Perek V Daf 29 Amud a NOTES as the Torah has already rendered an uncertain case of a ׁ ֶש ֲהֵרי ָﬠ ָׂשה ָּב ּה ְס ֵפק ָזוֹנה ְּכ ָזוֹנה, ְּת ּרו ָמה woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man ְו ַחד ִל ְכ ּהו ָּנה ְו ַחד – One to priesthood and one to teruma ַנ ִמי ָלא ִּת ָּיב ֵﬠי ְקָרא, ׁ ֶש ֲהֵרי ָﬠ ָׂשה ָּב ּה ְס ֵפק Tosafot ask: Why doesn’t the Gemara suggest that : ִל ְת ּרו ָמה forbidden to her by the Torah [zona] as though she is certainly ָזוֹנה ְּכ ָזוֹנה! once the verse deems a sota defiled with regard to her husband, it should follow that she is disqualified from ever a zona, since a sota is forbidden to her husband aft er seclusion marrying a priest or form partaking of teruma if her husband even though there are no witnesses that she committ ed adultery, is a priest, as she is assumed to have committed adultery? and therefore it should be prohibited for her to marry a priest They answer, somewhat cryptically, that absent the addi- just like any zona, then with regard to her prohibition against tional verses one could have said that a sota is considered partaking of teruma a verse should also not be necessary, as it defiled only with regard to her husband, as there could be is prohibited for a zona to partake of teruma. Th erefore, the court-imposed capital punishment because of him. The Eshel Avraham explains that Tosafot mean that even if the wife had Torah renders an uncertain zona like a certain zona. not in fact committed adultery, her improper behavior will Rather, it must be explained that according to Rabbi Akiva, the ֶא ָּלא, ְלַר ִּבי ֲﬠ ִק ָיבא ַאְר ָּב ָﬠה ְקָר ֵאי ְּכ ִת ִיבי: eventually lead to her doing so, which will render her liable equivalent of four verses worthy of exposition are writt en with ַחד ַל ַּב ַﬠל, ְו ַחד ַל ּב ֵוֹﬠל, ְו ַחד ִל ְכ ּהו ָּנה ְו ַחד to receive court-imposed capital punishment, in the event -regard to the defi lement of a sota, as he maintains that an addi ִל ְת ּרו ָמה; .that she is caught in the act in the presence of witnesses Therefore, it is preferable that she become forbidden to her tional halakha should be derived from the superfl uous prefi x vav husband until she drinks the bitter water, and she is forbidden in the verse: “And is defi led [venitma’a]” (Numbers :). Th ere- to her husband in order that he will be more likely to make fore, one verse is writt en to forbid her to her husband, and one her drink the bitter water. However, this should not be taken is to forbid her to her paramour, and one is to forbid her to as an indication that the verse regards her as having been marry into the priesthood, and one is to forbid her to partake defiled, and as such, one cannot assume that she will become N forbidden to a priest or to partake of teruma. of teruma. Keren Ora suggests another explanation as to why the And Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as he does ְוַר ִּבי ִי ׁ ְש ָמ ֵﬠאל ְּת ָל ָתא ְקָר ֵאי ְּכ ִת ִיבי: ַחד halakha that a sota is forbidden to her husband does not not expound on the superfl uous vav, and therefore maintains ַל ַּב ַﬠל, ְו ַחד ַל ּב ֵוֹﬠל ְו ַחד ִל ְת ּרו ָמה, ּו ְכ ּהו ָּנה :serve as proof with regard to teruma and marrying a priest The reason she is forbidden to her husband could be that that only three verses are writt en: One is to forbid her to her ָא ְתָיא ְּב ַקל ָו ֶחוֹמר. even if she did not actually engage in sexual intercourse, her husband, and one is to forbid her to her paramour, and one is promiscuous behavior was clearly contrary to her husband’s to forbid her to partake of teruma. And her being prohibited to warning and warranted his disapproval. This unique prohibi- marry into the priesthood is derived through an a fortiori tion for the husband, however, does not apply to the other B matters under discussion. inference, as described in the baraita. Th e Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael ְוַר ִּבי ִי ׁ ְש ָמ ֵﬠאל, ִמ ַּמאי ְ ּד ִא ְיצ ְטִר ְיך ְקָרא -A matter that can be derived through an a fortiori infer This principle, which : ִמ ְּיל ָתא ְ ּד ָא ְתָיא ְּב ַקל ָו ֶחוֹמר וכו׳ – .ence, etc derive that the verse was necessary to teach the prohibition of ִל ְת ּרו ָמה, ּו ְכ ּהו ָּנה ָא ְתָיא ְּב ַקל ָו ֶחוֹמר? is cited in many places in the Talmud, states that although the a sota