סוטה יט

סוטה יט

דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת״. בִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּהָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״תּוֹרַת״.

as it is written: “This is the law of jealousy.” The word “this” is a restricting term and excludes that possibility. With regard to two different husbands and two different paramours, where her first husband suspected her with regard to one paramour during her first marriage and the second husband suspected her with regard to a different man during the second marriage, everyone agrees that the woman drinks and repeats, as it is written: “This is the law of jealousy,” in all cases of jealousy.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין, בִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד.

They disagree when there is one husband and two paramours, i.e., where one husband warned her with regard to a second paramour after she survived her first ordeal. They also disagree in a case of two husbands and one paramour, i.e., if her second husband accused her with regard to the same paramour on account of whom she was compelled to drink by her first husband.

תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹיֵי כּוּלְּהִי, ״זֹאת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי אִישׁ אֶחָד וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד.

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

וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי: ״זֹאת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי כּוּלְּהִי, ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹיֵי שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין.

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

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: ״זֹאת״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי תַּרְתֵּי, ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹת תַּרְתֵּי. ״זֹאת״ לְמַעוֹטֵי תַּרְתֵּי — אִישׁ אֶחָד וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד, אִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין, ״תּוֹרַת״ — לְרַבּוֹיֵי תַּרְתֵּי, שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּבוֹעֵל אֶחָד, שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וּשְׁנֵי בּוֹעֲלִין.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The word “this” serves to exclude two of the cases, and the phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include two. The word “this” serves to exclude the two cases of one husband and one paramour and one husband and two paramours. In neither of these cases does the woman drink and repeat. The phrase “the law of jealousy” serves to include two cases, i.e., two husbands and one paramour, and all the more so two husbands and two paramours. In both of these cases, the woman must drink and repeat.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָיָה מֵבִיא

הָיָה נוֹטֵל אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ מִתּוֹךְ כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית, וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל יָדָהּ, וְכֹהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ מִתַּחְתֶּיהָ וּמְנִיפָהּ. הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ, קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.

MISHNA: He would take her meal-offering out of the Egyptian wicker basket made of palm leaves in which it was lying and would put it into a service vessel and then place it on her hand. And the priest would then place his hand underneath hers and wave it together with her. The priest waved it and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful; and the remainder was eaten by the priests.

הָיָה מַשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָיָה מַשְׁקָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶת הַמָּיִם״. אִם הִשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ — כְּשֵׁרָה.

The priest would force the woman to drink the bitter water of a sota, and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon says: The priest would sacrifice her meal-offering and afterward he would force her to drink, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26). But Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the priest first forced her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, it is still valid.

גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּדָרֵיהּ: לָא תֵּיתֵב אַכַּרְעָךְ עַד דִּמְפָרְשַׁתְּ לָהּ לְהָא מִילְּתָא: מִנַּיִן לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה? מְנָא לַן?! ״וְהֵנִיף״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ! בִּבְעָלִים, מְנָלַן?

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation, i.e., his contemporary: You shall not sit on your feet until you explain this matter to me: From where is it derived that the meal-offering of a sota requires waving? The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: From where do we derive this? It is explicitly written with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: “And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the Lord, and bring it unto the altar” (Numbers 5:25). Rather, the question is as follows: From where do we derive that the waving is performed by the owner, i.e., the woman, and not only by the priest?

אָתְיָא ״יָד״ ״יָד״ מִשְּׁלָמִים. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶינָה״.

Rabbi Yoshiya answered: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term “hand” written here and “hand” from the peace-offering: It is written here, with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: “And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand” (Numbers 5:25), and it is written there, with regard to the peace-offering: “He that offers his peace-offerings unto the Lord…His own hands shall bring the offerings…that the breast may be waved before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:29–30).

מָה כָּאן כֹּהֵן — אַף לְהַלָּן כֹּהֵן, וּמָה לְהַלָּן בְּעָלִים — אַף כָּאן בְּעָלִים. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ תַּחַת יְדֵי הַבְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.

Just as here, in the case of the sota, the priest waves the offering, so too there, in the case of the peace-offering, the priest waves the offering. And just as there, in the case of the peace-offering, the owner waves the offering, so too here, in the case of the sota, the owner waves the offering. How is this accomplished? The priest places his hand beneath the hands of the owner and then waves the offering with the owner.

הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ קָמַץ וְכוּ׳. הָיָה מַשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ. הָא אַקְרְבַהּ!

