Sunday, April 22, 2007

Sotah-Perek 2, Daf 18

I have two questions-

One, what's the point of having the sotah swear about an 'ish acher' if she was never warned about an ish acher? [Unless it's a gilgul shavua...? Does that even make a difference at all?]

Two, why do we have to say that R' Yehuda is of the opinion that 'toras' adds two things-1, shtei boalin and one ish, and 2, shtei boalin and shtei anashim. OBVIOUSLY if it includes one ish, it includes two! [And saying that 'zos' is excluding two things is not enough of a proof, ahem.]


.... not sucha gemara-kup after all :( ....

14 comments:

Esther said...

Chava, you fsure are a gemara kup- you just need more practice. Hey, for a beginner I think your doing pretty well... And one day you'll be a talmudic scholar ;)

the sabra said...

you're no help-i want answers!

Caroline said...

I feel so small, I'm gonna cry. Or I can learn... nah, I'll cry.

D~ (worry not, this too is an automated message) , :)) said...

1. gilgul shvuah, of course. see Rashi D"H "Arusah U'nsuah". And see also, Kiushin 27:B for a more comprehensive discussion.

2. whaaaaa??? the chiddush of R"Y is NOT shnei bo'alim U'shnei Anashim, as the Gemarah says explicitly that "lekuilai alma" that is included. his chiddush is ONLY regarding Shnei Anashim U'boel Echad.

3. I can't wait until you learn tomorrow's gemarah, Chof amud Alef (and chaf alef amud beis...!!)

I EXEPECT a post on that :)))....D's rubbing his hands together in wicked anticipation...:)

the sabra said...

awesomeeeeeee!!!!!

thanks so much. (finally!)

k so 1. im gonna check that rashi but no way jose (ahem notice spelling) im goin to Kiushin 27:B (im assumin that kidushin?).
2. to be honest, i only had that day's blatt, the rest i had to rely on my chavrusa (w/o following inside), so now i gotta recheck what the whole tarta (?) thing is all about.
and 3, oof. now i really better learn it. curious is not even the word.
but 4. im so messed up on all this. im scared to write/say anything more. but its good to know i got s/o backing me up (err gloatin where i go wrong..?)

again, thanks for takin the time to answer (and think?) and now im headin off to my beloved sotah (eeeeek!)

the sabra said...

('lo habayshan lomed', she mutters under her breath, 'i can do this. lo habayshan lomed')

ok i see that when i wrote the post i forgot to clarify my first question-
1. having the sotah swear about an ish acher seems pointless to me cuz she can't get punished for it cuz she had to have been warned right before (the amount of time it takes to say whatever that phrase is...shalom rebbi...ich vais). so the waters wouldn't work cuz she wasn't properly warned. no? unless a, the time b/w warning and action is diff for a sotah than for a different aveirah or b, it makes no difference bout the witnesses/warning-that the waters can take affect re an ish acher regardless.
and where does gilgul shvua fit in? how does that change anything?

arghhhhhhhh i'm so lostttt, i'm coming in the middle of nowhere and i expect to understand everything!

and 2. what are you talking about?? k so the gemara clearly states that acc to r'y, 'zos' excludes two cases (ish echad/boel echad & ish echad/shtei boalin) and that 'toras' comes to include two cases (shnei anashim/boel echad & shnei anashim/shnei boalin). my question is why do we have to add that r'y includes the 2anashim/2boalin. we already know that. its obvious. if he holds that two husbands can warn her against the same guy, so then OBVIOUSLY they can warn her about different guys. i know we said thats what everyone agrees on, but why does the gemara then have to list it by r' yehuda. actually, im so stupid. my q' then goes on the zos as well. if ish echad and shtei boalin is not couted, so obviously boel echad is not counted. unless unless unless, its just clarifying. but then why would he need to say that zos and toras each have two?
ahhh maybe cuz there are four different situations bichlal that there can be, so r'y is saying that two go for zos and two for toras and that they are equal (the two terms). unlike tanna kamma and the chachomim who claim that either 'zos' or 'toras' is the main one and the other is just coming to include or exclude something.
hmmm maybe.

if you followed that, im impressed n grateful n a bit mitbayeshet cuz i probably shouldn't be displaying this gross lack of knowledge so publicly.

Hana"L- said...

aintz: lo habayshanIT lomedET---besides, the sabra supposedly never blushes!!! (ahem, see CM's (--der andere californian--Cookie's) blog in the comments)

tzvei: californians and mexicans write jose, canucks write hosay, esp. when its way past their bedtime

drei (a kup): kiDushin of course (chalk it up again to late hour pls.)

feer: unlike misos beis din, a sotah does not need a separate hasra'a from aidim; the husbands kinuy itself is the hasra''a. and the innovation of "gilgul shvuah" (it really is a big chiddush, as is clear from the gemarah in kiddushin--where the gemarah is in doubt whether they could apply this concept to dinei momonos), is that despite the fact that she wasn't warned on an ish acher, nonetheless, the water could still do their job (does this answer your question?).

finif: of course everybody agrees on the ish echad uboel echad/shtei anashim u'shnei boalim (the two extreme cases). but as the the gemarah clarified what "toras" and "zos" means according to T"K and chachamim, which includes also what they hold by the extreme cases, the gemarah also spells out for you what R"Y would hold in such a case. (also read Rashi D"H V'rabbi Yehuda (it's the last rashi in the perek).

ma said...

okay tochter, time for a new chavrusa...
sorry.

ma said...

oh and nudnik -
u could expect the sherriff(ed.note;canucks and californians spell it with one 'r') will be at your home at about midnight to
deliver a restraining order..
you have the right to remain silent, as anything you say can and will be held against you.

the sabra said...

alright!
this is way better. see, i didn't know that the sotah doesn't need a separate hasra'a...
k that explains question 1.

and ye i understand 2 now-didn't get why it was including (spelling out) the extreme cases. (thanx for writin things a bit clearer than i do).

and ye i did learn that rashi...

and now im off to tackle chof amud aleph...(MUST i do chof aleph as well??)

p.s. the yiddish was only to include drei kup, wasn't it?
and notniceword.s. who said anything about blushing!? i said 'mitbayeshet'.
o ma? please don't tell Ber L. when was the first time u DID see me blush..hehe..

lastly lastly lastly, i am grateful for ur time and help and patience.
gd bless you.

the sabra said...

sabra'le decided not to learn any more sotah.
her ma said it's not shayach.
nu nu.
i guess d will be rubbing his hands in wicked anticipation for a VERY long time. (till he writes a summary, i guess).

(that was totally an automated message. don't even THINK of replying, anyone.)

the original automated message(er) said...

aw shucks!

just kidding.

you actually did PRECISELY what i intended. yesterday's blatt says that it's forbidden for women (including sabras me thinks) to learn torah "kol halomed es bito torah k'eilu melamda tiflus".

(this is totally an automated message, produced in response to your automated message, which was produced in response to my original automated message, which was...v'chulu)

ma said...

wow The One Above saved me...

"al tarba sicha im ha-isha...."
me thinks that includes automated(yani) sichot gam ken...;)

the sabra said...

heehee that was so funny.