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

Daf Yomi

April 17, 2023 | 讻状讜 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讙

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

Sotah 19

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 鈥渁nd after that, he makes the woman drink the water.鈥 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 鈥 that after the scroll is erased, we force the woman to drink the water, even if she doesn鈥檛 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.

讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 转讜专转


as it is written: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy.鈥 The word 鈥渢his鈥 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: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy,鈥 in all cases of jealousy.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉 讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚


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.


转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 转讜专转 诇专讘讜讬讬 讻讜诇讛讬 讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚


The opinions are justified as follows: The first tanna holds that the phrase 鈥渢he law of jealousy鈥 serves to include all of these cases. In almost all cases the woman drinks and repeats. The word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to exclude only the case of one husband and one paramour, in which she does not drink and repeat.


讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 住讘专讬 讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻讜诇讛讬 转讜专转 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉


And the Rabbis mentioned later in the baraita hold that the word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to exclude all of these cases. The woman almost never drinks and repeats. The phrase 鈥渢he law of jealousy鈥 serves to include only the case of two husbands and two paramours, in which she does drink and repeat.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 转专转讬 转讜专转 诇专讘讜转 转专转讬 讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 转专转讬 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉 转讜专转 诇专讘讜讬讬 转专转讬 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉:


And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to exclude two of the cases, and the phrase 鈥渢he law of jealousy鈥 serves to include two. The word 鈥渢his鈥 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 鈥渢he law of jealousy鈥 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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讬讛 诪讘讬讗



讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 诪转讜讱 讻驻讬驻讛 诪爪专讬转 讜谞讜转谞讛 诇转讜讱 讻诇讬 砖专转 讜谞讜转谞讛 注诇 讬讚讛 讜讻讛谉 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 诪转讞转讬讛 讜诪谞讬驻讛 讛谞讬祝 讜讛讙讬砖 拽诪抓 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜讛砖讗专 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐


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.


讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讗诐 讛砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讻砖专讛:


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讚专讬讛 诇讗 转讬转讘 讗讻专注讱 注讚 讚诪驻专砖转 诇讛 诇讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讜讛谞讬祝 讻转讬讘 讘讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 诪谞诇谉


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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman鈥檚 hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the Lord, and bring it unto the altar鈥 (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?


讗转讬讗 讬讚 讬讚 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 诪讬讚 讛讗砖讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬讚讬讜 转讘讬讗讬谞讛


Rabbi Yoshiya answered: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渉and鈥 written here and 鈥渉and鈥 from the peace-offering: It is written here, with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman鈥檚 hand鈥 (Numbers 5:25), and it is written there, with regard to the peace-offering: 鈥淗e that offers his peace-offerings unto the Lord鈥His own hands shall bring the offerings鈥hat the breast may be waved before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 7:29鈥30).


诪讛 讻讗谉 讻讛谉 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讻讛谉 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 转讞转 讬讚讬 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜诪谞讬祝:


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.


讛谞讬祝 讜讛讙讬砖 拽诪抓 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛: 讛讗 讗拽专讘讛


搂 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鈥檛 the mishna state in the previous phrase that the offering was already sacrificed?


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 住讚专 诪谞讞讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛谞讬祝 讜讛讙讬砖 拽诪抓 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜讛砖讗专 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐


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.


讜讘讛砖拽讗讛 讙讜驻讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛:


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 5:26).


讜讗诐 讛砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讻砖专讛:


搂 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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖拽讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讛砖拽讛 砖讗诐 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗讜诪专转 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


The Sages taught: What is the meaning when the verse states after the sacrifice of the meal-offering: 鈥淎nd he shall make her drink the water鈥 (Numbers 5:27)? But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse鈥 (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鈥檃rerin] to drink against her will. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讛砖拽讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讻诇 诪注砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讛讗诪讜专讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙讬讚 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讘讛 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讜注讚 砖诇讗 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜注讚 砖诇讗 转拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛


Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 5:26)? But isn鈥檛 it already stated previously: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink鈥 (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.


注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛


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.


注讚 砖诇讗 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖拽讛 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 诇砖专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专


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.


注讚 砖诇讗 转拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 诪讬砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬讗 讛讗 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讘讬 诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讙讬诇转 住讜讟讛 砖讻转讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖转拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讻讚讬 谞住讘讛


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鈥檛 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.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜讛砖拽讛 拽诪讗 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 讜讛砖拽讛 讘转专讗


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: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink鈥 (Numbers 5:24); the second: 鈥淎nd afterward he shall make the woman drink the water鈥 (Numbers 5:26); and the last occurrence of the term is in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall make her drink鈥 (Numbers 5:27).


专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讜讛砖拽讛 拽诪讗 诇讙讜驻讜 砖诪砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇砖专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讜讛砖拽讛 讘转专讗 砖讗诐 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗讜诪专转 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讛 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛


The Rabbis hold that the first occurrence of the term: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd afterward he shall make the woman drink,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd he shall make her drink,鈥 teaches that if the scroll was erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 诇讙讜驻讜 砖诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛 讜讛砖拽讛 拽诪讗 砖讗诐 讛砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛砖拽讛 讘转专讗 砖讗诐 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛


And Rabbi Shimon holds that the second verse: 鈥淎nd afterward he shall make the woman drink the water鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd he shall make her drink,鈥 teaches that if the scroll was erased and then she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.


讜专讘谞谉 讘讚讬注讘讚 诇讗 驻转讞 拽专讗


The Gemara explains the Rabbis鈥 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.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇讘讜住 砖诇 讘专讝诇 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 驻讬讛 砖讗诐 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇讜诐 讗谞讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讘讜讚拽讛 讜讛诇讗 讘讚讜拽讛 讜注讜诪讚转 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛 诪砖拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛


The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Akiva in fact hold that the woman is forced to drink against her will? But isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 we need to force her to drink the water only in order to evaluate her fidelity? And isn鈥檛 she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink, as she is essentially admitting her guilt? Rather, Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 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.


讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诪砖拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛 讜讛诇讗 讘讚讜拽讛 讜注讜诪讚转


The Gemara asks: But according to your reasoning in explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement, this explanation itself should pose a difficulty for you. Why can鈥檛 she retract her decision once the handful is sacrificed? And isn鈥檛 she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讛讚专讗 讘讛 诪讞诪转 专转讬转讗 讜讛讗 讚拽讛讚专讗 讘讛 诪讞诪转 讘专讬讜转讗


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.


讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 诪讞诪转 讘专讬讜转讗 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗 砖转讬讗 诪讞诪转 专转讬转讗 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗诪讞讜拽 诪讙讬诇讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诪讞讜拽 诪讙讬诇讛 讚砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 注讘讬讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讚诪讞拽讬 诪爪讬 讛讚专讗 讘讛 诪砖拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讚讘讚讬谉 注讘讬讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讚诪讞拽讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 讛讚专讗 讘讛


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.


  • 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 19: Waving

A new chapter! The new mishnah delineates the process of the kohen taking the meal-offering from the sotah, and waving...

Sotah 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 19

讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讛讗砖讛 砖讜转讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 转讜专转


as it is written: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy.鈥 The word 鈥渢his鈥 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: 鈥淭his is the law of jealousy,鈥 in all cases of jealousy.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉 讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚


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.


转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 转讜专转 诇专讘讜讬讬 讻讜诇讛讬 讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚


The opinions are justified as follows: The first tanna holds that the phrase 鈥渢he law of jealousy鈥 serves to include all of these cases. In almost all cases the woman drinks and repeats. The word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to exclude only the case of one husband and one paramour, in which she does not drink and repeat.


讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 住讘专讬 讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻讜诇讛讬 转讜专转 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉


And the Rabbis mentioned later in the baraita hold that the word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to exclude all of these cases. The woman almost never drinks and repeats. The phrase 鈥渢he law of jealousy鈥 serves to include only the case of two husbands and two paramours, in which she does drink and repeat.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 转专转讬 转讜专转 诇专讘讜转 转专转讬 讝讗转 诇诪注讜讟讬 转专转讬 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚 讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉 转讜专转 诇专讘讜讬讬 转专转讬 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜讘讜注诇 讗讞讚 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬 讘讜注诇讬谉:


And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to exclude two of the cases, and the phrase 鈥渢he law of jealousy鈥 serves to include two. The word 鈥渢his鈥 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 鈥渢he law of jealousy鈥 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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讬讛 诪讘讬讗



讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 诪转讜讱 讻驻讬驻讛 诪爪专讬转 讜谞讜转谞讛 诇转讜讱 讻诇讬 砖专转 讜谞讜转谞讛 注诇 讬讚讛 讜讻讛谉 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 诪转讞转讬讛 讜诪谞讬驻讛 讛谞讬祝 讜讛讙讬砖 拽诪抓 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜讛砖讗专 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐


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.


讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讗诐 讛砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讻砖专讛:


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讚专讬讛 诇讗 转讬转讘 讗讻专注讱 注讚 讚诪驻专砖转 诇讛 诇讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讜讛谞讬祝 讻转讬讘 讘讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 诪谞诇谉


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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman鈥檚 hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the Lord, and bring it unto the altar鈥 (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?


