I’m still stuck on Sotah 18. I’ve been discussing bereira, which may either be defined as retroactive clarification or *retroactive determination. The Mishnah was discussing the meaning of the repeated term, Amen Amen, which the sotah utters. One explanation is that of Rabbi Meir:
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאתִי, אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא אֶטָּמֵא.
Rabbi Meir says that “amen, amen” means: Amen that I did not become defiled in the past, amen that I will not become defiled in the future.
Now, the simplest meaning of this statement is also the more mind-bending, leading to a time paradox. She is saying Amen to accept both of these, both for the shevua and for the ala, for the oath and the curse. And the curse is expected to take effect right away, at this Temple ceremony, where she is tested. And that curse would lead to her immediate death.
The reason this seems strange is that:
In Universe A:
At point (1), she hasn’t yet sinned. She takes upon herself the vow and the curse.
At point (2), she would then sin, committing adultery
On the basis of that, in Universe B, which is the universe we inhabit
At point (1), she hasn’t yet sinned. She takes upon herself the vow and the curse.
She then immediately explodes, based on how she would act if, nevertheless, she persisted.
Since the explodes, she doesn’t have opportunity to commit the sin at point (2)
This calls to mind the gemara in Rosh Hashanah 16b, cited by Rashi on the verse, of Hashem saving Yishmael who was dying of thirst in Bereishit 21:17.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אֵין דָּנִין אֶת הָאָדָם אֶלָּא לְפִי מַעֲשָׂיו שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי שָׁמַע אֱלֹהִים אֶל קוֹל הַנַּעַר בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא שָׁם״.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A man is judged only according to his deeds at the time of his judgment, and not according to his future deeds, as it is stated with regard to Ishmael: “For God has heard the voice of the lad where he is” (Genesis 21:17). Although Ishmael and his descendants would act wickedly in the future, his prayer was heard and answered because he was innocent at the time.
Had Yishmael perished in the wilderness, he and his descendants wouldn’t have had opportunity to perform the evil in the future.
We have other midrashic instances of indeed retrojecting merit, for instance Moshe looking here and there, as looking to see if the Egyptian taskmaster would have descendants in whose merit he would survive, or Korach thinking he’d not perish because of his righteous future descendant, perhaps not realizing that his children’s survival could accomplish the result. (If we want to interpret it that way.)
There is thus a theological, and not just logical, objection to this backwards / forwards projection of sin. Though Rabbi Meir can certainly disagree with Rabbi Yitzchak, just as he does with his Tannaitic colleagues. And the woman would have also accepted this upon herself explicitly.
In yesterday’s post about breira we also encountered the following:
דִּתְנַן הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה עֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן תִּשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּמֵיחֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה מִיָּד דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר
As we learned in a baraita in the Tosefta (Demai 8:7): In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans, about whom it is assumed that they did not separate teruma and tithes, and he is not in a position to separate teruma, he acts as follows: If there are, for example, one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and one-tenth of the remainder, which is approximately nine log, are second tithe. And he deconsecrates the second tithe that he will separate in the future, transferring its sanctity to money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later, which will clarify retroactively what he designated for the tithes and for teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
The continuation is that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon prohibit. But we might just reinterpret their objection to one of fear lest the wineskin break, and he’ll have consumed untithed produce.
This is thus the same Rabbi Meir who maintained braira, future determination, and that Amen Amen means she accepts the curse based on future actions. Might they be related?
OK, that ends my conspiracy theory. We can also simply say the oath, not the curse, applies going forward. More than that, the gemara cites a brayta which either argues with this presentation of Rabbi Meir, or aids us in understanding what he was speaking about. Thus:
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאתִי וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא: לֹא כְּשֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא אֶטָּמֵא שֶׁאִם תִּטָּמֵא מַיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ מֵעַכְשָׁיו, אֶלָּא: לִכְשֶׁתִּטָּמֵא — מַיִם מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ.
§ The mishna states: Rabbi Meir says that “amen, amen” means: Amen that I did not become defiled in the past, amen that I will not become defiled in the future. With regard to this it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:2): When Rabbi Meir said: Amen that I will not become defiled in the future, he did not mean to say that if God knows that she will become defiled in the future, the water that she drinks now evaluates whether she will be unfaithful and passes judgment on her from now. Rather, he meant that in the event that she becomes defiled in the future, the water that she drinks now will destabilize her and evaluate then whether she was unfaithful.
In other words, unrealized / technically unrealizable future determination for the curse of the present would be silly. Instead, the idea is that the curse would be fulfilled, and take hold, in the future.
We might still draw a connection between this and breira, in terms of accepting something now with future activity, but that connection isn’t as solid or unique.