Sotah 28a — the Talmud in English

And if you would say, ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

that if there is a sin in him,

if he committed a transgression, having intercourse with his wife after she was secluded following the warning, when she became forbidden to him,

the water examines him

and he too dies.

It cannot be said so, for

when there is a sin in him,

does the water examine her, her?

Does it mean that when the husband sinned, the water does not examine his wife at all, and consequently does not examine him either?

But it was taught: “

And the man shall be clear of iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity.”

And we expound: only

when the man is clear of iniquity,

then

the water examines his wife.

But if

the man is not clear of iniquity,

because he had intercourse with her after she was secluded,

the water does not examine his wife!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that it refers

to the adulterer,

that the water examines him?

This is difficult:

let it teach

explicitly in the Mishna: just as the water examines her, so it examines the adulterer,

as it teaches in the latter clause “

Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to the adulterer,”

and it does not say, “so she is forbidden to him.”

We answer:

Actually, “him” means

the adulterer,

the adulterer.

And the difficulty from the latter clause is not difficult, because

the first clause, since it taught “her,”

also taught

also

“him.”

But

the latter clause, since it taught “

husband,”

taught

also

“adulterer.”

We learned in the Mishna:

As it is stated, “And they will come, and they will come.”

They raised a dilemma before them: Does it say, “

they came and they came,”

it means,

that from the superfluous letter vav in the word “and they will come” we expound that the water examines him?

Or does it say, “

and they will come, and they will come,”

it means,

that we derive this from the very repetition of the word “and they will come” in the passage?

Come and hear

from what we learned in the Mishna:

Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to the adulterer.

As it is stated “

She has become impure,”

“and she has become impure.”

It follows that Rabbi Akiva expounds the superfluous letter vav; if so, in the exposition of “they came and they came” also one should explain it thus.

And still, in this very exposition of “she has become impure and she has become impure,”

the question should be raised:

let the question be raised: Does it say “

she has become defiled, she has become defiled,”

she has become impure, she has become impure,”

it means,

that we expound from the repetition of the word “she has become impure” in the passage,

or does it say “

she has become impure and she has become impure,”

it means,

from the superfluous letter vav in the word “and she has become impure”?

Come and hear: since the latter clause teaches

of the Mishna,

Rabbi says: The two occurrences stated in the passage “

she has become impure and she has become impure,”

one for the husband and one for the adulterer,

it follows that Rabbi derives it from the repetition of the words.

By implication,

you learn this:

Rabbi Akiva,

who disagrees with Rabbi,

expounds the vav!

The Gemara explains the expositions according to Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi:

Therefore, according to Rabbi Akiva, six verses are written.

Three occurrences of “and they will come” are written in the passage, and in each one there is a superfluous vav, making six altogether.

One for her decree,

that the Holy One, blessed is He, decrees upon the woman that the bitter waters shall come into her.

And one for his decree,

the vav is expounded to teach that this too is decreed upon the adulterer.

One for her action,

for the verse informs Israel and assures them that the water will examine the sotot.

And one for his action,

for the adulterer too is assured that the water will examine him.

One for her information,

for the priest informs the woman that although in the wording of the curse “your thigh shall fall” is stated first and afterward “your belly shall swell,” nevertheless she is afflicted in the order of the water’s entry: first in her belly and afterward in her thigh.

And all this is so as not to bring disrepute upon the water, lest people say that the water did not act in the order in which she was cursed, and consequently it was not the water that caused the punishment.

And one for his information,

that the adulterer too is afflicted first in the belly and afterward in the thigh.

And Rabbi

held that

only three verses

are

written.

And he does not expound the extra letter vav.

One for the decree, one for the action, and one for the information.

And all of them were stated only with regard to the woman.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

And Rabbi, “

Just as the water examines her, so it examines him,”

from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

He derives it from that which was taught:

It is stated, “And these bitter waters shall come into your innards

to swell the belly and make the thigh fall,”

and we expound this as referring to

the belly and thigh of the adulterer.

You say: the belly and thigh of the adulterer.

Or perhaps it is only the belly and thigh of the woman who was possessed?

