Parshas Nasso 5785

In the fortunate case when a woman taken by the husband whom he suspects as a Sotah and she is found innocent, the passuk says:

Chazal discuss exactly how to interpret the blessing promised by the Torah of the woman being "producing seed":

The Acharonim ask, why should this woman—a suspected adulteress—receive any reward at all?

True, she was ultimately proven innocent of actual adultery, but her behavior was far from model Beis Yaakov behavior.

This wasn't some fleeting moment where she accidentally locked eyes with another man from the other side of the mechitza and quickly looked away. Her untoward conduct was so prolonged and blatant that it was enough arouse her husband's suspicions to pinpoint the suspected person and justify the ensuing sotah ordeal!

The late Mashgiach of Lakewood Yeshiva, Rav Nosson Wachtfogel zt”l, (who was personally selected by Rav Aharon Kotler in 1943 to serve as Mashgiach in Lakewood keeping him from going to New York after having been offered a position there), addresses this question in "Kovetz Shiurim"—a multi-volume collection of transcribed shiurim spanning his remarkable fifty-year tenure (1943-1998).

This discourse is found in Volume 3, Parshas Emor.

While we might have expected Hashem to side with who's morally "right" in the particular situation or take into account the character of the individuals involved in the scuffle, the Midrash says otherwise: Regardless of the moral standing of either party, it is axiomatic that Hashem champions the pursued owing to the simple fact that they are being pursued.

Rav Vochtfogel makes the case that the entire ordeal the Sotah went through, from the momemt she came under her husband's watchful eye, his suspicions, the formal warning, and the terrifying ordeal of the bitter waters, brought her the status of being a nirdefes—one who was being pursued.

Once her innocence is established and she emerges alive from the ordeal, the Midrash's ironclad rule takes effect. Her blessing of fertility isn't dispensed as a discretionary restitution, rather it stems from the divine cause-and-effect that Hashem always seeks justice for those who have been pursued.

I’d like to argue that a parallel idea to this understanding in the parsha of Sotah is alluded to in the Ramban earlier in the parsha.

The passuk says in regards to the Sotah ritual offering:

There is an argument in the Rishonim as to what detail of the Sotah offering "because it is a meal of jealousy" is explaining. Ramban learns that it is going back on the detail of "and the husband shall bring her offering. He writes:

The Levush Mordechai, with elaboration from the Som Derech, understand the Ramban as teaching a lesson in ethical conduct (middos tovos). The Korban itself is a vehicle that plays a part in determining her innocence or guilt. To require her to "self inflict the shot" and actively participate in this Korban which could potentially bring about her demise, crosses the line into unnecessary torment.

Therefore - according in the Ramban's reading of the passuk - the husband brings the korban on her behalf.

However, I noticed that this explanation of the Ramban only accords with one of the Tannaim in the Sifrei. According to another opinion, the Korban Sotah teaches that just as he brings this korban for her, he brings of all her required offerings.

I wanted to suggest an approach that maintains the structural reading of the text like the Ramban, but with the explanation in line with Rav Vochtfogel.

The reason the husband must bring the korban is because the the Torah requires him to remain the active pursuer while she remains the pursued.

If the woman were to bring the korban herself, it would be lacking (פעלט) in the "pursued" dynamic in order for her to merit the blessing if she is found innocent.

(I later saw a similar approach to to explain the Ramban himself in a similar fashion in the Mekoros V’Iyunim [Oz Vehadar edition], baruch shekivanti ketzas)

Rav Refael Shmuelevitz explains that the question of Rav Yishmael isn't shver according to Reb Akiva because according to Reb Akiva the schar only comes by her being at the height of nisayon and overcoming it, but if she willingly put herself into it with the intention to just "beat the system" there is no reward for that. According to Rav Nosson Vochtfogel, we can say a little bit differently, since she is bringing it onto herself, it is again lacking in the "nirdefes" and Hashem knows that she isn't feeling "chased" and therefore she won't be guaranteed the reward.

(Just as a hosafa, a similar idea to bring out this point is found in Hilchos Berachos. Rav Shlomo Zalman (Halichos Shlomo, Tefilla Chapter 20, 27) says that if a person goes to the bathroom even though he doesn't feel the need because he is about to embark on a long trip and just wants to make sure he won't need to go, he still makes an Asher Yatzar.

In the Dvar Halacha they bring from the Mekor Chaim who disagrees and says that you don't make Asher Yatzar because it is ineveitable to bring oneself to even a few drops, and safek brachos lehakel, and also how can one honestly say the part of the bracha "and even if it was closed for one instant one wouldn't survive" since he would have survived without this trip to the restroom.

It brings out the similar idea that when one willingly puts themselves into a situation, the resulting halachos and results don't necassarily apply.)

---

The Ramban's explanation only goes according to one opinion in the Tannaim:

---

Rashi explains the passuk like R' Yishmael and Onkelos like R' Akiva. See also Sichos of the Rebbe Chelek 28, Parshas