Blog Yomi – Sotah #20/Daf 21

We begin on דף כ עמוּד ב, with the concept of the סוֹטָה getting a reprieve for up to three years even if she is guilty of adultery. It is not a pardon. In essence she gets some slack for having done good deeds or acting meritoriously in other ways, and the סוֹטָה water that she drinks doesn’t take effect immediately. Rather, its toxicity to her is deferred.

יֵשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת הָיְתָה וְכוּ׳. מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן, וְלָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יִצְחָק אִישׁ כְּפַר דָּרוֹם, וְלֹא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל

The Mishnah states: If she has merit, it delays punishment…for one year…for two years…for three years. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן, and not the opinion of רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יִצְחָק אִישׁ כְּפַר דָּרוֹם, and not the opinion of רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

דְּתַנְיָא: אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה לָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, כְּדֵי הַכָּרַת הָעוּבָּר, דִּבְרֵי אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יִצְחָק אִישׁ כְּפַר דָּרוֹם אוֹמֵר: תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִקְּתָה וְנִזְרְעָה זָרַע״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״זֶרַע יַעַבְדֶנּוּ יְסֻפַּר״, זֶרַע הָרָאוּי לְסַפֵּר.

This is as it is taught in a baraisa: If she has merit (זְכוּת), it delays punishment for her for three months, equivalent to the time necessary to recognize the fetus; this is the statement of אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן. R’ Elazar ben Yitzcḥak of כְּפַר דָּרוֹם says: זְכוּת delays punishment for nine months, as it is stated: “Then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” (וְאִם־לֹ֤א נִטְמְאָה֙ הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּטְהֹרָ֖ה הִ֑וא וְנִקְּתָ֖ה וְנִזְרְעָ֥ה זָֽרַע – Bamidbar 5:28). It is possible to infer from this that if she has זְכוּת she will be cleared temporarily, for the length of time required to conceive a child, and there, in Tehilim, it says: “A seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation” (זֶ֥רַע יַֽעַבְדֶ֑נּוּ יְסֻפַּ֖ר לַֽאדֹנָ֣י לַדּֽוֹר – Psalms 22:31). This indicates that the seed must be fit to tell of the Lord once it matures, and a child can live only if it is born after the culmination of nine months in the womb.

וּמַאי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר? דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי גּוֹיִם, דְּלָא מִפְּקִיד דִּינָא עֲלַיְיהוּ

The Gemara asks: And what does R’ Yishmael mean by stating: Although there is no explicit proof for the concept of merit delaying punishment for twelve months, there is an allusion to the concept? The פְּסוּקִים he cites state explicitly that punishment can be delayed for twelve months. The Gemara answers: The proof is not explicit, as perhaps gentiles are different, as swift judgment is not administered upon them in this lifetime as it is upon the Jewish people, with whom G-d is more precise in executing judgment.

Onward to the next key statement in the Mishnah:

וְיֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים כּוּ׳. זְכוּת דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא זְכוּת דְּתוֹרָה — הָא אֵינָהּ מְצֻוּוֹה וְעוֹשָׂה הִיא! אֶלָּא זְכוּת דְּמִצְוָה.

And there is זְכוּת that delays punishment for three years. The Gemara asks: Which זְכוּת can delay the punishment of a סוֹטָה? If we say it is the merit of the Torah that she has studied; but a woman who studies Torah is one who is not commanded to do so and performs a mitzva, whose reward is less than that of one who is obligated? Therefore, it would be insufficient to suspend her punishment. Rather, perhaps it is the זְכוּת of a mitzva that she performed.

זְכוּת דְּמִצְוָה מִי מַגְּנָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֶת זוֹ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי: ״כִּי נֵר מִצְוָה וְתוֹרָה אוֹר״, תָּלָה הַכָּתוּב אֶת הַמִּצְוָה בְּנֵר, וְאֶת הַתּוֹרָה בְּאוֹר. אֶת הַמִּצְוָה בְּנֵר, לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה נֵר אֵינָהּ מְגִינָּה אֶלָּא לְפִי שָׁעָה — אַף מִצְוָה אֵינָהּ מְגִינָּה אֶלָּא לְפִי שָׁעָה

The Gemara asks: Does the זְכוּת of a mitzva protect one so much as to delay her punishment? But isn’t it taught in a baraisa: רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי interpreted this verse homiletically: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” (כִּ֤י נֵ֣ר מִ֭צְוָה וְת֣וֹרָה א֑וֹר וְדֶ֥רֶךְ חַ֝יִּ֗ים תּוֹכְח֥וֹת מוּסָֽר – Proverbs 6:23). The verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun. The mitzva is associated with a lamp in order to say to you: Just as a lamp does not protect one by its light extensively but only temporarily, while the lamp is in one’s hand, so too, a mitzva protects one only temporarily, i.e., while one is performing the mitzva.

וְאֶת הַתּוֹרָה בְּאוֹר, לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אוֹר מֵגֵין לָעוֹלָם, אַף תּוֹרָה מְגִינָּה לָעוֹלָם. וְאוֹמֵר: ״בְּהִתְהַלֶּכְךָ תַּנְחֶה אֹתְךָ וְגוֹ׳״. ״בְּהִתְהַלֶּכְךָ תַּנְחֶה אֹתְךָ״ — זֶה הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. ״בְּשָׁכְבְּךָ תִּשְׁמוֹר עָלֶיךָ״ — זוֹ מִיתָה. ״וַהֲקִיצוֹתָ הִיא תְשִׂיחֶךָ״ — לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא

And the Torah is associated with light in order to say to you: Just as the light of the sun protects one forever, so too, the Torah one studies protects one forever; and it states in the previous verse with regard to the Torah: “When you walk, it shall lead you; when you lie down, it shall watch over you; and when you awake, it shall talk with you” (בְּהִתְהַלֶּכְךָ֨ ׀ תַּנְחֶ֬ה אֹתָ֗ךְ בְּֽ֭שכְבְּךָ תִּשְׁמֹ֣ר עָלֶ֑יךָ וַ֝הֲקִיצ֗וֹתָ הִ֣יא תְשִׂיחֶֽךָ – Proverbs 6:22). The Gemara explains: “When you walk, it shall lead you”; this is referring to when one is in this world. “When you lie down, it shall watch over you”; this is referring to the time of death, when one lies in his grave. “And when you awake, it shall talk with you”; this is referring to the time to come after the resurrection of the dead. The Torah that one studies protects and guides him both in this world and in the next world.

מָשָׁל לְאָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בְּאִישׁוֹן לַיְלָה וַאֲפֵילָה, וּמִתְיָירֵא מִן הַקּוֹצִים וּמִן הַפְּחָתִים וּמִן הַבַּרְקָנִים, וּמֵחַיָּה רָעָה וּמִן הַלִּסְטִין, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה דֶּרֶךְ מְהַלֵּךְ

This can be illustrated by a parable, as it is comparable to a man who is walking in the blackness of night and the darkness, and he is afraid of the thorns, and of the pits, and of the thistles, which he cannot see due to the darkness. And he is also afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits that lurk at night, and he does not know which way he is walking.

נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲבוּקָה שֶׁל אוּר — נִיצַּל מִן הַקּוֹצִים וּמִן הַפְּחָתִים וּמִן הַבַּרְקָנִים, וַעֲדַיִין מִתְיָירֵא מֵחַיָּה רָעָה וּמִן הַלִּיסְטִין, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה דֶּרֶךְ מְהַלֵּךְ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר — נִיצַּל מֵחַיָּה רָעָה וּמִן הַלִּיסְטִין, וַעֲדַיִין אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה דֶּרֶךְ מְהַלֵּךְ. הִגִּיעַ לְפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים — נִיצַּל מִכּוּלָּם

If a torch of fire comes his way, which is analogous to a mitzva, he is safe from the thorns and from the pits and from the thistles, but he is still afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits, and still does not know which way he is walking. Once the light of dawn rises, which is analogous to Torah study, he is safe from the wild animals and from the bandits, which no longer roam the roads, but he still does not know which way he is walking. If he arrives at a crossroads and recognizes the way, he is saved from all of them.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: עֲבֵירָה מְכַבָּה מִצְוָה, וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה מְכַבָּה תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מַיִם רַבִּים לֹא יוּכְלוּ לְכַבּוֹת אֶת הָאַהֲבָה״.

Alternatively, the pasuk associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun in order to teach that a transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva one performed, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah one studied, as it is stated: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love, neither can the floods drown it” (מַ֣יִם רַבִּ֗ים לֹ֤א יֽוּכְלוּ֙ לְכַבּ֣וֹת אֶת־הָֽאַהֲבָ֔ה וּנְהָר֖וֹת לֹ֣א יִשְׁטְפ֑וּהָ אִם־יִתֵּ֨ן אִ֜ישׁ אֶת־כל־ה֤וֹן בֵּיתוֹ֙ בָּאַהֲבָ֔ה בּ֖וֹז יָב֥וּזוּ לֽוֹ – Shir Hashirim 8:7). The Torah is compared to love several times in the Shir Hashirim. One can conclude from the baraisa that the merit of performing a mitzva is insufficient to suspend punishment.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִצְוָה, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — אַגּוֹנֵי מַגְּנָא, אַצּוֹלֵי לָא מַצְּלָא. תּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ וּבֵין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא.

רַב יוֹסֵף said that with regard to a mitzva, at the time when one is engaged in its performance it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the יֵצֶר הָרַע; at the time when one is not engaged in its performance, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the יֵצֶר הָרַע. With regard to Torah study, both at the time when one is engaged in it and at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the יֵצֶר הָרַע. Therefore, the merit of the woman’s mitzvos does protect her from misfortune and delay her punishment.

Let’s zoom ahead:

אוֹמֵר בֶּן עַזַּאי: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְלַמֵּד אֶת וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כל הַמְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תּוֹרָה — מְלַמְּדָהּ תִּיפְלוּת. תִּיפְלוּת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כְּאִילּוּ לִמְּדָהּ תִּיפְלוּת.

The Mishnah states: From here בֶּן עַזַּאי learns: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit of hers has delayed her punishment. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity. The Gemara asks: Could it enter your mind to say that teaching one’s daughter Torah is actually teaching her תִּיפְלוּת? Rather, say: It is considered as if he taught her תִּיפְלוּת.

At this juncture Rabbi Stern shared material from a sefer, Shiurei Hayom, written by R’ Mechel Zilber, who cited a passage from the Chofetz Chayim regarding teaching one’s daughters Torah contained in his לִקוֹטֵי הַלָכוֹת. He states that even though לְכַתְחִילָה the teaching one’s daughters only refers to תּוֹרה שׁבּע״פּ and not תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתַב, one cannot equate teaching one’s daughter תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתַב with teacher her תִּפְלוּת (promiscuity). He writes: “וכתב שם בהגהה וז״ל, ונראה דכל זה דוקא בזנים שלפנים שלפנינו, שכל אחד היה דר במקום אבותיו וקבלת האבות היה חזק מאד אצל כל אחד ואחד להתנהג בדרך שדרכו אבותיו …”

In essence, given the influences that young girls are subject to in today’s society, it is a virtue for fathers to teach them about Torah pertinent to following in the proper path and laws that they should follow pertinent to young women, irrespective of the source being תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתַב or תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה.

