתא it seems that you put it into the כלי שרת and you are מקטיר it on the מזבח while it's in the כלי שרת. And the גמרא answers, אלא אימא, but what you should say the פשט is, מעלהו בכלי שרת להקטירו. That when it says in the ברייתא that you put it into the כלי שרת, and then מעלהו ומקטירו בכלי שרת, you bring it up and you are מקטיר it in a כלי שרת, it doesn't mean that you are actually מקטיר it in the כלי שרת, what it means is you bring it up to the מזבח in a כלי שרת in order to be מקטיר it. But actually you are מקטיר it a little bit later, after you take it out of the כלי שרת. This is the way we have the גירסא in our גמרא, but the way רש״י has the גירסא in this גמרא, the קשיא was not that how could you say you are מקטיר it in a כלי שרת when we know that you are מקטיר it after you take it out of the כלי שרת, the קשיא, according to רש״י, was a little bit differently. Since it says in the ברייתא that you bring it up and you are מקטיר it in a כלי שרת, then the ברייתא says, and you salt it and you put it on the fire. So we see from there that when do you put it on the מזבח? After it's salted. So the גמרא's קשיא is, how could the ברייתא say you bring it up and you are מקטיר it in the כלי שרת when you didn't salt it yet? And the ברייתא continues that you salt it afterwards. So obviously you are not מקטיר it yet, you're מקטיר it after you put the salt on it. And the גמרא answers that what the ברייתא meant was that you put it into the כלי שרת in order to be מקטיר it, but not that this is the point where you are מקטיר it. Then the גמרא continues to explain the ברייתא. It said in the ברייתא, ומולחו, and you salt it, ונותנו על גבי האישים, and then you put it on the fire. The גמרא says, דכתיב, because it says in the פסוק, וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח וגו׳, that every קרבן מנחה you should salt with salt. And therefore, before you are מקריב it on the מזבח, you must salt it. Then the ברייתא continued, קרב הקומץ שייריה נאכלין, that after they were מקריב on the מזבח the קומץ, the handful that they took out of the מנחה, so then the rest, the leftovers can be eaten. The גמרא asks, מנלן? How do we know? דכתיב, because it says, והקטיר הכהן את אזכרתה וגו׳, that the כהן should be מקטיר the אזכרה, which means the קומץ, the handful. וכתיב, and then it says, והנותרת מן המנחה לאהרן ולבניו, that what's leftover from the מנחה goes to אהרן and his children. So we see from here that after you are מקטיר the אזכרה, which is the קומץ, that's when the leftovers, the rest of it, could be eaten by אהרן and his children, by the כהנים. Then the גמרא continues. We said, קרב הקומץ, after you are מקריב the קומץ, then you're allowed to eat the leftovers. Now the

question is, what do we consider that the קומץ was being מקריב on the מזבח? Which stage of the הקרבה is considered that the קומץ was already נקרב on the מזבח? And the גמרא says, למר כדית ליה, ולמר כדית ליה. According to one opinion it is according to the way he says it, and according to the other opinion it would mean the way he says it. And the גמרא will explain which are the two opinions. איתמר, because we learned, הקומץ, אימתי מתיר שירים באכילה? The קומץ, when does it allow the leftovers, the rest, to be eaten? In other words, what is considered that you were already מקריב the קומץ in order for the rest to be able to be eaten? רב חנינא אומר, רב חנינא says, משתשלוט בו האור, as soon as the fire catches onto it. You don't have to wait till the whole קומץ gets burned. As soon as the fire catches onto that flour which is put on the מזבח, the קומץ, then already the כהנים could eat the שירים, the leftover. רבי יוחנן אמר, but רבי יוחנן says, משתוצת האור ברובו, when the fire catches in the majority, in the most of it. It's not enough when the fire just catches on to it, but when most of it gets onto the fire, most of it gets burned, that's when you're allowed to eat the rest. Then the גמרא continues quoting from the ברייתא. It said

ורשאים הכהנים ליתן לתוכו יין ושמן ודבש, that the כהנים are allowed to put into the part that they are going to eat, they're allowed to add wine or oil or honey. The גמרא says מאי טעמא, what is the reason? The גמרא answers אמר קרא, because there's a פסוק that says למשחה. This is a פסוק that says by מתנות כהונה, by the different presents, different things you're supposed to give to the כהנים. So the תורה says, this is a פסוק in במדבר י"ח, it says לך נתתים למשחה, I gave it to you for anointing. Now what does that mean? So we דרשן לגדולה, it was given to the כהנים to eat לגדולה in a form of greatness, כדרך שהמלכים אוכלים, just like the kings eat. Because anointing is something that they used to do to a king, so when the תורה says I gave you the מתנות כהונה למשחה, it means I gave it to you to eat in the form the way the kings eat. And therefore they're allowed to make it tasty. So when you add wine or oil or honey, it makes it tasty, so the דין is that they are allowed to add these ingredients in order to make it taste better because of the פסוק למשחה. And then the ברייתא continued

