Sotah 7a — the Talmud in English

And if so,

but there is this: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

she has witnesses in the overseas country,

regarding whom the exposition comes that the waters do not examine her; and according to Rabbi Shimon, who is concerned about bringing out disrepute, here too we should have said that the waters should examine that woman, so as not to bring out disrepute concerning the other women.

The Gemara answers:

It is not common. It is true that Rabbi Shimon is concerned about bringing out disrepute, but they will bring out disrepute only through a common claim. That is, they will say about every woman who did not die because of the waters that she is indeed impure, but merit suspended judgment for her. But they will not bring out disrepute through the claim that she is certainly impure, but that she has witnesses against her, and therefore she did not die, for this matter is not common. Therefore the Torah was not concerned with this matter, and it may be said that in this case, where there are witnesses in the overseas country, the waters do not examine her.

It is true that Rabbi Shimon is concerned about people casting aspersions, but they will cast aspersions only based on a common claim. Namely, they might say about every woman who did not die because of the water that she is indeed impure, but that her merit delayed the punishment. But they will not cast aspersions based on the claim that she is certainly impure but has witnesses against her, and that is why she did not die, because such a case is uncommon. Therefore, the Torah did not take this possibility into account, and it may be said that in this case, where she has witnesses in a distant land, the water does not examine her.

Mishna:

The following mishnayot teach the order of the matters, from the time that it became known to the husband that she had secluded herself, after he warned her.

What does he do for her? —

He takes her to the court in that place

where he resides,

and they provide him

a court

with two Torah scholars

who accompany him on his way to the giving of the water to the woman.

And the reason that he requires two Torah scholars to accompany him, and does not go with her alone, is

lest he have relations with her on the way,

and then the examination by the waters would no longer be effective, as explained in the Mishna [above, 6a], that when the husband is not clean of iniquity, the waters do not examine.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted

not to have relations with her,

and

there is no need for witnesses to accompany him; rather, they rely upon him. And when he arrives at the Temple and says that he did not have relations with her, he is trusted.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the fact that two people are required to accompany him, and it is not sufficient that one accompany him: if so, it is

two and he,

the two escorts and the husband,

behold, three,

so there are three escorts here for the woman.

Shall we say that this supports Rav,

that there is support from this Mishna for Rav’s ruling concerning the laws of seclusion?

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: They taught

that the Sages permitted a woman to seclude herself with two men together, since each one watches his fellow so that he should not sin,

only in a city. But on the way

it is forbidden to seclude oneself with a woman

until there are three,

until there are three together, apart from the woman.

And the reason that three are required and two are not sufficient is

lest one of them need to relieve himself,

and distance himself from them

, and it is found

at that time that

one of them is secluded with the forbidden woman,

and transgresses the prohibition of seclusion.

Therefore, when they go on the way, the Sages required that there be three escorts.

And since the Mishna required two escorts besides the husband, this is proof of Rav’s ruling: when there are only two people, we are concerned about seclusion.

And we reject this:

No.

It is impossible to prove Rav’s ruling from our Mishna, because it is possible that with regard to the prohibition of seclusion, two people are sufficient even on the way, and there is no concern of a prohibition.

And

here, this is the reason,

in our Mishna the reason that they required two to accompany him is not because of the prohibition of seclusion,

but so that there should be witnesses concerning him.

So that if he has relations with her on the way, there will be two witnesses who can say to the great court that they should not give her the water. Therefore one escort is not sufficient, since one witness is not trusted for

this.

And for this reason they required two Torah scholars to accompany him.

And the Gemara continues and infers from the language of the Mishna, which says, “And they provide him with two Torah scholars,” that Torah

scholars

must accompany the husband,

but everyone else,

ordinary people, unlearned people, it is precisely inferred from the language of the Mishna that their accompaniment is not sufficient.