Parenthetically, there is a nice discussion at the Stack Exchange (מִי יוֹדֵעַ) as to whether or not the concept of teaching one’s son a livelihood (“parnassah”) extends to teaching one’s daughter a livelihood as well. It parallels the issue of learning and secular influences in general above, and that the necessities of a woman working in this generation are different than in yesteryear. You can check that out here.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: רוֹצָה אִשָּׁה וְכוּ׳. מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: רוֹצָה אִשָּׁה בְּקַב וְתִיפְלוּת עִמּוֹ, מִתִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין וּפְרִישׁוּת.

The Mishnah states that רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? This is what רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ is saying: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and with it a sexual relationship, i.e., her husband’s availability to fulfill her sexual desires, rather than nine kav of food and with it abstinence, and since her desires are of a sexual nature, it is undesirable for her to study Torah.

Tosafos comments here that a woman would gladly give up some material gains for having her husband tend more to her physical and emotional needs. (One is tempted to add here, “וְהַמֵבִין יָבִין”.)

הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר: חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה? כְּגוֹן דְּקָא טָבְעָה אִיתְּתָא בְּנַהֲרָא, וְאָמַר: לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְאִיסְתַּכּוֹלֵי בַּהּ וְאַצּוֹלַהּ.

The Mishnah continues: He (R’ Yehoshua) would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman, and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world. The Gemara asks: Who is considered a foolish man of piety? For example, it is one who sees that a woman is drowning in a river, and he says: It is not proper conduct to look at her while she is undressed and save her.

היכי דמי חסיד שוטה – ירושלמי ראה תינוק מבעבע בנהר אמר לכשאחלוץ תפילין אצילנו עד כשהוא חולץ תפילין הוציא זה את נפשו

Tosafos adds to this example of a foolish man, someone who would not save an infant from drowning in a river until he first took his tefilin off, as to not get them wet. I like the tenor of this discussion, as it puts adhering to the letter of the law in its proper perspective. Life or death situations present with judgement calls that require discretion. To think that there are strict guidelines always available is foolishness.

Blog Yomi – Sotah #19/Daf 20

We begin with the Mishnah on דף כ עמוּד א:

עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִילָּה אָמְרָה ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״ — מְגִילָּתָהּ נִגְנֶזֶת, וּמִנְחָתָהּ מִתְפַּזֶּרֶת עַל הַדֶּשֶׁן, וְאֵין מְגִילָּתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה לְהַשְׁקוֹת בָּהּ סוֹטָה אַחֶרֶת. נִמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִילָּה וְאָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״ — הַמַּיִם נִשְׁפָּכִין, וּמִנְחָתָהּ מִתְפַּזֶּרֶת עַל בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן. נִמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִילָּה וְאָמְרָה ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״ — מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ, וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כרְחָהּ.

If before the scroll was erased she said: I will not drink, the scroll that was written for her is sequestered, and her meal-offering (מִנְחָתָהּ) is burned and scattered over the place of the ashes, and her scroll is not fit to give to another סוֹטָה to drink. If the scroll was erased and afterward she said: I am defiled, the water is poured out, and her meal-offering is scattered in the place of the ashes. If the scroll was already erased and she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.

אֵינָהּ מַסְפֶּקֶת לִשְׁתּוֹת עַד שֶׁפָּנֶיהָ מוֹרִיקוֹת, וְעֵינֶיהָ בּוֹלְטוֹת, וְהִיא מִתְמַלֵּאת גִּידִין. וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים: הוֹצִיאוּהָ [הוֹצִיאוּהָ] שֶׁלֹּא תְּטַמֵּא הָעֲזָרָה.

When a guilty woman drinks she does not manage to finish drinking before her face turns green and her eyes bulge, and her skin becomes full of protruding veins, and the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure by dying there.

אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת — הָיְתָה תּוֹלָה לָהּ. יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁנָה אַחַת, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. מִכָּאן אוֹמֵר בֶּן עַזַּאי: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תּוֹרָה, שֶׁאִם תִּשְׁתֶּה תֵּדַע שֶׁהַזְּכוּת תּוֹלָה לָהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כל הַמְלַמֵּד בִּתּוֹ תּוֹרָה — (כְּאִילּוּ) לוֹמְּדָהּ תִּפְלוּת.

If she has merit, it delays punishment for her and she does not die immediately. There is a merit that delays punishment for one year, there is a larger merit that delays punishment for two years, and there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. From here Ben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit she has delayed punishment for her. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity [תִּפְלוּת].

The Mishnah concludes:

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: רוֹצָה אִשָּׁה בְּקַב וְתִפְלוּת, מִתִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין וּפְרִישׁוּת. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר: חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה, וְרָשָׁע עָרוּם, וְאִשָּׁה פְּרוּשָׁה, וּמַכּוֹת פְּרוּשִׁין — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְבַלֵּי עוֹלָם.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship [tiflut] rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. He would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman [perusha], and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world.

The Gemara elaborates:

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כְּשֶׁהָיִיתִי לָמֵד תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָיִיתִי מֵטִיל קַנְקַנְתּוֹם לְתוֹךְ הַדְּיוֹ, וְלֹא אָמַר לִי דָּבָר. כְּשֶׁבָּאתִי אֵצֶל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמַר לִי: בְּנִי מָה מְלַאכְתֶּךָ? אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: לַבְלָר אֲנִי. אָמַר לִי: בְּנִי, הֱוֵי זָהִיר, שֶׁמְּלַאכְתְּךָ מְלֶאכֶת שָׁמַיִם הִיא, שֶׁמָּא תַּחְסִיר אוֹת אַחַת אוֹ תֹּתִיר, אוֹת אַחַת, נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה מַחְרִיב אֶת כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ

רַב יְהוּדָה says that שְׁמוּאֵל says in the name of רַבִּי מֵאִיר: When I was studying Torah before רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, as his disciple, I used to put iron sulfate into the ink with which I wrote Torah scrolls, and he did not say anything to me in protest. Afterward, when I came to learn Torah before רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל he said to me: My son, what is your vocation? I said to him: I am a scribe [lavlar] who writes Torah scrolls. He said to me: My son, be careful in your work, as your work is the work of Heaven, lest you omit a single letter from the Torah scroll or add a single letter, and in this you are found to be destroying the entire world if the mistake alters the meaning of the verse and results in blasphemy.

אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: דָּבָר אֶחָד יֵשׁ לִי שֶׁאֲנִי מֵטִיל לְתוֹךְ הַדְּיוֹ, וְקַנְקַנְתּוֹם שְׁמוֹ. אָמַר לִי: וְכִי מְטִילִין קַנְקַנְתּוֹם לְתוֹךְ הַדְּיוֹ? הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה ״וּמָחָה״, כְּתָב שֶׁיּוּכַל לִמְחוֹת!

Rabbi Meir continues: I said to R’ Yishmael: I have one substance that I put into the ink, and it is called iron sulfate, which prevents the writing from being erased. He said to me: And may iron sulfate be put into the ink? The Torah clearly said with regard to the scroll of the סוֹטָה: “And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness” (Bamidbar 5:23). This indicates that the Torah requires writing that can be blotted out.

מַאי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ וּמַאי קָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ?

Since R’ Meir’s remark about iron sulfate seems unrelated to R’ Yishmael’s previous statement, the Gemara asks: What is R’ Yishmael saying to R’ Meir, and what is R’ Meir replying to R’ Yishmael?

הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מִבַּעְיָא בַּחֲסֵירוֹת וִיתֵירוֹת דְּבָקִי אֲנָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמֵיחַשׁ לִזְבוּב דְּדִילְמָא אָתֵי וְיָתֵיב אַתָּגֵיהּ דְּדָלֶית וּמָחֵיק לֵיהּ וּמְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ רֵישׁ — דָּבָר אֶחָד יֵשׁ לִי שֶׁאֲנִי מֵטִיל לְתוֹךְ הַדְּיוֹ וְקַנְקַנְתּוֹם שְׁמוֹ.

The Gemara explains: This is what R’ Meir is saying to him: It is not necessary to say that I do not err in omissions and additions, as I am an expert. Rather, there is not even any reason for concern with regard to a fly lest it come and sit on the protrusion of the letter dalet and erase it, thereby rendering it the letter reish, which could be a critical error. There is no concern of this erasure occurring, since I have a certain substance that I put into the ink and that prevents the writing from being erased, and it is called iron sulfate.

Let’s zoom ahead:

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁמָּא תִּפְרוֹס נִדָּה. לְמֵימְרָא דְּבִיעֲתוּתָא מְרַפְּיָא? אִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתִּתְחַלְחַל הַמַּלְכָּה מְאֹד״, וְאָמַר רַב: שֶׁפֵּירְסָה נִדָּה. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: חֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת דָּמִים! פַּחְדָּא צָמֵית, בִּיעֲתוּתָא מְרַפְּיָא.

Abaye said: The woman is removed not due to a concern that she will die there but lest the fear of the water cause her to begin to menstruate, and it is prohibited for a menstruating woman to enter the Levite camp. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that fear causes muscular relaxation and menstrual bleeding? The Gemara responds: Yes, as it is written: “And the Queen was exceedingly pained” ((ותבואינה) [וַ֠תָּב֠וֹאנָה] נַעֲר֨וֹת אֶסְתֵּ֤ר וְסָרִיסֶ֙יהָ֙ וַיַּגִּ֣ידוּ לָ֔הּ וַתִּתְחַלְחַ֥ל הַמַּלְכָּ֖ה מְאֹ֑ד וַתִּשְׁלַ֨ח בְּגָדִ֜ים לְהַלְבִּ֣ישׁ אֶֽת־מרְדֳּכַ֗י וּלְהָסִ֥יר שַׂקּ֛וֹ מֵעָלָ֖יו וְלֹ֥א קִבֵּֽל – Esther 4:4), and Rav says: This means that she began to menstruate.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nidda 39a) that trepidation eliminates the flow of menstrual blood? Presumably, the סוֹטָה experiences trepidation. The Gemara answers: Trepidation generated by extended worry contracts the muscles and prevents the blood from flowing, but sudden fear relaxes the muscles and causes the blood to flow.

Pertaining to this, I’ll leave you with another brilliant entry from Dr. Jeremy Brown at Talmudology.com, followed by Rabbi Stern’s video:

“There is a great deal of scientific work investigating the effect of the menstrual cycle on a women’s mood. There has been less examination of the effect of mood (or stress) on the cycle.  In today’s page of Talmud, there is a digression into gynecology and psychology, and specifically the role of psychological stress on menstruation.  

QUEEN ESTHER’S STRESS

סוטה כ, א

למימרא דבעיתותא מרפיא אין דכתיב ותתחלחל המלכה מאד ואמר רב שפירסה נדה והא אנן תנן חרדה מסלקת דמים פחדא צמית ביעתותא מרפיא

Does fright loosen the womb [and causes a woman to menstruate]? Yes, as the verse states (Esther 4:4) “…and the Queen [Esther] became very afraid” about which Rav explained:” she began to menstruate.”

But haven’t we learned elsewhere in a Mishnah (Niddah 39a) that fear suspends the discharge of menstrual blood? In fact, fear that is not sudden contracts [the womb and prevents bleeding], but sudden fear loosens [the womb and causes early menstrual bleeding].

Here are some of the things that the rabbis of the Talmud believed could induce menstruation:

1. Carrying a heavy load (Tosefta Niddah 9:1)
2. Jumping (ibid)
3. Sudden fright (Niddah 71a, and Niddah 39a)
4. Yearning for intercourse (Niddah 20b)
5. Garlic, onions and peppers (Niddah 63b)

In today’s daf, Rav opined that fear can induce menstruation. Let’s take a look at the medical literature and see whether or not it supports his assertion.

“Data from both animal and human research indicate that psychological stress is associated with altered menstrual function.

— Barsom S, et al. Association between psychological stress and menstrual cycle characteristics in perimenopausal women. Women’s Health Issues 14 (2004) 235-241

THE EFFECT OF STRESS ON MENSTRUAL FUNCTION

In a review from the Department of Biological Sciences at Ohio University, researchers acknowledged that stress is difficult to define. However, one final common pathway of stressors is the low availability of dietary energy. Ovulation – which is the first part of the cascade that leads to menstruation – has been blocked in hamsters “by food restriction, pharmacological blockers of carbohydrate and fat metabolism, insulin administration (which shunts metabolic fuels into storage), and cold exposure (which consumes metabolic fuels in thermogenesis).” Women athletes frequently experience a lack of menstruation, which is found in up to 65% of competitive young runners. But what about psychogenic causes of a disturbed menstrual cycle – after all, Rav taught that it was fear that caused Esther’s presumably early onset of menstruation? While not adressing this directly, the Ohio University researchers had this to say about the relationship between psychological stressors and amenorrhea (the lack of menstruation. Remember that word – it will come up again):

Associations between psychological disturbances and amenorrhea or infertility have long been interpreted as a causal relationship, but prospective studies demonstrating that psychogenic factors contribute to reproductive dysfunction in women are almost completely lacking . Early psychoanalytic conclusions that psychological conditions underlie involuntary infertility in women have been criticized recently on several grounds: first, the same psychological conditions have been found in analyses of fertile women; second, other women with very serious psychic problems conceive with ease; and third, couples with an unfulfilled desire for a child do not show psychological disorders any more frequently than do couples without fertility disorders. Even the direction of causality is questionable, because there are grounds for believing that infertility and its medical treatment cause the depression and anxiety observed in some infertility patients. These findings have led to the recommendation that the term ‘psychogenic infertility’ should be withdrawn from use because it is simplistic and anachronistic.

MENSTRUATION AND INCARCERATION

Some of the rabbis viewed Esther’s association with King Achashverosh as being coerced: she was brought to his palace against her will, and remained there in a similar state. So with only a bit of a stretch, we might turn to a 2007 paper published in Women’s Health Issues which addressed the influence of stress on the menstrual cycle among newly incarcerated women.  Researchers analyzed 446 non-pregnant women who answered a number of detailed questions about their menstrual cycles.  They found that 9% reported amenorrhea (I told you what that meant two paragraphs ago) and that a third reported menstrual irregularities.  

“Incarcerated women have high rates of amenorrhea and menstrual irregularity and the prevalence may be associated with certain stresses. Further research on the causes and consequences of menstrual dysfunction in this underserved population is needed.

— Allsworth J. et al. The influence of stress on the menstrual cycle among newly incarcerated women. Women’s Helath Issues 2007; (17) 202-209.

As might be expected, the stressors of the incarcerated women in this study included drug and alcohol problems and sexual abuse. These are not the same stressors that faced Queen Esther – who was held in such esteem by her kingly husband that he promised her (Esther 5:6) “up to half of the kingdom.”  But this work does show how stress may impact the menstrual cycle.  

A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND MENSTRUATION

The final study we will review comes from a cohort of predominantly white, well educated married women of whom 505 were “invited to participate join a special survey focusing on midlife and menopause.” Rather than ask about stress and current menstruation, the researchers performed a two-year analysis. Here’s what they found:

In analyzing stress levels and cycle characteristics across 2 years…women with marked increases in their level of stress (n=30) are shown to have decreased length (-0.2 days/cycle) of menstrual cycle intervals and decreased duration of bleed (-0.1 day/cycle) compared with increases in these measures (+2.9 days/cycle for cycle interval; +0.3 days/cycle for duration of bleed) among women with no marked change in stress level (n=103); t-tests indicate that these differences are significant (p <0.05).

Some of the differences that the researchers found in this group were really small – “0.3 days/cycle for duration of bleeding” but if you are into statistics this difference can be significant (that’s what those t-tests are all about). But these statistical associations were not powerful, and the researchers concluded that “the results of this investigation…suggest that, in the long term, stressful life events have little relationship to the length of menstrual cycle intervals and the duration of menstrual bleeding in perimenopausal women.”

The three studies we’ve reviewed (even that last one with its weak findings) all suggest that there is indeed some relationship between psychological stress and menstruation.  Generally, the effect of stress is to increase the length of the menstrual cycle which may result in amenorrhea.  But according to Rav, stress caused Esther to menstruate sooner – the opposite of most modern research findings.  Single events should be used with caution when trying to build a general explanatory model, but Rav, and the other rabbis of the Talmud were onto something when they noted that both acute and chronic fear (which is of course just one type of stress) –  can effect a women’s menstrual cycle.”

Blog Yomi – Sotah #18/Daf 19

We begin on דף י״ח עמוּד ב:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַקְּנָאֹת״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה.

The Sages taught: The pasuk states in the plural: “This is the law of jealousy” (זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַקְּנָאֹ֑ת אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּשְׂטֶ֥ה אִשָּׁ֛ה תַּ֥חַת אִישָׁ֖הּ וְנִטְמָֽאָה – Bamidbar 5:29), indicating that the same law is to be carried out in all cases of jealousy. This teaches that the woman drinks and repeats, i.e., she must drink a second time if she becomes a סוֹטָה again.

Apparently this is a wife whose husband has good reason to suspect she’s not being faithful, even after she passed the סוֹטָה water test the first time. As Gary Puckett famously sang:

“I’ve seen the way men look at you
When they think I don’t see
And it hurts to have them think that you’re that kind

But it’s knowing that you’re looking back
That’s really killing me”

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״זֹאת״, שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה וְהֵעִיד לְפָנֵינוּ נְחוּנְיָא חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה, וְקִיבַּלְנוּ עֵדוּתוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד.

The baraisa continues: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה says: The word “this” in the verse is a restricting term, indicating that the woman does not drink and repeat. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה said: There was an incident in which נְחוּנְיָא the ditch digger testified before us in the name of his teachers that the woman drinks and repeats, and we accepted his testimony with regard to two men, but not with regard to one man. Even if she drinks the water of a סוֹטָה while married to her first husband, she must drink again after violating a warning by her second husband. However, one husband cannot have his wife drink twice.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה, בֵּין בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד בֵּין בִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים

The baraisa concludes: And the חֲכָמִים say: The woman does not drink and repeat, whether with regard to one man or with regard to two men.

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״זֹאת״! וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״תּוֹרַת״

The Gemara asks: But according to the first tanna of the baraisa as well, isn’t it written in the verse: “זֹאת,” restricting the number of times a woman must drink? And according to the חֲכָמִים mentioned later in the baraisa as well, isn’t it written: “תּוֹרַת הַקְּנָאֹת,” amplifying the number of times a woman must drink to include all cases of jealousy?

אָמַר רָבָא: בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאֵין הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה

רָבָא said: Different halachos apply to different cases: With regard to one husband who accused his wife twice about one paramour, everyone agrees that the woman does not drink and repeat, having been proven innocent once, …

דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת״. בִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּהָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״תּוֹרַת״.

… as it is written: “This is the law of jealousy.” The word “this” is a restricting term and excludes that possibility. With regard to two different husbands and two different paramours, where her first husband suspected her with regard to one paramour during her first marriage and the second husband suspected her with regard to a different man during the second marriage, everyone agrees that the woman drinks and repeats, as it is written: “This is the law of jealousy,” in all cases of jealousy.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין, בִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד.

They disagree when there is one husband and two paramours, i.e., where one husband warned her with regard to a second paramour after she survived her first ordeal. They also disagree in a case of two husbands and one paramour, i.e., if her second husband accused her with regard to the same paramour on account of whom she was compelled to drink by her first husband.

תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹיֵי כּוּלְּהִי, ״זֹאת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי אִישׁ אֶחָד וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד.

The opinions are justified as follows: The first tanna holds that the phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include all of these cases. In almost all cases the woman drinks and repeats. The word “this” serves to exclude only the case of one husband and one paramour, in which she does not drink and repeat.

וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי: ״זֹאת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי כּוּלְּהִי, ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹיֵי שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין.

And the רַבָּנַן mentioned later in the baraisa hold that the word “this” serves to exclude all of these cases. The woman almost never drinks and repeats. The phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include only the case of two husbands and two paramours, in which she does drink and repeat.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: ״זֹאת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי תַּרְתֵּי, ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹת תַּרְתֵּי. ״זֹאת״ לְמַעוֹטֵי תַּרְתֵּי — אִישׁ אֶחָד וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד, אִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין, ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹיֵי תַּרְתֵּי, שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד, שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין.

And רַבִּי יְהוּדָה holds: The word “this” serves to exclude two of the cases, and the phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include two. The word “this” serves to exclude the two cases of one husband and one paramour and one husband and two paramours. In neither of these cases does the woman drink and repeat. The phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include two cases, i.e., two husbands and one paramour, and all the more so two husbands and two paramours. In both of these cases, the woman must drink and repeat.

And that brings us to the end of the second perek.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָיָה מֵבִיא

I’m going to leave the opening of the next perek to Rabbi Stern, but will finish today’s segment with the introduction to the third perek from Rabbi Steinsaltz:

“The order in which the ritual of the סוֹטָה should be performed is not clear from the פְּסוּקִים in the Torah. It appears from the order of the description that the woman drinks the bitter water of a סוֹטָה before the meal-offering (קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה). However, verse 26 states: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water,” indicating that the meal-offering is sacrificed before the סוֹטָה drinks the bitter water. This difficulty is one of the subjects discussed in this chapter.”

For reference, here are pertinent פְּסוּקִים (Bamidbar 5:24-27):

וְהִשְׁקָה֙ אֶת־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אֶת־מֵ֥י הַמָּרִ֖ים הַמְאָֽרְרִ֑ים וּבָ֥אוּ בָ֛הּ הַמַּ֥יִם הַֽמְאָרְרִ֖ים לְמָרִֽים׃

He is to make the woman drink the water of bitterness that induces the spell, so that the spell-inducing water may enter into her to bring on bitterness.

וְלָקַ֤ח הַכֹּהֵן֙ מִיַּ֣ד הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה אֵ֖ת מִנְחַ֣ת הַקְּנָאֹ֑ת וְהֵנִ֤יף אֶת־הַמִּנְחָה֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה וְהִקְרִ֥יב אֹתָ֖הּ אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ׃

Then the priest shall take from the woman’s hand the meal offering of jealousy, elevate the meal offering before יהוה, and present it on the altar.

וְקָמַ֨ץ הַכֹּהֵ֤ן מִן־הַמִּנְחָה֙ אֶת־אַזְכָּ֣רָתָ֔הּ וְהִקְטִ֖יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חָה וְאַחַ֛ר יַשְׁקֶ֥ה אֶת־הָאִשָּׁ֖ה אֶת־הַמָּֽיִם׃

The priest shall scoop out of the meal offering a token part of it and turn it into smoke on the altar. Last, he shall make the woman drink the water.

וְהִשְׁקָ֣הּ אֶת־הַמַּ֗יִם וְהָיְתָ֣ה אִֽם־נִטְמְאָה֮ וַתִּמְעֹ֣ל מַ֣עַל בְּאִישָׁהּ֒ וּבָ֨אוּ בָ֜הּ הַמַּ֤יִם הַמְאָֽרְרִים֙ לְמָרִ֔ים וְצָבְתָ֣ה בִטְנָ֔הּ וְנָפְלָ֖ה יְרֵכָ֑הּ וְהָיְתָ֧ה הָאִשָּׁ֛ה לְאָלָ֖ה בְּקֶ֥רֶב עַמָּֽהּ׃

Once he has made her drink the water—if she has defiled herself by breaking faith with her husband, the spell-inducing water shall enter into her to bring on bitterness, so that her belly shall distend and her thigh shall sag; and the wife shall become a curse among her people.

Why Is This Chapter Different From All Other Chapters?

Peter Attia is a physician and longevity specialist with a book that debuted at the #1 position on the New York Times Best Sellers List this week. From that standpoint alone it has already garnered alot of attention and it is a book, that frankly, blew me away not only for its science but for its candor. More on that in a moment, but first a brief bio.

Dr. Attia received his medical degree from the Stanford University School of Medicine and trained for five years at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in general surgery. He spent two years at the National Institutes of Health as a surgical oncology fellow at the National Cancer Institute. His career path took him in a very different direction, and he is now the owner of Early Medical, focusing on what he calls “Medicine 3.0”.

On the surface Dr. Attia’s tome is another entry into the burgeoning stack of books about longevity that have exploded onto the scene since COVID-19. Clearly many individuals had plenty of time to contemplate their mortality then. But what is really unique about this book is its last Chapter, Chapter 17, titled “Work in Progress: The High Price of Ignoring Emotional Health”.

I’m including this interview that Dr. Andrew Huberman did last month with Dr. Attia, in which they talked about this chapter. I started it at the 2:41:06 mark, and it’s well worth listening to, though you may be intrigued enough at some point to go through the entire video marathon.

Peter alludes to his struggles with emotional health in the video, but in the book chapter goes into even more detail. It speaks to the heart of happiness and quality of life. Emotional health is not synonymous with mental health, and although Peter appeared to be accomplished on the surface in many areas of his life, he shares that he hit rock bottom emotionally in 2017. How he extricated himself from the depths of despair, and managed to flourish, is the subject of Chapter 17 and it is riveting.

I’ll leave you with this inspiring message on p. 389: “Addressing emotional health takes just as much constant effort and daily practice as maintaining other aspects of our physical health by creating an exercise routine, following a nutritional program, adhering to sleep rituals, and so on. The key is to be as proactive as possible, so that we can continue to thrive in all domains of healthspan, through the later decades of our lives.”

Stott Stays Hot to Tie Puddin’ Head’s Record

Last year the Philadelphia Phillies got off to a mediocre start in April going 11-11, followed by a rough May which saw them drop to 22-29, costing manager Joe Girardi his job. Bench coach Rob Thomson took over, and the rest is history, as the Phils improbably made it to the World Series where their bats disappeared as they lost to the Houston Astros. Little of last year’s success could be attributed to 2019 first round draft pick Bryson Stott who put up a batting average of .234 with an OPS of .653. He was an upgrade over the notorious Didi Gregorious, though that wasn’t saying much.

This year the script has flipped. The Phillies are off to an even more middlin’ April at 6-10, but Stott is incredibly hot with a batting average of .429 and an OPS of 1.286 while already displacing newly acquired Trea Turner from the leadoff spot. What has garnered media attention however is that he has begun the season with at least one hit in every game. That 16 game streak to open the season ties him for the Phillies longest consecutive opening season streak since Willie “Puddin’ Head” Jones did it in 1950, one of the rare years the franchise went to the World Series. As I blogged a few years ago, Puddin’ Head has to be one of the greatest baseball nicknames of all time. And yes, he signed his baseball card “Puddin’ Head”.

Willie was a solid third baseman for the Phillies of the ’50s, making the All-Star team in 1950 and 1951. He put up respectable career numbers of 190 homers, 812 RBI, a .258 average, and an OPS of .753. As his SABR bio tells it, his fielding left something to be desired when he first came up but he worked on it continuously to the point where his famous teammate, Robin Roberts, said he was the best fielding third baseman he’d seen aside from Brooks Robinson. That contributed to his impressive career WAR of 24.8.

I’m delighted that Stott is off to such a hot start in 2023. After many years of Phillies first round draft busts, it looks like he and Alec Bohm are coming into their own as #1 picks. While I don’t know what the major league record is for a hitting streak to open up a season, the fact that Stott has tied the Phillies mark at 16 (and counting) has brought Puddin’ Head to the attention of many Phillies players and fans who are too young to have heard of him.

I’ll close with an excerpt about this ghost from seasons past by Frank Fitzpatrick, who wrote about an encounter with him for the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2015:

“It happened in Broomall sometime in the late 1950s, on the night before Christmas, when not a tweeter was stirring and a mouse was still a rodent.

I was around 9 years old. I don’t recall what I got for Christmas that year, but, given my childhood obsessions, I’m certain the big gift was sports-related – a football, an All-Star Baseball board game, maybe a glove and some neat’s-foot oil.

It was after dinner, and, as my mother began to fetch ornaments from the attic and search for holiday music on a radio that was her lifeline to the world beyond, my father decided to buy a tree. He asked me, the oldest child, to go along.

My procrastinating and cost-conscious father always waited until Christmas Eve to purchase a tree. That’s why we generally ended up with lean leftovers whose imperfections we then tried to hide by turning them toward the wall.

We drove a mile or so to the Lawrence Park Shopping Center. Its stores were dark, and, but for the holiday decorations, the only visible light was a flickering flame in a corner of the vast parking lot.

There, some organization, probably the local Boy Scout troop, had been selling Christmas trees for weeks.

Though it was difficult to see, it was clear the pickings were slim. We were hoping to find a full-bodied Marilyn Monroe of a tree, but all that remained were Twiggys.

My father believed that the king of Christmas trees was the Douglas fir. But he never bought one. Too expensive. Money was always tight, especially at that time of year. So we searched among the scrawny remnants for a cheap and acceptable alternative.

Finally, our hands numb, we settled on what seemed to be the best of the worst. We dragged it toward a little shack where a lone man stood rubbing his big hands above a blazing trash-can fire.

He wore a hat and one of those red-and-black coats that hunters favor. A scarf obscured the lower half of his welcoming face.

“Y’all got the best tree here,” he said with a chuckle.

For a kid who had never been farther south than Oregon Avenue, the accent was jarringly strange. This was the voice of an alien, and I instinctively backed away.

The man noticed my discomfort and chuckled again. As I retreated farther, the transaction was completed, and he and my father spoke briefly. We stuffed the tree into the rear of a sky-blue 1956 Ford and departed.

Looking back toward the receding fire, a twinkling star amid the blackness, my father, who liked to talk sports while driving, asked me a question.

“The man that sold us the tree, do you know who he was?”

I did not.

“That was ‘Puddin’ Head’ Jones. He plays third base for the Phillies.”

The additional clarification was unnecessary. The Phillies third baseman with the colorful and unusual nickname was as familiar to me as Hopalong Cassidy.

Along with other current Phils like Richie Ashburn, Robin Roberts, and Granny Hamner, Jones had been one of the pennant-winning Whiz Kids in 1950, a team I’d heard about all my short life.

A native of tiny Dillon, S.C. – coincidentally, also the hometown of retired Fed chairman Ben Bernanke – Jones, I would learn, lived in Broomall during his Phillies career, in a house even smaller than our modest split-level.

Baseball finances weren’t then on any fan’s radar. I didn’t know or care how much Jones earned, though the team’s best everyday player, Ashburn, a future Hall of Famer, made just $30,000 in 1958.

Regardless, I never imagined that I’d encounter someone from my pantheon, a flesh-and-blood sports hero, in such humble surroundings.

From then on, I saw Jones as something other than the slightly better-than-average player he was in a 15-year career. I followed him intently, even after he was traded to Cleveland following the 1959 season. He ended up in Cincinnati and retired in 1961.

He would appear once more in my life, turning up at one of my Little League games to watch his son, Eddie, a pretty good shortstop for the rival Hawks.

Jones was just 58 when, two days after the Phillies lost the 1983 World Series, he died of cancer. On the modest tombstone at his North Carolina grave, there’s no reference to “Puddin’ Head,” a nickname derived from a 1930s song, “Wooden Head Puddin’ Head Jones.” Instead, the inscription reads, “Willie Edward Jones.”

I’m not sure when I stopped believing in Santa, but that mostly sleepless Christmas Eve he took a backseat in my head. After all, I’d just come face to face with a major-league baseball player for a first time.

I’d meet many more in the years and decades to come, some who earned millions and have millions of Twitter followers.

I’m pretty sure none, not one, ever stood alone in the dark on a frosty Christmas Eve selling scraggly evergreens and making memories that won’t go away.”

The Phillies’ Willie “Puddin’ Head” Jones.INQUIRER ARCHIVES

Blog Yomi – Sotah #17/Daf 18

We begin on דף י״ח עמוּד א, with more targeted discussion on how the מְגִילָה or the text pertaining to the סוֹטָה is written. It must be scribed by the כֹּהֵן from פְּסוּקִים in פַּרְשַׁת נָשׂא. The exact text was subject to some dispute, but all agree that it had to be on parchment, (scroll) the same way the Torah is scribed (with lines first made with a stylus) and the actual words in non-indelible ink. That allows the letters to dissolve in the water into which they will be dipped. The alchemy is such that if the accused adulteress is in fact guilty, she will “explode” by drinking the potion.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כָּתַב שְׁתֵּי מְגִילּוֹת לִשְׁתֵּי סוֹטוֹת, וּמְחָקָן לְתוֹךְ כּוֹס אֶחָד, מַהוּ? כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ בָּעֵינַן, וְהָאִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא בָּעֵינַן נָמֵי מְחִיקָה לִשְׁמָהּ?

רָבָא raised a dilemma: If one wrote two scrolls for two separate סוֹטוֹת but then erased both of the scrolls in one cup, what is the halacha? Do we require that only the writing be performed for the sake of a specific woman, in which case that is accomplished here? Or perhaps we require that also the erasure be performed for the sake of a specific woman, which is not accomplished here, since both scrolls are erased together?

This is part if a series of unresolved questions:

וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הָא לָאו דִּידַהּ קָא שָׁתְיָא וְהָא לָאו דִּידַהּ קָא שָׁתְיָא, חָזַר וְחִלְּקָן, מַהוּ? יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה, אוֹ אֵין בְּרֵירָה? תֵּיקוּ.

And furthermore, if you say that the water is disqualified because this one does not drink from only her own water and that one does not drink from only her own water, what if after mixing the two cups of water together the כֹּהֵן divided them again into two cups and gave one to each? What is the halacha then? Is there retroactive clarification, in which case one may claim that each woman drank her own water, or is there no retroactive clarification? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Rabbi Stern points our that we encountered this principle of “בְּרֵירָה”, or retroactive clarification elsewhere in Shas. One example was a husband with two wives both named Leah. He instructed the scribe to write a גֶט to Leah, and said that he would clarify his intent as to which Leah he intended the גֶט for retroactively based on who he handed the גֶט to.

The Gemara then presents another scenario that will remain unresolved:

בָּעֵי רָבָא: הִשְׁקָהּ בְּסִיב, מַהוּ? בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת, מַהוּ? דֶּרֶךְ שְׁתִיָּה בְּכָךְ, אוֹ אֵין דֶּרֶךְ שְׁתִיָּה בְּכָךְ? תֵּיקוּ

רָבָא raised another dilemma: If the priest administered the bitter water to the סוֹטָה to drink through a palm fiber, what is the halakha? Or if he administered it through a tube, what is the halacha? Is this considered a normal manner of drinking, or is it not considered a normal manner of drinking, in which case the act is invalid? The Gemara responds: תֵּיקוּ.

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: נִשְׁפְּכוּ מֵהֶן וְנִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ מֵהֶן, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

Piling on, רַב אָשֵׁי raised another dilemma: If some of the water of the סוֹטָה spilled out and some of it remained in the cup, what is the halakha? Is it sufficient for the woman to drink some of the water in which the scroll has been erased or must she drink all of it? The Gemara responds: תֵּיקוּ.

Now let’s move on from the potion the סוֹטָה drinks to the oath that she takes. In fact, it involves two oaths. You’ve heard of the concept of rolling over 401k accounts? Well this is a rollover involving oaths, known as גִלְגוּל שְׁבוּעָה:

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁתֵּי שְׁבוּעוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּסּוֹטָה. לָמָּה? אַחַת קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה, וְאַחַת לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה.

רַבִּי זֵירָא said in the name of רַב: Concerning the two oaths that are stated in regard to the סוֹטָה: “And the priest shall cause her to swear” (וְהִשְׁבִּ֨יעַ אֹתָ֜הּ הַכֹּהֵ֗ן וְאָמַ֤ר אֶל־הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ אִם־לֹ֨א שָׁכַ֥ב אִישׁ֙ אֹתָ֔ךְ וְאִם־לֹ֥א שָׂטִ֛ית טֻמְאָ֖ה תַּ֣חַת אִישֵׁ֑ךְ הִנָּקִ֕י מִמֵּ֛י הַמָּרִ֥ים הַֽמְאָרְרִ֖ים הָאֵֽלֶּה – Bamidbar 5:19), and: “Then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing” (וְהִשְׁבִּ֨יעַ הַכֹּהֵ֥ן אֶֽת־הָאִשָּׁה֮ בִּשְׁבֻעַ֣ת הָאָלָה֒ וְאָמַ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ לָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה יִתֵּ֨ן יְהֹוָ֥ה אוֹתָ֛ךְ לְאָלָ֥ה וְלִשְׁבֻעָ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ עַמֵּ֑ךְ בְּתֵ֨ת יְהֹוָ֤ה אֶת־יְרֵכֵךְ֙ נֹפֶ֔לֶת וְאֶת־בִּטְנֵ֖ךְ צָבָֽה – Bamidbar 5:21) … why are they both necessary? One must be administered before the scroll is erased and one must be administered after it is erased.

Which brings us to the next Mishnah:

עַל מָה הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת ״אָמֵן״ ״אָמֵן״ — אָמֵן עַל הָאָלָה, אָמֵן עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ זֶה, אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר. אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא שָׂטִיתִי אֲרוּסָה וּנְשׂוּאָה

With regard to what does she say: ״אָמֵן״ ״אָמֵן״ – twice, as recorded in the pasuk? The Mishnah explains that it includes the following: אָמֵן on the curse, as she accepts the curse upon herself if she is guilty, and אָמֵן on the oath, as she declares that she is not defiled. She states: אָמֵן if I committed adultery with this man about whom I was warned, אָמֵן if I committed adultery with another man. אָמֵן that I did not stray when I was betrothed nor after I was married …

וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, וּכְנוּסָה. אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאתִי, וְאִם נִטְמֵאתִי — יָבוֹאוּ בִּי

… nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform יִבּוּם, since a woman at that stage is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with any men, nor when married through יִבּוּם to the yavam; אָמֵן that I did not become defiled, and if I did become defiled, may all these curses come upon me.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאתִי, אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא אֶטָּמֵא.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר says that ״אָמֵן״ ״אָמֵן״ means: אָמֵן that I did not become defiled in the past, אָמֵן that I will not become defiled in the future.

הַכֹּל שָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין מַתְנֶה עִמָּהּ, לֹא עַל קוֹדֶם שֶׁתִּתְאָרֵס וְלֹא עַל אַחַר שֶׁתִּתְגָּרֵשׁ

All agree that he may stipulate with her through this oath neither with regard to what she did before becoming betrothed to him, nor with regard to what she will do after she becomes divorced from him.

נִסְתְּרָה לְאֶחָד וְנִטְמֵאת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֶחְזִירָה — לֹא הָיָה מַתְנֶה עִמָּהּ

Similarly, if a husband divorced his wife, and while divorced she secluded herself with another man and became defiled, and afterward her husband took her back and remarried her, and he then warned her about a specific man, and she secluded herself, and she is now about to drink the water of the סוֹטָה, he cannot stipulate with her that she take an oath that she did not become defiled during the period in which she was divorced. This is because her husband would become forbidden to her only if she had married another man after being divorced, not if she merely committed an act of promiscuity.

זֶה הַכְּלָל: כל שֶׁתִּבָּעֵל וְלֹא הָיְתָה אֲסוּרָה לוֹ — לֹא הָיָה מַתְנֶה עִמָּהּ

This is the principle: In every case where if she would engage in sexual intercourse with someone else she would not become forbidden to her husband due to this act, he may not stipulate with her that her oath include that act. The oath can include only cases in which she would be rendered forbidden to him.

Blog Yomi – Sotah #16/Daf 17

Thus far we’ve been overviewing the ritual of the סוֹטָה, and the core concept is nicely summarized by Rabbi Avi Shafran here. Rabbi Yehuda Altein provides a more detailed overview in his summary here that I would strongly encourage you to look at before continuing.

Let’s begin on דף י״ז עמוּד א, with the precise protocol surrounding the writing by the כֹּהֵן of the words on parchment that is known as the מְּגִילָּה. Recall, or review above that these words on the parchment, written in non-indelible ink, will be dissolved into the water that the סוֹטָה has to drink in order to demonstrate her innocence. Which פְּסוּקִים is he writing, as reflected in פַּרְשַׁת נָשׂא? Turns out the exact phraseology is a three-way מַחְלוֹקֶת:

בָּא לוֹ לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַמְּגִילָּה, מֵאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם הוּא כּוֹתֵב

When the כֹּהֵן comes to write the scroll of the סוֹטָה that is to be placed in the water, from what place in the Torah passage concerning the סוֹטָה (Bamidbar 5:11–31) does he write?

מִ״וְּאִם לֹא שָׁכַב אִישׁ וְגוֹ׳ וְאַתְּ כִּי שָׂטִית תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ״

He starts from the verse: “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to defilement while under your husband, you shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse” (וְהִשְׁבִּ֨יעַ אֹתָ֜הּ הַכֹּהֵ֗ן וְאָמַ֤ר אֶל־הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ אִם־לֹ֨א שָׁכַ֥ב אִישׁ֙ אֹתָ֔ךְ וְאִם־לֹ֥א שָׂטִ֛ית טֻמְאָ֖ה תַּ֣חַת אִישֵׁ֑ךְ הִנָּקִ֕י מִמֵּ֛י הַמָּרִ֥ים הַֽמְאָרְרִ֖ים הָאֵֽלֶּה – Bamidbar 5:19); and continues: “But if you have gone astray while under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband” (וְאַ֗תְּ כִּ֥י שָׂטִ֛ית תַּ֥חַת אִישֵׁ֖ךְ וְכִ֣י נִטְמֵ֑את וַיִּתֵּ֨ן אִ֥ישׁ בָּךְ֙ אֶת־שְׁכבְתּ֔וֹ מִֽבַּלְעֲדֵ֖י אִישֵֽׁךְ – Bamidbar 5:20).

וְאֵינוֹ כּוֹתֵב ״וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה״. וְכוֹתֵב: ״יִתֵּן ה׳ אוֹתָךְ לְאָלָה וְלִשְׁבֻעָה. וּבָאוּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּמֵעַיִךְ לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ״. וְאֵינוֹ כּוֹתֵב ״וְאָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן״.

And then he does not write the beginning of the following verse, which states: “Then the כֹּהֵן shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the כֹּהֵן shall say to the woman” (וְהִשְׁבִּ֨יעַ הַכֹּהֵ֥ן אֶֽת־הָאִשָּׁה֮ בִּשְׁבֻעַ֣ת הָאָלָה֒ וְאָמַ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ לָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה יִתֵּ֨ן יְהֹוָ֥ה אוֹתָ֛ךְ לְאָלָ֥ה וְלִשְׁבֻעָ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ עַמֵּ֑ךְ בְּתֵ֨ת יְהֹוָ֤ה אֶת־יְרֵכֵךְ֙ נֹפֶ֔לֶת וְאֶת־בִּטְנֵ֖ךְ צָבָֽה – Bamidbar 5:21), but he does write the oath recorded in the continuation of the verse: “The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath among your people when the Lord will cause your thigh to fall away, and your belly to swell. And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, and cause your belly to swell, and your thigh to fall away” (Bamidbar 5:21–22); but he does not write the conclusion of the verse: “And the woman shall say: אָמֵן אָמֵן” (וּ֠בָ֠אוּ הַמַּ֨יִם הַמְאָרְרִ֤ים הָאֵ֙לֶּה֙ בְּֽמֵעַ֔יִךְ לַצְבּ֥וֹת בֶּ֖טֶן וְלַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ וְאָמְרָ֥ה הָאִשָּׁ֖ה אָמֵ֥ן ׀ אָמֵֽן – Bamidbar 5:22).

