The Start of Sotah
Given timing, with Pesach beginning this week, I expect daf yomi posts to be sporadic at best, but we’ll see. We began masechet Sotah last Friday, but on Motza’ai Shabbat I posted something to close out Nazir.
What can we say about Sotah? Well, it begins similarly to Nazir, asking about its place in the sequence within the Seder (Order) of Nashim. מִכְּדֵי תַּנָּא מִנָּזִיר סָלֵיק, מַאי תְּנָא דְּקָא תָּנֵא סוֹטָה? For Nazir, based on many of the texts before us, it appeared that the question was different — what was Nazir doing in Seder Nashim at all? But careful analysis showed that it could be the same question, about the sequencing of Nazir, Gittin, Sotah, Ketubot. Meanwhile, I argued that the grouping principle of Nashim isn’t woman-oriented topics, but that the Seder is all about Acquisitions and Acceptances.
Sotah 2a also discusses the “difficulty” of making Shidduchim:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְקָשִׁין לְזַוְּוגָן כִּקְרִיעַת יַם סוּף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֱלֹהִים מוֹשִׁיב יְחִידִים בַּיְתָה מוֹצִיא אֲסִירִים בַּכּוֹשָׁרוֹת״.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And it is as difficult to match a couple together as was the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is stated in a verse that speaks of the exodus from Egypt: “God makes the solitary individuals dwell in a house; He brings out prisoners into prosperity [bakosharot]” (Psalms 68:7). God takes single individuals and causes them to dwell in a house by properly matching a man to a woman. This is similar to the exodus from Egypt, which culminated in the splitting of the Red Sea, where He released prisoners into prosperity.
My father likes saying of this explanation, IIRC from Rabbi Freifeld. How can we say that anything is difficult for God? Well, how was the splitting of the Reed Sea difficult for Hashem?
Consider Shemot 14:15:
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה מַה־תִּצְעַ֖ק אֵלָ֑י דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶל־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וְיִסָּֽעוּ׃
Then יהוה said to Moses, “Why do you cry out to Me? Tell the Israelites to go forward.
they were told to enter the sea while it had not yet split.
But everyone was afraid to enter the sea. Sotah 37a:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא זֶה אוֹמֵר אֵין אֲנִי יוֹרֵד תְּחִילָּה לַיָּם וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֵין אֲנִי יוֹרֵד תְּחִילָּה לַיָּם קָפַץ נַחְשׁוֹן בֶּן עַמִּינָדָב וְיָרַד לַיָּם תְּחִילָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סְבָבֻנִי בְכַחַשׁ אֶפְרַיִם וּבְמִרְמָה בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה עֹד רָד עִם אֵל
Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Meir: That is not how the incident took place. Rather, this tribe said: I am not going into the sea first, and that tribe said: I am not going into the sea first. Then, in jumped the prince of Judah, Nahshon ben Amminadab, and descended into the sea first, accompanied by his entire tribe, as it is stated: “Ephraim surrounds Me with lies and the house of Israel with deceit, and Judah is yet wayward toward God [rad im El]” (Hosea 12:1), which is interpreted homiletically as: And Judah descended [rad] with God [im El].
וְעָלָיו מְפֹרָשׁ בַּקַּבָּלָה הוֹשִׁיעֵנִי אֱלֹהִים כִּי בָאוּ מַיִם עַד נָפֶשׁ טָבַעְתִּי בִּיוֵן מְצוּלָה וְאֵין מׇעֳמָד וְגוֹ׳ אַל תִּשְׁטְפֵנִי שִׁבֹּלֶת מַיִם וְאַל תִּבְלָעֵנִי מְצוּלָה וְגוֹ׳
And in this regard, the tradition, i.e., the Writings, explicates Nahshon’s prayer at that moment: “Save me, God; for the waters are come in even unto the soul. I am sunk in deep mire, where there is no standing…let not the water flood overwhelm me, neither let the deep swallow me up” (Psalms 69:2–3, 16).
(Interjection: ad-nafesh can refer to “up to the neck.) And it took Nachshon ben Aminadav to throw himself into the sea. Similarly by shidduchim, there is the human element, to make that leap of faith / mesirut nefesh.
The same amud discusses the tension between predestination and one’s spouse being matched to one’s action.
אִינִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם קוֹדֶם יְצִירַת הַוָּלָד בַּת קוֹל יוֹצֵאת וְאוֹמֶרֶת: בַּת פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי, בֵּית פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי, שְׂדֵה פְלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן, הָא — בְּזוּג שֵׁנִי.
The Gemara asks: Is that so that a man is matched to a woman according to his actions? But Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Forty days before an embryo is formed a Divine Voice issues forth and says: The daughter of so-and-so is destined to marry so-and-so; such and such a house is destined to be inhabited by so-and-so; such and such a field is destined to be farmed by so-and-so. This clearly states that these matters, including marriage, are decreed for a person even before he is formed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement that Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav is with regard to a first match [zivug], while this statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan is with regard to a second match. A first match is decreed in heaven; a second match is according to one’s actions.
where it is Rav Yehuda citing Rav. And see Tosafot there who wonder why the zivug rishon / sheini distinction isn’t applied elsewhere in Moed Katan 18b, for Shmuel.
הא בזוג ראשון הא בזוג שני - תימה בפ' ואלו מגלחין (מו"ק דף יח:) דאמר שמואל מותר לארס בחולו של מועד שמא יקדמנו אחר קפריך ליה מהכא ארבעים יום קודם יצירת הולד אמאי לא מוקי התם מלתיה דשמואל בזוג שני:
That is, in Moed Katan, the gemara contrasts predestination with Shmuel’s statement to get betrothed on chol haMoed, lest someone else preempt.
וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁמָּא יִקְדְּמֶנּוּ אַחֵר? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּכׇל יוֹם וְיוֹם בַּת קוֹל יוֹצֵאת וְאוֹמֶרֶת: בַּת פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי, שְׂדֵה פְלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי.
The Gemara raises a question about the ruling itself: And did Shmuel actually say that we are concerned that perhaps another man will come and betroth the woman first? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: Every day a Divine Voice issues forth and says: The daughter of so-and-so is destined to be the wife of so-and-so; the field of so-and-so will belong to so-and-so? If this is the case, why should one be concerned lest another betroth her first? It is predestined that he will marry his designated mate.
אֶלָּא: שֶׁמָּא יִקְדְּמֶנּוּ אַחֵר בְּרַחֲמִים.
Rather, Shmuel’s statement should be understood as follows: Perhaps another man will come and betroth her first by means of praying for divine mercy. In other words, Shmuel is concerned that the rival may beseech God to cancel the decree of the Divine Voice, and therefore the first man needs to hurry and betroth the woman before the other one has a chance to pray that he should take her from him.
To answer this, see my Jewish Link article, Rav vs. Shmuel on Bashert (html, flipdocs). I claim that they have different approaches to predestination. And though Moed Katan attributes this Bat Kol announcement to Shmuel, either (a) this is every single day, rather than 40 days before the formation of the fetus — though Munich 95 and several other manuscripts have it, and “every day” may be an errant copy from other places where a Bat Kol is sent out each and every day; or (b) that this should rightly be attributed to Rav Yehuda citing Rav, not citing Shmuel, just as it appears elsewhere in Shas; the Stamma simply contrasted Rav’s statement, assuming that Chazal were monolithic regarding bashert; then, later scribes shifted it to Shmuel, because Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel is common, and that makes for the more obvious contrast.