to partake of teruma, and her prohibition against marry- ִ ּד ְיל ָמא ִּכי ִא ְצ ְטִר ְיך ִל ְכ ּהו ָּנה, ּו ְת ּרו ָמה Torah will not repeat explicit halakhot more than once if it is ing into the priesthood is derived through an a fortiori infer- ׁ ַשְרָיא! not teaching a specific novelty, the Torah will state a halakha explicitly although it could be derived through an a fortiori ence? Perhaps the verse was necessary in order to teach that it inference. The reason why a halakha that could be derived is prohibited for the woman to marry into the priesthood, but through logical reasoning might be stated explicitly could teruma is permitt ed for her? be either to emphasize the halakha, or to provide it with the :Th e Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael could have said to you ָא ַמר ָל ְך: ִמ ְס ַּת ְּבָרא ּד ּו ְמָיא ְ ּד ַב ַﬠל ּו ֵבוֹﬠל, additional power that only halakhot stated explicitly in the It is reasonable to derive from this verse a prohibition that is ַמה ַּב ַﬠל ּו ֵבוֹﬠל ֵמ ַח ִיּים, ַאף ְּת ּרו ָמה ַנ ִמי Torah have, such as the ability of the court to punish one who violates such a halakha. ,.similar to the prohibitions derived from the other verses, i.e ֵמ ַח ִיּים, ְל ַא ּפ ּו ֵקי ְּכ ּהו ָּנה ִ ּד ְל ַא ַחר ִמ ָיתה. that she is forbidden to her husband and her paramour. Just BACKGROUND as she is forbidden to her husband and her paramour even One of the fundamental during the lifetime of her husband, so too, the prohibition : ַקל ָו ֶחוֹמר – An a fortiori inference principles of rabbinic exegesis, a fortiori inference appears in against partaking of teruma applies also during the lifetime all of the standard lists of exegetical principles. In essence, it is a principle of logical argumentation where a comparison of her husband, to the exclusion of her prohibition against is drawn between two cases, one more lenient and the other marrying into the priesthood, which is relevant only aft er the more stringent. The a fortiori inference asserts that if the death of her husband. Th e reason is that if her husband would halakha is stringent in a case where the ruling is usually divorce her it would be prohibited for her to marry a priest lenient, then all the more so will it be stringent in a more anyway. serious case; likewise, if the halakha is lenient in a case where :And how would Rabbi Akiva respond? Th e Gemara answers ְוַר ִּבי ֲﬠ ִק ָיבא – ּד ּו ְמָיא ְ ּד ַב ַﬠל ּו ֵבוֹﬠל ֵלית the ruling is not usually lenient, then it will certainly be lenient in a less stringent case. A fortiori inferences appear in the Bible, He is not of the opinion that it is more reasonable to derive a ֵל ּיה; and the Sages compiled lists of verses in which they appear. prohibition from the phrase “and is defi led” that is similar to For example: “If you have run with the foot soldiers, and they have wearied you, how can you contend with horses?” the prohibitions involving her husband and her paramour, and (Jeremiah 12:5). therefore he requires two separate derivations; one for teruma and one for the priesthood. Or alternatively, perhaps he accepts the opinion that the ְו ִאי ַנ ִמי ִאית ֵל ּיה, ִמ ְּיל ָתא ְ ּד ָא ְתָיא ְּב ַקל halakha derived from “and is defi led” should be similar to the ָו ֶחוֹמר ָטַרח ְו ָכ ַתב ָל ּה ְקָרא. prohibitions involving the husband and paramour, but never- theless, in certain instances with regard to a matt er that can be derived through an a fortiori inference,N the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes explicitly. Th erefore, although unnecessary, two verses are stated, one for teruma and one for the priesthood. פרק ה׳ דף כט. sota . perek V . 29a 176 Th e Gemara continues discussing the baraita. Rav Giddel said ֲא ַמר ַרב ִּג ֵ ּידל ֲא ַמר ַרב: ָ ּד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵיּ ׁש ּבוֹ that Rav said: Th e halakha with regard to an entity that has ַ ּד ַﬠת ִל ָּׁיש ֵאל ְו ֵאין ּבוֹ ַ ּד ַﬠת ִל ָּׁיש ֵאל – awareness in order for it to be asked and an entity that lacks ֵמ ַהאי ְקָרא ָנ ְפ ָקא: ְ״ו ַה ָּב ָׂשר ֲא ׁ ֶשר ִי ַּגע awareness in order for it to be asked in cases of uncertain ritual impurity is derived from this verse: “And the fl esh that touches ְּב ָכל ָט ֵמא לֹא ֵי ָא ֵכל״ – ַוַ ּדאי ָט ֵמא ּהוא any impure thing shall not be eaten” (Leviticus :).