תלמוד על סוטה 3:1

MISHNAH: He¹The husband; Num. 5:15. The volume of the offering was 1/10 of an epha or about one US Gallon. Cf. also Chapter 1, Note 239. brought her flour offering in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and then puts it on her hands to tire her out. All flour offerings are from start to finish in a Temple vessel except this which at the start is in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and at the end in a Temple vessel²All other offerings must be in a Temple vessel when given to a Cohen to be processed. It is true that the soṭah-offering also must be in a Temple vessel once the Cohen takes it, but as long as the Cohen is still occupied with the preliminaries it may not be in a Temple vessel.. All flour offerings need oil and incense except this one which needs neither oil nor incense³This is not quite correct; the offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11) is likewise without olive oil and incense.. All flour offerings come from wheat except this one which only comes from barley. The ‘omer flour offering, even though it comes from barley, comes as roasted kernels but this one comes as flour. Rabban Gamliel said, since she behaved like an animal so her offering is animal feed.

It follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagrees with Ben Azzai, as we have stated there⁹Mishnah Soṭah3:4. R. Eleazar ben Azariah does not agree that women come to study Torah equally with the men.: “From here Ben Azzai said, a person is obligated to teach Torah to his daughter, that in case she would drink she knows that merit suspends.”

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May the oath of a deviant woman⁷⁸The suspected adulteress who is put under oath by the Cohen, Num. 5:22. be liable for a blurted oath? Where do we hold? If she is in error in sin and oath she is not deviant⁷⁹If she slept with a man thinking it was her husband and swears while in this belief, she is not forbidden to her husband and not deviant.. If she is intentional in sin and error there is no sacrifice⁸⁰There is no sacrifice for an intentional false oath.. Rav follows Rebbi Aqiba⁸¹This refers to Halakhah 3:1. R. Aqiba admits the possibility of sacrifices for inadvertent blurted oaths (Lev. 5:4) referring to past events as well as future ones but R. Ismael allows only future- directed blurted oaths. Rav (Chapter 3 Note 7) admits only past-directed blurted oaths; as just shown this is not possible in the case of the deviant woman.. If Rebbi Ismael⁸²R. Meïr explains the repetition “Amen, Amen” in Num. 5:22 that the first one is past directed, the second future directed. R. Ismael might agree that this is a special case where a biblical verse also requires the inclusion of references to past events. Then the question of R. Joḥanan might make sense since the possibility of an oath by a deviant woman depends on past events but the designation as blurted oath must depend on future happenings, not covered by the previous argument. would argue like Rebbi Meïr it would follow, since Rebbi Meïr said⁸³Mishnah Soṭah3:1.: “Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.” But you may question this⁸⁴Since practice would follow neither R. Ismael nor R. Meïr there seems to be no point for R. Joḥanan’s question..