Sotah - Daf 28
- Machlokes about the source that the waters test the adulterer
In the Mishnah, Rebbe Akiva taught: המים בודקין אותו – the waters test him, which the Gemara here explains to mean the suspected adulterer will also die. The Gemara proves that Rebbe Akiva’s derashah is from the extra “vav” in the word "ובאו" – and [the waters] shall enter and explains what he learns from all three instances of the word "ובאו" and their extra vav’s. Rebbi, who does not darshen the extra vav’s, provides another source that the waters test the adulterer: "לצבות בטן ולנפיל ירך" – to cause the stomach to distend and thigh to fall, בטנו ויריכו של בועל – this refers to the adulterer’s stomach and thigh. It cannot refer to hers, because that is mentioned later. Rebbe Akiva explains that this pasuk teaches that the Kohen informs her of the order of her punishment (which is the reverse of the apparent order in the pesukim), so no one should discredit the effectiveness of the water.
- The source that a sotah is forbidden to her husband out of doubt
It was taught in a Baraisa: מה תלמוד לומר "והיא נטמאה" "והיא לא נטמאה" – What is the pasuk teaching by saying “and she had become defiled,” and “and she had not become defiled”? They have opposite implications whether she is known to have been defiled, or known not to have been defiled, and the pasuk follows by requiring the test of the waters. אם נטמאה למה שותה – If she was known to be defiled, why does she drink? אם לא נטמאה למה משקה – If it is known she was not defiled, why does he cause her to drink? Either way, the test should not be required! Rather, her guilt or innocence must be unknown.מגיד לך הכתוב שהספק אסורה – The pasuk tells you that the case of doubt is forbidden, meaning she is forbidden to her husband until drinking the waters. Tosafos adds that the Torah is teaching that she is definitely forbidden to her husband during the time of doubt, even if in truth she is innocent.
- Laws of safek tumah are derived from a sotah
The Baraisa continues: מכאן אתה דן לשרץ – From here you can compare to sheretz (i.e., tumah). If regarding sotah, who does not become forbidden to her husband if she had illicit relations against her will or through error (where she thought it was her husband), עשה בה ספק כודאי – yet the Torah treated a case of doubtful defilement like definite defilement, then sheretz, which is metamei through contact regardless of intent, certainly cases of doubtful tumah should be treated as definite tumah.
Limitations of this principle are also derived from sotah: מה סוטה רשות היחיד – Just as sotah is prohibited only if she is secluded in a private domain, אף שרץ רשות היחיד – so too the law of doubtful tumah from sheretz is only in a private domain. ומה סוטה דבר שיש בו דעת לישאל – And just as sotah is something with the intelligence to be asked if she became defiled, אף שרץ דבר שיש בו דעת לישאל – so too the law of doubtful tumah from sheretz is only when the potential recipient of tumah is something with the intelligence to be asked if it became tamei. But if the doubtful contact with tumah occurred in a public domain, or if it occurred to something lacking intelligence, the doubtful tumah is ruled tahor.
