Sotah 20b — the Talmud in English

except for the passage of the Sota alone,

both this one written in a Torah scroll, and the passage of the Sota written for the scroll of the Sota.

Rabbi Yaakov says in his name,

in the name of Rabbi Meir: it is permitted to place vitriol even in the passage of the Sota in a Torah scroll,

except for the passage of the Sota of the Temple,

which he places into the bitter waters! And we raised the matter:

what is the difference between them,

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yaakov in the name of Rabbi Meir? That is to say: what is the reason for their dispute?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Is it possible

to erase for her

for the Sota

from the Torah [that is, to place in the bitter waters the passage of the Sota from a Torah scroll]—

by placing in the bitter waters the passage of the sota from a Torah scroll]—

that is the difference between them.

For Rabbi Yehuda, according to Rabbi Meir, it is possible, and therefore even in the passage of the Sota in a Torah scroll we require writing that is capable of being erased.

And for Rabbi Yaakov, according to Rabbi Meir, they do not erase for her from the Torah; therefore, writing capable of being erased is not required in a Torah scroll at all, even in the passage of the Sota.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yaakov disputed whether the scroll of the Sota must be written for the sake of the woman.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that it is possible to erase for her from the Torah, he holds that writing for her sake is not required, since the passage in the Torah scroll was not written for the sake of the Sota.

Whereas Rabbi Yaakov, who holds that they do not erase for her from the Torah, holds that the scroll of the Sota must be written for her sake.

And these tannaim—

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yaakov—

are like those tannaim

who also disputed the law of writing for her sake in the scroll of the Sota.

For it was taught:

Her scroll—

of the Sota who said, “I am impure,” and they had not yet erased her scroll—

is fit to give another Sota to drink from it,

since the scroll was not written for the sake of this Sota.

Rav Aḥai bar Yoshiya says: Her scroll is fit to give another Sota to drink from it,

because we do not require writing for her sake.

It follows that tannaim disputed whether the scroll of the Sota must be written for her sake!

Rav Pappa said: Perhaps it is not so!

Perhaps this is not the matter, and the first tanna did not dispute Rabbi Yaakov, who deems it valid to erase for the Sota from the Torah.

For one can say:

The first tanna there said only thus,

that the scroll of this Sota is not fit for another Sota,

but since it was detached [that is, the scroll became detached from all the women in the world, and was set apart]

the scroll was detached from all the women in the world and set aside]

for the sake of Rachel,

the first Sota. Therefore

it does not again become detached [that is, it can no longer become detached from her]

it can no longer be detached from her]

for the sake of Leah,

the second Sota.

But

concerning the passage of the Sota in the

Torah, whose writing is anonymous,

which was written anonymously and was not set apart for a particular Sota,

indeed we erase

for the Sota from it, even according to the first tanna!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

said to the contrary:

Perhaps it is not so!

Perhaps this is not the matter, and it cannot be compelled that Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya disputed Rabbi Yehuda and deems it valid to erase for the Sota from the Torah.

For one can say:

Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya said only thus there,

that the scroll of this Sota is fit for another Sota, even though it was not written for the sake of this Sota,

but only in a scroll

of a Sota,

for

in the end

this scroll was written

this scroll

for the sake of [that is, for]

for the purpose of]

an oath in the world.

But

concerning the passage of the Sota written in the

Torah, which is for study,

from which

writing

was done [that is, it was written for the sake of studying from it]—

indeed we do not erase.

It is possible that Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya agrees that they do not erase from it for the sake of the scroll of the Sota.

And we raise an objection against Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya, who said that her scroll is fit to give another Sota to drink from it:

And

does

Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya not have

this which we learned:

One wrote [a bill of divorce]

a bill of divorce]

to divorce his wife, and changed his mind,

about divorcing her,

and he met a townsman of his, who said to him: My name is like your name, and my wife’s name is like your wife’s name,

and it turns out that your bill of divorce is like the bill of divorce that I needed to write for my wife; give it to me to divorce her with it!

It is invalid,

this bill of divorce,

to divorce with it

the wife of the second man, since it was not written for the sake of the second woman, and the Torah said, “And he shall write for her”—“for her sake”?!

And now this is difficult: concerning the Sota also it is written, “And the koen shall perform for her [for the Sota] all this Torah,” and it likewise implies “for her sake.” If so, just as a bill of divorce written for the sake of this woman is not valid for another woman, so too we should say concerning the Sota that a scroll written for the sake of this Sota is not fit for the sake of another woman?!

They said

the members of the academy, to establish the position of Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya:

There,

concerning a bill of divorce,

“and he shall write for her”—

the Merciful One said,

and therefore

we require

“writing”

for her sake.

And

here too,

“and he shall perform for her,”

we require that the performance be for her sake. And

what is

“performance”?

“Erasure”!

And this is what must be for the sake of this one and not of another, and not the writing. We learned in the Mishna:

She does not suffice to drink until her face

turn green:

And we raise an objection: But

whose

is our Mishna? Who is the one who taught our Mishna?

For it must be that

it is Rabbi Shimon, who says [that is, earlier, 19a]:

[above, 19a]:

He offers her meal-offering

of the Sota first

and afterward gives her to drink

the water, for then it is indeed applicable to say that immediately upon her drinking her face turns green.

For if it were according to the view of the Sages who dispute Rabbi Shimon [there] and hold that he gives her to drink and afterward offers her meal-offering, then necessarily

as long as her meal-offering has not been offered, the water does not examine her [before her meal-offering has been offered after the drinking, the water does not examine her]—

until her meal-offering has been offered after the drinking, the water does not examine her]—

since

it is written

concerning the meal-offering of the Sota: “The meal-offering of jealousies is,

a meal-offering of remembrance, causing remembrance of iniquity,”

and if so, her face does not turn green together with her drinking the water.

