Sotah 8a — the Talmud in English

It is standing there —

But earlier the woman was already beside the Nicanor Gate. For they had brought her to the Chamber of Hewn Stone for the Sanhedrin, which was adjacent to the Nicanor Gate; and if so, what is the meaning of “and they bring her up to the Nicanor Gate”?

And we answer —

They bring her up, and bring her down —

It is true that they had earlier brought her up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone, but afterward they again bring her down to the bottom of the Temple Mount.

And the reason is

in order to tire her,

to cause her to confess if she had indeed become impure.

And similarly we find this law concerning witnesses in capital cases —

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: They move the witnesses

who testify concerning a person liable for death

from place to place,

and from chamber to chamber,

in order that their minds become confused concerning them, and they retract

if they are liars.

Where they give the sotot to drink, and so on:

And we challenge this —

Granted, sotot,

they give them to drink at the Nicanor Gate, which is the entrance to the Courtyard,

as it is written: “And the kohen shall place the woman before the Lord”.

And “before the Lord” means a place that is included within the area of the Courtyard. However, the Courtyard itself extends from the outer boundary of the walls of the Courtyard, whereas the Nicanor Gate is within the wall of the Courtyard. It follows that it is within the area of the Courtyard, but it was not sanctified with the sanctity of the Courtyard, so that those lacking atonement could come and stand there; and through it they enter and leave the Courtyard.

Lepers also,

they too stand there when they sprinkle upon them in order to purify them,

as it is written —

“before the Lord.”

But a woman after childbirth,

concerning whom the Mishna also says that she stands at the Gate of the Courtyard, which is the Nicanor Gate —

what is the reason?

What is the reason that she too must stand there?

If you say, because they come and stand beside their offerings,

if the reason is that the owner of the offering must stand near his offering at the time of its sacrifice —

For it was taught: A person’s offering is not sacrificed unless he stands over it,

and since a woman after childbirth is impure and cannot enter, she therefore stands nearby, at the Gate of the Courtyard.

.

If so,

if this is the reason,

men with a discharge and women with a discharge also,

also men and women with discharges, who bring their offerings, should stand there, since they too are impure and cannot enter the Courtyard itself; yet the Mishna mentioned only a woman after childbirth.

And we answer —

Indeed, so.

And the tanna selected one of them.

Indeed, those with discharges also stand there, and the tanna selected one example and did not trouble to mention all the examples of those who must stand at the entrance to the Courtyard.

The Sages taught: They do not give two sotot to drink at once,

at the same time.

And the reason is

so that the heart

of one of them

will not become haughty toward the other.

For if one of them agrees to confess, while the other stands by her position, this will cause embarrassment to the one who wishes to confess, and she too will not confess.

Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not the reason.

This is not the reason that they do not give two sotot to drink at once.

Rather, the verse says “her” —

alone!

This is learned from the verse, “And the kohen shall administer the oath to her.” The expression “her” teaches that they give the sotah to drink alone.

And we challenge this —

And the first tanna,

why does he explain the law through reasoning,

when “her” is written,

and it can be expounded from the verse, as Rabbi Yehuda said?

And we answer —

The first tanna is Rabbi Shimon, who expounds the reason of the verse.

There is no dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, the first tanna explains the reason for the verse, and this first tanna is Rabbi Shimon, who expounds the reason of the verses everywhere.

And what reason does he state? —

What is the reason for “her,” alone,

as the Torah said —

so that her heart will not become haughty toward the other.

And we challenge this —

What is the difference between them?

Where will there be a practical difference in law between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them —

when she is trembling.

When the sotah is trembling from fear of the water, and there is no concern that her heart will become haughty toward the other.

According to the first tanna, who is Rabbi Shimon, in such a case it is possible to give two of them to drink together, since the reason for which the Torah said to give her to drink alone is absent.

But according to Rabbi Yehuda, one does not judge in every case whether the reason exists; rather, one fulfills the verse according to its wording, even when, apparently, the reason does not exist.

And we challenge this —

And when she is trembling, do we give them to drink?

Is there indeed a case according to Rabbi Shimon in which two sotot are given to drink together?

