Sotah 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

e. If

she wrote

the sota scroll

on two pages [in two columns],

it is

invalid.

And because

And because "

one

[the singular form]

scroll" the Merciful One stated, and not two or three scrolls.

e. If

he wrote

in the scroll

one letter

alone from the order of the passage,

and erased

into the water

one letter

[that letter],

and

then

wrote one letter

that follows it in the order of the passage,

and erased one letter

[that letter], it is

invalid.

That is, the water is unfit for giving the sota to drink from it.

And because

it is written

at the end of the passage of the sota: "The priest shall place the woman before the Lord,

and the priest shall perform for her this entire Torah,"

which implies: until the scroll is wholly one unit.

The Gemara now presents several unresolved questions concerning the laws of giving the sota to drink:

And now the Gemara presents several uncertainties concerning the laws of giving the sota to drink:

a.

Rava raised a question: If

he wrote two scrolls for

the sake of

two sotot, and erased them into a single cup, what is the law?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the uncertainty:

Should we say:

we require writing for her sake—

and that is present!

That is: Is it sufficient that each woman's scroll was written in a separate book, so that it is evident from the writing that it was done for her sake?

Or perhaps, we also require erasing for her sake!

Since the Torah says, "and he shall perform for her," this implies that he must perform it for her sake. Therefore, the erasure for each woman must be into a separate cup, so that it is evident that the erasure was performed for the sake of this woman.

b. Rava further raised the following question:

b. Rava further raised an uncertainty:

And if you should say that erasing into a single cup is ineffective, since

we also require erasure

that is recognizable

as being for her sake—

if

he erased them into two cups,

so that at the time of erasure it was recognizable that the erasure was for her sake,

and

then

he went back and mixed them

in the two cups,

what is the law?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the uncertainty:

Should we say:

erasure

that is recognizable

as being for her sake—

we require, and that is present!

Or perhaps: this one is not drinking water that is hers

[this one is not drinking the water designated for her, into which her scroll was erased],

and this one is not drinking water that is hers

[nor is this one drinking the water designated for her, into which her scroll was erased]?

c. Rava further raised an uncertainty:

And if you should say: this one is not drinking water that is hers, and this one is not drinking water that is hers:

if

he went back and divided

the mixed water into two cups,

what is the law?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the uncertainty:

Should we say, "

there is retroactive clarification,"

since he divided the water into two cups, it is as though it has been clarified that the portion from which he gives one woman to drink contains her scroll, and the portion from which he gives the other woman to drink contains her scroll? For the sota need not actually drink all the water of her scroll; rather, it must appear as though a cup of water containing the erasure of her scroll was set aside specifically for her, for her sake.

Or

should we say, "

there is no retroactive clarification,"

and dividing the water into two cups does not designate the water for each sota separately?

And we conclude:

And we conclude:

it remains unresolved.

d.

Rava raised a question: If

he gave the sota to drink

from a

hollow reed,

hollow in the manner in which children drink [in our terminology: "straw"]—

what is the law?

And similarly, if he gave her to drink

through a tube—

what is the law?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the uncertainty concerning both questions:

Is this

a normal manner of drinking, or

perhaps

is this not a normal manner of drinking?

And we conclude:

it remains unresolved.

e.

Rav Ashi raised a question:

If

some of it spilled—

the water from the half-log into which he erased the scroll spilled—

and some of it remained, what is the law?

And we conclude:

it remains unresolved.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav:

It is stated in the passage of the sota:

"The priest shall administer an oath to her, saying to the woman, 'If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray in defilement while married to your husband, be immune to harm from these waters of bitterness that induce the curse. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband, and if you have defiled yourself, and a man other than your husband has lain with you, may the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, as the Lord causes your thigh to collapse and your belly to swell. May these waters that induce the curse enter your bowels, causing the belly to swell and the thigh to collapse.' And the woman shall say, 'Amen, amen.' The priest shall write these curses in a scroll and erase them into the waters of bitterness."

