“SHE SHALL BEAR SEED”
At the conclusion of the section discussing the sotah woman, the verse states: “But if the woman had not become defiled, and she is pure, then she will be absolved {from punishment} and she shall bear seed.” Rashi explains (after first explaining “she will be absolved — of {the deleterious effects of} the afflictive waters,” which will be addressed below in Section 3) “she shall bear seed” to mean “if she would give birth painfully, she will now give birth with ease. If she would give birth to swarthy children, she will now give birth to fair ones.”
Rashi’s explanation seems puzzling: The source for his explanation is in Sifri, the Gemara (Sotah) and Tosefta (and similarly in the Jerusalem Talmud and Midrash Tanchuma) and in all of these places, other blessings are stated as well! “{If she gave birth to} daughters, she now gives birth to sons; {if her children were} short, she now gives birth to tall children” (and some places [also] state “{if she previously gave birth to} one child {at a time}, she now gives birth to two children,” “if she previously gave birth once in two years, she now gives birth every year”).
Why does Rashi deviate from these sources and choose to list only two things, “if she would give birth painfully, she will now give birth with ease; ...swarthy children, she will now give birth to fair ones”?
Note that Bamidbar Rabbah (ch. 9, par. 41) only cites “if she would give birth painfully, she will now give birth with ease. If she would give birth to swarthy children, she will now give birth to fair ones” (though with the preface “if she was barren, she will be remembered”).
Bamidbar Rabbah, parshas Naso, ch. 9, par. 25.
Sifri, ibid; Berachos, ibid; Jerusalem Talmud, ibid; Tosefta, ibid; and Bamidbar Rabbah (parshas Naso, ch. 9, par. 25).
Midrash Tanchuma, parshas Naso, par. 1.
Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah, ch. 3, par. 4.
However, both the Jerusalem Talmud and Midrash Tanchuma (and Bamidbar Rabbah, parshas Naso, ch 9, par. 41) combine the two opinions (of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael recorded in Sotah [and Berachos] and Sifri) together: If she was barren, she will be remembered; if she would give birth painfully....”
Tosefta, Sotah, ch. 2, par. 4.
Sotah 26a; and similarly in Berachos 31b.
Sifri, Bamidbar 5:28; also see Bamidbar Rabbah, parshas Naso, ch. 9, par. 25 [however, there is a well-known discussion whether Rashi saw Bamidbar Rabbah in the same form as we have today].
Bamidbar 5:28.
{The sotah woman is a married woman who is suspected by her husband of infidelity. She is brought to the Temple to drink from “bitter waters” and if indeed guilty, she dies a supernatural death.}
“WITH EASE... FAIR ONES”
This will be better understood by prefacing with another question:
The simple meaning of “and she shall bear seed” is that if “she is pure,” then (not only will she not be punished with “her stomach shall be distended and her thigh shall collapse,” but instead) she will be blessed with children. And indeed, this is how many of Torah’s straightforward commentators explain this verse — “Hashem will grant her children as reward for the shame she suffered.”
This being the case, how can Rashi, whose focus is to address the simple meaning of Scripture as mentioned above, choose to interpret “and she shall bear seed” to mean (not that she will have children, but rather) that “she will now give birth with ease... she will now give birth to fair ones”?
The Gemara (and Sifri) record an argument between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael: Rabbi Akiva states that “then she will be absolved and she shall bear seed” means “if she was barren, she will be remembered {and conceive a child}.” Rabbi Yishmael counters with an objection, “If so, all the barren women will seclude themselves {with other men} and they will be remembered {after drinking the bitter water and being found absolved}... If so, what is the meaning of ‘then she will be absolved and she shall bear seed’? That if she would give birth in pain....” The commentators say that Rashi does not follow Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, “if she was barren, she will be remembered,” because of the question that Rabbi Yishmael posed, “if so, all the barren women will seclude themselves and they will be remembered.” Because of this question, Rashi follows Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion.
However, it is (very) implausible to say this is Rashi’s reasoning (for following the opinion and explanation of Rabbi Yishmael) since:
- His question, “If so, all the barren women will seclude themselves and they will be remembered” is not an overpowering question (at least in the approach of the simple meaning of Scripture) since: (a) The mere act of seclusion isn’t sufficient to receive this blessing — it must follow the husband’s formal warning. (b) On a fundamental level, what would be so terrible if a modest woman, who is barren (or even many barren women) would take this path in order to be remembered and blessed with viable children?
