The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Tractate Sotah, has been dedicated by our good friends and students, Mr. Haimi and Dina Dana, for the success of their children, especially for the complete recovery of Moshe ben Dina, and for the sake of the souls of Yosef ben Sarina, David ben Frieda, Meir ben Zohara, Moshe ben Feigarut, Sarah bat Esther, Feigarut bat Esther, and Esther bat Yochevet. May God’s spirit be with them in the Garden of Eden. Amen. May you be blessed.
We are continuing our study of the tractate. By way of introduction, so that we can understand the discussion more clearly: If you open your Torah volumes, you will see that part of the process is that the priest warns the woman that if she is guilty of this sin and drinks the water, there will be consequences.
Beginning with verse 19 in chapter 5, the verse says that the priest makes her swear before him. He tells her: If nothing happened—if you did not lie with a man and did not defile yourself—you will be innocent, and nothing will happen to you. You will be clear of the effects of these waters.
This verse is referred to in the Gemara as a blessing. However, the reverse is also implied: If she was guilty, she would be punished. Thus, even though the verse is written in a positive form, one can infer the negative outcome.
The verse then continues: But if you did lie with a man, and you became defiled, and another man besides your husband had relations with you, the priest makes the woman swear with an oath of cursing. He says to the woman: May God make you a curse and an oath among your people, as God causes your thigh to collapse and your stomach to swell; the water will enter your stomach and cause it to swell.
There are several parts here. First, there is the verse itself. Then there is what the priest actually says to her. Finally, there is her response, when she says, “Amen, amen.” It is important to identify these three parts, because we need to know which of them is written on the scroll of the woman suspected of infidelity, the scroll that is erased into the water she eventually drinks.
There is a three-way dispute regarding exactly what was written on that scroll.
The Mishnah begins: When they came to write the scroll, which is called the scroll of the woman suspected of infidelity because it was written on material that was ultimately erased into the water, which part of the passage did they write?
The first opinion says that they began with the verse, “If you have not lain with a man.” Let us locate that in the verse. This is verse 19, in the middle of the verse. They do not write the narrative portion; they write only the essential material.
According to this opinion, they write the blessing, which also implies the curse. They write the next verse as well, but they do not write the narrative words describing the priest’s action: “The priest shall administer the oath of cursing to the woman.” Nor do they write the woman’s response, “Amen, amen.”
Rabbi Yosei says that they write everything, all the way through “Amen, amen.” In other words, he includes the curses, the narrative portion of the passage, and the woman’s response.
Rabbi Yehuda says that the wording of the Mishnah is precise and highly restrictive. What do they write? Only the words: “May God make you a curse and an oath among your people, as God causes your thigh to collapse and your stomach to swell, and these bitter waters shall enter your stomach.” They do not write the verse that says that she will be innocent if she did not sin, and they do not write the woman’s response, “Amen, amen.”
Rashi explains that the entire matter is stated in the language of cursing. They write only the curses. Even if she did not lie with another man and was innocent, they do not write the positive verse; certainly they do not write the narrative words describing the priest administering the oath.
Let us review the dispute. According to the first opinion, Rabbi Meir, they write verse 19, the positive verse, and they also write verse 20. They do not write the priest’s narrative statement, and they do not write the woman’s response.
According to Rabbi Yosei, the entire passage is written. Everything is included: the blessing, the curses, the priest’s narrative, and the woman’s response.
Rabbi Yehuda is the most restrictive. He says that they write only the curses themselves.
What is the source of this dispute? The dispute concerns how to understand verse 23: “The priest shall write these curses on a scroll.” What exactly does the word “these” include, and what does it exclude?
The Gemara explains that the verse says, “He shall write these curses.” Rabbi Meir understands the phrase as follows: “He shall write the curses”—the actual curses—and the word “these” adds something else.
Writing the actual curses means writing the words describing what will happen if she is guilty. What does “these” add? It teaches that they also write the earlier verse, the verse that implicitly states that if she is innocent, nothing will happen to her.
What does the word “these” exclude? It excludes the curses found in the portion of the Torah that describes the blessings and curses, because one might think that every curse should be written, including those ninety-eight curses. The word “these” teaches that only these particular curses are written, not the curses in the portion of the Torah.
It also excludes the priest’s narrative statement when he administers the oath, as well as the woman’s response, “Amen, amen.” This is how Rabbi Meir derives his opinion from the verse.
Rabbi Yosei understands the verse differently. He agrees with the basic reading, but he expounds the word “et,” the additional word that appears in the verse. That word teaches that they write not only the curses but also the narrative portion and the woman’s response. Rabbi Yosei does not derive the exclusions in the same way; the word “et” comes to include them.
Rabbi Meir does not expound the word “et.” Therefore, he derives his ruling from the word “these,” understanding that the entire verse is written with the relevant exclusions.
According to Rabbi Meir, “the curses” means the actual curses. The additional wording comes to include the earlier positive verse, while “these” excludes the curses from the portion of the Torah and excludes the priest’s narrative and the woman’s response. Thus, only the curses and the earlier positive verse remain.
A question arises. According to Rabbi Meir, one word appears to include and another word appears to exclude. Why do we not say that the first word is the one that excludes and the second word is the one that includes?
The Gemara answers that the direction of the additional word follows the direction of the primary word to which it is attached. If the primary word is being used to include, the additional word also functions to include. For example, “the curses” teaches that they write the actual curses, and the additional wording includes the earlier verse as well. “These,” however, is being used to exclude, and therefore it excludes the narrative words of the priest and the response of the woman.
But what are you asking? We know that Rabbi Meir requires a conditional statement to be formulated in the manner of the condition made by the tribes of Gad and Reuben. What was their condition? If they would enter the Land of Israel, they would receive their inheritance on the other side of the Jordan; and if they would not enter, they would not receive their inheritance. A condition must state both sides explicitly, because Rabbi Meir does not rely on implication.
If so, the verse that says, “If you are innocent, nothing will happen to you,” should not be considered part of the curses. It is not a curse. How, then, can it be included in the scroll of the woman suspected of infidelity?
The Gemara answers in the name of Rabbi Yirmeyah: The verse says, “You will be innocent.” The word is written without the letter yod that would ordinarily appear in the spelling. It can therefore be read in two ways: “You will be innocent,” but also as an expression referring to strangulation. Thus, even though the verse appears to say that she will be innocent, it also alludes explicitly to the punishment. It is not merely an implied negative; the wording itself contains an allusion to the curse. Therefore, a special derivation is needed to teach that this verse is included because of its connection to the curse.
That is also the way Rashi explains it.
The Gemara then brings the teaching of Rabbi Akiva: When a man and a woman merit it, the Divine Presence is between them. When they do not merit it, fire consumes them. The words for man and woman contain the letters of the Divine Name. The man’s word contains the letter yod, and the woman’s word contains the letter heh; together, these form part of the Divine Name. When they live in the proper way, the Divine Presence is between them.
However, when they commit sexual immorality, Heaven forbid, the Divine Presence departs, and what remains is fire. The word for man without the yod and the word for woman without the heh leave the word meaning fire. That fire consumes the household and destroys them.
Rava says that the destruction caused by the woman’s sin is greater than that caused by the man’s. What is the reason? The letter heh in the word for woman is attached to the letters that spell fire, whereas the yod in the word for man separates the letters. Therefore, the damage caused by a woman who commits sexual immorality is more immediate and more destructive to the family.
This is why, when the woman drinks the water, it is necessary to place dust in it. What is the logic? If she is innocent, she will have a son like Abraham our forefather. Abraham said about himself that he was dust and ashes. If she is not innocent, she will return to the place from which she came—from dust to dust. These are the two reasons connected to dust.
The Gemara explains that Abraham referred to himself as both dust and ashes because of two commandments. The dust refers to the dust used for the woman suspected of infidelity, and the ashes refer to the ashes of the red heifer.
There is also another commandment involving dust: the dust used to cover blood. But there is a distinction. In the case of covering blood, the dust is merely necessary for preparing or completing the commandment, and there is no particular benefit derived from the dust itself. By contrast, the dust used in the water of the woman suspected of infidelity provides a benefit. If she is innocent, she receives a blessing; if she is guilty, she is destroyed, and as a result, illegitimate offspring are prevented from entering the world. There is also a benefit associated with the ashes of the red heifer.
Thus, there is a measure-for-measure connection. Rabbi Meir said that Abraham referred to himself as dust and ashes, and he was rewarded with two commandments involving dust and ashes: the dust of the woman suspected of infidelity and the ashes of the red heifer.
Let us consider the explanation of Rabbi Yirmeyah, who said that Abraham referred to himself as dust and ashes. What was Abraham comparing himself to?
