צו את בני ישראל וישלחו מן המחנה, "Command the Israelites to expel from the camp, etc." The reason the Torah wrote this paragraph immediately after the appointment of the Levites to their respective tasks was because G'd had commanded the Levites themselves to keep away from areas possessing a certain degree of sanctity, areas reserved for priests alone. This is why the Torah added that also the Israelites were forbidden to enter areas normally available to them if they had become afflicted with ritual impurity, for instance.

אשר אני שכן בתוכם, "that I dwell amongst." This rule applied only as long as G'd's presence was still in the Tabernacle. Once the Tabernacle had been dismantled so that the שכינה had moved, even people afflicted with צרעת were allowed in the camp (Menachot 95).

איש ..כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם, "anyone committing any of the sins people are liable to commit, etc." The Torah uses the expression למעול instead of the customary ומעלו מעל, "and have committed a trespass;" this is explained in Baba Kama 110 where the sages say that the verse speaks about a case of someone who perjured himself after having denied being in possession of money belonging to his neighbour. Although the Torah had already dealt with such a situation in Parshat Vayikra it repeats it here as there are numerous details of this legislation which had not yet been revealed. Amongst other details, our verse informs us that the person in question is deemed to have committed his sin at the time when he first denied being in possession of that money, not at the time when he denied it on oath. The very denial is considered sinful as it leads to the person having to swear an oath if his accuser takes him to court. If the accused is not taken to court he is able to make amends for his denial at any time. The verse says: כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם to inform us that the moment one does so one is considered as about to also trespass against G'd, i.e. to render a false oath.

ואשמה הנפש ההיא, and that soul will be considered guilty. Inasmuch as that person is guilty of perjury he has caused damage to his very soul. The Torah suddenly switched to the use of the singular although previously it had spoken about people (pl) committing sins. Afterwards, when the Torah discusses the sinner confessing his sin it again uses the plural, i.e. והתודו. You will note that the Torah did not write that the soul of the sinner i.e. נפשו is guilty, but it writes הנפש ההיא. This is a reference to the collective soul of the Jewish people which has become tarnished through one of its members committing perjury. You may do well to read what we have written in our commentary on Leviticus 7,20-21 about similar constructions. Inasmuch as the word ההיא is superfluous this is a hint that the Torah speaks about a soul other than merely that of the sinner in question. It is worth reading what the Zohar on Parshat Acharey Mot 67 has to say about Isaiah 26,9.

והשיב את אשמו, and he shall make restitution for his guilt, etc. The Torah again switched to use of the singular although the verse had commenced by speaking about sinners in the plural confessing their guilt. The reason is that when it comes to having to confess one's guilt all sinners are in a similar situation. When it comes to making restitution, however, this is not so as the Torah makes allowances for poor people whose sin-offering consists of lower priced birds or even a meal-offering only. We have learned this in Leviticus 5,7-5,13.

וכל תרומה…לו יהיה, "and every heave-offering…..shall be his." Why did the Torah repeat the same subject three times (verses 9 and 10)? Furthermore, why did the Torah repeat the same words, i.e. לו יהיה? Our sages in the Sifri explain that the apparently superfluous words "they shall be his" refer to the offering of the first ripe fruit which are normally called ראשית. They too are to be treated in the same way as the heave-offerings, תרומה. They become the priest's personal property. The second time the Torah repeats this expression it refers to priests who performed Temple service at a time which had not been allocated to them. If such a priest offered his own offering i.e. קדשיו, it remained his although his presence in the Temple at the time had not been authorised. The words אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה refer to a situation when a father had given to the priest money to redeem his firstborn son and that baby had died after 30 days. The Torah legislates that the priest does not need to return this redemption money to the father. There are numerous other halachic Midrashim in this vein. All of this does not suffice to explain the plain meaning of these verses.

