Sotah 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

Now that the beraita has been explained, we return to our question:

Is there not a difficulty between the statements of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Akiva!?

For

there,

in the first beraita,

Rabbi Akiva

said that

the erasure [of the scroll] prevents the coercion [of the woman to drink].

That is, making her drink against her will depends solely on the erasure of the scroll, even if it was erased before the handful was brought and improperly; once they erased it, they erased it.

That is, forcing her to drink depends solely on the erasure of the scroll. Even if it was erased before the handful of the offering was brought to the altar, and this was done improperly, once they erased it, it has been erased.

And

if

here,

in the second beraita,

he said: The handful prevents

the coercion.

That is, erasure alone is insufficient to make her drink against her will; rather, the handful must be offered, followed by the erasure of the scroll. But erasure of the scroll before the offering of the handful does not bring about coercion.

And we answer:

They are two tannaim

who

and

disagree

according to Rabbi Akiva.

One holds that even if the scroll was improperly erased, they compel her to drink, provided that it was not because of brazenness; this is the first beraita.

And another holds, according to him, that the scroll must also be erased only after the offering of the handful.

They raised a dilemma:

The members of the house of study were uncertain concerning the view of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that if she says, “I will not drink,” because of brazenness, they do not compel her to drink, since this is tantamount to her saying, “I am impure”:

If

the woman first said

“

I will not drink”

because of brazenness, and

then

retracted

her statement

and said “

I will drink”—

what is the halakha?

Shall we say:

Since she said “

I will not drink”

because of brazenness,

she was saying, “I am impure,”

and since she established herself as impure, she cannot retract [since she admitted her impurity, she can no longer retract her statement].

Or perhaps, since

she retracted and

said

and said “

I will drink,”

she revealed that it was because of fear

—fear that the water would kill her, even though she is pure—

that she had said so [she revealed that she had said, “I will not drink,” not because she was impure, but because of her fear of the water, concerned that it would expose her even though she was pure].

And we conclude:

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

Avuh of Shmuel said:

One must place

something

bitter into the water.

What is the reason?

As the verse says: “

the bitter waters,”

which implies

that they were already bitter

before the scroll was erased into them. If their bitterness is due to the scroll that was erased into them, through which she is tested, they should not be called “bitter waters” before the erasure.

Mishna:

a. If

before the scroll

and the sacred Name contained in it

had been erased,

the woman

said: “

I will not drink” [and certainly if she said, “I am impure”], they do not make her drink.

This is the applicable law:

Her scroll—

is placed in geniza,

so that it will not be disgraced.

And her meal-offering, if it had already been sanctified in a service vessel—

is scattered [and burned]

on the ash heap

in the Temple courtyard,

where all disqualified consecrated offerings whose place of consumption is in the courtyard are burned. The sota’s meal-offering is also an offering of the most sacred order, and it may be eaten only in the courtyard.

And her scroll is not fit to make another sota drink from it, since it was not written for her sake.

b. And if the scroll had already

been erased, and she said “ I am impure,”

they do not make her drink, because once she has said, “I am impure,” she is already established as such, and the bitter waters were given only to clarify the doubt.

This is the applicable law: The water—

“I am impure,”

they do not make her drink, because once she has said, “I am impure,” she is already established as having been tested and found impure; the bitter water was given only to clarify a doubt.

is poured out.

And her meal-offering—

is scattered [and burned]

on the ash heap.

c. But if the scroll and the sacred Name contained in it

is scattered [נשרפת burned]

burned]

at the ash heap.

had been erased,

and

she did not say, “I am impure,” but rather

said, “I will not drink,”

then the law is:

they compel her to drink [they open her mouth against her will and pour the water into her throat]

and make her drink against her will.

Our Mishna now explains what happens to the woman as a result of drinking the water: She does not manage to drink,

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

and make her drink against her will.

Our Mishna now explains what happens to the woman as a result of drinking the water:

,

She has barely begun to drink before:

before:

Her face turns green [it becomes green, meaning yellow], her eyes protrude, and she becomes filled with veins, the veins in her cheeks swell, making her appear full of veins; her flesh also becomes striped with swellings, and something resembling rods is thrown through her.

her eyes protrude, and her veins swell,

the veins in her cheeks swell, making her appear full of veins; her flesh also becomes marked with rows of swelling, and something like rods protrude from her.

,

,

And those

standing there say:

And they,

those standing there, say: Take her out! Take her out! [twice] so that she will not impart impurity to the courtyard [the Women’s Courtyard], where she had been standing at the Nicanor Gate between the Women’s Courtyard and the Israelites’ Courtyard. The site of this gate possessed the sanctity of the Women’s Courtyard, which had the sanctity of the Levite Camp.

she will not

render impure

the

courtyard [the Women’s Court],

where she was standing at the Nicanor Gate, between the Women’s Court and the Israelites’ Court. The area of this gate was sanctified with the sanctity of the Women’s Court, which has the sanctity of the Levite Camp.

If she has merit, it would suspend her punishment

for a period of time.

There is merit

for which

it suspends it for one year

, and

there is merit

for which

it suspends it

for two

years

, and

there is merit

for which

it suspends it

for three

years

, as will be explained in the Gemara.

From here, Ben Azzai says:

A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah

, so that

if

she commits adultery and

drinks

the waters of the sota and does not die,

she will know

from the exposition of the verses

that the merit

is what

suspends her punishment

so that she does not die, and she will not cast aspersions on the bitter waters, saying that they do not test women.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her tiflut

—idle and promiscuous matters—, as will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

A woman prefers a kav and tiflut to nine kav and abstinence

, and his words will be explained in the Gemara.

He—

Rabbi Yehoshua—

would say: A foolish pious person, a cunning wicked person, and an abstinent woman

[these are explained in the Gemara]—

and the blows of the abstinent

, one who strikes himself against walls to demonstrate that he is humble and modest; this too will be further explained in the Gemara.

These are destroyers of the

world:

Gemara:

Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Meir

[who was a scribe]:

When I was studying Torah with Rabbi Akiva, I would put kankantum into the ink

, [a substance added to ink so that it will not be erased],

and he did not tell me

Rabbi Akiva

anything.

But

when I came to Rabbi Yishmael, he said to me

Rabbi Yishmael:

My son, what is your occupation?

And

I said to him: I am a scribe

,

a copyist.

He said to me

Rabbi Yishmael:

My son, be careful! For

you see,

your work is a work of Heaven

, and take care:

Perhaps you will omit one letter

from the text, for example, by omitting the letter alef from the word “emet” in the verse, “And the Lord, God, is true.”

Or you will add one letter

to the text, for example, by adding a vav to “In the beginning God created,” writing “they created,” which is a plural expression.

And

you will thereby destroy the entire world.

I said to him

Rabbi Yishmael:

I have one substance that I put into the ink, and its name is kankantum

, and through it the ink cannot be erased. The Gemara proceeds to explain how this was a response to Rabbi Yishmael’s words.

He said to me

Rabbi Yishmael:

Do they put kankantum

into the ink

when writing the passage of the sota in a Torah scroll!?

But

the Torah said

in the passage of the sota: “And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll,

and erase

them into the bitter waters.” The verse teaches that when writing the passage of the sota one must specifically write

writing that can be erased

, and Rabbi Yishmael holds that it is possible to erase the passage into the bitter waters even from a Torah scroll. Therefore, the passage of the sota in a Torah scroll must be written in writing that can be erased.

The Master said: “I have one substance, and its name is kankantum,”:

The Gemara is puzzled:

What was he saying to him

Rabbi Yishmael to Rabbi Meir,

and what was he replying to him

[for what did Rabbi Yishmael say to Rabbi Meir that elicited this response from him?] After all, this is a response unrelated to the substance of the claim!?

And we explain:

This is what he was saying to him

Rabbi Meir to Rabbi Yishmael:

It is not necessary to be concerned about

errors of

omissions and additions

, which need not be feared in my writing, since

I am an expert!

Rather, even concern about a fly, lest it come and sit on the crown of the dalet and erase it, making it into a resh

t

[one must be concerned lest a fly settle on the protrusion on the right side of the dalet]

and erase it, making it into a

sh

[and erase the extension of the letter dalet, so that the letter will appear to be a resh]—

There is no need to be concerned about this either, because

I have one substance that I put

into the ink,

and its name is kankantum

, and a fly can no longer erase it.

An objection is raised to Rabbi Meir’s statement that he first studied with Rabbi Akiva, who permitted it for him, and then studied with Rabbi Yishmael, who prohibited it for him:

And we challenge this:

That is not so

[but surely that was not what happened]!?

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir said:

When I was studying Torah with Rabbi Yishmael, I would put kankantum into the ink, and he did not tell me anything

, and

when I came to Rabbi Akiva, he prohibited it to me.

If so: a.

There is a difficulty concerning the order of service

[whom did Rabbi Meir serve first]!?

b.

There is a difficulty concerning who prohibited it

[who prohibited it and who permitted it]!?

And we say:

Granted, the difficulty concerning the order of service

[whom Rabbi Meir served first]

is not difficult

, for both accounts are true. This is because:

At first,

Rabbi Meir came

to

Rabbi Akiva

, who was exceedingly sharp.

And

when Rabbi Meir was unable

to

stand by his reasoning

[he did not understand him], since Rabbi Akiva would declare a ritually impure matter pure and demonstrate a rationale for it, and declare a pure matter impure and demonstrate a rationale for it,

therefore

Rabbi Meir came

to

Rabbi Yishmael and learned tradition

[he studied with him the Mishnayot that Rabbi Yishmael had received from his teachers].

And

afterward

[Rabbi Meir returned and]

came to Rabbi Akiva

, and

derived

from Rabbi Akiva

reasoning

, to grasp the rationales of the Mishna: why this is impure and that pure, this prohibited and that permitted; on what each matter is based and from which verse. This was the mode of study practiced in the era of the tannaim: to understand one matter from another, so that when a new matter was raised in the beit-midrash, they would ask from where it could be learned and to which Mishna it could be compared.

Rather

concerning what we challenged:

the difficulty concerning who prohibited it

, it is still

difficult!?

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

It was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Rabbi Meir used to say: For every

matter that requires writing,

one puts kankantum into the ink.