Dust comes from the ground. The ground has no past, but its future is positive, because things grow from it. Ashes are the opposite. Ashes have a past: they came from something, perhaps from a wooden table. But they have no future. Abraham was saying that he possessed the weak qualities of both. Like ashes, he had no past; whatever he had done in the past was insignificant. Like dust, he considered whatever he would do in the future to be insignificant as well. He could never serve God in the ultimate way.
That was Abraham’s meaning when he compared himself to dust and ashes. He was speaking about his past and his future. God rewarded him with two commandments.
What is the first commandment? It is the dust of the woman suspected of infidelity. That dust clarifies what happened in the past. We do not know what the woman did in the past—whether she committed adultery or not. Abraham compared himself to dust and said that he had no past. He was therefore given a commandment through which the past of a woman could be revealed and clarified to her husband.
What is the connection to the ashes of the red heifer? The red heifer purifies people for the future. A person becomes impure and requires purification in order to move forward. Abraham compared himself to ashes, which have no future, and he was therefore given the commandment of the ashes of the red heifer, which purifies people for the future. There is a measure-for-measure connection in these matters.
We can continue with another teaching. When the king of Sodom wanted to give Abraham some of the spoils of war, Abraham said that he would not take anything—not even a thread or a sandal strap. In connection with this, the Gemara says that Abraham was rewarded with two commandments: the thread of sky-blue wool and the leather strap of the phylacteries.
We understand the value of the phylacteries. When the nations see a person wearing phylacteries, especially the head phylacteries, they will be afraid of us. That is a great reward. Abraham gave up the spoils and said that he did not even want a leather strap, and he was rewarded with a commandment that would protect his children.
But what is the benefit of the blue thread? Why is that considered a reward?
The Gemara says that the blue thread was chosen because it resembles the color of the sea. When a person looks at the sea, he is reminded of the sky, because the sea resembles the sky. The sky, in turn, resembles the Throne of Glory. Thus, when a person looks at the ritual fringes and sees the blue thread, he remembers the sea, the sea reminds him of the sky, and the sky reminds him of the Throne of Glory. This is a reward because it connects him to the Throne of Glory.
Rashi says that the blue thread resembles the sea. This is the essential point: whoever fulfills the commandment of the ritual fringes is considered as though he has greeted the Divine Presence.
However, the Gemara asks why it is necessary to go through all these stages. The sky and the Throne of Glory are both compared to sapphire, while the blue thread is compared first to the sea. The sea is compared to the sky, and the sky and the Throne of Glory are then connected. Why not go directly from the blue thread to the Throne of Glory?
The answer is that this is the way the progression is presented. The blue thread resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory. There is also another progression mentioned, in which the sea is compared to grass and the grass to the sky. There are different paths to arrive at the same place, but the point remains that the person who wears the ritual fringes receives a reward, as though he has greeted the Divine Presence.
We now return to the laws concerning the writing of the scroll of the woman suspected of infidelity. The scroll may not be written on a date palm leaf or on wood. It may not be written on papyrus, which is made from grass that is glued together to form a type of paper. It may not be written on ordinary paper, nor on a type of leather that has not been completely tanned.
That partially processed leather is called diftira. It was treated with salt and flour, and there were three stages in the processing. One type of treatment involved a material called afatzim, made from gallnuts. Since the leather was not fully processed, it was unsuitable for the scroll.
Why may the scroll not be written on these materials? It must be written on a scroll, because the verse calls it a book. The material must therefore be suitable for writing a scroll.
The Mishnah also discusses the inks that may not be used. It may not be written with kumos, a type of sap that comes from a tree; it may not be written with kan-kantum, a reddish type of dye, which is described as copper sulfate; and it may not be written with anything that leaves a permanent mark.
Rashi explains that the ink must be erasable. These substances remain visible even after they are erased, leaving a mark. They are therefore unsuitable. The writing must be done with ink that can actually be erased when the scroll is erased into the water.
How do we know that the scroll must be written with ink? The required writing is the black ink ordinarily used for writing. Since the scroll must be erased into the water, the writing must be made from a substance that can be erased.
There is an interesting point regarding this entire dispute. The halachic discussion brings out a difference between the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam. According to the Rambam, one does not necessarily need this particular type of ink for phylacteries; any ink resembling it is acceptable. Accordingly, various materials could be used, including materials made with gallnuts.
Rabbeinu Tam, however, disqualifies that. He says that the writing must be made with the specific type of ink. The essential point here is that the ink used for the scroll of the woman suspected of infidelity must be erasable. Since the verse says that the scroll is to be erased, the writing must be made from a substance that can be erased. That is why this material...