gemini://scholasticdiversity.us.to/scriptures/jewish/t/Mishnah_Sotah

4 ‎[1] With regard to **a betrothed woman** who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her betrothed, **and a widow waiting for her brother-in-law [*yavam*]** to perform levirate marriage who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her *yavam*, **they neither drink** the bitter water **nor collect** payment of their **marriage contracts.** The reason they are not entitled to payment of their marriage contracts is that the betrothed woman became forbidden to her betrothed or the widow became forbidden to her *yavam* due to her own actions of entering into seclusion with the paramour. And the fact that they do not drink the bitter water is **as it is stated:** “This is the law of jealousy, **when a wife, while under her husband, goes astray,** and is defiled” (Numbers 5:29). The verse **excludes a betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her *yavam*;** since they are not yet married, neither is considered as “under her husband.” The mishna delineates cases where the woman’s marriage was prohibited in the first place: With regard to **a widow** who was married **to a High Priest,** or **a divorcée or *ḥalutza*** who was married **to a common priest,** or **a *mamzeret*** **or Gibeonite woman** who was married **to a Jew** of unflawed lineage, **or a Jewish woman** of unflawed lineage who was married **to a *mamzer* or a Gibeonite,** all of these women **neither drink** the bitter water **nor collect** payment of their **marriage contracts,** as the *sota* ritual applies only to permitted marriages.

‎[2] **And the following** women **neither drink** the bitter water **nor collect** payment of their **marriage contracts:** A woman **who** confesses and **says: I am defiled, 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, even if she does not confess her guilt. However, a woman whose **husband said: I will not have** her **drink, and** a woman **whose husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the way** to the Temple, **collect** payment of their **marriage contracts** even though **they do not drink** the bitter water, as it is due to the husbands that they do not drink. If **the husbands** of *sota* women **died before** their wives **drank** the bitter water, **Beit Shammai say: They collect** payment of their **marriage contracts and they do not drink** the bitter water. **And Beit Hillel say: They either drink** the bitter water **or they do not collect** payment of **their marriage contracts.**

‎[3] **A woman who was pregnant** with the child **of another** man at the time of her marriage **and a woman who was nursing** the child **of another** man at the time of her marriage **neither drink** the bitter water **nor collect** payment of their **marriage contracts.** This is because by rabbinic law they may not marry for twenty-four months after the baby’s birth, and therefore these also constitute prohibited marriages. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He can separate** from **her, and remarry her after** the **time** of twenty-four months has elapsed, and therefore these are considered permitted marriages, and the women can drink the bitter water. **A sexually underdeveloped woman** who is incapable of bearing children **[*ailonit*], and an elderly woman, and** a woman **who is incapable of giving birth** for other reasons, **neither collect** payment of their **marriage contracts nor drink** the bitter water, as marrying a woman who cannot give birth constitutes a violation of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. **Rabbi Elazar says: He can marry another woman and procreate through her;** therefore, these are considered permitted marriages, and women in these categories can drink the bitter water. **And all other women either drink** the bitter water **or do not collect** payment of their **marriage contracts. **

‎[4] The wife of a priest drinks, and if she is found to be innocent of adultery, she **is permitted to her husband. The wife of a eunuch** also **drinks.** A husband **can issue a warning** to his wife forbidding her to seclude herself with any man, even **with regard to all those** men **with whom relations are forbidden,** e.g., her father or brother, with the **exception of a minor and of one who is not a man,** i.e., in a situation where a man suspects his wife of bestiality.

‎[5] **And these** are the women **to whom the court issues a warning** in place of their husbands: **One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison.** The Sages **said** that the court warns her **not** in order **to have her drink** the bitter water if she disobeys the warning, **but** in order **to disqualify her from** receiving payment of **her marriage contract. Rabbi Yosei says:** The court’s warning **also** serves **to have her drink,** and **when her husband is released from prison he has her drink.**

5 ‎[1] **Just as the water evaluates her** fidelity, **so too, the water evaluates his,** i.e., her alleged paramour’s, involvement in the sin, **as it is stated: “And** the water that causes the curse **shall enter** into her” (Numbers 5:24), and it is stated again: **“And** the water that causes the curse **shall enter** into her and become bitter” (Numbers 5:27). It is derived from the double mention of the phrase “and…shall enter” that both the woman and her paramour are evaluated by the water. Furthermore, prior to her drinking the water, **just as she is forbidden to** her **husband, so** too **is she forbidden to** her **paramour, because** in contrast to the verse stating: **“Is defiled [*nitma’a*]”** (Numbers 5:14), a superfluous conjoining prefix *vav* is added to a later verse, rendering the phrase: **“And is defiled [*venitma’a*]”** (Numbers 5:29). The addition indicates another prohibition, that of the woman to her paramour. This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva.** **Rabbi Yehoshua said: That was how Zekharya ben HaKatzav would interpret** it, i.e., he also derived from the superfluous *vav* that the woman is forbidden to her paramour. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** an alternate source: The **two times that** the defilement of the wife **is stated in the passage,** namely: “And he warns his wife, and **she is defiled”** (Numbers 5:14), and the later verse: “When a wife, being under her husband, goes astray **and is defiled”** (Numbers 5:29), indicate that her defilement results in two prohibitions. **One** is that she is forbidden **to** her **husband and one** is that she is forbidden **to** her **paramour.**

‎[2] **On that same day** that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed head of the Sanhedrin, **Rabbi Akiva interpreted** the verse: **“And every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [*yitma*],** and you shall break it” (Leviticus 11:33), as follows: The verse **does not state: Is impure [*tamei*],** but **rather: “Shall be impure,”** in order **to** indicate that not only does the vessel itself become ritually impure, but it can now **render other** items **ritually impure.** This **teaches with regard to a loaf** that has **second-**degree ritual impurity status due to its being placed inside an earthenware vessel that had first-degree impurity, **that it can render** other food with which it comes into contact **impure** with **third-**degree impurity status. After hearing Rabbi Akiva’s statement, **Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai,** so that you could live and see this? **As you would say:** In the **future, another generation** is destined **to deem pure a loaf** that contracted **third-**degree impurity, **as there is no** explicit **verse from the Torah** stating **that it is impure. But** now **Rabbi Akiva, your disciple, brings a verse from the Torah** indicating **that it is impure, as it is stated: “Whatever is in it shall be impure.”**

‎[3] Furthermore, **on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted** the verses with regard to the Levite cities as follows: One verse states: **“And you shall measure outside the city for the east side two thousand cubits…**this shall be for them the open land outside the cities” (Numbers 35:5), **and another verse states:** “And the open land around the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall be **from the wall of the city and outward one thousand cubits round about”** (Numbers 35:4). **It is impossible to say** that the area around the cities given to the Levites was only **one thousand cubits, as it is already stated: “Two thousand cubits.” And it is impossible to say** that **two thousand cubits** were left for them, **as it is already stated: “One thousand cubits.” How** can **these** texts be reconciled? **One thousand cubits** are to be set aside as **a tract** of open land surrounding the city, **and** the **two thousand cubits** are mentioned not in order to be given to the Levites, but to indicate the boundary of **the Shabbat limit,** beyond which it is forbidden to travel on Shabbat. This verse thereby serves as the source for the two-thousand-cubit Shabbat limit. **Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says** otherwise: **One thousand cubits** were given to the Levites as an open **tract** of land, that could not be planted or built upon, **and two thousand cubits** of additional land were given to the Levites for planting **fields and vineyards.**

‎[4] Additionally, **on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted** the verse: **“Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and said, saying”** (Exodus 15:1), as follows: **As** there is **no** need for **the verse to state** the word **“saying,”** because it states the word “said” immediately prior to it, **why** must **the verse state** the word **“saying”? It teaches that the Jewish people would repeat in song after Moses every single statement** he said, **as** is done when **reciting *hallel*.** After Moses would recite a verse, they would say as a refrain: **“I will sing to the Lord, for He is highly exalted”** (Exodus 15:1). It is **for this** reason that the word **“saying” is stated,** in addition to the word “said.” **Rabbi Neḥemya says:** The people sang the song together with Moses **as** is done when **reciting *Shema*,** which is recited in unison after the prayer leader begins, **and not as** is done when **reciting *hallel*.**

‎[5] **On that same day Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus taught: Job served the Holy One, Blessed be He, only out of love, as it is stated: “Though He will slay me, still I will trust in Him”** (Job 13:15). **And still, the matter is even,** i.e., the verse is ambiguous, as there are two possible interpretations of the verse. Was Job saying: **I will await Him,** expressing his yearning for God; **or** should the verse be interpreted as saying **I will not await** Him. As the word “lo” can mean either “to him” or “not,” it is unclear which meaning is intended here. This dilemma is resolved elsewhere, where **the verse states** a clearer indication of Job’s intent: **“Till I die I will not put away my integrity from me”** (Job 27:5). This **teaches that he acted out of love.** **Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai,** so that you could live and see this? **As you taught all your life that Job worshipped the Omnipresent only out of fear, as it is stated:** “And that **man** was **wholehearted and upright, and God-fearing, and shunned evil”** (Job 1:1); **but** now **Yehoshua** ben Hyrcanus, **the disciple of your disciple, has taught that** Job **acted out of love.**

Mishnah Sotah 4:5-5:1

Version Info