## Sotah Daf 18a

###### Sotah 18a:1
[Sotah 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:1)

כְּתָבָהּ עַל שְׁנֵי דַּפִּין — פְּסוּלָה. ״סֵפֶר״ אֶחָד אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה סְפָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If one wrote** the scroll **on two** unattached **pages, it is unfit,** as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: “Scroll,” in the singular. It must be written on **one scroll and not** on **two or three scrolls.**


###### Sotah 18a:2
[Sotah 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:2)

כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת וּמָחַק אוֹת אַחַת, וְכָתַב אוֹת אַחַת וּמָחַק אוֹת אַחַת — פְּסוּלָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשָׂה לָהּ הַכֹּהֵן אֵת כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If one wrote one letter and erased** that **one letter** in water, **and** he then **wrote one** more **letter and erased** that **one letter, it is unfit, as it is written: “And the priest shall execute upon her all this law”** (Numbers 5:30). The entire passage must be written completely and only then erased, all at once.


###### Sotah 18a:3
[Sotah 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:3)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כָּתַב שְׁתֵּי מְגִילּוֹת לִשְׁתֵּי סוֹטוֹת, וּמְחָקָן לְתוֹךְ כּוֹס אֶחָד, מַהוּ? כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ בָּעֵינַן, וְהָאִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא בָּעֵינַן נָמֵי מְחִיקָה לִשְׁמָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raised a dilemma: If one wrote two scrolls for two** separate ***sota* women but** then **erased** both of the scrolls **in one cup, what is** the *halakha*? Do **we require** that only the **writing** be performed **for the sake of** a specific woman, in which case **that is** accomplished here? **Or perhaps we require** that **also** the **erasure** be performed **for the sake of** a specific woman, which is not accomplished here, since both scrolls are erased together?


###### Sotah 18a:4
[Sotah 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:4)

וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר בָּעֵינַן נָמֵי מְחִיקָה לִשְׁמָהּ, מְחָקָן בִּשְׁתֵּי כוֹסוֹת וְחָזַר וְעֵירְבָן, מַהוּ? מְחִיקָה לִשְׁמָהּ בָּעֵינַן, וְהָאִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא הָא לָאו דִּידַהּ קָא שָׁתְיָא וְהָא לָאו דִּידַהּ קָא שָׁתְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **we require** that **also** the **erasure** be **for the sake of** each specific woman, then if the priest **erased them in two** different **cups and** afterward **mixed** the water from both together **again, what is** the *halakha*? **Do we require** that only the **erasure** be **for the sake of** a specific woman, in which case **that is** accomplished here? **Or perhaps** since **this** *sota* **does not drink** from only **her own** water **and that** *sota* **does not drink** from only **her own** water, the water is disqualified?


###### Sotah 18a:5
[Sotah 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:5)

וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הָא לָאו דִּידַהּ קָא שָׁתְיָא וְהָא לָאו דִּידַהּ קָא שָׁתְיָא, חָזַר וְחִלְּקָן, מַהוּ? יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה, אוֹ אֵין בְּרֵירָה? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, **if you say** that the water is disqualified because **this one does not drink** from only **her own** water **and that one does not drink** from only **her own** water, what if after mixing the two cups of water together the priest **divided them again** into two cups and gave one to each? **What is** the *halakha* then? **Is there** retroactive **clarification,** in which case one may claim that each woman drank her own water, **or is there no** retroactive **clarification?** The Gemara responds: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Sotah 18a:6
[Sotah 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:6)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: הִשְׁקָהּ בְּסִיב, מַהוּ? בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת, מַהוּ? דֶּרֶךְ שְׁתִיָּה בְּכָךְ, אוֹ אֵין דֶּרֶךְ שְׁתִיָּה בְּכָךְ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a dilemma: If** the priest **administered** the bitter water to the *sota* **to drink through** a palm **fiber, what is** the *halakha*? Or if he administered it **through a tube, what is** the *halakha*? **Is this** considered **a normal manner of drinking, or is it not** considered **a normal manner of drinking,** in which case the act is invalid? The Gemara responds: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Sotah 18a:7
[Sotah 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:7)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: נִשְׁפְּכוּ מֵהֶן וְנִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ מֵהֶן, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raised a dilemma:** If some **of the** water of the *sota* **spilled** out **and some of it remained** in the cup, **what is** the *halakha*? Is it sufficient for the woman to drink some of the water in which the scroll has been erased or must she drink all of it? The Gemara responds: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Sotah 18a:8
[Sotah 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁתֵּי שְׁבוּעוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּסּוֹטָה. לָמָּה? אַחַת קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה, וְאַחַת לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Zeira says** that **Rav says:** With regard to **the two oaths that are stated with regard to the *sota*:** “And the priest shall cause her to swear” (Numbers 5:19), and: “Then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing” (Numbers 5:21), **why** are they both necessary? **One** must be administered **before the scroll is erased and one** must be administered **after it is erased.**


###### Sotah 18a:9
[Sotah 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: תַּרְוַיְיהוּ קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה מְגִילָּה כְּתִיבָן? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אַחַת שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ אָלָה, וְאַחַת שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ אָלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava objects to this: Both of the** oaths **are written** in the Torah **before** any mention of **the scroll** being **erased.** What is the basis to claim that one oath was administered afterward? **Rather, Rava said:** While both oaths are administered before the *sota* drinks, the two oaths are different: **One is an oath that has a curse with it, and one is an oath that does not have a curse with it.**


###### Sotah 18a:10
[Sotah 18a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:10)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ אָלָה? אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַב: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עָלַיִךְ שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאת, שֶׁאִם נִטְמֵאת יָבוֹאוּ בִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of **an oath that has a curse with it?** What is the language of this oath? **Rav Amram says** that **Rav says:** The priest says: **I administer an oath to you** that you are honest in your claim **that you were not defiled, as, if you were defiled,** all these curses **will come upon you.**


###### Sotah 18a:11
[Sotah 18a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:11)

אָמַר רָבָא: אָלָה לְחוֹדַהּ קָיְימָא וּשְׁבוּעָה לְחוֹדַהּ קָיְימָא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עָלַיִךְ שֶׁאִם נִטְמֵאת יָבוֹאוּ בִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** This is insufficient, as **the curse stands by itself and the oath stands by itself.** They are said in separate statements, and it cannot be considered to be an oath with a curse. **Rather, Rava said:** The priest says: **I administer an oath to you that if you were defiled,** all these curses **will come upon you.**


###### Sotah 18a:12
[Sotah 18a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:12)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אָלָה — אִיכָּא, שְׁבוּעָה — לֵיכָּא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: ״מַשְׁבִּיעַנִי עָלַיִךְ שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאת, וְאִם נִטְמֵאת יָבוֹאוּ בִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** Even this is insufficient, as **there is a curse** but **there is no oath** that she was not defiled. **Rather, Rav Ashi said:** The priest must say: **I administer an oath to you that you were not defiled and** that **if you were defiled** all these curses **will come upon you.** Here the oath itself includes the curse.


###### Sotah 18a:13
[Sotah 18a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/18a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** עַל מָה הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת ״אָמֵן״ ״אָמֵן״ — אָמֵן עַל הָאָלָה, אָמֵן עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ זֶה, אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר. אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא שָׂטִיתִי אֲרוּסָה וּנְשׂוּאָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **With regard to what does she say: “Amen, amen”** (Number 5:22), twice, as recorded in the verse? The mishna explains that it includes of the following: **Amen on the curse,** as she accepts the curse upon herself if she is guilty, and **amen on the oath,** as she declares that she is not defiled. She states: **Amen** if I committed adultery **with this man** about whom I was warned, **amen** if I committed adultery **with another man. Amen that I did not stray** when I was **betrothed nor** after I was **married,**