Sotah 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

The passage of the sota is divided into three matters:

First, “instructions”—the verses in which the Torah commands what is to be done concerning a sota.

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

Third, “acceptances”—the verses in which the woman’s acceptance upon herself of the oaths, imprecations, and curses imposed upon her by the kohen is explained.

And this is what the Torah said:

a. Instruction—“And the kohen shall administer the oath to her”—

These words are not part of the curses. Rather, they are the first instruction, commanding the kohen to say the following to the woman.

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

The meaning of these words is:

But if you have gone astray, you will not be immune to harm!

This is a curse that comes by way of a blessing, for it is implicit in it that if she did indeed go astray into impurity while under her husband, she will not be immune to harm.

c. Imprecation—“But you, if you have gone astray [however, you, if indeed you have gone astray] while under your husband, and if you have become impure, and a man has lain with you apart from your husband—[then] the Lord shall make you an imprecation and an oath among your people.”

This verse is a verse of imprecation.

However, at this point the verse interrupts the imprecation with an additional instruction, and says: d. “And the kohen shall administer the oath to the woman with the oath of the imprecation.”

“And the kohen shall say to the woman.”

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

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

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 the verse concludes and says: “And the kohen shall write these imprecations in a scroll, and erase them into the bitter waters.”

The Mishna before us deals with the writing of the scroll of the sota and with its erasure. The Mishna presents a dispute between three tannaim concerning which part of the passage of the sota stated in the Torah is written and erased into the water.

Mishna:

The kohen came

to write the scroll.

From which place

in the passage

does he write?

He begins writing after the first instruction, namely,

from

“If no man has lain

with you.”

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

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

“and if you have become impure, and a man has lain with you apart from your husband.”

But he does not write

the beginning of the following verse, namely: “

And the kohen shall administer the oath to the woman

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

Rather, after he has written: “And a man has lain with you apart from your husband,” he skips ahead

and writes: “

The Lord shall make you an imprecation and an oath

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

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

With this, the writing of the scroll is completed.

But 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 the oath and the imprecation upon herself, and it is not part of the imprecations.

This concludes the statement of the first tanna [who is Rabbi Meir].

Rabbi Yosei says:

Once he began writing the verse following the first instruction, he

would no longer interrupt

the writing of the passage in its proper order. Rather, he would continue writing both the instructions contained within the imprecations and the woman’s acceptance at the end of the passage.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He writes nothing at all except

that he must take care not to write

anything but

the imprecations alone, namely: “

The Lord

shall make

you an imprecation and an oath

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

And these waters that induce the curse shall enter your innards

to make your belly swell and your thigh fall away.”

But he does not write

the conclusion of the verse: “

And the woman shall say: Amen, amen.”

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

With regard to what do they disagree,

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

They disagree concerning this verse!

They disagree about the exposition of this verse, as it is stated: “

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

Rabbi Meir holds:

Since the verse says: “And he shall write the

imprecations,”

whose meaning is

actual imprecations,

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

And the verse added and said: “

the imprecations” [with an extra letter heh]. The extra letter heh comes to teach us

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

to include

the

curses that come by way of blessings.

That is: “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray into impurity while under your husband, be immune to harm from these bitter waters that induce the curse,” implying: But if you have gone astray, you will not be immune to harm!

And the verse further says: “And he shall write the imprecations ‘

these.’”

“These” is an expression of exclusion, implying these and no others. The verse comes

to exclude the curses in Deuteronomy

in the passage 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,” teaching that the kohen need not write these imprecations in the scroll of the sota.

And since the verse added and said “

these” [with the addition of an extra letter heh], the verse comes

to exclude the instructions

in the passage.

That is, he does not write the second instruction. And one should not say: Since he began with the curse that comes by way of the blessing written before it, he will no longer skip.

And

likewise, to exclude the

acceptances of “

Amen,”

which he does not write in the scroll.

And Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that he does not interrupt, holds:

All

the expositions are indeed expounded

as you said [as Rabbi Meir explained], except for the extra heh of “these,” which according to Rabbi Meir comes to exclude the instructions and acceptances. Rabbi Yosei, however, maintains that it is necessarily not expounded in this manner; rather, it is the normal usage of the verse.

[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

the

imprecations,” and the extra word “the” comes

to include

the writing of the

instructions [that is, the second instruction]

and the woman’s

acceptances of “Amen,”

which he also writes.

And

if you were to say that

Rabbi Meir—the words “

the”

he does not expound! Therefore, he expounds the extra heh, to exclude the instructions and acceptances.

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

And Rabbi Yehuda,

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

All

the extra hehs stated in the verse—

he expounds them as exclusions [they come to exclude, unlike Rabbi Meir, who expounds one extra heh for inclusion and one for exclusion]. And this is how he expounds them: “

[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 curses that come by way of blessings. “

These”:

to exclude the curses in Deuteronomy. “

These imprecations”:

to exclude instructions and acceptances.

And

we challenge

Rabbi Meir:

What is different about this heh

of [“

the imprecations”]

with which he includes,

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

and what is different about this heh

of [“

these imprecations”]

with which he excludes,

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

And we answer: The

heh

that is next to an inclusion [the word adjacent to it comes to include]—the heh, too,

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

is an inclusion. Since “imprecations” comes to include actual imprecations, the heh next to it also comes to include the curses that come by way of blessings. The

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.

heh

that is next to an exclusion—

is an exclusion. Since “these” comes to exclude the curses in Deuteronomy, the heh of “these imprecations” comes to exclude the instructions and the acceptances of “Amen.”

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.

We further challenge Rabbi Meir:

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

The reason for the law that a condition must be doubled is that according to Rabbi Meir, we do not say: “From a negative statement you infer a positive one,” nor do we say: “From a positive statement you infer a negative one.” Thus, if he did not state in his condition that if she did not give him two hundred zuz, the betrothal would not take effect, it would not be understood.

But Rabbi Meir does not hold that “

from a negative statement you infer a positive one,”

nor does he hold that “from a positive statement you infer 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 while under your husband, be immune to harm from these bitter waters that induce the curse”? This is a blessing, and obviously there is no need to bless women suspected of adultery. Although from the blessing one can infer the curse, Rabbi Meir does not hold that from a positive statement one infers a negative one!

Rabbi Tanhum said: “

If you have not gone astray into impurity while under your husband,

be immune to harm

from these bitter waters that induce the curse”—it is written without a yod—

as

though it said “be strangled.” Thus it is expounded as though it said: “If you have gone into impurity while under your husband, be strangled!”

Rabbi Akiva expounded:

A man and a woman

who are married: If they

are worthy,

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 Divine Name “Yod-Heh” and placed it between them: the yod for the man and the heh for the woman.

But if they

are not worthy, fire consumes them,

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

Rava said:

And

the fire

of the woman is more powerful 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 more powerful?

Because this

“fire”

of “woman”

is joined [these letters are adjacent to one another,] and it is easy to ignite,

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

whereas this

“fire” of “man”

is not joined,

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

is found worthy,

and is found to be pure,

a son like Abraham our forefather will emerge from her.

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

dust and ashes.”

But if she

is not found worthy, 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 descendants merited two mitzvot: the earth of the sota and the ashes of the red heifer.

And we challenge this: How can you say that Israel merited only two mitzvot associated with earth and ashes,

but there is also the earth

of the mitzva of

covering the blood

of a wild animal or bird!?

And we answer:

There,

with regard to the earth used for covering the blood,

there is indeed preparation for a mitzva,

but

there is

from it:

no benefit.

There is no benefit to Israel from this, since the meat is permitted even without covering its blood, and this is not a reward received for fulfilling a mitzva. But in the case of the sota, there is the benefit of bringing peace between a man and his wife and preventing the increase of mamzerim in Israel if she is adulterous, and if she is found innocent, the Torah says, “and she shall be fruitful with seed,” thereby removing the stigma from her children that they are mamzerim. Likewise, in the case of the ashes of the red heifer, there is the benefit that people become pure through them, and Israel is granted atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf, for the red heifer was given to Israel to atone for it.

Rava expounded:

It is written [Genesis chapter 14]: “And it came to pass 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 themselves for battle with them [with the four kings] in the Valley of Siddim. And the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits, and the king of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell there, and the remainder fled to the mountain. And [the four kings] took all the property of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their food, and went away. And [Abraham] divided himself against them [against the four kings] by night, he and his servants, and smote 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 smiting Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, to the Valley of Shaveh, which is the Valley of the King. And the king of Sodom said to Abram: Give me the persons [from my captives whom you rescued; return the people to me alone, Rashi], and take the property [from the captives] 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. Neither a thread nor a shoe strap, nor will I take anything that is yours, so that you should not say: I made Abram rich. Apart from what the young men have eaten and the portion of the men who went with me—Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre—they shall take their portion.”

In reward for what Abraham our forefather said

to the king of Sodom: “

If from a thread to a sandal strap

and if I take anything of yours,” and he kept himself far from theft,

his descendants merited two mitzvot: a thread of tekhelet

for tzitzit, corresponding to “from a thread,”

and a strap of tefillin

corresponding to “to a sandal strap”—that is, a strap.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, a strap of tefillin,

there is indeed reward received for this, because it provides 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 is taught: R

abbi Eliezer

the Great says:

What is the meaning of “that the Name of the Lord is called upon you”?

These are the tefillin worn on the head.

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

But a thread of tekhelet—

what is it?

What benefit does it provide, and what reward is received for it?

And we answer: Because

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

the color of

tekhelet from all other colors

that the Torah required it for tzitzit? And Rabbi Meir explains: The color of tekhelet teaches us that anyone who fulfills the mitzva of tzitzit is as though he greeted the Divine Presence. And how does tekhelet teach this?

Because tekhelet resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the firmament,

and the firmament resembles the Throne of Glory.

And from where do we know that the firmament resembles the Throne of Glory?

As it is stated: “

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

indicating that the firmament is like a pavement of sapphire,

and it is written

concerning the Throne of Glory: “

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

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

MISHNA:

Our Mishna continues explaining the laws governing the writing of the scroll: upon what, and with what, it is written:

He does not write

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

Neither on a tablet

of wood.

Nor on paper

made from grasses, which are crushed and glued together and fashioned in the form of leather.