讗转讬讗 讬讚 讬讚 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 诪讬讚 讛讗砖讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬讚讬讜 转讘讬讗讬谞讛


Rabbi Yoshiya answered: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渉and鈥 written here and 鈥渉and鈥 from the peace-offering: It is written here, with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman鈥檚 hand鈥 (Numbers 5:25), and it is written there, with regard to the peace-offering: 鈥淗e that offers his peace-offerings unto the Lord鈥His own hands shall bring the offerings鈥hat the breast may be waved before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 7:29鈥30).


诪讛 讻讗谉 讻讛谉 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讻讛谉 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 转讞转 讬讚讬 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜诪谞讬祝:


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.


讛谞讬祝 讜讛讙讬砖 拽诪抓 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讛 诪砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛: 讛讗 讗拽专讘讛


搂 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鈥檛 the mishna state in the previous phrase that the offering was already sacrificed?


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 住讚专 诪谞讞讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛谞讬祝 讜讛讙讬砖 拽诪抓 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜讛砖讗专 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐


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.


讜讘讛砖拽讗讛 讙讜驻讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛:


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 5:26).


讜讗诐 讛砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讻砖专讛:


搂 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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖拽讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讛砖拽讛 砖讗诐 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗讜诪专转 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


The Sages taught: What is the meaning when the verse states after the sacrifice of the meal-offering: 鈥淎nd he shall make her drink the water鈥 (Numbers 5:27)? But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse鈥 (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鈥檃rerin] to drink against her will. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讛砖拽讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讻诇 诪注砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讛讗诪讜专讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙讬讚 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讘讛 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讜注讚 砖诇讗 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜注讚 砖诇讗 转拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛


Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 5:26)? But isn鈥檛 it already stated previously: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink鈥 (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.


注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛


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.


注讚 砖诇讗 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖拽讛 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 诇砖专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专


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.


注讚 砖诇讗 转拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 诪讬砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬讗 讛讗 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讘讬 诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讙讬诇转 住讜讟讛 砖讻转讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖转拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讻讚讬 谞住讘讛


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鈥檛 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.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜讛砖拽讛 拽诪讗 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 讜讛砖拽讛 讘转专讗


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: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink鈥 (Numbers 5:24); the second: 鈥淎nd afterward he shall make the woman drink the water鈥 (Numbers 5:26); and the last occurrence of the term is in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall make her drink鈥 (Numbers 5:27).


专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讜讛砖拽讛 拽诪讗 诇讙讜驻讜 砖诪砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇砖专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讜讛砖拽讛 讘转专讗 砖讗诐 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗讜诪专转 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讛 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛


The Rabbis hold that the first occurrence of the term: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd afterward he shall make the woman drink,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd he shall make her drink,鈥 teaches that if the scroll was erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讜讗讞专 讬砖拽讛 诇讙讜驻讜 砖诪拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖拽讛 讜讛砖拽讛 拽诪讗 砖讗诐 讛砖拽讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛砖拽讛 讘转专讗 砖讗诐 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛


And Rabbi Shimon holds that the second verse: 鈥淎nd afterward he shall make the woman drink the water鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he shall make the woman drink,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd he shall make her drink,鈥 teaches that if the scroll was erased and then she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.


讜专讘谞谉 讘讚讬注讘讚 诇讗 驻转讞 拽专讗


The Gemara explains the Rabbis鈥 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.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇讘讜住 砖诇 讘专讝诇 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 驻讬讛 砖讗诐 谞诪讞拽讛 诪讙讬诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬谞讬 砖讜转讛 诪注专注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇讜诐 讗谞讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讘讜讚拽讛 讜讛诇讗 讘讚讜拽讛 讜注讜诪讚转 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛 诪砖拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛


The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Akiva in fact hold that the woman is forced to drink against her will? But isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 we need to force her to drink the water only in order to evaluate her fidelity? And isn鈥檛 she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink, as she is essentially admitting her guilt? Rather, Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 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.


讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诪砖拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛 讜讛诇讗 讘讚讜拽讛 讜注讜诪讚转


The Gemara asks: But according to your reasoning in explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement, this explanation itself should pose a difficulty for you. Why can鈥檛 she retract her decision once the handful is sacrificed? And isn鈥檛 she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讛讚专讗 讘讛 诪讞诪转 专转讬转讗 讜讛讗 讚拽讛讚专讗 讘讛 诪讞诪转 讘专讬讜转讗


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.


讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 诪讞诪转 讘专讬讜转讗 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗 砖转讬讗 诪讞诪转 专转讬转讗 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗诪讞讜拽 诪讙讬诇讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诪讞讜拽 诪讙讬诇讛 讚砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 注讘讬讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讚诪讞拽讬 诪爪讬 讛讚专讗 讘讛 诪砖拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讚讘讚讬谉 注讘讬讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讚诪讞拽讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 讛讚专讗 讘讛


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.


Scroll To Top