Shall we say that it supports Rav’s other ruling —

it is possible to bring support and proof for another law that Rav innovated in the laws of

seclusion.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: They taught

that the Sages permitted seclusion with a woman when two men are there

only

when the two are

fit

Jews who are not suspected of transgression.

But sexually unrestrained men —

even ten

together as well

may not

seclude themselves with a woman, for they are all suspected of adultery.

And even

there was an incident

involving a married woman with whom sexually unrestrained men wanted to commit adultery,

and she brought out ten

men

in a bed —

as though she had died and they were going to bury her, and in this way they had relations with her.

And from our Mishna, which required that the escorts specifically be Torah scholars, it is possible to prove Rav’s ruling.

And we reject this:

No.

It is possible that we do not rule according to Rav, and we are not concerned about seclusion even when those who seclude themselves are not fit, although we find in the Mishna that specifically Torah scholars accompany the woman.

And

here, this is the reason,

in our Mishna the reason is

that they know how to warn him .

For the Torah scholars know the laws concerning when the waters do not examine, and they will know how to admonish the husband. Therefore the Mishna said specifically, “And they provide him with two Torah scholars,” and not ordinary unlearned people.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted concerning her.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted

to say that he did not have relations with her after she secluded herself, and the proof is

from a kal va-chomer.

And if concerning a menstruant woman, for whom there is liability for karet, her husband is trusted concerning her,

for a menstruant woman is permitted to be secluded with her husband, and we do not suspect that he will have relations with her, even though if he does so he will transgress a severe prohibition whose punishment is karet.

A sota,

whose severity is lesser,

for she is subject to a prohibition,

since the prohibition against her husband having relations with her is only a prohibition,

all the more so

he is trusted to say that he did not have relations with her, and there is no need to guard him.

And we ask:

And the Rabbis,

what will they answer concerning this kal va-chomer?!

And we answer:

That is precisely the reason!

That is to say, the stringency of a menstruant woman over a sota is the reason that we do not learn from a menstruant woman to a sota, and do not rely on the husband when he is secluded with his sota wife.

A menstruant woman, because of karet, is severe to him.

A menstruant woman who is forbidden with the severe punishment of karet causes the husband to be more careful and to guard himself from sinning,

and he is trusted,

and therefore he is trusted. But

a sota,

who is subject only to a prohibition, whose prohibition is only a prohibition,

is not severe to him,

she is not severe in his eyes,

and he is not trusted,

and therefore we do not rely upon him, and he is not trusted to say that he did not have relations with her on the way. Therefore the Sages require the accompaniment of two witnesses.

And we ask:

And does Rabbi Yehuda derive it from a kal va-chomer?

Did Rabbi Yehuda infer from a kal va-chomer his ruling that the husband is trusted?

But Rabbi Yehuda derives it from verses!

For we explicitly find that Rabbi Yehuda learns his ruling from the verse.

For it was taught —

in the passage of the sota the Torah says

“And the man shall bring his wife to the priest.”

The Sages learned from here

that according to Torah law the man

is trusted alone, and he

brings his wife

to the Temple.

But the Sages said

that nevertheless, as a safeguard against a matter of transgression,

they provide him with two Torah scholars, lest he have relations with her on the way.

This is the opinion of the first tanna.

Rabbi Yosei says: Her husband is trusted concerning her by a kal va-chomer

and as we have already explained:

And if concerning a menstruant woman, for whom there is liability for karet, her husband is trusted concerning her, then concerning a sota, who is subject to a prohibition, is it not all the more so?

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Yosei —

No —

this kal va-chomer cannot be derived.

For even

if you say concerning a menstruant woman

that the husband is trusted alone, the reason for this is

that she has a permission —

she is destined to count seven clean days from blood

, and immerse,

and return to being permitted to her husband; therefore it is easier for the husband to be careful, knowing that she is destined to become permitted to him.

And would you

say

that also

in the case of a sota, who has no permission

if she committed adultery, he should be trusted to guard himself?

