Sotah 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

And because

it is written, “zot”,

it necessarily comes to exclude.

In the case of two men [

husbands]

and two paramours—

Everyone agrees that the woman drinks and drinks again—

because

it is written, “torat”,

and it necessarily comes to include.

When they disagree is in the case of one man [

husband]

and two paramours,

and

two men [

husbands]

and one paramour.

The first tanna holds:

“Torat”—

to include all of them [

to include all of them: whether two men and two paramours, whether one man and two paramours, or whether two men and one paramour]—

whereas

“zot”

comes

to exclude one man and one paramour.

And the latter Sages

hold:

“Zot”—

to exclude all of them,

whether one man and one paramour, whether one man and two paramours, or whether two men and one paramour.

Whereas

“torat”

does not come

to include

anything other than

two men and two paramours.

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds: “

Zot”—

to exclude two [

two cases], and “

torat”—

to include two. “

Zot”

to exclude two:

a. To exclude

one man and one paramour.

b. To exclude

one man and two paramours. “

Rashi wrote, that according to Rabbi Yehuda it is reasonable, since the verse increased and decreased, and he did not explain what is the increase and what is the decrease; of necessity the verse left it to the Sages, to interpret for you according to their wisdom what is the increase and what is the decrease

Rashi wrote, that according to Rabbi Yehuda it is reasonable, since the verse increased and decreased, and he did not explain what is the increase and what is the decrease; of necessity the verse left it to the Sages, to interpret for you according to their wisdom what is the increase and what is the decrease; and it seems, that the plurality comes to include two husbands and even from one man who lay with her, and not two men who lay with her and one husband, because since he was already jealous of her and she was found clean, the matter appears that the man is a taunter and intends to taunt her, and therefore he taunts her, once from this man who lay with her, and once from another.

Torat”

to include two:

a. To include

two men and one paramour.

b. To include

two men and two paramours.

In "Mishneh Lamelech" [Sota 1:14 under the heading "and know this", and his words were brought in "Minchat Chinuch" mitzva 66 letter ...] he brought an objection in the name of the Maharit [Shu"t Choshen Mishpat end of siman 160 and in his derashot at the beginning of Parashat Naso]: since it is established for us like Rabbi Meir in our Mishna, that the waters test her even for the future, how can it stand for us like the first Tanna, that the woman drinks and sleeps in one husband and two men who lay with her, and behold she is a proof and stands by virtue of the first drinking!? See what was answered there, and see also in "Kehillot Yaakov" section 54 Sota siman 4 what he wrote in resolving this difficulty. And in "Minchat Chinuch" there he wrote that the Maharit did not object thus except to sharpen the students, and because the drinking does not test for the future [and so for all the rotations] except if the husband or the priest rolls [a vow] upon the woman, and if he does not wish to roll, the permission is in his hand; and if so it will plainly be found that she must drink again, for example if they did not roll upon her at the first drinking. And in "Mincha Hariva" [beginning of daf 19a] he wondered at the latter ones that they did not examine the Maharit's words closely, that he there deals with rolling an oath for the future, and he wrote: "And it cannot be said that that—rolling for the future in a Sota—derives from the plurality of the verse ['amen amen'] and is not from the law of rolling; there is no such thing, for if so then that which is established for us 'a woman drinks and sleeps'—how is it forgotten to her, the first drinking, the waters are appointed to resist when she becomes impure and unsettle her; rather necessarily here it is from the law of rolling that the husband can roll upon her for the future" and it makes her forget that she drank and slept without someone having rolled [a vow] upon her, and the principal matter of rolling an oath from Sota we will expound etc., and to this matter likewise Sota will contribute that it is possible to roll an oath for the future

We shall return to you, chapter “He Would Bring.”

The following Mishna explains what is stated in the passage concerning the sotah: "

And the kohen shall write these curses in a scroll and erase them into the bitter waters. And he shall give the woman the bitter, curse-inducing waters to drink, and the curse-inducing waters shall enter her, causing bitterness."

And the kohen shall take from the woman’s hand the meal-offering of jealousy, which had been placed in her hand before the woman was administered the oath, as the verse states— "

And the kohen shall place the woman before the Lord, uncover the woman’s head, and place upon her palms the meal-offering of remembrance, and wave the meal-offering before the Lord."

And he shall bring it to the altar [this is the presentation of the meal-offering to the altar, as required for all meal-offerings, as explained above, on 14b].

And the kohen shall take a handful from the meal-offering as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar; afterward he shall give the woman the water to drink.

And he shall give her the water to drink. And if she had become defiled and acted treacherously against her husband, the curse-inducing waters shall enter her, causing bitterness."

Mishna:

If

the husband

took her meal-offering from

the

Egyptian

basket

in which

the meal-offering had been placed, as explained in the Mishna at the beginning of the previous chapter.

And places it in a service vessel

in order to consecrate it with sanctity of the body, like all meal-offerings that receive sanctity of the body from the time they are placed in a service vessel.

And places it

the vessel containing the meal-offering

on her hand

the woman’s hand, in order to wave the meal-offering,

and a kohen

comes and

places his hand beneath it and waves it

the meal-offering, in order to fulfill what the Torah states in the passage concerning the sotah: “And the kohen shall take—and he shall wave,” and in the Gemara we derive by means of a gzera shava that the woman as well, being the owner of the meal-offering, waves it.

He waved

the kohen waved the meal-offering together with the woman.

And he presented

the meal-offering to the altar at the southwestern corner, opposite the edge of the corner, as it is stated in the passage concerning the sotah: “And he shall bring it to the altar.”

He took a handful

the kohen took a handful from the meal-offering, as it is stated in the passage concerning the sotah: “And the kohen shall take a handful.”

And he burned

the handful on the altar, as it is stated in the passage concerning the sotah: “And he shall burn it on the altar.”

And the remainder,

that which remained of the meal-offering,

is eaten by the priests,

as it is stated with regard to an ordinary meal-offering: “And this is the law of the meal-offering.” From the fact that it says “law,” we learn that the remainder of all meal-offerings from which a handful is taken is eaten.

The tannaim disagreed concerning the order of offering the meal-offering and giving the woman the water to drink:

He gave

the woman

the water to drink, and afterward offered her meal-offering,

for it is stated in the passage concerning the sotah: “And he shall give the woman the bitter, curse-inducing waters to drink, and the curse-inducing waters shall enter her, causing bitterness. And the kohen shall take from the woman’s hand the meal-offering of jealousy.” Thus, he offers the meal-offering only after giving her the water to drink.

Rabbi Shimon says:

He offers her meal-offering, and afterward he gives her the water to drink.

According to

what is stated: “

the kohen shall take a handful from the meal-offering as its memorial portion and burn it on the altar,

and afterward he shall give the woman the water to drink.”

In any event,

if he gave

her the water

first and afterward offered her meal-offering,

it is

valid.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “And the kohen places his hand beneath it and waves it”:

Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation

[to the amora Rabbi Yoshiya, who was his contemporary]:

Do not sit

[do not sit], but stand

on your feet

[on your feet],

until you explain this matter to me

[until you explain this matter to me]—

From where is it derived that the meal-offering of a sotah

is

required to be waved?

The Gemara is astonished at the question: Is there room to ask

from where do we know

that it is required to be waved?!

But “And the kohen shall take from the woman’s hand the meal-offering of jealousy,

and wave

the meal-offering before the Lord”—

it is written concerning it

the meal-offering of a sotah!? The Gemara explains Rabbi Elazar’s question: That the waving of the meal-offering of a sotah must also be performed

by the owners

[by the woman]—

from where

is this derived? For the Torah mentions only a kohen.

Rabbi Yoshiya said to Rabbi Elazar:

It is derived

by a gzera shava,

“hand, hand,”

from

the waving of the breast, thigh, and sacrificial portions of

peace-offerings.

It is written here

with regard to the meal-offering of a sotah:

“And the kohen shall take

from the hand

of the woman.”

And it is written there

with regard to peace-offerings: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: One who offers his peace-offering sacrifice to the Lord shall bring his offering to the Lord from the sacrifice of his peace-offering.

His hands shall bring

the fire-offerings of the Lord [these are the sacrificial portions burned on the altar], the fat with the breast—he shall bring it to wave it as a waving before the Lord.”

And we learn by a gzera shava the law of the peace-offering from the meal-offering of a sotah, and the law of the meal-offering of a sotah from the peace-offering:

Just as here—

with regard to the meal-offering of a sotah—

a kohen

waves it,

so there—

with regard to peace-offerings—even a

kohen

waves it, although only the owners are mentioned in the passage.

And just as there—

with regard to peace-offerings—also the

owners

wave it,

so here—

with regard to the meal-offering of a sotah—also the

owners

wave it.

How so?—

The kohen places

his

hand beneath the hands of the owner, and waves.

We learned in the Mishna: a.

He waved, presented it, took a handful

and burned it, and the remainder is eaten by the priests.

b.

He gave her the water to drink, and afterward offered her meal-offering.

c. Rabbi Shimon says: He offers her meal-offering, and afterward he gives her the water to drink:

The Gemara discusses an apparent contradiction in the words of the first tanna:

But

he had already

offered

the meal-offering before giving her the water to drink!?

For from the fact that the first tanna initially mentioned the entire order of the meal-offering and afterward said, “He gave her the water to drink,” it is evident that in his view giving her the water takes place after burning the meal-offering.

If so, how can the first tanna subsequently say: “He gave her the water to drink, and afterward offered her meal-offering”!?

And we answer: The tanna who mentioned the procedure of the meal-offering first did not intend to say that this is what he would now perform before giving her the water. Rather,

this is what

the tanna of our Mishna

says:

The order of the meal-offerings of a sotah

is as follows: He waved it, presented it, took a handful and burned it, and the remainder is eaten by the priests—

And with regard to the giving of the water itself,

when was this meal-offering procedure that he performed carried out—before giving her the water or afterward?

They disagree

about it,

Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis: The Rabbis

[the first tanna]

hold: He gives her the water to drink, and afterward offers her meal-offering.

And Rabbi Shimon holds: He offers her meal-offering, and afterward gives her the water to drink, as it is stated: “

And afterward he shall give

the woman the water to drink.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And if he gave her the water to drink, and afterward offered her meal-offering, it is valid: