Sotah 033

8:
We must now examine what the later authorities did with this machloket that is displayed in our mishnah. There are three parts to this mishnah:

1. The statement of Tanna Kamma that a woman's meritorious deeds might save her from the immediate fearful consequences of the ordeal of 'the bitter cursing waters';
2. From that ben-Azzai draws a halakhic conclusion, that a father should teach his daughter Torah;
3. With this conclusion Rabbi Eli'ezer disagrees and gives his reasons.

There would seem to be no compelling reason for the later codifiers to accept either of those views: it is perfectly possible to see them both as personal recommendations which the individual may accept or reject according to his personal preference.

9:
It is therefore extremely surprising that Rambam in his masterly code of Halakhah, Mishneh Torah [Talmud Torah 1:13], baldly states the law as following Rabbi Eli'ezer:

This halakhic statement contains several extremely surprising elements (all of them displaying a misogyny hardly less than that of Rabbi Eli'ezer in the mishnah). It is true that elsewhere [Bava Kamma 38a etc] it is stated that the reward of performing a commanded mitzvah is greater than the reward for an uncommanded mitzvah – even though the context has nothing whatsoever to do with women and Torah study. (This principle is alluded to in the Gemara on our present mishnah.) However, Rambam goes on to tell us that 'the sages' have commanded us not to teach women Torah and gives a surprising reason. Who are these sages? Where have they said so? It has been suggested by the commentators on Rambam's statement that he derives this from veiled suggestions made in the Gemara on our mishnah: this is, at the very best, dubious.

10:
But the most surprising element of all is the fact that he states as halakhah the 'command' of 'the sages' against teaching women Torah. Where do they command? Who are these sages. At the best it is the personal opinion of one sage – Rabbi Eli'ezer! Why does Rambam not mention the view of ben-Azzai at all? As far as the last part of his statement is concerned, the later poskim [decisors] have a field day: their ultimate conclusion is to turn Rambam's statement on its head! The ultimate conclusion of the later poskim is that 'This refers to the Written Torah, but the oral tradition he should not teach her at all, but if he did so it is not teaching her licentiousness.'

To be continued.

Albert Ringer has sent me a long piece about ink. I set it before you more because of the effort that he has put into this research than its immediate relevance to our tractate. Well done, Albert!

The so called Seven Minor Treatises is a collection of halachot on various subjects, written in the language of the mishna but probably dated some centuries later. The texts are mainly of historical interest, and hardly have any practical value. As far as I know, they are not used for day to day halacha. Masechet Sefer Tora is one of the seven treatises. Its subject is the preparation and handling of Torah scrolls. Chapter I, paragraph 5 (Ed. Higger, 1930) gives us: "The writing must not be inscribed on a registry, on an account book, or an erased papyrus, It must not be inscribed with black pigment, with coal, with gummed ink, with vitriol; nor is it permitted to put vitriol in the ink. R. Jacob said in the name of R. Meir, It is permitted to put vitriol in the ink. R. Judah said, R. Meir used to say that the scroll of the Law, except the section dealing with the Sotah, may be written with vitriol. R. Jacob said, R. Meir, in making an exception for the section of the Sotah, referred only the special roll containing the adjuration of the Sotah, witch was used in the Temple for the Sotah, because that roll was made for the purpose of being later washed off. R. Simon, the son of Lakish, said in the name of R. Meir, who in turn said in the name of R. Ishmael, It is permitted to put vitriol in the ink." Natural vitriol is a mixture of iron sulfate and copper sulfate and the word vitriol is used by varies sources for both salts. Modern Tora scrolls are, I am told, written with vitriol from copper sulfate. For the history of inks, I used information from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, the source of your quote on the fight against ink rot. It would seem that gal-iron ink, prepared with gals from oak trees, vitriol and Arabic gum was certainly not known before the first century. It became the most common ink from the fifth century on. It has a beautiful dark blue-black color and really sticks to the paper. In time, it tends to decolorize to brown and starts eating its way trough the material. The most common ink in ancient times would have been prepared from carbon (soot, as a result of burning oil, resin or tar) and gum. All in all it seems most likely that the writer in the Temple did not use gal-iron ink to prepare any scoll, let alone the roll for use by the Sotah, simply, because that kind of ink was not used at the time. Quite probably the discussion on the use of vitriol in the ink in the Temple is an anachronism. The discussion in masechet Sefer Torah on the permissibility of the use of vitriol, can be read as a discussion of modernists, who wanted to use the best modern technique available, and more conservative rabbis, who wanted to stick to the old ways. One could ask whether this is an anachronism to. Quite probably it happened later and was put in the mouth of the old ones. The text would then be pseudo epigraphical.