Previous Folio / Sotah Directory / Tractate List

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah

Folio 19a

for it is written 'This'. In the case of two husbands and two paramours none differ that a woman drinks and does so again, for it is written 'the law of. Where they differ is in the case of the same husband and two paramours, or two husbands and the same paramour. The first Tanna holds that 'the law of indicates the inclusion of them all, and 'This' indicates the exclusion of the case of the same husband and the same paramour. The Rabbis hold that 'This' indicates the exclusion of them all, and 'the law of indicates the inclusion of the case of two husbands and two paramours. R. Judah holds that 'This' is to exclude two cases and 'the law of is to include two cases. 'This' is to exclude two cases, viz., the same husband and the same paramour, and the same husband and two paramours; 'the law of is to include two cases, viz., two husbands and the same paramour, and two husbands and two paramours.

CHAPTER III

MISHNAH. HE1  TAKES HER MEAL-OFFERING OUT OF THE BASKET OF PALM-TWIGS AND PLACES IT IN A MINISTERING VESSEL AND SETS IT UPON HER HAND; AND THE PRIEST PLACES HIS HAND UNDER HERS AND WAVES IT.2

HAVING WAVED IT, HE BROUGHT A HANDFUL [TO THE ALTAR], FUMIGATED IT, AND THE REMAINDER WAS EATEN BY THE PRIESTS. HE [FIRST] GIVES [HER THE WATER OF BITTERNESS] TO DRINK, AND THEN SACRIFICES HER MEAL-OFFERING. R. SIMEON SAYS: HE SACRIFICES HER MEAL-OFFERING AND THEN GIVES HER TO DRINK, AS IT IS SAID, AND AFTERWARD SHALL MAKE THE WOMAN DRINK THE WATER;3  BUT IF HE GAVE HER TO DRINK AND THEN SACRIFICED HER MEAL-OFFERING IT IS VALID.

GEMARA. R. Eleazar said to R. Joshiah his contemporary:4  You shall not sit down5  until you have explained the following: Whence is it that the meal-offering of a suspected woman requires to be waved? 'Whence have we it? It is written In connection therewith, And shall wave6  — But [my question is], whence [is it that it has to be done] with [the co-operation of] the owner?'7  — It is derived from the analogous use of the word 'hand' in connection with the peace-offering. Here it is written: 'The priest shall take out of the woman's hand', and there it is written: His own hands shall bring.8  As in this present case it refers to the priest [who waves the offering of the suspected woman], so there it refers to the priest;9  and as there [in the waving of the peace-offering] the owner [holds it during the rite] so here the owner [holds it]. What, then, was the procedure? — [The priest] places his hand under the hands of the owner and waves.

HAVING WAVED IT, HE BROUGHT A HANDFUL … HE [FIRST] GIVES [HER THE WATER OF BITTERNESS] TO DRINK, AND THEN SACRIFICES HER MEAL-OFFERING. But he has already offered it!10  — This is what is intended:11  What is the procedure in connection with meal-offerings? He waves, brings a handful [to the altar]. fumigates it and the remainder is eaten by the priests. As to the giving of the water to drink, on this R. Simeon and the Rabbis differ; because the Rabbis hold that he gives her to drink and then sacrifices her meal-offering, whereas R. Simeon holds that he sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink, as it is said: 'And afterwards shall make the woman drink'.

BUT IF HE GAVE HER TO DRINK AND THEN SACRIFICED HER MEAL-OFFERING IT IS VALID.

To Part b
Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. According to Rashi it is the husband; other commentators declare it is the priest.
  2. The offering, forward and backward, and up and down.
  3. Num. V, 26.
  4. This is added to distinguish him from an earlier Rabbi of that name.
  5. Lit., 'sit on your legs', v. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 87, n. 9.
  6. Ibid. 25.
  7. In this instance, the suspected woman; and the verse declares, The priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand and shall wave, Ibid.
  8. Lev. VII, 30.
  9. Who performs the act of waving although it is not explicitly mentioned.
  10. Since the Mishnah stated: HE BROUGHT A HANDFUL (TO THE ALTAR), FUMIGATED IT.
  11. This Mishnah is describing the order of the sacrifice without any reference to whether it comes before or after the drinking of the water.
Tractate List

