Sotah 18a — the Talmud in English

e. If

she wrote

for the scroll of the sota

on two sheets [

in two columns], it is

invalid.

And because

“one scroll”

[is] one

[a singular expression]

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

again

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 invalid for giving the sota to drink from it.

And because

it is written

at the end of the passage of the sota: “And he shall place the woman before the Lord,”

“and the priest shall do to her all this Torah”,

and it implies: until the scroll is entirely one.

And now the Gemara brings several doubts concerning the laws of giving the sota to drink:

a.

Rava inquired:

if

he wrote two scrolls for

the sake of

two sotot, and erased them into one cup, what is [the law]?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the doubt:

Should we say:

we require writing for her sake—

and there is [such writing]!

That is: Is it enough that the scroll of each one was written in a separate scroll, and it is recognizable in the writing that it was done for her sake?

Or perhaps, we also require erasing for her sake!

Since the Torah said, “and he shall do for her,” it implies that he shall do it for her sake; therefore, the erasure for each one must be in a separate cup, so that it will be recognizable that the erasure is done for the sake of this woman.

b. And Rava further raised a doubt:

and if you should say

that erasure into one cup is not effective, since

we also require erasure

that shall be recognizable

for her sake—

if

he erased them in two cups,

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

and

again

he returned and mixed them

into the two cups,

what is [the law]?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the doubt:

Should we say:

erasure that is recognizable

as being

for her sake—

we require, and there is [such erasure]!

Or perhaps: this one does not drink hers

[this one does not drink the water designated for her, in which her scroll was erased],

and this one does not drink hers

[and this one too does not drink the water in which her scroll was erased]?

c. And Rava further raised a doubt:

And if you should say: this one does not drink hers, and this one does not drink hers:

if

he returned and divided them

the mixed water into two cups,

what is [the law]?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the doubt:

Should we say,

there is retroactive determination,

since he divided the water into two cups, it is as though it became clear that in the portion from which he gives one woman to drink is found her scroll, and in the portion from which he gives the other to drink is found her scroll; for the sota does not need actually to drink all the water of her scroll, but it must appear as though a cup with water containing the erasure of her scroll was set aside for her, for her sake.

Or

should it be said,

there is no retroactive determination,

and the division of the water into two cups does not designate the water separately for each sota.

And we conclude:

teyku.

d.

Rava inquired:

if

he gave

the sota to drink

through a reed

hollow, in the manner that children drink [and in our language: “straw”]—

what is [the law]?

And likewise, if he gave her to drink

through a tube—

what is [the law]?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the doubt in both inquiries:

Is it

the manner of drinking through this, or

perhaps

is it not the manner of drinking through this?

And we conclude:

teyku.

e.

Rav Ashi inquired:

If

some of them were spilled,

some of the half-log of water in which he erased the scroll was spilled,

and some of them remained, what is [the law]?

And we conclude:

teyku.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav:

It is stated in the passage of the sota:

“And the priest shall administer an oath to her, and say to the woman: If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to impurity under your husband, be immune from this bitter water that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray under your husband, and if you have become impure, and a man has lain with you besides your husband, may the priest administer the oath of the curse to the woman, and the priest shall say to the woman: May the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall and your belly swell. And this water that brings the curse shall enter your innards, to make the belly swell and the thigh fall. And the woman shall say: Amen, amen. And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and erase them into the bitter water.”

The two oaths stated concerning the sota: “And the priest shall administer an oath to her,” “And the priest shall administer the oath of the curse to the woman,”

“The priest shall administer an oath to her,” and “the priest shall administer an oath to the woman with an oath of the curse”

why?

And Rabbi Zeira explains in the name of Rav:

An oath

one

with the curse accompanying it is administered to her

before the scroll is erased.

And

an oath

one

with the curse accompanying it is administered to her

after it is erased

the scroll.

Rava challenged this:

But

both of them are before the scroll is erased

that they are

written

[the two oaths are written in the Torah before the erasure of the scroll], for at the end of the passage it says: “And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll and erase them into the bitter water”!?

Rather, Rava said:

An oath

one

is

an oath accompanied by a curse.

For the oath is connected also with the curse, as it says: “And the priest shall administer the oath of the curse to the woman,” and he proceeds to explain how this oath is.

And

an oath

one

is

an oath unaccompanied by a curse.

The oath is by itself and the curse is by itself, for there is no connection between the oath and the curse.

That is, first the priest administers an oath to her, saying to her: “I administer an oath to you in the Name of the Lord, that what you said before us—that you did not become impure—is true,” and afterward he continues and concludes with the curse that comes by way of a blessing: “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to impurity under your husband, be immune from this bitter water that brings the curse.”

And the Gemara explains:

what are the circumstances of

“an oath accompanied by a curse”,

how is this oath?

Rav Amram said in the name of Rav:

He says to her: a.

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

[that you are telling the truth, that you did not become impure!].

And this is the oath.

b. And he continues his words:

if you became impure—

may they come into you

the waters, to make the belly swell and the thigh fall!

And this is the curse!

Said

Rava,

astonished:

But according to this manner that you say, it turns out that the

curse

stands by itself, and the

the "

oath

stands by itself!?

That is: the oath does not apply to the curse; rather, it is an oath that she did not become impure, and a curse without an oath if she became impure, and this is not “the oath of the curse.”

Rather, Rava said:

“I administer an oath to you that if you became impure, they shall come into you”,

that is “the oath of the curse”: he administers an oath to the curse so that it shall take effect.

Said

Rav Ashi,

astonished:

But there is a

curse

upon the woman,

there is, while an

oath

oath

to the woman

there is not, for here there is only an oath concerning the curse, by which he administers an oath to the curse so that it shall 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 impure.

b.

And if you became impure—

may they come into 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 impure—is true.

b. “But if [that is, if] you have gone astray under your husband, and if you have become impure, and a man has lain with you besides your husband—

may the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall and your belly swell, and this water that brings the curse shall enter your innards, to make the belly swell and the thigh fall.”

And in this wording there are two matters: the first, administering the oath to the woman, in which she says “amen” to his administration of the oath, and thereby swears that she did not become impure.

And the second, imposing the severity of the oath upon the curse, causing the curse to take effect.

Mishna:

Concerning what does she say

“amen, amen”,

as it is stated: “And the woman shall say, ‘amen, amen’”:

“Amen”

concerning the curse,

“amen”

concerning the oath.

“Amen”

from this man,

“amen”

from another man,

that is, by force of the law of “rolling over an oath” ; he administers an oath to her that she did not commit adultery with another man, and it is included in her acceptance that she did not commit adultery with another man; and if she committed adultery with another man, even though he did not warn her concerning him, she is examined.

“Amen”

that I did not go astray as an betrothed woman or a married woman,

that is: when he gives her to drink while she is married, he rolls over upon her an oath also concerning adultery during betrothal, and it is included in the woman’s acceptance, and she is examined concerning it.