Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah

Folio 15a

He next salts [the handful of flour] and sets it upon the fire'; for it is written: And every oblation of thy meal-offering shalt thou season with salt.²  'When the handful has been offered, the remainder may be eaten'. Whence is this? — For it is written: And the priest shall burn the memorial of it etc.,³  and it is written: And that which is left of the meal-offering shall be Aaron's and his sons'.⁴  'When the handful has been offered etc.' — this⁵  is differently explained by two teachers; for it has been reported: From what time does the taking of the 'handful' render the eating of the remainder permissible? R. Hanina says: When the fire takes hold of it; R. Johanan said: When the fire burns the greater part of it. 'And the priests are allowed to mix it with wine, oil and honey' — for what reason? The text states: By reason of the anointing,⁶  i.e., as a mark of eminence, in the same manner as kings take their food. 'And are only forbidden to make it leaven'; for it is written: It shall not be baked with leaven, their portion⁷  — R. Simeon b. Lakish says: [It means] that even their portion must not be baked with leaven.

WITH ALL OTHER MEAL-OFFERINGS etc. But do all other meal-offerings⁸  require oil and frankincense? Behold, there is the meal-offering of the sinner concerning which the All-Merciful said: He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon!⁹  — This is what he intends: All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense, and consist of wheat in the form of fine flour; but the meal-offering of the sinner, although it does not require oil and frankincense, consists of wheat in the form of fine-flour; the meal-offering of the 'omer, although it consists of barley, requires oil and frankincense and is in the form of groats; but this one [of the suspected woman] does not require oil and frankincense, and consists of barley in the form of coarse flour.

It has been taught: R. Simeon said: It is right that the meal-offering of a sinner should require oil and frankincense, so that a sinner should not gain;¹⁰  why, then, are they not required? That his offering should not be luxurious. It is also right that an ordinary sin-offering¹¹  should require drink-offerings, so that a sinner should not gain; why, then, are they not required? That his offering should not be luxurious. The sin-offering of a leper, however, and his trespass-offering do require drink-offerings because they are not due to sin. But that is not so; for, behold R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: On account of seven faults does the plague of leprosy occur etc.!¹²  — In this case he received atonement [of his sin] by the plague¹³  he suffered; and when he brings an offering, it is only to allow him to participate in what is holy.¹⁴  According to this conclusion, the sin-offering of a Nazirite should require drink-offerings, since it is not due to a sin! He holds with R. Eliezer ha-Kappar who said: A Nazirite is also a sinner.¹⁵

RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS, AS etc. It has been taught: Rabban Gamaliel¹⁶  said to the Sages: Learned men, permit me to explain this allegorically.¹⁷

1. [Surely the fumigation does not take place at this stage! Rashi deletes the words 'in a ministering vessel', as the question is concerned only with the act of fumigation].
2. Lev. II, 13.
3. Ibid. 16.
4. Ibid. 10.
5. The meaning of the term offered used in this connection.
6. Num. XVIII, 8. Anointing occurred at the induction of a priest and a king.
7. Lev. VI, 10.
8. With the exception of that of the suspected woman.
9. Ibid. V, 11.
10. By being spared the cost of these ingredients.
11. Lit., 'sin-offering of (forbidden) fat', because the words ye shall eat neither fat nor blood (Lev. III, 16) are followed by Chap. IV which deals with the sin-offering.
12. Enumerated in 'Ar. 16a, v. Shebu. 8a.
13. Suffering, according to the Rabbis, is a means of atonement.
14. The offerings were purificatory in their intention, and unlike an ordinary sin-offering, which is brought in expiation.
15. Because he abstained from wine. V. Naz. 22a.
16. [Apparently Gamaliel III, the son of R. Judah ha-Nasi, a contemporary of R. Meir; v. Chayes. Z.H., notes; and Lauterbach, JQR (N.S.), I, p. 514, where the whole passage is discussed. V. also Wahrmann, Untersuchungen, I, p. 26ff.]
17. [H] For the term here used, v. Lauterbach op. cit. I 291ff., 503ff, especially p. 509 and Kid. 22b.

MISHNAH. [THE PRIEST] TAKES AN EARTHENWARE BOWL AND POURS HALF A LOG OF WATER INTO IT FROM THE LAVER. R. JUDAH SAYS: A QUARTER [OF A LOG]. JUST AS [R. JUDAH] REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF WRITING,²  SO HE REDUCES THE QUANTITY OF WATER. [THE PRIEST] ENTERS THE TEMPLE AND TURNS RIGHT. THERE WAS A PLACE THERE A CUBIT SQUARE IN EXTENT WITH A MARBLE TABLET, TO WHICH A RING WAS ATTACHED. HE LIFTS THIS OUT, TAKES SOME DUST FROM BENEATH IT WHICH HE PUTS [INTO THE BOWL] JUST SUFFICIENT TO BE VISIBLE ABOVE THE WATER; AS IT IS SAID, AND OF THE DUST THAT IS ON THE FLOOR OF THE TABERNACLE THE PRIEST SHALL TAKE, AND PUT IT INTO THE WATER.³

GEMARA. A Tanna taught: [The priest takes] a new earthenware bowl — such is the opinion of R. Ishmael. What is R. Ishmael's reason?⁴  — He derives it from the common use of the word 'vessel' [here and in the law] of a leper. As with the latter new earthenware was required, so here likewise was new earthenware required. Whence is it that there [with a leper it must be new]? — For it is written: And the priest shall command to kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water⁵  — as it must be running water which has not been previously used, so also it must be a vessel which has not been previously used. According to this argument, as there [with a leper] it had to be running water, so also here [with a suspected woman] it had to be running water! — In the view of R. Ishmael that is indeed so; for R. Johanan said the water from the laver⁶  was according to R. Ishmael spring-water, and the Sages declare that it can be ordinary water. It may, however, be objected [to this argument] that as with a leper it is necessary to have cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet,⁷  [so are these required with the water of bitterness]!⁸  — Rabbah said: The text mentions in an earthen vessel,⁹  i.e., a vessel to which I referred previously.¹⁰

Raba said: [The Rabbis in our Mishnah] did not teach [that a used vessel may be employed] except when its exterior is not blackened [by smoke]; but if its exterior is blackened it is unfit for use. What is their reason? — It is analogous to the water: just as the water must not be changed in appearance,¹¹  so also the vessel must not be changed in appearance. Raba asked: How is it if the earthenware had been blackened and re-whitened by being passed through the furnace again? Do we say that since it has once been rejected, it remains rejected; or perhaps, since it has been restored, it is suitable? — Come and hear: 'R. Eleazar says: If a man twisted cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop into a cord for the purpose of carrying his bundle on his back, they are unfit [to be used in the ceremony of purification];' and yet they are here again smoothed out!¹²  But in that case we suppose that [some of the material] has been peeled off.¹³

[THE PRIEST] ENTERS THE TEMPLE AND TURNS RIGHT etc. For what reason? Because a Master has declared: All the turns which thou dost make must only be to the right.

THERE WAS A PLACE THERE A CUBIT etc. Our Rabbis have taught: 'And of the dust that is etc.' — it is possible to think that [the priest] may prepare [dust] from outside and bring it in; therefore there is a text to state, 'On the floor of the tabernacle'. If 'on the floor of the tabernacle', it is possible to think that he may dig for it with an axe; therefore there is a text to state 'that is'. How was it done? If [dust] is there, take of it; if none is there, put some there [and take of it]. Another [Baraitha] taught: 'And of the dust that is' — this teaches that he prepares some from outside and brings it in. 'On the floor of the tabernacle' — Issi b. Judah says: It includes the floor

1. V. supra p. 75.
2. V. next Mishnah, p. 87.
3. Num. V, 17.
4. For requiring a new bowl.
5. Lev. XIV, 5.
6. [Which water was used for the water of bitterness.]
7. V. ibid. 4.
8. The Torah does not require these things, and so the analogy is false.
9. [And not 'he shall take a vessel and put in it etc.']
10. Viz., in the law of the leper. Hence it is established that a new vessel is also necessary in the ceremony of the water of bitterness.
11. Although they do not insist on running water, it must not be discoloured by dirt.
12. When they are disconnected. So by analogy the earthenware cannot be made fit for use by re-whitening.
13. While it was used as a cord; therefore the restoration is not complete. But in the case of the vessel there is complete restoration and so it is allowed.