ואינם אסורים אלא מלחמץ, they are only prohibited from making it חמצדיק. Even the part that they are eating, they're also not allowed to make חמץ. Not only the part that goes on the מזבח they're not allowed to make חמץ, but also the part that they eat themselves. The part that goes on the מזבח they can't even add honey to it, but their own part they could add honey. But חמץ they can't make even their part that they're going to eat. וכתיב, because it says, a פסוק in ויקרא ו', לא תאפה חמץ חלקם, that they shouldn't bake חמץ their part. ואמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש, and רבי שמעון בן לקיש said that this means דאפילו חלקם, even their part, the part that they eat themselves, לא תאפה חמץ, should not be baked חמץ. You shouldn't make it חמצדיק. Then the גמרא continues by quoting the משנה. It said in the משנה, כל המנחות וכולי, all the מנחות, etc. And this refers to the part of the משנה where it said כל המנחות טעונות שמן ולבונה, all the מנחות need oil and לבונה, which is a certain spice which was called frankincense. So all the מנחות need שמן and לבונה. וזו, and this מנחה of the סוטה אינה טעונה לא שמן ולא לבונה, did not need any oil and did not need any לבונה. The גמרא asks a קשיא: וכל המנחות טעונות שמן ולבונה, and you're telling me that all the מנחות needed oil and לבונה, והאיכא מנחת חוטא, but isn't there a מנחה of a sinner that רחמנא אמר, the תורה says לא ישים עליה שמן ולא יתן עליה לבונה, do not put any oil on it and do not put any לבונה on it? This פסוק is concerning the קרבן עולה ויורד. קרבן עולה ויורד was brought as an אשם for specific עבירות. For instance, if a person became טמא and then went into the בית המקדש, or became טמא and ate קדשים, or a person swore that he doesn't know a certain testimony for somebody and he did know, or if a person makes a שבועה to do something or not to do something and then doesn't keep his שבועה, doesn't keep his oath, so a person like that is supposed to bring a special קרבן אשם. Now this אשם is called a קרבן עולה ויורד, goes up and down, because there are three levels to this קרבן. If a person could afford, then his קרבן would be an animal. If the person could not afford, then he is able to bring the קרבן of שתי תורים או בני יונה, of birds. If he is very, very poor and he can't even afford to bring birds, so then the דין is that he is able to bring a קרבן מנחה instead of the birds and instead of the animal. And this is called a קרבן עולה ויורד, a קרבן that goes up and down, because there are three levels of what kind of קרבן you have to bring. And concerning the last level of the person who can't afford at all, and he is supposed to bring a קרבן מנחה, the תורה says that his מנחה should not have any oil and should not have any לבונה. And this is what the גמרא asks here: from our משנה it seems that all the מנחות needed שמן and לבונה, and here we have a מנחת חוטא that does not need שמן and does not need לבונה. And the גמרא answers הכי קאמר, this is what the משנה meant. And the גמרא is going to explain the משנה a little bit differently, because when we look back at the משנה, the משנה has a few differences between most מנחות and the מנחת סוטה. And it starts off by saying like this: all the מנחות need שמן and לבונה, the מנחת סוטה doesn't. Then it says, all the מנחות come from חיטין, from wheat, This one comes from שעורים, from barley. Then it continues that the מנחת העומר, which also came from barley, but nevertheless that was גרש, that was fine flour, while this one, the מנחת סוטה, even though it came from barley, it came coarse flour. So the way we learned before that the three things the משנה says, they're separate things. First the משנה makes a statement that all the מנחות need שמן and לבונה, and this one doesn't. That's one statement. Then there's another statement that all the מנחות need come from wheat, this one comes from barley, that's another statement. A third statement is that even the one that does come from barley other than the מנחת סוטה, which is the מנחת העומר, still it's different because that one comes from fine flour, while the מנחה of a סוטה comes from thick flour, from coarse flour. And according to this פשט in the משנה, the גמרא had a very good קשיא. Since each statement is a separate statement, so the גמרא had a קשיא on the first statement. How could you make a statement that all the מנחות need שמן and לבונה except the מנחת סוטה, when we find another מנחה that doesn't need שמן and לבונה, and that is the מנחה of a חוטא, the קרבן עולה ויורד. But now the גמרא is going to tell us that the משנה is not telling us three separate things, but the all three things go together. What the משנה is trying to tell us that a קרבן סוטה has three negative things, while most מנחות have these same three things in a positive way. But what the משנה is telling us that there are certain מנחות that in one way they are similar to a קרבן סוטה, but in the other two they're not. The only one that has all three negative things is only the קרבן סוטה. And this is what the משנה means: that כל המנחות טעונות שמן ולבונה, all the מנחות need oil and need לבונה, ובאות מן החיטין, and they all come from wheat, ובאות סולת, they all come fine flour. So the three things mentioned in the משנה really is one big statement the משנה is trying to make. But he's saying that there are a few exceptions to the rule, but the biggest exception that doesn't have any of these three things, that is the קרבן of סוטה. But there are two others that have one of the three exceptions. And the גמרא continues with

מנחת חוטא, even though it's not mentioned in the משנה, but this is what the משנה means to tell us: that מנחת חוטא, the מנחה of the sinner, which is the קרבן עולה ויורד, אף על פי שאינה טעונה שמן ולבונה, even though in one way it's different than all the מנחות, that it doesn't need the oil and the לבונה, but still באה מן החיטין, it's still made of wheat, ובאה סולת, and you bring it of fine flour. Then there is another קרבן, מנחת העומר, the מנחה that you bring on פסח. אף על פי שבאה מן השעורים, that is different than all the מנחות in one way, that it's made of barley, not of wheat, but nevertheless, טעונה שמן ולבונה, it needs the oil and the לבונה, ובאה גרש, and it comes from fine flour. וזו, but this קרבן of a סוטה, has all three negative things: אינה טעונה לא שמן ולא לבונה, it doesn't need not oil and not לבונה, ובאה מן השעורים, and it comes from barley, ובאה קמח, and it's made of thick, coarse flour. And now we can't ask the קשיא on the משנה that how could the משנה make a statement that all מנחות need שמן ולבונה when we find one מנחה, the מנחת חוטא, that doesn't need שמן ולבונה, because this is actually what the משנה is trying to tell us. First the משנה is giving a general rule of all three positive things that מנחות have, and what the משנה means to say is that there are certain exceptions to the rule, but only one exception to each מנחה. There's an exception to the מנחת חוטא and exception to the מנחת העומר, but there is one מנחה which has all three exceptions, and that is the מנחת סוטה that the משנה deals with. Then the גמרא continues, תניא, we learn in a ברייתא, אמר רבי שמעון, רבי שמעון said, בדין הוא שתהא מנחת חוטא טעונה שמן ולבונה. באמת, the way it should be is that the מנחה of a חוטא, the מנחה of the sinner, this קרבן עולה ויורד, should need oil and should need לבונה. The reason for it is שלא יהא חוטא נשכר, in order for the sinner not to gain. It seems here that because he did an עבירה, and his קרבן מנחה is brought for his עבירה, he gains that he doesn't have to spend the money to buy oil and to buy לבונה. So really, in order not to have him gain, the תורה should have said that he should bring שמן ולבונה. ומפני מה אינה טעונה, and why is the דין that his קרבן does not need שמן ולבונה? שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר, in order his קרבן shouldn't be מהודר, shouldn't be nice. Since it's a קרבן of a חוטא, of a sinner, so השם didn't want that he should bring a nice קרבן. And therefore השם said that he should not bring שמן ולבונה, because שמן ולבונה makes the קרבן better. Then the ברייתא continues,