The two oaths stated concerning the sota:

"The priest shall administer an oath to her," and "The priest shall administer an oath to the woman with the oath of the curse"—

why?

Rabbi Zeira explains in the name of Rav:

One

oath

together with the curse that accompanies it is administered to her

before the scroll is erased.

And

one

oath

together with the curse that accompanies it is administered to her

after the scroll

has been erased.

Rava challenged this:

But

both of them are written before the scroll is erased,

as

they are written

[the two oaths are written in the Torah before the scroll is erased], since at the end of the passage it says, "The priest shall write these curses in a scroll and erase them into the waters of bitterness"!

Rather, Rava said:

One

oath

is

an oath accompanied by a curse.

The oath is connected also to the curse, as it says, "The priest shall administer an oath to the woman with the oath of the curse," and he proceeds to explain how this oath is formulated.

And

one

oath

is

an oath unaccompanied by a curse.

The oath stands alone and the curse stands alone; there is no connection between the oath and the curse.

That is, at first the priest administers an oath to her, saying: "I administer an oath to you in the Name of the Lord, that what you said before us—that you did not become defiled—is true." He then continues and concludes with the curse that follows from the blessing: "If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray in defilement while married to your husband, be immune to harm from these waters of bitterness that induce the curse."

The Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of "

an oath accompanied by a curse,"

how is this oath formulated?

Rav Amram said in the name of Rav:

He says to her: a.

I administer an oath to you that you did not become defiled

[that you are telling the truth when you say that you did not become defiled]!

This is the oath.

b. He continues his words:

If you became defiled,

may they enter you

the waters, causing the belly to swell and the thigh to collapse!

This is the curse!

Rava

said in astonishment:

But

according to this formulation that you are stating, it follows that the "

curse"

stands alone, and

the "

oath"

stands alone!?

That is: the oath does not apply to the curse; rather, there is an oath that she did not become defiled, and a curse without an oath if she became defiled. This is not an "oath of the curse."

Rather, Rava said:

Rather, Rava said:

"'I administer an oath to you that if you became defiled, may they enter you'"—this is an "oath of the curse": he administers an oath to the curse so that it will take effect.

Rav Ashi

said in astonishment:

But

there is a

curse

upon the woman,

there is, while an

oath

upon the woman

there is

not, since here there is only an oath imposed upon the curse, by which he administers an oath to the curse so that it will take effect!?

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

the priest says to her as follows:

a.

I administer an oath to you that you did not become defiled.

b.

And if you became defiled—

may they enter you!

That is, he says to her [after the first oath, which is unaccompanied by a curse]:

a. "I administer an oath to you in the Name of the Lord, that what you said before us—that you did not become defiled—is true."

b. "'But if you have

[that is, if you have] gone astray while married to your husband, and if you have become defiled, and a man has lain with you other than your husband— 'May the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, as the Lord causes your thigh to collapse and your belly to swell. May these waters that induce the curse enter your bowels, causing the belly to swell and the thigh to collapse.'"

There are two elements in this formulation. The first is the oath administered to the woman: she says "Amen" to the oath administered to her, thereby swearing that she did not become defiled.

The second is imposing the force of the oath upon the curse, causing the curse to take effect.

Mishna:

For what does she say "

Amen, amen,"

as it is stated: "And the woman shall say, 'Amen, amen'"?

"Amen"

to the curse,

"Amen"

to the oath.

"Amen"

concerning this man,

"Amen"

concerning another man.

That is, by virtue of the law of "rolling over an oath" , he administers an oath to her that she did not commit adultery with another man as well. This is included in her acceptance that she did not commit adultery with another man, and if she did commit adultery with another man—even though he did not warn her concerning him—she is tested.

"Amen"

that I did not go astray as an engaged woman or as a married woman.

That is, when he gives her to drink while she is married, he also extends the oath to adultery committed during betrothal. This is included in the woman's acceptance, and she is tested for it as well.