Sotah 028

1:
The Torah [Numbers 5:25-26] stipulates:

There is here a very precise scenario: first the offering is to be waved (as described at the end of the previous mishnah), then it is to be brought to the altar. Now the priest is required to dip his hand into the basin containing the barley meal and take a handful, which he drops onto the fire burning on the altar. Lastly he makes the woman drink the prepared potion.

2:
A handful, according to tradition, in this and all other cases where the Torah requires a 'handful', was created by the priest dipping his hand into the utensil containing the cereal, enclosing some of the cereal in his fist by closing his fingers on it, and then smoothing off the top with his thumb. Thus the amount offered would vary depending of the size of the fist of the officiating priest. At any rate it is clear that the vast majority of the offering of barley-meal brought by the husband will become part of the priest's dinner!

3:
Our mishnah presents a maĥloket [difference of opinion] between Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shim'on ben-Yoĥai. Rabbi Shim'on sees no reason to deviate from the order seemingly established by the Torah, as outlined in paragraph 1 above. According to Tanna Kamma, however, the barley meal is offered only after the woman has drunk the potion. The essential difference between the sages will become apparent when we study the next mishnah.

4:
However, even Rabbi Shim'on agrees that while 'lekhatĥilah' his order is the correct one,'be-di-avad' observing the order prescribed by Tanna Kamma does not invalidate the ceremony. 'Lekhatĥilah' means the ideal and essentially correct way of doing things, while 'be-di-avad' indicates that even though and ideal procedure was not followed the action is still valid as performed.

I presented a suggestion made by Aviva Orenstein: It has always struck me that the indication of infidelity prompted by the sotah waters seems a lot like a description of an abortion or a parody of a pregnancy gone wrong. If indeed drinking the waters aborts the fetus, this would explain why the husband cannot lie with the wife once he formally makes his suspicions known, on the chance a legitimate child would be aborted. Has anyone ever put forward this or a related theory?

Art Werschultz now sends the following information:

A physician friend of mine once opined that dirty moistened barley without a preservative (i.e., the levonah) could perhaps be used as a medium for growing an ergot derivative, the latter being an abortificant.

I comment:

But, as we already see in the mishnah discussed in this shiur, the woman herself did not partake of the barley at all.

---

A query from Richley Crapo raised once again the issue of the flagstone from under which the dirt was taken that was introduced into the water that the woman was to drink. Mike Rodin now asks:

Was there another purpose for which the stone was raised and soil collected? Were there other special design elements in the sanctuary for special, but not widely used rituals? I assume sotah was not an 'everyday' or regular occurrence.

I respond:

As far as I know there is no other purpose for which the stone was raised. To accurately answer the second part of Mike's question would require an expertise in the minutiae of the procedures of the Bet Mikdash which I do not have.