The Mishna describes the process of bringing the woman first to the court, then to the Temple. The husband must come with her to the Temple and two Torah scholars join them on the journey. Can we infer from here laws regarding seclusion between women and men? What is the role of the Torah scholars? Rabbi Yehuda thinks there is no need for Torah scholars as the husband can be trusted. On what basis does he hold this way? Is his opinion learned from logic or a verse in the Torah? When she arrives at the Temple, the court tries to encourage her to confess in order not to get to the part of the process where they need to erase the name of God. They remind her of others, Yehuda and Reuven who confessed their sins. What sins and from where do we know they confessed? They give her other, less nice clothing to wear, and remove her jewelry – all this to humiliate her. Then they bring her to the Nicanor Gate outside the azara and the kohen tears off her clothing and unties her hair. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees in a case where she is beautiful. They tie her ripped clothing over her heart with an Egyptian rope. Anyone who wants can come watch and especially women so that they learn not to behave in this manner. Only the woman’s slaves are forbidden to come as it will make her less likely to confess in their presence.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Sotah 7
יֵשׁ לָהּ עֵדִים בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם!
the case where there are witnesses for her in a country overseas who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse, when the bitter water will not evaluate her faithfulness. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon should be concerned that such a dispensation will result in the defamation of the untainted women who drank and were unaffected, as people will view them as guilty women who were not affected because there were witnesses overseas.
לָא שְׁכִיחָא.
The Gemara answers: The case of witnesses in a country overseas is not common, and therefore no one will assume that that is the reason why the woman was not affected. By contrast, a woman having merit is common.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה לָהּ? מוֹלִיכָהּ לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם, וּמוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ.
MISHNA: The mishna details the procedure for administering the drinking of the bitter water of a sota. What does her husband do with her after she secluded herself with the man about whom she had been warned? He brings her to the court that is found in that location, and the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple, which is not only prohibited but will also prevent the bitter water from evaluating her. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her, so there is no need to provide scholars to accompany him.
גְּמָ׳ תְּרֵי וְאִיהוּ — הָא תְּלָתָא. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בָּעִיר, אֲבָל בַּדֶּרֶךְ — עַד דְּאִיכָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁמָּא יִצְטָרֵךְ אֶחָד מֵהֶן לִנְקָבָיו, וְנִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן מִתְיַיחֵד עִם הָעֶרְוָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara assumes that the requirement for there to be two Torah scholars is to avoid the prohibition against a woman being alone with a man. The Gemara notes: Two additional men and he, the husband, are three people altogether. Let us say that this mishna supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only in the town (see Kiddushin 80b). But on the way, when traveling, this is not permitted unless there are three men with the woman. The reason for this stringency is that if there are only two men with her, perhaps one will need to relieve himself and will seek privacy, and it will be found that one of them is in seclusion with a woman forbidden to him.
לָא: הָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיהְווֹ עֲלֵיהּ סָהֲדִי.
The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, so that there are two witnesses with regard to her, i.e., there will be two witnesses to testify in the event that the husband engages in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple. The reason is not to avoid the prohibition against her being alone with a man, as one scholar would suffice for that.
תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים — אִין, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא — לָא. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְאִידַּךְ דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא כְּשֵׁרִין, אֲבָל פְּרוּצִין, אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה נָמֵי לָא. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ עֲשָׂרָה בְּמִטָּה.
The mishna teaches that the husband is provided with Torah scholars. The Gemara further comments: Torah scholars, yes; anyone else, no. It is specifically Torah scholars who are provided to accompany the husband and wife. Let us say that this mishna supports another statement of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only with regard to men of fit morals. But with regard to those of loose morals, she may not be secluded even with ten men. The Gemara adds: There was an incident and ten men carried out a woman on a bier, as if she were dead, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her.
לָא, הָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא — דְּיָדְעִי לְאַתְרוֹיֵי בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, that they know how to properly warn him not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, this mishna does not support the opinion of Rav.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת — בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, סוֹטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
§ The Gemara now discusses Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her. It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:2): Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted due to an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, as he is permitted to seclude himself with her, so too, with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband only by penalty of a prohibition, is it not all the more so that he should be trusted?
וְרַבָּנַן, הִיא הַנּוֹתֶנֶת: נִדָּה דְּכָרֵת — חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ וּמְהֵימַן. סוֹטָה דְּלָאו — לָא חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ, וְלָא מְהֵימַן.
And the Rabbis say: That provides support for the contrary opinion, as these considerations lead to the opposite conclusion. A menstruating woman is forbidden by penalty of karet. This is a stringent prohibition for him, and this is why he is trusted not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. By contrast, a sota is forbidden to him only by a prohibition. This is not a stringent prohibition to him, and he is therefore not trusted with her.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִקְּרָאֵי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״. מִן הַתּוֹרָה הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: מוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact derive this halakha from an a fortiori inference? But Rabbi Yehuda derives it from a verse, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest” (Numbers 5:15), teaches that by Torah law the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, but the Sages said: The court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת — בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, סוֹטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
The baraita records a second opinion. Rabbi Yosei says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her based on an a fortiori inference: And just as a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, and her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, then with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of only a prohibition, should he not all the more so be trusted?
