Sotah 19a — the Talmud in English

And because

it is written, “zot,”,

it necessarily comes to exclude.

in the case of two husbands [

husbands]

and two paramours—

everyone agrees that the woman drinks and repeats—

Because

it is written, “torat,”,

it necessarily comes to include.

When do they disagree? In the case of one man [

husband]

and two paramours,

and

in the case of two husbands [

husbands]

and one paramour.

The first tanna holds: “

“torat””—

to include all of them [

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

whereas

“zot”

comes

to exclude one husband and one paramour.

And the later Rabbis

hold:

“zot”—

to exclude all of them,

whether one husband and one paramour, whether one husband and two paramours, or whether two husbands and one paramour.

whereas “

“torat”

did not come

to include

but

two husbands and two paramours.

And Rabbi Judah

holds: “

zot”—

to exclude two, [

two cases, and “

torat”—

to include two. “

zot”

to exclude two:

A. To exclude

one husband and one paramour.

B. To exclude

one husband and two paramours. “

torat”

to include two:

A. To include

two husbands and one paramour.

B. To include

two husbands and two paramours.

We shall return to you, chapter “He would bring.”

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

And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and erase them into the bitter waters. And he shall make the woman drink the bitter waters that cause the curse, and the waters that cause the curse shall enter her for bitterness."

And the priest shall take from the woman's hand the meal-offering of jealousy, which had been placed in her hand before the woman was adjured, as the verse says— "

And the priest shall stand 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 near to the altar [this is the bringing of the meal-offering near to the altar according to the law of all meal-offerings, as was explained above, 14b].

And the priest shall take its memorial portion from the meal-offering, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water.

And he shall make her drink the water. And if she had become impure, and she had committed treachery against her husband—the waters that cause the curse shall enter her for bitterness."

Mishna:

Was

the husband

taking 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 preceding chapter.

And places it into a service vessel

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

And places it

the vessel containing the meal-offering

upon her hand

of the woman, in order to wave the meal-offering,

and a priest

comes and

places his hand beneath it, and waves

the meal-offering, in order to fulfill what the Torah said in the passage concerning the sotah: “And the priest shall take—and he shall wave”; and in the Gemara we derive by a gzera shava that also the woman, who is the owner of the meal-offering, waves it.

He waved

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

And brought near

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

He took the kometz

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

And burned

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

And the remainder,

that which remained from the meal-offering,

is eaten by the priests,

as it is stated concerning an ordinary meal-offering: “And this is the law of the meal-offering.” From the implication of the word “law,” we learn this concerning all meal-offerings from which the kometz is taken: their remainder is eaten.

And the tannaim disagreed concerning the order of offering the meal-offering and making the woman drink:

He made

the woman drink,

and afterward offered her meal-offering,

for it is stated in the passage concerning the sotah: “And he shall make the woman drink the bitter waters that cause the curse, and the waters that cause the curse shall enter her for bitterness. And the priest shall take from the woman’s hand the meal-offering of jealousy.” Thus, he offers the meal-offering only after the drinking.

Rabbi Shimon says:

He offers her meal-offering, and afterward he would make her drink.

According to

what is stated: “And the priest shall take the kometz from the meal-offering as its memorial portion, and burn it upon the altar,

and

afterward he shall make the woman drink the water.”

Nevertheless,

if he made her drink

first

and afterward offered her meal-offering,

it is

valid.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And a priest places his hand beneath it, and waves:

Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation [

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

Do not sit [

do not sit], but stand

upon 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?

And the Gemara wonders about the question: Is there really reason to ask

from where do we know

that it is required to be waved!?

But “And the priest 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,

concerning the meal-offering of the sotah!? And the Gemara explains Rabbi Elazar’s question: From where is it known that the waving of the meal-offering of a sotah must also be performed

by the owners [

by the woman]—

from where?

For in the Torah only a priest is mentioned.

Rabbi Yoshiya said to Rabbi Elazar:

It is derived

by a gzera shava,

“hand, hand,”

from

the waving of the breast, thigh, and portions of

peace-offerings.

It is written here

concerning the meal-offering of a sotah:

“And the priest shall take”

“from the hand”

“of the woman.”

And it is written there

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

His hands shall bring

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

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

Just as here—

concerning the meal-offering of the sotah—

a priest

waves,

so there—concerning peace-offerings—also a

priest

waves, even though only the owners are mentioned in the passage.

waves it, even though the passage mentions only the owners.

And just as there—

concerning peace-offerings—also the

owners

wave,

so here—concerning the meal-offering of the sotah—also the

owners

wave.

wave it.

How so?

He places

the priest

his hand beneath the hands of the owners, and waves.

We learned in the Mishna: a.

He waved, brought near, and took the kometz

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

b.

He made her drink, and afterward offered her meal-offering.

c. Rabbi Shimon says: He offers her meal-offering, and afterward he would make her drink:

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

But

already

he offered

the meal-offering before the drinking!?

For from the fact that the first tanna mentioned first the entire order of the meal-offering and afterward said, “He made her drink,” it is proven that in his view the drinking is performed after the burning of the meal-offering.

And if so, how does the first tanna say later in his words: He made her drink, and afterward offered her meal-offering!?

And we answer: The tanna who mentioned the act of the meal-offering first did not intend to say that this is what he would do now before the drinking, but

this is what he is saying,

the tanna of our Mishna:

The order of the meal-offerings

of a sotah

is as follows: He waved, brought near, took the kometz and burned it, and the remainder is eaten by the priests—

And with regard to the drinking itself,

when was he to perform this order of the meal-offering—before the drinking or after the drinking?—

they disagreed

about it,

Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis: The Rabbis [

the first tanna]

hold: He makes her drink, and afterward offers her meal-offering.

And Rabbi Shimon holds: He offers her meal-offering, and afterward makes her drink, as it is stated:

“And afterward he shall make her drink

the woman the water.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And if he made her drink, and afterward offered her meal-offering, it is valid: