Sotah 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

The giving of the water to the sotah is mentioned three times in the passage concerning the sotah:

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

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.”

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

And 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.”

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

And he shall give

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

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

If, before the scroll was erased, the woman said, “I am impure,” or said, “I will not drink,” she is not given the water. But after the scroll was erased, if she said, “I am impure,” she does not drink. If, however, she said, “I will not drink,” she is given the water against her will.

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

c. According to the one who holds that giving her the water takes place after burning the meal-offering, the scroll may not be erased until after burning the meal-offering, because we must delay erasing the scroll as much as possible, lest she confess.

The Sages taught: “

And he shall give

that the Torah states the first time, before burning the meal-offering,

what does it come to teach?

But has it not already been stated

‘And he shall give

in the third occurrence, after burning the meal-offering?!

The first verse is superfluous, for necessarily the giving of the water mentioned after the burning of the meal-offering is the primary procedure, since the verse explicitly states: “And he shall burn it on the altar, and afterward he shall give the woman the water to drink”?!

The beraita explains that the first verse, “And he shall erase—and he shall give,” written before the burning, does not mean that he gives her the water immediately after the erasure and before the burning. Rather, it tells you that the erasure causes her to drink, and teaches:

If the

scroll

was erased, and she said

the woman

“I will not drink,”

her request is not heeded. Rather,

they force her

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

and give her the water to drink against her will,

because it is stated: “And he shall give,” which implies that she is made to drink against her will.

Therefore, the Torah taught us this law in the verse “And he shall give” that is stated before the burning: Even if the scroll was erased before the burning, she may 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:

What the Torah states the second time, “

and afterward”

[after the offering of the meal-offering]

“he shall give”—

what does it come to teach!?

But has it not already been stated

the third time, after the offering,

“And he shall give,”

which teaches us that he gives her the water after the offering; why, then, do I need “and afterward he shall give”!?

Rather,

to teach that the giving of the water shall take place

after all

the procedures mentioned above,

which are: administering the oath and receiving the offering, writing and erasing, taking the handful and burning it.

And

the verse tells

you

that three procedures are indispensable

[that is, they must precede the giving of the water], and therefore she is not given the water— a.

until the handful has been offered.

b.

And before the scroll was erased.

c.

And before she accepts the oath upon herself.

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Shimon

in the

beraita

follows his own position

in our Mishna, for he says: “He sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward gives her to drink.”

The Master said: It teaches that three matters impede the process: before the handful has been offered, and

before the scroll was erased.

The Gemara is astonished: 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 would he water her with

[What could he water her with] if not with the erased writing of the scroll!?

He said

he explained

—Rav Ashi:

It was necessary

for the beraita to teach only

that a writing is required

whose mark

is still discernible

on the scroll,

recognizable

even then; this matter impedes the process.

The Gemara raises a further difficulty concerning what they said: Three matters impede the process,

before she accepts the oath upon herself:

Is it only that

she may not drink

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

may they write the scroll for her

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

But Rava said: If a sota scroll was written before she accepted the oath upon herself—

it is entirely invalid!

For the Torah says: “And he shall write these curses,” indicating that it is written only after acceptance of the oath.

And we answer: Indeed,

it was stated gratuitously

[the tanna needlessly included] this impediment concerning the watering, because even the writing of the scroll is subject to the prior acceptance of the oath.

The Gemara now returns to explain the disagreement between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna 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 offers her meal-offering and afterward waters her:

With regard to what do they disagree,

for what reason do the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna disagree?

The Gemara explains:

Three verses are written

concerning the watering [three verses containing the expression “and he shall water” are stated in the passage concerning the sota]:

a.

“And he shall water”

the first

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

b.

“And afterward

[the burning of the meal-offering]

he shall water her.”

c.

“And he shall water”

the latter

[the second of the verses in which the expression “and he shall water” appears], which is also 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 involving the meal-offering; since it is written first, it is the verse that comes

for its own subject,

to teach the order of the procedure:

He waters her and afterward offers her meal-offering.

As for what the verse says,

“And afterward he shall water her”—

it comes for an exposition; the verse does not mean that he waters her “after the burning,” but rather “after the erasure,” and

it is needed

and serves a purpose

for a halakhic requirement that the writing remain

discernible

in its mark,

so that he must erase it again.

“And he shall water”

the latter

also, although it is stated after the burning of the meal-offering, comes only for an exposition, 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, what the verse says,

“And afterward he shall water her,”

is the verse that comes

for its own subject,

to teach the order of the procedure:

He offers her meal-offering and afterward waters her,

since the Torah explicitly says: “And afterward he shall water her.”

Whereas

“And he shall water”

the first,

which is stated before the burning, comes for an exposition, to teach

that

after the fact,

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

As for what the verse says,

“And he shall water”

the latter, after he burned the meal-offering, which is superfluous, since the Torah has already said “And afterward he shall water her,” it comes to teach:

If the scroll was erased and she said

“I will not drink,”

they compel her and water her against her will.

Since this verse was written after the burning, we learn that the erasure causes her to drink only when it was performed in accordance with the law, after the burning. But erasure performed before the burning does not obligate her to drink, since it was performed improperly.

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.

And

we explain the rationale of

the Sages,

who hold that the first verse comes for its own subject, to teach the order of the procedure [unlike Rabbi Shimon, who holds that this verse comes only to teach the order of the procedure after the fact]: because

in

a matter applying after the fact—

the verse does not begin

[the scriptural text does not ordinarily state the law applying after the fact first].

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the position of Rabbi Akiva mentioned in the beraita cited earlier in the Gemara:

And

if

Rabbi Akiva holds

that if the scroll was erased before the burning

they water her against her will,

as explained in the earlier beraita!?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says:

An iron clamp

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

is placed into her mouth,

so as 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 any purpose other than to examine her

whether she committed adultery?

And

this woman—why should she drink?

Is she not already established as examined

and known? 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 has been offered, she may

retract

her position

and say: “I will not drink.”

But

once the handful has been offered—

she can

no longer retract her position.

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 does not depend at all on the erasure of the scroll, but only on the offering of the handful!?

The respondent was astonished at the questioner’s difficulty:

And according to your reasoning

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

you should find a difficulty in the beraita itself

[you should raise a difficulty against the beraita from within the beraita 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, why then did Rabbi Akiva say:

“Once the handful has been offered, she can no longer retract her position?”

For you can still say:

“Is she not already established as examined

and known,” just as we say after the scroll has been erased!?

Rather, it is necessarily the case that this beraita is corrupted, and no difficulty may be raised from it.

The Gemara explains that the beraita is not corrupted, and

there is no difficulty

from within the beraita itself; for:

This—

the latter clause, which distinguishes between whether the handful has been offered or not, and does not accept the claim “Is she not already established as examined?”—deals with a case where

she retracted because of fear

[she retracted while frightened].

That is, we see her trembling and frightened of the water. In such a case, one cannot claim, “Is she not already established as examined?”—meaning that she intends to say, “I am impure.” Rather, we say: Perhaps she retracted only because she fears that she may die even though she is pure. If so, her statement “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, which explains that according to Rabbi Akiva they do not compel her because she intends to say, “I am impure”—deals with a case where

she retracted because of confidence

[she retracted while brave and unafraid].

Since we saw no fear of the water in her, we say that she is certainly impure, and therefore she is not frightened, because from the outset she intended to say, “I will not drink.” And the same law applies if she retracted after the handful had been offered: they do not compel her, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And this is what

Rabbi Akiva

said:

Anyone who retracts because of confidence

[she remains composed and is not frightened]

does not drink at all,

whether after the erasure or once the handful has been offered, because she intends to say, “I am impure.” This is the first clause of the beraita, and this is why he disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda.

b. If she retracted

because of fear,

which permits us to interpret her intention as concern that she may die despite being pure, there is nevertheless a distinction between whether the handful has been offered or not; for:

Before the handful has been offered, when the scroll has not yet been erased,

for it is supposed to be erased after the burning,

or even if the scroll has been erased

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

the priests acted improperly

when they erased it

the scroll

[for the erasure was improper],

she can retract her position

[she may retract], since this is as though it had not been erased.

But if she retracted

once the handful had been offered,

and the scroll was erased afterward, since

the priests acted properly when they erased it,

she can no longer change her mind.

she can no longer retract her position.