But one cannot learn from a menstruant woman to a sota concerning this matter.

And he says,

and he supports this from the verse —

“Stolen waters are sweet,” and so forth.

For the more forbidden a matter is, the more the evil inclination intensifies against it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: From Torah law

we learn that

the man brings his wife to the priest.

As it is stated, “And the man shall bring his wife,”

and he does not require accompaniment and guarding.

In any event, it is explained in this beraita that Rabbi Yehuda learns his ruling from the verse and not by a kal va-chomer, and this contradicts what is explained in the earlier beraita, that Rabbi Yehuda learns his ruling from a kal va-chomer.

And we answer:

He first said the kal va-chomer to them, and they refuted it.

At first Rabbi Yehuda brought a support for his words from a kal va-chomer, and the Sages refuted it.

And afterward he said the verse to them —

and then he brought them his teaching from the verse.

It follows that there is no contradiction between the beraitot; rather, this one was taught first, and after his argument was refuted, he brought in the second beraita proof from the verse.

And we refute:

Rabbi Yehuda —

that is the first tanna!

In this beraita, in which we taught the opinions of the first tanna, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion and the opinion of the first tanna are seemingly identical, since both learn from the verse that the husband is trusted alone.

And we answer: The difference between them is “But the Sages said.” The difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda is not in the root of the Torah-law ruling, but whether the Sages made a safeguard even though the Torah does not require witnesses.

According to the first tanna, the Sages made a safeguard and required witnesses to accompany him. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Torah-law remains as it was, and the Sages did not decree.

Mishna:

They would bring her up

the woman

to the great court in Jerusalem, and they would intimidate her,

frightening her so that she would confess if indeed she had committed adultery,

in the manner in which they intimidate witnesses in capital cases

who come to testify about a person liable for death, and they try to persuade her to confess; and the judge says to her —

My daughter, many sins are caused by

wine. And likewise —

Much is caused by levity. Much —

is caused by childishness. Much —

is caused by bad

neighbors.

And if indeed you have become impure, do not bring yourself to death in a disgraceful manner through drinking the water; rather, confess that you have become impure.

And they add and say to her:

Do not do —

do not cause desecration of

His great Name,

the Name of the

Most High, which was written in holiness,

by standing by your position; rather, confess,

so that it will not be erased upon the water

because of you [for they erase the passage of the sota into the water with which they give her to drink].

And he says before her

the judge

things that she is not worthy —

she is not fit

to hear them,

because she sinned and secluded herself.

The things are: accounts of righteous people who confessed and were not ashamed, such as Judah in the incident of Tamar, and others.

And they make these things heard in her ears:

she and her entire father’s household

with her.

If after these words the woman confessed

and said, “I am impure” —

that she indeed committed adultery — she

“breaks” her marriage document,

writes a receipt in which she admits that she has forfeited her marriage settlement,

and leaves

through a bill of divorce.

And if

she nevertheless still stands by her position,

and says, “I am pure,”

then

they bring her up to the Eastern Gate

of the Temple Mount, and from there

to the Nicanor Gate,

which is the gate separating the Israelite Court from the Women’s Court,

where

is the place where

they give sota women to drink, and purify the woman after childbirth

who stand there when their offerings are sacrificed,

and purify the lepers.

And a priest grasps her garments

at the area of the neck and pulls.

If they were torn

the garments —

they were torn,

and he need not be concerned about this.

And if they were loosened

the garments —

they were loosened,

and we do not care that her body is exposed.

until he uncovers her heart. And

likewise

he disarranges her hair

from its braiding.

And all this is in order to shame and disgrace her.

Rabbi Yehuda says —

If her heart was beautiful —

he would not uncover it, and if her hair was beautiful, he would not disarrange it,

because we are concerned about sinful thoughts among those standing around.

If

the

woman

was covered

in garments

of white, the priest covers

her

with black.

If she had a gold utensil upon her,