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנִדָּה — שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר, תֹּאמַר בְּסוֹטָה — שֶׁאֵין לָהּ הֶיתֵּר, וְאוֹמֵר: ״מַיִם גְּנוּבִים יִמְתָּקוּ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Sages said to him: No, if you say that this is true with regard to a menstruating woman, the reason he is trusted is not due to the severity of the prohibition. Rather, he is trusted because she has the ability to become permitted to her husband after her menstrual flow has ceased and she has immersed in a ritual bath. Shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a sota, who potentially does not have the ability to become permitted to her husband due to her suspected adultery? And proof to the notion that people will more readily commit illicit acts that are permanently prohibited comes from the verse that states: “Stolen waters are sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasing” (Proverbs 9:17). Consequently, there is a concern that the husband will engage in sexual intercourse with his sota wife if not accompanied by scholars.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִן הַתּוֹרָה הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״!
The baraita quotes a third opinion. Rabbi Yehuda says: By Torah law, the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, as is stated: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest.” This baraita states explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda derives this halakha from the verse itself, not from an a fortiori inference.
אֲמַר לְהוּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּרֵישָׁא וּפַרְכוּהּ, וַהֲדַר אָמַר לְהוּ קְרָא.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda first said to them the a fortiori inference, and they refuted it as mentioned above, and he then said to them the derivation from the verse.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ ״אֲבָל אָמְרוּ״.
The Gemara clarifies: Apparently, the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is the same as that of the first tanna in the baraita, who also cites the verse as proof that by Torah law the husband alone brings his wife to the priest. The Gemara explains: The difference between them concerns the following clause: But the Sages said that the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him. The first tanna holds that the Sages require two scholars to accompany the husband and wife, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that they do not.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּמְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּימִין עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת.
MISHNA: The mishna details the next stage of the process. They would bring her up to the Sanhedrin that was in Jerusalem, and the judges would threaten her in order that she admit her sin. And this was done in the manner that they would threaten witnesses testifying in cases of capital law. In those cases, the judges would explain to the witnesses the gravity of their testimony by stressing the value of human life. Here too, the judges would attempt to convince the woman to admit her sin, to avoid the loss of her life.
וְאוֹמֵר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, הַרְבֵּה יַיִן עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׂחוֹק עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה יַלְדוּת עוֹשָׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׁכֵנִים הָרָעִים עוֹשִׂין.
And additionally, the judge would say to her: My daughter, wine causes a great deal of immoral behavior, levity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, immaturity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, and bad neighbors cause a great deal of immoral behavior. The judge encouraged her to admit her sin by explaining to her that he understands that there may have been mitigating factors.
עֲשִׂי לִשְׁמוֹ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם. וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָם כְּדַי לְשׁוֹמְעָן, הִיא וְכׇל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ.
The judge then continues: Act for the sake of His great name, so that God’s name, which is written in sanctity, shall not be erased on the water. If the woman admits to having committed adultery, the scroll upon which the name of God is written will not be erased. And additionally, the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family, in order to encourage her to admit her sin, as the Gemara will explain.
אִם אָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״ — שׁוֹבֶרֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְיוֹצֵאת.
If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. That is, she writes a receipt indicating that she has no claims on her husband with regard to the sum written in her marriage contract, as a woman who admits to adultery forfeits her right to this payment. And she is then divorced from her husband.
וְאִם אָמְרָה ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ — מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְשַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, שֶׁשָּׁם מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַסּוֹטוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַיּוֹלְדוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַמְצוֹרָעִין.
But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they bring her up to the Eastern Gate, which is at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor, because three rites were performed there: They give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and they purify women who have given birth (see Leviticus 12:6–8), and they purify the lepers (see Leviticus 14:10–20).
וְכֹהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ. אִם נִקְרְעוּ — נִקְרְעוּ. וְאִם נִפְרְמוּ — נִפְרְמוּ. עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבָּהּ. וְסוֹתֵר אֶת שְׂעָרָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה לִבָּהּ נָאֶה — לֹא הָיָה מְגַלֵּהוּ, וְאִם הָיָה שְׂעָרָהּ נָאֶה — לֹא הָיָה סוֹתֵר.
The mishna continues describing the sota rite. And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them, unconcerned about what happens to the clothing. If the clothes are torn, so they are torn; if the stitches come apart, so they come apart. And he pulls her clothing until he reveals her heart, i.e., her chest. And then he unbraids her hair. Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it.
הָיְתָה מִתְכַּסָּה בִּלְבָנִים — מְכַסֶּהָ בִּשְׁחוֹרִים. הָיָה עָלֶיהָ כְּלֵי זָהָב
If she was dressed in white garments, he would now cover her with black garments. If she was wearing gold adornments,
וְקַטְלֵיאוֹת, נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת — מַעֲבִירִין מִמֶּנָּה, כְּדֵי לְנַוְּולָהּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֶבֶל מִצְרִי וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ,
or chokers [katliyot], or nose rings, or finger rings, they removed them from her in order to render her unattractive. And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope fashioned from palm fibers, and he would tie it above her breasts.
וְכׇל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּא לִרְאוֹת, חוּץ מֵעֲבָדֶיהָ וְשִׁפְחוֹתֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבָּהּ גַּס בָּהֶן. וְכׇל הַנָּשִׁים מוּתָּרוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִמַּתְכֶנָה״.
And anyone who desires to watch her may come to watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them, as seeing one’s slaves reinforces one’s feeling of pride, and their presence may cause her to maintain her innocence. And all of the women are permitted to watch her, as it is stated: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אָתְיָא ״תּוֹרָה״ ״תּוֹרָה״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְעָשָׂה לָהּ הַכֹּהֵן אֵת כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד — אַף כָּאן בְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks concerning the halakha that the sota is brought before the Sanhedrin: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the words “tora” and “tora.” It is written here, with regard to a sota: “And the priest shall execute upon her all this law [tora]” (Numbers 5:30), and it is written there, with regard to a rebellious Elder, who must go to the place chosen by God and follow the ruling of the Sanhedrin: “According to the law [tora] that they shall teach you” (Deuteronomy 17:11). Just as there the verse is referring to what occurs in the presence of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, so too here, with regard to a sota, the verse is referring to what occurs in the presence of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges.
וּמְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתֶּה כָּךְ מְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁתִּשְׁתֶּה. אוֹמְרִים לָהּ: בִּתִּי, אִם בָּרוּר לָךְ הַדָּבָר שֶׁטְּהוֹרָה אַתְּ עִמְדִי עַל בּוּרְיִיךְ, וּשְׁתִי. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַיִם הַמָּרִים דּוֹמִין אֶלָּא לְסַם יָבֵשׁ שֶׁמּוּנָּח עַל בָּשָׂר חַי. אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מַכָּה — מְחַלְחֵל וְיוֹרֵד, אֵין שָׁם מַכָּה — אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם.
§ The mishna teaches: And they threaten her in order that she admit her sin, to obviate the need to erase God’s name. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:6): In the same manner that they threaten her so that she will not drink, so too, they threaten her so that she will drink, as they say to her: My daughter, if the matter is clear to you that you are pure, arise for the sake of your clear position and drink. If you are innocent you have nothing to fear, because the bitter water is similar only to a dry poison placed on the flesh. If there is a wound there, the poison will penetrate and enter the blood stream, but if there is no wound there, it does not have any effect. This teaches that the woman is warned not to drink if she is guilty, but if she is not guilty she is encouraged to drink. There is no mention of the latter in the mishna.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה. כָּאן — לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the mishna is referring to before the scroll was erased, and at that point the woman is warned only not to drink if she is guilty, so that the name of God will not be erased. There the baraita is referring to after the scroll was erased. Then she is warned that if she is innocent she should drink because if she now refuses to drink, it will turn out that the scroll was erased for no purpose.
וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל הַגָּדָה, וּמַעֲשִׂים שֶׁאֵירְעוּ בִּכְתוּבִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, כְּגוֹן: ״אֲשֶׁר חֲכָמִים יַגִּידוּ וְלֹא כִחֲדוּ מֵאֲבוֹתָם״.
§ The mishna teaches: And the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family in order to encourage her to admit her sin. The Gemara cites a baraita that details what was said. The Sages taught in a baraita: The judge says in her presence words of homiletical interpretation and mentions incidents that happened to previous generations that are recorded in the early prophetic writings. For example, they expound the following verse: “That wise men told and did not hide from their fathers” (Job 15:18); this teaches that even during the time of the forefathers, there were people who admitted their sins despite the shame they incurred.
יְהוּדָה הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ — נָחַל חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. רְאוּבֵן הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ — נָחַל חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וּמָה שְׂכָרָן? מָה שְׂכָרָן?! כִּדְקָא אָמְרִינַן! אֶלָּא: מָה שְׂכָרָן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״לָהֶם לְבַדָּם נִתְּנָה הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא עָבַר זָר בְּתוֹכָם״.
For example, Judah admitted that he sinned with Tamar and was not embarrassed to do so, and what was his end? He inherited the life of the World-to-Come. Reuben admitted that he lay with his father’s concubine Bilhah and was not embarrassed, and what was his end? He too inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: And what is their reward? The Gemara interjects: What is their reward? Their reward was clearly as we say, that they inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara clarifies: Rather, the second question was: What is their reward in this world? The Gemara answers by citing the next verse in the book of Job: “To them alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them” (Job 15:19). Judah was given the kingship, and Reuben inherited a portion of land in the Transjordan before the other tribes.
בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּיהוּדָה אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאוֹדִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי״, אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן מְנָלַן דְּאוֹדִי?
The Gemara questions the source for Reuben’s admission. Granted, with regard to Judah we have found a source that he admitted his sin with Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26). Judah admitted that he was the one who had impregnated Tamar. But from where do we derive that Reuben admitted his sin?
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״יְחִי רְאוּבֵן וְאַל יָמֹת״, ״וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה״?
The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written concerning Reuben and Judah in Moses’ blessing of the tribes at the end of his life: “Let Reuben live and not die in that his men become few” (Deuteronomy 33:6), and immediately afterward, in the following verse, it is stated: “And this for Judah, and he said: Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him in unto his people; his hands shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7). What is the connection between the blessing of Reuben and that of Judah, juxtaposed with the conjunction “and”?
כׇּל אוֹתָן שָׁנִים שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, הָיוּ עַצְמוֹתָיו שֶׁל יְהוּדָה מְגוּלְגָּלִין בָּאָרוֹן, עַד שֶׁעָמַד מֹשֶׁה וּבִקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מִי גָּרַם לִרְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוֹדָה — יְהוּדָה: ״וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה״?!
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All those years that the Jewish people were in the desert, the bones of Judah, which the Jewish people took with them from Egypt along with the bones of his brothers, were rolling around in the coffin, until Moses arose and asked for compassion on Judah’s behalf. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who served as the impetus for Reuben that he admit his sin, through which he merited a blessing and was not excluded from the count of the twelve sons of Jacob (see Genesis 35:22)? It was Judah, as Reuben saw him confess his sin, and thereby did the same. Moses continues in the next verse: “And this for Judah,” as if to say: Is this Judah’s reward for serving as an example of confessing to one’s sins, that his bones roll around?
מִיָּד: ״שְׁמַע ה׳ קוֹל יְהוּדָה״, עָל אֵיבְרֵיהּ לְשָׁפָא. וְלָא הֲוָה קָא מְעַיְּילִין לֵיהּ לִמְתִיבְתָּא דִרְקִיעָא, ״וְאֶל עַמּוֹ תְּבִיאֶנּוּ״. וְלָא הֲוָה קָא יָדַע מִשְׁקַל וּמִטְרַח בִּשְׁמַעְתָּא בַּהֲדֵי רַבָּנַן, ״יָדָיו רָב לוֹ״. לָא הֲוָה קָא סָלְקָא לֵיהּ שְׁמַעְתָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְהִילְכְתָא, ״וְעֵזֶר מִצָּרָיו תִּהְיֶה״.
Immediately after Moses prayed, the verse states: “Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah” (Deuteronomy 33:7). His bones then entered their sockets [shafa], and his skeleton was reassembled. But the angels still did not elevate him into the heavenly study hall. Moses then prayed: “And bring him in unto his people” (Deuteronomy 33:7), i.e., those in the heavenly study hall. This prayer was accepted, but he still did not know how to deliberate in Torah matters with the heavenly sages. Moses then prayed: “His hands shall contend for him” (Deuteronomy 33:7), meaning that he should have the ability to contend with them in study. But still he was unable to draw conclusions from his discussion in accordance with the halakha. Moses then prayed: “And You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7).
בִּשְׁלָמָא יְהוּדָה דְּאוֹדִי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֹא תִּישָּׂרֵף תָּמָר. אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן, לְמָה לֵיהּ דְּאוֹדִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: חֲצִיף עֲלַי דִּמְפָרֵיט חֶטְאֵיהּ? כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיחַשְׁדוּ אֲחוֹהִי.
The Gemara discusses the propriety of admitting one’s sins in public. Granted, with regard to Judah, it was proper that he admitted his sin in public, as he did so in order that Tamar not be burned innocently. But why did Reuben admit his sin in public? But didn’t Rav Sheshet say: I consider one who specifies his sins in public to be brazen, as one who does so indicates that he is not embarrassed by his actions? The Gemara answers: The reason he admitted his sin in public was in order that his brothers should not be suspected of having committed the deed.
אִם אָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״ וְכוּ׳. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.
§ The mishna teaches: If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. The Gemara comments: You can learn from this mishna that one writes a receipt to serve as proof that a debt has been paid rather than tearing the promissory note. This matter is the subject of a dispute between the tanna’im in tractate Bava Batra (170b).
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תְּנִי: ״מְקָרַעַת״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא ״שׁוֹבֶרֶת״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין כְּתוּבָּה עָסְקִינַן.
Abaye said: Teach in the mishna differently. Rather than understanding that she writes a receipt, explain it to mean: She tears her marriage contract. Rava said to him: But the mishna teaches explicitly that she writes a receipt. Rather, to explain the mishna, Rava said: We are dealing with a place in which they do not write a marriage contract, as they rely on the rabbinical ordinance that all wives are entitled to the sum of a standard marriage contract upon divorce or being widowed, even if no marriage contract has been written. Because there is no marriage contract to tear, a receipt is written so that the man can prove that he no longer has a monetary obligation. However, generally, it is possible that the document would be torn, and no proof can be adduced from this mishna.
וְאִם אָמְרָה ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְשַׁעֲרֵי מִזְרָח. מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ?!
§ The mishna teaches: But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they would bring her up to the Eastern Gate. The Gemara asks: Would they bring her up?
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.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
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
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
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
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Sotah 7
יֵשׁ לָהּ עֵדִים בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם!
the case where there are witnesses for her in a country overseas who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse, when the bitter water will not evaluate her faithfulness. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon should be concerned that such a dispensation will result in the defamation of the untainted women who drank and were unaffected, as people will view them as guilty women who were not affected because there were witnesses overseas.
לָא שְׁכִיחָא.
The Gemara answers: The case of witnesses in a country overseas is not common, and therefore no one will assume that that is the reason why the woman was not affected. By contrast, a woman having merit is common.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה לָהּ? מוֹלִיכָהּ לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם, וּמוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ.
MISHNA: The mishna details the procedure for administering the drinking of the bitter water of a sota. What does her husband do with her after she secluded herself with the man about whom she had been warned? He brings her to the court that is found in that location, and the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple, which is not only prohibited but will also prevent the bitter water from evaluating her. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her, so there is no need to provide scholars to accompany him.
גְּמָ׳ תְּרֵי וְאִיהוּ — הָא תְּלָתָא. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בָּעִיר, אֲבָל בַּדֶּרֶךְ — עַד דְּאִיכָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁמָּא יִצְטָרֵךְ אֶחָד מֵהֶן לִנְקָבָיו, וְנִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן מִתְיַיחֵד עִם הָעֶרְוָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara assumes that the requirement for there to be two Torah scholars is to avoid the prohibition against a woman being alone with a man. The Gemara notes: Two additional men and he, the husband, are three people altogether. Let us say that this mishna supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only in the town (see Kiddushin 80b). But on the way, when traveling, this is not permitted unless there are three men with the woman. The reason for this stringency is that if there are only two men with her, perhaps one will need to relieve himself and will seek privacy, and it will be found that one of them is in seclusion with a woman forbidden to him.
לָא: הָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיהְווֹ עֲלֵיהּ סָהֲדִי.
The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, so that there are two witnesses with regard to her, i.e., there will be two witnesses to testify in the event that the husband engages in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple. The reason is not to avoid the prohibition against her being alone with a man, as one scholar would suffice for that.
תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים — אִין, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא — לָא. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְאִידַּךְ דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא כְּשֵׁרִין, אֲבָל פְּרוּצִין, אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה נָמֵי לָא. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ עֲשָׂרָה בְּמִטָּה.
The mishna teaches that the husband is provided with Torah scholars. The Gemara further comments: Torah scholars, yes; anyone else, no. It is specifically Torah scholars who are provided to accompany the husband and wife. Let us say that this mishna supports another statement of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only with regard to men of fit morals. But with regard to those of loose morals, she may not be secluded even with ten men. The Gemara adds: There was an incident and ten men carried out a woman on a bier, as if she were dead, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her.
לָא, הָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא — דְּיָדְעִי לְאַתְרוֹיֵי בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, that they know how to properly warn him not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, this mishna does not support the opinion of Rav.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת — בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, סוֹטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
§ The Gemara now discusses Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her. It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:2): Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted due to an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, as he is permitted to seclude himself with her, so too, with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband only by penalty of a prohibition, is it not all the more so that he should be trusted?
וְרַבָּנַן, הִיא הַנּוֹתֶנֶת: נִדָּה דְּכָרֵת — חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ וּמְהֵימַן. סוֹטָה דְּלָאו — לָא חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ, וְלָא מְהֵימַן.
And the Rabbis say: That provides support for the contrary opinion, as these considerations lead to the opposite conclusion. A menstruating woman is forbidden by penalty of karet. This is a stringent prohibition for him, and this is why he is trusted not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. By contrast, a sota is forbidden to him only by a prohibition. This is not a stringent prohibition to him, and he is therefore not trusted with her.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִקְּרָאֵי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״. מִן הַתּוֹרָה הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: מוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact derive this halakha from an a fortiori inference? But Rabbi Yehuda derives it from a verse, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest” (Numbers 5:15), teaches that by Torah law the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, but the Sages said: The court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת — בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, סוֹטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
The baraita records a second opinion. Rabbi Yosei says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her based on an a fortiori inference: And just as a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, and her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, then with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of only a prohibition, should he not all the more so be trusted?