§ The mishna states: The priest waved it and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful. Yet the continuation of the mishna states: The priest would force the woman to drink, and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering. The Gemara asks: Didn’t the mishna state in the previous phrase that the offering was already sacrificed?

הָכִי קָאָמַר: סֵדֶר מְנָחוֹת כֵּיצַד? הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ, קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.

The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: What was the sacrificial order of meal-offerings in general? The priest waved the meal-offering and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful, and the remainder was eaten by the priests.

וּבְהַשְׁקָאָה גּוּפַהּ פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנַן. דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מַשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁקָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״.

And as for the correct order for sacrificing the meal-offering of the sota and forcing her to drink, this itself is a matter about which Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree, as the Rabbis hold that the priest would force the woman to drink and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering; and Rabbi Shimon holds that the priest would sacrifice her meal-offering and afterward he would force her to drink, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26).

וְאִם הִשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ — כְּשֵׁרָה.

§ The mishna states: But Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the priest first forced her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, the offering is still valid.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִשְׁקָה״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״! שֶׁאִם נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה וְאוֹמֶרֶת ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״ — מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

The Sages taught: What is the meaning when the verse states after the sacrifice of the meal-offering: “And he shall make her drink the water” (Numbers 5:27)? But isn’t it already stated: “And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse” (Numbers 5:24)? The baraita answers: The repetition teaches that if the scroll was already erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced [me’arerin] to drink against her will. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״! אֶלָּא, לְאַחַר כׇּל מַעֲשִׂים כּוּלָּן הָאֲמוּרִין לְמַעְלָה. מַגִּיד שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מְעַכְּבִין בָּהּ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה, וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא תְּקַבֵּל עָלֶיהָ שְׁבוּעָה.

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26)? But isn’t it already stated previously: “And he shall make the woman drink” (Numbers 5:24)? Rather, this verse indicates that the sota is given the bitter water to drink only after all the actions that are stated above are performed, i.e., erasing the scroll, sacrificing the meal-offering, and administering the oath. Therefore, this verse teaches that three matters preclude her from drinking: She does not drink until the handful is sacrificed, and until the scroll is erased, and until she accepts the oath upon herself.

עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁקָהּ.

The Gemara elaborates: She does not drink until the handful is sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning stated earlier, as he says that the priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink.

עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה. אֶלָּא מַאי מַשְׁקֶה לַהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה לְשֶׁרִישּׁוּמוֹ נִיכָּר.

The Gemara questions the second condition: She does not drink until the scroll is erased. Why does the baraita need to state this? But what could he give her to drink if the scroll was not yet erased into the water? Rav Ashi says: No, this halakha is necessary for an instance where the scroll was erased, but the impression of the ink is still discernible on the parchment. The woman does not drink until the scroll is totally erased.

עַד שֶׁלֹּא תְּקַבֵּל עָלֶיהָ שְׁבוּעָה. מִישְׁתָּא הוּא דְּלָא שָׁתְיָא, הָא מִיכְתָּב כָּתְבִי לַהּ, וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מְגִילַּת סוֹטָה שֶׁכְּתָבָהּ קוֹדֶם שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל עָלֶיהָ שְׁבוּעָה — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.

The Gemara discusses the third condition: She does not drink until she accepts the oath upon herself. One might infer from this statement that it is only that she does not drink before she accepts the oath; however, the scroll is written for her before she accepts the oath. But didn’t Rava say: With regard to a scroll of a sota that was written before she accepted the oath upon herself, whoever wrote it did nothing, and the scroll is rendered invalid. The Gemara responds: This was cited for no reason, as in fact the scroll is not even written before she accepts the oath upon herself, and nothing should be inferred.

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״וְהִשְׁקָה״ קַמָּא, ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״, ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״ בָּתְרָא.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the mishna? The Gemara answers: Three verses are written which pertain to drinking the bitter water: The first occurrence of the term is in the verse: “And he shall make the woman drink” (Numbers 5:24); the second: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26); and the last occurrence of the term is in the verse: “And he shall make her drink” (Numbers 5:27).

רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״וְהִשְׁקָה״ קַמָּא — לְגוּפוֹ, שֶׁמַּשְׁקֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ. ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״ — מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְשֶׁרִישּׁוּמוֹ נִיכָּר. ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״ בָּתְרָא — שֶׁאִם נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה וְאוֹמֶרֶת ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״, מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקֶה אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ.

