FREE ESSAY ON UNDERSTANDING KIDDUSHIN DAF YOMI

UNDERSTANDING KIDDUSHIN DAF YOMI

Sotah 17
1) WHAT PARTS OF PARSHAS SOTAH ARE WRITTEN AND ERASED
QUESTION: The Mishnah cites three opinions of Tana'im regarding which verses
of the Parshah of Sotah are written down and erased in the Mayim
ha'Me'orerim, as the Torah commands (Bamidbar 5:23). The Parshah of Sotah
(Bamidbar 5:19-22) consists of two distinct sections. The first section is a
Shevu'ah with an Alah (Alah refers to a description of the punishment that
will befall her if she sinned). This section is comprised of the words Im
Lo Shachav Ish (second half of verse 19) until the end of verse 20. The
second section is the Shevu'ah and an Alah, wherein the Kohen details to the
woman what will happen to her if she sinned. Both sections begin with
Tzava'os, introductory sentences telling the Kohen to administer the
Shevu'ah. At the conclusion of the Parshah, the Torah tells the woman to
answer Amen, Amen to the Alos.
Rebbi Yosi maintains that the Kohen writes the entire Parshah. The Gemara
explains that he derives from the Heh of ha'Alos (Bamidbar 5:23) that
the first half of the Parshah is to be written. This first half is referred
to as the Klalos ha'Ba'os Machmas Berachos (the Klalah that is implied by
the Berachah). From the word Es in the phrase Es ha'Alos (ibid.) he
derives that the Kohen must write the Tzava'os and Kabalos as well (the
commands to the Kohen to administer the Shevu'ah, and the command to the
woman to answer Amen, Amen).
It seems that Rebbi Yosi holds that the Kohen starts writing from the
beginning of the Parshah of Sotah, from the beginning of verse 19
(v'Hishbi'a Osah ha'Kohen), the command to the Kohen to administer the
first Shevu'ah. However, RASHI on the Mishnah (DH Lo Hayah Mafsik) tells us
that even according to Rebbi Yosi, the Kohen starts writing from the words
Im Lo Shachav Ish (the second half of verse 19), which is the beginning of
the actual Shevu'ah. He does not start writing from the beginning of the
Parshah. This is also the opinion of the RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos).
Why do they not explain that Rebbi Yosi holds that the Kohen starts from the
Tzava'ah of the Shevu'ah? If, like they say, Rebbi Yosi maintains that the
first Tzava'ah is not written down, then what is Rebbi Yosi's source to
differentiate between the two Tzava'os? The word Es, which teaches that
the Tzava'ah is to be written, is an article subordinate to the word
ha'Alos which refers to both the Alah and the Shevu'ah, and therefore Es
should include both Tzava'os! The Es should include both the Tzava'ah of
the Alah (the second Tzava'ah), and the Tzava'ah of the Klalah (the first
Tzava'ah), because the Klalah itself is alluded to by the Heh of
ha'Alos!
ANSWER: Rashi learns from the wording of Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah that
Rebbi Yosi does not mean to include the Tzava'ah of the Klalah. Rebbi Yosi
heard Rebbi Meir say that the Kohen starts from Im Lo Shachav (the
beginning of the Klalah) and then skips the Tzava'ah between the Klalah and
the Alah. Rebbi Yosi argues and says the Kohen did not skip anything but
wrote everything from the point at which he started. Rebbi Yosi is not
arguing that the Kohen starts *earlier*. Rather, he is arguing that once the
Kohen has started writing the verses (from Im Lo Shachav), he continues
without skipping. He agrees with Rebbi Meir that the Tzava'ah of the Klalah
is not written. He argues only about writing the Tzava'ah of the Alah.
How, though, does Rebbi Yosi learn from the verse to differentiate between
the two Tzava'os?
The answer is that Rebbi Yosi maintains that the Es is coming to add
something to what is written *openly* in the verse -- the Alos, but not to
something that is only hinted to in the verse, which is the Klalah (hinted
to by the letter Heh of ha'Alos).
2)
QUESTION: The Gemara asks why Rebbi Meir insists that the verse Im Lo
Shachav is to be written and erased. Rebbi Meir holds that we cannot infer
the inverse from a statement, and thus there is no point in writing the
verse, If no man has lain with you and you have not committed adultery...,
because it is not part of the Klalah that says that she will die if she
sinned.
What is the Gemara's question? Rebbi Meir says that the Heh of ha'Alos
teaches that we write the Klalos ha'Ba'os Machmas Berachos. Even if,
normally, the inverse cannot be inferred from a statement, here the Torah is
saying explicitly that the verse must be written and erased in the water of
the Sotah whether or not the inverse is implied!
ANSWERS:
(a) From the explanation of the NETZIV, it seems that the Gemara's question
is that it is not logical for the inverse to be written and erased in the
waters of the sotah unless it has some connotation of Klalah, curse. Hence,
the very fact that the verse here tells us that it should be erased should
teach us that normally the inverse *can* be inferred from a statement.
(b) The Gemara's question might be as follows. Why does Rebbi Meir learn
from the Heh of ha'Alos that the verse of Im Lo Shachav, the first of
the verses of Klalah, is to be written? Perhaps the Heh is adding only
that the second verse, v'At Ki Satis Tachas Ishech (verse 20), is to be
written! The fact that Rebbi Meir equates the first verse with the second
and says that it is just as important to write Im Lo Shachav as it is to
write v'At Ki Satis shows that Rebbi Meir holds that logically the inverse
can be deduced. That is why the Gemara asks why is this verse different than
all other verses where Rebbi Meir holds that the inverse *cannot* be
deduced.
3) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TECHELES
OPINIONS: The Gemara relates that in the merit of Avraham Avinu's words when
he said, Im mi'Chut..., the Jewish people were rewarded with the Mitzvah
of Techeles. The Gemara asks what is so special about the Mitzvah of
Techeles. The Gemara answers by citing Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa who says that
Techeles is unique from all of the other colors because the color Techeles
is similar to the sea, the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar
to the Kisei ha'Kavod, the Throne of Hashem's Glory. What is the
significance of this fact?
(a) RASHI in Menachos (43b, DH v'Rakia) explains the Gemara in what seems to
be the simplest way possible. The Techeles reminds its wearer that Hashem is
above him by reminding him of the Throne of Hashem's Glory.
(b) RASHI in Chulin (89a, DH DH Domeh) explains it using the reverse logic.
When *Hashem* looks at the Throne, He is reminded of the Mitzvah of Techeles
that *we* perform. Why does Rashi not explain it here the way he does in
Menachos?
It appears that Rashi here wants to explain what physical benefits the
Jewish people derive from Techeles, since the Gemara implies that the
Mitzvos of Tefilin and Techeles bring glory to the Jewish people. If
Techeles only *reminds us* of Hashem's Throne, it does not necessarily lend
us prestige.
(c) RASHI in Menachos (ibid.) offers another approach. By wearing the
Techeles, it is as if we are carrying the Holy Throne of Glory on our
bodies, which certainly is prestigious.
(d) RASHI here (DH she'ha'Techeles) suggests yet another interpretation of
the Gemara (based on the Sifri, Parashas Shelach). By wearing Techeles we
are considered to have greeted the Shechinah of Hashem.
4) BECOMING CLOSE TO THE SHECHINAH IN THIS WORLD
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Meir who says that Techeles is similar
[in color] to the *sea*, the sea is similar [in color] to the *sky*, and the
sky is similar [in color] to [Hashem's] *Throne of Glory*, as it says
(Shemos 24:10), 'They saw the G-d of Israel, and under His feet was
something like a sapphire stone, bright as the color of the sky.'
The reason that the *sky* was included in the string of comparisons is easy
to understand. Since we have never actually seen the Throne of Hashem, we
must first bring textual proof to the color of the Throne before we assert
that Techeles is similar to it in color. The verse likens the color of the
Throne to that of a much more familiar object -- the sky (under His feet
was something like... the color of the sky). Therefore, it was necessary
for Rebbi Meir to point out that Techeles is sky-colored (like we see for
ourselves) before concluding that the Throne of Hashem's Glory is also
sky-colored (like the verse states).
Why, though, does the Gemara mention the sea as an intermediary step in this
comparison? It would have been just as easy for Rebbi Meir to compare the
color of Techeles directly to that of the sky, without mentioning the sea!
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI here explains that Techeles is actually not exactly the same color
as the sky -- it is more similar to the color of the sea. In other words,
the sea's color is somewhere between the color of Techeles and the color of
the sky (the sky being the color of the Throne). This is why the Gemara, in
demonstrating that the Techeles is reminiscent of the Throne, needs to
describe the similarity in stages. Techeles is similar to the sea; the sea,
in turn, is similar to the sky, which is similar to the Throne (TOSFOS
SHANTZ offers the same explanation.)
This however, leads us to another question. If Techeles is, in fact, not
really the color of the Throne, why was Techeles chosen to be the color by
which we remember the Throne? If the purpose of the Techeles in our Tzitzis
is to remind us of Hashem's closeness to us, why not dye the thread with a
dye that is sky-blue, rather than using a color which is only *reminiscent*
of the sky's color through a two-step comparison?
RAV HADAR MARGOLIN (of Har Nof, Yerushalayim) suggests the following answer.
Rashi here refers to a Sifri (#115) which tells us that the point of Rebbi
Meir's statement is to prove that when someone performs the Mitzvah of
Tzitzis, it is as if he is having an encounter with the Shechinah. This
stands in contrast to the Gemara in Menachos (43b), which formulates this
theme somewhat differently: Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai said, 'Whoever is
careful to perform the Mitzvah [of Tzitzis] *will, as a reward*, merit to
have an encounter with the Shechinah.' The encounter with the Shechinah is
referred to in Menachos as an ultimate *reward* for the Mitzvah, that is --
in the World to Come, while according to the Sifri the performance of the
Mitzvah is *tantamount to* (Ke'ilu) encountering the Shechinah.
The Sifri's statement might explain why the color of Techeles is not
identical to that of Hashem's Throne. A true encounter with Hashem is not
possible in this physical world. Nevertheless, the Tzitzis strings that hang
from our garments -- by reminding us that the Divine Presence watches over
us from every angle -- can elevate us to *feel as though* (Ke'ilu) we are
in direct contact with the Divine Presence. This pseudo-encounter with
Hashem is what is hinted at by the twice-removed comparison between the
Techeles thread worn on our Tzitzis and Hashem's Throne. The color of
Techeles thus demonstrates that our Tzitzis grant us an appreciation of the
Divine Presence even in the mundane world in which we live, where a glimpse
of His true Presence is distant from our grasp.
(b) In his commentary to Menachos, Rashi seems to offer another approach to
the question of why Rebbi Meir mentions the color of the sea in connection
with the Techeles. Rashi (DH Domeh) comments cryptically, Techeles is
similar [in color] to the sea -- where miracles were performed for Israel.
What is Rashi's intention in this comment? What is the connection between
the miracles performed at the Sea and the color of Techeles?
Rabbi Isaac Herzog (in an article on the subject of Techeles) suggests that
Rashi may be hinting at a comment made by the Sifri (ibid.), Why is [the
color used in Tzitzis] called 'Techeles' (from the root Kaf-Lamed)? -Because
the Egyptians were annihilated ('Kalu,' from the root Kaf-Lamed) in the
Sea.
The color, as well as the name, of Techeles is hinting to what happened at
the Sea. Rashi is telling us that the color of the Techeles has a *dual*
significance -- it reminds us of Hashem's Throne on the one hand, and it
also recalls the miracles wrought for us at the Sea on the other hand. This,
then, is why Rebbi Meir mentions two similarities of color when describing
Techeles: Techeles is similar to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky
(which is the same color as the Throne of Glory). Both of these
similarities are significant in their own right!
We may add to Rebbi Herzog's insightful comment that the two symbolisms of
the color of Techeles are not unrelated. Chazal tell us that when Hashem led
the Jewish people through the Sea, not only did He split open the waters of
the Sea, but He revealed himself to them in all His glory, until the people
were able to point to Him and say, '*This* is my G-d...' (Rashi, Shemos
15:2).
We may suggest that the point of the Techeles is to remind us that as Jews,
we are able to raise ourselves to a spiritual height from which we can
perceive the Shechinah in this world. In order to substantiate this claim,
Techeles recalls as well the events which occurred at the Sea, during which
the Jews actually *did* perceive the Divine Presence. The semblance of
Techeles to the color of the sea serves to reinforce the theme that we are
able to perceive the Divine presence while yet in this world.
It is interesting to note that TOSFOS here (DH Mipnei), quoting the
Yerushalmi, presents yet another version of Rebbi Meir's statement, in which
Techeles is first compared to the sea, the sea is compared to *grass*, and
grass is then compared to the sky, which is the color of Hashem's Throne of
Glory (Yerushalmi Berachos 1:2). Why is the color of grass added in the
progression of colors?
In light of the explanation we offered for Rashi in Menachos, the added
mention of grass in Rebbi Meir's statement is especially appropriate. The
Gemara earlier (Sotah 11b) relates when the Egyptians came out to the fields
to kill the infants there, Hashem caused the babies to be miraculously
swallowed up into the ground, where they were safe from the Egyptians' evil
plottings. The Egyptians, not to be deterred, proceeded to plow up the
ground. After they left, however, Hashem miraculously caused the babies to
sprout up out of the ground like the *grass* of the field, as it says
(Yechezkel 16:7), I made you as numerous as the grass of the field....
(see Insights there).
Perhaps, then, the color of Techeles is intended to remind us of this
miracle as well. Techeles is similar in color to grass, which reminds us of
the manner in which Hashem miraculously caused our people to experience a
population explosion during the Egyptian exile. Techeles alludes to that
because the Gemara there says that when Hashem revealed His glory to the
Jews at the splitting of the Sea it was these infants (now grown up) who
exclaimed (Shemos 15:2), *This* is my G-d.... The infants who grew as the
grass were the first to recognize Hashem's Divine Presence, Rashi explains,
because they had *already* witnessed His glory on a previous occasion. That
is, these children experienced in Mitzrayim an encounter with the Shechinah
on a level comparable to the one which the Jews experienced at the splitting
of the Sea.
Accordingly, Rebbi Meir (in the Yerushalmi's version of his statement)
mentions the color of grass in his list for the same reason that he mentions
the color of the sea. Recalling the story of the miraculous births in Egypt
helps to substantiate for us -- in the same manner as the miracles at the
Sea -- that it is possible for a human being to experience a close encounter
with Hashem's Divine Presence in this world!