Sotah 17a — the Talmud in English

The section of Sota is divided into three matters:

The first: “instructions”—the verses in which the Torah commands what to do concerning a sota.

The second: “oaths, imprecations, and curses”—the verses in which are explained the oaths, imprecations, and curses that will apply to the woman, if she committed adultery.

And the third: “acceptances”—the verses in which are explained the acceptances that the woman accepts upon herself: the oaths, the imprecations, and the curses that the koen imposes upon her.

And thus the Torah said:

A. Instruction—“And the koen shall administer an oath to her”—

These words are not among the curses; rather, they are the first instruction, which commands the koen to say this to the woman.

B. Curse—“And [the koen] shall say to the woman: If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray into impurity under your husband, be immune from these bitter waters that cause the curse.”

And the meaning of the matter is:

But if you have gone astray—you shall not be immune!

And this is a curse that comes by means of a blessing, for it is implied by itself that if you have indeed gone astray into impurity under your husband, then you shall not be immune.

C. Imprecation—“But you, if you have gone astray [however, you, if you have indeed gone astray] under your husband, and if you have become impure, and a man has given his lying with you apart from your husband [then] may the Lord make you an imprecation and an oath.”

And this verse is a verse of imprecation.

But here Scripture interrupted the imprecation with an additional instruction, and said: D. “And the koen shall administer an oath to the woman with the oath of the imprecation.”

And the koen shall say to the woman”

This is a second instruction, and it is not a curse:

E. Imprecation, oath, and curse—“May the Lord make you an imprecation and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall and your belly swell. And these waters that cause the curse shall enter your innards, to make the belly swell and the thigh fall”—

F. Acceptance—“And the woman shall say: Amen, amen” [this is the woman’s acceptance of the oath, and it is not an imprecation].

And Scripture concluded and said: “And the koen shall write these imprecations in a scroll, and he shall erase them into the bitter waters.”

The Mishna before us deals with the writing of the scroll of the sota and with its erasure. And the Mishna brings a dispute among three tannaim as to which part of the section of sota stated in the Torah is written and erased upon the water.

Mishna:

He came

the koen

to write the scroll.

From which place

in the section

does he write:

He begins writing after the first instruction, that is,

from

“If no man has lain”

with you.”

And he continues and writes: “And if you have not gone astray into impurity under your husband, be immune from these bitter waters that cause the curse.” “

But you, if you have gone astray under your husband,”

and if you have become impure, and a man has given his lying with you apart from your husband.”

And he does not write

the beginning of the following verse, namely: “

And the koen shall administer an oath to the woman

with the oath of the imprecation, and the koen shall say to the woman,” since these words are an instruction!

Rather, after he has written: “And a man has given his lying with you apart from your husband,” he skips and

writes: “

May the Lord make you an imprecation and an oath

among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall and your belly swell.

And these waters that cause the curse shall enter your innards, to make the belly swell and the thigh fall.”

And with this the writing of the scroll is completed.

And he does not write

the end of the verse: “

And the woman shall say: Amen, amen,”

because this is an acceptance, by which the woman accepts upon herself the oath and the imprecation, and it is not among the imprecations.

Thus far are the words of the first tanna [who is Rabbi Meir].

Rabbi Yose says:

Once he began to write the verse after the first instruction, he again

would not interrupt

the writing of the section in its order; rather, he would continue and write also the instructions within the imprecations, and also the woman’s acceptance at the end of the section.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He writes nothing at all

that is, he must take care himself not to write

except

the imprecations alone, namely: “

May

the Lord

make you an imprecation and an oath

among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall and your belly swell.

And these waters that cause the curse shall enter your innards

to make the belly swell and the thigh fall.”

And he does not write

the conclusion of the verse: “

And the woman shall say: Amen, amen.”

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains:

Over what do they disagree

the three tannaim: Rabbi Meir [the first tanna], Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yose?—

They disagree over this verse!

They disagreed in the exposition of this verse, as it is stated: “

And the koen shall write these imprecations in a scroll.”

Rabbi Meir held:

Since Scripture said, “And he shall write the

imprecations,”

whose meaning is

actual imprecations,

namely: “May the Lord make you an imprecation and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall and your belly swell. And these waters that cause the curse shall enter your innards, to make the belly swell and the thigh fall.”

And Scripture added and said “

the imprecations”

with the extra letter heh]. The extra letter heh comes to teach us

to include

the

curses that come by means of blessings.

That is: “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray into impurity under your husband, be immune from these bitter waters that cause the curse,” from which it is implied: But if you have gone astray—you shall not be immune!

