1. According to the opinion that it needs to be Lishma- what would be the halacha in a case where the parsha sotah is written for a woman and then she refuses to drink or admits her guilt before the parsha gets erased. She then gets remarried to another guy and has to go through the sotah procedure again. could the parshas sotah that was written for her the first time be used again for her when she is brought in for the procedure the 2nd time?
2. More of a general question: Please clarify what happens to a woman, her marriage, the kesuba etc. in the following cases: 1. She REFUSES to drink the water before the megila was erased. 2. She admits her guilt.
Thanks.
Ari, USA
1. It appears to me probable that the parsha is valid even if it was written for a different occasion, as long as it was written for the same woman. However we will see below, Bs'd, that lecatchilah one should not use the Megilah after the drinking has been cancelled.
(a) Even though she got married to another man afterwards, nevertheless this is not similar to a Get, where the obligation is on the husband to write it (or appoint a Shaliach to do so). In contrast, the Cohen writes the parsha of the Sotah as stated in Bamidbar 5:23. See Tosfos Rosh 20b who writes that the husband does not object if the Cohen writes the Sotah parsha without his instructions.
(b) There is another reason why the Sotah parsha is valid in your scenario. Tosfos 20a DH Aval writes that if one wrote a get without any specific intentions it is posul bedcause the average woman is not about to get divorced. In contrast the Sotah woman, once the husband had warned her not to be secluded with the suspect and she flouted the warning, is presumably ready to receive the water to drink. Therefore when he wrote the parsha the first time, he wrote it with this suspect woman in mind, and since the scroll was valid then, it continues to be valid even if she remarried meanwhile.
(c) You might challenge the above from the mishnah 20a that states that if before the scroll has been erased she says that she is not prepared to drink the water, the scroll is hidden away. Rashi explains that it is placed at the side of the Heichal because any holy writings which are no longer fit for reading, must be hidden away so that they should not come to disgrace. We see from Rashi that the scroll is no longer fit for reading. If I am right that the scroll can be used even after re-marriage, then it might sometimes be useful for a subesequent eventuality. So why does Rashi write that it is no longer fit to read from?
However it seems that this is not a good proof because even though theoretically the scroll could still be re-used, nevertheless it is unusual that we should use it again for the same woman, and certainly will look strange if we are suspecting her in advance. It would be a bad siman to leave the megilah around and the woman will always feel that she has a threat hanging over her head, which might not always be healthy.
(d) However I found in the Chazon Ish Yadayim 8:17 end DH v'Ha d'Amrinan that he writes that even though the Sotah's Megilah was originally allowed to be written, nevertheless after they cancelled the intention to make her drink the water, the Sotah Megilah is considered as something which one is not allowed to write. This is why Tosfos 20a DH Megilasa writes that it was placed under the hinge of the heichal in order to grind it up. It is only because it is considered as something that one is not allowed to write, that it is permitted to erase it.
This also seems to contradict my thesis, but possibly one can say that even though the megilah could theoretically be used again, nevertheless since this is a far-fetched possibility, it is still considered as something that one is not allowed to write.
(e) I found a svoro according to which the megilah could never be used again, even bedieved. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, in his Notes, cites Rav Yitzcak Elchanan Spector in Ein Yitzchak OC 5 who asks how could it be permitted to erase the names of Hash-m by putting it under the hinge? He answers that if the Name of Hash-m is written without the intention of it being holy there is no prohibition on erasing it. Therefore one can say that the entire Sotah Megilah was written on condition:- if in the end she will drink this means that the Names of Hash-m were written with holiness but if in the end she does not drink the water it turns out that the scroll never had Kedusha. According to this reasoning, in your scenario the Megilah could not be used again.
2. The mishnah (above 7a) states that if the woman admits that she is impure, she "breaks" her kesubah and must leave her husband. Rashi DH Shoveres explains that she writes a receipt on the kesubah, writing "I was unfaithful and forfeit my kesubah". She gives the receipt to her husband so that she cannot demand her kesubah later on. Rashi writes that she is not put to death because there were no witnesses to warn her at the time it happened.
Rambam Sotah 3:2 adds that the same thing happens if she refuses to drink the water. Kesef Mishneh explains that Rambam understood that even though she did not say explicitly that she is impure she still loses her kesubah because since she was frightened to drink the water this proves that she must certainly be guilty because otherwise she would not have backed out of drinking. In fact the mishnah below 24a states explicitly that if she refuses to drink, she loses her kesubah.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Thank you for your answer. It appears to me that according to some of your answers that say that it could not be used again there would be no difference if there was a requirement of lishma or not. To that end, even if you held that the ksiva does not have to be lishma, aside from being able to use use a sefer torah what would the nafka mina be between those who require lishma and those who don't. ie. In the case the gemara brings down in which the megila was written for Rachel and then you want to use it for Leah- if you hold lishma it certainly cannot be used for Leah. If you don't hold of lishma you couldn't use the megila for leah either since once you wrote it for Rachel and it was not used you could never use it again based on some of your answers.
One more thing. On the previous daf R' Akiva goes through situations of when you force the woman to drink and when you don't. If she refuses to drink and she appears to be of sound mind then we don't force her to drink whether or not the megila is erased. Her refusal is deemed to be an admission of guilt and she gets divorced, loses her kesuba etc. However if she refuses to drink and she appears to be agitated in refusing to drink then if this refusal occurs after the megila is erased we force her to drink because maybe she is really innocent and is just nervous that she wont survive the water even though she did nothing wrong. But, if the megila was not erased yet and she seems to refuse out of agitation then we don't force her to drink and she gets divorced and loses her kesubah etc.. According to R' Akiva in the case of her refusing out of agitation why do we make a distinction in how we view/ treat her refusal. It should be a consistent approach whether or not the megila is erased. It should be viewed as an admission of guilt in both cases or it should be viewed as her just being scared even though she is innocent? What do you think about this? I will say that this point bothered me for a while until I thought of this possible answer. Before the megila is erased, placed in the water and given to the woman to drink it is hard to imagine her being so agitated. I can't see the real fear factor of this procedure setting in until she is actually handed the cup to drink at which point she may not have the same courage as she had before. Remember, R' Akiva makes her drink after the megila is erased and she shows agitation on the tzad that she is innocent. So presumably a woman who is innocent will be willing to go along with the procedure until it gets to the moment of truth at which point she may not be so tough anymore. I see it sort of like going on a wild roller coaster. You build up the courage to do it. You are confident that you will be ok and you are ok right up until the second the ride starts at which point you start thinking what did I get myself into and all the fears that you have come rushing back. For that reason I think that it is extremely unlikely that an innocent woman will refuse to drink the water out of agitation or any other reason before the megila is erased because she is going through this process in order to clear her name. It is very possible, though, that such a woman will freak out when it comes time to actually go ahead with the drinking and that is why R' Akiva forces her to drink. Therefore if a woman refuses to drink before the megila is erased it makes perfect sense to say that it is a clear cut admission of guilt.
Also, in forcing this agitated woman to drink it seems like R' Akiva is taking a big risk. If she is guilty she will die. Wouldn't it be preferable to let her get divorced rather than possibly dying? I think the answer to this goes to what I said before. An innocent woman will presumably be ok up until the point where she has to go ahead and drink. At that point she may get a little crazy. If the woman is really guilty and scared that she will die from the waters, her refusal to drink at the last second after the megila is erased will be more like a calm surrender knowing that she pushed the envelope as far as she could rather than an agitated refusal. So, I think that R' Akiva is not putting this woman in danger at all and forcing her to drink is actually for her benefit.
Thanks for your help. Please let me know what you think.
I like your pshat about the roller-coaster syndrome, and I just want to look at a few different points in the Sugya and I think that in the end I'll end up with the same pshat as you, with some more backgound information.
(a) The Mishnah (above 7a) relates how they used to threaten the suspected lady in order that she should confess her guilt. However the Gemara 7b also cites a Beraisa that just as they used to threaten her not to drink the water, they also used to threaten her so that she should drink the water. They would say "My daughter, if it is clear to you that you are pure, stand up for your innocence and drink the water". The Gemara answers that before the Megilah has been erased we try and make sure she should not drink but after the megilah has been erased we try to make sure she should drink.
(b) Another Mishnah (14a), and Gemara there in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, states that things were done deliberately in order to tire out the woman so that she might admit her guilt. Tosfos (14b DH Ee) asks that this concept seems to contradict the concept stated in (a), and Tosfos answers that one is forced to say that R. Eliezer disagrees with the Beraisa mentioned in (a).
(c) However the above answer will not work in the Rambam because he rules in Hilchos Sotah 3:12 that the basket was placed upon her in order to exhaust her, but he also rules (4:5) that they threatened her in order that she should drink.
