Sotah 018

5:
Most cereal-offerings that were brought in the Bet Mikdash were grains ground and sifted into flour and for the ritual part of their offering the flour was contained in special dishes that belonged to the Bet Mikdash and were made of precious metals. Our mishnah points out that in the case of the Sotah the offering was left in its cheap container while the woman was holding it and was only transferred to a ritual dish when the time came for its actual offering. Our mishnah notes other differences between the cereal-offering of the Sotah and most others of this kind: the Torah [Numbers 5:15]commanded that cereal-offering of the Sotah be offered without oil and frankincense.

6:
Our mishnah conveniently ignores the fact that the Torah [Leviticus 5:11] requires these additives to be omitted from the cereal-offering when it is brought as an offering of guilt. In similar fashion our mishnah has to admit that the cereal-offering of the Sotah was not the only one of its kind to consist of barley rather than wheat, for the Omer offered on the second day of Pesaĥ was also barley grains. The difference between the Omer and the Sotah offerings was that in the former case the barley was ground and sifted into fine flour whereas in the latter case it was coarsely ground into unsifted meal which also contained the husks. (This prompts Rabban Gamli'el to moralize that since the woman is accused of animal-like behaviour it is fitting that her offering be animal feed. His meaning is that other animals are naturally promiscuous; the human animal is supposed to be monogamous – or, at least the Jewish female of the species is supposed to be monogamous.)

It seems to me that Tenach wants us to understand the story of David and Absalom in the light of Shemot 34:7 Pakad avon avot al-banim we al-bne banim al-shileshim we-al-riveim. David does not suffer direct punishment, his children pay the bill. He can be no more than a passive on-looker while Gods promise to Moses is fulfilled. In a sense, the Mishna turns the story around and stresses that Absalom is punished for his sins personally, measure for measure. This is much more in line with belief in personal punishment and redemption, as it developed in the second temple period. Could you give us your opinion on the subject.

I respond:

The bible knows of two moralities concerning retribution. The older morality sees the individual as part of his or her society and that it is inevitable that other people may suffer for my sins. Instances of this kind of retribution in the bible are legion. The later development produced a morality which states categorically [Deuteronomy 24:17] that 'parents shall not die for their children, nor shall children die for their parents, but each person shall die for his own sin'. This new morality is particularly associated with the prophet Ezekiel [18:2-4]:

(I gave my view of David and Absalom in this matter in yesterday's shiur.)

RMSG is now going on its traditional vacation until after Sukkot. There are still messages to be presented, so this is not the most convenient time to call a break, but they will be presented when we resume on Monday September 30th. I wish everybody a Ĥag Same'aĥ – a very happy Sukkot.