Sotah 38

Chapter 38

א ת"ר והשקה מה ת"ל והלא כבר נאמר והשקה שאם נמחקה מגילה ואומרת איני שותה מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה בעל כרחה דברי רבי עקיבא
1 Our Rabbis taught: And when he hath made her drink<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V. 27. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ר"ש אומר ואחר ישקה מה ת"ל והלא כבר נאמר והשקה אלא לאחר כל מעשים כולן האמורין למעלה מגיד ג' דברים מעכבין בה עד שלא קרב הקומץ ועד שלא נמחקה מגילה ועד שלא תקבל עליה שבועה
2 — what does this intend to tell us since It has already been stated: And he shall make the woman drink?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 24. In the consonantal text the two verbs look the same, but there is a grammatical difference. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג עד שלא קרב הקומץ ר"ש לטעמיה דאמר מקריב את מנחתה ואח"כ משקה
3 [It informs us] that if [the writing on] the scroll has been obliterated and she says: 'I refuse to drink', they exert influence upon her and make her drink by force. Such is the statement of R. Akiba. R. Simeon says: 'And afterwards shall make the woman drink' — what does this intend to tell us since it has already been stated: 'And he shall make the woman drink'? [It informs us] that it only takes place after all the rites mentioned above have been carried out, thus indicating that three things prevent [the giving of the water to drink]: [the priest] must have offered the handful, [the writing on] the scroll must have been blotted out, and [the woman] must have taken the oath. '[The priest] must have offered the handful' — R. Simeon is consistent with his opinion when he said that the priest sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink. '[The writing on] the scroll must have been blotted out' — [obviously so], for what else could he give her to drink!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the writing was an essential ingredient of what she drank. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד עד שלא נמחקה מגילה אלא מאי משקה לה אמר רב אשי לא נצרכה לשרישומו ניכר
4 — R. Ashi said: No, it is necessary [to mention this for the case where] a trace of the inscription is recognisable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon insists on total obliteration. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה עד שלא תקבל עליה שבועה מישתא הוא דלא שתיא הא מיכתב כתבי לה והאמר רבא מגילת סוטה שכתבה קודם שתקבל עליה שבועה לא עשה ולא כלום כדי נסבה
5 '[The woman] must have taken the oath.' [This means] merely she does not drink, but they write the scroll for her [before she takes the oath]? But Raba has said: If he wrote the scroll for a suspected woman before she took the oath, what he did was Invalid! — [R. Simeon] mentioned this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she first takes the oath before drinking; for it must have been done before the scroll was written. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו במאי קמיפלגי תלתא קראי כתיבי והשקה קמא ואחר ישקה והשקה בתרא
6 unnecessarily. On what, then, do they differ? — There are three verses: first 'he shall make the woman drink', second 'and afterward shall make drink', and third 'and when he hath made her drink'. The Rabbis hold that the first phrase is required for the subject-matter, i.e., he gives her to drink and then sacrifices her meal-offering; the phrase 'and afterward shall make drink' is necessary [to cover the case where] a trace of the inscription is recognisable; and the third phrase indicates that if [the writing on] the scroll has been obliterated and she says 'I refuse to drink', they exert influence upon her and make her drink by force. R. Simeon, on the other hand, holds that 'and afterward shall make drink' is required for the subject-matter. i.e., he sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink. The first phrase is to indicate that if he first gave her to drink and afterward sacrificed her meal-offering it is valid; and the third phrase denotes that if [the writing on] the scroll has been obliterated and she says 'I refuse to drink', they exert influence upon her and make her drink by force. The Rabbis, however, do not hold that the text opens with [a commandment which is only valid as] an accomplished fact.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Biblical precept states what is or is not to be done, not that something should not be done but, if accomplished, it is allowed to stand. For this reason they reject R. Simeon's explanation of the first phrase. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז רבנן סברי והשקה קמא לגופו שמשקה ואח"כ מקריב את מנחתה ואחר ישקה מיבעי ליה לשרישומו ניכר והשקה בתרא שאם נמחקה מגילה ואומרת איני שותה מערערין אותה ומשקה אותה בעל כרחה
7 Does R. Akiba hold that they give her to drink by force? Surely it has been taught: R. Judah says: They insert iron tongs into her mouth, so that if [the writing on] the scroll has been obliterated and she says 'l refuse to drink', they exert influence upon her and make her drink by force. R. Akiba says: Do we require anything else than to prove her, and is she not actually proved!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her refusal to drink is interpreted as an admission of guilt. R. Akiba is therefore against force being used. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח ור"ש סבר ואחר ישקה לגופו שמקריב את מנחתה ואח"כ משקה והשקה קמא שאם השקה ואח"כ הקריב את מנחתה כשרה והשקה בתרא שאם נמחקה מגילה ואמרה איני שותה מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה בעל כרחה
8 But so long as the priest has not offered the handful, she can retract;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And admit guilt, and so avoid force. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט ורבנן בדיעבד לא פתח קרא
9 and when he has offered the handful, she cannot retract! — But, even on your reasoning, the teaching is inconsistent. It states: 'When he has offered the handful, she cannot retract', but is she not actually proved!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By refusing to drink before the handful was offered. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י וסבר ר"ע משקין אותה בעל כרחה והתניא רבי יהודה אומר כלבוס של ברזל מטילין לתוך פיה שאם נמחקה מגילה ואמרה איני שותה מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה בע"כ אמר רבי עקיבא כלום אנו צריכין אלא לבודקה והלא בדוקה ועומדת אלא עד שלא קרב הקומץ יכולה לחזור בה משקרב הקומץ אינה יכולה לחזור בה
10 [You must perforce say] that there is no contradiction; as one case is where she retracts through trembling and the other where she retracts through defiance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only in the latter is the refusal considered an admission of guilt. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא וליטעמיך תיקשי לך היא גופה משקרב הקומץ אינה יכולה לחזור בה והלא בדוקה ועומדת
11 and this is what he means: when [she retracts] through defiance she does not drink at all; but when it is through trembling, so long as the priest has not offered the handful she is able to retract, since [the writing on] the scroll had not yet been obliterated, or even if it had been obliterated because the priests acted illegally in obliterating it; but if he had offered the handful, in which case the priests acted legally in obliterating it, she is unable to retract.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Similarly R. Akiba in stating in the first Baraitha that she is given to drink by force refers to the case when it is through trembling.] ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יב לא קשיא הא דקהדרא בה מחמת רתיתא והא דקהדרא בה מחמת בריותא
12 
יג והכי קאמר כל מחמת בריותא כלל כלל לא שתיא מחמת רתיתא עד שלא קרב הקומץ דאכתי לא אמחוק מגילה אי נמי אמחוק מגילה דשלא כדין עביד כהנים דמחקי מצי הדרא בה משקרב הקומץ דבדין עביד כהנים דמחקי לא מצי הדרא בה
13 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter