Sotah 19b — the Talmud in English

The drinking is mentioned three times in the passage concerning the sotah:

The first time, before the offering of the meal-offering: “

And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and erase them into the bitter waters.

And he shall make her drink

the woman 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.”

The second time, after the burning of the meal-offering: “

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 her drink

the woman the water.”

And once more after the burning of the meal-offering [adjacent to the preceding verse]:

And he shall make her drink

the water, and it shall be, if she had become impure and had committed treachery against her husband, the waters that cause the curse shall enter her for bitterness.”

The beraita before us explains the repetition of these verses.

The two tannaim of this beraita [Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon] hold that the essential order is: He offers her meal-offering, and afterward makes her drink.

b. We learned in the Mishna below, 20a:

If, before the scroll had been erased, the woman said, “I am impure,” or said, “I will not drink,” she is not made to drink; but after the scroll had been erased, if she said, “I am impure,” she does not drink. But if she said, “I will not drink,” she is made to drink against her will.

The beraita before us explains the source of the law that after the scroll has been erased she can no longer say, “I will not drink.”

c. According to the one who holds that the drinking is after the burning of the meal-offering, the scroll may not be erased until after the burning of the meal-offering, for we must postpone the erasure of the scroll as much as we can, lest she confess.

The Sages taught: “

And he shall make her drink”

which the Torah states the first time, before the burning of the meal-offering,

what does this teach?

But it has already been stated

“and he shall make her drink,”

the third time, after the burning of the meal-offering!

And the first verse is superfluous, for necessarily the drinking stated after the burning of the meal-offering is the essential one, because the verse explicitly says: “And he shall burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water”!

And the beraita explains that the first verse, “and he shall erase—and he shall make her drink,” which is written before the burning, does not come to say that he should make her drink immediately after the erasure and before the burning, but rather to tell you that the erasure causes her to drink, and to teach:

If the scroll was erased

the

scroll, and she said

the woman

“I will not drink,”

we do not heed her, but

they force her [

they open her mouth against her will and pour the water into her throat],

and make her drink against her will,

because it is stated, “and he shall make her drink,” which implies against her will.

Therefore the Torah taught us this law in the verse “and he shall make her drink” that is stated before the burning: even if the scroll was erased before the burning, she can no longer retract, and we do not say: Since the priests acted improperly by erasing it before the burning, this erasure does not cause her to drink.

These are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Shimon says:

That which the Torah states the second time,

“afterward” [

after the offering of the meal-offering]

he shall make her drink”—

what does this teach!?

But it has already been stated

the third time, after the burning,

“and he shall make her drink,”

so we have learned that he makes her drink after the burning; why do I need “and afterward he shall make her drink

”?

Rather, to teach that the drinking shall be

after all

the acts, all of them, stated above,

namely: adjuration and receiving, writing and erasure, taking the kometz and burning.

And

the verse tells you

that

three things are indispensable to it [

that is, precede the drinking], and therefore they do not make her drink— a.

until the kometz has been offered.

b.

And before the scroll was erased.

c.

And before she accepts the oath upon herself.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Shimon

in the beraita

is according to his reasoning

in our Mishna,

for he says: He offers her meal-offering and afterward waters her.

The Master said: It teaches that three matters hold it back: before the handful was offered, and

before the scroll was erased:

And the Gemara wonders: Why do we need to be told that he waters the sota only after the scroll has been erased? Is this not obvious!?

Rather, what does he water her with [

what could he water her with] if not with the erasure of the scroll!?

He said

he answered

Rav Ashi:

It was necessary

for the beraita to teach only

that

the writing must be such

that its trace

is still

recognizable

on the scroll, and that this matter holds it back.

The Gemara raises another difficulty concerning what they said: Three matters hold it back,

before she accepts the oath upon herself:

Is it only that

she does not drink

[only the watering is delayed until after acceptance of the oath], but

may he write it for her

the scroll of the sota [whose erasure she drinks] before acceptance of the oath!?

But Rava said: A sota scroll that he wrote before she accepted the oath upon herself—

he has done nothing at all!

Because it is stated in the Torah, “and he shall write these curses,” only after acceptance of the oath.

And we answer: Indeed,

he mentioned it needlessly

[the tanna needlessly mentioned] this holding back with regard to the watering, because even the writing of the scroll is held back by acceptance of the oath.

And here the Gemara returns to explain in what the First Tanna and Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna disagreed concerning the order of the watering: according to the First Tanna, he waters her and afterward offers her meal-offering, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon, he burns her meal-offering and afterward waters her:

In what do they disagree,

for what reason did the First Tanna and Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna disagree?

And the Gemara explains:

Three verses are written

concerning the watering [three verses containing “watering” were stated in the section of the sota]:

a. “

And he shall water”

the first

[the first of the two verses in which the word “and he shall water” is mentioned], which is stated before the beginning of the procedure of the meal-offering.

b. “

And afterward”

[the burning]

he shall water.”

c. “

And he shall water”

the latter

[the second of the verses in which the word “and he shall water” is mentioned], which is likewise stated after the burning of the meal-offering.

The Sages

[the First Tanna]

hold: “

And he shall water”

the first,

which is stated before the procedure of the meal-offering; since it is written first, therefore it comes

for its own matter,

to teach the order of the matters,

that he waters her and afterward offers her meal-offering.

And that which the verse said, “

and afterward he shall water”—

it comes for a derivation, and the verse does not come to say that he shall water her “after the burning,” but “after the erasure”; and

it is needed for him,

and there is a need for it,

for

the law that the writing must be such

that its trace is recognizable,

so that he returns and erases it. “

And he shall water”

the latter

also, although it is stated after the burning, comes only for a derivation, and to teach:

If the scroll was erased, and she says “

I will not drink”—

they compel her, and water her against her will.

