## Sotah Daf 28a

###### Sotah 28a:1
[Sotah 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:1)

דְּאִי אִית בֵּיהּ עָוֹן בָּדְקִי לֵיהּ מַיָּא, כִּי אִית בֵּיהּ עָוֹן בְּדִידֵיהּ מִי בָּדְקִי לַהּ מַיָּא לְדִידַהּ? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״וְנִקָּה הָאִישׁ מֵעָוֹן וְהָאִשָּׁה הַהִיא תִּשָּׂא אֶת עֲוֹנָהּ״. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵין הָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that if he has** committed a similar **iniquity the water evaluates his actions,** this is difficult, as in a case **where he has** committed a similar **iniquity does the water** even **evaluate her** fidelity? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that the verse: **“And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity”** (Numbers 5:31), indicates that only **when the man is clear of iniquity does the water evaluate** the fidelity of **his wife,** but if **the man is not clear of iniquity the water does not evaluate** the fidelity of **his wife?**


###### Sotah 28a:2
[Sotah 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:2)

וְאֶלָּא לְבוֹעֵל, לִיתְנֵי כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if the mishna is **rather** referring **to the** alleged **paramour,** who is also evaluated by the water that the woman drinks, then **let** the mishna **teach as is taught** in its **latter clause: Just as she is forbidden to** her **husband, so** too **is she forbidden to** her **paramour.** Just as there the paramour is mentioned explicitly, so too here, the mishna should have stated: Just as the water evaluates whether she was unfaithful, so too, it evaluates whether the paramour committed this iniquity.


###### Sotah 28a:3
[Sotah 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:3)

לְעוֹלָם לַבּוֹעֵל, וְרֵישָׁא — אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא ״אוֹתָהּ״, תָּנֵי ״אוֹתוֹ״. סֵיפָא — אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא ״בַּעַל״, תְּנָא ״בּוֹעֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The entire mishna **actually** does refer **to the paramour, and** the reason he is not mentioned explicitly in **the first clause** of the mishna is because **since** it **teaches** that the water evaluates whether the wife was unfaithful by using the direct object **her,** it also **teaches** that the water evaluates whether the paramour committed the act by using the direct object **him,** without mentioning the paramour explicitly. In **the latter clause** of the mishna, on the other hand, **since** it **teaches** explicitly that the woman is forbidden to her **husband,** it also **teaches** explicitly that she is forbidden to her **paramour.**


###### Sotah 28a:4
[Sotah 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:4)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבָאוּ״ ״וּבָאוּ״. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״בָּאוּ״ ״וּבָאוּ״ קָאָמַר, אוֹ ״וּבָאוּ״ ״וּבָאוּ״ קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In the mishna Rabbi Akiva proves that the water evaluates the paramour as well, **as it is stated: “And** the water that causes the curse **shall enter** into her” (Numbers 5:24), and: **“And** the water that causes the curse **shall enter** into her and become bitter” (Numbers 5:27). **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages concerning the precise wording of the mishna: **Does** the mishna **state: “Shall enter [*ba’u*],” “and shall enter [*uva’u*]”?** According to this version of the mishna, it is derived from the superfluous conjoining prefix *vav* that the paramour is also evaluated by the water. **Or,** alternatively, **does** the mishna **state: “And shall enter,” “and shall enter,”** indicating that this *halakha* is derived from the repetition of the phrase in two separate verses?


###### Sotah 28a:5
[Sotah 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״וְנִטְמָאָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof from Rabbi Akiva’s second statement in the mishna, where he says: **Just as she is forbidden to** her **husband, so** too **is she forbidden to** her **paramour, as it is stated: “Is defiled [*nitma’a*],” “And is defiled [*venitma’a*]”** (Numbers 5:29). Here it seems that Rabbi Akiva derives his interpretation from the superfluous prefix *vav* rather than from the repetition of the phrase. Therefore, the first derivation should be understood in the same manner.


###### Sotah 28a:6
[Sotah 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:6)

וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי: ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״נִטְמָאָה״ קָאָמַר, אוֹ ״נִטְמָאָה״ ״וְנִטְמָאָה״ קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still, let the dilemma be raised** with regard to this *halakha* too: **Does** Rabbi Akiva **state** that the source for the *halakha* is the mention of the phrase **“is defiled,” “is defiled,”** in two different verses (Numbers 5:14, 29), **or does he state** that the *halakha* is derived from the superfluous *vav* in the phrase **“is defiled,”** rendering it **“and is defiled”** (Numbers 5:29)?