I believe that we may approach these verses in accordance with the principle that when the Torah repeats something three times it is intended to show that we may not use the information contained in those statements exegetically by applying them to other commandments. The three statements teach us rules applying to the 24 types of gifts the Torah has allocated to the priests. In the first chapter of his treatise on the laws of בכורים, first ripe fruits, Maimonides writes that the 24 gifts G'd allocated to the priests were divided into five categories, which in reality are only three basic categories. 1) the portions of the sacrifices which they receive from animals which have been offered on the altar. These included: the meat of the sin-offering; the meat of the guilt-offering; the meat of the peace-offerings paid for by the public purse; the remainder of the Omer, i.e. the barley offering on the second day of the Passover festival; most of the meal-offerings except the fistful offered on the altar; the showbreads; the two loaves offered on Shavuot from the new wheat harvest; the oil of the person undergoing purification rites after having been afflicted with Tzoraat; the skins of any animal offered on the altar; the breast and right flank of all private peace-offerings; left-overs of the thanksgiving offerings; the part of the ram of the Nazirite not presented on the altar; the firstborn male of the pure animals. The first ripe fruit (of the seven species Israel is blessed with). These are 14 gifts allocated to the priests. The common denominateor of all the above is that the owner is obligated to offer them on the altar or bring them to the priest. They are all inherently sacred. The second category are such things as the Terumah, a tithe from the grain-harvest, olive trees or vineyard's produce; the Terumat Maasser i.e. the portion of his tithes the Levite has to give to the priest; Challah, i.e. 1/48th of a dough of certain proportions which the Israelite has to give to the priest. The third category are the gifts such as the tithe of the animals when they are shorn (1 tenth); certain fields which were sold by an Israelite and not redeemed within a specified time; the redemption money paid by a father for retaining his firstborn son; redemption money for the firstborn donkey; properties set aside for use by the priest. Property of an intestate convert stolen from him which is inherited by the priests by decree of the Torah. All the latter are not inherently sacred. They are not handed to the priest but he has to claim them by himself.

Let us now approach our verses. Concerning the first 14 items mentioned by Maimonides all of which are sacred by definition and which the Israelite is obligated to hand to the priests, the Torah wrote וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל. The Torah gives notice that these gifts are sacred by definition. It goes on: אשר יקריבו which they offer as a sacrifice; the Torah mentions that all these items have to be brought to a site which has been sanctified. Concerning the second category the Torah writes that איש את קדשיו לו יהיו. In this instance the Torah does refer to the sacred nature of the gifts but makes no mention of their qualifying as an offering on the altar, seeing the priest himself has to go after these gifts in order to secure his share. Concerning the final seven items the Torah writes איש אשר יתן לכהן, "that which a person has to give to the priest." Nothing is mentioned about any of these things being sacred as they are of an ordinary secular status, i.e. חולין. The word יתן, "he will give, or he may give" alerts us to the fact that a priest may not claim such gifts from the person whose duty it is to dispense them to a priest of his choosing. Once he has become the recipient of the gift, however, it is not reversible, i.e. לו יהיה, it remains his. Please read what I have written in my book Pri Toar item 61 concerning gifts to the priests. The word לו יהיה implies that a priest is cannot refuse to accept such gifts when they are offered to him (compare Yore Deyah 306,4). Having explained all this we see that the Torah had adequate reason to divide the priestly gifts into three categories so that it had to use the word לו יהיה separately for each category. Had the Torah not done so, I would not have known that the priest is obligated to accept these gifts.

דבר..ואמרת..איש איש, speak..and say.."any man whose wife is unfaithful, etc." Why did the Torah write both "speak," and "say"? Why did it use different words for the same thing, i.e. דבר, אמר? Why is the word איש repeated? A Sotah, a woman suspected of marital infidelity by her husband, may belong to either one of two categories. Either the suspicion is found to have been unjustified, or 2) she is found guilty either by her own admission or by having brazenly drunk the מים המאררים, the waters of bitterness. This accounts for the Torah employing two different words for "say!" The harsher דבור is intended for the woman who is guilty, whereas the softer אמרת is addressed to the woman who turns out to have been faithful though she gave cause for suspicion. The word איש is repeated for the same consideration. At the time her husband accuses her he does not know yet if his suspicions are justified. If the woman is innocent G'd will help her to prove her innocence. We find a popular proverb in Megillah 12 which suggests that the words ומעלה בו מעל could be interpreted to mean "if he (the husband) were guilty of a trespass" i.e. both husband and wife may be guilty of infidelity. As a result our sages stated that if the husband is certain that he has not sinned at all in his marital relations he is entitled to resume relations with his wife after she has undergone the procedure of the "bitter waters" and has been vindicated. The "bitter waters" actually examined the husband as well, i.e. the procedure did not work, the miracle would not take place if the husband himself were found guilty of marital trespass. The word איש is repeated to teach us that regardless of whether the husband knows himself to be pure or not, he still has to bring his wife to the priest.

Perhaps our verse referred to this idea when writing both דבר and ואמרת. A husband who is himself not blameless may be afraid to have his wife examined by the priest and the bitter waters as his own shortcomings would be exposed both in the eyes of G'd and that of his peers. As a result, he might prefer not to publicise his suspicions of his wife. On the other hand, even if this husband feels certain that his own conduct was always completely blameless he may not wish to expose marital friction between himself and his wife in public. For these various reasons he might balk at the duty the Torah imposes upon him here. The Torah therefore uses a "carrot and stick" approach" i.e. with soft urgings and with tough talk so that he would comply with the legislation in our paragraph.

והביא האיש את אשתו אל הכהן, and this man has to bring his wife to the priest, etc. There are several questions we need to answer in the course of this whole paragraph. What does the Torah mean by calling the offering of the Sotah מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון, "a meal-offering of memorial reminder of iniquity?" What did the Torah accomplish with the word זכרון? Why would the offering of a meal-offering consisting of barley as opposed to wheat be designed to be especially memorable, seeing that the Omer, an offering consisting of barley, is offered every year on the second day of Passover? We must also try to understand why the Torah refers to these bitter waters as "holy waters?" What precisely do the waters accomplish and why are they called "holy?" We are told in Sotah 15 that the term "holy" in this instance referred to the fact that the waters were sanctified in the copper basin, כיור. While this is all fine and good, why did they have to be drawn from that basin at all? Moreover, what precisely is the nature of the ספר, the book, in which the priest records the curses which he blots out by dissolving them in the bitter waters (verse 23)? Why does the Sotah have to drink the remains of that book? We can understand that Moses made the Israelites drink the water containing the residue of the golden calf as the kind of pennance described in Jeremiah 2,19, but this situation is hardly parallel. Also, why was it important to have ready loose earth from the Temple floor which had to be added to this water, and such earth could not be freshly dug (verse 17)? Our sages in Sotah 15 also quote a halachah according to which the earth had to be poured into the vessel after it was filled with water and had to float on the water. If the vessel had first been filled with earth the whole procedure was פסול, defective and useless. Why should such a minor detail disqualify the whole procedure and the name of G'd having been written in vain? I find it noteworthy that the Torah did not use the term חוקה in connection with this subject; had the Torah done so it would have prevented us from raising all these questions. I find it strange that the Torah calls the water in question מי המרים, why are they called "bitter?" Sifri claims that these waters were not bitter originally but turned bitter at the time they were used to perform the function described in our paragraph Another explanation is that they were called "bitter" because of the effect they had on the life of a Sotah who was guilty of what her husband suspected and was brazen enough to drink these waters instead of confessing her guilt. On folio 20 of the tractate Sotah the father of the famous teacher Samuel claims that some bitter material had to be added to the water in question. The reason was that since the waters were already called "bitter waters" something really bitter had to be added. This seems quite astounding. Why did the Torah fail to mention this detail?

We may be able to explain the whole subject of the Sotah in light of what we explained in Parshat Bereshit on the inner structure of the Torah in connection with Genesis 2,1 on the line ויכלו השמים והארץ. We explained there that it is axiomatic that every creature harbours a desire to be re-united with the living G'd, its Creator. This feeling ,- in varying degree-is also present in all things G'd created which possess a spiritual element, something we called a two-tiered intelligence, be it pronounced or almost dormant. G'd equipped each of His creations with sufficient intelligence to ensure its continued existence and to enable it to praise its Creator. This is the true meaning of Proverbs 16,9 that whatever G'd created He made for a purpose that suited Him, (or "for its own good"). We also find that the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 5,4 explain the reason the waters are always perceived as "weeping" is that when G'd separated the upper waters from the lower waters this caused them to weep over their separation, some being confined to an area beneath the earth. The waters which wound up beneath the earth weep and groan seeing that they did not merit to come close to G'd as do the waters in the upper half of the world, something all creatures desire as part of their nature.