But one does not perform mitzvot as bundles!

One does not perform several mitzvot together, since the matter appears like one who carries a burden of bundles and unloads them together because of the heaviness of their burden. And so we learned explicitly in a beraita.

For it was taught —

They do not give two sotot to drink at once,

and they do not purify two lepers at once, and they do not bore the ears of two slaves at once,

and they do not decapitate two heifers

the heifer whose neck is broken

at once.

And the reason is

because one does not perform mitzvot as bundles.

And if so, why according to Rabbi Shimon is it possible to give two sotot to drink at once?

And we answer —

Abaye said, and some say Rav Kahana:

some attribute this resolution to Rav Kahana —

This is not difficult —

Here it is with one kohen.

Here it is with two kohanim.

The beraita that states the reason of “one does not perform mitzvot as bundles” speaks of not giving two sotot to drink together through one kohen, since in this case the reason that it appears like a burden exists.

And what we said, that according to Rabbi Shimon it is possible to give two sotot to drink at once, refers to doing so through two kohanim, in which case it does not appear like a burden, and it is not considered bundles.

And the kohen holds her garments:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the section of the sotah

“And he shall uncover the head of the woman.”

I have only “her head,”

I learn from here only that he uncovers and exposes the hair of her head.

Her body —

from where

do we learn that the kohen also exposes her body, down to opposite her heart?

The verse states: “the woman.”

For the verse did not say, “And he shall uncover her head,” but said, “the head of the woman.” And this comes to include that besides her head, he also exposes her body, meaning that he exposes it down to her heart.

If so,

that he uncovers not only her head,

what does the verse mean —

“And he shall uncover her head”?

For what purpose did the Torah emphasize that he uncovers her head.

It teaches that the kohen loosens her hair —

the verse comes to teach that besides exposing her hair and body, he exposes her hair to an even greater extent and loosens the braiding of her hair, if her hair had been braided.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was beautiful, he would not expose it.

And we challenge this:

Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about sinful thoughts

and the Rabbis are not concerned

about sinful thoughts?

Are we to learn from this Mishna that Rabbi Yehuda is more concerned than the Rabbis about the sinful thoughts of those present, and therefore is stringent and says that if her heart was beautiful he would not expose it.

?

But we have heard the opposite from them!

For we find in a beraita the opposite: that the Rabbis are more concerned about sinful thoughts than Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was taught: A man

whose judgment was decreed that he be stoned, although they stone him naked, nevertheless

they cover him, one section in front of him —

they place a piece of cloth over him in the place of nakedness, because of modesty.

.

And the woman,

they cover her with

two sections

in two places:

one in front of her and one behind her, because she is entirely naked

since the place of nakedness is visible from behind her.

The words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Sages say: A man is stoned naked,

and they place a garment in front of him, but

a woman is not stoned naked.

And if so, it is clear that the Rabbis are more stringent than Rabbi Yehuda and are more concerned than he is about sinful thoughts, since he permits stoning the woman naked over most of her body, while the Sages do not permit it. And this is the opposite of what is implied by our Mishna.

And we answer —

Rabba said:

Here,

in our Mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about sinful thoughts, although concerning one who is stoned he is not concerned,

what is the reason,

the reason is

lest she emerge from the court acquitted, and the young kohanim provoke her.

There, she is indeed being stoned.

With regard to a sotah, there is concern that if she emerges acquitted, the young kohanim will provoke her to sin after seeing her body. But with one who is stoned there is no concern about sin, since she is immediately stoned and there is no opportunity for sin.

And if you would say,

and if you would challenge,

they will come to provoke other women —

those who see the woman being stoned will come to provoke other women and cause them to sin.

Did Rava not say: It is received as a tradition,

that

the evil inclination rules only over what its eyes see.

And therefore there is no concern that they will cause other women to sin.

Rava said: The contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda is difficult, while the contradiction between the Rabbis and the Rabbis is not difficult?

Was the difficulty only a contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s view? Surely there is also a contradiction in the view of the Rabbis, and Rabba does not resolve it.

Rather, Rava said: The contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered.

The resolution of the contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s view is as Rabba answered.