And now this is difficult:

say the latter clause

of our Mishna,

if she has merit, the merit suspends it for her!

And this latter clause is

according to the Sages,

who dispute Rabbi Shimon,

for if it were Rabbi Shimon, he said [below, 22b]:

[below, 22b]:

Merit does not suspend the bitter waters.

And if so, it emerges that the first clause is like Rabbi Shimon, while the latter clause is not like Rabbi Shimon—astonishing!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Ḥisda:

Who is this,

our Mishna, which holds that the water examines her together with her drinking? It is not Rabbi Shimon, but

it is Rabbi Akiva, who says [earlier, 19b] also like Rabbi Shimon:

[above, 19b] likewise in accordance with Rabbi Shimon:

He offers her meal-offering and afterward gives her to drink.

And once again there is no difficulty from the latter clause, in which we learned, “Merit suspends,”

and

because

in

suspension, because of

merit, Rabbi Akiva holds it

Rabbi Akiva

like the Sages,

who dispute Rabbi Shimon and hold that merit suspends the bitter waters.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they say, “Take her out”,

take her out so that she should not impart impurity to the Temple courtyard:

And we raise an objection:

What is the reason

that we need to take her out? Because

perhaps she will die

and impart impurity to the place where she is located and from which she is destined to leave—

Does this mean,

you wish to say,

that a corpse is forbidden in

the Nicanor Gate and in the Women’s Courtyard, which are

the Levite Camp?!

But it was taught:

A person impure through contact with a corpse is permitted to enter the Levite Camp; and not only a person impure through contact with a corpse did they say, but even the corpse itself

is permitted to be brought into the Levite Camp—

as it is stated:

“And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him,”

and it implies,

“with him”—

within his partition,

and Moses was in the Levite Camp?! And if so, this is difficult: why take her out, and what concern is it to us if she dies there?

He said,

he answered,

Abaye:

We did not need to take her out because perhaps she would die, but because

perhaps she will begin menstruating

because she is suddenly terrified, when she begins to feel pain from the water; and a menstruating woman is forbidden in the Levite Camp.

And we raise an objection:

Does this mean that sudden fright relaxes [does sudden fear relax the closure of the opening] and blood emerges?!

does sudden fright cause the closure of the cervix to relax, so that blood emerges]!?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed this is so,

as it is written

concerning Esther when she heard of Haman’s decree:

“And the queen was exceedingly terrified,”

and Rav said: She began menstruating.

And we still raise an objection:

But we learned: Terror drives away blood,

whereas you say that it releases it?!

And we answer:

Fear—

an anxiety that does not come suddenly, but that she worries from fear of enemies who will come to kill her—

constricts,

indeed it constricts the opening of the womb, and the bloods withdraw.

But

sudden fright—

sudden fear, like that of the Sota, who until now had not been afraid of the water, and suddenly feels its pain—

relaxes

the opening of the womb, and blood flows abundantly.

We learned in the Mishna:

If she has merit, it

suspends it for her for three years.

And we raised the matter:

Whose is our Mishna?

According to whose view was our Mishna taught?

It is

not

according to

Abba Yose ben Ḥanan

that it is,

and not

according to

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yitzḥak, a man of Kefar Darom

that it is,

and not

according to

Rabbi Yishmael

that it is.

For it was taught: If she has merit, it suspends it for her

the merit until

three months,

which are

the measure of “

recognition of the fetus” [that is, in the third of the days of pregnancy the pregnancy of the fetus becomes recognizable],

the pregnancy becomes recognizable in the third of the days of gestation],

the words of Abba Yose ben Ḥanan.

And the meaning of the verse is, “And she shall be cleared,” that merit shall suspend it for her for the period from the beginning of the pregnancy until the fetus becomes recognizable, which is a period of three months.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yitzḥak, a man of Kefar Darom, says:

the merit suspends it for her until

nine months.

According to

what is stated: “And she shall be cleared, and she shall conceive seed.”

And

we find

below,

concerning “seed,” that

he [the verse, in Psalms 22]

the verse, in Psalms 22]

says:

“A seed shall serve him; it shall be told.”

And we expound:

a seed fit to tell

the praise of the Omnipresent.

That is, once the fetus has completed nine months of pregnancy and emerged from its mother’s womb, from then on it is born seed, fit to live and to tell the praise of the Omnipresent when it grows.

And from here we derive that the verse, “And she shall be cleared, and she shall conceive seed,” means that merit suspends it for her [“and she shall be cleared”] for the length of time required for the formation of viable seed, which is nine months.

Rabbi Yishmael says:

the merit suspends it for her for

twelve months.

And although there is no proof

from Scripture

for

this matter, that merit suspends it until twelve months, there is

an indication of the matter

from Scripture.

As it is written

in the interpretation of the dream that Daniel interpreted for Nebuchadnezzar, when Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream how he was driven away from human beings, and his place was with the animals and beasts; and so Daniel said to him:

“Therefore,

indeed,

O king,

the king,

may my counsel be pleasing to you,”

may my counsel be good in your eyes, to delay the evil decree that you saw in the dream.

And your sins,

your sin—

redeem through charity!

Redeem your soul from your sin by means of charity that you will perform.

And your iniquity,

and redeem your soul from your iniquities—

through compassion for the poor,”

through mercy toward the poor.