ובדין הוא שתהא חטאת חלב טעונה נסכים. Also, the דין really should have been that the חטאת חלב, חטאת חלב means a regular קרבן חטאת. A חטאת usually is brought for a person who does an עבירה בשוגג, unintentionally, such an עבירה, that if he would have done it במזיד, if he would have done it intentionally, the punishment would have been כרת. For such an עבירה, if you do it בשוגג, then you have to bring a חטאת. And sometimes this חטאת is referred to as חטאת חלב, because חלב is an example of such an עבירה, that if you eat חלב, the special fat that the תורה said you shouldn't eat, if you eat it במזיד, intentionally, then you get כרת. If you eat it unintentionally, בשוגג, you bring a חטאת for it. So sometimes a regular חטאת is referred to as חטאת חלב. Not that you bring it only for חלב, but it's referred to חטאת חלב as an example of the type of עבירה that you would have to bring a חטאת for. And as רש"י says, because close to the דין of חטאת, the תורה mentions that you should not eat חלב, and therefore, sometimes it's called חטאת חלב. And the דין is that חטאת חלב, a regular חטאת does not need נסכים. נסכים means that most קרבנות, along with the animal that you would bring as a קרבן, you had to bring a certain amount of flour, and you had to bring wine, and you had to bring oil. And the flour, and the wine, and the oil are called the נסכים. And the דין is that a regular חטאת does not need any נסכים. So, what the ברייתא says is that really, a חטאת חלב, טעונה נסכים, should have needed נסכים, שלא יהא חוטא נשכר, in order for the sinner not to gain. Other קרבנות need נסכים. So certainly, if a sinner brings a קרבן, he certainly should have to bring נסכים, because otherwise he'd be gaining. Because he did an עבירה, he is gaining money that he doesn't have to spend the money on the flour, and on the wine, and the oil. מפני מה אינה טעונה, why is the דין that a חטאת does not need נסכים? שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר, for the same reason, in order for his קרבן not to be nice. Since it's a קרבן of a חטא, a קרבן that comes for an עבירה, השם didn't want to add beauty to his קרבן, and by adding the נסכים, it adds beauty. And therefore the דין is that a קרבן חטאת does not need נסכים. אבל חטאתו של מצורע ואשמו, and because of that, the חטאת of a מצורע, after a מצורע is finished with his צרעת, finished with his leprosy, so there are certain קרבנות he has to bring. He has to bring a חטאת, and he has to bring an אשם. So he says that the חטאת of a מצורע, or the אשם of a מצורע, טעונין נסכים, they do need the נסכים, לפי שאינן באים על חטא, because they do not come for an עבירה. Based on the סברא that he said before, that the reason that he does not need נסכים by a חטאת is because the קרבן shouldn't be nice, since it's a קרבן of a sinner, השם doesn't want the קרבן to be nice, so because of that, by a מצורע, even though he brings a חטאת and an אשם, but since it doesn't come for a sin, therefore, it does need נסכים. The גמרא asks, איני, is it not so? והא אמר רב שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יוחנן, didn't רב שמואל בר נחמני say in the name of ר' יוחנן, על שבעה דברים נגעים באים וכו', that there are seven things that cause a person to get leprosy? And these are seven עבירות, as the גמרא mentions them all in ערכין דף ט"ז ע"א. The גמרא there says that you get נגעים for לשון הרע, for speaking לשון הרע, or for שפיכות דמים, for murder, ועל שבועת שוא, for swearing false, ועל גילוי עריות, for adultery, ועל גסות הרוח, for arrogance, ועל הגזל, for stealing, ועל צרות עין, on being jealous of others. So these are seven עבירות that cause a person to become a מצורע. So the קושיא in the גמרא is, how could you say that the קרבן of a מצורע, the קרבן חטאת and אשם of a מצורע, do need נסכים because they do not come for a חטא, when רב שמואל בר נחמני in the name of ר' יוחנן said that for seven עבירות, a person comes a מצורע, so we see a person does become a מצורע because of a חטא. And the גמרא answers, התם over there, מנגעיה הוא דקא מיכפר ליה. For those עבירות that are mentioned in the גמרא, he gets the כפרה, he gets forgiven just by becoming a מצורע, just by getting this נגע. The shame and the trouble he goes through through being a מצורע, this is the כפרה for those עבירות. So that later on when he finishes with his צרעת, כי מייתי קרבן, when he brings the קרבן, לאשתרויי באכילת קדשים הוא דקא מייתי, he only brings the קרבן in order to become allowed to eat קדשים, to eat קרבנות. Because the דין is that certain טומאות, certain types of טומאה that a person becomes, he cannot eat קדשים unless he first brings a קרבן. And one of those is a מצורע. And therefore, he must bring the קרבן. So the קרבן that the מצורע brings is not to forgive him for the עבירות that caused his צרעת, because those עבירות were forgiven already before through the צרעת itself. The קרבנות are only to allow him to eat קדשים. And therefore, since the חטאת and the אשם of the מצורע are not for the חטא, not for the עבירה, therefore, they do need נסכים. Then the גמרא asks, אלא מעתה, if so, חטאת נזיר תהא טעונה נסכים, the חטאת of a נזיר should need נסכים. When a person takes upon himself to become a נזיר, and one of the things is not to drink wine, when his days of נזירות are up, he must bring certain קרבנות. Amongst those קרבנות is a קרבן חטאת. So the גמרא feels that according to the סברא that we said before, a חטאת of a נזיר should need נסכים, לפי שאינו בא על חטא, because it doesn't come for an עבירה, it just comes for finishing his נזירות. So why is the דין that a חטאת of a נזיר does not need נסכים? And the גמרא answers, סבר לה כרבי אלעזר הקפר, he holds like רבי אלעזר הקפר, דאמר, that he says, נזיר נמי חוטא הוא, a נזיר is also called a sinner. And as רש״י explains, because he was מצער himself from wine, he held himself back from drinking wine, which really he shouldn't, because he's allowed to drink wine.

Why did he take upon himself that איסור, that prohibition in drinking wine? So that is considered a חטא. So it's as if he brings a חטאת for a חטא. And as we said before, a חטאת that you bring for a חטא, for an עבירה, does not need נסכים in order for the קרבן not to be a מהודר, not to be a nice קרבן. Then the גמרא goes back to the משנה. It said in the משנה, רבן גמליאל אומר, כשם וכולי. רבן גמליאל says that the reason why a סוטה brings her מנחה from שעורים, from barley, because just like her actions were actions of a בהמה, of an animal, so too her קרבן should be of מאכל בהמה, of animal food. And the גמרא says, תניא, we learned in a ברייתא, אמר להם רבן גמליאל לחכמים, רבן גמליאל said to the חכמים, סופרים, he referred to the חכמים as סופרים. And the גמרא in קידושין explains why the חכמים are called סופרים: because they counted all the אותיות of the תורה, etc. But anyway, he says to the חכמים, סופרים, הניחו לי, let me, ואדרשנה כמין חומר, and I will דרשן the reason why she has to bring a קרבן of barley, I will דרשן it כמין חומר. I will דרשן it like a חומר, and a חומר, as רש״י explains here, means a piece of jewelry made of gold, or according to other מפרשים, this is a kind of perfume. So what he said was, let me דרשן the reason why a סוטה brings a קרבן of barley, and I will דרשן it very well. What would he דרשן? He said he would say like this, דשמיע לי לרבי מאיר, because we had heard רבי מאיר, דאמר, that he said, היא האכילתו מעדני עולם, לפיכך קרבנה מאכל בהמה. The גמרא bring this earlier on דף ט׳ עמוד א׳. The גמרא says that השם punishes מידה כנגד מידה. The same type of עבירה that the person did, the same way, in the same measure, השם will punish. And the גמרא goes through all the different things that the סוטה did, and as we see her punishment, that it's the same in the same measure as the עבירה that she did. And one of the things that רבי מאיר said was that when she did the עבירה with that man, she must have fed the person מעדני עולם, all kinds of goodies, all kinds of good food. So because her measure in the עבירה was feeding somebody good food, therefore when she is punished, it's just the opposite. The קרבן she brings is bad food, is קרבן of barley, which is מאכל בהמה, which is animal food, and definitely not good food. And this is what he would say as the reason why a סוטה has to bring her קרבן מנחה made of barley. אמרו לו, so the חכמים said to him, הא תינח עשירה, this is a good reason for a rich woman, so we assume that she must have fed the man מעדני עולם, all kinds of good food. But

עניה, מאי איכא למימר? What kind of reason could you give for a poor woman? Why is the קרבן מנחה of a poor woman who is a סוטה also מאכל בהמה, also of barley? By her, you can't say that it's מידה כנגד מידה, it is because she fed him good food, therefore her קרבן is bad food. She definitely did not feed him good food because she is poor, so she doesn't have the money for it. So what would be the reason for such a woman to bring a מנחה of barley? אלא, for that, we must say the reason that כשם שמעשיה מעשה בהמה, just like her actions are actions of a בהמה, כך קרבנה מאכל בהמה, so, too, her קרבן is מאכל בהמה, is of animal food, similar to the עבירה that she did. And now we will continue with the next משנה. The משנה says, היה מביא פילי של חרס, the כהן would bring a כלי, a vessel of חרס, an earthenware כלי, ונותן לתוכה חצי לוג מים מן הכיור, and he would put into that כלי a half a לוג of water from the כיור. The כיור was the special vessel that stood in the עזרה where the כהנים would wash their hands and their feet from before they started doing the עבודה. So from that כיור, they would put a half a לוג of water into the כלי of חרס. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה said, רביעית, it was not a half a לוג of water, but it was a quarter of a לוג of water. And the משנה explains, כשם שממעט בכתב, כך ממעט במים, just like רבי יהודה minimizes in what was supposed to be written on the מגילה, as we will learn in the next משנה, so too does he minimize in the amount of water that that is supposed to put into that כלי.

ונכנס להיכל, the כהן walked into the היכל, ופנה לימינו, and he turned right. ומקום היה שם אמה על אמה, there was an area there which was the size of one אמה by one אמה, וטבלא של שיש, and it had a cover of marble, וטבעת היתה קבועה בה, and a ring was set into that piece of marble. The whole floor was of marble, and in order to recognize that area where you would be able to lift up the floor, there was a ring set into it. And you would put the finger into the ring, and with that ring he would pick it up. כשהוא מגביה, then he would pick it up, ונוטל עפר מתחתיה, and he would take sand out from under that cover, ונותן, and he would put it in כדי שיראה על המים, you would put in enough sand into the water that it should be recognizable in the water. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן, and from the sand that will be in the floor of the משכן, יקח הכהן, the כהן should take, ונתן אל המים, and he should put it into the water. So we see that you have to recognize that there is sand put into the water. And the גמרא continues,

תנא, we learn in a ברייתא, פילי של חרס חדשה, this vessel of earthenware that we said in the משנה that he has to use to put the water in has to be a new one. דברי רבי ישמעאל, that's what רבי ישמעאל holds. And the גמרא explains, מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל, what is the reason of רבי ישמעאל? גמר כלי כלי ממצורע, he learns out the דין of כלי by the סוטה from the דין of כלי from מצורע. By a מצורע, it says the לשון the פסוק that you have to take a כלי, a vessel. By the סוטה, it says that you have to take a כלי, a vessel. So he makes a גזירה שוה, he compares the two, and he says, מה להלן חרס חדשה, just like by a מצורע you have to have a new כלי חרס, a new earthenware כלי, אף כאן, so here too by the סוטה, חרס חדשה, it has to be a new earthenware כלי. והתם מנלן, and how do we know by מצורע itself that you must have a new כלי? דכתיב, because the תורה says, ושחט את הצפור האחת אל כלי חרס על מים חיים, that you should שחט one of the birds into the כלי חרס, into the earthenware כלי, and you would do it over living water, well water. So we learn out, מה מים חיים שלא נעשתה בהן מלאכה, just like the water was living water, water that was never worked with, no מלאכה, no work was done with that water, אף כלי שלא נעשית בו מלאכה, so too the כלי should be such a כלי that you never worked with it, because the תורה puts the two together, it says into a כלי over מים חיים. So just like מים חיים are water that never a מלאכה was done with it, so too the כלי. So now that we know that by מצורע the כלי had to be a new כלי, and we learn out כלי כלי by סוטה from מצורע, that a סוטה too must have a new כלי. But then the

גמרא asks, אי מה להלן מים חיים אף כאן מים חיים, if you compare the דינים of סוטה to the דינים of מצורע, so why shouldn't we compare it also concerning the water, that just like by a מצורע you must have מים חיים, fresh spring water, so too by a סוטה you should have fresh living spring water? And the גמרא answers, לרבי ישמעאל הכא נמי. Who said that you must have a new כלי and he learned it out from מצורע? רבי ישמעאל said that. According to רבי ישמעאל, it is true that they used to use מים חיים for a סוטה too, they used to use new water, living water for a סוטה too. Because דאמר רבי יוחנן, because רבי יוחנן said, מי כיור, the water that was put into the כיור, רבי ישמעאל אומר מי מעין הן, רבי ישמעאל said they were water from a well, וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, משאר מימות הן, they could have been from other waters too. But רבי ישמעאל, he is the one that holds that it had to be from a well. So since they took the water for the סוטה from the כיור, and according to רבי ישמעאל the כיור was made from a well, so in truth, the water from the סוטה was really מים חיים, water from a well, just like the מצורע. Then the גמרא asks, how could you compare the סוטה to the מצורע? איכא למיפרך, I could ask you a question. מה למצורע, you know why a מצורע is so strict that it needs a new כלי, שכן טעון עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת. We see that a מצורע needs other things in addition to the קרבן, it needs an עץ ארז and an אזוב and a שני תולעת, while by a סוטה we don't find that the סוטה needs these three things, so we already see that a סוטה is not as strict as the מצורע. So maybe too the מצורע needs a new כלי, but the סוטה does not need a new כלי, how could we compare the two? גמרא answers,

אמר רבא, how can we compare the two? גמרא answers, אמר רבא said, אמר קרא, the תורה says, the פסוק says בכלי חרס, that you should put the water into a כלי חרס, and as רש״י explains, the תורה could have said, you should take a כלי חרס and put water into it. Since the תורה said you should put water into the כלי חרס, so it's as if the תורה is saying, כלי שאמרתי לך כבר, into a כלי that I once already had mentioned to you about. Now what was that? Where did the תורה mention a כלי חרס before? This was by מצורע. So it's as if the תורה is saying, put the water into a similar כלי as I had mentioned to you by מצורע. So just like a מצורע needs a new כלי, so does the סוטה need a new כלי. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רבא, רבא said, לא שנו, this דין that the חכמים hold that it does not have to be a new כלי, is only said אלא שלא נתאכמו פניו, as long as the כלי didn't get black, the vessel didn't get black, אבל נתאכמו פניו, but if it got blackened, פסולין, they are פסול. Even the חכמים hold that such a כלי is פסול, even though they say it doesn't have to be a new כלי, it could be a used כלי, but it still should not be black. If it's black, it's פסול. And the גמרא says, מאי טעמא, what is his reason? דומיא דמים. He compares it to the water that is put into the כלי. מה מים שלא נשתנו, just like the water has to be without being changed colors, אף כלי, so too the כלי, when is it כשר? שלא נשתנה, if the color wasn't changed. And as רש״י explains that even though the רבנן do not learn that the water of the סוטה has to be מים חיים, fresh well water, just like the water of the מצורע, so they טאקע don't mean here to learn out the דין of the כלי from the water of the מצורע. They mean to learn out from the water of the סוטה itself. And the water of the סוטה itself, even though it does not have to be מים חיים according to the רבנן, but still it has to be water that didn't change colors. And therefore they say that just like the water if it changed colors is פסול, so too the כלי, if it changed colors, it is פסול. Then the גמרא continues, בעי רבא, רבא asked an איבעיא question, נתאכמו והחזירן לתוך כבשן האש ונתלבנו מהו, if it got black and became פסול, but then he put it back into the furnace, into the place where it is made, ונתלבנו, and they became white again, מהו, what is the דין, is it כשר now or not? מי אמרינן, do we say כיון דאידחו אידחו, since it was pushed away, it is pushed away, since at one point it was פסול, so it stays פסול that way, and even though later on it became white again, but as soon as it became פסול, it became פסול forever, או דילמא, or maybe כיון דהדר הדר, since it came back again, later it became white again, so now it became כשר again, so you could use it. גמרא says, תא שמע, come hear, I'll try to answer this question. We learned, רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר says, עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת, these three objects that the מצורע was supposed to bring along with his קרבן, so any of these three שהקיף שבהן קופסא לאחוריו, he used it to tie to a basket, and with that string, one of the things of the עץ ארז or the אזוב or the שני תולעת that he used to hold the basket on his back, פסולין, they are פסול. Even after he takes the basket off and he straightens them out, they still cannot be used for the דין of a מצורע. So here too we see, והתם הדר משפשטה, here too after you take them off, you straighten them out, so it's as if it becomes כשר again, and nevertheless רבי אלעזר says it's פסול since at the moment when you used it for your basket on your back, it was פסול because it was all wrinkled, so you couldn't use it, so even though later on you could straighten them out, nevertheless it's פסול. So we see that since it was נדחה, it was pushed away, it's pushed away. So here too by the case of the כלי, that since at one point it became black and it was נדחה, it was פסול, so even though later on you changed it back and it became white again, still it is פסול. And the גמרא says it's no ראיה, no proof from there, because התם דאיקלוף איקלופי. By the case of the עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת that he used to carry the basket on your back, there, even after you straighten it out, it's not 100% as it was before because a certain area would be peeled off, and that you cannot bring back. But in a case where you could actually make it back as exactly as it was before, maybe over there it is good. So we have no answer to the question that רבא asked concerning the כלי that became black and was put into the furnace and became white again. Then the גמרא continues with explaining the משנה. It says in the משנה, נכנס להיכל, the כהן would walk into the היכל, ופנה לימינו, and he would turn right, וכולי, etc.

מאי טעמא, what is the reason why he would turn right? Because אמר מר, because we know the דין is that כל פינות שאתה פונה, that any turn that you ever make, לא יהיו אלא לדרך ימין, should only be towards the right side. So here too, when he turned, he turned to the right side. Then the גמרא continues continues to explain the rest of the משנה. It said in the משנה, מקום היה שם אמה וכו׳, when you went into the היכל, there was an area the size of an אמה by an אמה, and he would pick up the cover and he would take out of the sand of that area. The גמרא says תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, we learned in a ברייתא, the פסוק says ומן העפר אשר יהיה, יכול יתקן מבחוץ ויכניס, תלמוד לומר בקרקע המשכן. The complete פסוק is ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן, from the sand that will be in the floor of the משכן, יקח הכהן, the כהן should take, ונתן אל המים, and he should put it into the water. So the ברייתא says, from the words ומן העפר אשר יהיה, if it would just say these words, from the sand that will be in the משכן, without using the word בקרקע, in the floor, if it would say that way, יכול, I would think, יתקן מבחוץ, you're allowed to prepare it outside, ויכניס, and take it in. It doesn't have to be from the floor of the משכן. You could take sand from outside of the משכן and bring it into the משכן. This is only if it would say ומן העפר אשר יהיה במשכן, from the sand that will be in the משכן the כהן should take. So if you bring it in from the outside, so now it is sand of the משכן. תלמוד לומר, so therefore the תורה says בקרקע המשכן, that it has to be from the floor of the משכן, that you can't take it from out and bring it in. But then it continues, אי בקרקע המשכן, if it would just say the words קרקע המשכן and wouldn't say יהיה, the תורה would say, from the sand אשר בקרקע המשכן יקח, from the sand that's on the floor of the משכן the כהן should take, without the word יהיה, so then יכול, I would think, יחפור בקרדומות, that he could dig with shovels, that let's say there is no sand, loose sand in the floor of the משכן, so then he would have to dig with shovels to take out from the floor of the משכן. תלמוד לומר, but the תורה says אשר יהיה, that it should be there, it should be as sand, and if there is no sand there, you cannot dig with a shovel. So now we have both words. The תורה does say אשר יהיה, and the תורה does say בקרקע. So from here we know that you cannot bring from the outside, you must take it from the floor. But on the other hand, it says that if you don't have on the floor, you cannot dig with shovels. So let's say you do not have loose sand on the floor, what do you do? You can't bring it from the outside. הא כיצד, so what do you do? So the answer is that יש שם, if you have sand on the floor, הבא, you bring from there. אין שם, if you don't have any sand on the floor, any loose sand, תן שם, you put. You bring from the outside and you put it onto the floor, and then you take it from the floor and you put it into the כלי. And by doing this you are מקיים, we fulfill both פסוקים. On one hand, we didn't dig with shovels from the floor. On the other hand, we didn't bring from the outside, even though we did bring it from the outside, but when we put it into the כלי, it was taken from the floor of the משכן. This is the way one ברייתא learns, according to the פשט of רש״י, the way the ב״ח explains it. תניא אידך, in another ברייתא we learned, he דרש's the פסוק differently. The פסוק says ומן העפר אשר יהיה וגו׳, that you should take from the sand that will be. What does that teach us? מלמד, it teaches us, שהיה מתקן מבחוץ ומכניס, that you could take it from the outside and bring it in, and you didn't have to put it down on the floor as the first ברייתא says, but this ברייתא learns that you could take it from the outside and bring it in and directly put it into the כלי. And the reason for his לימוד is, since it doesn't say in the תורה מקרקע המשכן יקח, you should take from the floor of the משכן, so we see that the תורה doesn't care that it should ממש be taken from the floor. The main thing is that it should be from עפר which will be in the משכן. And if you bring it from the outside into the משכן, it is also considered sand which is in the משכן, and you do not have to put it down on the floor. But according to that, בקרקע המשכן, what does the words בקרקע המשכן mean if you do not have to put it on the floor at all? So why does the תורה use the words בקרקע המשכן? Even though we have a לימוד from the words אשר יהיה, that the main thing is it should be in the משכן, and it doesn't have to be on the floor, but what does he do with the words בקרקע המשכן, on the floor of the משכן? איסי בן יהודה אומר, so איסי בן יהודה says that these words come להביא, to include קרקע, the floor of שילה, נוב וגבעון ובית עולמים. Since the פרשה of סוטה is really speaking in the תורה about the time of the משכן, when the אידן were still in the desert and they had a משכן, but later on, after they crossed the ירדן and they entered ארץ ישראל, and after they finished with the משכן, which was after fourteen years, they built a משכן in שילה, and then after many years that was destroyed, then they built a משכן in נוב, then they built a משכן in גבעון, and then they built the בית המקדש in ירושלים and הר הבית. So in

order to include that also the floor of שילה, and נוב, and גבעון, and the בית המקדש, which is referred to as בית עולמים, which means the eternal house, because after the בית המקדש was built, no other משכן could ever be built, that's why it's called the בית עולמים. So in order to tell us that this דין also applies to the floor of שילה, and נוב, and גבעון, and of the בית המקדש, therefore the תורה says, בקרקע המשכן. But איסי בן מנחם אומר, איסי בן מנחם says, אינו צריך, we don't need a special פסוק to tell us that the בית המקדש, the דין applies there too, because we would know it anyway. ומה בטומאה קלה לא יחלק הכתוב, if we see that by an easy level of טומאה, the תורה did not make a difference between the משכן and the בית המקדש, this is concerning entering the בית המקדש when the person is טמא. There is no מיתת בית דין, there is no death penalty for a person entering the בית המקדש while he is טמא or entering the משכן. And still we see that even though it's not such a strict טומאה, nevertheless the same דין that applied to the משכן, that you're not allowed to enter the משכן while you're טמא, applied also to the בית המקדש. So certainly, בטומאת אשת איש שחמורה, concerning the טומאה of a married woman committing adultery, which is much stricter, for that there is a death penalty, לא כל שכן, certainly the תורה would not make a difference between the משכן and the בית המקדש. And just like in the משכן we have a way of punishing this woman who committed adultery, this סוטה, so too in the בית המקדש we have the same way. So we would with our own סברא understand that the דינים of סוטה and all the details of סוטה apply to the בית המקדש too. So we don't need the special words בקרקע המשכן to tell us that in the בית המקדש the

דין of סוטה applies too. אם כן מה תלמוד לומר בקרקע המשכן, so if so, what do the words בקרקע המשכן teach us? And the answer is, שלא יביא מתוך קופסתו, that he shouldn't bring from his heap. In other words, he shouldn't bring some of the sand from outside of the בית המקדש and bring it into the בית המקדש and pour it directly into the water. In other words, איסי בן מנחם holds like we said before in the first ברייתא, that when you bring it from the outside, you must put it down on the floor, and from the floor of the משכן or the בית המקדש, you would put it into the כלי. And this is what the words בקרקע המשכן tell us, that you cannot take it from the outside and put it directly into the כלי, but it must be taken from the קרקע המשכן. Concerning the words of איסי בן יהודה, that he said that the reason we have the words בקרקע המשכן in the פסוק is to be מרבה the floor of שילה, and נוב, and גבעון, and בית עולמים of the בית המקדש, so רש״י says that in ספרי we have a different גירסא. In ספרי it doesn't say it comes to be מרבה שילה or נוב and גבעון or בית עולמים, all it comes to be מרבה is only the בית עולמים, only the בית המקדש. And רש״י explains, שילה you don't have to be מרבה because שילה was a משכן. So if the

תורה tells us that these דינים apply to the משכן, so it automatically applies to שילה too because שילה was a משכן. As the רמב״ם explains in the beginning of הלכות בית הבחירה, that שילה was a משכן, the difference between the משכן that was in the desert and שילה was that the משכן in the desert was portable, the walls were made of wood, while the משכן in שילה the walls were made of bricks and it was a permanent building, but it still did not have a roof. The roof were the יריעות, the same יריעות that were in the משכן in the desert. So really שילה was a משכן, so we don't need a פסוק to be מרבה to include שילה to the דינים of סוטה. Also נוב and גבעון could not be mentioned here, רש״י says, because נוב and גבעון did not have a דין of a משכן, and the דין was that you could not be משקה a סוטה in נוב and גבעון. So how could he say we are מרבה נוב and גבעון when actually the דין was that in נוב and גבעון you could not give a סוטה to drink from the water? The only thing that we have to be מרבה, we have to include, is the בית המקדש. And therefore, according to the גירסא in ספרי, what איסי בן יהודה said the words בקרקע המשכן come to include is only בית עולמים, only the בית המקדש. And this is where איסי בן מנחם comes in and says, if it comes to include the בית המקדש, for that we don't need a פסוק because we have a סברא that would include the בית המקדש with the קל וחומר that he made, that if by a טומאה קלה, by the דין of entering the בית המקדש בטומאה, the תורה did not make a difference between the משכן and the בית המקדש, so too the תורה would not have made a difference between the משכן and the בית המקדש concerning the טומאה of אשת איש, concerning the דין of a סוטה. And therefore he says for that we don't need the פסוק. And

according to איסי בן מנחם, what does the תורה come to include with the words בקרקע המשכן, to tell us that you must put it down on the floor of the משכן, as we learned before in the first ברייתא. Concerning what the גמרא brought before in the name of רבא, that the כלי that you put the water in for the סוטה has to be a כלי that didn't become black, but if it became black, רבא said that it was פסול, and his reason was because we compare it to the water of the סוטה. Just like the water of the סוטה is only כשר if it didn't change color, So too the כלי is only כשר if it didn't change colors. So תוספות asks a קשיא, where does the גמרא take it from that the water is פסול if it changed colors? Since the water was taken from the כיור, and the כיור were water that came from a מקוה, and the דין is that the water of a מקוה is כשר even if it changed colors, as we know that it says in מסכת מקואות פרק ז משנה ג, there it says that מי צבע אין פוסלין את המקוה בשינוי מראה. If there were water that were colored does not פוסל the water by changing its colors. Also תוספות asks a קשיא that we see in the גמרא עבודה זרה, the גמרא doesn't stick with this סברא that water didn't change its colors. And how come over here the גמרא says that the water for the סוטה is פסול if it changed colors? And therefore תוספות says that he feels that it's only an אסמכתא, it's not מדאורייתא that the water is פסול if it changed colors, it is only מדרבנן that they פוסל it. מדאורייתא טאקע the water would be כשר even if it changed colors. Based on this תוספות, the משנה למלך in הלכות סוטה פרק ג הלכה ט answers a קשיא that the כסף משנה asks on the רמב״ם. The

רמב״ם says over there that concerning the דין that you have to have a כלי חרס, he says that if you put the כלי חרס back into the כבשן till it became new again it is כשר. Really in our גמרא, as we learned before, it is an איבעיא that רבא asked. It was a שאלה. רבא asked that if it was a כלי חרס that became black and later on it was put back into the oven, and it became white again, is it כשר or not כשר? And the גמרא wanted to answer this question through a ברייתא, but the גמרא said that there is no ראיה from that ברייתא, and therefore we remained with the question. So as far as the גמרא is concerned, as we see it from the גמרא, there is no answer to this איבעיא, to this שאלה, whether if you put it back into the oven, into the furnace, and it became white again, whether it is כשר or not. Nevertheless, the רמב״ם פסקנ׳ס that it is כשר. So the כסף משנה asks the קשיא, why is the רמב״ם מיקל in this דין? Many times we find a כלל that when there is a שאלה in the גמרא that has no answer, we go לחומרא, we go to the stricter side. So here too the רמב״ם should have gone to the stricter side and said that if you put it back into the oven and it became white again, it should still stay פסול because we have no resolution to that question. And the כסף משנה wants to answer his answer, but the משנה למלך says based on what תוספות just said, we could answer the question very simply. According to תוספות, since the whole דין that the water that changed its colors is פסול is only מדרבנן, so בפשטות the דין that the כלי has to be white, not black, is also only מדרבנן. Because as רבא says, how does he know that if the כלי became black it's פסול? He learns it out from the water. So if the whole דין of the water is only מדרבנן, so certainly the דין that the כלי if it's black is פסול is also only מדרבנן. So it comes out that the שאלה that רבא had, whether if you put it back into the oven, into the furnace, it becomes כשר or not, is only a שאלה by a דין דרבנן. Because מדאורייתא, even while it's black it's כשר. It's only מדרבנן that it's פסול. So the שאלה of רבא is only a שאלה in דרבנן. So really, when it remains a ספק, it's a ספיקא דרבנן, it's a ספק by a דין דרבנן. The rule is that whenever we have a ספק by a דין דרבנן, ספיקא דרבנן לקולא, we go לקולא. If it's a ספק by a דין דאורייתא, we say ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא, we have to go לחומרא. But a ספק by a דין דרבנן, we go לקולא. And therefore the רמב״ם פסקנ׳ס here that if it was put back into the furnace, it is כשר even though in the גמרא it's a ספק, because ספיקא דרבנן לקולא.