When it says

below,

“And her belly shall swell and her thigh shall fall,”

the belly and thigh of the woman who was possessed

have

already been stated.

And what do I establish

“

to swell the belly and make the thigh fall”? —

The belly and thigh of the adulterer!

It follows that the water examines the adulterer as well.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

But the other one,

Rabbi Akiva—why does he not derive from here the examination of the adulterer by the water? And we answer:

That

verse, “to swell the belly and make the thigh fall,” comes to teach

that the priest informs her,

the woman,

that the belly

will be afflicted

first, and afterward

afterward

the thigh,

despite the fact that the curse is written in the reverse order, so as

not to bring disrepute upon the bitter waters.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

But the other one,

Rabbi—this is difficult for him, for the verse “to swell the belly” is not superfluous?

And we answer: Rabbi could say to you:

If so,

if “to swell the belly” came only to teach about the priest’s informing her,

let the verse write “her belly and her thigh”; what is the meaning of “belly and thigh”?

Learn from it that it refers to the adulterer,

to teach that he too is examined by the water.

And we raise a difficulty against Rabbi:

And say that the entire verse came for this,

that the entire verse comes only to teach about the examination of the adulterer; and from where do we learn that it also teaches about the priest’s informing her?

And we answer:

If so,

if it teaches only about the adulterer,

let it write “his belly and his thigh”; what is the meaning of “belly and thigh”

which implies without specification, whether the adulterer or the woman possessed?

Learn from it two things:

to teach also about the priest’s informing her.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Thus would Zekharya

ben Ha-Katzav expound.

The Sages taught: Three times stated in the passage: “And it shall be,

if she has become impure”; “and he was jealous of his wife, and she

has become impure”; “when a woman strays under her husband and

has become impure.”

Why

are they stated three times?

One for the husband, one for the adulterer, and one for teruma.

For even if she is the daughter of a koen and her husband is a koen, she is disqualified from eating teruma through the seclusion,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yishmael said:

Since we have learned that she is disqualified from teruma,

a kal va-chomer

that she is disqualified from marrying a koen, and we do not need to bring a verse for this.

And what of a divorced woman,

the daughter of a koen who married an Israelite and was divorced, and has no offspring from him,

who is permitted to teruma

returns to her father’s house to eat teruma, and nevertheless

is forbidden to the priesthood,

to marry a koen.

This one,

the sota who was secluded,

who is forbidden with regard to teruma, is it not logical that she is forbidden to the priesthood? [The Gemara asks below: Rabbi Akiva did not speak at all about disqualification from the priesthood; what, then, did Rabbi Yishmael mean by saying that a verse is not needed for this?]

And the beraita continues to explain the verses in the passage of the sota:

What does the text teach “

And a spirit of jealousy passed over him, and he was jealous of his wife,

and she has become impure,” or “a spirit of jealousy passed over him, and he was jealous of his wife,

and she has not become impure”?

If

it is clear to her husband that she

has become impure, why does she drink?

And

if

it is clear to him that she

has not become impure, why does he make her drink

it?

The verse tells you that

with regard to

doubt

she is

forbidden!

The explanation of the verse is: This woman, concerning whom he is uncertain whether she has become impure or not, should be made to drink, in order to clarify the doubt. And if he does not make her drink, she is forbidden to him on account of the doubt.

From here you reason

a kal va-chomer

to a creeping creature:

when there is doubt whether it touched pure things, doubt whether it did not touch them, we must hold the pure things to be impure, on account of the doubt.

And what of a sota, with whom accidental conduct is not treated as intentional, nor conduct under duress as voluntary,

for if she had relations accidentally—for example, she thought that so-and-so was her husband—or if she was forced, she is not forbidden to her husband, and nevertheless

it treated doubt concerning her as certainty.

A creeping creature, with which accidental conduct is treated as intentional, and conduct under duress as voluntary,

for even if pure things touched a creeping creature accidentally or under duress, they become impure,

is it not logical that doubt concerning it should be treated ![](pamud.bmp "

Precise page location")

as certainty?