(d) To answer this contradiction in the Rambam, the Meromei Sadeh (14b), by the Netziv of Volozhin, answers that basically we want the suspect woman to make up her mind. If she is guilty we want her to admit this straight out. If she is innocent we want her to have the courage to drink the water. However what we want to avoid is the intermediate situation where she simply refuses to drink but will not say whether she is guilty or innocent, and as a result we will never know the truth.
In fact if she really is guilty we do not want her to drink and die, as the Gemara (bottom 14a) says that the Torah has pity even on those who transgresses His will. But if she really is innocent, we want to be able to prove this so that we can make her permitted to her husband, since after all this was the reason the Name of Hash-m was erased.
(e) The above analysis is also given by Rav Elyashiv, Shlita, in his Notes (14b, p.72, and 19b, p. 113) and he concludes that one must say that Chazal recognized her emotional capacities:- that if she really was guilty the fact that she was being deliberately tired out, would combine with the fear of death and would make her admit her guilt. On the other hand, if she really was innocent, the exhaustion tactics would not be sufficient to make her falsely admit, but she would have sufficient determination to stick up for her good name and would decide to drink in the end.
(f) I would like to add my own observation and suggest that the scenario here is something similar to the famous explanation of the Rambam Hilchos Gerushin 2:20 who discusses a man being forced by a Jewish Beis Din to divorce his wife in a case where the halachah states that he is obliged to do so. Deep down, a Jew wants to do what the Torah says he should. If he does not, this is only because his Yetzer Hora is forcing him to go against the Torah. Therefore if the Jewish Beis Din forces him to carry out the Halacha this merely means that they are forcing out the yetzer Hora and allowing him to act freely.
(g) Something similar is happening in our Gemara. Rashi (end 19b DH d'Ka) writes that if she retracts and is not trembling, this proves that she is really guilty. Right from the start she thought that she will go through the whole process but will back out at the last moment just before she is actually forced to drink. For this sort of woman the exhaustion tactics will work because she will realize that it is better to admit her guilt explicitly than undergo the whole tedious business. In contrast if we see she is trembling this suggests that really she is innocent but just lacking self-confidence and is afraid that the water might kill her even though deep-down she knows her innocence. We try and help out this sort of woman and forcibly make her drink. We are doing this for her own good to help her clear her own name which she does not have the courage to do for herself but we are confident that nothing will happen to her. Don't forget that if she really is guilty she can always
admit this whenever she wants so we are not really putting her in danger.
(h) Now we can understand the difference between whether or not the megilah was erased. We ourselves only have the confidence to say that she is innocent if she has got this far after it was erased. Then we say it is just last-minute nerves, as you wrote too with the roller-coaster comparison. So we help her over this and make her drink. However if the megilah had not yet been erased, we are not sure that she is innocent, so we do not force her. ( It may be that this is the pshat in Tosfos 20a DH Megilasah that the reason we force her is because she caused the Name to be erased, i.e. if she was prepared to do this, it suggests that she must really be innocent, so we try to help her out.)
There is still really quite a lot more to write about these Sugyos but I will leave it here for the time-being.
Yeyasher Koach for your reply.
Chanukah Sameach
Dovid Bloom
1. According to the opinion that it needs to be Lishma- what would be the halacha in a case where the parsha sotah is written for a woman and then she refuses to drink or admits her guilt before the parsha gets erased. She then gets remarried to another guy and has to go through the sotah procedure again. could the parshas sotah that was written for her the first time be used again for her when she is brought in for the procedure the 2nd time?
2. More of a general question: Please clarify what happens to a woman, her marriage, the kesuba etc. in the following cases: 1. She REFUSES to drink the water before the megila was erased. 2. She admits her guilt.
Thanks.
Ari, USA
Follow-up reply:
Here is a different answer according to which the megilah could not be used again in a different marriage even for the same woman, even bedieved. The reason is that the lishma for one marriage is not sufficient to carry over to a different marriage. When the Cohen writes the megilah he only has in mind writing it for use with this husband but not for a different husband. So even though the Gemara states that "her megilah is not kosher to be used for a different woman" this does not mean that it is kosher to be used again for the same woman married to a different man, but rather possibly we can say that when she gets married to someone else she is like a different woman, or let us say that she is a different wife, and the original megilah was not written with the
second marriage in mind at all.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom