Talmud Sotah

MISHNA: The mishna details the procedure for administering the drinking of the bitter water of a sota. What does her husband do with her after she secluded herself with the man about whom she had been warned? He brings her to the court that is found in that location, and the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple, which is not only prohibited but will also prevent the bitter water from evaluating her. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her, so there is no need to provide scholars to accompany him. GEMARA: The Gemara assumes that the requirement for there to be two Torah scholars is to avoid the prohibition against a woman being alone with a man. The Gemara notes: Two additional men and he, the husband, are three people altogether. Let us say that this mishna supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only in the town (see Kiddushin 80b). But on the way, when traveling, this is not permitted unless there are three men with the woman. The reason for this stringency is that if there are only two men with her, perhaps one will need to relieve himself and will seek privacy, and it will be found that one of them is in seclusion with a woman forbidden to him. The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, so that there are two witnesses with regard to her, i.e., there will be two witnesses to testify in the event that the husband engages in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple. The reason is not to avoid the prohibition against her being alone with a man, as one scholar would suffice for that. The mishna teaches that the husband is provided with Torah scholars. The Gemara further comments: Torah scholars, yes; anyone else, no. It is specifically Torah scholars who are provided to accompany the husband and wife. Let us say that this mishna supports another statement of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only with regard to men of fit morals. But with regard to those of loose morals, she may not be secluded even with ten men. The Gemara adds: There was an incident and ten men carried out a woman on a bier, as if she were dead, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, that they know how to properly warn him not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, this mishna does not support the opinion of Rav. § The Gemara now discusses Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her. It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:2): Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted due to an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, as he is permitted to seclude himself with her, so too, with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband only by penalty of a prohibition, is it not all the more so that he should be trusted? And the Rabbis say: That provides support for the contrary opinion, as these considerations lead to the opposite conclusion. A menstruating woman is forbidden by penalty of karet. This is a stringent prohibition for him, and this is why he is trusted not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. By contrast, a sota is forbidden to him only by a prohibition. This is not a stringent prohibition to him, and he is therefore not trusted with her. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact derive this halakha from an a fortiori inference? But Rabbi Yehuda derives it from a verse, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest” (Numbers 5:15), teaches that by Torah law the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, but the Sages said: The court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple. The baraita records a second opinion. Rabbi Yosei says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her based on an a fortiori inference: And just as a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, and her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, then with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of only a prohibition, should he not all the more so be trusted? The Sages said to him: No, if you say that this is true with regard to a menstruating woman, the reason he is trusted is not due to the severity of the prohibition. Rather, he is trusted because she has the ability to become permitted to her husband after her menstrual flow has ceased and she has immersed in a ritual bath. Shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a sota, who potentially does not have the ability to become permitted to her husband due to her suspected adultery? And proof to the notion that people will more readily commit illicit acts that are permanently prohibited comes from the verse that states: “Stolen waters are sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasing” (Proverbs 9:17). Consequently, there is a concern that the husband will engage in sexual intercourse with his sota wife if not accompanied by scholars. The baraita quotes a third opinion. Rabbi Yehuda says: By Torah law, the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, as is stated: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest.” This baraita states explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda derives this halakha from the verse itself, not from an a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda first said to them the a fortiori inference, and they refuted it as mentioned above, and he then said to them the derivation from the verse. The Gemara clarifies: Apparently, the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is the same as that of the first tanna in the baraita, who also cites the verse as proof that by Torah law the husband alone brings his wife to the priest. The Gemara explains: The difference between them concerns the following clause: But the Sages said that the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him. The first tanna holds that the Sages require two scholars to accompany the husband and wife, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that they do not.

§ The mishna teaches: But one woman may be secluded with two men. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: They taught this halakha only with regard to men of fit morals, but with regard to those steeped in sexual immorality, she may not be secluded even with ten men. There was an incident where ten men carried out a woman on a bier, as though she were dead, and engaged in intercourse with her. Rav Yosef says: Know that this is so, since ten people will join together and steal a heavy beam without being ashamed before one another. Similarly, several men can join together for a licentious act without shame.

(1) With regard to one who issues a warning to his wife not to seclude herself with a particular man, so that if she does not heed his warning she will assume the status of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], Rabbi Eliezer says: He issues a warning to her based on, i.e., in the presence of, two witnesses for the warning to be effective. If two witnesses were not present for the warning, she is not a sota even if two witnesses saw her seclusion with another man. And the husband gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of one witness who saw the seclusion, or even based on his own testimony that he himself saw them secluded together, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that only the warning requires witnesses, not the seclusion. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He both issues a warning to her based on two witnesses and gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses.

(2) The mishna asks: How does he issue a warning to her in an effective manner? If he says to her in the presence of two witnesses: Do not speak with the man called so-and-so, and she nevertheless spoke with him, she is still permitted to her home, i.e., she is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, and if she is the wife of a priest she is still permitted to partake of teruma. However, if after he told her not to speak with so-and-so, she entered into a secluded place and remained with that man long enough to become defiled, i.e., sufficient time to engage in sexual intercourse, she is forbidden to her home from that moment until she undergoes the sota rite. And likewise, if she was the wife of a priest she is prohibited from partaking of teruma, as she was possibly disqualified by her infidelity, so long as her innocence is not proven by means of the bitter water. And if her husband dies childless before she drinks the bitter water, she perform ḥalitza with her late husband’s brother and may not enter into levirate marriage, as, if she had been unfaithful, levirate marriage is forbidden.

(3) And these are women who, despite being married to priests, are prohibited from partaking of teruma due to suspicion of adultery: A woman who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she admitted to having committed adultery with another man; and in a case where witnesses came forth and testified that she is defiled; and a woman who says after a warning and seclusion: I will not drink the bitter water of a sota; and in a case where her husband does not want to force her to drink the water even after she secluded herself with another man after his warning; and in a case where her husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the way to bringing her to the Temple to drink the bitter water, as in such a case the water will not be effective in evaluating whether she was unfaithful, due to the husband’s own prohibited act. The mishna details the procedure for administering the drinking of the bitter water of a sota. What does her husband do with her after she secluded herself with the man about whom she had been warned? He brings her to the court that is found in that location, and the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple, which is not only prohibited but will also prevent the bitter water from evaluating her. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her, so there is no need to provide scholars to accompany him.

(4) The mishna details the next stage of the process. They would bring her up to the Sanhedrin that was in Jerusalem, and the judges would threaten her in order that she admit her sin. And this was done in the manner that they would threaten witnesses testifying in cases of capital law. In those cases, the judges would explain to the witnesses the gravity of their testimony by stressing the value of human life. Here too, the judges would attempt to convince the woman to admit her sin, to avoid the loss of her life. And additionally, the judge would say to her: My daughter, wine causes a great deal of immoral behavior, levity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, immaturity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, and bad neighbors cause a great deal of immoral behavior. The judge encouraged her to admit her sin by explaining to her that he understands that there may have been mitigating factors. The judge then continues: Act for the sake of His great name, so that God’s name, which is written in sanctity, shall not be erased on the water. If the woman admits to having committed adultery, the scroll upon which the name of God is written will not be erased. And additionally, the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family, in order to encourage her to admit her sin, as the Gemara will explain.

(5) If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. That is, she writes a receipt indicating that she has no claims on her husband with regard to the sum written in her marriage contract, as a woman who admits to adultery forfeits her right to this payment. And she is then divorced from her husband. But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they bring her up to the Eastern Gate, which is at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor, because three rites were performed there: They give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and they purify women who have given birth (see Leviticus 12:6–8), and they purify the lepers (see Leviticus 14:10–20). The mishna continues describing the sota rite. And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them, unconcerned about what happens to the clothing. If the clothes are torn, so they are torn; if the stitches come apart, so they come apart. And he pulls her clothing until he reveals her heart, i.e., her chest. And then he unbraids her hair. Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it.

(6) If she was dressed in white garments, he would now cover her with black garments. If she was wearing gold adornments, or chokers [katliyot], or nose rings, or finger rings, they removed them from her in order to render her unattractive. And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope fashioned from palm fibers, and he would tie it above her breasts. And anyone who desires to watch her may come to watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them, as seeing one’s slaves reinforces one’s feeling of pride, and their presence may cause her to maintain her innocence. And all of the women are permitted to watch her, as it is stated: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).

(7) The mishna teaches lessons that can be derived from the actions and treatment of a sota. With the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it. For example, she, the sota, adorned herself to violate a transgression, the Omnipresent therefore decreed that she be rendered unattractive; she exposed herself for the purpose of violating a transgression, as she stood in places where she would be noticed by potential adulterers, so the Omnipresent therefore decreed that her body be exposed publicly; she began her transgression with her thigh and afterward with her stomach, therefore the thigh is smitten first and then the stomach, and the rest of all her body does not escape punishment.

(8) The mishna provides additional examples of people who were treated by Heaven commensurate with their actions. Samson followed his eyes, therefore he was punished measure for measure, as the Philistines gouged out his eyes, as it is stated: “And the Philistines laid hold on him, and put out his eyes” (Judges 16:21). Absalom was excessively proud of his hair, and therefore he was hanged by his hair. And furthermore, because he engaged in sexual intercourse with ten of his father’s concubines (see II Samuel 15:16 and 16:22), therefore ten spears [loneviyyot] were put, i.e., thrust, into him, as it is stated: “And ten young men that bore Joab’s armor compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him” (II Samuel 18:15). And because he stole three times, committing three thefts of people’s hearts: The heart of his father, as he tricked him by saying that he was going to sacrifice offerings; the heart of the court, as he tricked them into following him; and the heart of the Jewish people, as it is stated: “So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (II Samuel 15:6), therefore three spears were embedded into his heart, as it is stated: “Then said Joab: I may not tarry like this with you. And he took three spears in his hand, and thrust them through the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive” (II Samuel 18:14).

(9) The mishna continues: And the same is so with regard to the reward of good deeds; a person is rewarded measure for measure. Miriam waited for the baby Moses for one hour at the shore of the Nile, as it is stated: “And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him” (Exodus 2:4). Therefore the Jewish people delayed their travels in the desert for seven days to wait for her when she was smitten with leprosy, as it is stated: “And Miriam was confined outside of the camp seven days; and the people journeyed not until Miriam was brought in again” (Numbers 12:15). Joseph merited to bury his father, resulting in a display of great honor to his father, and there was none among his brothers greater than he in importance, for he was viceroy of Egypt, as it is stated: “And Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the Elders of his house, and all the Elders of the land of Egypt, and all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father’s house; only their little ones, and their flocks, and their herds, they left in the land of Goshen. And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen; and it was a very great company” (Genesis 50:7–9). Who, to us, had a greater burial than Joseph, as it was none other than Moses who involved himself in transporting his coffin. Moses merited to be the only person involved in the transportation of Joseph’s bones to be buried in Eretz Yisrael, and there was none among the Jewish people greater than he, as it is stated: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19). Who had a greater burial than Moses, as no one involved himself in his burial other than the Omnipresent Himself, as it is stated: “And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab over against Beth Peor; and no man knows of his sepulcher unto this day” (Deuteronomy 34:6). The mishna comments: Not only with regard to Moses did the Sages say that God takes part in his burial, but also with regard to all the righteous individuals, as it is stated: “Your righteousness shall go before you and the glory of the Lord shall gather you in” (Isaiah 58:8).

(1) The husband of the sota would bring his wife’s meal-offering to the priest in an Egyptian wicker basket made of palm branches, and he would place the meal-offering in her hands for her to hold throughout the ritual in order to fatigue her. This might lead her to confess her guilt and not drink the water of a sota unnecessarily. The mishna lists differences between this meal-offering and other meal-offerings. Generally, all meal-offerings, from their beginnings, i.e., the moment they are consecrated, and until their ends, i.e., the moment they are sacrificed, must be in a service vessel. But in the case of this one, its beginning is in a wicker basket and only at its end, immediately before it is offered, is it placed in a service vessel. All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense, and this one requires neither oil nor frankincense. Furthermore, all other meal-offerings are brought from wheat, and this one is brought from barley. Although in fact the omer meal-offering is also brought from barley, it is still different in that it was brought as groats, i.e., high-quality meal. The meal-offering of the sota, however, is brought as unsifted barley flour. Rabban Gamliel says: This hints that just as her actions of seclusion with another man were the actions of an animal, so too her offering is animal food, i.e., barley and not wheat.

(2) The priest would bring an earthenware drinking vessel [peyalei] and he would pour into it half a log of water from the basin in the Temple. Rabbi Yehuda says: The priest would pour only a quarter-log of water. Just as Rabbi Yehuda minimizes the writing, as he requires that less be written on the scroll of the sota than do the Rabbis, so too he minimizes the amount of water to be taken from the basin for the erasing of the text. The priest would enter the Sanctuary and turn to his right. And there was a place there, on the Sanctuary floor, with an area of a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet [tavla] was there, and a ring was fastened to the tablet to assist the priest when he would raise it. And the priest would take loose dust from underneath it and place the dust into the vessel with the water, so that the dust would be visible upon the water, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17).

(3) When the priest comes to write the scroll of the sota that is to be placed in the water, from what place in the Torah passage concerning the sota (Numbers 5:11–31) does he write? He starts from the verse: “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to defilement while under your husband, you shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse” (Numbers 5:19); and continues: “But if you have gone astray while under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband” (Numbers 5:20). And then he does not write the beginning of the following verse, which states: “Then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say to the woman” (Numbers 5:21), but he does write the oath recorded in the continuation of the verse: “The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath among your people when the Lord will cause your thigh to fall away, and your belly to swell. And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, and cause your belly to swell, and your thigh to fall away” (Numbers 5:21–22); but he does not write the conclusion of the verse: “And the woman shall say: Amen, amen” (Numbers 5:22). Rabbi Yosei says: He does not interrupt the verses but rather writes the entire passage without any omissions. Rabbi Yehuda says: He writes nothing other than curses recorded in the final verses cited above: “The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath among your people when the Lord will cause your thigh to fall away, and your belly to swell. And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, and cause your belly to swell, and your thigh to fall away.” And he does not write the conclusion of the verse: “And the woman shall say: Amen, amen.”

(4) The priest does not write the scroll of the sota upon a wooden tablet, and not upon paper made from grass, and not upon diftera, a hide that is only partially processed, as it is salted and treated with flour but not gallnuts; rather, it must be written only on a scroll of parchment, as it is stated: “And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll” (Numbers 5:23). And the scribe may not write with gum [komos], and not with iron sulfate [kankantom], nor with any substance that makes a mark and cannot be completely erased, but only with ink made from soot, as it is stated in the continuation of the same verse: “And he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness” (Numbers 5:23). This indicates that the scroll must be written with a writing that can be erased in water.

(5) With regard to what does she say: “Amen, amen” (Number 5:22), twice, as recorded in the verse? The mishna explains that it includes of the following: Amen on the curse, as she accepts the curse upon herself if she is guilty, and amen on the oath, as she declares that she is not defiled. She states: Amen if I committed adultery with this man about whom I was warned, amen if I committed adultery with another man. Amen that I did not stray when I was betrothed nor after I was married, nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, since a woman at that stage is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with any men, nor when married through levirate marriage to the yavam; amen that I did not become defiled, and if I did become defiled, may all these curses come upon me. Rabbi Meir says that “amen, amen” means: Amen that I did not become defiled in the past, amen that I will not become defiled in the future.

(6) All agree that he may stipulate with her through this oath neither with regard to what she did before becoming be-trothed to him, nor with regard to what she will do after she becomes divorced from him. Similarly, if a husband divorced his wife, and while divorced she secluded herself with another man and became defiled, and afterward her husband took her back and remarried her, and he then warned her about a specific man, and she secluded herself, and she is now about to drink the water of the sota, he cannot stipulate with her that she take an oath that she did not become defiled during the period in which she was divorced. This is because her husband would become forbidden to her only if she had married another man after being divorced, not if she merely committed an act of promiscuity. This is the principle: In every case where if she would engage in sexual intercourse with someone else she would not become forbidden to her husband due to this act, he may not stipulate with her that her oath include that act. The oath can include only cases in which she would be rendered forbidden to him.

(1) He would take her meal-offering out of the Egyptian wicker basket made of palm leaves in which it was lying and would put it into a service vessel and then place it on her hand. And the priest would then place his hand underneath hers and wave it together with her.

(2) The priest waved it and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful; and the remainder was eaten by the priests. The priest would force the woman to drink the bitter water of a sota, and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon says: The priest would sacrifice her meal-offering and afterward he would force her to drink, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26). But Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the priest first forced her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, it is still valid.

(3) If before the scroll was erased she said: I will not drink, the scroll that was written for her is sequestered, and her meal-offering is burned and scattered over the place of the ashes, and her scroll is not fit to give to another sota to drink. If the scroll was erased and afterward she said: I am defiled, the water is poured out, and her meal-offering is scattered in the place of the ashes. If the scroll was already erased and she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will.

(4) When a guilty woman drinks she does not manage to finish drinking before her face turns green and her eyes bulge, and her skin becomes full of protruding veins, and the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure by dying there. The mishna limits the scope of the previous statement: If she has merit, it delays punishment for her and she does not die immediately. There is a merit that delays punishment for one year, there is a larger merit that delays punishment for two years, and there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. From here Ben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit she has delayed punishment for her. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity [tiflut]. Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship [tiflut] rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. He would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman [perusha], and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world.

(5) Rabbi Shimon says: Merit does not delay the punishment of the bitter water of a sota, and if you say that merit does delay the punishment of the water that causes the curse, as stated earlier by the Rabbis (20a), you weaken [madhe] the power of the bitter water before all the women who drink the water, who will no longer be afraid of it, as they will rely on their merit to save them. And you defame the untainted women who drank the water and survived, as people say: They are defiled but it is their merit that delayed the punishment for them. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Merit delays the punishment of the water that causes the curse, but a woman whose punishment is delayed does not give birth and does not flourish; rather, she progressively deteriorates. Ultimately she dies by the same death as a sota who dies immediately.

(6) If the meal-offering of the sota is rendered impure before it has been sanctified in the service vessel, its status is like that of all the other meal-offerings that are rendered impure before being sanctified in a service vessel, and it is redeemed. But if it is rendered impure after it has been sanctified in the service vessel, its status is like that of all the other meal-offerings that are rendered impure after being sanctified in a service vessel, and it is burned. And these are the sota women whose meal-offerings are burned if they have already been sanctified in a service vessel: A woman who confesses and says: I am defiled, and therefore prohibited to you; and a woman with regard to whom witnesses came and testified that she is defiled; and a woman who says: I will not drink the bitter water of a sota, even if she does not confess her guilt; and a woman whose husband changed his mind and does not want to force her to drink; and a woman whose husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple.

(7) And all the women who are married to priests, their meal-offerings are always burned, as the verse states: “And every meal-offering of a priest shall be completely burned; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). An Israelite woman who is married to a priest, her meal-offering is burned; and the daughter of a priest who is married to an Israelite, her meal-offering is eaten. The mishna asks a general question: What are the differences between a priest and the daughter of a priest? The meal-offering of the daughter of a priest is eaten by the priests, but the meal-offering of a priest is not eaten. The daughter of a priest can become disqualified from marrying a priest and from partaking of teruma by engaging in sexual intercourse with someone forbidden to her, but a priest does not become desacralized by engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman forbidden to him. The daughter of a priest may become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, but a priest may not become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse except for the burial of his seven closest relatives. A priest may eat from offerings of the most sacred order, but the daughter of a priest may not eat from offerings of the most sacred order.

(8) What are the halakhic differences between a man and a woman? A man lets his hair grow and rends his garments when he is a leper, but a woman does not let her hair grow or rend her garments when she is a leper. A man can vow that his minor son shall be a nazirite, obligating the son to remain a nazirite even during his adulthood, but a woman cannot vow that her son shall be a nazirite. A man can shave at the culmination of his naziriteship by using offerings originally designated for his father’s naziriteship, i.e., if one’s father was also a nazirite and he died having already designated offerings for the culmination of his naziriteship; but a woman cannot shave at the culmination of her naziriteship by using offerings designated for her father’s naziriteship. A man can betroth his daughter to another man while she is a minor, but a woman cannot betroth her daughter even while she is a minor. A man can sell his daughter as a maidservant while she is a minor, but a woman cannot sell her daughter as a maidservant even while she is a minor. A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. A man is hanged after he is stoned for certain transgressions, but a woman is not hanged. A man is sold for his committing an act of theft in order to pay his debt, but a woman is not sold for her committing an act of theft.

MISHNA: The mishna details the next stage of the process. They would bring her up to the Sanhedrin that was in Jerusalem, and the judges would threaten her in order that she admit her sin. And this was done in the manner that they would threaten witnesses testifying in cases of capital law. In those cases, the judges would explain to the witnesses the gravity of their testimony by stressing the value of human life. Here too, the judges would attempt to convince the woman to admit her sin, to avoid the loss of her life. And additionally, the judge would say to her: My daughter, wine causes a great deal of immoral behavior, levity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, immaturity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, and bad neighbors cause a great deal of immoral behavior. The judge encouraged her to admit her sin by explaining to her that he understands that there may have been mitigating factors. The judge then continues: Act for the sake of His great name, so that God’s name, which is written in sanctity, shall not be erased on the water. If the woman admits to having committed adultery, the scroll upon which the name of God is written will not be erased. And additionally, the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family, in order to encourage her to admit her sin, as the Gemara will explain. If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. That is, she writes a receipt indicating that she has no claims on her husband with regard to the sum written in her marriage contract, as a woman who admits to adultery forfeits her right to this payment. And she is then divorced from her husband. But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they bring her up to the Eastern Gate, which is at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor, because three rites were performed there: They give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and they purify women who have given birth (see Leviticus 12:6–8), and they purify the lepers (see Leviticus 14:10–20). The mishna continues describing the sota rite. And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them, unconcerned about what happens to the clothing. If the clothes are torn, so they are torn; if the stitches come apart, so they come apart. And he pulls her clothing until he reveals her heart, i.e., her chest. And then he unbraids her hair. Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. If she was dressed in white garments, he would now cover her with black garments. If she was wearing gold adornments, or chokers [katliyot], or nose rings, or finger rings, they removed them from her in order to render her unattractive. And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope fashioned from palm fibers, and he would tie it above her breasts. And anyone who desires to watch her may come to watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them, as seeing one’s slaves reinforces one’s feeling of pride, and their presence may cause her to maintain her innocence. And all of the women are permitted to watch her, as it is stated: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).

GEMARA: The Gemara asks concerning the halakha that the sota is brought before the Sanhedrin: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the words “tora” and “tora.” It is written here, with regard to a sota: “And the priest shall execute upon her all this law [tora]” (Numbers 5:30), and it is written there, with regard to a rebellious Elder, who must go to the place chosen by God and follow the ruling of the Sanhedrin: “According to the law [tora] that they shall teach you” (Deuteronomy 17:11). Just as there the verse is referring to what occurs in the presence of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, so too here, with regard to a sota, the verse is referring to what occurs in the presence of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges.

§ The mishna teaches: And they threaten her in order that she admit her sin, to obviate [remove] the need to erase God’s name.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:6): In the same manner that they threaten her so that she will not drink, so too, they threaten her so that she will drink, as they say to her: My daughter, if the matter is clear to you that you are pure, arise for the sake of your clear position and drink. If you are innocent you have nothing to fear, because the bitter water is similar only to a dry poison placed on the flesh. If there is a wound there, the poison will penetrate and enter the blood stream, but if there is no wound there, it does not have any effect. This teaches that the woman is warned not to drink if she is guilty, but if she is not guilty she is encouraged to drink. There is no mention of the latter in the mishna. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the mishna is referring to before the scroll was erased, and at that point the woman is warned only not to drink if she is guilty, so that the name of God will not be erased. There the baraita is referring to after the scroll was erased. Then she is warned that if she is innocent she should drink because if she now refuses to drink, it will turn out that the scroll was erased for no purpose.

§ The mishna teaches: And the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family in order to encourage her to admit her sin. The Gemara cites a baraita that details what was said. The Sages taught in a baraita: The judge says in her presence words of homiletical interpretation and mentions incidents that happened to previous generations that are recorded in the early prophetic writings. For example, they expound the following verse: “That wise men told and did not hide from their fathers” (Job 15:18); this teaches that even during the time of the forefathers, there were people who admitted their sins despite the shame they incurred. For example, Judah admitted that he sinned with Tamar and was not embarrassed to do so, and what was his end? He inherited the life of the World-to-Come. Reuben admitted that he lay with his father’s concubine Bilhah and was not embarrassed, and what was his end? He too inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: And what is their reward? The Gemara interjects: What is their reward? Their reward was clearly as we say, that they inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara clarifies: Rather, the second question was: What is their reward in this world? The Gemara answers by citing the next verse in the book of Job: “To them alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them” (Job 15:19). Judah was given the kingship, and Reuben inherited a portion of land in the Transjordan before the other tribes. The Gemara questions the source for Reuben’s admission. Granted, with regard to Judah we have found a source that he admitted his sin with Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26). Judah admitted that he was the one who had impregnated Tamar. But from where do we derive that Reuben admitted his sin? The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written concerning Reuben and Judah in Moses’ blessing of the tribes at the end of his life: “Let Reuben live and not die in that his men become few” (Deuteronomy 33:6), and immediately afterward, in the following verse, it is stated: “And this for Judah, and he said: Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him in unto his people; his hands shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7). What is the connection between the blessing of Reuben and that of Judah, juxtaposed with the conjunction “and”? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All those years that the Jewish people were in the desert, the bones of Judah, which the Jewish people took with them from Egypt along with the bones of his brothers, were rolling around in the coffin, until Moses arose and asked for compassion on Judah’s behalf. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who served as the impetus for Reuben that he admit his sin, through which he merited a blessing and was not excluded from the count of the twelve sons of Jacob (see Genesis 35:22)? It was Judah, as Reuben saw him confess his sin, and thereby did the same. Moses continues in the next verse: “And this for Judah,” as if to say: Is this Judah’s reward for serving as an example of confessing to one’s sins, that his bones roll around? Immediately after Moses prayed, the verse states: “Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah” (Deuteronomy 33:7). His bones then entered their sockets [shafa], and his skeleton was reassembled. But the angels still did not elevate him into the heavenly study hall. Moses then prayed: “And bring him in unto his people” (Deuteronomy 33:7), i.e., those in the heavenly study hall. This prayer was accepted, but he still did not know how to deliberate in Torah matters with the heavenly sages. Moses then prayed: “His hands shall contend for him” (Deuteronomy 33:7), meaning that he should have the ability to contend with them in study. But still he was unable to draw conclusions from his discussion in accordance with the halakha. Moses then prayed: “And You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7).

The Gemara discusses the propriety of admitting one’s sins in public. Granted, with regard to Judah, it was proper that he admitted his sin in public, as he did so in order that Tamar not be burned innocently. But why did Reuben admit his sin in public? But didn’t Rav Sheshet say: I consider one who specifies his sins in public to be brazen, as one who does so indicates that he is not embarrassed by his actions? The Gemara answers: The reason he admitted his sin in public was in order that his brothers should not be suspected of having committed the deed.

§ The mishna teaches: If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. The Gemara comments: You can learn from this mishna that one writes a receipt to serve as proof that a debt has been paid rather than tearing the promissory note. This matter is the subject of a dispute between the tanna’im in tractate Bava Batra (170b). Abaye said: Teach in the mishna differently. Rather than understanding that she writes a receipt, explain it to mean: She tears her marriage contract. Rava said to him: But the mishna teaches explicitly that she writes a receipt. Rather, to explain the mishna, Rava said: We are dealing with a place in which they do not write a marriage contract, as they rely on the rabbinical ordinance that all wives are entitled to the sum of a standard marriage contract upon divorce or being widowed, even if no marriage contract has been written. Because there is no marriage contract to tear, a receipt is written so that the man can prove that he no longer has a monetary obligation. However, generally, it is possible that the document would be torn, and no proof can be adduced from this mishna.

§ The mishna teaches: But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they would bring her up to the Eastern Gate. The Gemara asks: Would they bring her up? She is already standing there in the Temple courtyard, as that is where the Sanhedrin sits. The Gemara answers: This teaches that they would bring her up and would bring her down repeatedly in order to fatigue her, with the hope that her worn-down mental state will lead to her confession. This was also done with witnesses testifying in cases of capital law, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:1): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: In cases of capital law, the court brings the witnesses from one place to another place in order to confuse them so that they will retract their testimony if they are lying.

MISHNA: He would take her meal-offering out of the Egyptian wicker basket made of palm leaves in which it was lying and would put it into a service vessel and then place it on her hand. And the priest would then place his hand underneath hers and wave it together with her. The priest waved it and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful; and the remainder was eaten by the priests. The priest would force the woman to drink the bitter water of a sota, and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon says: The priest would sacrifice her meal-offering and afterward he would force her to drink, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26). But Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the priest first forced her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, it is still valid. GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation, i.e., his contemporary: You shall not sit on your feet until you explain this matter to me: From where is it derived that the meal-offering of a sota requires waving? The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: From where do we derive this? It is explicitly written with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: “And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the Lord, and bring it unto the altar” (Numbers 5:25). Rather, the question is as follows: From where do we derive that the waving is performed by the owner, i.e., the woman, and not only by the priest? Rabbi Yoshiya answered: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term “hand” written here and “hand” from the peace-offering: It is written here, with regard to the meal-offering of a sota: “And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand” (Numbers 5:25), and it is written there, with regard to the peace-offering: “He that offers his peace-offerings unto the Lord…His own hands shall bring the offerings…that the breast may be waved before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:29–30). Just as here, in the case of the sota, the priest waves the offering, so too there, in the case of the peace-offering, the priest waves the offering. And just as there, in the case of the peace-offering, the owner waves the offering, so too here, in the case of the sota, the owner waves the offering. How is this accomplished? The priest places his hand beneath the hands of the owner and then waves the offering with the owner. § The mishna states: The priest waved it and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful. Yet the continuation of the mishna states: The priest would force the woman to drink, and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering. The Gemara asks: Didn’t the mishna state in the previous phrase that the offering was already sacrificed? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: What was the sacrificial order of meal-offerings in general? The priest waved the meal-offering and brought it near to the southwest corner of the altar, removed a handful from it, and burned the handful, and the remainder was eaten by the priests. And as for the correct order for sacrificing the meal-offering of the sota and forcing her to drink, this itself is a matter about which Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree, as the Rabbis hold that the priest would force the woman to drink and afterward he would sacrifice her meal-offering; and Rabbi Shimon holds that the priest would sacrifice her meal-offering and afterward he would force her to drink, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26). § The mishna states: But Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the priest first forced her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, the offering is still valid. The Sages taught: What is the meaning when the verse states after the sacrifice of the meal-offering: “And he shall make her drink the water” (Numbers 5:27)? But isn’t it already stated: “And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse” (Numbers 5:24)? The baraita answers: The repetition teaches that if the scroll was already erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced [me’arerin] to drink against her will. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial part of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26)? But isn’t it already stated previously: “And he shall make the woman drink” (Numbers 5:24)? Rather, this verse indicates that the sota is given the bitter water to drink only after all the actions that are stated above are performed, i.e., erasing the scroll, sacrificing the meal-offering, and administering the oath. Therefore, this verse teaches that three matters preclude her from drinking: She does not drink until the handful is sacrificed, and until the scroll is erased, and until she accepts the oath upon herself. The Gemara elaborates: She does not drink until the handful is sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning stated earlier, as he says that the priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink. The Gemara questions the second condition: She does not drink until the scroll is erased. Why does the baraita need to state this? But what could he give her to drink if the scroll was not yet erased into the water? Rav Ashi says: No, this halakha is necessary for an instance where the scroll was erased, but the impression of the ink is still discernible on the parchment. The woman does not drink until the scroll is totally erased. The Gemara discusses the third condition: She does not drink until she accepts the oath upon herself. One might infer from this statement that it is only that she does not drink before she accepts the oath; however, the scroll is written for her before she accepts the oath. But didn’t Rava say: With regard to a scroll of a sota that was written before she accepted the oath upon herself, whoever wrote it did nothing, and the scroll is rendered invalid. The Gemara responds: This was cited for no reason, as in fact the scroll is not even written before she accepts the oath upon herself, and nothing should be inferred. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the mishna? The Gemara answers: Three verses are written which pertain to drinking the bitter water: The first occurrence of the term is in the verse: “And he shall make the woman drink” (Numbers 5:24); the second: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26); and the last occurrence of the term is in the verse: “And he shall make her drink” (Numbers 5:27). The Rabbis hold that the first occurrence of the term: “And he shall make the woman drink,” is written to teach the halakha itself, i.e., that the priest first forces her to drink and afterward sacrifices her meal-offering. The second instance: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink,” is necessary to teach that as long as the impression of the writing is still discernible, the sota is not given the bitter water to drink. The third verse, the last occurrence of the term: “And he shall make her drink,” teaches that if the scroll was erased and then the woman says: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the second verse: “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26), is written to teach the halakha itself, i.e., that the priest first sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink. The first occurrence of the term: “And he shall make the woman drink,” teaches that if he forced her to drink and only afterward sacrificed her meal-offering, the offering is nevertheless valid. The last occurrence of the term: “And he shall make her drink,” teaches that if the scroll was erased and then she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will. The Gemara explains the Rabbis’ opinion: And the Rabbis would respond to Rabbi Shimon that the verse does not begin the discussion with a halakha that is applicable only after the fact, and therefore the initial mention of the drinking is referring to the proper time for the ritual. The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Akiva in fact hold that the woman is forced to drink against her will? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:3) that Rabbi Yehuda says: A hook [kelabus] made of iron is forcibly placed into her mouth, so that if the scroll was erased and she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will. Rabbi Akiva said: It is not necessary to force her to drink. Don’t we need to force her to drink the water only in order to evaluate her fidelity? And isn’t she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink, as she is essentially admitting her guilt? Rather, Rabbi Akiva’s statement should be understood as follows: Until the handful is sacrificed she can retract her decision to drink the bitter water; however, once the handful is sacrificed she cannot retract her decision to drink. The Gemara asks: But according to your reasoning in explanation of Rabbi Akiva’s statement, this explanation itself should pose a difficulty for you. Why can’t she retract her decision once the handful is sacrificed? And isn’t she established as having been evaluated when she refuses to drink? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, where she is forced to drink, is referring to a situation where she retracts her decision to drink due to fear, as her refusal is not viewed as an admission of guilt, and it is possible that if she drinks she will be found undefiled. And that case, where she does not drink, is referring to a situation where she retracts her decision in a state of good health. Since she does not appear to be afraid, her refusal is viewed as an admission of guilt. And this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: In any case where she retracts her decision to drink in a state of good health, she does not drink at all. With regard to a sota who retracts her decision due to fear, if she retracts her decision before the handful is sacrificed, when the scroll has not yet been erased; or even if the scroll was already erased, since the priests acted incorrectly when they erased it beforehand; she can retract her decision. Once the handful is sacrificed, in which case the priests acted correctly when they erased the scroll, she cannot retract her decision, and she is forced to drink against her will.

MISHNA: If before the scroll was erased she said: I will not drink, the scroll that was written for her is sequestered, and her meal-offering is burned and scattered over the place of the ashes, and her scroll is not fit to give to another sota to drink. If the scroll was erased and afterward she said: I am defiled, the water is poured out, and her meal-offering is scattered in the place of the ashes. If the scroll was already erased and she said: I will not drink, she is forced to drink against her will. When a guilty woman drinks she does not manage to finish drinking before her face turns green and her eyes bulge, and her skin becomes full of protruding veins, and the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure by dying there. The mishna limits the scope of the previous statement: If she has merit, it delays punishment for her and she does not die immediately. There is a merit that delays punishment for one year, there is a larger merit that delays punishment for two years, and there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. From here Ben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit she has delayed punishment for her. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity [tiflut]. Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship [tiflut] rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. He would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman [perusha], and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world.

§ The mishna states: And the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is lest she die there immediately and render the women’s courtyard, where she drinks the water, impure. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a corpse is prohibited from being in the women’s courtyard, which has the same status as the Levite camp in the desert? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted to enter the Levite camp. And the Sages said this not only with regard to one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; rather, even a corpse itself may be brought into the Levite camp, as it is stated: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19), which is interpreted to mean: With him, in his vicinity, even though Moses was in the Levite camp. Abaye said: The woman is removed not due to a concern that she will die there but lest the fear of the water cause her to begin to menstruate, and it is prohibited for a menstruating woman to enter the Levite camp. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that fear causes muscular relaxation and menstrual bleeding? The Gemara responds: Yes, as it is written: “And the Queen was exceedingly pained” (Esther 4:4), and Rav says: This means that she began to menstruate. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nidda 39a) that trepidation eliminates the flow of menstrual blood? Presumably, the sota experiences trepidation. The Gemara answers: Trepidation generated by extended worry contracts the muscles and prevents the blood from flowing, but sudden fear relaxes the muscles and causes the blood to flow.

§ The mishna states: And there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. The Gemara asks: Which merit can delay the punishment of a sota? If we say it is the merit of the Torah that she has studied; but a woman who studies Torah is one who is not commanded to do so and performs a mitzva, whose reward is less than that of one who is obligated? Therefore, it would be insufficient to suspend her punishment. Rather, perhaps it is the merit of a mitzva that she performed. The Gemara asks: Does the merit of a mitzva protect one so much as to delay her punishment? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse homiletically: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23). The verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun. The mitzva is associated with a lamp in order to say to you: Just as a lamp does not protect one by its light extensively but only temporarily, while the lamp is in one’s hand, so too, a mitzva protects one only temporarily, i.e., while one is performing the mitzva. And the Torah is associated with light in order to say to you: Just as the light of the sun protects one forever, so too, the Torah one studies protects one forever; and it states in the previous verse with regard to the Torah: “When you walk, it shall lead you; when you lie down, it shall watch over you; and when you awake, it shall talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). The Gemara explains: “When you walk, it shall lead you”; this is referring to when one is in this world. “When you lie down, it shall watch over you”; this is referring to the time of death, when one lies in his grave. “And when you awake, it shall talk with you”; this is referring to the time to come after the resurrection of the dead. The Torah that one studies protects and guides him both in this world and in the next world. This can be illustrated by a parable, as it is comparable to a man who is walking in the blackness of night and the darkness, and he is afraid of the thorns, and of the pits, and of the thistles, which he cannot see due to the darkness. And he is also afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits that lurk at night, and he does not know which way he is walking. If a torch of fire comes his way, which is analogous to a mitzva, he is safe from the thorns and from the pits and from the thistles, but he is still afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits, and still does not know which way he is walking. Once the light of dawn rises, which is analogous to Torah study, he is safe from the wild animals and from the bandits, which no longer roam the roads, but he still does not know which way he is walking. If he arrives at a crossroads and recognizes the way, he is saved from all of them.

Alternatively, the verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun in order to teach that a transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva one performed, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah one studied, as it is stated: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love, neither can the floods drown it” (Song of Songs 8:7). The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. One can conclude from the baraita that the merit of performing a mitzva is insufficient to suspend punishment. Rav Yosef said that with regard to a mitzva, at the time when one is engaged in its performance it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the evil inclination; at the time when one is not engaged in its performance, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. With regard to Torah study, both at the time when one is engaged in it and at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the evil inclination. Therefore, the merit of the woman’s mitzvot does protect her from misfortune and delay her punishment. Rabba objects to this explanation: If that is so, then with regard to Doeg (see I Samuel, chapters 21–22) and Ahithophel (see II Samuel, chapter 16), who were both wise scholars despite their wickedness, did they not engage in the study of Torah? Why did it not protect them from sinning? Rather, Rava said: With regard to Torah study, at the time when one is engaged in it, it protects and saves; at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. With regard to a mitzva, both at the time when one is engaged in its performance and at the time when one is not engaged in its performance, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. Ravina said: Actually, the merit that delays the punishment of the sota is the merit of Torah study, and with regard to that which you say, i.e., that she is not commanded to do so and performs a mitzva, the mishna is not referring to the merit of her own Torah study. Granted, she is not commanded to study Torah herself; however, in reward for causing their sons to read the Written Torah and to learn the Mishna, and for waiting for their husbands until they come home from the study hall, don’t they share the reward with their sons and husbands? Therefore, if the sota enabled her sons and husband to study Torah, the merit of their Torah study can protect her and delay her punishment. With regard to the aforementioned parable, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the crossroads, which provide clarity? Rav Ḥisda says: This is referring to a Torah scholar and his day of death. Due to his continued commitment to the Torah, when the time comes for him to die, it is clear to him that he will go to the place of his eternal reward. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: This is a Torah scholar who has also acquired fear of sin, as his fear of sin guides him to the correct understanding of the Torah. Mar Zutra says: This is a Torah scholar who reaches conclusions from his discussion in accordance with the halakha, as that is an indication that he is following the right path. The baraita states: Alternatively: A transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah. Rav Yosef says: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse as it was given on Mount Sinai, and had Doeg and Ahithophel only interpreted it in this way they would not have pursued David, as it is written: “For my enemies speak concerning me…saying, God has forsaken him; pursue and take him, for there is none to deliver” (Psalms 71:10–11). Doeg and Ahithophel incorrectly thought that since David had sinned, his sins had extinguished his merits and God had forsaken him. The Gemara asks: What verse did Doeg and Ahithophel interpret incorrectly, causing them to err? They interpreted this verse: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp…to give up your enemies before you…that He see no licentious matter in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), to indicate that God turns away from one who engaged in forbidden relations, and since David had sinned with Bathsheba God must have turned away from him. But they did not know that a transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah. The Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse cited by the baraita with regard to Torah study: What is the meaning of: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love…if a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7)? The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. Therefore, the verse indicates that one cannot acquire a share in the reward for Torah study with money. Ulla says: The verse is not speaking of individuals like Shimon, brother of Azarya, whose brother Azarya supported him and enabled him to study Torah. And it is not speaking of individuals like Rabbi Yoḥanan of the house of the Nasi, whom the Nasi supported so that he could study Torah. Rather, it is speaking of individuals like Hillel and Shevna, as when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia he said: Hillel and Shevna were brothers; Hillel engaged in Torah study and remained impoverished, whereas Shevna entered into a business venture and became wealthy. In the end, Shevna said to Hillel: Come, let us join our wealth together and divide it between us; I will give you half of my money and you will give me half of the reward for your Torah study. In response to this request a Divine Voice issued forth and said: “If a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7).

§ The mishna states: From here ben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit of hers has delayed her punishment. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity. The Gemara asks: Could it enter your mind to say that teaching one’s daughter Torah is actually teaching her promiscuity? Rather, say: It is considered as if he taught her promiscuity. Rabbi Abbahu says: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s statement? It is as it is written: “I, wisdom, dwell with cunning” (Proverbs 8:12), which indicates that once wisdom enters into a person, cunning enters with it. Rabbi Eliezer fears that the woman will use the cunning she achieves by learning the wisdom of the Torah to engage in promiscuous behavior. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis who disagree with him, what do they do with this verse: “I, wisdom, dwell with cunning [orma]”; how do they interpret it? The Gemara responds: He requires that verse for that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, states, interpreting the word “orma” as nakedness rather than cunningness, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who stands naked for them, as it is stated: “I, wisdom, dwell with nakedness [orma]” (Proverbs 8:12). This means that wisdom dwells only in one who is prepared to give away all of his possessions for the sake of Torah study. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who considers himself as one who does not exist, as it is stated: “But wisdom, it can be found in nothingness” (Job 28:12). § The mishna states that Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relation-ship rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? This is what Rabbi Yehoshua is saying: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and with it a sexual relationship, i.e., her husband’s availability to fulfill her sexual desires, rather than nine kav of food and with it abstinence, and since her desires are of a sexual nature, it is undesirable for her to study Torah.

Rabbi Yoḥanan would announce: Be careful of the flies found on those afflicted with ra’atan, as they are carriers of the disease. Rabbi Zeira would not sit in a spot where the wind blew from the direction of someone afflicted with ra’atan. Rabbi Elazar would not enter the tent of one afflicted with ra’atan, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would not eat eggs from an alley in which someone afflicted with ra’atan lived. --->

Conversely, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would attach himself to them and study Torah, saying as justification the verse: “The Torah is a loving hind and a graceful doe” (Proverbs 5:19). If it bestows grace on those who learn it, does it not protect them from illness? When Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was on the verge of dying, they said to the Angel of Death: Go and perform his bidding, as he is a righteous man and deserves to die in the manner he sees fit. The Angel of Death went and appeared to him. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Show me my place in paradise. He said to him: Very well. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Give me your knife that you use to kill mortals, lest you frighten me on the way. He gave it to him. When he arrived there, in paradise, he lifted Rabbi Yehoshua so he could see his place, and he showed it to him. Rabbi Yehoshua jumped and fell into that other side, thereby escaping into paradise. The Angel of Death grabbed him by the corner of his cloak. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: I swear that I will not come with you. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: If he ever in his life requested dissolution concerning an oath he had taken, he must return to this world with the Angel of Death, as he can have his oath dissolved this time also. If he did not ever request dissolution of an oath, he need not return. Since Rabbi Yehoshua had in fact never requested dissolution of an oath, he was allowed to stay in paradise. The Angel of Death said to him: At least give me my knife back. However, he did not give it to him, as he did not want any more people to die. A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Give it to him, as it is necessary to kill the created beings; death is the way of the world. Elijah the Prophet announced before him: Make way for the son of Levi, make way for the son of Levi. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went and found in paradise Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai sitting on thirteen golden stools [takhtekei]. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: Are you the son of Levi? He said to him: Yes. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Was a rainbow ever seen in your days? He said: Yes. Rabbi Shimon retorted: If so, you are not the son of Levi, as he is a completely righteous man. During the lifetimes of completely righteous people no rainbows are visible, as they are a sign that the world deserves to be destroyed by a flood; whereas the merit of the righteous protects the world from such things. The Gemara comments: And that is not so, for there was no rainbow seen at all during the lifetime of Rabbi Yehoshua, but he thought: I do not want to take credit for myself by presenting myself as such a righteous person. The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa was a friend of the Angel of Death and would see him frequently. When Rabbi Ḥanina was on the verge of dying, they said to the Angel of Death: Go and perform his bidding. He went before him and appeared to him. He said to the angel: Leave me for thirty days until I have reviewed my studies, for they say: Happy is he who comes here, to paradise, with his learning in his hand. He left him, and after thirty days he again went and appeared to him. He said to the Angel of Death: Show me my place in paradise. He said to him: Very well. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Give me your knife, lest you frighten me on the way. The Angel of Death said to him: Do you wish to do to me as your friend Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did, and escape?

§ The mishna states that an abstinent woman is among those who erode the world. The Sages taught: A maiden who prays constantly, and a neighborly [shovavit] widow who constantly visits her neighbors, and a child whose months of gestation were not completed, all these are people who erode the world. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: We learned the meaning of fear of sin from a maiden, and the significance of receiving divine reward from a widow. The meaning of fear of sin can be learned from a maiden, as Rabbi Yoḥanan heard a certain maiden who fell on her face in prayer, and she was saying: Master of the Universe, You created the Garden of Eden and You created Gehenna, You created the righteous and You created the wicked. May it be Your will that men shall not stumble because of me and consequently go to Gehenna. The significance of receiving divine reward can be learned from a widow, as there was a certain widow in whose neighborhood there was a synagogue, and despite this every day she went and prayed in the study hall of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to her: My daughter, is there not a synagogue in your neighborhood? She said to him: My teacher, don’t I attain a reward for all the steps I take while walking to pray in the distant study hall? The Gemara answers: When it is stated in the baraita that a maiden who prays constantly is one who erodes the world, it is referring, for example, to Yoḥani bat Retivi, who constantly prayed and pretended to be saintly but actually engaged in sorcery. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of a child whose months of gestation were not completed? Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted this as alluding to an imperfect, incomplete Torah scholar who scorns his teachers. Rabbi Abba says: This is a student who has not yet attained the ability to issue halakhic rulings, and yet he issues rulings and is therefore compared to a prematurely born child. This is as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For she has cast down many wounded; and a mighty host are all her slain” (Proverbs 7:26)? “For she has cast down [hippila] many wounded”; this is referring to a Torah scholar who has not yet attained the ability to issue rulings, and yet he issues rulings. “And a mighty host [ve’atzumim] are all her slain”; this is referring to a Torah scholar who has attained the ability to issue rulings, but does not issue rulings and prevents the masses from learning Torah properly. And until when is it considered too premature for a scholar to issue halakhic rulings? It is until forty years. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabba issue rulings, even though he lived for only forty years? The Gemara answers: It is permitted for a scholar who has not studied for so long to issue rulings when his knowledge reaches the level of the foremost scholar in his city and they are equals.