- On the other hand: The same exact question can be asked on Rabbi Yishmael (as Tosafos points out and leaves unresolved) “All women who give birth in pain will seclude themselves and they will {subsequently} give birth with ease” (a matter discussed extensively by commentators)!
- Rabbi Yishmael’s objection “if so” specifically targets Rabbi Akiva’s interpretation that “if she was barren, she will be remembered.” According to Rabbi Akiva, the blessing “and she shall bear seed” applies {specifically} to a barren woman. However, the difficulty with Rashi’s commentary is: Given the principle that “the Torah speaks about the majority,” why doesn’t he explain that “and she will bear seed” {simply} applies to most women — those already capable of bearing children — indicating that “Hashem will give her offspring” as compensation for her humiliation. (Clearly, even for a woman who already has children, an additional child represents the greatest possible blessing.)
ABSOLVED OF WHAT?
Rashi’s opening words (on “she will be absolved”) must be clarified as well: He writes, “she will be absolved — of {the deleterious effects of} the afflictive waters, and furthermore, ‘she shall bear seed’; if she would....” Seemingly, what is Rashi teaching us by explaining that “she will be absolved” means “of the afflictive waters”? It is self-understood that this is what “she will be absolved” means, as stated explicitly above in the oath that the Kohen administers: “and if you have not strayed... then you shall be absolved of {the deleterious effects of} these bitter, afflictive waters”!
Re’em explains that Rashi is addressing a possible misunderstanding. {Without Rashi’s clarification,} we might assume that “she will be absolved” serves as a prelude to “and she shall bear seed.” (This follows the simple reading of the verse, where “she shall bear seed” appears to be an outcome of “she will be absolved.”) The verse might then be understood to mean “she will be absolved — of the things that prevented her from giving birth; and as a result, she shall bear seed.” To prevent this misunderstanding, Rashi clarifies that “she will be absolved” means “of the afflictive waters, and thereby saved from the water causing her stomach to distend and her thigh to fall,” while “‘she shall bear seed’ is an independent point.”
However, this explanation warrants examination:
- The word “she will be absolved” does not lend itself to be explained as “from things that (previously) prevented her from giving birth.” The verse should have instead used the word “she will be healed” or something similar.
- More fundamentally: How can we possibly think that this {“she will be absolved”} means “from the things that prevented her from giving birth”? This would then mean that the explicit words of the Kohen previously (“then you shall be absolved of these bitter, afflictive waters”) are not mentioned at all when the verse turns to discuss what actually happens!
A similar question can be asked 0n Gur Aryeh’s explanation of Rashi. He explains that Rashi is seeking to prevent us from mistakenly understanding the words “she will be absolved” as “from punishment, as {it means in the verse} ‘the man will be absolved of iniquity.’”
{The issue with this explanation is that} since the verse above stated explicitly “then you shall be absolved of these bitter, afflictive waters,” what would lead anyone to suggest that the same expression stated later, “she will be absolved,” has a different meaning (“from punishment”)?
A MISSING DETAIL
We can posit the following explanation:
Rashi is addressing a straightforward question about the verse: The verses describing the oath that the woman takes list all of the potential outcomes of drinking “the afflictive waters,” whether “if {a man} has not lain” or “if you have strayed.” Then how can it be that later, when describing the actual aftermath of drinking, a new effect is all of a sudden added, “she shall bear seed,” which was not listed earlier in the oath?
To address this question, Rashi cites the word “she will be absolved” and says, “of the afflictive waters, and furthermore, ‘she shall bear seed’; if she would give birth....” By saying this, Rashi is highlighting that “she shall bear seed” is not just a general reward (that she receives because of the embarrassment that she endured). Instead, this is an outcome and effect from the “(afflictive) waters” themselves. Meaning: Not only will the waters not harm her (the “afflictive” aspect will be removed) but instead, “and furthermore,” the waters will bring her blessing (the opposite of affliction) “she shall bear seed.”
Accordingly, Rashi adds, “she will be absolved — of the afflictive waters”: His (primary) purpose isn’t to prevent us from understanding “she will be absolved” differently {like Re’em and Gur Aryeh posited}. Instead, he is highlighting how the “she shall bear seed” that follows is a result of the “(afflictive) waters.”
Thus, “she shall bear seed” is an aspect (and extension) of “she will be absolved — of the afflictive waters.” This clarifies why this blessing wasn’t explicitly mentioned earlier during the administering of the oath: the Kohen’s inclusive terminology, “you shall be absolved of these bitter waters...,” {implicitly encompasses this outcome}. The later verse then spells out that “you shall be absolved of these bitter waters” also includes the blessing that “she shall bear seed.”
