Daf: Sotah 42-44 - Hockey sticks, Shma, Jobs and Women in the Military

As always, please read with a gemara in front of you.

42a
Note the Rambam on the mishnah, describing a military precursor of the hockey stick in his explanation of קלגסין.

Why is reciting Shema morning and evening considered to be such a crucial merit on behalf of the Jewish people? It might be the declaration of faith, but it also might be the passage of gemara in Menachot 99b which views the morning and evening Shema-recitation as fulfillment of the mitzvah of studying Torah in the morning and evening, a merit which supports Heaven and Earth themselves (אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי).

Note that according to the gemara's order of the wartime border-speech and battle-speech, the Torah's presentation of the two speeches is backward.


42b
As was noted by an attendee here at the Daf in Allentown, the connection between Arpah and the Plishtim is odd; Arpah was, after all, a Moabitess (א:ד - ויקחו להם נשים מואביות), and she is described by Naami as returning home (א:טו אל עמה)!


43b
Note the debate between Rashash and Maharshal, related to Rashi ומאי שנא ילדה בילדה.


44a
The gemara here says that participants in an illicit marriage are liable only once they live together sexually. This matches the Sefer Chasidim (שפג), in his comment that the idea of Bashert – that marriages are predestined – isn't really about marriage but rather is a predestination that a certain man and woman will be together sexually.

The gemara's suggested order for developing one's life is (1st) House, then (2nd) Finding a livelihood, and then (3rd) Getting married. This fits the order of the pesukim in the Torah, in the section on war (Devarim 20).
On the other hand, the Rambam (Mishneh Torah Hilchot Deiot 5:11) presents the order as (1) Livelihood, then (2) House, and then (3) Getting married, following the order of the Tochacha-curses in Devarim 24.
The Kesef Mishnah explains that the first two can be in either order; the point is to do them before marrying.
The Maaseh Rokeiach offers another approach: The Torah's example of a livelihood is in harvesting a vineyard, for which one must wait through 4 harvests before first being permitted to eat the grapes. Therefore, one starts with the vineyard/livelihood, then gets the house, and then is able to enjoy the fruits of the vineyard/livelihood – all before getting married.


44b
Note that the gemara mentions a bride going to war, and the Rambam cites this as law (Mishneh Torah Hilchot Melachim 7:4) – since when do we have female soldiers recommended in the gemara?
The Tiferet Yisrael (on our mishnah) and the Radvaz (on the Rambam) both suggest that this refers to providing support in preparing the roads and supplying the army.

The gemara’s example of a violation of a rabbinic law is that of speaking between donning the arm and head tefillin. Among other answers, some suggest this is because the soldier must combine his strength and his Torah wisdom – and he cannot have any interruption between them.

Daf: Sotah 2-3

First: I am so glad to have Rashi back.

Second: I'm not going to note every time Maharsha has something to say in his חידושי אגדות, but it's a good idea to make it a habit of reading his notes for Sotah. He has a ton to say on these דברי אגדה.

As always, these notes will make a lot more sense if you have a gemara in front of you. The issues of shidduchim/bashert, as well as the meaning of קנאה, are interesting.

2a
Tosafot Shantz challenges the gemara’s interpretation of המקנא as בדיעבד language, based on other cases of similar language in the gemara, which is not read as בדיעבד. He offers two approaches: (1) The assumption here is that this is בדיעבד because there is logical reason to think it ought to be בדיעבד, and (2) The gemara asks the question only where it has an answer available.

See the Bach, note ה, on the word בכושרות

The comparison of shidduchim to Yam Suf is fascinating; see the discussion in Tosafot Shantz. In particular, his explanation addresses the question that splitting the Yam Suf was not at all קשה (difficult) for Gd in the first place!

Tosafot הא points out that in Moed Katan 18b we say that one may do kiddushin on Chol haMoed, lest someone else beat him to it, and the gemara there asks that if all is bashert, one shouldn’t have any such concern. Tosafot asks why the answer there isn’t simply that the gemara there is talking about a second marriage. However, I am not clear on why any of this is a problem – HaShem leaves us room to make mistakes, and so a person might yet miss out on his bashert! Tosafot appears not to agree with this idea.

2b
If the husband were believed on his own say-so to say he did קינוי, he could always claim falsely that he had done קינוי!

Rashi איכא עיקר is very important – he indicates that legitimate קינוי is not done in rage, but rather is a rational declaration.

Rashi also notes that קנאה means anger here. It also fits better than “jealousy” when we see terms like א—ל קנא. (HaShem doesn’t get angry, of course, but He shows signs of anger.)

I didn’t do a CD-ROM search, but I believe it’s usually רב יימר בר שלמיא, not רב יימר בר ר' שלמיא.

Rav Yeimar’s approach explaining קינוי as something which causes strife between her and others fits Nedarim 83a-b in which we say that a man is not able to prohibit his wife from being involved with burying others, because it will cause her pain. (Note that in Nedarim we see other reasons it will cause her pain.)

3a
Rashash says that when Reish Lakish says a person won’t sin unless gripped by a spirit of foolishness (רוח שטות), he is tying that into קינוי, for which the Torah says ועבר עליו רוח קנאה. This fits the view that a husband is not allowed to do קינוי.

The rendering of ועבר as “before” calls to mind the discussions of עבר meaning “before” regarding עובר לעשייתן.

R’ Akiva’s statement that a kohen is obligated to become tamei to bury his wife fits the Rambam, who explains the permission to become tamei for her as an issue of מת מצוה, which is obligatory.

Tosafot לה notes a difference between חובה and מצוה, in that if it’s only a mitzvah, one who is engaged in another mitzvah may be exempt from this one. If it’s a chovah (requirement), though, then he is obligated to drop everything and do this one. This has interesting ramifications for the way the gemara and poskim have classically viewed Shabbat candles as a חובה, over and above its status as a מצוה of honoring Shabbat. (See Teshuvot Rav Natronai Gaon 66, for example, as well as the gemara in the second perek of Shabbos on נר ביתו overriding other mitzvot.)

3b
Tosafot למשרי points out the origin for following patrilineal descent among people who are not Jewish.