###### Sotah 28a:7
[Sotah 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה ״וְנִטְמָאָה״ ״וְנִטְמָאָה״ — אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וָוֵי קָדָרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof **from** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches** in **the latter clause** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The **two times that** the wife’s defilement **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 there are two prohibitions due to her defilement. **One is** to forbid her **to** her **husband and one is** to forbid her **to** her **paramour. By inference** from the fact that the dissenting derivation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is from the repetition of the entire phrase, evidently **Rabbi Akiva derives** this *halakha* from the superfluous ***vav*.**


###### Sotah 28a:8
[Sotah 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:8)

הִלְכָּךְ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שִׁיתָּא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Therefore, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** since the phrase “and the water…shall enter” is mentioned three times in the passage, and the prefix *vav*, written each time, is expounded as though the phrase were mentioned twice, the phrase is treated as though it were **written** in **six verses,** as follows.


###### Sotah 28a:9
[Sotah 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:9)

חַד לְצַוָּאָה דִּידַהּ, וְחַד לְצַוָּאָה דִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One** of the mentions (Numbers 5:24) is interpreted **for** the **command concerning her,** the woman, meaning that God empowered the waters to punish the woman; **and one,** the prefix *vav* in that same verse, is expounded **for** the **command concerning him,** the paramour, i.e., that he too shall be punished by the water if he is guilty.


###### Sotah 28a:10
[Sotah 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:10)

חַד לַעֲשִׂיָּיה דִּידַהּ, וְחַד לַעֲשִׂיָּיה דִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One** mention of the phrase, in the description of the drinking of the bitter water of a *sota* (Numbers 5:27), is interpreted **for the execution** of **her** punishment, as the punishment will go into effect so long as the process was performed properly; **and one,** the prefix *vav* in that verse, is expounded **for the execution** of **his** punishment.


###### Sotah 28a:11
[Sotah 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:11)

חַד לִידִיעָה דִּידַהּ, וְחַד לִידִיעָה דִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One** mention (Numbers 5:22) is **for her knowledge,** i.e., the priest informs her that this punishment will be the result; **and one,** the prefix *vav*, is **for his knowledge.**


###### Sotah 28a:12
[Sotah 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:12)

וְרַבִּי, תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: חַד — לְצַוָּאָה, וְחַד — לַעֲשִׂיָּיה, וְחַד — לִידִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi maintains that only **three verses** worthy of exposition **are written** with regard to the water entering the woman; he does not derive anything additional from the prefix *vav* that introduces the various mentions of this matter. He therefore interprets **one for** the **command, and one for the execution, and one for** the **knowledge,** all with regard to the woman herself.


###### Sotah 28a:13
[Sotah 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:13)

וְרַבִּי, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where does Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi derive the principle in the mishna that **just as the water evaluates** whether **she** was unfaithful, **so** too, **it evaluates** whether **he** committed the sin?


###### Sotah 28a:14
[Sotah 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:14)

נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּתַנְיָא: ״לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ״, בִּטְנוֹ וִירֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּטְנוֹ וִירֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּטְנָהּ וִירֵיכָהּ שֶׁל נִבְעֶלֶת? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְצָבְתָה בִטְנָהּ וְנָפְלָה יְרֵכָהּ״, הֲרֵי בִּטְנָהּ וִירֵיכָהּ שֶׁל נִבְעֶלֶת אָמוּר, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ״ — בִּטְנוֹ וִירֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He derives it from that which is taught** in a *baraita*, that the verse: **“And cause the belly to swell and the thigh to fall away”** (Numbers 5:22), is referring to **the belly and thigh of the paramour.** Do **you say** that the intention is **the belly and the thigh of the paramour, or is it only the belly and the thigh of the adulteress? When it says** later: **“And her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away”** (Numbers 5:27), **the belly and thigh of the adulteress are** explicitly **stated. And** therefore, **how do I realize** the meaning of the former verse: **“And cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall away”?** Clearly, it is referring to **the belly and thigh of the paramour.**


###### Sotah 28a:15
[Sotah 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:15)

וְאִידַּךְ, הַהוּא דְּמוֹדַע לַהּ כֹּהֵן דְּבֶטֶן בְּרֵישָׁא וַהֲדַר יָרֵךְ, שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how does **the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Akiva, interpret the repetition of verses? The former verse indicates **that** the **priest informs her that** her **belly** will be afflicted **first and then** her **thigh,** so **as not to cast aspersions on the bitter water** of a *sota*, i.e., to prevent people from claiming that the guilty woman’s death was not due to the bitter water but rather to some other cause. The reason people might claim this is that the priest says to the woman: “The Lord will make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away, and your belly swell” (Numbers 5:21). This seems to imply that her thigh is supposed to be afflicted before her belly. Therefore, when her belly swells first, people might conclude that it is not due to the water. It is for this reason that the priest needs to inform her that her belly will swell first.


###### Sotah 28a:16
[Sotah 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:16)

וְאִידַּךְ: אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״בִּטְנָהּ וִירֵכָהּ״, מַאי ״בֶּטֶן״ וְ״יָרֵךְ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְבוֹעֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** why does **the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagree with Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: **If** it is **so** that the verse: “And cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall away” (Numbers 5:22), is referring to the woman, **the verse should have written: Her belly…and her thigh. What** is meant by the phraseology of **“the belly…and the thigh”? Conclude from it** that it is referring **to** the belly and thigh of **the paramour.**


###### Sotah 28a:17
[Sotah 28a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:17)

וְאֵימָא (כולי) [כּוּלֵּיהּ] לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב ״בִּטְנוֹ״ וִ״ירֵכוֹ״. מַאי ״בֶּטֶן״ וְ״יָרֵךְ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And say that the entire** verse **comes for this,** to indicate that the water evaluates the paramour as well, and does not teach the order of the punishment? The Gemara answers: **If so,** the Torah **should have written: His belly…and his thigh. What** is the meaning of the general wording: **“The belly…and the thigh”? Conclude from it two** conclusions: That the paramour is punished and that the priest informs the woman with regard to the order of the punishment.


###### Sotah 28a:18
[Sotah 28a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כָּךְ הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ זְכַרְיָה כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehoshua said: That was how Zekharya** ben HaKatzav **would interpret** it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The two times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage indicate that there are two prohibitions due to her defilement; one is to forbid her to her husband and one is to forbid her to her paramour.


###### Sotah 28a:19
[Sotah 28a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:19)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה ״אִם נִטְמְאָה״, ״נִטְמָאָה״, ״וְנִטְמָאָה״, לָמָּה? אֶחָד לַבַּעַל, וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל, וְאֶחָד לִתְרוּמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the **three times that** the defilement of the wife **is stated in the passage,** namely: **“If she is defiled”** (Numbers 5:27), “and he warns his wife, and **she is defiled”** (Numbers 5:14), and “when a wife being under her husband goes astray **and is defiled”** (Numbers 5:29), **why** are all three necessary? **One** is to prohibit her **to** her **husband, and one** is to prohibit her **to** her **paramour, and one** is **to** prohibit her from partaking of ***teruma*,** even if she is the wife or daughter of a priest. This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Sotah 28a:20
[Sotah 28a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁמּוּתֶּרֶת לִתְרוּמָה — אֲסוּרָה לִכְהוּנָּה, זוֹ שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בִּתְרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לִכְהוּנָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yishmael said:** It is unnecessary to derive from a verse that it would also be prohibited for this woman to marry a priest, as it can be derived ***a fortiori*: If a divorced** daughter of a priest, **who is permitted to** partake of ***teruma*, is** nevertheless **forbidden to** marry into the **priesthood,** then with regard to **this** *sota*, **who is forbidden** to partake **of *teruma*, is it not logical that it is** also **prohibited** for her **to** marry into the **priesthood?**


###### Sotah 28a:21
[Sotah 28a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:21)

מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״, ״וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה״ — אִם נִטְמְאָה לָמָּה שׁוֹתָה? אִם לֹא נִטְמְאָה לָמָּה מַשְׁקָהּ? מַגִּיד לְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהַסָּפֵק אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues by citing additional expositions involving the verse: “And she is defiled” (Numbers 5:14): **What** is the meaning when **the verse states** with regard to the cases in which a husband can compel his wife to drink the bitter water of a *sota*: “And he warns his wife, **and she is defiled;** or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he warns his wife, **and she is not defiled”** (Numbers 5:14)? **If she is defiled, why does she** need to **drink?** And **if she is not defiled, why does he make her drink?** The *baraita* answers: **The verse tells you that** it is discussing a case when there is **uncertainty** as to whether the woman was faithful to her husband, yet **it is prohibited** for her to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband until the matter is clarified.


###### Sotah 28a:22
[Sotah 28a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/28a:22)

מִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְשֶׁרֶץ: וּמָה סוֹטָה, שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָּהּ שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד וְאוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן — עָשָׂה בָּהּ סָפֵק כְּוַדַּאי, שֶׁרֶץ, שֶׁעָשָׂה בּוֹ שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד וְאוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ סָפֵק

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From here you can derive** the *halakha* in a case of uncertainty **with regard to** whether the carcass of **a creeping animal** has imparted ritual impurity: **Just as** in the case of **a *sota*, where** the Torah **does not consider unwitting** adultery **like intentional** adultery, **and rape** is not treated **like a willing** transgression, because if a married woman committed adultery unwittingly or was raped she is not punished, yet still the Torah **considers an uncertain** case of adultery **like a certain** violation inasmuch as the woman is forbidden to her husband until the truth is clarified; so too, with regard to **a creeping animal** or other agents of ritual impurity, **where** the Torah **does consider unwitting** contact with impure items **like intentional** contact, as one contracts impurity whether or not his contact was intentional **and an accident** is treated **like willing** contact, **is it not logical that** the Torah must also **consider an uncertain** case of transmission of ritual impurity