The gemara concludes that we make her hold on to the korban mincha to tire her out so that she will be more likely to admit her guilt and not bring the korban mincha so that she will not be killed by the sotah waters. This implies that even after the name of Hashem is erased we try to get her to admit rather than to follow through with the process. Tosafos asks that the gemara on 7b indicates that once the name of Hashem has been erased, we try to get her to drink and no longer attempt to deter her or to sabotage the process? Tosafos answers that it must be a machlokes.
According to rashi's explanation on 7b the question of Tosafos is answered. Rashi indicates that even after the name of Hashem is erased we would theoretically continue convincing her not to drink, but we can no longer use scare tactics because we are concerned that she will be afraid to drink even if she is innocent and remain assur to her husband forever unnecessarily. But, the gemara here is speaking after she already drank and is saying that we would still try to convince her to admit her guilt rather than to drink the water and be killed. At this point there is no longer a concern that she will remain assur forever even if she is innocent because she has already done the scary part which is the drinking. Unless she would admit her guilt the process would continue and verify her innocence, and we therefore try to get her to admit her guilt if she is in fact guilty rather than be killed by the waters.
Tosafos who considers this to be a question must have understood the gemara on 7b that after the name of Hashem is erased we want the process to follow through (perhaps because it would be a tikkun for the erasing if it was not done completely in vain). Therefore Tosafos understands that the gemara here which implies that we try to stop the process even after the name has been erased (and she already drank) contradicts the gemara on 7b.
6 comments:
i have a question on a previous daf, on daf 12a amram got up and decided to divorce yocheved because, to qoute the gemarah "l'shav anu amalim" but why didn't the chyuv of aonah came to play here and cause amram to rethink his decision, bc he would still be mikayam a mitzva?
What would happen if she doesn't want to answer "Amen, Amen"? How can we force her?
i would imagine that refusing to answer amen is tantamount to admitting that she is guilty. The shavua is before the mechika of the name of Hashem, so if she would not answer amen they would pasken that she gets divorced without a kesuba just as the din would be when she refuses to drink before the mechika.
rabbi answer the first question please?
Revisiting Tosafos:
The mishna 20a (and all the tanaim on 19b) hold that after the megilla is erased, if she refuses to drink we would force her. Why does tosafos not ask from that mishna or r' eliezer who says that even after the mechika we try to tire her out to admit. Tosafos obviously understands that if she would admit her guilt then we would not force her to drink even after the megillah has been erased (as is mefurash in the mishna). We try to tire her out to admit her guilt so that she is not killed, but if she refuses to admit we force her to drink.
Although we would force her to drink, Tosafos is bothered by the approach that we take; Do we try to tire her out to get her to admit or do we encourage her to drink? Tosafos concludes that it must be a machlokes.
BUT, the Rambam (Sota perek 4) writes that after erasing the name of Hashem we force her to drink (unless she admits her guilt) and we encourage her to drink. However, the Rambam (2:12) paskens that we put the mincha in her hand to tire her out to get her to admit. Clearly, the Rambam paskens like R' eliezer, despite the fact that he paskens that we are "me'ayem" her into drinking. Apparently the rambam says that we do both, we tire her out so that if she is guilty she would admit and we also encourage her to drink by telling her that if she is innocent nothing will happen. Why does Tosafos insist on creating a machlokes?
Thank you on the answer.
I will bli neder be me'ayen in the machlokes you cited.
As far as Mr. Annonymous' question, I would say that it's similar to the time of a famine where tashmish is forbidden; so too, here, for sakanah, it would be assur if the concern would only be onah; sine there is a concern of peru urevu plus the existence of Klal yisroel, they remarried their wives.
Post a Comment