|  |  | Previous Folio / Sotah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah ### Folio 20a But R. Akiba [nevertheless] contradicts himself; he declared above that it was the obliteration [of the inscription] which prevents [her from retracting], and here he declares that [the offering of the] handful prevents her! — There are two Tannaim [who take opposite sides on this question] in the view of R. Akiba. The question was asked, how is it if she said: 'I refuse to drink' through defiance and she retracts and says 'I am willing to drink'? Is it that since she said: 'I refuse to drink' she admitted 'I am unclean', and having presumed her self to be unclean, she is unable to retract; or perhaps, since she says 'I am willing to drink', she evidences that she first spoke in terror? — The question remains unanswered. Samuel's father said: It is necessary to put something bitter into the water. What is the reason? Scripture declares, The water of bitterness1 — i.e., [water] which had been previously made bitter. MISHNAH. IF, BEFORE [THE WRITING ON] THE SCROLL HAD BEEN BLOTTED OUT, SHE SAID 'I REFUSE TO DRINK', HER SCROLL IS STORED AWAY2 AND HER MEAL-OFFERING IS SCATTERED OVER THE ASHES.3 HER SCROLL IS NOT VALID TO BE USED IN GIVING ANOTHER SUSPECTED WOMAN TO DRINK. IF [THE WRITING ON] THE SCROLL HAS BEEN BLOTTED OUT AND SHE SAID 'I AM UNCLEAN', THE WATER IS POURED AWAY AND HER MEAL-OFFERING IS SCATTERED IN THE PLACE OF THE ASHES.4 IF [THE WRITING ON] THE SCROLL HAD BEEN BLOTTED OUT AND SHE SAID 'I REFUSE TO DRINK', THEY EXERT INFLUENCE UPON HER AND MAKE HER DRINK BY FORCE. |  |  |
Dilling discusses highlighted text
|  |  | SHE HAD SCARCELY FINISHED DRINKING WHEN HER FACE TURNS GREEN, HER EYES PROTRUDE AND HER VEINS SWELL;5 AND IT IS EXCLAIMED, REMOVE HER THAT THE TEMPLE-COURT BE NOT DEFILED'.6 IF SHE POSSESSED A MERIT, IT [CAUSES THE WATER] TO SUSPEND ITS EFFECT UPON HER. SOME MERIT SUSPENDS THE EFFECT FOR ONE YEAR, ANOTHER FOR TWO YEARS, AND ANOTHER FOR THREE YEARS. HENCE DECLARED BEN AZZAI, A MAN IS UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO TEACH HIS DAUGHTER TORAH, SO THAT IF SHE HAS TO DRINK [THE WATER OF BITTERNESS], SHE MAY KNOW THAT THE MERIT SUSPENDS7 ITS EFFECT. R. ELIEZER SAYS: WHOEVER TEACHES HIS DAUGHTER TORAH TEACHES HER OBSCENITY. R. JOSHUA SAYS: A WOMAN PREFERS ONE KAB 8 AND SEXUAL INDULGENCE TO NINE KAB 9 AND CONTINENCE. HE USED TO SAY, A FOOLISH PIETIST, A CUNNING ROGUE, A FEMALE PHARISEE, AND THE PLAGUE OF PHARISEES10 BRING DESTRUCTION UPON THE WORLD. GEMARA. Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of R. Meir: When I studied Torah with R. Akiba, I used to put vitriol11 into the ink and he said nothing to me; but when I went to R. Ishmael, he said to me, 'My son, what is thy occupation?' I answered: 'I am a scribe'.12 He told me: 'My son, be careful, because thy work is the work of Heaven; if thou omittest a single letter or addest a single letter, thou dost as a consequence destroy the whole world'.13 I said to him, 'There is an ingredient which I put into the ink, and its name is vitriol'. He asked me, 'May we put vitriol into the ink? The Torah has said: He shall blot out,14 i.e., writing which can be blotted out!' What did [R. Ishmael] intend to tell [R. Meir] that the latter answered him in that manner?15 — [R. Meir] meant, Obviously, I am skilled in the rules of defective and plene spelling;16 but I even have no reason to fear lest a fly should come and settle upon the crownlet of the letter D and obliterate it so that it makes it look like the letter R.17 There is an ingredient which I put into the ink, and its name is vitriol. But it is not so, for it has been taught: R. Meir said: When I studied Torah with R. Ishmael, I used to put vitriol into the ink and he said nothing to me; but when I went to R. Akiba, he forbade it to me! Here is an inconsistency in [the order of the Rabbis upon whom R. Meir] attended, and an inconsistency in [the name of the Rabbi who] forbade it. It is quite right, there is no inconsistency in [the order of the Rabbis upon whom R. Meir] attended; he first went to R. Akiba, but when he was unable [to follow his arguments],18 he went to R. Ishmael. After having studied19 with him, he returned to R. Akiba whose reasoning he was then able to grasp. But there is an inconsistency in [the name of the Rabbi who] forbade it! — That is a difficulty. It has been taught: R. Judah says: R. Meir used to declare that for all [kinds of script] we may put vitriol into the ink To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Num. V, 18. It was not destroyed because the inscription included the Divine Name. Of the Temple-offerings. This was a special Court in the Temple where the refuse of sacrifices was destroyed. Literally, she becomes filled with veins. The reason is discussed in the Gemara. [MS.M.: 'suspended'. In the absence of such a knowledge, the woman who passed through the ordeal unscathed may be led to doubt the efficacy of the water of bitterness searching out sin, and thus indulge in further immoral practices. By realising however that merit has suspended the effects, she would pause and be in constant dread of the fate hanging over her.] Metaphorical for a scanty livelihood. Luxurious style of living. All these phrases will be explained in the Gemara. V. supra p. 90. n. 8. Of Torah-scrolls for use in the Synagogue. Such an error might turn a phrase into blasphemy. Num. V, 23. By mentioning the use of vitriol. I.e., the use of vowel letters which are sometimes added and sometimes omitted. [Changing, e.g., [H] 'the Lord is one' into [H] 'another.'] Which, through lack of knowledge, were beyond his comprehension. [Lit., 'learned Gemara'. On the term Gemara v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 206. n. 6. Here it denotes the summary of Tannaitic teachings preserved in early Mishnas and Baraithas; v. Epistle of Sherira Gaon, p. 44.] Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Sotah 20b except only for the portion concerning the suspected woman. R. Jacob says in his [R. Meir's] name, Except the portion of the suspected woman [written] in the Temple.1 What is the difference between them? — R. Jeremiah said: The point between them is [whether it is permissible] to blot out from the Torah [-scroll the passage required for the rite of the water of bitterness];2 and these teachers [differ on the same issue] as the following teachers, for it has been taught: Her scroll is not valid to be used in giving another suspected woman to drink. R. Ahi b. Joshiah says: Her scroll is valid to be used in giving another suspected woman to drink.3 R. papa said: perhaps it is not so, the first teacher only gives his opinion there because [the scroll] was designated for Rachel and cannot therefore be re-designated for Leah, but since the text of the Torah-scroll is written without reference to any individual, we may obliterate [the passage]. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: perhaps It is not so; R. Ahi b. Joshiah only gives his opinion there in the case of a scroll which was written for the purpose of the curses; but with a Torah-scroll which is written for the purpose of study, we may not obliterate [the passage]. Does not, then, R. Ahi b. Joshiah accept what we learnt: If a man wrote [a document] to divorce his wife but changed his mind, and then met a man who resided in the same city4 and said to him, 'My name is identical with yours and my wife's name identical with your wife's name', it is invalid [as a document] wherewith to divorce?5 — They answer: There [in connection with divorce] the All-Merciful declared: He shall write for her6 — we require that it should be written expressly for her; here likewise [it is stated], Shall execute upon her7 — what is intended by the word 'execute'? The obliteration [of the writing].8 SHE HAD SCARCELY FINISHED DRINKING WHEN HER FACE etc. Whose [teaching] is this?9 — It is R. Simeon's, because he said that [the priest] sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink,10 since the water does not affect her so long as her meal-offering is not sacrificed, as it is written: A meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to rememberance.11 But cite the continuation [of the Mishnah]: IF SHE POSSESSED A MERIT, IT [CAUSES THE WATER] TO SUSPEND ITS EFFECT UPON HER — this accords with the view of the Rabbis; because if [it be supposed that it accords with the view of] R. Simeon, behold he has declared: Merit does not cause the water of bitterness to suspend its effect!12 — R. Hisda said: Whose is it, then? It is R. Akiba's, because he said: He sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink, and on the question of [the effect of] merit he agrees with the Rabbis. AND IT IS EXCLAIMED, 'REMOVE HER' etc. What is the reason? — Perhaps she dies. Is this to say that a corpse is forbidden in the camp of the Levites?13 But it has been taught: One who is defiled through contact with a corpse is permitted to enter the camp of the Levites; and not only did they say this of one who is defiled through contact with a corpse but even the corpse itself [may be taken there], as it is said: And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him14 — 'with him', i.e., in his division!15 — Abaye said: [The reason is] lest she become menstruant.16 Is this to say that a sudden fright brings on [menstruation]? — Yes, for it is written: And the queen was exceedingly grieved,17 and Rab said, [It means] that she became menstruant. But we have learnt: Trembling holds back [the menstrual] flow! — Fear holds it back but a sudden fright brings It on. IF SHE POSSESSED A MERIT etc. Whose teaching is our Mishnah? It is not that of Abba Jose b. Hanan, nor of R. Eleazar b. Isaac of Kefar Darom, nor of R. Ishmael; for it has been taught: If she possess a merit, it suspends [the effect of the water] for three months, sufficiently long for pregnancy to be recognisable. Such is the statement of Abba Jose b. Hanan; R. Eleazar b. Isaac of Kefar Darom says: For nine months, as it is stated: Then she shall be free and shall conceive seed,18 and elsewhere it declares, A seed shall serve him, it shall be related19 — i.e., a seed which is fit to be related.20 R. Ishmael says: For twelve months, and although there is no proof of this, yet there is some indication; because it is written, Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor,' - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Specially prepared for the ordeal. According to R. Jacob it is not permissible, and consequently one may use vitriol for writing that portion in the Torah-scroll. The point here also is whether the scroll must be expressly written for the ordeal. The name of the city is inserted in the document. The second woman, since it must be written expressly for the woman who is to be divorced, v. Git. 24a. Deut. XXIV. 1. Num. V, 30. Only the obliteration, but not the writing, must be expressly for the woman who is being tried. That the water takes effect as soon as she drinks it. V. supra 19a. Ibid. 15. V. supra p. 25. Consequently the above teaching cannot be R. Simeon's. The Court of the Levites in the Temple where the Court of Women and the Nicanor Gate (v. supra p. 30, n. 9.) were located. Ex. XIII, 19. Which was the camp of the Levites. As the result of her agitation. Est. IV, 4. Num. V, 28. Ps. XXII, 31. Viz., at birth, and so the period of nine months is required. Rashi explains differently. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |