Sotah 7b — the Talmud in English

and necklaces,

a type of ornament that surrounds the neck, or

nose-rings and rings, are removed

and taken off

from her,

and all this

in order to disfigure her —

so that she will admit.

And afterward the koen brings

an Egyptian rope,

a rope made from the fiber that grows around the palm tree,

and ties it

over her garments

above her breasts,

so that her garments will not fall to the ground.

And every person

who wishes to come and see, except for her male and female slaves

who are not permitted to come to see,

because she is brazen toward them,

that is, she will be encouraged by their presence and will not admit if indeed she committed adultery — and we want her to admit, and that the Explicit Name should not be erased into the water —

and all the women are permitted to come

to see her,

and as

it is stated

in the prophet Ezekiel: “

And all the women shall be chastened, and they shall not do according to your lewdness” —

for when they see all this, they will guard themselves more from adultery.

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters? —

From where did the Sages learn that the watering of a sota performed in the Temple must be performed by the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, and that a Sanhedrin of twenty-three does not suffice?

And we answer:

Rav Hiyya bar Gamda said,

in the name of

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina: It is derived by “Torah, Torah,”

we learn this by a gezerah shavah from the word “Torah.”

For

it is written here,

it is stated in the portion of the sota: “And the koen shall perform for her all the Torah.”

And it is written there,

it is stated in the portion of the rebellious elder:

“According to the Torah that they teach you.”

And we learn by a gezerah shavah from the word “Torah” that appears in both:

Just as there,

just as concerning a rebellious elder, they judge

him with seventy-one, so

here, concerning a sota, they judge her in a Sanhedrin

of seventy-one.

And they intimidate her: But we raised an objection,

the Gemara raises a contradiction to our Mishna from the words of a beraita: Why does the Mishna mention that they intimidate her so that she will admit that she became impure and will not drink, but does not mention that they also comfort and reassure her, so that she should not fear if she is pure?

And as we find in a beraita:

Just as they intimidate her not to drink, so they intimidate her to drink.

And thus

they say to her: My daughter, if you are certain of the matter that you are pure,

and did not become impure,

stand upon your certainty —

rely on your knowledge that you are free of transgression,

and drink

the water without fear,

for the bitter water

the water of the sota

is comparable only to dry medicine placed upon living flesh,

for

if there is a wound

there in the flesh,

it penetrates

the medicine

and descends

into the body.

But if

there is no wound, it accomplishes nothing

and causes no harm

at all,

and why did the Mishna not mention this?

And we answer —

it is not difficult.

Here, before the scroll was erased.

Here, after the scroll was erased.

Here,

That is, the Mishna, which mentioned only the intimidation if she became impure, refers to the time when they had not yet erased the Explicit Name appearing in the sota scroll, for then they do not comfort her but frighten her, so that the Explicit Name should not be erased. But after they have already erased the scroll into the water, on the contrary, they comfort and reassure her so that she should not fear, in order that she not admit that she is impure if in truth she is pure, and a bad name should go out concerning her family.

And he says before her matters, and so on.

The Sages taught: He says before her

the koen

matters of exposition, and events that occurred,

and are brought

in the Early Writings.

For example, what Scripture alludes to in Proverbs:

“Which the wise declare, and did not hide from their fathers,”

for this verse alludes to Judah and Reuben, who sinned and admitted their sin.

Judah admitted regarding the incident of Tamar, when he said, “She is more righteous than I,” and was not embarrassed,

what was his end? —

He inherited life in the World to Come.

And likewise

Reuben admitted

regarding the incident of Bilhah, and was not embarrassed; what was his end? —

He inherited life in the World to Come.

And even the woman, it is worthwhile for her to admit that she sinned, and through this she will merit.

And what was their reward

of Judah and Reuben?

And the Gemara wonders: What is the question,

“What was their reward?” —

As we have said!

Their reward has already been stated: that they merited life in the World to Come.

Rather, the Gemara explains:

what was their reward

of Judah and Reuben

in this world —

that they merited, as it is written in Job:

“To them alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them.”