And Rabbi Shimon holds:

On the contrary, that which the verse said, “

and afterward he shall water,” is the one that comes

for its own matter,

for its own matter,

to teach the order of the matters:

that he offers her meal-offering and afterward waters her, since the Torah explicitly said, “and afterward he shall water.”

And whereas “

and he shall water”

the first,

which is stated before the burning, comes for a derivation, and to teach

that

if

after the fact

he watered her and afterward offered her meal-offering, it is valid.

And that which the verse said, “

and he shall water”

the latter, after he burned the meal-offering—which is superfluous, since the Torah had already said “and afterward he shall water”—comes to teach:

If the scroll was erased, and she said “

I will not drink,”

they compel her and water her against her will.

And since this verse was written after the burning, we learn that the erasure causes her to drink only when it was performed according to law, after the burning. But erasure performed before the burning does not obligate her to drink, since they acted contrary to law.

And we explain the reason of

Since this verse is written after the burning, we learn that the erasure causes her to be compelled to drink only when it was performed according to law, after the burning. But an erasure performed before the burning does not obligate her to drink, since it was performed improperly.

the Sages,

who hold that the first verse is the one that comes for its own matter, to teach the order of the matters [and not like Rabbi Shimon, who holds that this verse comes to teach only the order of the matters after the fact], because

in “

after the fact”—

the verse did not begin

[it is not the way of the verse to state the law after the fact first].

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the view of Rabbi Akiva mentioned in the beraita in the Gemara above:

And

if

Rabbi Akiva holds

that if the scroll was erased before the burning,

they water her against her will,

as explained in the beraita above!?

For it was taught: Rabbi Judah says:

A serrated iron bar

[iron serrated at its top and bottom], standing upright,

they place into her mouth,

in order to hold it open,

so that if the scroll was erased and she said, I will not drink, they compel her and water her against her will.

Rabbi Akiva said:

Do we need

the drinking

for anything other than to examine her,

whether she committed adultery,

and

this woman—for what should she drink?

And is she not already established as examined

she is! For when she says, “I will not drink,” it is as though she said, “I am impure”!?

Rather,

this is the law:

Before the handful was offered, she can

this is the law:

retract

and say, “I will not drink.”

But

once the handful was offered—

from then on

she cannot retract.

And if so, it is difficult: How do we say according to Rabbi Akiva that if the scroll was erased before the burning and she said, “I will not drink,” they compel her, when according to Rabbi Akiva the law is not dependent at all on the erasure of the scroll, but only on the offering of the handful!?

And the respondent wondered at the questioner’s difficulty: And according to your reasoning

If so, the following difficulty arises: How can we say according to Rabbi Akiva that if the scroll was erased before the burning and she said, “I will not drink,” they compel her, when according to Rabbi Akiva the law is not dependent at all on the erasure of the scroll, but only on the sacrifice of the handful!?

[according to your approach], that this beraita is not corrupt and that a difficulty may be raised from it,

then

the beraita itself should be difficult for you

[you should raise a difficulty against the beraita from within itself]:

Since according to Rabbi Akiva, when she says “I will not drink” after the scroll has been erased, they do not compel her, because she is already established as examined, if so, why did Rabbi Akiva say:

Once the handful was offered, she cannot retract?

For you can still say:

And is she not already established as examined

she is! Just as we say after the erasure of the scroll!?

Rather, necessarily, this beraita is corrupt, and no difficulty may be raised from it.

And the Gemara explains that the beraita is not corrupt, and

it is not difficult

the beraita from within itself; for:

This—

the latter clause, which distinguishes between whether the handful was offered or the handful was not offered, and does not take account of the claim “is she not already established as examined”—deals with a case

where she retracted because of trembling

[she retracted while frightened].

That is, we see her trembling and afraid of the water; then one cannot claim, “Is she not already established as examined,” with the intention of saying, “I am impure.” Rather, we say: perhaps she retracted only because she is afraid that she might die even though she is pure. If so, her saying “I will not drink” does not constitute an admission that she is impure. Therefore, they compel her [and the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason for the distinction between before the burning of the handful and afterward].

And this—the first clause, in which it is explained according to Rabbi Akiva that they do not compel her because her intention is to say, “I am impure”—deals with a case

where she retracted because of courage

[she retracted while courageous and unafraid].

Since we saw no fear of the water in her, we say that she is certainly impure, and therefore she is not afraid, because from the outset she intended to say, “I will not drink.”

And the same law applies if she retracted after the handful was offered, that they do not compel her, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And this is what Rabbi Akiva said:

a.

Anyone whose retraction is because of courage

[she stands firm and is not afraid]

does not drink at all,

whether after the erasure or once the handful was offered, because her intention is to say, “I am impure”; and this is the first clause of the beraita, and therefore he disagreed with Rabbi Judah.

she absolutely does not drink, whether after the erasure or once the handful was sacrificed, because she intends to say, “I am impure.” This is the first part of the beraita, and this is why he disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda.

b. If she retracted

because of trembling, where her intention can be interpreted as fear of death despite her purity, nevertheless there is a distinction between whether the handful was offered or the handful was not offered; for:

Before the handful was offered, when the scroll has still not been erased,

for its law is that it is erased after the burning,

or alternatively, when the scroll has been erased

[even if the scroll was erased] before the burning, since

contrary to law

the priests acted

the priests acted improperly

who erased it,

[for the erasure was contrary to law],

she can retract

[she can retract], for it is as though it was not erased.

But if she retracted

once the handful was offered,

and the scroll was erased afterward, since

the priests who erased it acted according to law,

she cannot retract.

she can no longer change her mind.

she can no longer retract her position.