Reference for Sotah 12:18

ורבי שמעון נהי דוי"ו לא דריש והא איכא

was hallowed but there was not sufficient time to offer it before [the husband] died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the event of the husband's death she does not drink the water. ');">¹⁷</span> or she died, behold it is like all the meal-offerings and must be destroyed. If the handful had been offered but there was not sufficient time [for the priest] to eat the remainder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the flour which is not burnt upon the altar and is the priest's perquisite. ');">¹⁸</span> before [the husband] died or she died, behold it is like all the meal-offerings and is eaten; because it was brought from the commencement in connection with a matter of doubt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman's chastity. ');">¹⁹</span> it atoned for the doubt which is now ended. If witnesses came [and testified] against her that she had misconducted herself, her meal-offering is destroyed; should the witnesses against her be proved to be perjurers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zomemim v. Glos. Before the meal-offering was burnt upon the altar. ');">²⁰</span> her meal-offering is non-holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it has been placed in the vessel; and we do not say, as above, that by a Rabbinic decree, it must be destroyed. This contradicts the view given by R. Papa. ');">²¹</span> — You mention perjured witnesses; the fact that they were perjured witnesses is generally known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it will be recognised that the offering was never holy. ');">²²</span> There is a teaching in accord with the view of R. Shesheth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the water does not take effect when there are absent witnesses. ');">²³</span> but not for the same reason as his,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is based on the phrase 'No witness against her' (v. supra p. 24). The teaching finds another derivation in support. ');">²⁴</span> viz., If she be clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 28. ');">²⁵</span> — [this indicates] there are no witnesses against her in a far-distant land;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse is thus explained; if she be really pure and did not escape the effect of the water through the witnesses being far away, then she will conceive. ');">²⁶</span> 'and if she be clean' — [the addition of and indicates] it is not merit that causes the water to suspend its effect; ['and if] she [be clean'] — [meaning that she has escaped the effect of the water because she is in fact clean] and not because women who spin by moonlight were discussing her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Women gather together in the moonlight to spin and gossip. To be talked about by them was a sufficient disgrace to suspend the effect of the water. ');">²⁷</span> Now as for R. Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that merit does not suspend the effect of the water. ');">²⁸</span> agreed that he does not expound the conjunction <i>and</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To derive from it a Scriptural basis for his view. ');">²⁹</span> still there is the case

Explore reference for Sotah 12:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.