Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת סוטה דף י״ט. We will start from the beginning of the third פרק. The משנה here is going to continue in the סדר, the order of the procedure of a סוטה. The משנה says, היה נוטל את מנחתה מתוך כפיפה מצרית, he would take her מנחה from the basket of palm twigs, ונותנה לתוך כלי שרת, and he would put it into a כלי שרת, into a holy vessel, a vessel of the בית המקדש. And here we have a מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות, who would do this. The משנה doesn't say who would do it, it just says he would take the מנחה from the כפיפה מצרית and would put it into the כלי שרת. So רש״י says this refers to the husband, because the דין is that only from קמיצה ואילך, only from the point where you would have to take the handful of flour, that's when we needed a כהן. But all the other things that were before the קמיצה, a זר, a non-כהן was allowed to do it. And therefore here, too, when they would take the מנחה from the כפיפה מצרית and put it into the כלי שרת, the בעל, the husband was able to do that. And therefore רש״י learned that when the משנה says he would take the מנחה from the כפיפה מצרית, it refers to the husband. But תוספות base their opinion on the ירושלמי and they learn that when it says in the משנה he would take her מנחה from the כפיפה מצרית, it refers to the כהן. And even though the דין is that up to the קמיצה it is כשר בזר, you don't have to have a כהן to do those different things, nevertheless, it is a מצוה that it should be done by a כהן. If it wouldn't be done by the כהן, it still would be כשר בדיעבד, but לכתחילה it should be done by a כהן, according to תוספות. After they took the מנחה from the כפיפה מצרית and they put it into the כלי שרת, ונותנה על ידיה, we put onto her hand, וכהן מניח ידו מתחתיה ומניף, and the כהן would put his hand under her hand, and they would pick it up. There was a דין הנפה, a דין that the מנחה must be picked up. So the משנה says that this דין הנפה applies to both: the woman, the סוטה, who was in this case the בעלים, she was the owner of the קרבן, so she and the כהן together must make the הנפה. And even though it might not seem to fit with the דינים of צניעות, that the כהן would put his hand under the hand of the סוטה who was a woman, so תוספות brings from ירושלמי three answers to this question: or they would put a piece of cloth between the hands, or they would get an old כהן, that his יצר הרע was not strong, and then a third תירוץ that even if they would get a young כהן, in this case they weren't afraid of the person's יצר הרע, because since it's only for a short while, the יצר הרע does not have effect לשעה, for a short while. The משנה continues, הניף, after they made the הנפה, והגיש, they pick brought the קרבן close to the מזבח, because the דין by a קרבן מנחה is, as we learned before, it must be brought close to the corner of the מזבח, to the point of the corner, קמץ, then he would make the קמיצה, he would take the handful of flour, והקטיר, and he would do מקטיר on the מזבח, he would burn that קומץ, that flour, והשאר, and the leftover, נאכל לכהנים, was eaten by the כהנים, like any other מנחה, that after they were מקטיר the קומץ, the leftover was eaten by the כהנים. היה משקה ואחר כך מקריב את מנחתה, he would give her to drink from the water, and then they would be מקריב her מנחה. It seems that the משנה is saying that after they were מקטיר the קומץ, and then the rest was eaten for the כהנים, then they would give her to drink, and then she was מקריב her מנחה. And the גמרא will ask that this doesn't seem to make sense, because we said that we were מקטיר already, so how come we say later afterwards they gave her to drink and then they were מקריב the מנחה? And therefore the גמרא will explain that really this is a separate thing, that from the words היה משקה ואחר כך מקריב is a new thing that the משנה is trying to tell us. Till now the משנה was trying to tell us the order of the הקרבה of the מנחה, the procedure of the being מקריב of the קרבן מנחה, but it doesn't mention anything about the drinking of the water. In other words, it didn't mention when the drinking of the water took place, before that procedure or after that. When it finished with the whole procedure of the הקרבה of the קרבן מנחה, then the משנה goes back to tell us, did all that take place before they gave her to drink the water or after they gave her to drink the water? So the משנה starts by saying that the first opinion is that first she would drink and then they would be מקריב the מנחה. In other words, all the things we mentioned before in the משנה would take place after she drank the water. But ר' שמעון אומר, but ר' שמעון says, מקריב את מנחתה ואחר כך היה משקה, that first they were מקריב her מנחה, and then they would give her to drink from the water. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ואחר ישקה את האשה את המים, that afterwards they should give the woman to drink the water. And this פסוק says after they were מקריב the קרבן. So the פסוק tells us clearly that the drinking of the water took place after the קרבן. But he says, ואם השקה ואחר כך הקריב, but if first he gave her to drink, and then he was מקריב את מנחתה, her מנחה, כשרה, it is כשר, בדיעבד it is כשר. And the גמרא will later on explain the details of the מחלוקת between the רבנן and ר' שמעון, when that drinking took place, whether it took place before the הקרבה of the מנחה, or after the הקרבה of the מנחה. And now we will learn the גמרא on this משנה. אמר ליה ר' אלעזר לר' יאשיה דדריה, ר' אלעזר said to ר' יאשיה of his generation. And the reason the גמרא mentions here that ר' יאשיה was of his generation, his contemporary, because the expression that ר' אלעזר said, if it would have been to the other ר' יאשיה who lived earlier, who was older, so it wouldn't have been a respectful remark. The other ר' יאשיה, he was the בר פלוגתא of ר' יוחנן. He was the one that always is mentioned together with ר' יוחנן, argues against ר' יוחנן. And if ר' אלעזר would be speaking to him, it wouldn't seem respectful. Therefore, he mentions that to which ר' יאשיה was he speaking, to ר' יאשיה who was his contemporary, who lived in the same time as ר' אלעזר בן פדת, as רש"י says, and therefore, to him he was able to speak that way. And he said to him: לא תתיב אכרעך, do not sit down on your feet, עד דמפרשת לה להא מילתא, till you will explain me this thing. In other words, he said the first thing before you do anything else, explain to me this thing, answer me this question. מנא לן למנחת סוטה שתעונה תנופה? How do we know that a מנחה of a סוטה needs תנופה, has to be picked up? So he asked: מנלן? What's your question, where we know it from? והניף כתיב בה! There's a clear פסוק, the תורה says בפירוש, והניף, it should be picked up. So what is your question, where do we know that you have to pick up the מנחה of the סוטה? So he said to him: בבעלים מנלן? The question was not how do we know that you pick up the מנחה of the סוטה. How do you know that the בעלים, the owner of the קרבן, which in this case happens to be the סוטה, also has to pick it up? Because in the פסוק it says that the כהן should pick up the מנחה. How do we know that the סוטה also has to pick up the מנחה? So he answered: אתיא יד יד משלמים. We learn it out with a גזירה שוה from שלמים, where it says יד by שלמים and it says יד by סוטה. כתיב הכא, here by the סוטה it says, ולקח הכהן מיד האשה, that the כהן should take it from the hand of the woman. וכתיב התם, and it says by שלמים, ידיו תביאינה, his hands should bring it, which refers to the owner of the קרבן. So we have a גזירה שוה that by סוטה it says יד, and by שלמים it says יד. So we learn out: מה כאן כהן אף להלן כהן, just like by סוטה it says clearly that a כהן must pick it up, so too by the שלמים the כהן must pick it up. And on the other hand we learn out: ומה להלן בעלים, and just like over there the owner of the קרבן also has to pick it up because it says ידיו תביאינה, אף כאן בעלים. So here too by the סוטה the owner has to pick it up. הא כיצד? How is that possible? Does the כהן pick it up, or does the owner of the קרבן pick it up? So the answer is: מניח ידו תחת ידי הבעלים, the כהן puts his hand under the hand of the owner, ומניף, and he picks it up. And in this case it would be under the hand of the סוטה because she is the בעלים of this קרבן. Then the גמרא continues to explain the משנה. It said in the משנה: הניף והגיש קמץ וכולי, that he picked it up, brought it close to the corner, the point of the מזבח, makes the קומץ, then it continues, והקטיר, that he was מקטיר the קומץ and the rest is to be eaten for the כהנים. And the משנה continues: היה משקה ואחר כך מקריב את מנחתה. He would give her to drink, and then he would be מקריב her מנחה. So the גמרא asks: How could you continue by saying that he would give her to drink and then would be מקריב the קרבן? והא אקרבה! We have already מקריב it, because before the משנה mentioned that he would give her to drink, it says they made the קומץ and he was מקטיר the קומץ on the מזבח. So what does the משנה mean later on it continues and says that he would give her to drink and he would be מקריב the קרבן? The גמרא answers: הכי קאמר, this is what the משנה means. סדר מנחות כיצד? First the משנה explains the procedure of the קרבן מנחה. And it says the procedure was: הניף, it was picked up, והגיש, it was brought close to the corner, קמץ, he would make the קומץ, the handful, והקטיר, and he would be מקטיר that handful on the מזבח. והשאר נאכל לכהנים, and the rest would be eaten for the כהנים. That's it, and he wouldn't talk about when she would drink. And then the משנה continues, ובהשקאה גופה, and concerning the drinking, פליגי ר' שמעון ורבנן, there's an argument between ר' שמעון and the רבנן. רבנן סברי, the רבנן hold, משקה ואחר כך מקריב את מנחתה. First he would give her to drink, and then he would be מקריב the מנחה. In other words, all these things that he mentioned in the משנה, which was the procedure of the הקרבה of the מנחה, all came after he would give her to drink. ור' שמעון סבר, ר' שמעון holds, מקריב את מנחתה ואחר כך משקה. First he would be מקריב the מנחה, then he would give her to drink, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ואחר ישקה, and afterwards he should give her to drink. So those things mentioned in the משנה of הניף והגיש קמץ והקטיר, that would come before he would give her to drink. So it's as if there are two parts of the משנה. First the משנה explains the procedure of the מנחה, nothing to do with the drinking. Then the משנה goes on to explain that this procedure, did it take place before the drinking or after the drinking? And it brings the מחלוקת between ר' שמעון and the רבנן. Then the גמרא continues to explain the משנה. It said in the משנה, ואם השקה ואחר כך הקריב את מנחתה, that even according to ר' שמעון, if she first drank, and then he was מקריב the מנחה, כשרה, that מנחה is כשר. The גמרא brings a ברייתא, תנו רבנן, we learn in a ברייתא. But before we go into the details of this ברייתא, we have to go through the פסוקים of the חומש. In פרשת נשא, קפיטל ה', starting from פסוק כג, we find a few פסוקים. And these few פסוקים will be the יסוד, the foundation of the discussion in the גמרא now. First it says, וכתב את האלת האלה הכהן בספר ומחה אל מי המרים, that the כהן should write these curses on the ספר and should erase it into the water. Then פסוק כד says, והשקה את האשה את מי המרים המאררים ובאו בה המים המאררים למרים, that he should give her to drink these water. After the תורה says that he should give her to drink the water, the תורה continues in פסוק כה, ולקח הכהן מיד האשה מנחת הקנאת, the כהן should take from the woman the מנחה, והניף את המנחה לפני ה', he should pick up the מנחה, והקריב אתה אל המזבח, he should be מקריב it on the מזבח. And the תורה continues with the procedure of the מנחה, וקמץ הכהן מן המנחה את אזכרתה, the כהן should take out from the מנחה the handful, והקטיר המזבחה, and he should be מקטיר it on the מזבח. And then the תורה says in the same פסוק, ואחר ישקה את האשה את המים, then he should give the woman to drink the water. So it's a second time where the תורה says that she should drink the water. First the תורה says, right after it says that you write the מגילה and you erase it into the water, it says he would give her to drink the water, which was right away before the קרבן was brought. Then the תורה continues and says that the כהן should be מקריב the קרבן, and then it says that afterwards she should drink the water. And in פסוק כז, the תורה says again, והשקה את המים, that he should make her drink the water, והיתה אם נטמאה ותמעל מעל באישה ובאו בה המים המאררים למרים, that if she became טמאה, the water would take effect. So we have here in the תורה three times where the תורה says that you have to give her to drink the water. Once the תורה says it right after the מגילה was erased, before the קרבן was brought, and the other two times the תורה says after the קרבן was brought. Now, according to this, there are two possibilities what the דין is. We could learn that the first time it says והשקה is the way it's supposed to be done, that first you give her to drink and then you would bring the קרבן. And the other two times where it says that she should drink after the קרבן is brought, those are extra times, and those have to teach us something. Or we could learn the reverse, that the real way it was supposed to be done was that after the קרבן was brought, that's when she was supposed to drink. And the reason the תורה says that she was supposed to drink before it mentions the קרבן is to teach us a certain דין. So we're going to learn in the ברייתא here the explanation to these three פסוקים, but the ברייתא accepts the fact that the second time where it says she should drink the water, that is the way it really is supposed to be done. In other words, she was supposed to drink the water after the קרבן was brought, not before the קרבן was brought. And the reason the ברייתא accepts that as a fact is because when we look at the expression of the תורה, we see that when the תורה mentions that she should drink the water after the קרבן, the תורה says clearly that that is the order, the way it's supposed to be done. The first time where the תורה says she should drink, even though the place where the תורה puts it is before the תורה mentions the הקרבה of the קרבן, but nevertheless, the תורה does not say clearly that it should be done, she should drink the water before the קרבן is brought on the מזבח. But concerning the time where the תורה mentions the drinking of the water after the קרבן, the תורה says clearly that this is the way the order should be, because the תורה תורה mentions, after it goes through the procedure of the קרבן, the תורה says ואחר ישקה את האשה את המים, that afterwards he should give her to drink the water. The first time it just says she should drink the water, and it doesn't say that that's the order of the way the thing is supposed to be done. But the second time it says clearly that afterwards, which means after the קרבן was brought, that's when the כהן should give her to drink from the water. So therefore the ברייתא accepts that the second time where it says she should drink the water after the קרבן is the right way it is supposed to be done. And therefore the ברייתא is going to explain, why does the תורה also mention that she should drink the water before the תורה speaks about the קרבן? That's what the ברייתא says: והשקה מה תלמוד לומר, why does the תורה have to mention the first והשקה? This is in פסוק כ"ד, where the תורה says והשקה את האשה את מי המרים המאררים, that he should give the woman to drink this bitter water that curses. So why does the תורה mention it? והלא כבר נאמר והשקה, doesn't it say later on והשקה that she should drink, which is after the קרבן, and that is the proper way to do it. So why does the תורה also mention before the תורה speaks about the קרבן that she should drink from the water? And the answer is that comes to teach us שאם נמחקה המגילה ואומרת, and she says, איני שותה, that I do not want to drink. Not because she admits that she did עבירה, that she is טמאה, that's why she doesn't want to drink. She just says I don't want to drink. If she would admit that I am טמאה, I did do the עבירה when I hid with that man, and that is the reason why I don't want to drink, definitely we wouldn't give her to drink, because she admitted. But this is a case where she did not admit that she is טמאה, she just says I do not want to drink, and this is already after the מגילה was erased. So the ברייתא tells us that the פסוק is to teach us that מערערין אותה, we influence her, ומשקין אותה בעל כרחה, and we give her to drink by force. And that's why the תורה mentions the והשקה before, because the תורה wants to tell us that as soon as ומחה אל מי המרים, which it says in the פסוק before in פסוק כ"ג, as soon as the מגילה was erased, right away והשקה, then she must drink, whether she likes it or not. Even if she doesn't want to drink, but if the מגילה was erased already, she already must drink. And the reason the תורה mentions this before the הקרבה of the קרבן is to teach us even a further דין as רש"י explains. Really the order is that after the קרבן was brought, then you would erase the מגילה and then you would give her to drink. In other words, according to the opinion that first the קרבן was brought and then she would drink the water, the erasing of the מגילה took place in between, in between the קרבן and the drinking. Because since she didn't have to drink till after the קרבן, why should we erase the מגילה earlier? Let's wait with the erasing of the מגילה as long as possible just in case she would admit, because when she admits that she did the עבירה, she doesn't drink. So if she admits after the מגילה was erased, we erased השם's name for no reason, because you're not allowed to normally erase השם's name, it is only for the sake of a סוטה that you're allowed, but if you erase השם's name and then she admits, she doesn't drink, so the erasing was done in vain for no reason. So therefore normally we wait with the erasing till after the קרבן, as close as possible to the drinking, then we would erase the מגילה and then she would drink. But the תורה is telling us here, that even if the כהן did it against the דין, he erased the מגילה before the קרבן, still as soon as the מגילה was erased, then she must drink the water whether she likes it or not. And that's why the תורה mentions an extra והשקה, an extra time that she should drink the water, and the תורה mentions it before the קרבן yet, right after the words ומחה אל מי המרים, that you should erase the מגילה into the water, to teach us this דין, that as soon as the מגילה was erased, she must drink, even if she says she doesn't want to, so we give her to drink by force, and even if this was done before the קרבן was brought, which was שלא כדין, which was against the way that the procedure should have been taken place, nevertheless we force her and she drinks the water. דברי רבי עקיבא, this is the opinion of רבי עקיבא. Then the ברייתא continues, רבי שמעון אומר, רבי שמעון says, and as רש"י explains, רבי שמעון does not come to argue against רבי עקיבא, but רבי שמעון is going to explain the other פסוק. As we mentioned before, there are three פסוקים: there is one והשקה that says before the קרבן was brought; then right after the קרבן it says ואחר ישקה את האשה את המים, that afterwards he should give the woman to drink the water; then we have a third פסוק, which is פסוק כ"ז, where it says again והשקה את המים, that he should give her to drink the water. So רב שמעון is going to explain, why do we have to have the middle of ואחר ישקה? Wouldn't it have been enough if after the קרבן the תורה would start והשקה את המים, he should give her to drink the water? Why does the תורה in the middle have to mention again ואחר ישקה את האשה את המים? We understand why we have to have the first והשקה, as רב עקיבא said, to teach us that as soon as the מגילה was erased, even if it was erased before the קרבן, which was not in its right order, nevertheless, the woman cannot say she doesn't want to drink, we would force her to

