How could Chana have been nistira?
The gemara on 30b explains that Chana said to Hashem that if you don't give me a child then I'll go seclude myself with a man and drink mei sota. The Pnai Yehoshua asks how could Chana threaten such a thing? First of all, there is an issur of yichud and second of all she is causing the shem Hashem to be nimchak! He answers that Chana never intended to carry out this threat. She just meant that it's unfair for Hashem to not give her a child because otherwise she could do this trick.
The truth is that the first question isn't really a problem. The dinim of stira are different than the dinim of yichud. It's possible to be a sotah without being over the isure of yichud. The first two halachos of the Rambam in hilchos sotah give two examples. One is if she's nistater with her father or son. There is no yichud but if her husband was mikane her with them then she will be chayeves to drink if she is nistater with them. The second is that if the husband was mekane her not to be with two men. There is no isur of yichud with two men but if he was mekane her with both of them together then there is a din of mei sotah.
I'm not sure about how to answer the second question except that I don't think there is anything wrong with erasing the shem Hashem in the case of sota. The gemara does talk about it being a bad thing but that's only if the mei sota is used in a case where it won't work. For example, if the husband was mezane then the mei sotah won't work and he's doing a bad thing by forcing his wife to drink. However, the mei sota was designed to be used in any case where there is kinui and stira so provided that he wasn't boel someone he wasn't allowed to (or any of the other reasons it won't work) she's doing nothing wrong by causing the shem Hashem to be erased.
posted by David @ 8:04 AM
4 Comments:
I just went to check the Insights of the Day from the Kollel Iyun Hadaf and they give slightly different answers (I guess I should have checked there first)
Acharonim suggest a number of ways to answer the FIRST QUESTION:
(a) The CHASAM SOFER (EH 1:102) answers the first question by citing the opinion of the Rambam, that although it is permitted, under the laws of Yichud, for one woman to be secluded with two men, nevertheless she can become a Sotah for doing so. Chanah would seclude herself with two men, which would not be a transgression of Yichud but would still be grounds for her husband to accuse her of infidelity and require her to drink the Sotah waters.
(b) The TERUMAS HA'DESHEN (#244) says that if the door to the area where the woman and the man are secluded is open, then there is no prohibition of Yichud. However, in such a situation the husband still has the right to accuse his wife of infidelity and require her to drink the Sotah waters. Thus, Chanah would not transgress the prohibition of Yichud, because the door could be kept open.
The SHEMEN ROKE'ACH answers the SECOND QUESTION. He explains that according to the Gemara (Nedarim 66b), the reason the name of Hashem may be erased for the Sotah waters is because the Sotah waters restore Shalom to the family (when the husband sees that his wife is innocent and is truly loyal to him, their Shalom is restored). Here, too, Chanah's intention was for the sake of Shalom between man and his wife. A man is permitted to divorce his wife if they cannot have children after ten years of marriage. Chanah wanted to have a child and not be divorced, and by drinking the Sotah waters (and causing the name of Hashem to be erased) she would be blessed with a child and restore Shalom to her relationship with her husband.
The MAGID TA'ALUMAH adds that when the verse says that Chanah "prayed 'on' Hashem" ("va'Tispalel Al Hashem"), it means that she prayed *for the sake of the name of Hashem*, that it should not be erased (that is, that Hashem should listen to her request and grant her a child without her having to drink the Sotah waters).
"Here, too, Chanah's intention was for the sake of Shalom between man and his wife. A man is permitted to divorce his wife if they cannot have children after ten years of marriage. Chanah wanted to have a child and not be divorced,"
but it doesnt sound from the pshat that elkanah wanted to divorce chana, halo onochi tov loch meyasara bonim and i dont see why he'd have been obligated to, as he had children from pninah?
or is there some question of obligation to divorce even if one already has children from another wife (cant see why it would be different than a postmenopausal woman)
also, why wouldn't beautiful children contribute to sholom bayis - if it's a segula for them, it must be something we understand that people prefer
the second question wasn't intended to be a strong question. I was just trying to point out that when meforshim look for a basis for eg a sholom bayis concern, and find a halacha of the sort you point to (regarding obligation to divorce), they are looking retroactively for objective sholom bayis concern.
But this doesn't preclude there being subjective concern, that one can't demonstrate.
"not having beautiful children will not cause a breakdown of Shalom Bayis,"
it might or might not, it is certainly hypothetically possible it would matter
"while not having children, even for one wife, can cause a breakdown of Shalom Bayis between that wife and her husband."
it's objectively demonstrable that not having children in X years leads to lack of sholom bayis when one is discussing not having children with one's only wife.
But there is no reason the former couldn't be true in any given situation- it's sufficient to demonstrate that objectively, beautiful is better than non beautiful.
In this situation, with no objective requirement for elkana to divorce chana, there is actual no difference between "having children" and "beautiful children" since neither lead to a requirement to divorce, and both are only subjective concerns.
That's why I asked this second.
"Shalom Bayis is a lack of harmony. It doesn't have to lead to divorce to be considered lack of Shalom Bayis."
You need to base this on a maamer chazal of some sort as the halacha doesn't support it.
The psukim clearly indicate that elkana was not unhappy because chana didnt have children. (Any upset on chana's part is not relevant or the vort would not make reference to the halacha regarding potential obligation to divorce.)
I know.
I think that chana is saying that she can "force" kaviyochol god to enable her to have children by this means but it would require god's name to be erased.
but without that, her own name is erased, as someone without children is choshuv k'meys, leaves no legacy etc.
she is asking in her t'fila why she should be more reluctant to cause god's name to be erased than god is to erase hers.
Post a Comment
<< Home