The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Massechet Sotah, has been dedicated by our good friends and students, Mr. Haimi and Dina Dana, Hashem Mishvinim V'Hayim, for the success of their children, and especially for the complete recovery of Moshe ben Dina. It is also dedicated for the souls of Yosef ben Sarina, David ben Frida, Nair ben Zohara, Moshe ben Feigarut, Sarah bat Esther, Feigarut bat Esther, and Esther bat Yochevet. May the spirit of Hashem be with them in the Garden of Eden. Amen. May you merit to perform many mitzvot.
We now discuss the procedure of the sotah. Once there are two witnesses that the husband warned his wife and that she subsequently secluded herself, she must be brought to the Beit HaMikdash. What is the procedure?
The Mishnah says that they bring her to the local court, which is the Great Court in Yerushalayim. They give her over to two Torah scholars, who escort the husband and his wife to the Beit HaMikdash. Why are two scholars needed to escort them? They must protect the husband from being alone with his wife on the way. Once she has become a sotah, the husband is forbidden to have relations with her. Therefore, two scholars accompany them to ensure that he does not have relations with her during the journey.
Rabbi Yehuda says that the husband is trusted regarding his wife. No escorts are necessary, because he is believed not to do anything with her.
The Gemara asks: How many people are traveling with this woman to Yerushalayim? There are three—the husband and the two Torah scholars. Perhaps this supports Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, who said that a woman may not seclude herself with one man, but she may seclude herself with two men, because each man is presumed to watch the other. Perhaps that ruling applies only in the city. On the road, however, perhaps one woman requires three men, because if there are only two men and one of them needs to leave temporarily, the woman will be left alone with the other man. If so, perhaps the Mishnah requires the husband and two scholars because three people are necessary to prevent seclusion on the road.
The Gemara rejects this proof. The two scholars are not required because of the laws of seclusion. Even on the road, two men would be sufficient. Rather, they are needed as witnesses. If the husband travels with his wife, someone must be able to testify before the court that he went with her. The two scholars can testify that he accompanied her, so that if he had relations with her, she will not be permitted to drink the sotah waters. Thus, the requirement for two scholars is not related to seclusion; from the perspective of seclusion, two men in total would be enough.
The Gemara then asks: If the purpose is only to have witnesses, why must they be Torah scholars? Any two men would suffice. Perhaps the Mishnah supports another statement of Rav: that the rule allowing a woman to seclude herself with two men applies only when the men are trustworthy. If they are morally lax, even ten men may not seclude themselves with her, because we suspect that they will sin.
The Gemara brings an example. There was once a group of morally lax men who wanted to be with a particular woman. They pretended that she had died, placed her in a coffin, and carried her out of the city. Once they were outside the city, the ten men violated her. We therefore see that even ten men do not provide protection when they are morally lax. Perhaps the fact that the Mishnah requires two Torah scholars teaches that two men are sufficient only when they are trustworthy.
The Gemara rejects this explanation as well. The scholars are needed in order to give the husband a proper warning before he commits the act. They must tell him that he may not be with his wife, because she is now a sotah, and that if he goes with her, she will not be able to drink the waters. This is why the Mishnah specifically requires Torah scholars. It does not provide proof that the laws of seclusion require trustworthy men. Perhaps two men of any kind would be sufficient for seclusion.
It follows that, according to the conclusion of this discussion, two escorts are required not because three people are needed to resolve the issue of seclusion, but because the escorts must be witnesses in case the husband does something forbidden. The husband and one other man would be sufficient for the laws of seclusion, whether they were in the city or on the road. The two scholars are required so that there will be two witnesses who can testify about what occurred.
The Gemara further explains that the scholars are necessary because of the warning. Before the husband commits the act, someone must tell him that he is forbidden to be with his wife and that, if he does so, the waters will not work for her. This is the point emphasized by Rashi: as long as the husband has not been cleansed of sin—for example, if he was with her after she became forbidden to him—there is a problem with the sotah process. Therefore, he must first be warned.
