Benefiting from the Sotah Waters

Rava inquired (Daf Yom: Sotah 18a): If two scrolls were written for two different sotahs, but they were erased into one cup, what is the halacha?

If you would conclude that each sotah needs her own personal cup, what would the halacha be if the scrolls were erased into two separate cups, but then they were mixed together? Is it valid because the scroll was erased into her cup? Or perhaps, it is disqualified, because she is not drinking her own personal cup!

The Steipler Gaon asks: Even if the halacha would be that a sotah is not obligated to drink from her own personal cup, how would she be permitted to drink from a cup that was mixed together with another sotah’s water? The water for a sotah comes from the kiyor, and that water has sanctity and carries with it a me’ilah transgression. One is prohibited from benefiting from something that possesses an inherent sanctity. If this woman is indeed innocent, she will give birth to male handsome children. It will emerge that she is deriving pleasure from these holy waters! How can this be allowed?

He answers based upon a Gemora below (20a) which states that we place something bitter into the water in order for the scroll to be properly erased. Accordingly, we can state that one who drinks water with a bitter taste will not be violating the me’ilah prohibition, for it would be regarded as drinking in an abnormal manner. This would be Biblically permitted.

Read more!

Proof Against the Rambam - Nedarim Daf 35

Rav Acha the son of Rav Avya said to Rav Ashi: If one said, “My loaf is forbidden to you,” and then he gave it to that fellow as a gift, who has committed me’ilah? The giver cannot be the one who committed me’ilah, for the loaf was never forbidden upon him. The recipient cannot be the one who committed me’ilah, for he can say, “I am only interested in acquiring permissible loaves; loaves that are forbidden to me, I do not want.”

The Ran writes that this is a refutation to the Rambam’s opinion, who holds that one who forbids another person benefit from himself and then feeds him will incur lashes because he has violated the transgression of “he shall not desecrate his word.”

The meaning of the Ra”n seems to be that if the Rambam is correct that if the vower provides the forbidden item to the other fellow, he has desecrated his word; then, the giver may be guilty of me’ilah as well! Why does our Gemora assume as an obvious point that the giver has not committed me’ilah?

The Machaneh Efraim (35) and the Lechem Mishna answer that although it might be prohibited for the vower to give the other fellow the forbidden item, but that does not mean that he has committed me’ilah. He has desecrated his word, but he is not guilty of me’ilah, for it was not regarded as hekdesh for him.

Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that the Ran’s proof was from the language of the Gemora. The Gemora stated unequivocally that there can be no prohibition on the giver, for the loaf is not forbidden to him. It would seem from the Gemora that there is no prohibition on the giver at all! This is not correct according to the Rambam.

Read more!