Sotah 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

And if so,

but there is this:

she has witnesses in the overseas countries,

for whom the exposition was stated that the water does not test her; and according to Rabbi Shimon, who is concerned about casting aspersion, here too we should say that the water should test this woman, so as not to cast aspersion on the other women.

The Gemara answers:

It is uncommon.

It is true that Rabbi Shimon is concerned about casting aspersion, but people will cast aspersion only on the basis of a common claim. That is, they will say about every woman who did not die because of the water that she is indeed impure, but that her merit suspended the punishment. But they will not cast aspersion on the basis of the claim that she is certainly impure, but that she has witnesses against her and therefore did not die, because this is uncommon. Therefore, the Torah was not concerned about this possibility, and it may be said that in this case, where she has witnesses in the overseas countries, the water does not test her.

Mishna:

The following mishnayot teach the order of events, from the time the husband learns that she secluded herself after he had warned her.

What does he do with her? —

He takes her to the court in that place

where he resides,

and they assign him

a court

two Torah scholars

to accompany him on his way to have the woman drink.

The reason that two Torah scholars must accompany him, and that he may not go with her alone, is

lest he have relations with her on the way,

in which case the water would no longer be effective in testing her, as explained in the Mishna [above, 6a]: when the husband is not free of iniquity, the water does not test her.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The husband is deemed credible

that he will not have relations with her,

and

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

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the fact that two men must accompany him, and that one is insufficient, that

it is two and he,

the two escorts and the husband,

that is three;

there are therefore three men here accompanying the woman.

Shall we say that this supports Rav,

that this Mishna supports Rav’s ruling concerning the laws of seclusion?

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

that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men together, since each one guards the other against sin,

only in a city. But on the road

it is forbidden for a man to be secluded with a woman

until there are three,

until there are three men together, besides the woman.

The reason that three are required and two do not suffice is

lest one of them need to relieve himself,

and distance himself from them

, and it will be found

at that moment that

one of them is secluded with the forbidden woman,

and violates the prohibition of seclusion.

Therefore, when they travel on the road, the Sages required that there be three escorts.

And since the Mishna required two escorts in addition to the husband, this is proof of Rav’s ruling: when there are only two men, 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 men suffice even on the road, and there is no concern about a violation.

And

here, this is the reason,

the reason our Mishna required two men to accompany him is not the prohibition of seclusion,

but rather, so that there will be witnesses against 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 she should not be made to drink. Therefore, one escort does not suffice, since one witness is not deemed credible

for that.

For this reason, the Sages required two Torah scholars to accompany him.

The Gemara continues to infer from the wording of the Mishna, which says: “And they assign him two Torah scholars,” that

Torah scholars

must accompany the husband,

but everyone else,

ordinary people who are ignoramuses, are precisely excluded by the wording of the Mishna, indicating that their accompaniment is insufficient.

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

that support and proof may be brought for another ruling that Rav innovated in the laws of

seclusion.

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

that it is permitted to be secluded with a woman when two men are present

only

when the two are

fit

Jews who are not suspected of transgression.

But dissolute men —

even ten

together

may not

be secluded with a woman, since they are all suspected of adultery.

And

there was an incident

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

and they carried out ten

men

on a bed — pretending that she had died and that they were taking her for burial, and in this way they committed adultery with her.

Since our Mishna specifically requires that the escorts be Torah scholars, it would seem possible to prove Rav’s ruling.

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

And we reject this:

No.

It is possible that we do not rule in accordance with Rav, and that we are not concerned about seclusion even when those secluded together are not fit, despite the fact that we find in the Mishna that specifically Torah scholars accompany the woman.

And

here, this is the reason,

the reason in our Mishna is

that they know how to locate the flaw in him .

The Torah scholars know the laws concerning when the water does not test her, and they will know to warn the husband. Therefore, the Mishna specifically says, “And they assign him two Torah scholars,” and not merely ordinary ignoramuses.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The husband is deemed credible concerning her.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The husband is deemed credible

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

from a kal va-chomer.

Just as in the case of a menstruant woman, for which the punishment is karet, her husband is deemed credible concerning her,

since a menstruant woman may be secluded with her husband, and we do not fear that he will have relations with her, even though if he does so he will violate a severe prohibition punishable by karet.

A sota,

whose severity is lesser,

for which the prohibition is a negative commandment,

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

all the more so

he should be deemed credible when he says that he did not have relations with her, and there is no need to guard him.

And we challenge this:

But what will the Rabbis say,

in response to this kal va-chomer!?

And we answer:

That is precisely the reason!

That is, the stringency of a menstruant woman compared with a sota is the reason that we do not derive the law of a sota from that of a menstruant woman and do not rely on the husband when he is secluded with his sota wife.

A menstruant woman, for whom the punishment is karet, is severe in his eyes.

Since a menstruant woman is forbidden under the severe punishment of karet, this causes the husband to take greater care and guard himself from sinning,

and he is deemed credible,

and therefore he is deemed credible. But

a sota,

for whom the prohibition is only a negative commandment,

is not severe in his eyes,

she is not considered severe by him,

and he is not deemed credible.

Therefore, we do not rely on him, and he is not deemed credible to say that he did not have relations with her on the way. For this reason, the Sages require two witnesses to accompany him.

And we challenge this:

Does Rabbi Yehuda derive his ruling from a kal va-chomer?

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

But Rabbi Yehuda derives it from verses!

For we explicitly find that Rabbi Yehuda derives his ruling from a verse.

As it was taught —

in the passage concerning a 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 deemed credible on his own, and he

brings his wife

to the Temple.

But the Sages said

that nevertheless, as a safeguard against transgression,

they assign him 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 deemed credible concerning her on the basis of a kal va-chomer [

as we have already explained]:

Just as in the case of a menstruant woman, for which the punishment is karet, her husband is deemed credible concerning her; a sota, for which the prohibition is a negative commandment, 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 with regard to a menstruant woman

that the husband alone is deemed credible, the reason is

that she has a permitted future state —

she will count seven clean days without blood

, and immerse,

and again become permitted to her husband. Therefore, it is easier for the husband to take care, knowing that she will eventually be permitted to him.

But can you

say

that also

in the case of a sota, who has no permitted future state

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

For this matter cannot be derived from a menstruant woman to a sota.

And he says,

and he supports this from the verse:

“Stolen waters are sweet,” and so on.

The more forbidden something is, the more the evil inclination intensifies against it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: From the Torah

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 or guarding.

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

And we answer:

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

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

And afterward he said to them, “The verse” —

and then he brought them his derivation from the verse.

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

And we challenge this:

Rabbi Yehuda —

is that not the first tanna!

In this beraita, in which the opinions of the first tanna, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yehuda are taught, Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion and that of the first tanna appear to be identical, since both derive from the verse that the husband is deemed credible on his own.

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

According to the first tanna, the Sages instituted a safeguard and required witnesses to accompany him. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the Torah law remains as it is, and the Sages did not enact such a 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 she had indeed committed adultery,

as they intimidate witnesses in capital cases

who come to testify against a person liable to death, attempting to persuade them to confess; and the judge would say to her:

My daughter, many sins are caused by

wine. And likewise —

many are caused by frivolity. Many —

by immaturity. Many —

by bad

neighbors.

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

And they would further say to her:

Do not do this —

do not cause the desecration of

His great Name

of the Holy One, blessed be He,

which is written in holiness,

by obstinately maintaining your position; rather, confess,

so that it will not be erased onto the water

because of you [for the passage concerning the sota is erased into the water with which she is made to drink].

And he would say before her

the judge

things that are not fitting —

that she is not worthy

to hear them,

because she sinned and secluded herself.

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

These things were made audible to

her and all the family of her father’s house

who were with her.

If after these words the woman confessed

and said, “I am impure” —

that she had indeed committed adultery — she

“writes a receipt for” her marriage contract,

writing a receipt in which she acknowledges that she has forfeited her marriage contract,

and leaves

by means of a bill of divorce.

But if

she nevertheless continues to maintain 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 Gate of Nicanor,

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

where

the place is

where they make sotot drink and purify women after childbirth —

who stand there when their offerings are sacrificed,

and purify lepers.

And a priest takes hold of her garments

at the neck area and pulls them.

If they are torn

the garments —

they are torn,

and he need not be concerned about this.

And if they are loosened

the garments —

they are loosened,

and we do not care that her body becomes exposed.

until he exposes her heart. And

likewise

he loosens her hair

from its braid.

All this is done in order to shame and disgrace her.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If her heart was beautiful —

he would not expose it; and if her hair was beautiful, he would not loosen it,

because we are concerned that those present might entertain sinful thoughts.

If

the woman was

woman

covered

with garments

of white, the priest covers

her

with black garments.

If she had a golden vessel upon her,