There is a Torah prohibition against the husband having relations with the woman once she has become established as a sotah and is on her way to the Beit HaMikdash to drink the waters. This is a prohibition of the Torah, and it is derived from a verse in the context of levirate marriage: “Her first husband may not take her.” The Gemara expounds that verse outside its original context to teach this case as well. If the husband goes with her, the waters will not work, because the husband himself is not free of sin.
A teaching states that Rabbi Yehuda says the husband is trusted by means of a logical inference. If a husband is trusted regarding his wife when she is a menstruant, where the prohibition is punishable by karet, then certainly he should be trusted regarding a sotah, whose prohibition is only a prohibition of the Torah without karet. In the more serious case, he is trusted not to have relations with her; he should certainly be trusted in the less serious case.
Rashi explains that when the verse says that the husband must be clean from sin, it means that he must not have been with her after she became forbidden. The Gemara initially accepts Rabbi Yehuda’s logical inference: if the rabbis trust the husband in a more severe case, they should trust him in a less severe case.
The Gemara then challenges this reasoning. Perhaps the opposite is true. The reason the husband is trusted in the case of a menstruant woman is precisely because the prohibition is so severe. He is not suspected of committing such a serious offense. A sotah, however, involves a prohibition that is less severe, and the husband may not treat it with the same seriousness. Therefore, perhaps the scholars must accompany him to protect him.
Rabbi Yehuda ultimately derives the law from verses rather than from the logical inference. The Torah says that the man brings his wife to the priest. The wording indicates that the man brings his wife himself, without an escort. The sages, however, said that two scholars accompany them, lest the husband have relations with her on the way.
Another teaching records a discussion between Rabbi Yosei and the sages. The sages say that, according to the Torah, the husband and wife could go alone, but the sages instituted that two scholars accompany them. Rabbi Yosei says that the husband is trusted and that no escort is necessary. He initially supports his position with the same logical inference: if he is trusted regarding a menstruant woman, where the prohibition is punishable by karet, he should certainly be trusted regarding a sotah, whose prohibition is less severe.
The sages respond that the cases are not comparable. In the case of a menstruant woman, the prohibition will eventually end; after she waits the required period, she will again be permitted to her husband. Since there is a future permission, he can wait. In the case of a sotah, however, if she is found guilty, she may never again be permitted to him. There is therefore a greater concern that he will succumb to his inclination. In addition, forbidden things can become especially attractive. As the Gemara says, “Stolen waters are sweet.” Thus, the fact that the husband is trusted in the case of a menstruation does not prove that he should be trusted in the case of a sotah.
Rabbi Yosei therefore brings the verse itself: “The man shall bring his wife to the priest.” The verse teaches that they go alone. The first teaching presented Rabbi Yosei’s position as being based on a logical inference, while the second presented it as being based on a verse. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yosei initially brought the logical inference. The sages rejected it by arguing that the cases are not comparable, because a menstruant woman will eventually become permitted while a sotah may never become permitted. Rabbi Yosei then abandoned that argument and brought the verse instead.
The Gemara asks what practical difference there is between Rabbi Yosei and the first opinion, since both say that, according to the Torah, the husband and wife go alone. The difference is whether the sages later instituted an escort. The first opinion says that although the Torah permits them to go alone, the sages required two escorts because of the possibility that the husband might sin. Rabbi Yosei says that they go alone even according to the rabbis, because the husband is trusted.
Let us summarize the three positions. Everyone agrees that, while the husband is taking his wife to the Beit HaMikdash, he may not have relations with her. This is a Torah prohibition, and everyone agrees that if he does so, she may not drink the sotah waters. The verse says that the waters work only when the man is clean from sin. If he himself violated the prohibition, he is not clean from sin, and the waters will not work.