The Rabbis hold that the first occurrence of the term: “And he shall make the woman drink,” is written to teach the halakha itself, i.e., that the priest first forces her to drink and afterward sacrifices her meal-offering. The second instance: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink,” is necessary to teach that as long as the impression of the writing is still discernible, the sota is not given the bitter water to drink. The third verse, the last occurrence of the term: “And he shall make her drink,” teaches that if the scroll was erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: ״וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה״ — לְגוּפוֹ, שֶׁמַּקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁקָהּ. ״וְהִשְׁקָה״ קַמָּא — שֶׁאִם הִשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״ בָּתְרָא — שֶׁאִם נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה וְאָמְרָה ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״, מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ.

And Rabbi Shimon holds that the second verse: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26), is written to teach the halakha itself, i.e., that the priest first sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink. The first occurrence of the term: “And he shall make the woman drink,” teaches that if he forced her to drink and only afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, the offering is nevertheless valid. The last occurrence of the term: “And he shall make her drink,” teaches that if the scroll was erased and then she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.

וְרַבָּנַן — בְּדִיעֲבַד לָא פָּתַח קְרָא.

The Gemara explains the Rabbis’ opinion: And the Rabbis would respond to Rabbi Shimon that the verse does not begin the discussion with a halakha that is applicable only after the fact, and therefore the initial mention of the drinking is referring to the proper time for the ritual.

וְסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כַּלְבּוֹס שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל מְטִילִין לְתוֹךְ פִּיהָ, שֶׁאִם נִמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה וְאָמְרָה ״אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה״ — מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כְּלוּם אָנוּ צְרִיכִין אֶלָּא לְבוֹדְקָהּ, וַהֲלֹא בְּדוּקָה וְעוֹמֶדֶת! אֶלָּא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ — יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזוֹר בָּהּ, מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ — אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזוֹר בָּהּ.

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Akiva in fact hold that the woman is forced to drink against her will? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:3) that Rabbi Yehuda says: A hook [kelabus] made of iron is forcibly placed into her mouth, so that if the scroll was erased and she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will. Rabbi Akiva said: It is not necessary to force her to drink. Don’t we need to force her to drink the water only in order to evaluate her fidelity? And isn’t she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink, as she is essentially admitting her guilt? Rather, Rabbi Akiva’s statement should be understood as follows: Until the handful is sacrificed she can retract her decision to drink the bitter water; however, once the handful is sacrificed she cannot retract her decision to drink.

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ הִיא גּוּפַהּ: מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזוֹר בָּהּ? וַהֲלֹא בְּדוּקָה וְעוֹמֶדֶת!

The Gemara asks: But according to your reasoning in explanation of Rabbi Akiva’s statement, this explanation itself should pose a difficulty for you. Why can’t she retract her decision once the handful is sacrificed? And isn’t she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink?

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּקָהָדְרָא בַּהּ מֵחֲמַת רְתִיתָא, וְהָא — דְּקָהָדְרָא בָּהּ מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיּוּתָא.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, where she is forced to drink, is referring to a situation where she retracts her decision to drink due to fear, as her refusal is not viewed as an admission of guilt, and it is possible that if she drinks she will be found undefiled. And that case, where she does not drink, is referring to a situation where she retracts her decision in a state of good health. Since she does not appear to be afraid, her refusal is viewed as an admission of guilt.

וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיּוּתָא — כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא שָׁתְיָא. מֵחֲמַת רְתִיתָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ, דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא אִמְּחוּק מְגִילָּה, אִי נָמֵי אִמְּחוּק מְגִילָּה, דְּשֶׁלֹּא כְּדִין עֲבוּד כֹּהֲנִים דְּמַחֲקִי — מָצְיָ[א] הָדְרָא בָּהּ. מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ, דִּבְדִין עֲבוּד כֹּהֲנִים דְּמָחֲקִי — לָא מָצֵי הָדְרָא בָּהּ.

And this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: In any case where she retracts her decision to drink in a state of good health, she does not drink at all. With regard to a sota who retracts her decision due to fear, if she retracts her decision before the handful is sacrificed, when the scroll has not yet been erased; or even if the scroll was already erased, since the priests acted incorrectly when they erased it beforehand; she can retract her decision. Once the handful is sacrificed, in which case the priests acted correctly when they erased the scroll, she cannot retract her decision, and she is forced to drink against her will.