MIRRORED OUTCOMES
We can now also understand why Rashi says “she shall bear seed — if she would give birth painfully, she will now give birth with ease. If she would give birth to swarthy children, she will now give birth to fair ones”:
Since Rashi looks at “she shall bear seed” as an outcome of “the afflictive waters,” in place of the negative effects that would unfold “if you had strayed,” it follows that the positive outcome should mirror the negative outcomes:
The negative effect of “the afflictive waters” is not just that it “takes her away” from the world (as Rashi states, “afflictive — which takes her away from the world”). Instead, {her death} unfolds in painful and torturous fashion (her stomach distends and her thigh collapses).
The same is true when the effects of the “water” are of blessing (when she has “not strayed”). Not only will she be blessed to have children (“she shall bear seed”) but furthermore, the way that “she shall bear seed” will be the opposite of pain: “If she would give birth painfully, she will now give birth with ease.” Similarly, “if she would give birth to swarthy children, she will now give birth to fair ones” directly contrasts with the “blackening” of the face that would accompany the suffering when “her stomach shall be distended and her thigh shall collapse.”
In contrast, the other cases that our Sages cite, “{if she gave birth to} daughters, she now gives birth to sons; {if her children were} short, she now gives birth to tall children” (and similarly “{if she previously gave birth to} one child {at a time}, she now gives birth to two children; if she previously gave birth once in two years, she now gives birth every year”) do not exhibit any qualities that parallel the {adverse} effects of the afflictive waters (if she had “strayed”).
THE DEEPER DIMENSION
The idea that “she shall bear seed” is not just a general reward but rather an outcome of “the afflictive waters” themselves aligns with the deeper meaning of a sotah:
At the very beginning of this section, the verse states, “If any man’s wife goes astray.” Our Sages tell us that “A person only commits a transgression if a spirit of folly enters him.” This means that the sotah woman symbolizes {the broader concept of} “the spirit of folly” that enables and causes a person to “commit a transgression.” Accordingly, “warning” and “seclusion” in a spiritual sense refer to a Jew who hides himself (turns away) from Hashem (the “man” {husband} of the Jewish nation), even though the “man” warned him by saying, “do not seclude yourself” and “you shall have no other... before Me.” Instead, he chooses to seclude himself with “another man,” the evil inclination.
In this context, “she shall bear seed” represents teshuvah. Through teshuvah, the person is not only cleaned (“she will be absolved”) of the impurity of sin, but achieves something greater — an elevation beyond his previous state, as our Sages tell us: “In the place where penitents stand, even the full-fledged righteous do not stand.”
This is what Rashi clarifies (according to the deeper meaning as well): The blessing of “and she will bear seed” — the elevation achieved through teshuvah — is not merely incidental. Instead, this benefit is rooted in “the afflictive waters” itself. This elevation is a result of “the afflictive waters” themselves being transformed to the positive, “transforming... the bitter flavor to sweet,” where “his intentional transgressions are counted for him as merits.”
This is the deeper reason why “she shall bear seed” is only stated at the end of the section (when the Torah describes the actual effects of drinking) and not earlier when the oath is administered: because the concept that her descent into transgression (“sotah”) can bring elevation — raising her higher than her state before she sinned — cannot be mentioned before she actually does teshuvah.
Before a Jew does teshuvah, the principle applies: “a person who says: ‘I will sin and then I will repent, {Heaven} does not provide him the opportunity to repent.” A person is not allowed to sin on account of the benefit that he will acquire through performing teshuvah.
Only once a person has actually performed teshuvah is it then revealed the purpose {of his descent}; that there should be (not only “she will be absolved” as before her transgression, but rather) “she shall bear seed,” bringing the person to a much greater state, one of “ease,” and “fair{ness}.”
“Israel will repent, and will immediately be redeemed.” Replacing the pain and suffering of the birth pangs of Mashiach will be ease; and in place of the “blackness” of exile (“the faces of the Jewish people were blackened... like the bottom of a pot”) there will be “fair{ness},” the light of Redemption.
The era of “ease” and “fair{ness}” really begins even before the Redemption, starting from the final moments of exile —
— “as in the your days of your coming out of the Land of Egypt,” when the subjugation (and pain) of exile was nullified while still in Egypt before the Redemption occurred, and “there was light in their dwellings” —
— and we will reach the true and ultimate Redemption in a manner of “with tranquility and ease shall you be saved,” speedily in our days!
— From a talk delivered on Shabbos parshas Naso, 5740 (1980)
