The gemara says that either witnesses overseas who are aware that she is guilty, or zechus, or having relations with her husband on the road are all viable possibilities as to why the Sotah waters would not kill her even if she is in fact guilty. R' Shimon rejects the notion of zechus being toleh, because it will cause people to mock the effectiveness of the water and claim that even tahor woman are guilty just that a zechus protected them from the waters taking effect, but nevertheless agrees that witnesses overseas and having relations on the road would prevent the waters from taking effect [but since they are uncommon, it won't lead to mocking the sotah waters and claiming that the innocent are in fact guilty (rashi and tosafos).
Tosafos (6b d.h. U'tehora) writes that immediately after she drinks the sotah waters she is permitted to her husband. The question is, why should she be permitted after drinking since it is still possible that she is guilty just that the sotah waters didn't take effect for one of the reasons mentioned above?
Meshech Chochma (Parshas Naso) quotes himself in the Ohr Sameach (Issurei Biah 18:10) where he explains that prior to drinking we have a 'raglayim l'davar', a strong indication that she is in fact guilty. The gemara 3a explains that this raglayim l'davar which is due to the fact that she has undergone kinuy and stirah, is the rationale for an individual eid to be believed on the tu'mah, rather than requiring 2 eidim. However, after drinking, although it is possible that she is guilty and one of the above mentioned reasons prevented the waters from taking effect, the raglayim l'davar no longer exists. The raglayim l'adavar is not batul due to the ineffectiveness of the water, becasue there can be other causes for their ineffectiveness; but the fact that she had the nerve to drink the waters knowing good and well that if she is guilty it may be an act of suicide, nullifies the raglayim l'davar of her guilt and we return her to her chezkas kashrus of innocence. This explains why after drinking she is permitted to her husband, because the raglayim l'davar indicating guilt is batul, and she returns to a chezkas kashrus.
Additionally, this would explain why Tosafos (6a d.h. vi'shebau) suggests that perhaps if an eid echad testifies that she commited adultery after she had already drunk from the sotah waters, he would not be believed to pasul her from teruma because the eid echad is only believed so long as the raglayim l'davar is still in force, but after she willingly drinks it is gone.
Now, this is where it gets difficult....
Tosafos (Nida 2a - also in Nazir) asks how we can learn from Sotah that safeik tu'mah in reshus hayachid is tamei, by sotah there is a raglayim l'davar indicating her guilt so it is not a safeik hashakul. Tosafos answers that the raglayim l'davar would only create a safeik of guilt, but from the Torah considering her a "vadai temeiah" (28a) which contradicts her chezkas kashrus, we derive a gezeiras hakasuv that safeik tu'mah in reshus hayachid is definitely tamei even against a chazaka. This only makes sense if we assume that the ragalyim l'davar of sotah would not destroy the chezkas kashrus and consider her vadai tamei, it would only create a safeik that she may be tamei. The source that the raglayim l'davar doesn't make her a vadai tamei, is because if it would, the indication of her drinking would not be strong enough to remove the raglayim l'davar, and therefore she should be assur even after drinking since one of the aforementioned reasons could be causing the sotah waters to be ineffective. From the fact that after drinking she is permitted to her husband, the willingness to drink must have removed the raglayim l'davar, which would only be possible if the raglayim l'davar itself only created a safeik and didn't establish her as a vadai tamei [and therefore the Torah declaring her tamei would be a gezeiras hakasuv and be a valid source for safeik tu'mah in reshus hayachid tamei, even when there isn't any raglayim l'davar].
No comments:
Post a Comment