Another thing that we see from the רמב״ם is that he learns in one of the ענינים in this גמרא different than we learned before according to רש״י. When רבא said לא שנו אלא שלא נתפחמו פניו, that this דין was only said if it didn't become black, but if it became black it's פסול, the way we learned before was that this goes according to the רבנן. According to the רבנן who say that it doesn't have to be a new כלי, not like רבי ישמעאל who holds it does have to be a new כלי, so רבא said that according to the רבנן, even though it doesn't have to be a new כלי, but still it shouldn't become black. And in continuation to that, רבא asked the שאלה, what happens if it became black and you put it back into the furnace and it became white again, is it כשר or not כשר? So this איבעיא, this שאלה of רבא also goes according to the רבנן. But the רמב״ם seems to be learning that what רבא said was according to רבי ישמעאל, and then the איבעיא that רבא asked was also according to רבי ישמעאל. Because the רמב״ם says in הלכות סוטה פרק ג הלכה ט as follows: ואחר כך מביא כלי חרש שלא נעשה בו מלאכה מעולם, you have to bring a כלי חרס that you never did a מלאכה with it forever, so we see clearly that he פסקנ׳ס like רבי ישמעאל, and he continues: ולא יראה ככלי בלה מאורך הזמן, it shouldn't look like a כלי that became ruined from the length of time. So we see clearly that he continues with the words of the גמרא that it shouldn't become black according to the opinion of רבי ישמעאל. And then he continues, ואם החזירו לכבשן עד שנתחדש, כשר, that if he put it back into the oven, into the furnace, till it looks new again, it is כשר. And he says this all in continuation to the שיטה of רבי ישמעאל. So we see that he learns פשט in the גמרא different than רש״י. He learns that when רבא said לא שנו אלא שלא נשתנו פניו goes according to רבי ישמעאל who says it has to be a new כלי. But רבא said that even if it's a new כלי, as long as it didn't become black, it's כשר, but if it turned black and it looks old, it's פסול. And then רבא asked the שאלה: What happens if it looked old, but it was put back into the furnace and it looks new again, is it כשר or not? And the רמב״ם פסקנד in this case that it is כשר because he פסקנס לקולא. And according to the פשט of the משנה למלך we mentioned before, because it's a ספיקא דרבנן, and ספיקא דרבנן לקולא. Another interesting thing here according to the שיטה of the רמב״ם is that the כסף משנה asks a קושיא on the שיטה of the רמב״ם that it seems to be going against what our גמרא says. In our גמרא, it says that according to רבי ישמעאל that you have to have a new כלי, it is because we learn out the דין of כלי by סוטה from the דין of כלי by מצורע. And by מצורע גופא, the גמרא says, how do we know that you have to have a new כלי there? The גמרא says we learn it out from the water, where it says מים חיים, just like the water is new, so the כלי has to be new, too. So then the גמרא asks a קושיא: If so, the water of סוטה should also have to be מים חיים. And the גמרא answers: אין הכי נמי. Since the water of סוטה was taken from the כיור, רבי ישמעאל holds that the כיור was taken from a מעיין, so the כיור was מים חיים. So according to רבי ישמעאל, the water of סוטה really was מים חיים, too. So it comes out from this גמרא that the two things go together: that if you hold that the סוטה needed a new כלי because we learn it out from מצורע, so he must hold that the water of the סוטה was מים חיים, because just like the כלי is learned out from מצורע, the water should also be learned out from מצורע. So according to the one that holds that you must have a new כלי, also must hold that the water of the סוטה was מים חיים. Now, how is the water of סוטה מים חיים? Because you must hold that the water of the כיור was taken from a מעיין, was taken from a well. But you cannot פסקן that the כלי of סוטה must be a new כלי because you learn it out from מצורע, and at the same time פסקן that the water of סוטה was not מים חיים, because if you learn out the כלי from מצורע, you should learn out the water from מצורע, too. So it comes out that the one that פסקנס that you must have a new כלי by סוטה, must פסקן that the water of the כיור was מים חיים. Because if you פסקן that the water of the כיור was not מים חיים, so it comes out that the water of the סוטה was not מים חיים. So it comes out that you do not learn out the water of the סוטה from the water of מצורע. So how could you learn out the כלי of סוטה from the כלי of מצורע? So therefore, we must say that if the כלי of סוטה must be a new כלי, you must hold that the water of the כיור was מים חיים. Based on that, the כסף משנה asks a קושיא on the רמב״ם: The רמב״ם here פסקנס like רבי ישמעאל. As we said before, he פסקנס that the כלי must be a new כלי, and nevertheless, he פסקנס in פרק ה׳ of הלכות ביאת המקדש that the water of the כיור did not have to be מי מעיין, did not have to be water from a well, but could have been water from any other מקוה. So it comes out to be a contradiction. But the משנה למלך answers this קושיא. He says that if we look further in our גמרא, we see that the מסקנא of the גמרא, the end of the גמרא, is not the way we said before. This was only the way the גמרא thought in the beginning, that the reason רבי ישמעאל holds that you must have a new כלי is because he learns that out from the כלי of מצורע. So then the גמרא asks the קושיא: If so, why don't we learn out the water of the סוטה also from the water of the מצורע? And the גמרא answered: אין הכי נמי, according to רבי ישמעאל, the water of the סוטה was also מי מעיין, was also מים חיים, was also well water. But this is only the way the גמרא said in the beginning. Later on, the גמרא asks a קושיא on this. The גמרא says that how could you learn out the כלי from סוטה, from the כלי of מצורע, when we could שלאג up, we could ask a קושיא that מצורע we find needs the עץ ארז and אזוב, and needs the שני תולעת, so maybe over there you need a new כלי, but concerning the סוטה, how do we know we need a new כלי? And the גמרא changed its mind. The גמרא said it wasn't that we learn out the כלי of סוטה from the כלי of מצורע. How do we know that a סוטה needs a new כלי? Because we have a פסוק that it says you should put it בכלי חרס, and רבא learned out from these words בכלי חרס that it means the כלי חרס that I mentioned to you before, the one that we referred to before, which was the כלי חרס of מצורע, but not that we compare a סוטה to the דין of מצורע, but it is because of the פסוק that you should put it into a כלי חרס. So if so, the גמרא's קושיא, the גמרא asks that if so we should learn out the water of סוטה from the water of מצורע, does not exist anymore. And we do not have to come onto the reason that the water of the סוטה really was water of a מעיין, water like the water of מצורע. So it comes out that according to the מסקנא, the two things are not connected. We could פסקן like רבי ישמעאל that you need a new כלי, and that is because the תורה says that you should put it into a כלי חרס, but concerning the water, we do not have to learn out the דין מים of סוטה from the דין מים of מצורע, because we do not learn out any דינים of סוטה from the דינים of מצורע other than the דין of כלי because of the special פסוק. So therefore, the רמב״ם could פסקן that the water of the סוטה did not have to be מים חיים like the water of מצורע, and still פסקן that the כלי of the סוטה has to be a new כלי similar to the כלי of מצורע, because there we have a special פסוק בכלי חרס, and concerning the water we don't. And therefore, the רמב״ם in הלכות ביאת המקדש could פסקן that the water of the כיור was not necessarily water of a מעיין, and still he would פסקן here that the כלי concerning the סוטה had to be a new כלי like the כלי of מצורע.