The meal offering of the sotah is waved by the kohen and the sotah. From where is it derived that the woman also needs to wave it? Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about whether the woman drinks the sotah water before bringing the meal offering or brings the meal offering and then drinks the water. There are two verses that mention that the kohen makes the woman drink the water (Bamidbar 5:24,27) and in Bamidbar 5:26, it says “and after that, he makes the woman drink the water.” What do each of them derive from each of these verses that mention the drinking? Rabbi Akiva learns a different halacha from one of the extra verses – that after the scroll is erased, we force the woman to drink the water, even if she doesn’t want to. The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Akiva from a different source where Rabbi Akiva seems to say something different. The braita quoted has an inner contradiction and in resolving that contradiction, they explain the question raised against Rabbi Akiva.
Sotah 19
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Sotah 19
דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת״. בִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּהָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״תּוֹרַת״.
as it is written: “This is the law of jealousy.” The word “this” is a restricting term and excludes that possibility. With regard to two different husbands and two different paramours, where her first husband suspected her with regard to one paramour during her first marriage and the second husband suspected her with regard to a different man during the second marriage, everyone agrees that the woman drinks and repeats, as it is written: “This is the law of jealousy,” in all cases of jealousy.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין, בִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד.
They disagree when there is one husband and two paramours, i.e., where one husband warned her with regard to a second paramour after she survived her first ordeal. They also disagree in a case of two husbands and one paramour, i.e., if her second husband accused her with regard to the same paramour on account of whom she was compelled to drink by her first husband.
תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹיֵי כּוּלְּהִי, ״זֹאת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי אִישׁ אֶחָד וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד.
The opinions are justified as follows: The first tanna holds that the phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include all of these cases. In almost all cases the woman drinks and repeats. The word “this” serves to exclude only the case of one husband and one paramour, in which she does not drink and repeat.
וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי: ״זֹאת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי כּוּלְּהִי, ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹיֵי שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין.
And the Rabbis mentioned later in the baraita hold that the word “this” serves to exclude all of these cases. The woman almost never drinks and repeats. The phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include only the case of two husbands and two paramours, in which she does drink and repeat.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: ״זֹאת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי תַּרְתֵּי, ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹת תַּרְתֵּי. ״זֹאת״ לְמַעוֹטֵי תַּרְתֵּי — אִישׁ אֶחָד וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד, אִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין, ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹיֵי תַּרְתֵּי, שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד, שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין.
And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The word “this” serves to exclude two of the cases, and the phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include two. The word “this” serves to exclude the two cases of one husband and one paramour and one husband and two paramours. In neither of these cases does the woman drink and repeat. The phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include two cases, i.e., two husbands and one paramour, and all the more so two husbands and two paramours. In both of these cases, the woman must drink and repeat.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָיָה מֵבִיא
הָיָה נוֹטֵל אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ מִתּוֹךְ כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית, וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל יָדָהּ, וְכֹהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ מִתַּחְתֶּיהָ וּמְנִיפָהּ. הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ, קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
MISHNA: He would take her meal-offering out of the Egyptian wicker basket made of palm leaves in which it was lying and would put it into a service vessel and then place it on her hand. And the priest would then place his hand underneath hers and wave it together with her. The priest waved it and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful; and the remainder was eaten by the priests.
הָיָה מַשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָיָה מַשְׁקָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶת הַמָּיִם״. אִם הִשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ — כְּשֵׁרָה.
The priest would force the woman to drink the bitter water of a sota, and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon says: The priest would sacrifice her meal-offering and afterward he would force her to drink, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26). But Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the priest first forced her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, it is still valid.
גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּדָרֵיהּ: לָא תֵּיתֵב אַכַּרְעָךְ עַד דִּמְפָרְשַׁתְּ לָהּ לְהָא מִילְּתָא: מִנַּיִן לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה? מְנָא לַן?! ״וְהֵנִיף״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ! בִּבְעָלִים, מְנָלַן?
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation, i.e., his contemporary: You shall not sit on your feet until you explain this matter to me: From where is it derived that the meal-offering of a sota requires waving? The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: From where do we derive this? It is explicitly written with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: “And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the Lord, and bring it unto the altar” (Numbers 5:25). Rather, the question is as follows: From where do we derive that the waving is performed by the owner, i.e., the woman, and not only by the priest?
אָתְיָא ״יָד״ ״יָד״ מִשְּׁלָמִים. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶינָה״.
Rabbi Yoshiya answered: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term “hand” written here and “hand” from the peace-offering: It is written here, with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: “And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand” (Numbers 5:25), and it is written there, with regard to the peace-offering: “He that offers his peace-offerings unto the Lord…His own hands shall bring the offerings…that the breast may be waved before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:29–30).
מָה כָּאן כֹּהֵן — אַף לְהַלָּן כֹּהֵן, וּמָה לְהַלָּן בְּעָלִים — אַף כָּאן בְּעָלִים. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ תַּחַת יְדֵי הַבְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.
Just as here, in the case of the sota, the priest waves the offering, so too there, in the case of the peace-offering, the priest waves the offering. And just as there, in the case of the peace-offering, the owner waves the offering, so too here, in the case of the sota, the owner waves the offering. How is this accomplished? The priest places his hand beneath the hands of the owner and then waves the offering with the owner.
הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ קָמַץ וְכוּ׳. הָיָה מַשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ. הָא אַקְרְבַהּ!
§ The mishna states: The priest waved it and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful. Yet the continuation of the mishna states: The priest would force the woman to drink, and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering. The Gemara asks: Didn’t the mishna state in the previous phrase that the offering was already sacrificed?
הָכִי קָאָמַר: סֵדֶר מְנָחוֹת כֵּיצַד? הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ, קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: What was the sacrificial order of meal-offerings in general? The priest waved the meal-offering and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful, and the remainder was eaten by the priests.
וּבְהַשְׁקָאָה גּוּפַהּ פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנַן. דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מַשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁקָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״.
And as for the correct order for sacrificing the meal-offering of the sota and forcing her to drink, this itself is a matter about which Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree, as the Rabbis hold that the priest would force the woman to drink and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering; and Rabbi Shimon holds that the priest would sacrifice her meal-offering and afterward he would force her to drink, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26).
וְאִם הִשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ — כְּשֵׁרָה.
§ The mishna states: But Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the priest first forced her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, the offering is still valid.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִשְׁקָה״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״! שֶׁאִם נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה וְאוֹמֶרֶת ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״ — מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The Sages taught: What is the meaning when the verse states after the sacrifice of the meal-offering: “And he shall make her drink the water” (Numbers 5:27)? But isn’t it already stated: “And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse” (Numbers 5:24)? The baraita answers: The repetition teaches that if the scroll was already erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced [me’arerin] to drink against her will. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״! אֶלָּא, לְאַחַר כׇּל מַעֲשִׂים כּוּלָּן הָאֲמוּרִין לְמַעְלָה. מַגִּיד שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מְעַכְּבִין בָּהּ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה, וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא תְּקַבֵּל עָלֶיהָ שְׁבוּעָה.
Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26)? But isn’t it already stated previously: “And he shall make the woman drink” (Numbers 5:24)? Rather, this verse indicates that the sota is given the bitter water to drink only after all the actions that are stated above are performed, i.e., erasing the scroll, sacrificing the meal-offering, and administering the oath. Therefore, this verse teaches that three matters preclude her from drinking: She does not drink until the handful is sacrificed, and until the scroll is erased, and until she accepts the oath upon herself.
עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁקָהּ.
The Gemara elaborates: She does not drink until the handful is sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning stated earlier, as he says that the priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink.
עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה. אֶלָּא מַאי מַשְׁקֶה לַהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה לְשֶׁרִישּׁוּמוֹ נִיכָּר.
The Gemara questions the second condition: She does not drink until the scroll is erased. Why does the baraita need to state this? But what could he give her to drink if the scroll was not yet erased into the water? Rav Ashi says: No, this halakha is necessary for an instance where the scroll was erased, but the impression of the ink is still discernible on the parchment. The woman does not drink until the scroll is totally erased.
עַד שֶׁלֹּא תְּקַבֵּל עָלֶיהָ שְׁבוּעָה. מִישְׁתָּא הוּא דְּלָא שָׁתְיָא, הָא מִיכְתָּב כָּתְבִי לַהּ, וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מְגִילַּת סוֹטָה שֶׁכְּתָבָהּ קוֹדֶם שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל עָלֶיהָ שְׁבוּעָה — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.
The Gemara discusses the third condition: She does not drink until she accepts the oath upon herself. One might infer from this statement that it is only that she does not drink before she accepts the oath; however, the scroll is written for her before she accepts the oath. But didn’t Rava say: With regard to a scroll of a sota that was written before she accepted the oath upon herself, whoever wrote it did nothing, and the scroll is rendered invalid. The Gemara responds: This was cited for no reason, as in fact the scroll is not even written before she accepts the oath upon herself, and nothing should be inferred.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״וְהִשְׁקָה״ קַמָּא, ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״, ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״ בָּתְרָא.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the mishna? The Gemara answers: Three verses are written which pertain to drinking the bitter water: The first occurrence of the term is in the verse: “And he shall make the woman drink” (Numbers 5:24); the second: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26); and the last occurrence of the term is in the verse: “And he shall make her drink” (Numbers 5:27).
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״וְהִשְׁקָה״ קַמָּא — לְגוּפוֹ, שֶׁמַּשְׁקֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ. ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״ — מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְשֶׁרִישּׁוּמוֹ נִיכָּר. ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״ בָּתְרָא — שֶׁאִם נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה וְאוֹמֶרֶת ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״, מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקֶה אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ.
The Rabbis hold that the first occurrence of the term: “And he shall make the woman drink,” is written to teach the halakha itself, i.e., that the priest first forces her to drink and afterward sacrifices her meal-offering. The second instance: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink,” is necessary to teach that as long as the impression of the writing is still discernible, the sota is not given the bitter water to drink. The third verse, the last occurrence of the term: “And he shall make her drink,” teaches that if the scroll was erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״ — לְגוּפוֹ, שֶׁמַּקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁקָהּ. ״וְהִשְׁקָה״ קַמָּא — שֶׁאִם הִשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״ בָּתְרָא — שֶׁאִם נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה וְאָמְרָה ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״, מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ.
And Rabbi Shimon holds that the second verse: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26), is written to teach the halakha itself, i.e., that the priest first sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink. The first occurrence of the term: “And he shall make the woman drink,” teaches that if he forced her to drink and only afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, the offering is nevertheless valid. The last occurrence of the term: “And he shall make her drink,” teaches that if the scroll was erased and then she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.
וְרַבָּנַן — בְּדִיעֲבַד לָא פָּתַח קְרָא.
The Gemara explains the Rabbis’ opinion: And the Rabbis would respond to Rabbi Shimon that the verse does not begin the discussion with a halakha that is applicable only after the fact, and therefore the initial mention of the drinking is referring to the proper time for the ritual.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כַּלְבּוֹס שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל מְטִילִין לְתוֹךְ פִּיהָ, שֶׁאִם נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה וְאָמְרָה ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״ — מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כְּלוּם אָנוּ צְרִיכִין אֶלָּא לְבוֹדְקָהּ, וַהֲלֹא בְּדוּקָה וְעוֹמֶדֶת! אֶלָּא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ — יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזוֹר בָּהּ, מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ — אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזוֹר בָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Akiva in fact hold that the woman is forced to drink against her will? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:3) that Rabbi Yehuda says: A hook [kelabus] made of iron is forcibly placed into her mouth, so that if the scroll was erased and she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will. Rabbi Akiva said: It is not necessary to force her to drink. Don’t we need to force her to drink the water only in order to evaluate her fidelity? And isn’t she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink, as she is essentially admitting her guilt? Rather, Rabbi Akiva’s statement should be understood as follows: Until the handful is sacrificed she can retract her decision to drink the bitter water; however, once the handful is sacrificed she cannot retract her decision to drink.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ הִיא גּוּפַהּ: מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזוֹר בָּהּ? וַהֲלֹא בְּדוּקָה וְעוֹמֶדֶת!
The Gemara asks: But according to your reasoning in explanation of Rabbi Akiva’s statement, this explanation itself should pose a difficulty for you. Why can’t she retract her decision once the handful is sacrificed? And isn’t she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink?
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּקָהָדְרָא בַּהּ מֵחֲמַת רְתִיתָא, וְהָא — דְּקָהָדְרָא בָּהּ מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיּוּתָא.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, where she is forced to drink, is referring to a situation where she retracts her decision to drink due to fear, as her refusal is not viewed as an admission of guilt, and it is possible that if she drinks she will be found undefiled. And that case, where she does not drink, is referring to a situation where she retracts her decision in a state of good health. Since she does not appear to be afraid, her refusal is viewed as an admission of guilt.
וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיּוּתָא — כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא שָׁתְיָא. מֵחֲמַת רְתִיתָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ, דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא אִמְּחוּק מְגִילָּה, אִי נָמֵי אִמְּחוּק מְגִילָּה, דְּשֶׁלֹּא כְּדִין עֲבוּד כֹּהֲנִים דְּמַחֲקִי — מָצְיָ[א] הָדְרָא בָּהּ. מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ, דִּבְדִין עֲבוּד כֹּהֲנִים דְּמָחֲקִי — לָא מָצֵי הָדְרָא בָּהּ.
And this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: In any case where she retracts her decision to drink in a state of good health, she does not drink at all. With regard to a sota who retracts her decision due to fear, if she retracts her decision before the handful is sacrificed, when the scroll has not yet been erased; or even if the scroll was already erased, since the priests acted incorrectly when they erased it beforehand; she can retract her decision. Once the handful is sacrificed, in which case the priests acted correctly when they erased the scroll, she cannot retract her decision, and she is forced to drink against her will.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Tel Aviv, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
New York, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Sotah 19
ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΧ΄.
as it is written: βThis is the law of jealousy.β The word βthisβ is a restricting term and excludes that possibility. With regard to two different husbands and two different paramours, where her first husband suspected her with regard to one paramour during her first marriage and the second husband suspected her with regard to a different man during the second marriage, everyone agrees that the woman drinks and repeats, as it is written: βThis is the law of jealousy,β in all cases of jealousy.
ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ.
They disagree when there is one husband and two paramours, i.e., where one husband warned her with regard to a second paramour after she survived her first ordeal. They also disagree in a case of two husbands and one paramour, i.e., if her second husband accused her with regard to the same paramour on account of whom she was compelled to drink by her first husband.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ.
The opinions are justified as follows: The first tanna holds that the phrase βthe law of jealousyβ serves to include all of these cases. In almost all cases the woman drinks and repeats. The word βthisβ serves to exclude only the case of one husband and one paramour, in which she does not drink and repeat.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
And the Rabbis mentioned later in the baraita hold that the word βthisβ serves to exclude all of these cases. The woman almost never drinks and repeats. The phrase βthe law of jealousyβ serves to include only the case of two husbands and two paramours, in which she does drink and repeat.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ, Χ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ. Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ, Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The word βthisβ serves to exclude two of the cases, and the phrase βthe law of jealousyβ serves to include two. The word βthisβ serves to exclude the two cases of one husband and one paramour and one husband and two paramours. In neither of these cases does the woman drink and repeat. The phrase βthe law of jealousyβ serves to include two cases, i.e., two husbands and one paramour, and all the more so two husbands and two paramours. In both of these cases, the woman must drink and repeat.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ
ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ, ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ, Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ.
MISHNA: He would take her meal-offering out of the Egyptian wicker basket made of palm leaves in which it was lying and would put it into a service vessel and then place it on her hand. And the priest would then place his hand underneath hers and wave it together with her. The priest waved it and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful; and the remainder was eaten by the priests.
ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΈΧ.
The priest would force the woman to drink the bitter water of a sota, and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon says: The priest would sacrifice her meal-offering and afterward he would force her to drink, as it is stated: βAnd the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the waterβ (Numbers 5:26). But Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the priest first forced her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, it is still valid.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΉΧΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ° Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ?! Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ£Χ΄ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ! ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ?
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation, i.e., his contemporary: You shall not sit on your feet until you explain this matter to me: From where is it derived that the meal-offering of a sota requires waving? The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: From where do we derive this? It is explicitly written with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: βAnd the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the womanβs hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the Lord, and bring it unto the altarβ (Numbers 5:25). Rather, the question is as follows: From where do we derive that the waving is performed by the owner, i.e., the woman, and not only by the priest?
ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΆΧΧ ΦΈΧΧ΄.
Rabbi Yoshiya answered: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term βhandβ written here and βhandβ from the peace-offering: It is written here, with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: βAnd the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the womanβs handβ (Numbers 5:25), and it is written there, with regard to the peace-offering: βHe that offers his peace-offerings unto the Lordβ¦His own hands shall bring the offeringsβ¦that the breast may be waved before the Lordβ (Leviticus 7:29β30).
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ£.
Just as here, in the case of the sota, the priest waves the offering, so too there, in the case of the peace-offering, the priest waves the offering. And just as there, in the case of the peace-offering, the owner waves the offering, so too here, in the case of the sota, the owner waves the offering. How is this accomplished? The priest places his hand beneath the hands of the owner and then waves the offering with the owner.
ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ!
Β§ The mishna states: The priest waved it and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful. Yet the continuation of the mishna states: The priest would force the woman to drink, and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering. The Gemara asks: Didnβt the mishna state in the previous phrase that the offering was already sacrificed?
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ‘Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ, Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: What was the sacrificial order of meal-offerings in general? The priest waved the meal-offering and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful, and the remainder was eaten by the priests.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ·ΧΦΌ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧΧ΄.
And as for the correct order for sacrificing the meal-offering of the sota and forcing her to drink, this itself is a matter about which Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree, as the Rabbis hold that the priest would force the woman to drink and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering; and Rabbi Shimon holds that the priest would sacrifice her meal-offering and afterward he would force her to drink, as it is stated: βAnd the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the waterβ (Numbers 5:26).
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΈΧ.
Β§ The mishna states: But Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the priest first forced her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, the offering is still valid.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨? ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄! Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ²Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
The Sages taught: What is the meaning when the verse states after the sacrifice of the meal-offering: βAnd he shall make her drink the waterβ (Numbers 5:27)? But isnβt it already stated: βAnd he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curseβ (Numbers 5:24)? The baraita answers: The repetition teaches that if the scroll was already erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced [meβarerin] to drink against her will. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨? ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄! ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ: Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ²Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ.
Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: βAnd the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the waterβ (Numbers 5:26)? But isnβt it already stated previously: βAnd he shall make the woman drinkβ (Numbers 5:24)? Rather, this verse indicates that the sota is given the bitter water to drink only after all the actions that are stated above are performed, i.e., erasing the scroll, sacrificing the meal-offering, and administering the oath. Therefore, this verse teaches that three matters preclude her from drinking: She does not drink until the handful is sacrificed, and until the scroll is erased, and until she accepts the oath upon herself.
Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ.
The Gemara elaborates: She does not drink until the handful is sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning stated earlier, as he says that the priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink.
Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ²Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΧΦΉ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨.
The Gemara questions the second condition: She does not drink until the scroll is erased. Why does the baraita need to state this? But what could he give her to drink if the scroll was not yet erased into the water? Rav Ashi says: No, this halakha is necessary for an instance where the scroll was erased, but the impression of the ink is still discernible on the parchment. The woman does not drink until the scroll is totally erased.
Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χͺ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ! ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ·Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ.
The Gemara discusses the third condition: She does not drink until she accepts the oath upon herself. One might infer from this statement that it is only that she does not drink before she accepts the oath; however, the scroll is written for her before she accepts the oath. But didnβt Rava say: With regard to a scroll of a sota that was written before she accepted the oath upon herself, whoever wrote it did nothing, and the scroll is rendered invalid. The Gemara responds: This was cited for no reason, as in fact the scroll is not even written before she accepts the oath upon herself, and nothing should be inferred.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧΧ΄, Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the mishna? The Gemara answers: Three verses are written which pertain to drinking the bitter water: The first occurrence of the term is in the verse: βAnd he shall make the woman drinkβ (Numbers 5:24); the second: βAnd afterward he shall make the woman drink the waterβ (Numbers 5:26); and the last occurrence of the term is in the verse: βAnd he shall make her drinkβ (Numbers 5:27).
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ. Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΧΦΉ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨. Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ²Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ.
The Rabbis hold that the first occurrence of the term: βAnd he shall make the woman drink,β is written to teach the halakha itself, i.e., that the priest first forces her to drink and afterward sacrifices her meal-offering. The second instance: βAnd afterward he shall make the woman drink,β is necessary to teach that as long as the impression of the writing is still discernible, the sota is not given the bitter water to drink. The third verse, the last occurrence of the term: βAnd he shall make her drink,β teaches that if the scroll was erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ. Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΈΧ. Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ²Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ.
And Rabbi Shimon holds that the second verse: βAnd afterward he shall make the woman drink the waterβ (Numbers 5:26), is written to teach the halakha itself, i.e., that the priest first sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink. The first occurrence of the term: βAnd he shall make the woman drink,β teaches that if he forced her to drink and only afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, the offering is nevertheless valid. The last occurrence of the term: βAnd he shall make her drink,β teaches that if the scroll was erased and then she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara explains the Rabbisβ opinion: And the Rabbis would respond to Rabbi Shimon that the verse does not begin the discussion with a halakha that is applicable only after the fact, and therefore the initial mention of the drinking is referring to the proper time for the ritual.
ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΈ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ²Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ! ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ: Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ β ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ.
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Akiva in fact hold that the woman is forced to drink against her will? But isnβt it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:3) that Rabbi Yehuda says: A hook [kelabus] made of iron is forcibly placed into her mouth, so that if the scroll was erased and she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will. Rabbi Akiva said: It is not necessary to force her to drink. Donβt we need to force her to drink the water only in order to evaluate her fidelity? And isnβt she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink, as she is essentially admitting her guilt? Rather, Rabbi Akivaβs statement should be understood as follows: Until the handful is sacrificed she can retract her decision to drink the bitter water; however, once the handful is sacrificed she cannot retract her decision to drink.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦ°, ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ·ΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ? ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ!
The Gemara asks: But according to your reasoning in explanation of Rabbi Akivaβs statement, this explanation itself should pose a difficulty for you. Why canβt she retract her decision once the handful is sacrificed? And isnβt she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink?
ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, where she is forced to drink, is referring to a situation where she retracts her decision to drink due to fear, as her refusal is not viewed as an admission of guilt, and it is possible that if she drinks she will be found undefiled. And that case, where she does not drink, is referring to a situation where she retracts her decision in a state of good health. Since she does not appear to be afraid, her refusal is viewed as an admission of guilt.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ§Φ΄Χ β ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈ[Χ] ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ²Χ§Φ΄Χ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ.
And this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: In any case where she retracts her decision to drink in a state of good health, she does not drink at all. With regard to a sota who retracts her decision due to fear, if she retracts her decision before the handful is sacrificed, when the scroll has not yet been erased; or even if the scroll was already erased, since the priests acted incorrectly when they erased it beforehand; she can retract her decision. Once the handful is sacrificed, in which case the priests acted correctly when they erased the scroll, she cannot retract her decision, and she is forced to drink against her will.