Sotah 19b

 Our Rabbis taught: And when he hath made her drink1  — what does this intend to tell us since It has already been stated: And he shall make the woman drink?2  [It informs us] that if [the writing on] the scroll has been obliterated and she says: 'I refuse to drink', they exert influence upon her and make her drink by force. Such is the statement of R. Akiba. R. Simeon says: 'And afterwards shall make the woman drink' — what does this intend to tell us since it has already been stated: 'And he shall make the woman drink'? [It informs us] that it only takes place after all the rites mentioned above have been carried out, thus indicating that three things prevent [the giving of the water to drink]: [the priest] must have offered the handful, [the writing on] the scroll must have been blotted out, and [the woman] must have taken the oath. '[The priest] must have offered the handful' — R. Simeon is consistent with his opinion when he said that the priest sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink. '[The writing on] the scroll must have been blotted out' — [obviously so], for what else could he give her to drink!3  — R. Ashi said: No, it is necessary [to mention this for the case where] a trace of the inscription is recognisable.4  '[The woman] must have taken the oath.' [This means] merely she does not drink, but they write the scroll for her [before she takes the oath]? But Raba has said: If he wrote the scroll for a suspected woman before she took the oath, what he did was Invalid! — [R. Simeon] mentioned this5  unnecessarily. On what, then, do they differ? — There are three verses: first 'he shall make the woman drink', second 'and afterward shall make drink', and third 'and when he hath made her drink'. The Rabbis hold that the first phrase is required for the subject-matter, i.e., he gives her to drink and then sacrifices her meal-offering; the phrase 'and afterward shall make drink' is necessary [to cover the case where] a trace of the inscription is recognisable; and the third phrase indicates that if [the writing on] the scroll has been obliterated and she says 'I refuse to drink', they exert influence upon her and make her drink by force. R. Simeon, on the other hand, holds that 'and afterward shall make drink' is required for the subject-matter. i.e., he sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink. The first phrase is to indicate that if he first gave her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering it is valid; and the third phrase denotes that if [the writing on] the scroll has been obliterated and she says 'I refuse to drink', they exert influence upon her and make her drink by force. The Rabbis, however, do not hold that the text opens with [a commandment which is only valid as] an accomplished fact.6

Does R. Akiba hold that they give her to drink by force? Surely it has been taught: R. Judah says: They insert iron tongs into her mouth, so that if [the writing on] the scroll has been obliterated and she says 'l refuse to drink', they exert influence upon her and make her drink by force. R. Akiba says: Do we require anything else than to prove her, and is she not actually proved!7  But so long as the priest has not offered the handful, she can retract;8  and when he has offered the handful, she cannot retract! — But, even on your reasoning, the teaching is inconsistent. It states: 'When he has offered the handful, she cannot retract', but is she not actually proved!9  [You must perforce say] that there is no contradiction; as one case is where she retracts through trembling and the other where she retracts through defiance;10  and this is what he means: when [she retracts] through defiance she does not drink at all; but when it is through trembling, so long as the priest has not offered the handful she is able to retract, since [the writing on] the scroll had not yet been obliterated, or even if it had been obliterated because the priests acted illegally in obliterating it; but if he had offered the handful, in which case the priests acted legally in obliterating it, she is unable to retract.11

- To Next Folio -
Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. Num. V. 27.
  2. Ibid. 24. In the consonantal text the two verbs look the same, but there is a grammatical difference.
  3. Since the writing was an essential ingredient of what she drank.
  4. R. Simeon insists on total obliteration.
  5. That she first takes the oath before drinking; for it must have been done before the scroll was written.
  6. A Biblical precept states what is or is not to be done, not that something should not be done but, if accomplished, it is allowed to stand. For this reason they reject R. Simeon's explanation of the first phrase.
  7. Her refusal to drink is interpreted as an admission of guilt. R. Akiba is therefore against force being used.
  8. And admit guilt, and so avoid force.
  9. By refusing to drink before the handful was offered.
  10. Only in the latter is the refusal considered an admission of guilt.
  11. [Similarly R. Akiba in stating in the first Baraitha that she is given to drink by force refers to the case when it is through trembling.]
Tractate List