drink. That's why it says the first והשקה. Why it says the last והשקה is also understood, because that is the order of things, after the קרבן, he would give her to drink. But the question is, why does it say in the middle ואחר ישקה את האשה את המים? And this is what the ברייתא says: שמעון אומר, רב שמעון says, ואחר ישקה, מה תלמוד לומר? Why does the תורה have to tell us ואחר ישקה? והלא כבר נאמר והשקה, doesn't it say right afterwards והשקה את המים? So why does the תורה before that have to say ואחר ישקה? אלא, but it comes to teach us, לאחר כל המעשים כולם האמורים למעלה, that he has to give her to drink after all the different things that were mentioned before. מגיד, this comes to teach us, שג' דברים מעכבין בה, that there are three things that are מעכב, that withhold back her drinking. If these three things were not done, then she cannot drink the water. And that is, עד שלא קרב הקומץ, as long as the קומץ, the handful of flour that the כהן takes off, was not brought as a קרבן on the מזבח, she cannot drink, ועד שלא נמחקה מגילה, and also as long as the מגילה was not erased, she cannot drink, ועד שלא קיבלה עליה שבועה, and as long as she didn't accept upon herself the שבועה which was mentioned earlier, she also cannot drink. So therefore, the תורה says an extra ואחר ישקה, that afterwards he should give her to drink, to teach us that it must be done after all these things. And when we look into the פסוקים, the פסוקים before mention all these things. First, it mentioned in פסוק כ"א, והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבועת האלה, that the כהן would make her swear, and she would have to accept the שבועה, as the פסוק says in כ"ב, ואמרה האשה אמן אמן. Then the פסוק says that he would write all this down on a ספר, ומחה אל מי המרים, he would erase it into the water. Then the תורה says that he would be מקריב the קומץ on the מזבח. And then the תורה says, ואחר ישקה את האשה את המים, and afterwards, he would give her to drink. So what the תורה is telling us with these extra words ואחר ישקה, that when can she drink? Only after all these things were done. But if one of these three things were not done, then it is מעכב, she cannot drink the water. And the גמרא explains these three things: עד שלא קרב הקומץ, the reason why she cannot drink as long as the קומץ the קרבן was not brought as a קרבן, because רב שמעון לטעמיה, רב שמעון goes according to his own opinion that holds, דאמר, it says, מקריב את מנחתה ואחר כך משקה, that first you're מקריב, then you give her to drink. As it said in the משנה that רב שמעון says, first you're מקריב, and then she drinks. Then the גמרא continues with the second thing that he mentioned: עד שלא נמחקה מגילה, that she cannot drink unless the מגילה was erased. So the

גמרא asks, אלא מאי משקה לה? What else could he give her to drink? Why does he have to tell us that she cannot drink unless the מגילה was erased? What else is she going to drink? She drinks the water that the מגילה was erased into. If the מגילה wasn't erased, then there is no water to drink. So why does he have to tell us that it is מעכב, that if the מגילה was not erased, then she cannot drink? It is obvious. So the גמרא answers, אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, לא נצרכה, it doesn't have to tell us, דשרישומה ניכר, that what he means is that there should be no trace left. That even if the מגילה was erased, but if there was some trace of the words left on the מגילה, she still cannot drink. He must scrape off even the last trace of the words. Then the third thing that he mentioned was עד שלא קיבלה עליה שבועה, that as long as she didn't accept upon herself the שבועה, she cannot drink from the water. So the גמרא asks, משתה הוא דלא שתיה, it seems to be saying that if she didn't accept the שבועה, she cannot drink, so only drinking the water she cannot drink. הא מיכתב כתבי לה, but to write the מגילה they're allowed to write, because he says that she cannot drink as long as she didn't accept the שבועה. So it seems to be saying that only the drinking cannot be done. But the other things, the writing of the מגילה can be done before she accepts upon herself the שבועה. But how can that be?

והא אמר רבא, didn't רבא say, מגילת סוטה שנכתבה קודם שתקבל עליה שבועה, a מגילה of a סוטה that was written before the סוטה accepted upon herself a שבועה, לא עשה ולא כלום, wasn't done, in other words, it takes no effect. it is not valid. So how could he say that she cannot drink before she accepts the שבועה? You can't even write the מגילה before she accepted the שבועה. So certainly she cannot drink, because if you cannot write the מגילה, then there is no מגילה to erase into the water, so there is no water to drink. So why does he have to mention that she cannot drink unless she accepted the שבועה, if the דין is that you can't even write the מגילה before she accepted the שבועה? The גמרא answers, כדי נסבה. The truth is it was mentioned for no reason. That really he didn't have to mention it, because it's self-understood. If she didn't accept the שבועה, the מגילה couldn't have been written, so there is no water to drink. But he just mentions it by the way, since he mentions the other two things that she cannot drink if they were not done, so he also mentions that she cannot drink if she didn't accept the שבועה, even though it is self-understood. Then the גמרא continues, במאי קמיפלגי? What is the reason for their argument? And this does not refer to רב שמעון and רב עקיבא, because, as we said before, so far we do not find any מחלוקת between רב שמעון and רב עקיבא. They both hold that she has to drink after the קרבן was brought, as the תורה says, ואחר ישקה, which means that the תורה is telling us the specific order that she has to drink after the קרבן. The difference between רב עקיבא and רב שמעון was just that רב עקיבא explained the reason why the תורה mentions the first והשקה, and רב שמעון explained why the תורה has to mention later, after the קרבן the תורה has to mention twice that she should drink. So there is no מחלוקת between רב עקיבא and רב שמעון.

What the גמרא is trying to explain now is, what is the מחלוקת between רב שמעון and the רבנן. And this goes back to the משנה. In the משנה we found that there is a מחלוקת between רב שמעון and the רבנן, that רב שמעון said that she has to drink after the קרבן was brought on the מזבח, but the רבנן said that first she drinks the water, then she brings the קרבן. So the גמרא asks, במאי קמיפלגי? What is the reason for this מחלוקת? And the גמרא answers, תלתא קראי כתיבי. There are three פסוקים that say: והשקה קמא, first it says in the תורה והשקה, the first והשקה, before the קרבן. Then there's a פסוק ואחר ישקה, that after the קרבן it says that afterwards he should give her to drink. Then והשקה בתרא, and we have then the second והשקה. So רבנן סברי, the רבנן hold, והשקה קמא לגופיה. The first והשקה comes for itself, to teach us that that is the דין, that first she drinks and then you bring the קרבן, שמשקה ואחר כך מקריב את מנחתה, that first she drinks and then you are מקריב her מנחה. And as

רש״י explains, even though later it says ואחר ישקה, the תורה says clearly that afterwards he should give her to drink, so it seems as if the תורה is telling us that the order of things should be that after the קרבן she should drink, nevertheless the חכמים hold that whenever the תורה mentions something, the first time the תורה mentions it, that is the way the דין is. Anything later that the תורה mentions a second time, an extra time, that comes to teach us a certain לימוד. So here, too, since the תורה first mentions והשקה, the חכמים say that is the דין, that first you give her to drink and then the תורה says the קרבן is brought, so it means that first she drinks and then the קרבן is brought. אי the תורה says later on ואחר ישקה, so he says what does that mean? ואחר ישקה מיבעי ליה לשרישומה ניכר. The words ואחר ישקה come to teach us that only after the מגילה was erased completely, that's when he's able to give her to drink. According to the רבנן, the words ואחר ישקה, afterwards, does not apply after the קרבן; what it means is after the פסוק before. The order of the פסוקים as we mentioned before was that he writes the מגילה, erases the מגילה into the water, then the תורה says he should give her to drink from the water, then the תורה says they should be מקריב the קרבן, then the תורה says ואחר ישקה, that afterwards he should give her to drink. The way we explained before, according to רב עקיבא and רב שמעון, they learned that ואחר ישקה, when the תורה says that afterwards he should give her to drink, that refers to the act that it says in the תורה right before that, which is the קרבן. So the תורה is saying that right after the bringing of the קרבן, that's when he should give her to drink. The רבנן learn that she drinks before the קרבן, and the תורה says ואחר ישקה, that afterwards she drinks, it doesn't refer to the act mentioned right before that, but it refers to a few פסוקים before. A few פסוקים before the תורה said that he should write the מגילה and erase the מגילה into the water, so the תורה tells us that afterwards, after the מגילה is erased, that's when he should give her to drink. אי we know already that she drinks after the מגילה is erased, but the תורה is trying to tell us that only after the מגילה is erased completely, that's when he could give her to drink. In other words, there should be no trace of the words left on והשקה בתרא, the second והשקה, which is the third time the תורה speaks about giving her to drink the water, that comes to teach us שאם נמחקה מגילה, that if the מגילה was erased ואומרת, and she says איני שותה, I do not want to drink, מערערין אותה, we influence her, ומשקין אותה בעל כרחה, we give her to drink by force. But all this was done before the קרבן was brought. According to the רבנן, she drinks before the קרבן, and even though both והשקה are mentioned after the קרבן, so it just comes to teach us a לימוד that she has to drink no matter what after the מגילה was erased. But really all this takes place before the קרבן. רבי שמעון סבר, and רבי שמעון says, ואחר ישקה לגופה. He says just the opposite, that the words ואחר ישקה, since the תורה says afterward she drinks, and this is written in the תורה right after the קרבן, so the תורה comes to teach us the right order of things, the way it is supposed to be done, שמקריב את מנחתה ואחר כך משקה, that first he is מקריב the קרבן, and then he gives her to drink. והשקה קמא, the first והשקה that says before the קרבן was brought, that comes to teach us שאם השקה ואחר כך הקריב את מנחתה כשירה, that if it wasn't done the right way, if first he gave her to drink and then he was מקריב the קרבן, that is כשר בדיעבד. והשקה בתרא, and the second והשקה, which is the third time the תורה speaks about the drinking, to teach us שאם נמחקה מגילה, if the מגילה was erased, ואמרה, and she said, איני שותה, I do not want to drink, מערערין אותה, משקין אותה בעל כרחה. We force her to drink. And here we see a difference between the opinion of רבי שמעון and the opinion of רבי עקיבא. According to רבי עקיבא before, what did he דרשן with the first והשקה? He דרשן that if the מגילה was erased, so we give her to drink by force. But he דרשן that from the first והשקה. רבי שמעון דרשנס that from the second והשקה, which says after the קרבן was brought. So it comes out here that we do have a מחלוקת between רבי עקיבא and רבי שמעון. רבי עקיבא דרשנס this from the first והשקה, and we explained before that according to רבי עקיבא, even if they erased the מגילה before the קרבן, which was not the way it was supposed to be done, nevertheless, even if she doesn't want to drink she must drink, because the מגילה was erased already. How do we know that? Because where do we learn out the דין that if the מגילה was erased she must drink? From the first והשקה. The first והשקה is written before the קרבן was brought. So that teaches us that as soon as the מגילה was erased even before the קרבן was brought, still she must drink. But רבי שמעון, he learns it out from the second והשקה. The second והשקה that says after the קרבן was brought. So according to רבי שמעון, this דין that if the מגילה was erased she must drink whether she likes it or not, that is only if the מגילה was erased כדין, if the מגילה was erased after the קרבן was brought. Then we say that if she says she doesn't want to drink, we force her to drink. But if the מגילה would have been erased before the קרבן was brought, in other words the כהנים did it שלא כדין, not the way you're supposed to, according to רבי שמעון, then we wouldn't force her to drink because it wouldn't be done the way it's supposed to. Another מחלוקת between רבי עקיבא and רבי שמעון is that רבי שמעון learns out from the first והשקה that בדיעבד, if she drank the water before the קרבן was brought, בדיעבד it's כשר. רבי עקיבא, who doesn't דרשן the first והשקה for that, because he uses the first והשקה as we said before for the other דרש, that if the מגילה was erased she must drink by force, so he doesn't דרשן from here this דין that בדיעבד if she drank before the קרבן was brought it's כשר, because according to רבי עקיבא טאקע, the דין is that בדיעבד even it's פסול, it must be done the proper way, that first you must bring the קרבן and then you give her to drink the water. Then the גמרא asks: ורבנן, how could the רבנן learn that first she drinks and then you bring the קרבן because the תורה says first והשקה, but doesn't it say ואחר ישקה את האשה, that afterwards, which means after the קרבן is brought, that's when he should give her to drink? So the גמרא answers: בדיעבד לא פסיק קרא. The רבנן holds that if you're going to learn that the ואחר ישקה, that is the פסוק that tells us the right order, that first you bring the קרבן then you'll drink, and the reason the תורה mentions והשקה first before the קרבן is to teach us that בדיעבד if she drank first, it's okay, the רבנן say that the תורה would not start with telling us the דין of בדיעבד. The way the תורה would do it is first tell us the proper דין, and then the תורה would give us an extra לימוד to teach us that בדיעבד, if it was done differently, it's still כשר. But according to the way רבי שמעון learns, it comes out that first the תורה tells us והשקה, which is בדיעבד, that if she drank first it's okay, and then the תורה tells us לכתחילה how it should be done, that first the קרבן is brought and then she drinks. So therefore the חכמים are forced to say that when it says first והשקה it means that that's the proper way, first she drinks, then she brings the קרבן. אי it says ואחר ישקה, that is so teach us a לימוד that after the מגילה is erased she could drink, but not before. In other words, Then the

גמרא continues and asks a קשיא on the שיטה of רבי עקיבא: סבר רבי עקיבא, does רבי עקיבא hold משקין אותה בעל כרחה, that we give her to drink by force, as he said before that רבי עקיבא learns out from one of the פסוקים that if after the מגילה was erased she says she doesn't want to drink, we force her to drink? Does really רבי עקיבא hold that way? והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא: רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, קילבוס של ברזל מטילין לתוך פיה, they would put in iron prongs into her mouth, שאם נמחקה מגילה, because if the מגילה was erased, ואמרה, she said, איני שותה, I don't want to drink, מערערין אותה, they influence her, ומשקין אותה בעל כרחה, they give her to drink by force, so they would put things into her mouth to keep her mouth open by force. That's the opinion of רבי יהודה. אמר רבי עקיבא, רבי עקיבא says, כלום אנו צריכין לה אלא לבודקה, the whole reason why we want her to drink is to check her out, to investigate, to find out whether she really did the עבירה or didn't, והרי בדוקה ועומדת, isn't she already investigated? If she says I don't want to drink, isn't this the best proof that she did become טמאה, that she did do the עבירה? So why force her to drink if she doesn't want to drink? If she says she doesn't want to drink, that itself is as good as if she drank and we know for sure that she is טמאה. אלא, therefore רבי עקיבא says, עד שלא קרב הקומץ, as long as they weren't מקריב the קומץ, the handful of the מנחה, יכולה לחזור בה, she still could change her mind and say she doesn't want to drink, but משקרב הקומץ, after they were מקריב the קומץ, the handful from the מנחה, אינה יכולה לחזור בה, she cannot change her mind, she cannot say she doesn't want to drink. So we see from here that רבי עקיבא holds that you do not force her to drink. That is the opinion of רבי יהודה, but רבי עקיבא argues and says that you do not force her to drink, because by the fact that she says she doesn't want to drink, that's as if she's admitting that she became טמאה. So it seems like a contradiction to what we said before. Before we brought a ברייתא where רבי עקיבא said that we learn out from one of the פסוקים that after the מגילה was erased she says she doesn't want to drink, we force her to drink, and in this ברייתא it says that רבי עקיבא holds that you do not force her to drink. So the גמרא says, he asks him back, ולטעמיך, and according to your reasoning, according to the one who asked the question bringing in the ברייתא where רבי עקיבא says that you do not force to drink, תיקשי לך היא גופה, don't you have a קשיא in the ברייתא that you yourself brought itself? There

seems to be a contradiction in the ברייתא itself, within the words of רבי עקיבא himself. Because רבי עקיבא said in that ברייתא משקרב הקומץ, that after you were מקריב the קומץ, the מנחה, אינה יכולה לחזור בה, she cannot change her mind, in other words we force her to drink. The question is, והרי בדוקה ועומדת, isn't she checked from before? רבי עקיבא's reasoning why we do not force her to drink was because by the fact that she admits, that is enough to say that she did become טמאה, she did the עבירה, and there's no reason to give her to drink. Now according to רבי עקיבא's own reasoning, why does רבי עקיבא himself in the same ברייתא say that after they were מקריב the קומץ, you do force her to drink, she cannot change her mind and say she doesn't want to drink and we force her to drink? But why don't we say then too that since she says she doesn't want to drink, that's a proof that really she became טמאה, she did the עבירה? So obviously we see that even according to רבי עקיבא, the way it's in this ברייתא, he doesn't say that you never force her to drink. We must find some difference that sometimes we force her to drink and sometimes not. So whatever you're going to answer in this ברייתא, that there is a case where we do force her to drink, that same answer will answer the contradiction between the two ברייתות, that the previous ברייתא where רבי עקיבא learned out from a פסוק that we do force her to drink would be in the same case where we will say in this ברייתא that רבי עקיבא holds you do force to drink. But when is that? When does רבי עקיבא say you do force her to drink, and when does he say you don't? So the גמרא says,

לא קשיא, there's no קשיא. הא דקהדרא בה מחמת ריתיתא, one case is where she changed her mind, she retracted because of fear, because she was shivering. והא, and one case is דקהדרא בה מחמת בריאותא, that she changed her mind, but not because she was afraid. Everything went normal, and nevertheless she changed her mind, she said that she doesn't want to drink. והכי קאמר, and this is the פשט: כל מחמת בריאותא כלל וכלל לא שתיה. When she changes her mind not because of fear, then she never drinks, because we assume that the reason she's not afraid is because she knows that she did the עבירה, she's טמאה, and she plans that when it'll come for her to drink, she will say she doesn't want to drink, so the whole time she's not afraid. So in a case like that, when she says that she doesn't want to drink, so we assume that this is a form of her admitting that she became טמאה, and therefore no matter at which stage we're holding, whether the קרבן was brought or not brought, she doesn't drink, because it's as if she says clearly not of fear, then that is a proof that she is admitting, and therefore in all circumstances she doesn't drink. But מחמת רתיתא, if she changed her mind out of fear, here we say that this is

no proof that by her saying she doesn't want to drink it means that she did the עבירה. It could be that the reason she says she doesn't want to drink, because she's afraid that even if she didn't do the עבירה, the water will harm her, the water might take effect, and therefore she's afraid the whole time. So, when it comes to the last moment, actually the time when she's supposed to drink, she says she doesn't want to drink, but there is no proof that really she did do the עבירה. So, therefore, we cannot say that as soon as she says she doesn't want to drink, we say she should not drink. She's still able to drink. On the other hand, since she says she doesn't want to drink, as long as we're able to listen to her and not give her to drink, so we listen to her. But when there is a point when we cannot accept her words of not drinking, so then we say she could drink, because the fact is that we do not accept her saying that she doesn't want to drink that that means that she became טמאה. That doesn't prove anything. So, here, if we're able to do as she says, we could do. If we cannot do, we give her to drink because she did not admit that she became טמאה. And therefore he says like this: עד שלא קרב הקומץ, as long as they weren't מקריב the קומץ, the קרבן wasn't brought on the מזבח, דאכתי לא אימחק מגילה, the מגילה still wasn't erased, because the מגילה has to be erased after the קרבן was brought. So, before the קרבן was brought, so the מגילה wasn't erased yet. אי נמי או אימחק מגילה, even if the מגילה was erased before the קרבן, still שלא כדין עביד כהנים דמחקי, that when the כהנים erased the מגילה before the קרבן, they did it against the דין, because they weren't supposed to erase it before. So, in both of these cases, as long as the מגילה wasn't erased, or even if it was erased, but it was erased שלא כדין, not the way it should have been done, מצי הדרא בה, she could change her mind, and she could say she doesn't want to drink, and then we listen to her, and we don't give her to drink. But משקרב הקומץ, when the קומץ was brought on the מזבח, and the מגילה was erased, דבדין עביד כהנים דמחקי, that the כהנים erased the מגילה על פי דין, they were supposed to erase the מגילה, so here we say לא מצי הדרא בה, she cannot change her mind and say she won't drink, and therefore we give her to drink. But it's all based on this one סברא, that since she changes her mind because of fear, this does not prove that she became טמאה, and therefore, in a case where there is no choice, she must drink, we say she should drink. If we would say that it means that she admits that she became טמאה, then in all cases, in all circumstances, we would say that she doesn't drink, because if a woman admits she became טמאה, no matter what happened, even if the מגילה was erased, she doesn't drink. But since we assume that since she's afraid that shows that she does not admit that she became טמאה, in a case like that, when we cannot accept her words not to drink because the מגילה was erased already כדין, then we say that she can't change her mind, and we give her to drink. Then the גמרא continues, but nevertheless, קשיא דרבי עקיבא אדרבי עקיבא, there is a קשיא, a contradiction, from רבי עקיבא to רבי עקיבא, from the way רבי עקיבא says it in the first ברייתא and the way he says it in the other ברייתא. התם אמר, in the first ברייתא, he says, מחיקה מעכבת, that what counts, when do we force her to drink? If the מגילה was erased, as he learns it out from the first פסוק והשקה. In other words, רבי עקיבא learns that as soon as the מגילה is erased, then she cannot change her mind, we force her to drink, even if the מגילה was erased before the קרבן was brought. Because רבי עקיבא learns out this דין from the first והשקה, the first והשקה says in the תורה before the תורה tells us about the קרבן. So, obviously, when רבי עקיבא learns out from that first והשקה, that as soon as the מגילה is erased, you give her to drink by force, and this is before the תורה tells us about the קרבן, what רבי עקיבא is saying is, that as soon as the מגילה is erased, even before the קרבן was brought, which means it was erased שלא כדין, nevertheless, being that the מגילה was erased, she already cannot change her mind, and we force her to drink. That's the way it seems from the first ברייתא. והכא אמר, but in this ברייתא, he says, קומץ מעכב, that the that the קומץ, the הקרבה of the קומץ is the one that counts, because he says that when the קומץ was brought, that's when she cannot change her mind, but before the קומץ was brought, she could change her mind, even if the מגילה was erased. And the reason for that is, because if the מגילה was erased before the קומץ, then it was erased שלא כדין. So we see that according to רבי עקיבא, the only time we force her is after the קרבן. But the erasing of the מגילה, if it was done before the קרבן, is not enough that because of that we should force her to drink. So it's a contradiction to what רבי עקיבא says in the previous ברייתא.

גמרא answers, תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי עקיבא, the truth is, this is two opinions within רבי עקיבא's words. because two תנאים said it, and both went according to רבי עקיבא. In other words, there's a מחלוקת between two תנאים what the opinion of רבי עקיבא was. The תנא who said the first ברייתא learned that רבי עקיבא holds that even if the מגילה was erased before the קרבן, we already force her to drink. The תנא who said the second ברייתא, he learned that the opinion of רבי עקיבא was that only if the מגילה was erased כדין, after the קרבן, that's when we say she is forced to drink. But if the מגילה would be erased before the קרבן, she is not forced to drink. Then the גמרא continues, איבעיא להו, there was a question asked in the ישיבה, אמרה, איני שותה מחמת בעיתותא, if she said I don't want to drink, but it was not because she was afraid, וחזרה ואמרה, and then she said, שותה אני, I will drink, מאי, what is the דין? We said before that as soon as she says that she doesn't want to drink and it's not because of fear, that is as if she admitted that she did the עבירה. And therefore we say she doesn't drink because it's as if she said I became טמאה. Now what is the דין if after that she comes back and she says no, I will drink? Do we say כיון דאמרה איני שותה, as soon as she said I don't drink, I won't drink, טמאה אני קאמרה, she really is saying that I am טמאה, I did the עבירה, וכיון דאחזיק נפשה בטומאה, as soon as she is מחזיק herself, she establishes herself בטומאה, that she became טמאה, that she did the עבירה, לא מציא הדר בה, she can't change her mind. As soon as she admits that she is טמאה, finish, now she can't change her mind and say I'm ready to drink. And since when she says I won't drink, it's as if she said I became טמאה, so therefore we say even if she changes her mind later again and says she will drink, we do not give her to drink. או דילמא, or maybe, כיון דאמרה שותה אני, since later she said I will drink, גליא דעתה, that reveals her mind, דמחמת בעיתותא הוא דאמרה, that the reason she said before that she won't drink is because of fear, even though we couldn't see that she was afraid. But now that she says she will drink, that shows that she doesn't admit that she became טמאה. איי, she said before that she won't drink, it was because of fear. This should show retroactive that when she said before that she won't drink was because of fear, even though we didn't see it. And therefore, if it was because of fear, we could give her to drink as long as she says now that she will drink. The גמרא says, תיקו, this question remains unanswered, and we do not know what the דין is. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר אבוה דשמואל, the father of שמואל said, צריך שיתן מר לתוך המים, you have to put something bitter into the water. Before you erase the מגילה into the water, you must put something bitter to make the water taste bitter. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? דאמר קרא, because the פסוק says, מי המרים, the bitter waters. The תורה says you should erase the מגילה into the bitter waters, that means שמרין כבר, it's bitter from before. Now how is it bitter from before? So the דין is that you must put in something bitter, so the water becomes bitter by itself, and then you erase the מגילה into the water. And we cannot say that the reason it's called מי המרים is because of the curse that this could cause to the woman, רש״י explains, because when could the water take effect? Only after the מגילה is erased into the water, but before that, the water is regular, ordinary water. So how can we call the water מי המרים before the מגילה is erased into the water? And that's how he knows that you must make it bitter before, and then you erase the מגילה into the water. It's interesting to note that concerning what we learned in the משנה, that the woman puts her hand under the מנחה, and then the כהן puts his hand under her hand, and they make תנופה, they pick it up, so

תוספות brings a מחלוקת between בבלי and ירושלמי, what is the דין if the woman has no hands? In the בבלי, it says in our גמרא later on on דף כ״ז, it says that a woman who has no hands cannot drink בכלל, cannot become a סוטה to drink from the מים המרים, because the תורה says, ונתן על כפיה, that it should be put on her hand, on her arm, and since she has no hands, then the דין is that she doesn't drink at all. But in ירושלמי it says that a woman who has no hands, then two כהנים pick up. And תוספות explains that it seems that the מחלוקת between the בבלי and ירושלמי is based on the סברא whether we read the פסוק as it says, when the תורה mentions something, does it mean exactly as the תורה says, or the תורה mentions it in a general way and even if you can't fulfill the complete פסוק as it says literally, still the דין applies. Because here the תורה says that you should put it on her hand, so the בבלי learns that when it says on her hand, she must have a hand that you should be able to put the מנחה on, but the ירושלמי says that the תורה just mentioned it because normally that's the way it would be done, but even if she has no hand, still the דין is that she could drink and two כהנים will pick up for her. And תוספות is there in דף כ"ז goes into the details of this concept whether we learn a פסוק literally, it has to be fulfilled exactly as it says in the תורה, or we could say that the תורה does not mean בדוקא.

It's also interesting to note, concerning the ברייתא that was brought towards the end of עמוד ב', where רבי יהודה says that they would put iron prongs into her mouth in order to have her open her mouth by force, they should be able to put the water down if she didn't want to drink, so תוספות asks a קשיא. He says that the גמרא in סנהדרין דף נ"ב עמוד א' says there's a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the רבנן concerning those people who needed שריפה. If they were punished with the death penalty of שריפה, שריפה meant that they would pour hot lead down their throat, and that's how they would die. So the חכמים say that they would tie a certain cloth around their neck, and two people would pull from both sides, and that would force him to open his mouth, and then they would pour the lead down the mouth. But רבי יהודה says that is not the right way to do it because what would happen if they would choke the person? And the person had to die through שריפה, not through being choked. Therefore he says what they would do is they would open his mouth with a plier, and they would pour the lead down his mouth. So תוספות asks: but why does רבי יהודה hold in the case of the נשרפין that they would open the mouth with a plier, and here he holds concerning the סוטה that they open her mouth with iron prongs? And תוספות answers that here, too, they would open her mouth with a plier. But after they opened her mouth, they put in iron prongs to keep the mouth open, so they should be able to pour the water down her throat. Then תוספות continues: that even according to the רבנן who hold by the נשרפין in the גמרא סנהדרין that they would open his mouth with the סודר, by pulling both ends of the cloth around his neck, they would admit that in this case, the case of the סוטה, they wouldn't do that. And תוספות explains why. Because over there, by the fact that they were pulling from both sides, and this was choking the person, this made his death closer. So they would start killing him by the חנק, by choking, and he would finish off his death by שריפה when they would pour the hot lead down the person's throat. And the פסוק says, "ואהבת לרעך כמוך", you have to love your friend, love your fellow Jew, even a person who is חייב מיתה, still you have to do everything to make it easier for him. So this was a form of making the person die faster: first starting off his death by choking, and then finishing it off by שריפה. And therefore the חכמים hold that over there, that's the way they would do it. But in the case of the סוטה, we're not allowed to do anything to make the person's death, the סוטה's death come faster, because we don't even know if she's going to die. And therefore in this case, the חכמים hold that we didn't get her mouth open through the סודר, through pulling both ends of the cloth, but here they also hold that they would open her mouth with the pliers, and then put in the iron prongs, and that's how they would put the water down her mouth. It's also interesting to note that concerning the end of the גמרא, where it says that you must put something bitter into the water, because the תורה calls it מי המרים. And רש"י explains that it couldn't be because of the curses that the water would bring, because the תורה calls it מי המרים before the מגילה was erased. And before the מגילה was erased, the water didn't have the validity yet anyway, so therefore we must say that it must be bitter from before. So it's interesting to note that the אבן עזרא on the פסוק, he says in one פשט that the reason why it was called מי המרים was על שם סופם, because it was going to curse her and bring bitterness to her at the end. Therefore, even before, it was called מי המרים. And he says that you prove it, because later on in פסוק כ"ז, it says, "ובאו בה המים המאררים למרים". So we see that the reason it's called מרים is because of what the water is going to cause her. And this seems to be not as רש"י explains here, because here רש"י says that the reason why the גמרא says you must put something bitter in is because the תורה calls it מי המרים before the מגילה was erased yet, but according to the אבן עזרא this would not be a ראיה, because it could be it's called מי המרים because of what it's going to do later on, על שם סופם. And we must say that according to the אבן עזרא, there is a different ראיה that the גמרא has that you must put something bitter into it.