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנִדָּה — שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר, תֹּאמַר בְּסוֹטָה — שֶׁאֵין לָהּ הֶיתֵּר, וְאוֹמֵר: ״מַיִם גְּנוּבִים יִמְתָּקוּ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Sages said to him: No, if you say that this is true with regard to a menstruating woman, the reason he is trusted is not due to the severity of the prohibition. Rather, he is trusted because she has the ability to become permitted to her husband after her menstrual flow has ceased and she has immersed in a ritual bath. Shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a sota, who potentially does not have the ability to become permitted to her husband due to her suspected adultery? And proof to the notion that people will more readily commit illicit acts that are permanently prohibited comes from the verse that states: “Stolen waters are sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasing” (Proverbs 9:17). Consequently, there is a concern that the husband will engage in sexual intercourse with his sota wife if not accompanied by scholars.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִן הַתּוֹרָה הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״!
The baraita quotes a third opinion. Rabbi Yehuda says: By Torah law, the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, as is stated: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest.” This baraita states explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda derives this halakha from the verse itself, not from an a fortiori inference.
אֲמַר לְהוּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּרֵישָׁא וּפַרְכוּהּ, וַהֲדַר אָמַר לְהוּ קְרָא.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda first said to them the a fortiori inference, and they refuted it as mentioned above, and he then said to them the derivation from the verse.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ ״אֲבָל אָמְרוּ״.
The Gemara clarifies: Apparently, the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is the same as that of the first tanna in the baraita, who also cites the verse as proof that by Torah law the husband alone brings his wife to the priest. The Gemara explains: The difference between them concerns the following clause: But the Sages said that the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him. The first tanna holds that the Sages require two scholars to accompany the husband and wife, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that they do not.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּמְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּימִין עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת.
MISHNA: The mishna details the next stage of the process. They would bring her up to the Sanhedrin that was in Jerusalem, and the judges would threaten her in order that she admit her sin. And this was done in the manner that they would threaten witnesses testifying in cases of capital law. In those cases, the judges would explain to the witnesses the gravity of their testimony by stressing the value of human life. Here too, the judges would attempt to convince the woman to admit her sin, to avoid the loss of her life.
וְאוֹמֵר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, הַרְבֵּה יַיִן עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׂחוֹק עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה יַלְדוּת עוֹשָׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׁכֵנִים הָרָעִים עוֹשִׂין.
And additionally, the judge would say to her: My daughter, wine causes a great deal of immoral behavior, levity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, immaturity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, and bad neighbors cause a great deal of immoral behavior. The judge encouraged her to admit her sin by explaining to her that he understands that there may have been mitigating factors.
עֲשִׂי לִשְׁמוֹ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם. וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָם כְּדַי לְשׁוֹמְעָן, הִיא וְכׇל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ.
The judge then continues: Act for the sake of His great name, so that God’s name, which is written in sanctity, shall not be erased on the water. If the woman admits to having committed adultery, the scroll upon which the name of God is written will not be erased. And additionally, the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family, in order to encourage her to admit her sin, as the Gemara will explain.
אִם אָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״ — שׁוֹבֶרֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְיוֹצֵאת.
If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. That is, she writes a receipt indicating that she has no claims on her husband with regard to the sum written in her marriage contract, as a woman who admits to adultery forfeits her right to this payment. And she is then divorced from her husband.
וְאִם אָמְרָה ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ — מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְשַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, שֶׁשָּׁם מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַסּוֹטוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַיּוֹלְדוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַמְצוֹרָעִין.
But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they bring her up to the Eastern Gate, which is at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor, because three rites were performed there: They give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and they purify women who have given birth (see Leviticus 12:6–8), and they purify the lepers (see Leviticus 14:10–20).
וְכֹהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ. אִם נִקְרְעוּ — נִקְרְעוּ. וְאִם נִפְרְמוּ — נִפְרְמוּ. עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבָּהּ. וְסוֹתֵר אֶת שְׂעָרָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה לִבָּהּ נָאֶה — לֹא הָיָה מְגַלֵּהוּ, וְאִם הָיָה שְׂעָרָהּ נָאֶה — לֹא הָיָה סוֹתֵר.
The mishna continues describing the sota rite. And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them, unconcerned about what happens to the clothing. If the clothes are torn, so they are torn; if the stitches come apart, so they come apart. And he pulls her clothing until he reveals her heart, i.e., her chest. And then he unbraids her hair. Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it.
הָיְתָה מִתְכַּסָּה בִּלְבָנִים — מְכַסֶּהָ בִּשְׁחוֹרִים. הָיָה עָלֶיהָ כְּלֵי זָהָב
If she was dressed in white garments, he would now cover her with black garments. If she was wearing gold adornments,
וְקַטְלֵיאוֹת, נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת — מַעֲבִירִין מִמֶּנָּה, כְּדֵי לְנַוְּולָהּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֶבֶל מִצְרִי וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ,
or chokers [katliyot], or nose rings, or finger rings, they removed them from her in order to render her unattractive. And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope fashioned from palm fibers, and he would tie it above her breasts.
