Sotah 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

Except for the passage of the sota alone,

both the one written in a Torah scroll and the passage of the sota written for the sota scroll.

Rabbi Ya'akov says in the name of Rabbi Meir

that it is permitted to add copper sulfate even to the passage of the sota in a Torah scroll,

except for the passage of the sota of the Temple,

into which he places it, into the bitter waters! And we raised the question:

What is the difference between them,

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ya'akov in the name of Rabbi Meir? That is: What is the basis of their dispute?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Is it possible

to erase for her

for the sota

from the Torah [

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

that is the difference between them.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance with Rabbi Meir, it is possible to do so; and therefore even in the passage of the sota in a Torah scroll, we require writing that can be erased.

According to Rabbi Ya'akov, in accordance with Rabbi Meir, one does not erase it for her from the Torah. Therefore, writing that can be erased is not required at all in the Torah scroll, even in the passage of the sota.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ya'akov disagree over whether the sota scroll must be written specifically for the woman.

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

Rabbi Ya'akov, however, who holds that one does not erase it for her from the Torah, maintains that the sota scroll must be written specifically for her.

And these tanna'im—

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ya'akov—

are like those tanna'im

who likewise disputed the law concerning writing a sota scroll specifically for the woman.

As it was taught:

Her scroll

the scroll of a sota who said, “I am impure,” and her scroll had not yet been erased—

is fit to use to give another sota to drink from it,

since the scroll was not written specifically for this sota.

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

because writing specifically for her sake is not required.

It follows that the tanna'im dispute whether the sota scroll must be written specifically for the woman!

Rav Pappa said: Perhaps that is not so!

Perhaps the matter is not as you say, and the first tanna does not dispute Rabbi Ya'akov, who permits erasing it for the sota from the Torah.

For one can say:

The first tanna stated there only

that the scroll of this sota is not fit for another sota

because once it was detached [

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

for Rachel

the first sota. Therefore,

it cannot again be detached [

it can no longer be detached from her]

for Leah,

the second sota.

But

with regard to the passage of the sota in the

Torah, since its writing is unspecified,

having been written without being designated for a particular sota,

it is indeed possible to erase it

for a sota, even according to the first tanna!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said

the opposite:

Perhaps that is not so!

Perhaps the matter is not as you say, and there is no reason to conclude that Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya disputes Rabbi Yehuda and permits erasing it for the sota from the Torah.

For one can say:

Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya stated there only

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

but only with regard to a scroll

of a sota,

since

ultimately,

this scroll was written

this scroll

for the sake of [

for the purpose of]

an oath in the world.

But

with regard to the passage of the sota written in the

Torah, since it was written for study,

it is

writing [

written for the purpose of studying it]—

it is indeed not erased.

Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya may agree that it is not erased from the Torah for the sake of a sota scroll.

We raise an objection to Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya, who said that her scroll is fit to use to give another sota to drink from it:

And

does

Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya not hold

the teaching that we learned:

He wrote [

a bill of divorce]

to divorce his wife, but then reconsidered,

and decided not to divorce her.

He encountered a fellow townsman and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife’s name is the same as your wife’s,

so your bill of divorce is identical to the bill I would have needed to write for my wife; give it to me so that I may divorce her with it!

This bill of divorce is invalid

for

divorcing with it

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

And now this is difficult: With regard to a sota as well, it is written, “And the koen shall perform for her [for the sota] all this Torah,” which likewise indicates “for her sake.” If so, just as a bill of divorce written for one woman is not fit for another woman, so too we should say with regard to a sota that a scroll written for one sota is not fit for any other woman!?

They said

in answer, in order to explain Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya’s position:

There,

with regard to a bill of divorce,

“And he shall write it 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

we require that the performance be for her sake. And

what is meant by

“performance”?

“Erasure”!

It is the erasure that must be specifically for this woman, and not the writing. We learned in the Mishna:

She does not suffice to drink until her face

turn green:

We raise a difficulty: But

whose

Mishna is this? Who taught our Mishna?

It must be that

it is Rabbi Shimon, who said

[above, 19a]:

He offers her meal-offering

the sota’s meal-offering first

and afterward gives her to drink

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

For if it follows the view of the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Shimon [there], maintaining 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 [

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

since

it is written

in connection with the sota’s meal-offering: “It is a meal-offering of jealousy,

a meal-offering of remembrance that recalls iniquity,”

and if so, her face does not turn green when she drinks the water.

And now this is difficult:

Consider the latter clause

of our Mishna:

If she has merit, it suspends the effect for her!

This latter clause

comes to Rabbi Shimon,

who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon,

for if it were Rabbi Shimon, he said

[below, 22b]:

Merit does not suspend the effect of the bitter waters.

If so, the first clause follows Rabbi Shimon, while the latter clause does not follow Rabbi Shimon—a contradiction!?

He said

in resolution,

Rav Ḥisda:

Who is the tanna of this

Mishna, which maintains that the water examines her as she drinks? It is not Rabbi Shimon, but

Rabbi Akiva, who said

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

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

There is no longer a difficulty from the latter clause, which we learned, “Merit suspends the effect,”

and

because

in

the matter of suspension,

Rabbi Akiva holds regarding merit

like the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and maintain that merit suspends the effect of the bitter waters.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they say: Take her out

take her out so that she should not render the Temple courtyard impure:

We raise a difficulty:

What is the reason

that we must take her out? Because

perhaps she will die

and render impure the place where she is and through which she is to be taken out—

Does this mean,

you intend to say,

that a corpse is prohibited in

the Nicanor Gate and the Women’s Court, which are

the Levite Camp!?

But it was taught:

One rendered impure by a corpse is permitted to enter the Levite Camp; and they said this not only of one rendered impure by a corpse, but even a corpse itself,

is permitted to be brought into the Levite Camp—

As it is stated:

“And Moses took Joseph’s bones with him,”

which implies

“with him”—

within his partition,

and Moses was in the Levite Camp!? If so, this is difficult: Why take her out, and why should it matter to us if she dies there?

He said

in resolution,

Abaye:

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

perhaps she will experience a menstrual flow

as a result of suddenly becoming terrified when she begins to feel pain from the water, and a menstruant is prohibited in the Levite Camp.

We raise a difficulty:

Does this mean that sudden fright relaxes [

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

And we answer:

Yes,

that is indeed the case,

as it is written

with regard to Esther, when she heard of Haman’s decree:

“And the queen was greatly terrified,”

and Rav said: She experienced a menstrual flow.

We nevertheless raise a further difficulty:

But we learned: Fright causes the blood to withdraw,

whereas you say that it releases it!?

And we answer:

Fear

—an anxiety that does not come suddenly, but rather one caused by concern that enemies may come to kill her—

constricts,

for it indeed constricts the opening of the cervix, and the blood withdraws.

But

sudden fright

—a sudden fear, as in the case of the sota, who until then had not been afraid of the water and suddenly feels its painful effect—

relaxes

the opening of the cervix, and blood flows.

We learned in the Mishna:

If she has merit, it

suspends the effect for her for up to three years.

And we raised the question:

Whose is this Mishna?

According to whose view was our Mishna taught?

It is

not

according to

Abba Yose ben Ḥanan,

and

not

according to

Rabbi Elazar ben Yitzḥak, man of Kefar Darom,

and

not

according to

Rabbi Yishmael.

For it was taught:

If she has merit, it suspends the effect for her

until

three months,

which is

the time required for

recognition of the fetus [

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

the words of Abba Yose ben Ḥanan.

The meaning of the verse is “She shall be cleared”: merit suspends the effect for her for the period from the beginning of pregnancy until the fetus becomes recognizable, which is a period of three months.

Rabbi Elazar ben Yitzḥak, man of Kefar Darom, says:

Merit suspends the effect for her until

nine months.

According to

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

And

we find

below,

with regard to “seed,” that

he [

the verse, in Psalms 22]

says:

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

And we expound:

Seed fit to tell

the praise of the Omnipresent.

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

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

Rabbi Yishmael says:

Merit suspends the effect for her for

twelve months.

And although there is no proof

from the biblical text

for

this matter—that merit suspends the effect until twelve months—there is

a Scriptural indication

from the biblical text.

As it is written

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

“Therefore,

indeed,

O king,

the king,

may my counsel be pleasing to you,”

may my advice 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 through the charity that you perform.

“And your iniquities,”

and redeem your soul from your iniquities—

“through compassion toward the poor,”

through graciousness toward the poor.