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

Daf Yomi

April 16, 2023 | 讻状讛 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • 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;聽 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.

讻转讘讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讚驻讬谉 驻住讜诇讛 住驻专 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 住驻专讬诐


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


讻转讘 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜诪讞拽 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜讻转讘 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜诪讞拽 讗讜转 讗讞转 驻住讜诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注砖讛 诇讛 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讛讝讗转


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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall execute upon her all this law鈥 (Numbers 5:30). The entire passage must be written completely and only then erased, all at once.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讻转讘 砖转讬 诪讙讬诇讜转 诇砖转讬 住讜讟讜转 讜诪讞拽谉 诇转讜讱 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪讛讜 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讞讬拽讛 诇砖诪讛


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?


讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘注讬谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讞讬拽讛 诇砖诪讛 诪讞拽谉 讘砖转讬 讻讜住讜转 讜讞讝专 讜注讬专讘谉 诪讛讜 诪讞讬拽讛 诇砖诪讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 砖转讬讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 砖转讬讗


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?


讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 砖转讬讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 砖转讬讗 讞讝专 讜讞诇拽谉 诪讛讜 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 转讬拽讜


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.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讛砖拽讛 讘住讬讘 诪讛讜 讘砖驻讜驻专转 诪讛讜 讚专讱 砖转讬讛 讘讻讱 讗讜 讗讬谉 讚专讱 砖转讬讛 讘讻讱 转讬拽讜


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.


讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 谞砖驻讻讜 诪讛谉 讜谞砖转讬讬专讜 诪讛谉 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖转讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘住讜讟讛 诇诪讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 砖谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 诇讗讞专 砖谞诪讞拽讛


Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: With regard to the two oaths that are stated with regard to the sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall cause her to swear鈥 (Numbers 5:19), and: 鈥淭hen the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing鈥 (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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讜讚诐 砖谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讻转讬讘谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖讬砖 注诪讛 讗诇讛 讜讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛 讗诇讛


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.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖讬砖 注诪讛 讗诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讘讬注谞讬 注诇讬讱 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转 砖讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讬讘讜讗讜 讘讬讱


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诇讛 诇讞讜讚讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜砖讘讜注讛 诇讞讜讚讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖讘讬注谞讬 注诇讬讱 砖讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讬讘讜讗讜 讘讬讱


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讛 讗讬讻讗 砖讘讜注讛 诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪砖讘讬注谞讬 注诇讬讱 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讬讘讜讗讜 讘讬讱:


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.


诪转谞讬壮 注诇 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 注诇 讛讗诇讛 讗诪谉 注诇 讛砖讘讜注讛 讗诪谉 诪讗讬砖 讝讛 讗诪谉 诪讗讬砖 讗讞专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 砖讟讬转讬 讗专讜住讛 讜谞砖讜讗讛


MISHNA: With regard to what does she say: 鈥淎men, amen鈥 (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,


讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转讬 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗转讬 讬讘讜讗讜 讘讬


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.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转讬 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 讗讟诪讗


Rabbi Meir says that 鈥渁men, amen鈥 means: Amen that I did not become defiled in the past, amen that I will not become defiled in the future.


讛讻诇 砖讜讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪转谞讛 注诪讛 诇讗 注诇 拽讜讚诐 砖转转讗专住 讜诇讗 注诇 讗讞专 砖转转讙专砖


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.


谞住转专讛 诇讗讞讚 讜谞讟诪讗转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讞讝讬专讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛


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.


讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讘注诇 讜诇讗 讛讬转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛:


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.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛


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.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗住讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪转谞讛 讘讛讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗住讬专讛 讛讬讻讬 诪转谞讛 讘讛讚讛 讜讛转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 转讬讘注诇 讜诇讗 转讛讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛


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 didn鈥檛 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.


讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诇讬转 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗


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.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讻讬 注专讜讛


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.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讛讜 砖讬转谞讛 讗讚诐 注诇 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注诇 谞讬砖讜讗讬 讗讞讬讜 诪讛讜


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 brother鈥檚 death? What is the halakha?


转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讬讘注诇 讜诇讗 转讛讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛 讛讗 讗住讬专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪转谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


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.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转讬 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 诇讗 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 讗讟诪讗 砖讗诐 转讟诪讗 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讻砖转讟诪讗 诪讬诐 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛


搂 The mishna states: Rabbi Meir says that 鈥渁men, amen鈥 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.


讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛讜 砖讬转谞讛 讗讚诐 注诇 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 讗住讬专讛 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讙专砖 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讛讚专 诇讛


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.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讻诇 砖讜讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛 诇讗 注诇 拽讜讚诐 砖转转讗专住 讜诇讗 注诇 讗讞专 砖转转讙专砖 谞住转专讛 诇讗讞讚 讜谞讟诪讗转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讞讝讬专谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 讛讗 讬讞讝讬专谞讛 讜转讬讟诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪转谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛拽谞讗转 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛


The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy鈥 (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.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讝讗转 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讜讛注讬讚 诇驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讞讜驻专 砖讬讞讬谉 砖讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讜拽讬讘诇谞讜 注讚讜转讜 讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚


The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: The word 鈥渢his鈥 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 Ne岣nya 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.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讘讬谉 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐


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.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转讜专转


The Gemara asks: But according to the first tanna of the baraita as well, isn鈥檛 it written in the verse: 鈥淭his,鈥 restricting the number of times a woman must drink? And according to the Rabbis mentioned later in the baraita as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he law of jealousy,鈥 amplifying the number of times a woman must drink to include all cases of jealousy?


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛


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,


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • 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

讻转讘讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讚驻讬谉 驻住讜诇讛 住驻专 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 住驻专讬诐


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


讻转讘 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜诪讞拽 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜讻转讘 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜诪讞拽 讗讜转 讗讞转 驻住讜诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注砖讛 诇讛 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讛讝讗转


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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall execute upon her all this law鈥 (Numbers 5:30). The entire passage must be written completely and only then erased, all at once.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讻转讘 砖转讬 诪讙讬诇讜转 诇砖转讬 住讜讟讜转 讜诪讞拽谉 诇转讜讱 讻讜住 讗讞讚 诪讛讜 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讞讬拽讛 诇砖诪讛


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?


讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘注讬谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讞讬拽讛 诇砖诪讛 诪讞拽谉 讘砖转讬 讻讜住讜转 讜讞讝专 讜注讬专讘谉 诪讛讜 诪讞讬拽讛 诇砖诪讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 砖转讬讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 砖转讬讗


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?


讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 砖转讬讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 砖转讬讗 讞讝专 讜讞诇拽谉 诪讛讜 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 转讬拽讜


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.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讛砖拽讛 讘住讬讘 诪讛讜 讘砖驻讜驻专转 诪讛讜 讚专讱 砖转讬讛 讘讻讱 讗讜 讗讬谉 讚专讱 砖转讬讛 讘讻讱 转讬拽讜


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.


讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 谞砖驻讻讜 诪讛谉 讜谞砖转讬讬专讜 诪讛谉 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖转讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘住讜讟讛 诇诪讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 砖谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 诇讗讞专 砖谞诪讞拽讛


Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: With regard to the two oaths that are stated with regard to the sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall cause her to swear鈥 (Numbers 5:19), and: 鈥淭hen the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing鈥 (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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讜讚诐 砖谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讻转讬讘谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖讬砖 注诪讛 讗诇讛 讜讗讞转 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛 讗诇讛


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.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讜注讛 砖讬砖 注诪讛 讗诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讘讬注谞讬 注诇讬讱 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转 砖讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讬讘讜讗讜 讘讬讱


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诇讛 诇讞讜讚讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜砖讘讜注讛 诇讞讜讚讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖讘讬注谞讬 注诇讬讱 砖讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讬讘讜讗讜 讘讬讱


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讛 讗讬讻讗 砖讘讜注讛 诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪砖讘讬注谞讬 注诇讬讱 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讬讘讜讗讜 讘讬讱:


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.


诪转谞讬壮 注诇 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 注诇 讛讗诇讛 讗诪谉 注诇 讛砖讘讜注讛 讗诪谉 诪讗讬砖 讝讛 讗诪谉 诪讗讬砖 讗讞专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 砖讟讬转讬 讗专讜住讛 讜谞砖讜讗讛


MISHNA: With regard to what does she say: 鈥淎men, amen鈥 (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,


讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转讬 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗转讬 讬讘讜讗讜 讘讬


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.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转讬 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 讗讟诪讗


Rabbi Meir says that 鈥渁men, amen鈥 means: Amen that I did not become defiled in the past, amen that I will not become defiled in the future.


讛讻诇 砖讜讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪转谞讛 注诪讛 诇讗 注诇 拽讜讚诐 砖转转讗专住 讜诇讗 注诇 讗讞专 砖转转讙专砖


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.


谞住转专讛 诇讗讞讚 讜谞讟诪讗转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讞讝讬专讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛


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.


讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讘注诇 讜诇讗 讛讬转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛:


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.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛


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.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗住讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪转谞讛 讘讛讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗住讬专讛 讛讬讻讬 诪转谞讛 讘讛讚讛 讜讛转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 转讬讘注诇 讜诇讗 转讛讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛


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 didn鈥檛 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.


讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诇讬转 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗


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.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讻讬 注专讜讛


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.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讛讜 砖讬转谞讛 讗讚诐 注诇 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注诇 谞讬砖讜讗讬 讗讞讬讜 诪讛讜


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 brother鈥檚 death? What is the halakha?


转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讬讘注诇 讜诇讗 转讛讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛 讛讗 讗住讬专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪转谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


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.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转讬 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 诇讗 讻砖讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 讗讟诪讗 砖讗诐 转讟诪讗 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讻砖转讟诪讗 诪讬诐 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讛


搂 The mishna states: Rabbi Meir says that 鈥渁men, amen鈥 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.


讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛讜 砖讬转谞讛 讗讚诐 注诇 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 讗住讬专讛 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讙专砖 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讛讚专 诇讛


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.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讻诇 砖讜讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诪讛 诇讗 注诇 拽讜讚诐 砖转转讗专住 讜诇讗 注诇 讗讞专 砖转转讙专砖 谞住转专讛 诇讗讞讚 讜谞讟诪讗转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讞讝讬专谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪转谞讛 讛讗 讬讞讝讬专谞讛 讜转讬讟诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪转谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛拽谞讗转 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛


The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy鈥 (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.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讝讗转 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讜讛注讬讚 诇驻谞讬谞讜 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讞讜驻专 砖讬讞讬谉 砖讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讜拽讬讘诇谞讜 注讚讜转讜 讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚


The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: The word 鈥渢his鈥 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 Ne岣nya 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.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讘讬谉 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐


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.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转讜专转


The Gemara asks: But according to the first tanna of the baraita as well, isn鈥檛 it written in the verse: 鈥淭his,鈥 restricting the number of times a woman must drink? And according to the Rabbis mentioned later in the baraita as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he law of jealousy,鈥 amplifying the number of times a woman must drink to include all cases of jealousy?


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛


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