The first opinion in the Mishnah says that although, in principle, the Torah trusts the husband, the rabbis required two scholars to accompany him as a safeguard. Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Yosei objects: why is a safeguard necessary? The husband is trusted in the case of a more serious prohibition, so he should certainly be trusted in this case. The response is that the comparison to a menstruant woman is invalid, because that prohibition will eventually end, whereas the sotah may remain forbidden forever. The forbidden nature of the situation may also intensify the temptation.
There is another issue here as well: the laws of seclusion. Once the woman has become a sotah, she is forbidden to her husband. She is no longer an ordinary wife with whom he may be alone. This is why the beginning of the discussion in the Gemara raises the issue of seclusion. If the husband is forbidden to her, perhaps he may not be alone with her. At least one additional person is needed to resolve that problem.
This raises a question regarding a menstruant woman. How can a man live in the same house with his wife while she is menstruating? If a woman who is forbidden to him creates a problem of seclusion, would a husband have to move out of the house every month or always require a guardian?
Tosafot asks this question and explains that the laws of seclusion apply to a woman who is permanently forbidden, such as a close relative with whom marriage can never be permitted. A prohibition that will eventually end, such as menstruation, is not included in the same law of seclusion. Since the woman will become permitted again, the Torah did not impose the laws of seclusion in that situation. This is why a husband may remain in the same house with his menstruant wife.
This also clarifies the logical inference that the Gemara initially considered. The Gemara thought that if there is no concern of seclusion with a menstruant woman, whose prohibition is punishable by karet, then there should certainly be no concern of seclusion with a sotah, whose prohibition is only a regular prohibition of the Torah and who might eventually be found innocent and become permitted. The Gemara rejects this reasoning, however, and concludes that according to the first opinion, the escort is required by rabbinic enactment, while according to Rabbi Yosei, no escort is necessary because the husband is trusted. Rabbi Yehuda derives the rule from the verses indicating that the husband and wife go alone.
The Mishnah then continues the procedure. They bring the woman to the Great Court in Yerushalayim, the court of seventy-one judges, and they intimidate her. The purpose is to encourage her to admit that she is guilty so that she will not have to undergo the entire process of preparing and drinking the waters.
The Mishnah says that they do this in the same manner as they intimidate witnesses who come to testify in a capital case. In a capital case, the court does not simply accept testimony without warning the witnesses of the seriousness of their responsibility. The court attempts to make them reconsider and admit if their testimony is false. In the same way, the court speaks to the sotah in order to encourage her to admit.
They say to her: “My daughter, much can happen because of wine. Perhaps you drank too much, became flirtatious, and were led to act improperly. Perhaps joking, levity, immaturity, or the influence of another person caused you to sin. Perhaps a bad neighbor persuaded you, telling you that it was not so serious and that everyone does such things.” They present these possibilities so that she can say that she was influenced by someone else and admit what happened.
They also tell her to act for the sake of the Divine Name that is written in holiness and that should not be erased into the waters. They are urging her to admit rather than allow the Divine Name to be erased. They then tell her stories that are not ordinarily appropriate for people to hear. They recount stories of righteous people who sinned and were not embarrassed to admit what they had done. They tell her that even great righteous people, such as Yehuda, admitted their wrongdoing. She should not think that she is different from them. Their greatness was not that they never sinned, but that they admitted their sins.
These stories would not ordinarily be publicized, because it is not proper to publicize the sins of righteous people. They are told here only for the purpose of persuading her to admit. The court also does this in the presence of her family, because that makes the situation more intimidating and may encourage her to confess.
If she admits, she writes a receipt stating that she has forfeited her marriage settlement, and she gives the receipt to her husband. Since she is not executed based on her own admission, she must leave her husband, but there is no death penalty without witnesses. Because she has forfeited her marriage settlement, the receipt protects the husband. Otherwise, she might later bring the marriage document to court and demand payment. With the receipt in his possession, the husband can show that she already acknowledged that she is not entitled to payment.
If she does not admit and maintains that nothing happened, they bring her to the eastern gate of the Beit HaMikdash, known as the Gate of Nikanor. This gate was also called the upper gate and stood between the Israelite courtyard and the women’s courtyard. It served as a type of buffer area. The sotah drank the waters there. A woman who had given birth also stood there when she brought her offerings, and a person afflicted with leprosy stood there when he was sprinkled as part of his purification.
Why was this area special? Rashi explains that the threshold of the Gate of Nikanor was not sanctified with the full sanctity of the Temple courtyard. Therefore, people who were ritually impure could stand there. For example, a person afflicted with leprosy needed to stand there to be sprinkled. If the entire area had been sanctified, he could not have entered. At the same time, the priest could not simply take the blood outside to him. Therefore, this unsanctified threshold served as a buffer area.
The person stood in the opening of the gate and extended his thumb into the sanctified area so that the priest could sprinkle the blood on him. One might ask how he was permitted to place even his thumb into the sanctified area. The rabbis permitted a partial entry of the body, because he was not entering with his entire body. Nevertheless, the priest could not sprinkle the blood outward, so the person had to extend part of his body into the courtyard. The same area was used by the woman who had given birth when she brought her offerings, and the sotah also stood there during her procedure.
The Mishnah continues by describing how the woman was treated. The priest grabs her clothing by the collar and pulls it. If the clothing tears, it tears; even if the tear becomes larger, they are not concerned. The purpose is to embarrass and shame her. The clothing is pulled down to the point that her body may be exposed. The Mishnah also says that her hair is loosened. Since a married woman’s hair was covered, the priest does not merely uncover it; he undoes her braids and lets her hair down, adding to her humiliation.
Rabbi Yehuda says that if she is attractive, they do not expose her chest, because there are men present and it would not be modest. Likewise, if her hair is attractive, they do not undo her braids. If she is wearing white clothing, they dress her in black clothing, because they want to make her appear disgraceful and encourage her to admit.
If she is wearing gold jewelry, such as a necklace or a decorative clasp worn around the neck to make the body appear fuller or to hold the clothing together, they remove it. They remove all her jewelry and adornments in order to make her appear unattractive. They then bring a rope made from a palm-like reed and tie it above her breasts. The purpose is to keep her clothing from falling during the process, since the clothing has already been torn and loosened.
They announce that anyone who wishes to watch may come and watch. Her servants, however, are not permitted to stand before her. The reason is that she is comfortable with them and may gain confidence in their presence. We want her to admit, and we do not want anyone present who might cause her to become more stubborn. When a person sees those with whom she is comfortable, she may feel stronger and less afraid. Therefore, servants or others who might give her confidence are excluded.
All the women, however, are permitted to watch. The verse says that the women should see what happens to this woman so that they will receive a warning and will not imitate her immoral behavior. They are meant to see what happens when modesty is abandoned. The Gemara asks why the women must be mentioned separately if the Mishnah already says that anyone who wishes may come and watch. The answer is that the permission for all people includes the women, but the women are singled out because of the particular lesson they are meant to learn.
The Gemara now asks how we know that the sotah must be brought before the Great Court of seventy-one judges in Yerushalayim. Rav Haya bar Gamda says that the answer is derived through a verbal analogy using the word “Torah.” Regarding the sotah, the verse says that the priest performs everything prescribed by the Torah. Elsewhere, in the case of a rebellious sage who rules against the Sanhedrin, the verse says that he acts contrary to the Torah that they teach.
Just as the rebellious sage is judged before the Great Court of seventy-one, so the sotah’s process takes place before the Great Court of seventy-one. The same word, “Torah,” appears in both contexts. The court of the rebellious sage is specifically the Great Court, and the verbal analogy teaches that the sotah must also be brought before that court.
The Gemara also discusses the intimidation. At one stage, the court intimidates her so that she will not drink; that is, they try to persuade her to admit her guilt before the Divine Name is erased. At another stage, they encourage her to drink. The Gemara explains that there is no contradiction. Before the Divine Name is erased, they want her to admit so that the Name will not be erased unnecessarily. After the Name has already been erased, they encourage her to drink and tell her not to be afraid.
They tell her: “Stand by your innocence. If you are certain that you are pure, do not be ashamed or intimidated. Hold your ground.” The waters of the sotah can be compared to a poisonous substance placed on living flesh. If the flesh has an opening or wound, the substance enters the body and causes harm. If the skin is intact and there is no opening, nothing happens. Similarly, if she is innocent, nothing will happen to her. If she is guilty, the waters will affect her.
After the Divine Name has been erased, they also reassure her that the waters may permit her to return to her husband. If she becomes frightened and refuses to drink, she cannot simply return to her husband. Therefore, they tell her that if she is innocent, the waters will be a blessing and will not harm her. They do not want an innocent woman to admit falsely merely because she is frightened. If she does so, she will place herself under suspicion and may also cause her children to be suspected of being illegitimate. They therefore encourage her to drink rather than make a false admission. Everything depends on the stage of the procedure: before the Divine Name is erased, they try to obtain an admission; afterward, they encourage her to drink.
The court also tells her stories of biblical figures who admitted their sins. They quote the verse that says that the righteous acknowledged their sins and did not hide them from their fathers. They tell her that Yehuda admitted his wrongdoing and was not embarrassed. What was his reward? He merited life in the World to Come. Reuven also admitted his wrongdoing and was not embarrassed, and he too merited life in the World to Come.
The Gemara asks: What additional reward did they receive? The answer is that they were rewarded in this world as well. The land was given to them, and no foreigner ruled over them. Rashi explains that Yehuda merited royalty, while Reuven received his portion first, on the eastern side of the Jordan. Thus, their admission brought them reward both in the World to Come and in this world.
Regarding Yehuda, the admission is explicit. When Tamar was brought before the court, she gave him signs indicating that he was the one responsible for her pregnancy. Yehuda could have concealed the matter, because no one else knew the truth. Instead, he said, “She is more righteous than I,” acknowledging that the matter came from him.
Where do we see that Reuven admitted his sin? Reuven was involved with Bilhah, the concubine of his father Yaakov. There is a discussion about exactly what he did—whether he moved his father’s bed or committed a more serious act—but it was regarded as a sin. Moshe Rabbeinu’s blessing to the tribes contains the words, “May Reuven live and not die,” followed immediately by, “And this is for Yehuda.” The connection between Reuven and Yehuda requires explanation.
The Gemara says that for all forty years during which the Jewish people traveled in the wilderness, Yehuda’s bones were rattling in his coffin. When Yaakov was reluctant to send Binyamin to Egypt, Yehuda accepted responsibility and said that if he did not bring Binyamin back, he would bear the sin forever. The Gemara teaches that when a person places himself under a ban—even conditionally—the ban takes effect. Although Yehuda ultimately fulfilled his promise and brought Binyamin back, he had nevertheless declared that he would bear the sin forever.
When the Jewish people left Egypt, the bones of all the tribes were taken with them. The bones of Yosef were taken because he had instructed the people to bring them out, and the graves of the other tribes were also taken out. The bones of all the other tribes remained intact, but Yehuda’s bones were disconnected and rattled because of the declaration he had made regarding Binyamin.
Before Moshe Rabbeinu died, he wanted to repair Yehuda’s situation. He prayed that Reuven should live and that this should also be a reward for Yehuda. Yehuda’s admission had caused Reuven to admit his own wrongdoing. The idea is that after Yehuda publicly acknowledged his sin regarding Tamar, Reuven was moved to acknowledge his own sin as well. Therefore, if Reuven was to receive the reward of life for his admission, Yehuda also deserved a reward because he had been the cause of Reuven’s admission.
