חוּץ מִפָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ: חוּץ מִפָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לִמְחוֹק לָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

except for the ink used to write the Torah passage about the sota , even when written in a Torah scroll. Rabbi Ya’akov says in the name of Rabbi Meir: It is except for the ink used to write the scroll with the sota passage used in the Temple. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two opinions? The Gemara replies: Rabbi Yirmeya says that there is a difference between them with regard to whether it is permitted to erase the passage for the sota from a Torah scroll. According to Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Meir holds that this is permitted, and therefore the passage in the Torah scroll must be written with ink that does not contain copper sulfate, so that it can be erased. By contrast, according to Rabbi Ya’akov, Rabbi Meir holds that it is prohibited to erase the passage from a Torah scroll, and therefore the passage may be written with ink containing copper sulfate.

וְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי; דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מְגִילָּתָהּ כְּשֵׁירָה לְהַשְׁקוֹת בָּהּ סוֹטָה אַחֶרֶת. רַבִּי אַחַי בַּר יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: מְגִילָּתָהּ כְּשֵׁירָה לְהַשְׁקוֹת בָּהּ סוֹטָה אַחֶרֶת.

The Gemara assumes that according to Rabbi Ya’akov it is prohibited to erase the passage from a Torah scroll, since he holds that the scroll must be written for the sake of the sota , whereas Rabbi Yehuda, who permits this, holds that the scroll need not be written for the sake of the sota . And therefore, the opinions of these tanna’im are parallel to the opinions of those tanna’im , as it is taught in a baraita : The scroll of one sota is not fit to be used in the preparation of the water to give to another sota to drink, as it was not written for the sake of the other sota . Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya says: Her scroll is fit to be used in the preparation of the water to give to another sota to drink, since it does not need to be written for the sake of the sota .

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא הָתָם, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּאִינְתִּיק לְשׁוּם רָחֵל – לָא הָדְרָא מִינְתְּקָא לְשׁוּם לֵאָה, אֲבָל תּוֹרָה דִּסְתָמָא כְּתִיבָה, הָכִי נַמִי דְּמָחֲקִינַן.

Rav Pappa said: Perhaps that is not so, and the two disputes are not comparable. It is possible that the first tanna of the baraita states that the scroll may not be used for another sota only there, in the case if a scroll written for a specific woman; since it was originally designated in the name of one woman, e.g., Rachel, it cannot again be designated in the name of another woman, e.g., Leah. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which is written without specifying anyone, indeed we may erase the passage to prepare the water for a sota even though it was not written for her sake.

אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אַחַי בַּר יֹאשִׁיָּה הָתָם, אֶלָּא בִּמְגִילָּה דְּאִיכְתּוּב לְשׁוּם אָלוֹת בָּעוֹלָם, אֲבָל תּוֹרָה דִּלְהִתְלַמֵּד כְּתִיבָה, הָכִי נַמִי דְּלָא מָחֲקִינַן.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the comparison between the two disputes can be refuted for a different reason: Perhaps that is not so. It is possible that Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya states that the scroll may be used for another sota only there, with regard to the scroll written for a specific sota , as it was written for the purpose of the curses of a sota in general. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which is written to be learned from, indeed we may not erase it for a sota , as it was not written for the sake of a sota at all.

וְרַבִּי אַחַי בַּר יֹאשִׁיָּה לֵית לֵיהּ: כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלָךְ. מְצָאוֹ בֶּן עִירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ: שְׁמִי כְּשִׁמְךָ וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי כְּשֵׁם אִשְׁתְּךָ – פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ?

The Gemara asks: And doesn’t Rabbi Aḥai bar Yoshiya hold in accordance with that which is taught in a mishna ( Gittin 24a): With regard to one who wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, if a resident of his city found him and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife’s name is the same as your wife’s name; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, it is unfit to divorce the other woman with it. The reason for this is that it was written for the sake of another woman. Seemingly, the same principle should apply with regard to the scroll of a sota .

אָמְרִי: הָתָם ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, בָּעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ. הָכָא נַמִי ״וְעָשָׂה לָהּ״! מַאי עֲשִׂיָּיה? מְחִיקָה.

The Sages say in response: There, with regard to a bill of divorce, the Merciful One states: “And he shall write for her a bill of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:1). This teaches that we require the writing to be performed for the sake of the specific woman. However, no similar requirement is mentioned with regard to a sota . The Gemara asks: Here, too, with regard to the sota , the verse states: “And the priest shall perform with her all of this law” (Numbers 5:30), indicating that the ritual must be performed for the sake of the specific woman. The Gemara answers: What is the performance referred to in the verse? It is referring to the erasure, whereas the writing need not be done for the sake of a specific woman.

״אֵינָהּ מַסְפֶּקֶת לִשְׁתּוֹת עַד שֶׁפָּנֶיהָ [כו']״. מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁקָהּ, דְּכַמָּה דְּלָא קָרְבָה מִנְחָתָהּ לָא בָּדְקִי לָהּ מַיָּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִנְחַת זִכָּרוֹן מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן״.

§ The mishna states: When a guilty woman drinks she does not manage to finish drinking before her face turns green and her eyes bulge, and her skin becomes full of protruding veins. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna, which indicates that the water evaluates her while she is still drinking? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink, because according to the opinion of the Rabbis the meal-offering is sacrificed only after she drinks, and as long as her meal-offering has not been sacrificed the water does not evaluate her, as it is written: “And he shall bring her offering for her…for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of remembrance, a reminder of iniquity” (Numbers 5:15).

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: יֵשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת הָיְתָה תּוֹלָה לָהּ. אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָאֲמַר: אֵין זְכוּת תּוֹלָה בַּמַּיִם הַמָּרִים!

The Gemara asks: Say the latter clause of the mishna: If she has merit, it delays her punishment for her. We arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, as, if this statement were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didn’t he say: Merit does not delay punishment in the case of the bitter water of a sota ?

אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁקָהּ. וּבִזְכוּת – סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבָּנַן.

Rav Ḥisda said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: The priest sacrifices her meal-offering and afterward forces her to drink. With regard to the order of the ritual he holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, and with regard to the matter of merit delaying punishment, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

״וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים: הוֹצִיאוּהָ״ וכו׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּדִילְמָא מֵתָה. לְמֵימְרָא, דְּמֵת אָסוּר בְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה?

§ The mishna states: And the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is lest she die there immediately and render the women’s courtyard, where she drinks the water, impure. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a corpse is prohibited from being in the women’s courtyard, which has the same status as the Levite camp in the desert?

וְהָתַנְיָא: טְמֵא מֵת מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה. וְלֹא טְמֵא מֵת בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ – אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מֵת עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף עִמּוֹ״, עִמּוֹ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ!

But isn’t it taught in a baraita : One who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted to enter the Levite camp. And the Sages said this not only with regard to one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; rather, even a corpse itself may be brought into the Levite camp, as it is stated: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19), which is interpreted to mean: With him, in his vicinity, even though Moses was in the Levite camp.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: שֶׁמָּא תִּפְרוֹס נִדָּה. לְמֵימְרָא, דִּבְעִיתוּתָא מְרַפְּיָא? אִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתִּתְחַלְחַל הַמַּלְכָּה מְאֹד״, וְאָמַר רַב: שֶׁפֵּירְסָה נִדָּה. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: חֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת דָּמִים! פַּחֲדָא צָמֵית, בִּיעֲתוּתָא מְרַפְּיָא.

Abaye said: The woman is removed not due to a concern that she will die there but lest the fear of the water cause her to begin to menstruate, and it is prohibited for a menstruating woman to enter the Levite camp. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that fear causes muscular relaxation and menstrual bleeding? Yes, as it is written: “And the Queen was exceedingly pained” (Esther 4:4), and Rav says: This means that she began to menstruate. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna ( Nidda 39a) that trepidation eliminates the flow of menstrual blood? Presumably, the sota experiences trepidation. The Gemara answers: Trepidation generated by extended worry contracts the muscles and prevents the blood from flowing, but sudden fear relaxes the muscles and causes the blood to flow.

״יֵשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת הָיְתָה״ וכו׳. מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן, וְלָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יִצְחָק אִישׁ כְּפַר דָּרוֹם, וְלָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל!

§ The mishna states: If she has merit, it delays punishment…for one year…for two years…for three years. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Abba Yosei ben Ḥanan, and not the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yitzḥak of Kefar Darom, and not the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

דְּתַנְיָא: אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה לָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, כְּדֵי הַכָּרַת הָעוּבָּר, דִּבְרֵי אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יִצְחָק אִישׁ כְּפַר דָּרוֹם אוֹמֵר: תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִקְּתָה וְנִזְרְעָה זָרַע״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״זֶרַע יַעַבְדֶנּוּ יְסֻפַּר״, זֶרַע הָרָאוּי לְסַפֵּר.

This is as it is taught in a baraita : If she has merit, it delays punishment for her for three months, equivalent to the time necessary to recognize the fetus; this is the statement of Abba Yosei ben Ḥanan. Rabbi Elazar ben Yitzḥak of Kefar Darom says: Merit delays punishment for nine months, as it is stated: “Then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” (Numbers 5:28). It is possible to infer from this that if she has merit she will be cleared temporarily, for the length of time required to conceive a child, and there, in Psalms, it says: “A seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation” (Psalms 22:31). This indicates that the seed must be fit to tell of the Lord once it matures, and a child can live only if it is born after the culmination of nine months in the womb.

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר – זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״לָהֵן מַלְכָּא מִלְכִּי יִשְׁפַּר עָלָיךְ וַחֲטָיָךְ בְּצִדְקָה פְרֻק וַעֲוָיָתָךְ בְּמִחַן עֲנָיִן

Rabbi Yishmael says: Merit delays punishment for twelve months. And although there is no explicit proof for the concept of merit delaying punishment for twelve months, there is an allusion to the concept, as it is written that Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar after interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream concerning the evil which would befall him: “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, and redeem your sins with charity, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor;