Sotah 20a — the Talmud in English

And since the beraita has been explained, we now return to our difficulty:

A difficulty between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Akiva!?

For

there—

in the first beraita—

Rabbi Akiva said that

the

erasure prevents the coercion [the forcing 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, making her drink against her will depends solely on the erasure of the scroll, and even if it was erased before the handful was brought near, and unlawfully: once they erased it, they erased it.

But

if

here—

in the second beraita—

he said: The handful prevents

the coercion.

That is, erasure alone is not sufficient to make her drink against her will; rather, there must be an offering of the handful, followed by the erasure of the scroll. But erasure of the scroll that preceded the offering of the handful does not cause coercion.

And we answer:

There are two tannaim

who

and

disagree

according to Rabbi Akiva.

There is one who holds that even if the scroll was erased unlawfully, they force her, provided that it was not because of boldness, and this is the first beraita.

And there is one who holds in his opinion that it is also necessary that the scroll be erased after the offering of the handful.

They raised a dilemma before them:

The members of the academy were uncertain concerning the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that if she says, “I will not drink,” because of boldness, they do not force her, since this is as though she said, “I am impure”:

If

the woman said

at first: “

I will not drink”

because of boldness, and

then

retracted

from it,

and said: “

I will drink”—

what is

the law?

Since she said: “

I will not drink”

because of boldness,

“I am impure”

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

Or perhaps, since

Or perhaps, since

she retracted and

said: “

I will drink,”

she revealed her mind that it was because of fear

because of fear that the water might kill her, even though she is pure—

that is what she said [she revealed her intention, that she did not say “I will not drink” because she is impure, but because of fear of the water, since she feared that it would examine her even though she is pure].

And we conclude:

And we conclude:

teyku.

Shmuel’s father said:

It is necessary that one place

something

bitter into the water.

What is the reason?

For the verse says: “

the water of bitterness,”

which implies

that it is already bitter

before the scroll is erased into it. And if its bitterness is because of the scroll that was erased into it, and it is examined through them, then one should not call them “the water of bitterness” before the erasure.

Mishna:

a. If

before the scroll was erased

and the sacred Name within it,

the woman said: “

the woman: “

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

they do not make her drink.

And this is the law:

Her scroll—

is placed in storage,

so that she will not be disgraced.

And her meal-offering,

if it had already been sanctified in a service vessel—

is scattered [

burned]

upon the ash heap

in the Temple courtyard, where all disqualified consecrated things whose place of eating is in the courtyard are burned; and the sota’s meal-offering is most holy sacrificial food, and 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: “

This is the applicable law: The water—

I am impure,”

they do not make her drink, because since she said, “I am impure,” she is already established and known as such, and the water of bitterness was given only to clarify the uncertainty.

And this is the law:

The water—

is poured out.

And her meal-offering—

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

is scattered [

burned]

upon the ash heap.

c. But if

the scroll was erased

and the sacred Name within it,

and

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

said, “I will not drink,”

then the law is:

they force her [

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

and make her drink against her will.

And now our Mishna explains what happens to the woman through drinking the water:

She does not manage to drink,

until:

Her face becomes green [

becomes green, that is, yellow],

and her eyes protrude, and she becomes filled with veins,

the veins in her cheeks swell and she appears to be full of veins, and her flesh also becomes lined with swelling, and something like rods are thrown through her.

And they,

those standing there,

say:

standing there say:

Take her out! Take her out! [

twice] so that

she should not

defile

the

courtyard [the Women’s Courtyard], where she had been standing at the Nicanor Gate, which was between the Women’s Courtyard and the Israelites’ Courtyard, and the place of this gate was sanctified with the sanctity of the Women’s Courtyard, which is the sanctity of the Levite Camp.

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 for her

her death for a period of time.

There is merit

by which

she suspends for one year,

and

there is merit

by which

she suspends

for two

years,

and

there is merit

by which

she suspends

for three

years,

and this 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 Sotah water, and does not die,

she will know

from the exposition of the verses

that the merit

is what

suspends her

so that she does not die, and she will not cast aspersion on the bitter water, saying that it does not test.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her frivolity

[frivolous matters], and this will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

A woman desires a kav and frivolity more than nine kabim and abstinence,

and his words will be explained in the Gemara.

He —

Rabbi Yehoshua —

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

[are explained in the Gemara] —

and the blows of abstainers,

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

Behold, these are destroyers of

the world:

Gemara:

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, 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 put into the ink so that it would not be erased],

and he did not say to me

Rabbi Akiva

a word.

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 writer,

I am.

He said to me

Rabbi Yishmael:

My son, be careful! For

indeed

your work is the work of Heaven,

and be careful:

lest you omit one letter

from the text, such as omitting, in the verse “And the Lord, God, is truth,” the letter alef from the word “truth.”

Or lest you add one letter

to the text, such as adding a vav to “In the beginning He created,” and writing “they created,” which is a plural expression.

And

you will thereby be found to destroy the entire world.

I said to him

Rabbi Yishmael:

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

and through this the ink is not erased; and the Gemara proceeds to explain what answer this is to Rabbi Yishmael’s words.

He said to me

Rabbi Yishmael:

Do they indeed put kankantum

into the ink

when writing the passage of the Sotah in the Torah scroll?!

And behold,

the Torah said

in the passage of the Sotah: “And the kohen shall write these curses in a scroll

and erase

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

writing that can be erased, and Rabbi Yishmael holds that it is possible to erase into the bitter water even from a Torah scroll; therefore, the passage of the Sotah in the Torah scroll must be written in 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 said to him: I have one thing, and kankantum is its name:

The Gemara is astonished:

What did he say to him

Rabbi Yishmael to Rabbi Meir,

and what was he answering him,

[and what did Rabbi Yishmael say to Rabbi Meir, that he answered him this answer], for is this not an answer unrelated to the claim?!

And we explain:

this is what he said to him

Rabbi Meir to Rabbi Yishmael:

It is not necessary with regard to

errors of

omissions and additions,

that there should be concern for them in my writing, since

I am an expert!

But even to be concerned about a fly, perhaps it will come and sit on the tag of the

tav

[to be concerned lest a fly settle on the projection on the right side of the dalet]

and erase it, and make it into a

shin

[and erase the addition to the letter dalet, so that the letter will appear as a resh] —

even for this there is no concern, because

I have one thing that I put

it

into the ink, and kankantum is its name,

and again the fly cannot erase it.

And we challenge what Rabbi Meir said: that he first studied with Rabbi Akiva, who permitted it to him, and afterward studied with Rabbi Yishmael, who forbade it to him:

And we challenge:

Is that so

[for it was not so]?!

For it was taught: Rabbi Meir said:

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

and

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

And if so: A.

There is a difficulty concerning service and service

[whom Rabbi Meir served first]?!

B.

There is a difficulty: he forbade it, versus he forbade it

[who forbade and who permitted]?!

And we say:

Granted, service and service

[whom Rabbi Meir served before whom]

is not difficult,

for both this and that are true; and because:

For

at first he came

Rabbi Meir

before Rabbi Akiva,

who was extremely sharp.

And

since Rabbi Meir could not

Rabbi Meir

stand according to him

[he did not understand him], because he would say concerning an impure matter that it was pure and show a rationale for it, and concerning a pure matter he would say that it was impure and show a rationale for it.

Therefore

he came

Rabbi Meir

before Rabbi Yishmael, and learned the received teachings

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

And

afterward

[Rabbi Meir returned] and

came before Rabbi Akiva,

and

learned

from Rabbi Akiva

reasoning,

to stand upon the reasons of the Mishna: why this is impure and this is pure, this is forbidden and this is permitted, and upon what each matter is based and upon which verse; and this was the study that existed in the days of the tannaim; and to understand one matter from another, when a new matter arose and was asked in the beit-midrash, from where would they learn it, and to which Mishna would they compare it.

But

concerning that which we challenged:

he forbade it, versus he forbade it,

still

is it difficult?!

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

It was taught:

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

matter requiring writing,

one puts kankantum into the ink.