The Temple Procedure and the Waters’ Outcomes

A sotah here is a married woman whose husband gave her a valid warning against secluding herself with a particular man, and whose subsequent qualifying seclusion with him was established by witnesses. Adultery has not been established; the procedure addresses the resulting uncertainty.

The warning, called kinui, must concern seclusion, rather than merely speaking with the man. Identifying the witnesses enables the court to establish that a valid warning was given.

The seclusion, called setirah, must meet the conditions explained in Chapter 1. Two valid witnesses must establish that, after the warning, she secluded herself with the specified man long enough for relations to have occurred. They need not have witnessed relations themselves.

The scholars understand the prohibition and can caution him against violating it. Their role is therefore more than simply accompanying the couple on the journey.

A valid warning followed by qualifying seclusion prohibits marital relations while the matter remains unresolved. If the husband nevertheless has relations with her, the waters cannot test her, as explained in Chapter 2, Halachos 1 and 8.

The local court hears the evidence, but it cannot conduct the drinking procedure itself. That responsibility belongs to the Great Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish court. The Great Sanhedrin consists of seventy-one judges, including its head; the reference here to seventy elders identifies that supreme court.

Its customary meeting place was the Chamber of Hewn Stone, situated partly within the Temple courtyard and partly outside it.

Speaking to her without her husband present removes an obstacle to an honest admission. His presence might make her more determined to defend her earlier statements or too embarrassed to acknowledge what happened.

They seek to bring her to admit adultery if it occurred, thereby avoiding the drinking procedure and its consequences. These efforts do not establish that she is guilty; she may continue to maintain her innocence.

The judges acknowledge influences that can draw a person into wrongdoing. This does not excuse the act. It makes it easier for her to speak truthfully by showing that the court understands how a person can stumble.

The drinking procedure includes dissolving a written passage containing Hashem’s Name into the waters. That erasure is authorized as part of the Torah’s procedure. If she committed adultery, however, admitting it now prevents the procedure from continuing unnecessarily.

The first statement warns of women who suffered the waters’ punishment. The second reduces the shame that might prevent an admission: even a respected person can fall, and acknowledging wrongdoing is preferable to persisting in a denial.

This account includes Yehudah’s public acknowledgment of the truth despite the embarrassment it brought him. It therefore offers an example of admitting what happened rather than concealing it.

The qualification “according to its plain meaning” is essential. The Gemara explains that Reuven did not literally commit the intimate transgression suggested by a surface reading of the verse. Here, the court recounts that surface reading for the particular purpose of easing her embarrassment about admitting wrongdoing. It should not be understood as the Gemara’s conclusion about Reuven’s conduct.

Amnon, a son of King David, assaulted his half-sister Tamar. This Tamar is a different person from Yehudah’s daughter-in-law. The accounts illustrate different matters: Yehudah’s acknowledgment of the truth, and the fact that even people from distinguished families can fall into grave wrongdoing.

In either case, the drinking procedure does not continue. Her husband must give her a valid get, and she does not receive the payment due under her kesubah, the financial obligation recorded in the marriage contract. Becoming forbidden to her husband does not itself dissolve the marriage.

The two statements have the same consequence here, but they are not identical admissions. Saying “I will not drink” does not itself establish that adultery occurred. Without drinking, however, the prohibition created by the warning and seclusion remains unresolved.

This ruling describes refusal before the scroll’s writing is erased. Chapter 4, Halachos 3–6, distinguishes between refusal before and after erasure, an admission of adultery, and refusal arising from fear.

This is the Gate of Nicanor. Facing the Holy of Holies describes the gate’s alignment; she is not being brought into the Holy of Holies.

The movement is intended to weary her and encourage an admission if she committed adultery.

This establishes where she stands as the procedure continues. “On its outer side” refers to the gate just mentioned, rather than a location outside the entire Temple complex.

The determining consideration is how the garments affect her appearance. Black is not required for its own sake; if it is becoming to her, different clothing is used.

The obligation concerns the women present there; it does not require every woman elsewhere to travel to the Beis HaMikdash. The gathering increases the embarrassment of the procedure and warns those watching against similar misconduct.

The wording distinguishes the women present, who are obligated to watch, from men, who are permitted to attend.

The outer coverings are removed, but the cap remains on her head at this stage. The uncovering and loosening of her hair described later in Halachah 11 is a subsequent step.

Although other people may observe the procedure, her own attendants are excluded. Familiar faces could reassure her and strengthen her determination to maintain her position.

A Kohen is a member of the priestly family descended from Aharon. Although this is a sacred procedure, the oath need not be administered in Hebrew. She must understand what she is accepting.

He identifies the specific conduct that made the procedure necessary. Suspicion alone does not suffice; the procedure requires valid kinui, the warning, followed by qualifying setirah, the seclusion. These establish the circumstances requiring clarification, rather than proving adultery.

The oath first states the consequence if she is innocent of the act being tested: the waters will not inflict their curse upon her.

Being made an example “in curses and oaths” means that her fate would become an expression people invoke when describing such a punishment. The bodily consequences specified here belong to the curse she is accepting if she committed the transgression.

Answering Amen to an oath is treated as taking the oath oneself, as explained in Hilchos Shevuos 2:1. Her response must therefore be understood, just as the Kohen’s words must be understood.

Her response accepts the oath and its conditional consequences; it is not an admission of adultery.

The quoted passage mentions the thigh before the abdomen in one place and reverses their order in another. The Kohen clarifies the actual sequence so that no one will claim that the waters acted contrary to the Torah’s description.

The comparison concerns the material used for the scroll. The parchment must come from a kosher species; “kosher” here identifies the species rather than the hide’s present state of ritual purity.

Unlike the spoken oath, which may be given in a language she understands, the written passage must be in Hebrew. The ink must also be capable of being erased into the water. Kankantum is an ink additive that makes the writing resistant to erasure, so ink containing it is unsuitable for this purpose.

The writing must be done lishmah—with the intention that it serve this particular woman’s procedure. A get, the document effecting a Jewish divorce, likewise requires writing specifically for the woman for whom it is intended. The comparison concerns this requirement of intent; it does not make the two documents identical in every respect.

He writes the prescribed Hebrew passage itself, not a summary or a translation of what she heard. Even when the oath was explained to her in another language, the scroll retains the Torah’s Hebrew wording.

The Divine Name is written in its actual four-letter form, rather than replaced with a substitute. “Amen, Amen” is her response accepting the oath; it is not included in the passage written for erasure.

Earthenware means a vessel made from fired clay. The requirement concerns its previous use, not merely whether it is clean.

The vessel’s appearance is a separate consideration. Even an unused vessel may acquire an aged appearance after being stored for a long time.

Returning the vessel to the kiln can restore its fresh appearance. Here, the Rambam permits a vessel whose appearance has been renewed through refiring.

A log is a halachic measure of volume. Half a log is approximately 173 milliliters according to Shiurei Torah, or approximately 299 milliliters according to the Chazon Ish’s calculation. These are differing calculations of the same halachic measure.

The kiyor is the Temple basin used by the Kohanim to wash their hands and feet. The water is taken from that basin, rather than from an ordinary supply of water.

The Heichal is the Temple’s main sanctuary building. The Kohen brings the vessel of measured water into the Heichal for the next step: taking earth from beneath its floor.

The location is inside the Heichal mentioned in the preceding halachah. An amah, or cubit, is a halachic measure of length. The ring provides a handle for lifting the slab and reaching the earth beneath it.

The Torah describes taking earth from the floor of the Mishkan, the portable Sanctuary. Here, that requirement is fulfilled with earth from beneath the floor of the Heichal. Enough earth must be added for it to be visible on the water’s surface.

The bitterness is an actual property of the prepared water, produced by adding a bitter substance. Wormwood is an example; the requirement is not limited to that particular plant.

The writing is dissolved into the water rather than erased elsewhere. Just as the scroll must be written for this particular woman, its erasure must also be performed with that intention.

No recognizable trace of the writing may remain. Merely making the passage illegible is insufficient if recognizable remnants of its letters are still present.

The Rambam now describes a different Kohen taking part, following the preparation of the waters and the erasure of the scroll.

This is the later stage of uncovering her hair, distinct from removing the outer coverings while leaving her head cap in place in Halachah 5. Both the uncovering and the undoing of her braids are specified.

An Egyptian rope is made from palm fiber. Its association with Egypt also serves as a rebuke concerning forbidden intimate conduct. The procedure addresses suspected adultery following established warning and seclusion; the rope’s symbolism does not itself establish that adultery occurred.

The preferred rope carries the stated symbolism, but its absence does not prevent the procedure from continuing.

The rope has a practical function as well: it secures the torn garments. Although the procedure includes the exposure described above, the garments must be prevented from falling away entirely.

An isaron is a measure of dry volume equal to one-tenth of an eifah, or the volume of 43.2 eggs. This is the quantity of flour required for her minchah, the grain offering brought as part of the sotah procedure.

The Gemara associates barley, commonly used as animal feed, with the animal-like conduct that the offering rebukes.

This is a basket woven from palm leaves. At this stage, the flour is held in that basket; its transfer into a sacred vessel is described in the next halachah.

These funds, called shirei halishkah, are the money remaining from the communal half-shekel contributions after the allocations for communal offerings. They may be used for designated communal needs.

The funding is therefore divided: the husband supplies the flour, while these communal funds supply the rope and basket.

She holds the basket containing the flour. The burden is another part of the effort to encourage an admission if she committed adultery, rather than having the procedure continue.

A kli shares is a vessel consecrated for service in the Beis HaMikdash. The flour is transferred from its preliminary basket into the vessel used for the sacrificial service.

Levonah, frankincense, is an aromatic resin used in the service of certain grain offerings. Although oil and frankincense accompany many other grain offerings, they are expressly forbidden on this one.

Adding oil alone violates one prohibition; adding frankincense alone violates another. If both are added, each carries its own liability, subject to the requirements for administering lashes.

This requirement accompanies the actions described in the preceding halachos. The waters are held ready during these stages, rather than merely brought out when she is about to drink.

Seeing the waters impresses upon her the seriousness of what is about to take place and encourages an admission if she committed adultery.

The sequence stated here places the drinking before the waving and offering of the minchah. At this stage, she holds the sacred vessel containing the flour, rather than the basket used earlier.

The eastern area is the part of the courtyard east of the altar. Both the woman and the Kohen participate in the tenufah, the prescribed waving of the offering.

The waving includes movement in the four horizontal directions, followed by raising and lowering the offering.

This stage is called hagashah, bringing the offering to the prescribed point on the altar. It is distinct from both the preceding waving and the burning of the portion taken from the flour.

Kemitzah is the prescribed taking of a portion of the flour with the Kohen’s hand. That portion, called the kometz, is offered upon the altar. The remaining flour is for the Kohanim to eat, subject to the laws governing the consumption of the offering.

When the procedure has been properly carried out and she is innocent of the transgression being tested, the prohibition created by the warning and seclusion is removed. The rules concerning delayed punishment and her permitted status during that interval are explained in Halachos 20–21.

These are the initial visible effects of the waters’ punishment. The description assumes that the conditions for the waters to operate have been met. The following halachos explain circumstances in which the waters do not test her or their punishment is delayed.

The Gemara explains that the terror of approaching death may bring on menstruation. She is therefore removed promptly from the area in which she is standing.

A woman in the state of niddah, the ritual impurity associated with menstruation, may not remain in this sacred area. The concern is her presence there while ritually impure, rather than the ground of the courtyard becoming impure.

The Women’s Courtyard, or Ezras Nashim, is a defined area of the Beis HaMikdash. Its name does not mean that only women may enter it.

This is the sequence the Kohen explained to her when administering the oath: the abdomen is affected before the thigh.

The punishment is not confined to the woman or to someone physically present in the Beis HaMikdash. The man who committed adultery with her is affected wherever he is located.

The next phrase identifies the sin relevant here: forbidden intimate relations. This is not a requirement that he have never committed any kind of transgression.

Chapter 2, Halachah 8 establishes that this concerns forbidden relations committed after he reached halachic adulthood. His own disqualifying conduct prevents the waters from functioning as the prescribed test.

Consequently, if the waters have no effect because of his conduct, that absence of punishment does not demonstrate that his wife was innocent.

This refers to the husband just described, whose forbidden relations prevent the waters from testing his wife. Proceeding despite that disqualification creates additional wrongdoing beyond his original offense.

The Torah authorizes erasing Hashem’s Name as part of the valid sotah procedure. Here, the husband’s disqualification prevents the waters from performing their intended function, so he causes that sacred writing to be erased needlessly.

The Rambam describes the harm that can follow if she was guilty: she may tell others that the waters failed to punish an actual transgression, leading them to question the procedure.

She attributes the lack of punishment to the waters themselves, unaware that his conduct prevented them from operating. His wrongdoing therefore causes both unnecessary erasure of the Divine Name and a misleading impression about the Torah’s procedure.

The word “therefore” connects this ruling to the preceding halachos. The waters require the husband to be free of the disqualifying intimate transgressions described earlier. Widespread adultery undermined that condition, and continuing the procedure would lead to the misuse and discredit described in Halachah 18.

The Gemara places this discontinuation in the time of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, before the destruction of the Second Beis HaMikdash.

Discontinuing the waters did not remove the prohibition created by valid warning and qualifying seclusion. It meant that this procedure was no longer available to resolve the matter.

Here, kabbalah means the received prophetic writings, not the body of mystical teachings commonly called Kabbalah. The verse supports withholding this punishment in the circumstances described; it does not make adultery permissible.

The statement concerns the general obligation of Torah study discussed in Hilchos Talmud Torah. It does not exempt women from learning the halachos they need to observe their mitzvos, as explained in the Alter Rebbe’s Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:14. Exemption from the general obligation also does not mean that she cannot possess merit associated with Torah learning.

The Gemara identifies such merit here with her assistance in enabling her husband and sons to study Torah; the Dig Deeper section develops this point.

The merit delays the punishment; it does not establish innocence or cancel the transgression. This halachah concerns a guilty woman whose punishment is postponed.

The delay is not described as a period of complete health. She deteriorates while the final punishment is deferred.

This describes what happens when Torah merit delays the punishment of a guilty woman. Ordinary illness after drinking does not itself establish guilt. As the next halachah explains, her marital status depends on the specific signs stated there.

The extent of the delay corresponds to her merit. The fact that she does not die immediately therefore cannot, by itself, establish that she was innocent.

The characteristic punishment ultimately appears despite its postponement. Her marital status during the intervening period is addressed in the next halachah.

Although Torah merit can delay punishment, that possibility alone does not keep her forbidden after drinking. General illness likewise does not establish adultery. Her status changes when the distinctive signs specified below appear.

The inclusion of a Kohen is significant because a Kohen’s wife can become forbidden to him even through coerced relations. The absence of immediate punishment does not create a new suspicion that this occurred.

General illness is not treated as the distinctive punishment described in the Torah. Even though illness can accompany delayed punishment, it does not by itself establish that this woman committed adultery.

The appearance of the characteristic signs changes her status. The prohibition is now definite, rather than the unresolved prohibition that existed before she drank.

The Rambam now describes the beneficial effects experienced by an innocent woman, in contrast to the punishment of a guilty woman.

The Meiri explains the illness here as one that had prevented conception. The passage should therefore not be expanded into an unrestricted promise that every illness or every cause of infertility will be removed.

This also accords with Chapter 2, Halachah 10, which explains that the Torah’s promise of conception concerns a woman capable of bearing children.

These are the particular blessings described for the innocent woman: renewed strength, removal of the stated impediment, and improvement in her experience of childbirth.

This refers to two valid witnesses establishing that she willingly committed adultery. Their testimony requires divorce without her kesubah payment, even though she drank and suffered no punishment. Her husband must give her a valid get; becoming forbidden does not itself dissolve the marriage.

The absence of the waters’ punishment cannot be used to reject valid testimony. The Rambam gives two reasons why the waters might not have acted.

The existence of witnesses to the act prevents the waters from serving as the test, even if those witnesses have not yet appeared in court. As explained in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, the matter can ultimately be established through their testimony, without the miraculous action of the waters.

This refers to the disqualifying forbidden relations discussed in Halachah 17. His conduct provides another possible explanation for the absence of punishment. It does not weaken the testimony establishing her adultery.

The timing makes a decisive difference. Before she drinks, the testimony of one witness to adultery can prevent the procedure and leave her forbidden, as explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 14. After she has drunk, that exceptional authority of a single witness no longer produces the same result.

Two valid witnesses can establish adultery afterward; one witness cannot overturn her permitted status in the case described here.

Ones means that the relations were forced upon her. Shegagah means an unwitting error concerning the circumstances of the relations—for example, she mistakenly believed that the man was her husband (Rashi, Sotah 28a). It does not mean that she knowingly committed adultery and later regretted it.

Derech eivarim means external intimate bodily contact without penetration. The exclusion concerns that contact, rather than another form of intercourse.

The waters test the particular transgression defined by the Torah’s passage. They do not punish every form of improper conduct or every circumstance involving forbidden relations.

This ruling concerns the operation of the waters. It does not make external intimate contact permissible, nor does it eliminate the separate marital consequences that can arise when a Kohen’s wife is subjected to coerced relations.

The Torah’s description concerns a woman who was not forced. A woman subjected to forced relations is therefore excluded from the waters’ punishment.

The wording describes a knowing betrayal, excluding the mistaken act discussed here.

The exclusion concerns contact that does not constitute intercourse. Such conduct can be forbidden without being the act for which these waters administer punishment.