## Sotah Daf 6b

###### Sotah 6b:1
[Sotah 6b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:1)

הָאוֹמֶרֶת ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״, וְשֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who says: I am defiled, and witnesses came** forth and testified **with regard to her that she is defiled.**


###### Sotah 6b:2
[Sotah 6b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:2)

דַּאֲתוֹ עֵדִים אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּתִקְדּוֹשׁ — תִּיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav clarifies: In the case **where witnesses came** forth, **when** did they come forth? **If we say** that they came forth **before** the meal-offering **was sanctified,** as all meal-offerings become sanctified only when placed in the service vessels used in the Temple service, then the testimony should obviate the need for the *sota* rite, and the meal-offering **should be transferred to non-sacred** status, as any meal-offering that was found to be consecrated in error before it was sanctified in a service vessel reverts to non-sacred status. Therefore, Rav infers that the witnesses could not have testified before the offering’s sanctification, or the meal-offering would not be burned.


###### Sotah 6b:3
[Sotah 6b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:3)

אֶלָּא לְבָתַר דִּקְדוּשׁ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מַיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ — אַלְמָא בַּת מִקְדָּשׁ וּמִקְרָב הִיא, וְכִי קְדוּשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא — שַׁפִּיר קְדוּשׁ, וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי מִנְחָתָהּ נִשְׂרֶפֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav states his objection: **Rather,** the witnesses must have come forth **after** the meal-offering **was sanctified. Granted, if you say** the bitter **water** of a *sota* **evaluates** whether **she** was unfaithful in a case where there are witnesses to her infidelity, even if they have not testified, **evidently** the meal-offering **is suitable to be sanctified and sacrificed; and when it was sanctified at the outset,** although there were witnesses who could have testified, it **was properly sanctified, and due to that** reason **her meal-offering is burned,** because once an offering has been properly sanctified it cannot be transferred to non-sacred status.


###### Sotah 6b:4
[Sotah 6b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:4)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ, תִּיגַּלֵּי מִילְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ דְּכִי קְדוּשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא — בְּטָעוּת קְדוּשׁ, וְתִיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that **the** bitter **water does not evaluate** whether **she** was unfaithful so long as there are witnesses to her infidelity, **then** once the witnesses come forth, **the matter should be revealed retroactively that when** the meal-offering was **sanctified at the outset, it was sanctified in error. And** the meal-offering should therefore be **transferred to non-sacred** status, not burned.


###### Sotah 6b:5
[Sotah 6b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:5)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּיסְקַרְתָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה בָּעֲזָרָה, דְּכִי קְדוּשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא — שַׁפִּיר קְדוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda from Diskarta said,** in response, that the mishna concerning meal-offerings is referring to a case **where** the woman **committed adultery in the** Temple **courtyard** after the meal-offering had been sanctified in a service vessel, **as at the outset, when** the meal-offering **was sanctified** due to the previous seclusion, it **was properly sanctified,** as the witnesses were to the infidelity that occurred in the Temple courtyard, not to infidelity during the seclusion.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וַהֲלֹא פִּירְחֵי כְהוּנָּה מְלַוִּין אוֹתָהּ! שֶׁזִּינְּתָה מִפִּירְחֵי כְהוּנָּה עַצְמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya objects to this** explanation: **But** how can she commit adultery in the Temple courtyard? **Don’t young priests [*pirḥei kehunna*] accompany her** to the place where she drinks? The Gemara answers: This is a case **where she committed adultery with the young priests themselves.**


###### Sotah 6b:7
[Sotah 6b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:7)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּצְרְכָה לִנְקָבֶיהָ, דְּאַטּוּ פִּירְחֵי כְהוּנָּה בְּכִיפָּה תָּלֵי לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** differently: It is a case **where she needed to relieve herself** and the accompanying young priest allowed her to go relieve herself in private, and she committed adultery there, **for is that to say** that **the young priests hold her in a cell?** Since there are times when she is out of their sight, there remains a possibility that she will commit adultery with others even when accompanied by the young priests.


###### Sotah 6b:8
[Sotah 6b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:8)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְאָמְרִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ תִּיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין — מִדְּרַבָּנַן, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: מוֹצִיאִין מִכְּלֵי שָׁרֵת לְחוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** differently: **Actually,** the explanation is **as we initially said,** that the witnesses testify that she had been defiled during the initial seclusion for which she must drink, and not for adultery committed in the Temple courtyard. **And that which you say,** that if the bitter water does not evaluate a woman about whom there are witnesses concerning her infidelity, and therefore the offering was sanctified in error and it should be **transferred to non-sacred** status, you are correct that by Torah law it is non-sacred. However, it is considered sacred **by rabbinic law,** due to a rabbinic **decree, lest** people who do not know that the sanctification was done in error **will** mistakenly **say: One can transfer** a meal-offering **to non-sacred** status without it being redeemed even after it had been sanctified in **a service vessel.**


###### Sotah 6b:9
[Sotah 6b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:9)

מֵתִיב רַב מָרִי: נִטְמֵאת מִנְחָתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָדְשָׁה בִּכְלִי — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת, וְתִפָּדֶה. מִשֶּׁקָּדְשָׁה בִּכְלִי — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת, וְתִשָּׂרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari raises an objection** to Rav Pappa’s interpretation from a *baraita* in the *Tosefta* (2:4–6) that states: If **the meal-offering** of a *sota* **became ritually impure,** its status is determined by when it became impure. If it became impure **before it was sanctified** by being placed **in a** service **vessel, it is like all** other **meal-offerings** that became impure prior to sanctification, **and it should be redeemed** by a replacement offering brought in its stead. **If it** became impure **after it had been sanctified** by being placed **in a** service **vessel, it is like all** other **meal-offerings** that became impure after sanctification **and must be burned.**


###### Sotah 6b:10
[Sotah 6b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:10)

קָדַשׁ הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַקְרִיבוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּת הוּא אוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת, וְתִשָּׂרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If, after the meal-offering was sanctified by being placed in a service vessel, the priest removed a handful from it to be sacrificed on the altar, and **the handful was sanctified** by being placed in its own service vessel, **but the priest did not manage to sacrifice it before he,** the husband, **died, or before she,** the wife, **died,** rendering the offering irrelevant, then **it is like all** other **meal-offerings** that are invalidated between the removal of the handful and its being sacrificed, **and it must be burned.**


###### Sotah 6b:11
[Sotah 6b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:11)

קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם עַד שֶׁמֵּת הוּא אוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת, וְתֵאָכֵל. שֶׁעַל הַסָּפֵק בָּאת מִתְּחִילָּה, כִּיפְּרָה סְפֵיקָהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If **the handful was sacrificed but** the priest **did not manage to eat the remainder** of the meal-offering **before** the husband **died, or before** the wife **died, it is like all** other **meal-offerings** that become invalidated after the handful has been sacrificed, **and it must be eaten** by the priests. The *baraita* explains why, despite the death of the husband or wife, which renders this meal-offering irrelevant as the woman will not drink the bitter water, the meal-offering still is eaten: **Because** this meal-offering **initially came due to an uncertainty** as to whether the woman had been unfaithful, and **it atoned** for **its uncertainty and left,** i.e., it fulfilled its purpose of being sacrificed at the time when the husband and wife were still alive, it remains valid afterward as well.


###### Sotah 6b:12
[Sotah 6b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:12)

בָּאוּ לָהּ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה — מִנְחָתָהּ נִשְׂרֶפֶת. נִמְצְאוּ עֵדֶיהָ זוֹמְמִין — מִנְחָתָהּ חוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If witnesses came** forth before the handful was offered and testified **with regard to her that she is defiled, her meal-offering is burned.** If the **witnesses** who testified about **her** infidelity **are** later **found** to be **conspiring, her meal-offering is** transferred to **non-sacred** status. This final clause teaches that if the witnesses to the wife’s infidelity are found to be conspiring witnesses, then the meal-offering is transferred to non-sacred status even after it was already sanctified in a service vessel. This is difficult for Rav Pappa, for he said that in a similar case, where witnesses testified about her infidelity after the offering was sanctified, the Sages decreed that the offering should be burned, in order to prevent people from saying that a meal-offering that has been sanctified in a service vessel may be transferred afterward to non-sacred status.


###### Sotah 6b:13
[Sotah 6b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:13)

עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין קָאָמְרַתְּ?! עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין קָלָא אִית לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this objection: Do **you say** that one can question Rav Pappa’s statement from a ruling concerning **conspiring witnesses?** The cases are not comparable, as **conspiring witnesses generate publicity.** Since the circumstances of these cases are well publicized, everyone knows that the offering was sanctified in error.


###### Sotah 6b:14
[Sotah 6b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:14)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְלָאו מִטַּעְמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After attempting to question Rav Sheshet’s novel ruling, that in the case of a *sota* with regard to whom there are witnesses in a country overseas who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse, the bitter water does not evaluate whether she was unfaithful, the Gemara attempts to adduce support for his ruling: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Sheshet, but not due to his reasoning,** rather based upon the explication of a verse.


###### Sotah 6b:15
[Sotah 6b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:15)

״טְהוֹרָה״ — וְלֹא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ עֵדִים בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* expounds several words in the verse concerning a *sota* who survives the drinking of the bitter water and is found to have been faithful: “And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean [*utehora hee*], then she shall be cleared and shall conceive seed” (Numbers 5:28). Noting that the phrase “but be clean,” is apparently redundant, the *baraita* explains: The usage of the word **“clean [*tehora*]”** in the verse indicates that only one who survived the drinking of the bitter water due to her fidelity will conceive a child, **but** this will **not** happen in a case **where** she did not die because **there are witnesses for her** in **a country overseas** who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse.


###### Sotah 6b:16
[Sotah 6b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:16)

״וּטְהוֹרָה״ — וְלֹא שֶׁתָּלְתָה לָהּ זְכוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Additionally, from the additional letter *vav* in the word **“*utehora*,”** meaning “but be clean,” another case is excluded. Only one who survived the drinking of the bitter water due to her fidelity will conceive a child, **but** this will **not** happen in a case **where merit delays** punishment **for her,** and she consequently doesn’t die immediately after drinking the bitter water.


###### Sotah 6b:17
[Sotah 6b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/6b:17)

״הִיא״ — וְלֹא שֶׁיִּשְׂאוּ וְיִתְּנוּ בָּהּ מוֹזְרוֹת בַּלְּבָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: The next word in the verse, **“she [*hee*],”** excludes a third case: **But not where she,** i.e., her infidelity, **is discussed by weavers [*mozerot*] in the moonlight.** Women would sit in groups while spinning thread in the moonlight and gossip about the goings-on in the city. If they discuss her having committed adultery, then it is considered public knowledge, and the bitter water would not evaluate her in that case, as evaluation is not needed.


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

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, נְהִי דְּוָיו לָא דָּרֵישׁ, וְהָא אִיכָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After citing this *baraita* as proof for the ruling of Rav Sheshet, albeit from a different source, the Gemara questions how Rabbi Shimon could deny the ability of the woman’s merit to delay the *sota* punishment due to fear that it will discredit the whole *sota* rite, being that there is another case that prevents the bitter water from evaluating a woman, i.e., where witnesses in a country overseas are able to testify. **And Rabbi Shimon, granted that he does not interpret** the letter ***vav*,** as he holds that its addition is not significant, and therefore he holds that her merit does not delay her punishment, **but there is**