Furthermore, G'd has demonstrated to us that He desires to have a residence on earth including areas of the waters allocated to man. Due to Adam's sin the earth was cursed and the throne of G'd was removed to higher spheres which meant the simultaneous removal of the source of our blessings to regions farther away from our domain (compare Bereshit Rabbah 19). This situation continued until the revelation at Mount Sinai when G'd once more agreed to take up residence on earth. The signal for this was G'd giving instructions to the Israelites to build a Sanctuary for Him even before they had conquered the land of Canaan. This demonstrated how eager G'd was to have a residence on earth. Had it not been for the sin of the spies and the resultant delay of Israel's conquest of the land of Canaan by almost 40 years, completion of the Tabernacle and Israel's conquering the land of Canaan would have occurred almost simultaneously. When the Jewish people became guilty of abominations even after G'd had resided amongst them for many years, He again had to withdraw His presence and He returned to His former residence in Heaven. If it were not for the sins committed by the Jewish people G'd's residence would remain permanently on earth. When this will occur eventually, it will wipe out the weeping of the "lower" waters and the "shame" of the earth which suffered from G'd's curse. It will cause them to become joyous ushering in a period when these "lovers" will be reunited. If, for some reason, sin will again prevail on earth, G'd will again withdraw from earth causing the waters to express their feelings by weeping. We must remain aware that Israel's exemplary behaviour at Mount Sinai was in itself sufficient to cause G'd's presence to reside on earth and to fill the earth with the knowledge of G'd so that G'd's residing on earth would not be considered as G'd "lowering" Himself from a holier region. On the contrary, earth would be elevated to rank as equal in sanctity to Heaven.

You will find that our sages said in Shemot Rabbah 41,7 that the meaning of true freedom, i.e. חרות, is freedom from the angel of death, i.e. the evil urge. The sin of the golden calf was responsible for the angel of death again asserting himself in our lives. Israel's subsequent repentance was not enough to banish the activities of the angel of death other than within certain parts of the confines of the encampment of the Jewish people. In the rest of the world the angel of death operated as it had prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. The era envisaged by the prophet in Zachariah 13 is one when death will have ceased on earth permanently. Earth will then be known as ארץ החיים, living earth, seeing that the angel of death will have been banned.

In order to understand the subject of Sotah we must keep all the foregoing in mind. The objective of the whole Sotah legislation is for the husband (priest) to examine his wife in a place where G'd resides. I have already explained elsewhere that this place is called ארץ העליונה, the "higher" earth, on account of G'd having His residence there. It is not included in the part of the earth which had been subjected to G'd's curse as a result of man's sin. Also any of the waters in that area are not subject to "tears," i.e. have not been afflicted by said curse. This is why G'd commanded that "holy waters" be taken for this procedure. Waters which are found in the sacred precincts of the Temple are sacred by definition. This does not contradict the halachah that these waters be taken from the copper basin which serves the priests to wash their hands and feet.

The Torah also commanded the priest to use earth from the floor of the Holy Temple precisely because it is the closest to G'd's residence. The reason that this earth should not now be dug up is also because if it were already at hand it is closer to the site where G'd resides. The closer the earth is to the place where the Shechinah resides, the more its awareness of its proximity to its Creator. Earth from outside the precincts of the Temple would not be as aware of the nearness of G'd. The earth is better able to fulfil what the Creator demands of it once it has "tasted" the proximity of the Lawgiver.

The reason that G'd commanded for the earth to be added to the water and not vice versa is based on the waters having been created before the earth during the process of creation. When our sages decided that if the earth had been in the vessel before the water the whole procedure is null and void, they did not nullify the procedure in the event that both water and earth had been poured into the vessel simultaneously. The reason is that such a procedure still resembles the order of creation when water and solid particles were thoroughly mixed up before G'd created the light. We do not find that earth is ever at the bottom of the source of springwater (מים חיים), however. Rabbi Shimon (Sotah 16) held that it does not matter whether the earth had been placed in the vesel first as long as the water is holy water. He obviously felt that this suffices for both the waters and the earth to be imbued with the appropriate awareness for both elements to perform the task G'd allocated to them as part of the whole procedure.

The Torah commanded to write the portion of the Sotah including the holy name of G'd where it appears in it and to allow the bitter waters to erase these holy names of G'd due to the nature of the water and the earth it contains. The residue of the names of G'd provided the water with the power to produce the desired effect in the woman who drank this water.

The Torah also commanded for the meal-offering of the woman in question to consist primarily of barley, i.e. a reminder of the offering Cain had brought, who had offered something of inferior value. This inferior offering was also an indirect result of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. This it what the Torah means when it speaks of מזכרת עון, "a reminder of sin," i.e. the original sin. It was this original sin which had led to the weeping of the waters and the curse which rests on Earth. When the Sotah drinks this mixture of water, earth and the residue of the holy name of G'd which dissolved in that water, the name of the meal-offering as "reminder of sin" is most appropriate if she has indeed been guilty of marital infidelity. It will recall also earlier sins. When the waters become aware of this they will turn bitter reflecting on their own sorry fate, as we described earlier. These waters will then take their revenge on this woman who has caused them all these tears and they will ruin the woman's intestines. All of this will be accomplished by the power of the holy name of G'd which has been dissolved in these waters. Whoever is familiar with the sin of Eve who had been contaminated by sexual intercourse with the original serpent, and who had thus been disloyal to her husband, will realise that the sin the Sotah is guilty of is indeed the original sin committed by man, i.e. woman. This sin had caused the original light G'd had bestowed on this world to withdraw to the celestial regions. The action of these waters (as well as the earth although the earth has not been mentioned by the Torah as also causing the death of the woman) may be viewed as an attempt to forestall an attack on them. We have a principle that when someone is about to kill you you are to forestall him and kill the attacker first. The kind of sin committed by a Sotah is one which drives G'd from our midst, and it is therefore logical that the water and the earth would react in the manner described by the Torah.

לא נטמאה האשה וטהורה היא ואם, And if the woman had not been defiled and remained pure, etc. The reason the Torah repeats that the woman had remained pure is that the Torah wishes to tell us that not only has she become exonerated so that the waters will not harm her, but she shall even conceive seed. The additional word וטהורה also indicates that not only had the woman in question not been guilty of intercourse with someone other than her husband, but she had not indulged in any of the caressing and fondling which usually precedes sexual intimacy. When both these conditions exist she will be blessed by becoming pregnant in accordance with what the Torah writes. If, on the other hand, לא נטמאה, she had not become defiled through actual intercourse but could not claim to be "pure" by not having indulged in foreplay, she will not be blessed with child although she will escape punishment for her conduct.

You will note that the priest who made her take the oath (verse 19-20) employed somewhat peculiar language. What did the Torah mean with the words כי שטית? If it means becoming defiled why does the Torah write וכי נטמאת, "and you have become defiled with the conjunctive letter ו? Clearly the word refers to something which precedes the actual defilement of a woman through intimacy. The priest cautioned: "if you have actually become defiled, then you qualify for the punishment provided by the Torah." When speaking about the reverse situation, i.e. אם לא שכב איש אתך, "if no man other than your husband has slept with you, etc.," then there are two possibilities. 1) You are exempt from the damaging effect of these bitter waters; 2) you may be totally exonerated and benefit by the blessing of becoming pregnant as promised by the Torah. The third possibility ("she is pure" as distinct from "she has not been defiled") can be understood as our sages say in Sotah 18 וטהורה היא מאיש אחר, that she is pure "as far as having slept with another man" (not the one her husband suspected her of) is concerned. According to our approach, "the other man" is already included in the statement that she has not been defiled which includes the man with whom her husband suspected her as well as any other man who is not her husband.