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיָה מַפְסִיק

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי says: He does not interrupt the verses but rather writes the entire passage without any omissions.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כל עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ כּוֹתֵב אֶלָּא ״יִתֵּן ה׳ אוֹתָךְ לְאָלָה וְלִשְׁבֻעָה וְגוֹ׳ וּבָאוּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּמֵעַיִךְ וְגוֹ׳״. וְאֵינוֹ כּוֹתֵב ״וְאָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן״.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה says: He writes nothing other than curses recorded in the final verses cited above: “The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath among your people when the Lord will cause your thigh to fall away, and your belly to swell. And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, and cause your belly to swell, and your thigh to fall away.” And he does not write the conclusion of the pasuk: “And the woman shall say: אָמֵן אָמֵן.”

It will be helpful at this point, to clarify what we just stated above, to look at R’ Eli Stefansky’s video at the 7 minute mark:

What is the essential disagreement between these three authorities? The Gemara states in a nutshell”

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בְּהַאי קְרָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: ״וְכָתַב אֶת הָאָלוֹת הָאֵלֶּה הַכֹּהֵן בַּסֵּפֶר״

What is the source of their disagreement? They disagree concerning the proper interpretation of the pasul: “And the priest shall write these [ha’eleh] curses [et ha’alot] in a scroll” (וְ֠כָתַ֠ב אֶת־הָאָלֹ֥ת הָאֵ֛לֶּה הַכֹּהֵ֖ן בַּסֵּ֑פֶר וּמָחָ֖ה אֶל־מֵ֥י הַמָּרִֽים – Bamidbar 5:23).

רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: ״אָלוֹת״ — אָלוֹת מַמָּשׁ. ״הָאָלוֹת״ — לְרַבּוֹת קְלָלוֹת הַבָּאוֹת מֵחֲמַת בְּרָכוֹת. ״אֵלֶּה״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי קְלָלוֹת שֶׁבְּמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה. ״הָאֵלֶּה״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי צַוּוֹאוֹת וְקַבָּלוֹת אָמֵן.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר the first tanna of the mishna, reasons: The word ״אָלוֹת״ (curses), is referring to actual curses. The prefix ha, meaning: The, in the word “ha’alot” serves to include curses that come on account of the blessings, i.e., the curses that are inferred from the phrase: “You shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse” (5:19). The word ״אֵלֶּה״ (these), is a limiting term that serves to exclude the long list of curses that are recorded in Mishne Torah, the book of Devarim (chapter 28). Although these curses are also referred to as ״אָלוֹת״ the כֹּהֵן does not write them. The addition of the definite article in the word ״הָאֵלֶּה״ serves to exclude the commands recorded in the סוֹטָה passage and the acceptances by the word “אָמֵן” recorded there as well. The כֹּהֵן need not write these sections of the passage.

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כּוּלְּהוּ כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, ״אֶת״ — לְרַבּוֹת צַוּוֹאוֹת וְקַבָּלוֹת

And רַבִּי יוֹסֵי interprets it: It would all be as you, רַבִּי מֵאִיר, said; however, the additional word ״אֶת״ in the pasuk amplifies its scope. It serves to include both commands and acceptances, as they must be written in the scroll as well.

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֶתִּים לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

And why רַבִּי מֵאִיר does disagree? As a rule, he does not interpret the additional word ״אֶת״ as amplifying the pasuk’s scope.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — כּוּלְּהוּ בְּמִיעוּטֵי דָּרֵישׁ לְהוּ. ״אָלוֹת״ — אָלוֹת מַמָּשׁ. ״הָאָלוֹת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי קְלָלוֹת הַבָּאוֹת מֵחֲמַת בְּרָכוֹת. ״אֵלֶּה״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי קְלָלוֹת שֶׁבְּמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה. ״הָאֵלֶּה״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי צַוּוֹאוֹת וְקַבָּלוֹת.

And as for רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, he interprets all of the terms in the pasuk as exclusionary: The word ״אָלוֹת״ is referring specifically to the actual curses recorded in the פְּסוּקִים. The definite article in the word ״הָאָלוֹת״ serves to exclude curses that come on account of blessings. The word ״אֵלֶּה״ serves to exclude the curses recorded in the Mishne Torah. And the definite article in the word ״הָאֵלֶּה״ serves to exclude the commands and acceptances recorded in the פְּסוּקִים.

Let’s zoom ahead to this key statement:

אָמַר רָבָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה הָבֵא עָפָר לְסוֹטָה? זָכְתָה — יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן כְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״עָפָר וָאֵפֶר״, לֹא זָכְתָה — תַּחְזוֹר לַעֲפָרָהּ.

Additionally, Rava says: For what reason did the Torah say: Bring dust for the סוֹטָה? It is because if she merits to be proven faithful after drinking the water of the סוֹטָה, a child like אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ will emerge from her, as it is written with regard to Abraham that he said: “I am but dust and ashes” (וַיַּ֥עַן אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הִנֵּה־נָ֤א הוֹאַ֙לְתִּי֙ לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־אֲדֹנָ֔י וְאָנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר – Bereishis 18:27). But if she does not merit to be proven faithful after drinking the water of the סוֹטָה, she shall die and return to her dust, the soil from which mankind was formed.

On this Rabbi Stern cites a lengthy commentary from the Toras Chaim (R’ Avraham Chaim Shur). Why is that we’re singling out אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ for the reference to dust and ashes associated with סוֹטָה? Not because of the mitzvah itself, but because of the object associated with the mitzvah. That אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ reduced himself to having been worth only dust and ashes were it not for the mercy of הקבּ״ה. As Rashi notes:

ואנכי עפר ואפר. וּכְבָר הָיִיתִי רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת עָפָר עַל יְדֵי הַמְּלָכִים, וְאֵפֶר עַל יְדֵי נִמְרוֹד, לוּלֵי רַחֲמֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר עָמְדוּ לִי (I would long ago have been reduced to dust by the kings and to ashes by Nimrod had it not been that Thy mercies stood by me), and the additional citation from Parshas Balak regarding the Parah Aduma: וְלָקְחוּ לַטָּמֵא מֵעֲפַר שְׂרֵפַת הַחַטָּאת (במדבר יט, ט): וְאָסַף אִישׁ טָהוֹר אֵת אֵפֶר הַפָּרָה

Ultimately, as we noted in Blog Yomi yesterday), all we are is dust in the wind …

Rabbi Stern adds to this by citing something from Rabbi Yissocher Frand that he heard many years ago. That one of the reasons we put the retzuah of the tefilin on our weaker arm is because in the pasuk it states וקשרתם לאות על ידך, and דך represents יד כה (the weaker hand). This was in homage to אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, who recognized that our strength through הקבּ״ה and is not self-generated.

Blog Yomi – Sotah #15/Daf 16

We begin on דף ט״ו עמוּד ב:

נִכְנַס לַהֵיכָל וּפָנָה לִימִינוֹ וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר מָר: כל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין.

The Mishnah states: The כֹּהֵן would enter the Sanctuary and turn to his right. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he should do so? As the Master said: All turns that you turn should be only to the right.

Rabbi Stern pointed out that anytime in Judaism there are turns as part of a process, it is to the right. Here is a nice Chabad piece on the pre-eminence of the right (the one exception being when mourning is involved and one is being מְנַחֵם אָבֵל).

The mishna continues:

מָקוֹם הָיָה שָׁם אַמָּה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה״, יָכוֹל יְתַקֵּן מִבַּחוּץ וְיַכְנִיס.

There was a place there, on the Sanctuary floor, with an area of a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet was there and a ring was fastened to the tablet so that it could be raised. When the כֹּהֵן would raise the tablet, he would take loose dust from underneath it and place the dust into the vessel with the water, so that the dust would be visible upon the water, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (וְלָקַ֧ח הַכֹּהֵ֛ן מַ֥יִם קְדֹשִׁ֖ים בִּכְלִי־חָ֑רֶשׂ וּמִן־הֶֽעָפָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִהְיֶה֙ בְּקַרְקַ֣ע הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן יִקַּ֥ח הַכֹּהֵ֖ן וְנָתַ֥ן אֶל־הַמָּֽיִם – Bamidbar 5:17). The Sages taught in a baraisa: If the verse had stated only: “And of the dust that is on the floor,” one might have thought that the כֹּהֵן could prepare the concoction from dust from outside the Sanctuary and bring it in afterward.

שִׁילֹה נוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים – The dust for the סוֹטָה is still brought from the ground of the Sanctuary wherever it is located, even after the Jewish people are no longer in the wilderness.

There is a convoluted stretch of Gemara that ensues now, or at least it is admittedly convoluted to me. Part of it relates to the order of things here, the layering of the dust versus the water in the קָרְבַּן. So you’ll excuse me if instead of going over the Daf per se, leaving that to Rabbi Stern, I’ll capture its flavor through Dust in the Wind:

I close my eyes
Only for a moment and the moment’s gone
All my dreams
Pass before my eyes, a curiosity

Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind

Same old song
Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do
Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind

Now, don’t hang on
Nothin’ last forever but the earth and sky
It slips away
And all your money won’t another minute buy

Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind.

Blog Yomi – Sotah #14/Daf 15

We’re up to דף ט״ו עמוּד א, continuing with aspects of the קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה as related to the סוֹטָה. A very good reference for this is the pamphlet “The Korban Mincha,” part of a pictorial Avodah series written by Rabbi Menachem Moshe Oppen. You can access some of the key images from that pamphlet here.

The baraisa continues:

קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת אַזְכָּרָתָהּ וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַמִּנְחָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״.

After the handful is sacrificed, the remainders of the meal-offering are eaten. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests…and the priest shall make the memorial part thereof smoke upon the altar” (וֶֽהֱבִיאָ֗הּ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י אַהֲרֹן֮ הַכֹּהֲנִים֒ וְקָמַ֨ץ מִשָּׁ֜ם מְלֹ֣א קֻמְצ֗וֹ מִסלְתָּהּ֙ וּמִשַּׁמְנָ֔הּ עַ֖ל כל־לְבֹנָתָ֑הּ וְהִקְטִ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָהּ֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַיהֹוָֽה -Vayikra 2:2). The memorial part is the handful. And it is written afterward: “But that which is left of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons” (וְהַנּוֹתֶ֙רֶת֙ מִן־הַמִּנְחָ֔ה לְאַהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָ֑יו קֹ֥דֶשׁ קדָשִׁ֖ים מֵאִשֵּׁ֥י יְהֹוָֽה – Vayikra 2:3).

קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ. לְמָר כִּדְאִית לֵיהּ וּלְמָר כִּדְאִית לֵיהּ. דְּאִיתְּמַר: הַקּוֹמֶץ, מֵאֵימָתַי מַתִּיר שִׁירַיִים בַּאֲכִילָה? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: מִשֶּׁתִּשְׁלוֹט בּוֹ הָאוּר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִשֶּׁתִּיצַּת הָאוּר בְּרוּבּוֹ.

The baraisa uses the phrase: After the handful is sacrificed. This phrase can be understood according to one Sage as he holds, and according to another Sage as he holds. As it is stated that there is a dispute between the Sages: From when does the sacrifice of the handful render the remainder of the meal-offering permitted for consumption by the כֹּהַנִים? R’ Chanina says: It is when the fire takes hold of it, i.e., when it ignites. R’ Yocḥanan says: It is when the fire consumes most of the handful. Each of these amora’im understands the baraisa in accordance with his opinion.

Let’s zoom ahead a bit to another statement in the Mishnah focusing on the composition of the קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה:

כל הַמְּנָחוֹת כּוּ׳. וְכל הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? וְהָאִיכָּא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״!

The Mishnah says: All other meal-offerings (מְּנָחוֹת) require oil and frankincense. The Gemara asks: But do all other meal-offerings actually require oil and frankincense? But isn’t there the meal-offering of a sinner, with regard to which the Merciful One states: “He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering” (וְאִם־לֹא֩ תַשִּׂ֨יג יָד֜וֹ לִשְׁתֵּ֣י תֹרִ֗ים אוֹ֮ לִשְׁנֵ֣י בְנֵי־יוֹנָה֒ וְהֵבִ֨יא אֶת־קרְבָּנ֜וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָטָ֗א עֲשִׂירִ֧ת הָאֵפָ֛ה סֹ֖לֶת לְחַטָּ֑את לֹא־יָשִׂ֨ים עָלֶ֜יהָ שֶׁ֗מֶן וְלֹא־יִתֵּ֤ן עָלֶ֙יהָ֙ לְבֹנָ֔ה כִּ֥י חַטָּ֖את הִֽוא – Vayikra 5:11).

הָכִי קָאָמַר: כל הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, וּבָאוֹת מִן הַחִיטִּין, וּבָאוֹת סֹלֶת. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה — בָּאָה מִן הַחִטִּין וּבָאָה סֹלֶת. מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין — טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה וּבָאָה גֶּרֶשׂ. וְזוֹ, אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה, וּבָאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין, וּבָאָה קֶמַח.

The Gemara responds: This is what the Mishnah is saying: All מְּנָחוֹת other than that of the סוֹטָה require oil and frankincense, and they are brought from wheat; and they are also brought from fine flour. However, the meal-offering of the sinner (קָרְבַּן חַטָאת) even though it does not require oil and frankincense, must still be brought from wheat and brought from fine flour. Similarly, the omer meal-offering, even though it is brought from barley, requires oil and frankincense, and it is brought as groats. But this one, the סוֹטָה meal-offering, requires neither oil nor frankincense, and it is brought from barley and brought as unsifted flour. While the meal-offering of a sinner and the omer meal-offering are similar to other meal-offerings in one of these respects, the סוֹטָה meal-offering is different in both respects.

We’ll finish out this segment before the next Mishnah with the following:

רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לַחֲכָמִים: סוֹפְרִים, הַנִּיחוּ לִי וְאֶדְרְשֶׁנָּה כְּמִין חוֹמֶר.

The Mishnah states that רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל says: Just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so too, her offering is animal food. It is taught in a baraisa that רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל said to the חֲכָמִים: Scribes, permit me, and I will explain it as a type of decorative wreath [chomer], i.e., an allegory.

And why did רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל speak up?

דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּקָאָמַר: הִיא הֶאֱכִילַתּוּ מַעֲדַנֵּי עוֹלָם — לְפִיכָךְ קרְבָּנָהּ מַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה. אָמַר לוֹ: הָתִינַח עֲשִׁירָה, עֲנִיָּה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר! אֶלָּא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ מַעֲשֵׂה בְהֵמָה — כָּךְ קרְבָּנָהּ מַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה.

It was because he heard Rabbi Meir saying an alternative explanation: She fed him, i.e., her paramour, delicacies from around the world; therefore, her offering is animal food. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל said to him: Your explanation works out well in the case of a rich סוֹטָה, but with regard to a poor סוֹטָה, who cannot afford such delicacies, what is there to say? Rather, the reason she brings an offering of animal food is: Just as her actions were the actions of an animal, so too her offering is animal food.

There is considerably more to go for today’s Daf, but time is running short so I’ll let Rabbi Stern continue on with the next Mishnah, comparing מְצוֹרָע to סוֹטָה, and take you the rest of the way.

Blog Yomi – Sotah #13/Daf 14

We have an ambitious amount of material to cover in this installment. We’re going to finish the first perek, with a discussion about Moshe’s burial place, and then launch into the second perek. Though March Madness is nearly two weeks in the rear view mirror, Minchah Madness is just beginning. We’ll start on דף י״ג עמוּד ב:

״וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַגַּיְ בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר״. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה: סִימָן בְּתוֹךְ סִימָן, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי: ״וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ״.

The pasuk describing the burial of Moshe states: “And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moav over against Beis Peor; and no man knows of his grave to this day” (Devarim 34:6). רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה says: This pasuk provides a sign within a sign, i.e., a very precise description of the location of his burial, and even with this the verse concludes: “And no man knows of his grave to this day” (Devarim 34:6). [וַיִּקְבֹּ֨ר אֹת֤וֹ בַגַּי֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מוֹאָ֔ב מ֖וּל בֵּ֣ית פְּע֑וֹר וְלֹא־יָדַ֥ע אִישׁ֙ אֶת־קְבֻ֣רָת֔וֹ עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה]

וּכְבָר שָׁלְחָה מַלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה אֵצֶל

גַּסְטְרָא שֶׁל בֵּית פְּעוֹר: הַרְאֵנוּ הֵיכָן מֹשֶׁה קָבוּר. עָמְדוּ לְמַעְלָה — נִדְמָה לָהֶם לְמַטָּה, לְמַטָּה — נִדְמָה לָהֶם לְמַעְלָה. נֶחְלְקוּ לִשְׁתֵּי כִיתּוֹת, אוֹתָן שֶׁעוֹמְדִים לְמַעְלָה — נִדְמָה לָהֶן לְמַטָּה, לְמַטָּה — נִדְמָה לָהֶן לְמַעְלָה, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ״.

The Gemara relates: And the evil monarchy of the Roman Empire already sent messengers to the garrison [gastera] of Beis Peor and said to them: Show us where Moses is buried. As the men stood above on the upper section of the mountain, it appeared to them as if the grave was below in the lower section. As they stood below, it appeared to them to be above. They divided into two groups, one above and one below. To those who were standing above, the grave appeared to them to be below; to those who were standing below, the grave appeared to them to be above, to fulfill that which is stated: “And no man knows of his grave to this day” (Devorim 34:6 – see above).

רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: אַף מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הֵיכָן קָבוּר. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַךְ מֹשֶׁה אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִקְבַּר מֹשֶׁה אֵצֶל בֵּית פְּעוֹר — כְּדֵי לְכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה פְעוֹר.

רַבִּי חָמָא, son of רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, says: Even Moses our teacher himself does not know where he is buried. It is written here: “And no man knows of his grave,” and it is written there: “And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death” (וְזֹ֣את הַבְּרָכָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר בֵּרַ֥ךְ מֹשֶׁ֛ה אִ֥ישׁ הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לִפְנֵ֖י מוֹתֽוֹ – Devorim 33:1). In other words, even Moshe, as he is referred to by the term “man,” does not know his burial place. And Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: For what reason was Moshe buried near Beis Peor? In order to atone for the incident that transpired at Beis Peor. As documented in Bamidbar, chapter 25), it begins as follows:

וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בַּשִּׁטִּ֑ים וַיָּ֣חֶל הָעָ֔ם לִזְנ֖וֹת אֶל־בְּנ֥וֹת מוֹאָֽב׃

While Israel was staying at Shittim, the menfolk profaned themselves by whoring with the Moabite women,

וַתִּקְרֶ֣אןָ לָעָ֔ם לְזִבְחֵ֖י אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֑ן וַיֹּ֣אכַל הָעָ֔ם וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲו֖וּ לֵאלֹֽהֵיהֶֽן׃

who invited the menfolk to the sacrifices for their god. The menfolk partook of them and worshiped that god.

וַיִּצָּ֥מֶד יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לְבַ֣עַל פְּע֑וֹר וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֥ף יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

Thus Israel attached itself to Baal-peor, and יהוה was incensed with Israel.

In contrast to this salaciousness, the Gemara continues with positive role modeling of הקבּ״ה emphasizing acts of kindness:

אֶלָּא, לְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מָה הוּא מַלְבִּישׁ עֲרוּמִּים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַשׂ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ כתְנוֹת עוֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם״ — אַף אַתָּה הַלְבֵּשׁ עֲרוּמִּים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּיקֵּר חוֹלִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה׳ בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא״ — אַף אַתָּה בַּקֵּר חוֹלִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִיחֵם אֲבֵלִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ״ — אַף אַתָּה נַחֵם אֲבֵלִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא קָבַר מֵתִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַּגַּי״ — אַף אַתָּה קְבוֹר מֵתִים.

Rather, the meaning is that one should follow the attributes of הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. He provides several examples. Just as He clothes the naked, as it is written: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin, and clothed them” (וַיַּ֩עַשׂ֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים לְאָדָ֧ם וּלְאִשְׁתּ֛וֹ כתְנ֥וֹת ע֖וֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵֽׁם – Bereishis 3:21), so too, should you clothe the naked. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, visits the sick, as it is written with regard to God’s appearing to Abraham following his circumcision: “And the Lord appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre” (וַיֵּרָ֤א אֵלָיו֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּאֵלֹנֵ֖י מַמְרֵ֑א וְה֛וּא יֹשֵׁ֥ב פֶּֽתַח־הָאֹ֖הֶל כְּחֹ֥ם הַיּֽוֹם – Bereishis 18:1), so too, should you visit the sick. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, consoles mourners, as it is written: “And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed Isaac his son” (וַיְהִ֗י אַחֲרֵי֙ מ֣וֹת אַבְרָהָ֔ם וַיְבָ֥רֶךְ אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב יִצְחָ֔ק עִם־בְּאֵ֥ר לַחַ֖י רֹאִֽי – Bereishis 25:11), so too, should you console mourners. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, buried the dead, as it is written: “And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moav” (וַיִּקְבֹּ֨ר אֹת֤וֹ בַגַּי֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מוֹאָ֔ב מ֖וּל בֵּ֣ית פְּע֑וֹר וְלֹא־יָדַ֥ע אִישׁ֙ אֶת־קְבֻ֣רָת֔וֹ עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה -Devorim 34:6), so too, should you bury the dead.

On that note, let’s take a look at another marvelous post from Dr. Jeremy Brown at Talmudology.com:

In this daf, Rabbi Chama teaches that visiting the sick should be performed because it’s the right thing to do: after all, God himself is said to have visited Abraham as he was recovering from circumcision. But as we noted when studying the tractate Nedarim,  elsewhere the rabbis of the Talmud taught that visiting the sick actually aided in their recovery.  Here’s a reminder:

נדרים לט, ב – מ, א

תניא ביקור חולים אין לה שיעור … אמר אביי: אפי’ גדול אצל קטן רבא אמר אפי’ מאה פעמים ביום אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא כל המבקר חולה נוטל אחד מששים בצערו

יצא ר’ עקיבא ודרש: כל מי שאין מבקר חולים כאילו שופך דמים. כי אתא רב דימי אמר: כל המבקר את החולה גורם לו שיחיה וכל שאינו מבקר את החולה גורם לו שימות

Visiting the sick is a mitzvah that has no limit… Abaye said that even an important person must visit a lesser person who is ill…Rava said: [you must visit a sick person] even one hundred times a day…Rabbi Acha bar China said: “Whoever visits a sick person takes away one-sixtieth of his suffering…

Rabbi Akiva expounded and said: “Whoever does not visit the sick, it is as if he sheds blood.” When Rav Dimi came [from Israel to Babylon] he said: “Whoever visits the sick causes the person to live, and whoever does not visit the sick, causes the person to die.” (Nedarim 39b-40a)

VISITING THE SICK IN THE MODERN INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

Many years ago I visited the famous Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, and was privileged to be given a tour of their new Neurocritical Care Unit, part of the Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center (and thank you, Bernie “Home Depot” Marcus).   While the unit has all the fancy equipment you’d expect, what impressed me the most was a feature I had not seen in any other intensive care unit (ICU): every patient room has an adjoining suite where a family member can eat, sleep, shower and wait (and there is a lot of waiting in ICUs). There are no visiting hours; the family member literally lives in the ICU with their loved one.  My tour guide explained that the unit sees the presence of  visitors as a way of offering the best care to the patient. It is a wonderful approach to the care of the sick – but it wasn’t always like that.

A HISTORY OF VISITING THE SICK – IN HOSPITALS

Visiting times in hospitals still vary greatly, and many have an open door policy. But not too long ago, you might only be able to visit a patient in a hospital for a couple of hours each week. In the 1870s, Doncaster Royal Infirmary in Britain limited visiting to three afternoons a week – which was a more generous policy than that of the Royal Berkshire Hospital, which allowed only one 15 minute visits twice a week. In a survey of over 400 British hospitals conducted in 1988, over a quarter of those which replied allowed visiting for no more than two hours a day. Perhaps these restrictive policies were in response to some visitors who abused the generosity of Britain’s glorious National Health Service. 

“[A more open visiting policy] proved to be a disaster, primarily because of abuse of the system by visitors. Many would arrive promptly at 8 am and stay all day. They would bring sandwiches and flasks . . . and camp out by their relative’s bed . . . Others would eat patients’ food, [and] ask for extra cups of tea…there was even a threat of violence from a visitor asked to leave temporarily…

— Alderman B. Hospital visiting hours. BMJ 1988;296:1798-9.

HELP PATIENTS GET WELL SOONER – BY VISITING THEM

In 2006 an Italian group reported the results of a study on the effects of hospital visitors on patient outcomes in its small intensive care unit.  The ICU changed its visiting policy from a restricted one (one visitor twice a day for thirty minutes) to an unrestricted one every two months.  After two years of this alternating policy, the authors compared the outcomes of their 226 patients. Despite significantly higher environmental microbial contamination during the unrestricted visiting periods, septic complications were similar. But the risk of cardiocirculatory complications was twice as high in the restricted visiting periods, which were also associated with a (non-significantly) higher mortality rate. The unrestricted group was associated with a greater reduction in anxiety score and a significantly lower increase in thyroid stimulating hormone from admission to discharge. The authors concluded that “liberalizing the visiting hours seems to be more protective because it is associated with a reduction in severe cardiovascular complications.”

Incidence, with Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals, of septic and major cardiovascular complications in patients enrolled during the restricted (RVP) and unrestricted visiting periods (UVP) adjusted for age, gender, and time of enrollment. RR indicates relative risk; UT, urinary tract; pul., pulmonary; and CV compl., cardiovascular complication. From Fumagalli et al. Reduced Cardiocirculatory Complications With Unrestrictive Visiting Policy in an Intensive Care Unit Results From a Pilot, Randomized Trial. Circulation. 2006;113:946-952.

Writing in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2004, Donald Berwick and Meeta Kotogal called for a change in the policy of restricted visiting hours in intensive care units.  They noted three areas which are often of concern to ICU staff when considering the question of visiting hours.  They also noted that although these concerns seem reasonable, the scientific literature tells “quite a different story.”

Physiologic Stress for the Patient: “The concern that the patient should be left alone to rest incorrectly assumes that family presence at the bedside causes stress. The empirical literature suggests that the presence of family and friends tends to reassure and soothe the patient, providing sensory organization in an overstimulated environment and familiarity in unfamiliar surroundings. Visits of family and friends do not usually increase patients’ stress levels, as measured by blood pressure, heart rate, and intracranial pressure, but may in fact lower them. Nursing visits, on the other hand, often increase stress.” 

Barriers to the Provision of Care: “The second concern is that the unrestricted presence of loved ones at the bedside will make it more difficult for nurses and physicians to do their jobs and may interfere with the delivery of care. The evidence suggests, however, that the family more often serves as a helpful support structure, increasing opportunities for patient and family education, and facilitating communication between the patient and clinicians.” 

Exhaustion of Family and Friends: “The third concern is that constant visiting with the patient may prove exhausting for family and friends who fail to recognize the need to pace themselves. While that does sometimes happen, it is also true that open visiting hours help alleviate the anxiety of family and friends, allowing them to spend time with the patient when they want and to feel more secure and relaxed during the time they are not with the patient. One study found that open visitation had a beneficial effect on 88% of families and decreased anxiety in 65% of families.”

A review of visitation policies in ICUs produced by the American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force went one step further and found “no evidence that pets that are clean and properly immunized should be restricted from the ICU environment.” So don’t forget to bring the dog next time you visit a family member or friend in the ICU (or anywhere else for that matter). 

““…the preponderance of the literature supports greater flexibility in ICU visitation policies. Descriptive studies of the physiologic effects of visiting on mental status, intracranial pressure, heart rate, and ectopy demonstrated no physiologic rationale for restricting visiting. In fact, in seven of 24 patients with neurologic injuries, family visits produced a significant positive effect, measured by decrease in intracranial pressure.

— Davidson et al. Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004–2005. Critical Care Medicine 2007; 35 (2): 612.

 

HOW TO VISIT A FRIEND WHO’S SICK – THEN, AND NOW

Most of the evidence about the benefits of visiting the sick that we’ve been discussing have centered on the ICU- because that’s where most of the research has been done. But for most of the time, an ill friend will not be in the ICU, or even in the hospital. Instead they will be at home, and so that is where the visit will occur.  Sadly, the ability to be a friend to a friend who is sick does not come easy to all of us.  Here’s what Letty Pogrebin noted, in her recent book How to be a Friend to a Friend Who’s Sick:

It’s not uncommon for people to freeze or panic in the company of misery, botch gestures that were meant to ease, attempt to problem-solve when we have no idea what we’re talking about, say the wrong thing, talk too much, fidget in the sick room, sit too close to the patient or stand too far away. Some of us don’t visit our sick friends at all…

The Talmud sensed that visitors need some guidelines as to how to behave, and Rav Shisha suggested the following rule (Nedarim 40): “One should not visit a sick person in the first three hours of the day or in the last three hours of the day.” In addition, the Talmud notes that “one who goes to visit the sick should not sit on the bed nor on a bench or a chair, but instead should wrap himself up in his cloak and sit on the ground, because the divine presence rests above the bed of a sick person.” While we may no-longer follow this advice, the suggestion that we take our visits to the sick seriously is one that we should heed. Let’s close with some more advice, updated for the modern era, from Pogrebin’s 2013 handbook (p86-86):

1. Ask the patient to be honest with you and all their friends.
2. Be honest with yourself about your attitude toward the visit.
3. Think through your role in the visit.
4. Don’t visit if you can’t abide silence.
5. Be prepared to respond without flinching to whatever scene or circumstances greet you during your visit.
6. Be sensitive to your friend’s losses.
7. Talk honestly with your children about the demands illness makes on friendship and how important it is to visit people who want company.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ

And onward to the next perek:

הָיָה מֵבִיא

אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל יָדֶיהָ כְּדֵי לְיַגְּעָהּ.

The husband of the סוֹטָה would bring his wife’s meal-offering to the priest in an Egyptian wicker basket made of palm branches, and he would place the קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה in her hands for her to hold throughout the ritual in order to fatigue her. This might lead her to confess her guilt and not drink the water of a סוֹטָה unnecessarily.

In honor of Pesach, let’s pose the fifth question: Why was this קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה (meal-offering) different from all other קָרְבַּן מְנָחוֹת?

כּל הַמְּנָחוֹת תְּחִילָּתָן וְסוֹפָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, וְזוֹ תְּחִלָּתָהּ בִּכְפִיפָה מִצְרִית, וְסוֹפָהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת

Generally, all meal-offerings, from the moment they are consecrated until the moment they are sacrificed, must be in a service vessel. But in the case of this one, its beginning is in a wicker basket and only at its end, immediately before it is offered, is it placed in a service vessel.

כל הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה. כל הַמְּנָחוֹת בָּאוֹת מִן הַחִטִּין, וְזוֹ בָּאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין — הִיא הָיְתָה בָּאָה גֶּרֶשׂ, וְזוֹ בָּאָה קֶמַח. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ מַעֲשֵׂה בְהֵמָה, כָּךְ קרְבָּנָהּ מַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה.

All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense, and this one requires neither oil nor frankincense. Furthermore, all other meal-offerings are brought from wheat, and this one is brought from barley. Although in fact the omer meal-offering is also brought from barley, it is still different in that it was brought as groats, i.e., high-quality meal. The meal-offering of the sota, however, is brought as unsifted barley flour. Rabban Gamliel says: This hints that just as her actions of seclusion with another man were the actions of an animal, so too her offering is animal food, i.e., barley and not wheat.

And on that note, Rabbi Stern will take you the rest of the way: