Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

April 16, 2023 | ื›ืดื” ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.

Sotah 18

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy and Jerel Shapiro for the yahrzeits of Jerel’s father Arnold Shapiro, z”l, and their sweet infant grandson Edan Shai Shapiro, z”l, who both passed away at the end of Nissan.

Rava asks a series of questions regarding a case where there were two sotahs, can they erase two scrolls (megillat sotah) into one cup;ย  does the erasing need to be done with the intent for that particular woman or just the writing of the scroll? What if the erasing was done for each but the cups were combined into one? What if they were split after being combined? Does she need to drink in a normal manner or can she drink through a straw or tube? What if some or most of the water spills out? There are two oaths mentioned in the verses (Bamidbar 5:19 and 5:21). Why are there two oaths? Rav says one is before the scroll is erased and one after. Rava raises a difficulty on this and explains that one is with a curse and one without. What is the content of the one with the curse? Rava and Rav Ashi each explain it differently. When the woman answers amen to the oath, she answers amen for the oath and the curse. In addition, they can add a number of other oaths (gilgul shevua) such as making her swear she wasn’t with a different man (other than the one she was warned against being with), that she didn’t cheat on her husband when they were engaged, or when she was waiting to do yibum (if her husband was her yabam). Rabbi Meir adds that they can make her also swear that she won’t cheat on her husband in the future. The Mishna gives a rule for what can be included – only situations where her being with another man would forbid her from her husband. Rav Hamnuna infers from here that a woman waiting to do yibum who is with another man is forbidden to the yabam. But this is rejected by the rabbis in Israel who claimed that the Mishna follows only Rabbi Akiva’s position on the matter. According to Rabbi Meir, if she added an oath about cheating in the future, then in the event that she does cheat in the future, the water that she drank before will take effect (and kill her) at that later time. Can a woman drink sotah water twice? There are three different opinions regarding if and when this could happen.

ื›ืชื‘ื” ืขืœ ืฉื ื™ ื“ืคื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืกืคืจ ืื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ืกืคืจื™ื


If one wrote the scroll on two unattached pages, it is unfit, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: โ€œScroll,โ€ in the singular. It must be written on one scroll and not on two or three scrolls.


ื›ืชื‘ ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ื•ืžื—ืง ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ื•ืžื—ืง ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืฉื” ืœื” ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื–ืืช


If one wrote one letter and erased that one letter in water, and he then wrote one more letter and erased that one letter, it is unfit, as it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall execute upon her all this lawโ€ (Numbers 5:30). The entire passage must be written completely and only then erased, all at once.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื›ืชื‘ ืฉืชื™ ืžื’ื™ืœื•ืช ืœืฉืชื™ ืกื•ื˜ื•ืช ื•ืžื—ืงืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ื” ืœืฉืžื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืžื—ื™ืงื” ืœืฉืžื”


ยง Rava raised a dilemma: If one wrote two scrolls for two separate sota women but then erased both of the scrolls in one cup, what is the halakha? Do we require that only the writing be performed for the sake of a specific woman, in which case that is accomplished here? Or perhaps we require that also the erasure be performed for the sake of a specific woman, which is not accomplished here, since both scrolls are erased together?


ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืžื—ื™ืงื” ืœืฉืžื” ืžื—ืงืŸ ื‘ืฉืชื™ ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืขื™ืจื‘ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืžื—ื™ืงื” ืœืฉืžื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืฉืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืฉืชื™ื


And if you say that we require that also the erasure be for the sake of each specific woman, then if the priest erased them in two different cups and afterward mixed the water from both together again, what is the halakha? Do we require that only the erasure be for the sake of a specific woman, in which case that is accomplished here? Or perhaps since this sota does not drink from only her own water and that sota does not drink from only her own water, the water is disqualified?


ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืฉืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืฉืชื™ื ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื—ืœืงืŸ ืžื”ื• ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืจื” ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืจื” ืชื™ืงื•


And furthermore, if you say that the water is disqualified because this one does not drink from only her own water and that one does not drink from only her own water, what if after mixing the two cups of water together the priest divided them again into two cups and gave one to each? What is the halakha then? Is there retroactive clarification, in which case one may claim that each woman drank her own water, or is there no retroactive clarification? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื”ืฉืงื” ื‘ืกื™ื‘ ืžื”ื• ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ืžื”ื• ื“ืจืš ืฉืชื™ื” ื‘ื›ืš ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ืฉืชื™ื” ื‘ื›ืš ืชื™ืงื•


Rava raised a dilemma: If the priest administered the bitter water to the sota to drink through a palm fiber, what is the halakha? Or if he administered it through a tube, what is the halakha? Is this considered a normal manner of drinking, or is it not considered a normal manner of drinking, in which case the act is invalid? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื ืฉืคื›ื• ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจื• ืžื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืชื™ืงื•


Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: If some of the water of the sota spilled out and some of it remained in the cup, what is the halakha? Is it sufficient for the woman to drink some of the water in which the scroll has been erased or must she drink all of it? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืชื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื”ืืžื•ืจื•ืช ื‘ืกื•ื˜ื” ืœืžื” ืื—ืช ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ืžื—ืงื” ืžื’ื™ืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื ืžื—ืงื”


ยง Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: With regard to the two oaths that are stated with regard to the sota: โ€œAnd the priest shall cause her to swearโ€ (Numbers 5:19), and: โ€œThen the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursingโ€ (Numbers 5:21), why are they both necessary? One must be administered before the scroll is erased and one must be administered after it is erased.


ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ืžื—ืงื” ืžื’ื™ืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ืŸ ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื—ืช ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ืืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืžื” ืืœื”


Rava objects to this: Both of the oaths are written in the Torah before any mention of the scroll being erased. What is the basis to claim that one oath was administered afterward? Rather, Rava said: While both oaths are administered before the sota drinks, the two oaths are different: One is an oath that has a curse with it, and one is an oath that does not have a curse with it.


ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ืืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉื‘ื™ืขื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืช ืฉืื ื ื˜ืžืืช ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ื‘ื™ืš


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an oath that has a curse with it? What is the language of this oath? Rav Amram says that Rav says: The priest says: I administer an oath to you that you are honest in your claim that you were not defiled, as, if you were defiled, all these curses will come upon you.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืœื” ืœื—ื•ื“ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืœื—ื•ื“ื ืงื™ื™ืžื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืฉื‘ื™ืขื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ืฉืื ื ื˜ืžืืช ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ื‘ื™ืš


Rava said: This is insufficient, as the curse stands by itself and the oath stands by itself. They are said in separate statements, and it cannot be considered to be an oath with a curse. Rather, Rava said: The priest says: I administer an oath to you that if you were defiled, all these curses will come upon you.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืœื” ืื™ื›ื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืœื™ื›ื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืฉื‘ื™ืขื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืช ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžืืช ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ื‘ื™ืš:


Rav Ashi said: Even this is insufficient, as there is a curse but there is no oath that she was not defiled. Rather, Rav Ashi said: The priest must say: I administer an oath to you that you were not defiled and that if you were defiled all these curses will come upon you. Here the oath itself includes the curse.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืขืœ ืžื” ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืืžืŸ ืืžืŸ ืืžืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืืœื” ืืžืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืืžืŸ ืžืื™ืฉ ื–ื” ืืžืŸ ืžืื™ืฉ ืื—ืจ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืฉื˜ื™ืชื™ ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ื ืฉื•ืื”


MISHNA: With regard to what does she say: โ€œAmen, amenโ€ (Number 5:22), twice, as recorded in the verse? The mishna explains that it includes of the following: Amen on the curse, as she accepts the curse upon herself if she is guilty, and amen on the oath, as she declares that she is not defiled. She states: Amen if I committed adultery with this man about whom I was warned, amen if I committed adultery with another man. Amen that I did not stray when I was betrothed nor after I was married,


ื•ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ื ื•ืกื” ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืชื™ ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžืืชื™ ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ื‘ื™


nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, since a woman at that stage is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with any men, nor when married through levirate marriage to the yavam; amen that I did not become defiled, and if I did become defiled, may all these curses come upon me.


ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืชื™ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืื˜ืžื


Rabbi Meir says that โ€œamen, amenโ€ means: Amen that I did not become defiled in the past, amen that I will not become defiled in the future.


ื”ื›ืœ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื” ืœื ืขืœ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืชืชืืจืก ื•ืœื ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืฉืชืชื’ืจืฉ


All agree that he may stipulate with her through this oath neither with regard to what she did before becoming betrothed to him, nor with regard to what she will do after she becomes divorced from him.


ื ืกืชืจื” ืœืื—ื“ ื•ื ื˜ืžืืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื”


Similarly, if a husband divorced his wife, and while divorced she secluded herself with another man and became defiled, and afterward her husband took her back and remarried her, and he then warned her about a specific man, and she secluded herself, and she is now about to drink the water of the sota, he cannot stipulate with her that she take an oath that she did not become defiled during the period in which she was divorced. This is because her husband would become forbidden to her only if she had married another man after being divorced, not if she merely committed an act of promiscuity.


ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืชื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื• ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื”:


This is the principle: In every case where if she would engage in sexual intercourse with someone else she would not become forbidden to her husband due to this act, he may not stipulate with her that her oath include that act. The oath can include only cases in which she would be rendered forbidden to him.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื™ื‘ืžื” ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ื ื•ืกื”


GEMARA: Rav Hamnuna says: In the case of a widow awaiting her yavam who committed adultery, she becomes forbidden to her yavam. From where is this derived? It is from the fact that the mishna teaches: Nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, nor when married through levirate marriage.


ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืืกื™ืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืžืชื ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื” ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืืกื™ืจื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชื ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืœื• ืชื™ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ืชื”ื ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื• ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื”


The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that a woman awaiting levirate marriage who committed adultery is forbidden to the yavam, due to that reason a husband may stipulate with a sota that she take an oath that she did not commit adultery while she was awaiting levirate marriage with him. But if you say that such a woman does not become forbidden, how can a husband stipulate this with her? But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna that this is the principle: In every case where if she would engage in sexual intercourse with someone else she would not become forbidden to her husband due to this act, he may not stipulate with her that her oath include that act? Clearly she must become forbidden to the yavam if she commits adultery.


ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืœื™ืช ื”ื™ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื


They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna. A woman awaiting levirate marriage who commits adultery does not become forbidden to the yavam.


ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ื ื•ืกื” ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชื•ืคืกื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื” ื›ื™ ืขืจื•ื”


The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which is taught in the mishna: Nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, nor when married through levirate marriage, in accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Betrothal does not take effect even for those who would be merely liable for violating ordinary prohibitions were they to be married. All agree that betrothal does not take effect for forbidden unions that carry the punishment of karet, e.g., unions between siblings. However, according to Rabbi Akiva, in matters of personal status an ordinary Torah prohibition is equivalent to prohibitions that carry the punishment of karet. And he therefore holds that just as a wife who commits adultery, rendering her liable to receive karet, is forbidden to her husband and must be divorced, so too, a widow awaiting her yavam who commits adultery, violating an ordinary Torah prohibition, is considered to be a woman forbidden to her yavam.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื ื” ืื“ื ืขืœ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ืขืœ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ ืื—ื™ื• ืžื”ื•


Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: If a man divorced his wife and then remarried her, and she then secluded herself and came to drink the water of a sota, what is the halakha as to whether a man in that situation may stipulate with her concerning their first marriage? May he compel her to include in her oath that she did not commit adultery then either? Similarly, may a yavam stipulate with his yevama concerning the marriage of his brother, requiring her to attest that she did not commit adultery prior to the brotherโ€™s death? What is the halakha?


