More Discussions for this daf
1. Why the woman says Amen, Amen 2. Rav Hamnuna 3. Bereirah and Dichuy
4. אמן שלא אטמא
DAF DISCUSSIONS - SOTAH 18

Ari asked:

1. According to R'Meir who says that Amen, Amen refers to the past and the future- ie. that you can make her swear that she will not be mitamei in the future and if she is mitamei in the future the water that she drinks now will take effect on her then-would the husband have to be mikanei her in the future and would there need to be eidim to a stira for the water to take effect? Also, how does R' Meir fall in with the machlokes that follows in the gemara about shoseh v'shoneh?

2. In your insights to the daf you go into why the gemara had to explain that according to R'Meir he means that the water she drinks now will take effect in the future in the event she is mitamei. The answer that is brougt down- I think from the Tos Harosh- is you might think that you would have a situation of Misnaveh D'Rebbi- a gradual deterioration until she is mitamei in the future and then the water will complete her deterioration at that time. Why would we have that Hava Mina? misnava D'Rebei applies in a case when she had already been mitamei and her zechusim are delaying the ultimate punnishemnt. In this case she has done nothing wrong yet to even deserve the slightest discomfort. I know there are other answers- I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind this one. Any thoughts?

Ari, USA

The Kollel replies:

1. Her husband would not need to be Mekanei in the future. See Rashi 18a DH Arusah that the Gilgul does not need Kinuy. Similarly it does not need Eidei Stirah.

The Maharit (Teshuvos CM 2:105 DH U'mah) asks this question and says that the husband need not be Megalgel a Shevua'h if he does not wish to. The Minchas Chinuch (365) also gives this answer, however he quotes the Ritva in Kidushin 27b who says that the Gilgul is done even without the husband's consent. The Meromei Sadeh suggests a different answer. He says that if the husband were to be Bo'el a Bi'ah Asurah after the lady drank the water before she was Nisterah, the water would no longer have an effect. If he did Teshuvah, his wife could drink afterwards if there was a further Kinuy v'Stirah.

2. Perhaps even if she has not been Mezaneh, the Yichud (which is also an Isur d'Oraisah) is sufficient for Misnavneh. The Rosh himself actually does not say that she will be Misnavneh, only that she will not have children and she will not become more healthy.

Dov Freedman

Ari responded:

Thank you.

Couple of things:

1. On whether the husband would need to do kinuy and stirah- in the case that she was an Arusa there is no longer an opportunity for the husband to warn her etc.. But, according to R' Meir who says that you can be megalgel shevua for the future- its not the same as the Arusa case since the husband will have the opportunity to warn her then.

2. With respect to what the hava mina of the gemara might have been that maybe you would think according to R'Meir that the water would take effect now for a future action- my thought is that it can somehow be equated to a Ben Sorer Umoreh- he is sentenced to death even though he has done nothing as of yet that would warrant such a harsh penalty- all he has done is given an indication that he may be headed down the wrong path. Similarly with this woman-by the fact that she is drinking the water now indicates that she is someone to keep an eye on as far as her behavior and potential behavior is concerned. Even though she has not committed the future sin yet perhaps she should get punished for it now instead of actually waiting for her to commit the sin down the road. (In my mind a similar concept to the ben sorer umoreh). Maybe that was the hava mina that led the gemara to say don't think that the water takes effect now- rather it stays in her and erupts when she commits the s

in down the road. What do you thnk about this?

Thanks.

The Kollel replies:

1. I take your point that the husband has an opportunity to do Kinuy in the future, but since it is not necessary for Gilgul as we see from Gilgul on past Znus, I see no reason to think that it may be necessary merely because it is possible.

2. In the case of Ben Sorer the Gemara (Sanhedrin 72a) says he is killed because he will eventually transgress prohibitions that will lead to his death, so it is preferable that he die righteous (i.e. when he has as not yet transgressed). I am not convinced that we can say a lady who has transgressed the prohibition of Yichud (albeit after Kinuy) will certainly come to Znus. If you mean that at least in a case where she does in fact eventually transgress, the water could start to take effect beforehand, then it is also not similar to Ben Sorer since we do not have the reason that he should preferably die righteous.

Dov Freedman

Ari Nat responded:

Thanks.

With respect to the answer you gave about the ben sorer umoreh...

2. In the case of Ben Sorer the Gemara (Sanhedrin 72a) says he is killed because he will eventually transgress prohibitions that will lead to his death, so it is preferable that he die righteous (i.e. when he has as not yet transgressed). I am not convinced that we can say a lady who has transgressed the prohibition of Yichud (albeit after Kinuy) will certainly come to Znus. If you mean that at least in a case where she does in fact eventually transgress, the water could start to take effect beforehand, then it is also not similar to Ben Sorer since we do not have the reason that he should preferably die righteous.

I am only talking about the case where she eventually sins and it is on that point where the gemara says that we shouldn't think that the water takes effect now for the later sin. And based on this I think the comparison has validity and here is why. You wrote above that if we are talking about when she actually commits the sin later on we do not have the reason of her preferably dying righteous. Why not? She did not actually commit the sin..she is being punished in anticipation of what she will do and in that respect better that she die now as a righteous woman without having actually commited the future sin than having her punished later on after the sin has been done. Granted, she is no angel now having ignored her husbands warning by being miyached with another man. However, she is not chayav misa for such an action. My point is that a woman like this is red flagged in the sense that if she is at the point where she is drinking the mei sotah it is possible that she may get herself into that situation again down the road to the point that the gemara has the hava mina to say that if in fact she will be mezaneh down the road ( only hashem would know the answer to that at this point)the water should just kill her now before she actually commits the sin. I think that this concept is very similar to the ben sorer umoreh. We are not just picking any child and putting him in this status. Rather he has done something or acted in a way which indicates that he is heading down a path that is not good and better that he be punished now and die now before he actually commits the aveiras that lead to his downfall. He is only righteous now in the fact that he has done nothing at this point ( like the sotah) to warrant that he be put death. However, like the sotah, he is not righteous in the sense that he has done absolutely nothing wrong at this point. What do you think?

The Kollel replies:

I am sorry I did not make myself clear enough. There are two possibilities:

1) The case where the lady dies without ever having committed adultery. In this case we may say that she has died righteous, but we cannot say that she would certainly have gone on to be adulterous, since I do not believe that a woman who has transgressed the prohibition of Yichud will necessarily become an adulteress. Even if we say she will only die when it is known to Hashem that this particular woman will be adulterous, it is still not similar to Ben Sorer where we know that this is the future of every Ben Sorer, whereas here it is just a question of chance.

2) The women does in fact go on to be adulterous before the water takes effect. That means to say not only that we know she would have done so, but that she actually did so. In this case she would not die righteous, rather she dies with sin.

Dov Freedman