וְכׇל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּא לִרְאוֹת, חוּץ מֵעֲבָדֶיהָ וְשִׁפְחוֹתֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבָּהּ גַּס בָּהֶן. וְכׇל הַנָּשִׁים מוּתָּרוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִמַּתְכֶנָה״.
And anyone who desires to watch her may come to watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them, as seeing one’s slaves reinforces one’s feeling of pride, and their presence may cause her to maintain her innocence. And all of the women are permitted to watch her, as it is stated: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אָתְיָא ״תּוֹרָה״ ״תּוֹרָה״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְעָשָׂה לָהּ הַכֹּהֵן אֵת כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד — אַף כָּאן בְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks concerning the halakha that the sota is brought before the Sanhedrin: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the words “tora” and “tora.” It is written here, with regard to a sota: “And the priest shall execute upon her all this law [tora]” (Numbers 5:30), and it is written there, with regard to a rebellious Elder, who must go to the place chosen by God and follow the ruling of the Sanhedrin: “According to the law [tora] that they shall teach you” (Deuteronomy 17:11). Just as there the verse is referring to what occurs in the presence of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, so too here, with regard to a sota, the verse is referring to what occurs in the presence of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges.
וּמְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתֶּה כָּךְ מְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁתִּשְׁתֶּה. אוֹמְרִים לָהּ: בִּתִּי, אִם בָּרוּר לָךְ הַדָּבָר שֶׁטְּהוֹרָה אַתְּ עִמְדִי עַל בּוּרְיִיךְ, וּשְׁתִי. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַיִם הַמָּרִים דּוֹמִין אֶלָּא לְסַם יָבֵשׁ שֶׁמּוּנָּח עַל בָּשָׂר חַי. אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מַכָּה — מְחַלְחֵל וְיוֹרֵד, אֵין שָׁם מַכָּה — אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם.
§ The mishna teaches: And they threaten her in order that she admit her sin, to obviate the need to erase God’s name. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:6): In the same manner that they threaten her so that she will not drink, so too, they threaten her so that she will drink, as they say to her: My daughter, if the matter is clear to you that you are pure, arise for the sake of your clear position and drink. If you are innocent you have nothing to fear, because the bitter water is similar only to a dry poison placed on the flesh. If there is a wound there, the poison will penetrate and enter the blood stream, but if there is no wound there, it does not have any effect. This teaches that the woman is warned not to drink if she is guilty, but if she is not guilty she is encouraged to drink. There is no mention of the latter in the mishna.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה. כָּאן — לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the mishna is referring to before the scroll was erased, and at that point the woman is warned only not to drink if she is guilty, so that the name of God will not be erased. There the baraita is referring to after the scroll was erased. Then she is warned that if she is innocent she should drink because if she now refuses to drink, it will turn out that the scroll was erased for no purpose.
וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל הַגָּדָה, וּמַעֲשִׂים שֶׁאֵירְעוּ בִּכְתוּבִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, כְּגוֹן: ״אֲשֶׁר חֲכָמִים יַגִּידוּ וְלֹא כִחֲדוּ מֵאֲבוֹתָם״.
§ The mishna teaches: And the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family in order to encourage her to admit her sin. The Gemara cites a baraita that details what was said. The Sages taught in a baraita: The judge says in her presence words of homiletical interpretation and mentions incidents that happened to previous generations that are recorded in the early prophetic writings. For example, they expound the following verse: “That wise men told and did not hide from their fathers” (Job 15:18); this teaches that even during the time of the forefathers, there were people who admitted their sins despite the shame they incurred.
יְהוּדָה הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ — נָחַל חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. רְאוּבֵן הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ — נָחַל חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וּמָה שְׂכָרָן? מָה שְׂכָרָן?! כִּדְקָא אָמְרִינַן! אֶלָּא: מָה שְׂכָרָן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״לָהֶם לְבַדָּם נִתְּנָה הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא עָבַר זָר בְּתוֹכָם״.
For example, Judah admitted that he sinned with Tamar and was not embarrassed to do so, and what was his end? He inherited the life of the World-to-Come. Reuben admitted that he lay with his father’s concubine Bilhah and was not embarrassed, and what was his end? He too inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: And what is their reward? The Gemara interjects: What is their reward? Their reward was clearly as we say, that they inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara clarifies: Rather, the second question was: What is their reward in this world? The Gemara answers by citing the next verse in the book of Job: “To them alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them” (Job 15:19). Judah was given the kingship, and Reuben inherited a portion of land in the Transjordan before the other tribes.
בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּיהוּדָה אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאוֹדִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי״, אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן מְנָלַן דְּאוֹדִי?
The Gemara questions the source for Reuben’s admission. Granted, with regard to Judah we have found a source that he admitted his sin with Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26). Judah admitted that he was the one who had impregnated Tamar. But from where do we derive that Reuben admitted his sin?
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״יְחִי רְאוּבֵן וְאַל יָמֹת״, ״וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה״?
The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written concerning Reuben and Judah in Moses’ blessing of the tribes at the end of his life: “Let Reuben live and not die in that his men become few” (Deuteronomy 33:6), and immediately afterward, in the following verse, it is stated: “And this for Judah, and he said: Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him in unto his people; his hands shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7). What is the connection between the blessing of Reuben and that of Judah, juxtaposed with the conjunction “and”?
כׇּל אוֹתָן שָׁנִים שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, הָיוּ עַצְמוֹתָיו שֶׁל יְהוּדָה מְגוּלְגָּלִין בָּאָרוֹן, עַד שֶׁעָמַד מֹשֶׁה וּבִקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מִי גָּרַם לִרְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוֹדָה — יְהוּדָה: ״וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה״?!
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All those years that the Jewish people were in the desert, the bones of Judah, which the Jewish people took with them from Egypt along with the bones of his brothers, were rolling around in the coffin, until Moses arose and asked for compassion on Judah’s behalf. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who served as the impetus for Reuben that he admit his sin, through which he merited a blessing and was not excluded from the count of the twelve sons of Jacob (see Genesis 35:22)? It was Judah, as Reuben saw him confess his sin, and thereby did the same. Moses continues in the next verse: “And this for Judah,” as if to say: Is this Judah’s reward for serving as an example of confessing to one’s sins, that his bones roll around?
מִיָּד: ״שְׁמַע ה׳ קוֹל יְהוּדָה״, עָל אֵיבְרֵיהּ לְשָׁפָא. וְלָא הֲוָה קָא מְעַיְּילִין לֵיהּ לִמְתִיבְתָּא דִרְקִיעָא, ״וְאֶל עַמּוֹ תְּבִיאֶנּוּ״. וְלָא הֲוָה קָא יָדַע מִשְׁקַל וּמִטְרַח בִּשְׁמַעְתָּא בַּהֲדֵי רַבָּנַן, ״יָדָיו רָב לוֹ״. לָא הֲוָה קָא סָלְקָא לֵיהּ שְׁמַעְתָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְהִילְכְתָא, ״וְעֵזֶר מִצָּרָיו תִּהְיֶה״.
Immediately after Moses prayed, the verse states: “Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah” (Deuteronomy 33:7). His bones then entered their sockets [shafa], and his skeleton was reassembled. But the angels still did not elevate him into the heavenly study hall. Moses then prayed: “And bring him in unto his people” (Deuteronomy 33:7), i.e., those in the heavenly study hall. This prayer was accepted, but he still did not know how to deliberate in Torah matters with the heavenly sages. Moses then prayed: “His hands shall contend for him” (Deuteronomy 33:7), meaning that he should have the ability to contend with them in study. But still he was unable to draw conclusions from his discussion in accordance with the halakha. Moses then prayed: “And You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7).
בִּשְׁלָמָא יְהוּדָה דְּאוֹדִי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֹא תִּישָּׂרֵף תָּמָר. אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן, לְמָה לֵיהּ דְּאוֹדִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: חֲצִיף עֲלַי דִּמְפָרֵיט חֶטְאֵיהּ? כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיחַשְׁדוּ אֲחוֹהִי.
The Gemara discusses the propriety of admitting one’s sins in public. Granted, with regard to Judah, it was proper that he admitted his sin in public, as he did so in order that Tamar not be burned innocently. But why did Reuben admit his sin in public? But didn’t Rav Sheshet say: I consider one who specifies his sins in public to be brazen, as one who does so indicates that he is not embarrassed by his actions? The Gemara answers: The reason he admitted his sin in public was in order that his brothers should not be suspected of having committed the deed.
אִם אָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״ וְכוּ׳. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.
§ The mishna teaches: If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. The Gemara comments: You can learn from this mishna that one writes a receipt to serve as proof that a debt has been paid rather than tearing the promissory note. This matter is the subject of a dispute between the tanna’im in tractate Bava Batra (170b).
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תְּנִי: ״מְקָרַעַת״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא ״שׁוֹבֶרֶת״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין כְּתוּבָּה עָסְקִינַן.
Abaye said: Teach in the mishna differently. Rather than understanding that she writes a receipt, explain it to mean: She tears her marriage contract. Rava said to him: But the mishna teaches explicitly that she writes a receipt. Rather, to explain the mishna, Rava said: We are dealing with a place in which they do not write a marriage contract, as they rely on the rabbinical ordinance that all wives are entitled to the sum of a standard marriage contract upon divorce or being widowed, even if no marriage contract has been written. Because there is no marriage contract to tear, a receipt is written so that the man can prove that he no longer has a monetary obligation. However, generally, it is possible that the document would be torn, and no proof can be adduced from this mishna.
וְאִם אָמְרָה ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְשַׁעֲרֵי מִזְרָח. מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ?!
§ The mishna teaches: But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they would bring her up to the Eastern Gate. The Gemara asks: Would they bring her up?