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืชื™ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ืชื”ื ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื• ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื” ื”ื ืืกื™ืจื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžืชื ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”:


The Gemara proposes: Come and hear evidence from the conclusion of the mishna: This is the principle: In every case where if she would engage in sexual intercourse with someone else she would not become forbidden to her husband due to this act, he may not stipulate with her that her oath include that act. One may therefore infer that he may indeed stipulate with her concerning any case in which she would become forbidden. In both of the cases in question the woman would have become forbidden to her husband if she had been guilty. Therefore, the Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from the mishna that he is entitled to stipulate in these cases.


ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืชื™ ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ืชื ื™ื ืœื ื›ืฉืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืื˜ืžื ืฉืื ืชื˜ืžื ืžื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืžืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืืœื ืœื›ืฉืชื˜ืžื ืžื™ื ืžืขืจืขืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื•ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื”


ยง The mishna states: Rabbi Meir says that โ€œamen, amenโ€ means: Amen that I did not become defiled in the past, amen that I will not become defiled in the future. With regard to this it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:2): When Rabbi Meir said: Amen that I will not become defiled in the future, he did not mean to say that if God knows that she will become defiled in the future, the water that she drinks now evaluates whether she will be unfaithful and passes judgment on her from now. Rather, he meant that in the event that she becomes defiled in the future, the water that she drinks now will destabilize her and evaluate then whether she was unfaithful.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื ื” ืื“ื ืขืœ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืื—ืจื•ื ื™ื ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ื ืœื ืืกื™ืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœื” ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื”


Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: What is the halakha as to whether a man may stipulate with his wife concerning a later marriage, in the event that he would divorce her and then remarry her? Do we say: Now, at least, if she remains faithful during this marriage, she is not forbidden to him? Or perhaps this includes a later marriage, as sometimes a man divorces his wife and remarries her, and if she then commits adultery she will become forbidden to him.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื›ืœ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื” ืœื ืขืœ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืชืชืืจืก ื•ืœื ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืฉืชืชื’ืจืฉ ื ืกืชืจื” ืœืื—ื“ ื•ื ื˜ืžืืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจื ื” ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจื ื” ื•ืชื™ื˜ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


The Gemara answers: Come and hear evidence from the mishna: All agree that he may stipulate with her through this oath neither with regard to what she did before becoming betrothed to him, nor with regard to what she will do after she becomes divorced from him. And if while divorced she secluded herself with another man and became defiled, and afterward her husband took her back and remarried her, he may not stipulate with her with regard to the period in which she was divorced, since that act does not render her forbidden to him. The Gemara infers: But if he remarries her and she then becomes defiled, she would be forbidden to him. Therefore, he may indeed stipulate with her in advance with regard to this. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude from the mishna that this is so.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืงื ืืช ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื”


ยง The Sages taught: The verse states: โ€œThis is the law of jealousyโ€ (Numbers 5:29), indicating that the same law is to be carried out in all cases of jealousy. This teaches that the woman drinks and repeats, i.e., she must drink a second time if she becomes a sota again.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื–ืืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื•ื”ืขื™ื“ ืœืคื ื™ื ื• ื ื—ื•ื ื™ื ื—ื•ืคืจ ืฉื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื” ื•ืงื™ื‘ืœื ื• ืขื“ื•ืชื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืื ืฉื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืื™ืฉ ืื—ื“


The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: The word โ€œthisโ€ in the verse is a restricting term, indicating that the woman does not drink and repeat. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in which Neแธฅunya the ditch digger testified before us in the name of his teachers that the woman drinks and repeats, and we accepted his testimony with regard to two men, but not with regard to one man. Even if she drinks the water of a sota while married to her first husband, she must drink again after violating a warning by her second husband. However, one husband cannot have his wife drink twice.


ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืฉ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืื ืฉื™ื


The baraita concludes: And the Rabbis say: The woman does not drink and repeat, whether with regard to one man or with regard to two men.


ื•ืชื ื ืงืžื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจืื™ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื•ืจืช


The Gemara asks: But according to the first tanna of the baraita as well, isnโ€™t it written in the verse: โ€œThis,โ€ restricting the number of times a woman must drink? And according to the Rabbis mentioned later in the baraita as well, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œThe law of jealousy,โ€ amplifying the number of times a woman must drink to include all cases of jealousy?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืื™ืฉ ืื—ื“ ื•ื‘ื•ืขืœ ืื—ื“ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืื™ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื”


Rava said: Different halakhot apply to different cases: With regard to one husband who accused his wife twice about one paramour, everyone agrees that the woman does not drink and repeat, having been proven innocent once,


  • Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sotah 14-20 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

After finishing the first chapter of Masechet Sotah, we will learn about the Sotah ceremony in the Temple this week....
talking talmud_square

Sotah 18: When There’s No (Apparent) Rabbinic Will

Different scenarios of the sotah case - especially where things go wrong in brining her to drink, etc. Which all...

Sotah 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 18

ื›ืชื‘ื” ืขืœ ืฉื ื™ ื“ืคื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืกืคืจ ืื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ืกืคืจื™ื


If one wrote the scroll on two unattached pages, it is unfit, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: โ€œScroll,โ€ in the singular. It must be written on one scroll and not on two or three scrolls.


ื›ืชื‘ ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ื•ืžื—ืง ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ื•ืžื—ืง ืื•ืช ืื—ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืฉื” ืœื” ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื–ืืช


If one wrote one letter and erased that one letter in water, and he then wrote one more letter and erased that one letter, it is unfit, as it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall execute upon her all this lawโ€ (Numbers 5:30). The entire passage must be written completely and only then erased, all at once.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื›ืชื‘ ืฉืชื™ ืžื’ื™ืœื•ืช ืœืฉืชื™ ืกื•ื˜ื•ืช ื•ืžื—ืงืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ื” ืœืฉืžื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืžื—ื™ืงื” ืœืฉืžื”


ยง Rava raised a dilemma: If one wrote two scrolls for two separate sota women but then erased both of the scrolls in one cup, what is the halakha? Do we require that only the writing be performed for the sake of a specific woman, in which case that is accomplished here? Or perhaps we require that also the erasure be performed for the sake of a specific woman, which is not accomplished here, since both scrolls are erased together?


ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืžื—ื™ืงื” ืœืฉืžื” ืžื—ืงืŸ ื‘ืฉืชื™ ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืขื™ืจื‘ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืžื—ื™ืงื” ืœืฉืžื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืฉืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืฉืชื™ื


And if you say that we require that also the erasure be for the sake of each specific woman, then if the priest erased them in two different cups and afterward mixed the water from both together again, what is the halakha? Do we require that only the erasure be for the sake of a specific woman, in which case that is accomplished here? Or perhaps since this sota does not drink from only her own water and that sota does not drink from only her own water, the water is disqualified?


ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืฉืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืฉืชื™ื ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื—ืœืงืŸ ืžื”ื• ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืจื” ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืจื” ืชื™ืงื•


And furthermore, if you say that the water is disqualified because this one does not drink from only her own water and that one does not drink from only her own water, what if after mixing the two cups of water together the priest divided them again into two cups and gave one to each? What is the halakha then? Is there retroactive clarification, in which case one may claim that each woman drank her own water, or is there no retroactive clarification? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื”ืฉืงื” ื‘ืกื™ื‘ ืžื”ื• ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ืžื”ื• ื“ืจืš ืฉืชื™ื” ื‘ื›ืš ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ืฉืชื™ื” ื‘ื›ืš ืชื™ืงื•


Rava raised a dilemma: If the priest administered the bitter water to the sota to drink through a palm fiber, what is the halakha? Or if he administered it through a tube, what is the halakha? Is this considered a normal manner of drinking, or is it not considered a normal manner of drinking, in which case the act is invalid? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื ืฉืคื›ื• ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจื• ืžื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืชื™ืงื•


Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: If some of the water of the sota spilled out and some of it remained in the cup, what is the halakha? Is it sufficient for the woman to drink some of the water in which the scroll has been erased or must she drink all of it? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืชื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื”ืืžื•ืจื•ืช ื‘ืกื•ื˜ื” ืœืžื” ืื—ืช ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ืžื—ืงื” ืžื’ื™ืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื ืžื—ืงื”


ยง Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: With regard to the two oaths that are stated with regard to the sota: โ€œAnd the priest shall cause her to swearโ€ (Numbers 5:19), and: โ€œThen the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursingโ€ (Numbers 5:21), why are they both necessary? One must be administered before the scroll is erased and one must be administered after it is erased.


ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ืžื—ืงื” ืžื’ื™ืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ืŸ ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื—ืช ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ืืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืžื” ืืœื”


Rava objects to this: Both of the oaths are written in the Torah before any mention of the scroll being erased. What is the basis to claim that one oath was administered afterward? Rather, Rava said: While both oaths are administered before the sota drinks, the two oaths are different: One is an oath that has a curse with it, and one is an oath that does not have a curse with it.


ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ืืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉื‘ื™ืขื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืช ืฉืื ื ื˜ืžืืช ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ื‘ื™ืš


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an oath that has a curse with it? What is the language of this oath? Rav Amram says that Rav says: The priest says: I administer an oath to you that you are honest in your claim that you were not defiled, as, if you were defiled, all these curses will come upon you.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืœื” ืœื—ื•ื“ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืœื—ื•ื“ื ืงื™ื™ืžื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืฉื‘ื™ืขื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ืฉืื ื ื˜ืžืืช ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ื‘ื™ืš


Rava said: This is insufficient, as the curse stands by itself and the oath stands by itself. They are said in separate statements, and it cannot be considered to be an oath with a curse. Rather, Rava said: The priest says: I administer an oath to you that if you were defiled, all these curses will come upon you.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืœื” ืื™ื›ื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืœื™ื›ื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืฉื‘ื™ืขื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืช ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžืืช ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ื‘ื™ืš:


Rav Ashi said: Even this is insufficient, as there is a curse but there is no oath that she was not defiled. Rather, Rav Ashi said: The priest must say: I administer an oath to you that you were not defiled and that if you were defiled all these curses will come upon you. Here the oath itself includes the curse.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืขืœ ืžื” ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืืžืŸ ืืžืŸ ืืžืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืืœื” ืืžืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืืžืŸ ืžืื™ืฉ ื–ื” ืืžืŸ ืžืื™ืฉ ืื—ืจ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืฉื˜ื™ืชื™ ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ื ืฉื•ืื”


MISHNA: With regard to what does she say: โ€œAmen, amenโ€ (Number 5:22), twice, as recorded in the verse? The mishna explains that it includes of the following: Amen on the curse, as she accepts the curse upon herself if she is guilty, and amen on the oath, as she declares that she is not defiled. She states: Amen if I committed adultery with this man about whom I was warned, amen if I committed adultery with another man. Amen that I did not stray when I was betrothed nor after I was married,


ื•ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ื ื•ืกื” ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืชื™ ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžืืชื™ ื™ื‘ื•ืื• ื‘ื™


nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, since a woman at that stage is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with any men, nor when married through levirate marriage to the yavam; amen that I did not become defiled, and if I did become defiled, may all these curses come upon me.


ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืชื™ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืื˜ืžื


Rabbi Meir says that โ€œamen, amenโ€ means: Amen that I did not become defiled in the past, amen that I will not become defiled in the future.


ื”ื›ืœ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื” ืœื ืขืœ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืชืชืืจืก ื•ืœื ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืฉืชืชื’ืจืฉ


All agree that he may stipulate with her through this oath neither with regard to what she did before becoming betrothed to him, nor with regard to what she will do after she becomes divorced from him.


ื ืกืชืจื” ืœืื—ื“ ื•ื ื˜ืžืืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื”


Similarly, if a husband divorced his wife, and while divorced she secluded herself with another man and became defiled, and afterward her husband took her back and remarried her, and he then warned her about a specific man, and she secluded herself, and she is now about to drink the water of the sota, he cannot stipulate with her that she take an oath that she did not become defiled during the period in which she was divorced. This is because her husband would become forbidden to her only if she had married another man after being divorced, not if she merely committed an act of promiscuity.


ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืชื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื• ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื”:


This is the principle: In every case where if she would engage in sexual intercourse with someone else she would not become forbidden to her husband due to this act, he may not stipulate with her that her oath include that act. The oath can include only cases in which she would be rendered forbidden to him.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื™ื‘ืžื” ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ื ื•ืกื”


GEMARA: Rav Hamnuna says: In the case of a widow awaiting her yavam who committed adultery, she becomes forbidden to her yavam. From where is this derived? It is from the fact that the mishna teaches: Nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, nor when married through levirate marriage.


ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืืกื™ืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืžืชื ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื” ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืืกื™ืจื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชื ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืœื• ืชื™ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ืชื”ื ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื• ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื”


The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that a woman awaiting levirate marriage who committed adultery is forbidden to the yavam, due to that reason a husband may stipulate with a sota that she take an oath that she did not commit adultery while she was awaiting levirate marriage with him. But if you say that such a woman does not become forbidden, how can a husband stipulate this with her? But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna that this is the principle: In every case where if she would engage in sexual intercourse with someone else she would not become forbidden to her husband due to this act, he may not stipulate with her that her oath include that act? Clearly she must become forbidden to the yavam if she commits adultery.


ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืœื™ืช ื”ื™ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื


They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna. A woman awaiting levirate marriage who commits adultery does not become forbidden to the yavam.


ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ื ื•ืกื” ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชื•ืคืกื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื” ื›ื™ ืขืจื•ื”


The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which is taught in the mishna: Nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, nor when married through levirate marriage, in accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Betrothal does not take effect even for those who would be merely liable for violating ordinary prohibitions were they to be married. All agree that betrothal does not take effect for forbidden unions that carry the punishment of karet, e.g., unions between siblings. However, according to Rabbi Akiva, in matters of personal status an ordinary Torah prohibition is equivalent to prohibitions that carry the punishment of karet. And he therefore holds that just as a wife who commits adultery, rendering her liable to receive karet, is forbidden to her husband and must be divorced, so too, a widow awaiting her yavam who commits adultery, violating an ordinary Torah prohibition, is considered to be a woman forbidden to her yavam.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื ื” ืื“ื ืขืœ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ืขืœ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ ืื—ื™ื• ืžื”ื•


Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: If a man divorced his wife and then remarried her, and she then secluded herself and came to drink the water of a sota, what is the halakha as to whether a man in that situation may stipulate with her concerning their first marriage? May he compel her to include in her oath that she did not commit adultery then either? Similarly, may a yavam stipulate with his yevama concerning the marriage of his brother, requiring her to attest that she did not commit adultery prior to the brotherโ€™s death? What is the halakha?


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืชื™ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ืชื”ื ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื• ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื” ื”ื ืืกื™ืจื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžืชื ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”:


The Gemara proposes: Come and hear evidence from the conclusion of the mishna: This is the principle: In every case where if she would engage in sexual intercourse with someone else she would not become forbidden to her husband due to this act, he may not stipulate with her that her oath include that act. One may therefore infer that he may indeed stipulate with her concerning any case in which she would become forbidden. In both of the cases in question the woman would have become forbidden to her husband if she had been guilty. Therefore, the Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from the mishna that he is entitled to stipulate in these cases.


ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืืชื™ ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ืชื ื™ื ืœื ื›ืฉืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืื˜ืžื ืฉืื ืชื˜ืžื ืžื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืžืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืืœื ืœื›ืฉืชื˜ืžื ืžื™ื ืžืขืจืขืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื•ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื”


ยง The mishna states: Rabbi Meir says that โ€œamen, amenโ€ means: Amen that I did not become defiled in the past, amen that I will not become defiled in the future. With regard to this it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:2): When Rabbi Meir said: Amen that I will not become defiled in the future, he did not mean to say that if God knows that she will become defiled in the future, the water that she drinks now evaluates whether she will be unfaithful and passes judgment on her from now. Rather, he meant that in the event that she becomes defiled in the future, the water that she drinks now will destabilize her and evaluate then whether she was unfaithful.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื ื” ืื“ื ืขืœ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืื—ืจื•ื ื™ื ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ื ืœื ืืกื™ืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœื” ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื”


Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: What is the halakha as to whether a man may stipulate with his wife concerning a later marriage, in the event that he would divorce her and then remarry her? Do we say: Now, at least, if she remains faithful during this marriage, she is not forbidden to him? Or perhaps this includes a later marriage, as sometimes a man divorces his wife and remarries her, and if she then commits adultery she will become forbidden to him.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื›ืœ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ืขืžื” ืœื ืขืœ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืชืชืืจืก ื•ืœื ืขืœ ืื—ืจ ืฉืชืชื’ืจืฉ ื ืกืชืจื” ืœืื—ื“ ื•ื ื˜ืžืืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจื ื” ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืžืชื ื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจื ื” ื•ืชื™ื˜ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


The Gemara answers: Come and hear evidence from the mishna: All agree that he may stipulate with her through this oath neither with regard to what she did before becoming betrothed to him, nor with regard to what she will do after she becomes divorced from him. And if while divorced she secluded herself with another man and became defiled, and afterward her husband took her back and remarried her, he may not stipulate with her with regard to the period in which she was divorced, since that act does not render her forbidden to him. The Gemara infers: But if he remarries her and she then becomes defiled, she would be forbidden to him. Therefore, he may indeed stipulate with her in advance with regard to this. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude from the mishna that this is so.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืงื ืืช ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื”


ยง The Sages taught: The verse states: โ€œThis is the law of jealousyโ€ (Numbers 5:29), indicating that the same law is to be carried out in all cases of jealousy. This teaches that the woman drinks and repeats, i.e., she must drink a second time if she becomes a sota again.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื–ืืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื•ื”ืขื™ื“ ืœืคื ื™ื ื• ื ื—ื•ื ื™ื ื—ื•ืคืจ ืฉื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื” ื•ืงื™ื‘ืœื ื• ืขื“ื•ืชื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืื ืฉื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืื™ืฉ ืื—ื“


The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: The word โ€œthisโ€ in the verse is a restricting term, indicating that the woman does not drink and repeat. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in which Neแธฅunya the ditch digger testified before us in the name of his teachers that the woman drinks and repeats, and we accepted his testimony with regard to two men, but not with regard to one man. Even if she drinks the water of a sota while married to her first husband, she must drink again after violating a warning by her second husband. However, one husband cannot have his wife drink twice.


ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืฉ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืื ืฉื™ื


The baraita concludes: And the Rabbis say: The woman does not drink and repeat, whether with regard to one man or with regard to two men.


ื•ืชื ื ืงืžื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจืื™ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื•ืจืช


The Gemara asks: But according to the first tanna of the baraita as well, isnโ€™t it written in the verse: โ€œThis,โ€ restricting the number of times a woman must drink? And according to the Rabbis mentioned later in the baraita as well, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œThe law of jealousy,โ€ amplifying the number of times a woman must drink to include all cases of jealousy?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืื™ืฉ ืื—ื“ ื•ื‘ื•ืขืœ ืื—ื“ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืื™ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืฉื•ื ื”


Rava said: Different halakhot apply to different cases: With regard to one husband who accused his wife twice about one paramour, everyone agrees that the woman does not drink and repeat, having been proven innocent once,


Scroll To Top