That is, Reuben merited that he took a portion and inheritance in the Land before everyone else, and Judah merited kingship, which was given only to the sons of Judah, and not to strangers.

And we object —

Granted, concerning Judah, we find that he admitted, —

we find in the verse that he admitted,

as it is written —

“And Judah recognized and said: She is more righteous than I.”

But Reuben —

from where do we know that he admitted? From where

that he admitted his sin.

And we answer —

as Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said,

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan.

What is the meaning of that which is written: “May Reuben live and not die, and this for Judah”?

What is the expression “and this” that is stated before Moses’ blessing to Judah? — All those years that Israel were in the wilderness, and the bones of the tribes were with them,

the bones of Judah were rolling about in the ark,

for he excommunicated himself when he said to his father: “And I shall have sinned against you all the days”!

Until Moses stood and requested mercy for him. He said before Him: Master of the Universe! What caused Reuben to admit

that he had sinned? —

Judah!

Through the fact that he admitted regarding the incident of Tamar, and caused Reuben also to admit.

And this is

“and this for Judah,”

that is, Reuben’s admission, mentioned earlier, was on account of Judah’s admission.

And then Moses our teacher continues and says: Since this is so—may the Lord hear Judah’s voice!

His limbs became sound —

Judah’s limbs returned to their places, for they became joined together, and stopped rolling.

But they were not bringing him into the heavenly academy.

But still his soul did not ascend to the academy above.

Moses our teacher continued to pray:

“And to his people You shall bring him.”

They brought his soul to the court above.

And he did not know how to weigh and debate a matter of learning with the Sages —

and Judah still did not know how to engage in give-and-take with the students of the academy above.

Moses added and prayed —

“His hands contend for him.”

But still

the matter of learning did not come out for him according to the halakha.

He did not merit that his words should be accepted.

Moses added and prayed:

“And be a help from his adversaries

shall You be.”

In any event, it is explained in this beraita that in the verse “and this for Judah,” it is hinted that Reuben admitted regarding the incident of Bilhah.

And we object —

Granted, Judah admitted, so that Tamar would not be burned —

Judah admitted properly, in order to prevent Tamar from being burned, for without his admission they would have thought that she had committed adultery.

But Reuben: why did he admit —

why did he admit?

But Rav Sheshet said: Insolent before me is one who specifies his sins —

he is insolent in my eyes who publicizes his sins and is not embarrassed by the matter.

And we answer —

so that his brothers would not be suspected along with him —

Reuben admitted in order that they would know regarding all his other brothers that they were not the ones who had sinned, and would not suspect each of his brothers out of uncertainty.

If she said: “I am impure,”

and so on:

Learn from this —

from the words of the Mishna, which said that she writes a receipt for her marriage contract, we learn

that a receipt is written,

whenever the borrower repays his debt, and the lender is not required to tear the document.

And this is not according to the view of Rabbi Judah, who holds [Bava Batra 170b] that a receipt is not written; rather, the lender must tear the document. For if not, the borrower would have to safeguard the receipt all his days.

Abaye said: Teach: “She tears it.” —

There is no proof from here at all; rather, it is possible to read in the Mishna, in place of “she writes a receipt for her marriage contract”: “she tears her marriage contract,” and this is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Judah.

Rava said to him: But it teaches, “she writes a receipt”!

Is the correct reading in the Mishna not “she writes a receipt for her marriage contract”? The reading should not be changed, and the proof returns that the view of the Mishna is that a receipt is written.

Rather, Rava said —

even if the reading is “she writes a receipt for her marriage contract,” it is possible to reject the proof, for

we are dealing with a place where a marriage contract is not written,

and we establish the Mishna in a place where it is not customary to write a marriage contract, but they rely on the enactment of the court that obligates a marriage contract; therefore she is obligated to write a receipt, since there is no marriage contract that can be torn.

And if she said: “I am pure,” they bring her up to the Eastern Gate:

And we object:

They bring her up?