And Scripture added and said: He shall write the imprecations “these.” “

These”

is an expression of exclusion, meaning these and no others, and Scripture comes

to exclude the curses in Deuteronomy

in the section of Ki Tavo, which are also called “imprecations,” as it is stated [Deuteronomy 29:18]: “And it shall be, when he hears the words of this imprecation,” to say that the koen need not write these imprecations in the scroll of sota.

And since Scripture added and said “

these”

with the addition of the extra letter heh], Scripture comes

to exclude the instructions in the section.

That is, he does not write the second instruction; and do not say: Since he began with the curse that comes by means of the blessing written before it, he no longer skips.

And

similarly, to exclude

the acceptances “

Amen,”

which he does not write in the scroll.

And Rabbi Yose,

who holds that he did not interrupt, held:

All of them,

the expositions, we indeed expound

as you say

[as Rabbi Meir explained], except for the extra heh of “these,” which according to Rabbi Meir comes to exclude the instructions and acceptances. But Rabbi Yose holds that it must not be expounded in this way; rather, it is the style of Scripture.

For it is stated, “And he shall write

et

the imprecations,” and the extra “et” comes

to include

the writing of

the instructions

[that is, the second instruction],

and the acceptances

of the woman’s “Amen,” which he also writes.

And

if it were

Rabbi Meir—“

the ets”

he does not expound!

And therefore he expounds the extra heh, to exclude the instructions and acceptances.

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that he writes only from “May the Lord make you,” and likewise does not write the acceptance at the end of the section—his reason is:

All of them,

the extra hehs stated in the verse—

he expounds them as exclusions

[they come to exclude, and not as Rabbi Meir, who expounds one heh as an inclusion and one heh as an exclusion], and this is how he expounds: “

Imprecations”:

actual imprecations. “

The imprecations”:

to exclude the curses that come by means of blessings. “

These”:

to exclude the curses in Deuteronomy. “

These”:

to exclude the instructions and acceptances.

And

we raise an objection to

Rabbi Meir:

What is different about this heh “

heh” [“

the imprecations”]

that he includes through it,

for it is expounded as an inclusion [of curses that come by means of blessings]—

and what is different about this heh “

heh” [“

these”]

that he excludes through it,

for it is expounded as an exclusion [of the instructions and the woman’s “Amen” acceptances]!?

And we answer:

The heh

that is beside an inclusion

[the Scripture written beside the word that comes to include]—even this heh

is an inclusion.

And since “imprecations” comes to include actual imprecations, therefore the heh beside it also comes as an inclusion: curses that come by means of blessings.

The heh

that is beside an exclusion—

it is an exclusion.

And since “these” comes to exclude the curses in Deuteronomy, the heh of “these” also comes to exclude the instructions and the woman’s “Amen” acceptances.

And again we raise an objection to Rabbi Meir:

We learned in the Mishna in Kiddushin 62a that according to Rabbi Meir, every condition [that is not doubled] like the condition of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben [for example, if he said, “This is your divorce on condition that you give me two hundred zuz,” and did not explicitly double it, “And if you do not give, it shall not be a divorce”] is not a condition. For it is stated [Numbers 32:29, concerning the condition Moses made with the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben, that they would receive the land of Gilead across the Jordan if they crossed armed before the Children of Israel for battle]: “And Moses said to them: If the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben cross with you across the Jordan, every armed man for battle before the Lord, and the land is conquered before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead as a possession”; and Moses added and said [there, verse 30]: “But if they do not cross armed with you, then they shall take possession among you in the land of Canaan” [thus Moses needed to double his condition].

And the reason for the law that he must double his condition is that according to Rabbi Meir we do not say: “From a negative statement you hear a positive one,” nor, “From a positive statement you hear a negative one.” It follows that he did not state in his condition that if she did not give him two hundred zuz, the betrothal would not take effect.

But Rabbi Meir does not hold “

from a negative statement you hear a positive one,”

nor “from a positive statement you hear a negative one”; if so, why does he write: “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray into impurity under your husband, be immune from these bitter waters that cause the curse”? This is a blessing, and obviously we do not need to bless the sotot. And although from a blessing you hear a curse, Rabbi Meir does not hold that from a positive statement you hear a negative one!?

Rabbi Tanhum said: “

[And if you have not gone astray into impurity under your husband]

be immune

[from these bitter waters that cause the curse]”—without a yod

is written, as though it said “be strangled”; thus it is expounded as though it said: “You have gone astray into impurity under your husband—be strangled!”

as though it said, “Be strangled.” Thus, it is expounded as though it said: “If you have committed defilement while under your husband, be strangled!”

Rabbi Akiva expounded:

A man and a woman

who are married:

if they merit,

and he was not adulterous and she was not adulterous, then

the Divine Presence is between them,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, divided the Name “Yod–Heh” and caused it to dwell between them: the yod for the man and the heh for the woman.

And if

they did not merit, fire consumes them,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, removes His Name from between them, and fire and fire remain.

Rava said:

And

the fire

of the woman is stronger than the

fire

of the man,

for it hastens to consume and punish the woman more than the man!

And we explain:

What is the reason

that the fire of the woman is stronger?

For

this “

fire” of “woman”

is joined

[this is close to that], and it is easy to ignite;

but this “fire” of a man

“fire” of man

is not joined,

it is not close, for the yod stands between them, and it is therefore not as easy to ignite.

And further

Rava said: Why did the Torah say: Bring earth for the sota?

To teach that if she

merited,

and was found pure,

a son like Abraham our forefather emerges from her.

For it is written concerning him: “Behold, now I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, and I am

dust and ashes.”

And if she

did not merit, she will die and

she will die and

return to her dust.

And further

Rava expounded:

In the merit that Abraham our forefather said: “

And I am dust and ashes,”

his sons merited two mitzvot: the earth of the sota and the ashes of the red heifer.

And we raise an objection: How can you say that Israel merited only two mitzvot connected with dust and ashes?

But there is also the earth

of the mitzva of

covering the blood

of an animal or bird!?

And we answer:

There,

with the earth for covering the blood,

the preparation for the mitzva

indeed

exists,

but

there is no benefit.

There is no benefit to Israel in this, for the flesh is permitted even without covering its blood, and this is not receipt of reward. But in the case of sota, there is benefit in bringing peace between a man and his wife, and that mamzerim should not increase among Israel if she is a harlot; and if she is cleared, Scripture says, “and she shall be fruitful with seed,” thereby removing the slander from her children that they are not mamzerim. And likewise, in the ashes of the red heifer there is benefit, for through them one becomes pure, and Israel is vindicated from the deed of the calf, for the red heifer was given to Israel to atone for it.

Rava expounded:

It is written [Genesis, chapter 14]: “And it was in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations. And the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar, went out, and they arrayed with them [with the four kings] for battle in the Valley of Siddim. And the Valley of Siddim was pits, pits of bitumen, and the king of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell there, and the survivors fled to the mountain. And [the four kings] took all the property of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food, and went. And [Abraham] divided himself against them [against the four kings] by night, he and his servants, and struck them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is to the left of Damascus. And the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after his return from striking Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, to the Valley of Shaveh, which is the King’s Valley. And the king of Sodom said to Abram: Give me the persons [from my captivity that you saved; return to me the bodies alone, Rashi], and take the property [from the captivity] for yourself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom: I have lifted my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth. If from a thread to a shoe strap, and if I take anything that is yours, so that you shall not say, ‘I made Abram rich.’ Apart from this, only what the young men ate and the portion of the men who went with me—Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre—they shall take their portion.”

For the reward that Abraham our forefather earned

from the king of Sodom: “

If from a thread to a shoe strap

and if I take anything of all that is yours,” and he kept himself far from robbery,

his sons merited two mitzvot: a thread of tekhelet

for tzitzit, corresponding to “from a thread,”

and a strap of tefillin

corresponding to “to a shoe strap,” that is, a strap.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, a strap of tefillin,

indeed there is receipt of reward in this, for it contains benefit,

as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord

is called upon you

and they shall fear you,”

and it was taught: R

abbi Eliezer

the Great says:

What is “the name of the Lord is called upon you”? —

These are the tefillin of the head.

And since through this “they shall fear you,” there is here receipt of reward.

But a thread of tekhelet —

what is it?

What benefit is there in it, and what receipt of reward is it?!

And we answer: because

it was taught: Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about

the color of the

tekhelet from all kinds of colors

that the Torah required it for tzitzit? And Rabbi Meir explains: the color of tekhelet comes to teach us that anyone who fulfills the mitzva of tzitzit is as though he received the face of the Shekhinah; and how does the tekhelet teach this:

because the tekhelet resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the firmament,

and the firmament resembles the Throne of Glory.

And from where is it derived that the firmament resembles the Throne of Glory?

As it is stated: “

And they saw the God of Israel, and beneath His feet was like the work of a brick of sapphire, and like the very heavens for purity,”

thus the firmament is like a brick of sapphire,

and it is written

concerning the Throne of Glory: “

Like the appearance of a sapphire stone was the likeness of a throne,”

thus we have learned that the firmament resembles the Throne of Glory.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues to explain the laws of writing the megilla: upon what, and with what, it is written:

He does not write

the megilla of the sota, which is erased in water:

Not upon a tablet

of wood.

And not upon paper

made from grasses, which are crushed and glued together with glue, and made into something like leather.