Immediately afterward, the verse says, “Hear, Hashem, the voice of Yehuda.” Moshe Rabbeinu prayed that Hashem should listen to Yehuda’s prayer. Yehuda’s bones then came together, although he was not yet admitted fully into the heavenly academy. He was allowed to join his people, but he could not yet participate in the discussions of Torah. The sages were learning, and Yehuda remained in the back without being allowed to ask or answer questions.
Moshe Rabbeinu continued to pray: “His hands shall contend for him.” This refers to Yehuda’s strength in Torah and his ability to struggle through Torah discussion. Yet whatever Yehuda said, the scholars would reject his ruling and say that the law was not like him. Moshe therefore prayed that he should receive assistance from his adversaries—that even those who opposed him should agree with him. In the end, they began to say that the law was indeed like Yehuda.
We can now understand why Yehuda’s admission was so significant. Ordinarily, a person should not publicize his sins. Yehuda had no choice because Tamar was about to be executed. If he did not stand up and say that the matter was his responsibility, she would die. His public admission was necessary to save her.
Reuven’s public admission also had a purpose. Yaakov did not know which of his sons had sinned with Bilhah, and the other brothers might have been suspected. Reuven therefore admitted his wrongdoing publicly so that suspicion would not fall on his brothers. Thus, although it is ordinarily improper to publicize one’s sins, both Yehuda and Reuven had a reason to do so.
Rashi explains that among the blessings of the tribes, the only blessing that begins with the word “and this” is the blessing of Yehuda. This connects Yehuda with the bones of the tribes that were brought out of Egypt. The skeletons of the other tribes remained intact, while Yehuda’s bones were disconnected because he had placed himself under a ban when he accepted responsibility for Binyamin. From here, the Gemara derives that even a conditional ban imposed by a Torah scholar takes effect.
Rashi further explains that Yehuda’s admission caused Reuven to repent. When Yehuda acknowledged the truth in the story of Tamar, Reuven also stood up and admitted that he had caused pain to his father. Moshe’s blessing, “May Reuven live and not die,” therefore contains an additional merit for Yehuda, because Yehuda was the one who brought Reuven to repentance.
We return to the matter of the marriage settlement. If the sotah admits that she is guilty, she must acknowledge that she has forfeited her marriage settlement and give the husband a receipt. The Mishnah appears to teach that a receipt is written. This seems to support the position of Rabbi Yosei in the discussion in Bava Batra, where the question is whether a receipt should be written when a debt is paid.
Rabbi Yehuda says that one should not write a receipt, because doing so places the burden of preserving the receipt on the husband. If the woman has a marriage document, the husband should simply tear it up. Rabbi Yosei, however, says that a receipt is written even though the husband must protect it from being lost or damaged.
The Gemara initially suggests changing the wording of the Mishnah. Instead of reading that she writes a receipt, perhaps it should be read that she tears up the marriage document. The Gemara objects that the Mishnah explicitly says that she writes a receipt, and there is a substantial difference between writing a receipt and tearing up the document.
The Gemara therefore explains that the Mishnah may be discussing a place where marriage documents are not customarily written. In such a place, the court relies on the conditions established by the law. A virgin is entitled to two hundred, and a widow to one hundred, even without a written document. When a woman is divorced, she proves the marriage through the divorce document. When she is widowed, she brings witnesses who testify that her husband died. Since there is no marriage document to tear up, the only way to prevent her from collecting twice is to write a receipt.
For example, she might bring witnesses before one court and receive payment of her marriage settlement. She could then go to another court and bring different witnesses, claiming again that her husband had died. Without a receipt, she might be paid a second time. Therefore, even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that when there is no written marriage document, a receipt must be written to prevent double payment.
Where a marriage document is written, however, the dispute remains. Rabbi Yehuda says that the document should be torn up, eliminating the possibility of a later claim. Rabbi Yosei says that a receipt should be written, even though doing so creates the risk that the husband may lose it. Everyone agrees that where no marriage document exists and payment is established through witnesses or the divorce document, a receipt must be written so that the woman cannot collect the same amount twice.