1. On the fifteenth of Adar, the court attends to the needs of the community at large.¹See Hilchot Arachin 8:1, Hilchot Kilayim 2:15, and Hilchot Rotzeach 8:6, where reference is made to various services performed by the court at that time. [At that time,] they check which women should be compelled to drink, so that they can compel them to drink,²The commentaries note that the court cannot actually compel a woman to drink the bitter water. All it can do is issue a warning so that she will become forbidden to her husband, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 10:11. and to which should be given a warning so that they are divorced without receiving [the money due them by virtue of] their ketubah.

A sotah can, [however,] be compelled to drink at any time of the year.³I.e., although the court pays attention to this matter in Adar, it is possible for a sotah to be compelled to drink at any time of the year. See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 7:11, which states that it was customary to have a sotah drink the bitter water during Chol HaMo'ed when there will be many people visiting the Temple.

2. A sotah is compelled to drink the bitter water only during the daytime.⁴See Halachah 7. The entire day is fit for this purpose.

Two sotot should not be compelled to drink at the same time, as implied by [the verse]:⁵The commentaries note that there is no verse in the Torah that uses the wording cited by the Rambam. There are, however, several from which it could be implied that only one sotah should be compelled to drink at one time. "And the priest shall have her stand."

3. When a sotah says, "I will not drink [the bitter water]," because she is overcome by fear, she has the option of retracting and saying that she will drink the waters. If, however, she says that she will not drink when she is healthy and not affected by fear, she may not change her mind and say that she will drink [the bitter water].⁶Her original refusal to drink the waters is interpreted as an admission of guilt that cannot be retracted.

4. If she says, "I will not drink," before the scroll [with God's name] written for her is blotted out, the scroll is entombed. It is not fit to be used for another sotah.⁷For every scroll must be written for the sake of the woman who drinks its waters, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 8. See also Halachah 11 of this chapter. Her meal offering is scattered on the ash heap.⁸The "ash heap" was a place in the Temple Courtyard, east of the altar, where sacrifices that became disqualified were burned. Rashi (Sotah 20a) states that this offering also had to be burned.

If she says, "I will not drink [the water]," after the scroll has been blotted out, we take hold of her and force her to drink the water.

5. We intimidate her so that she will drink, and we tell her: "My daughter. If you are certain that you are innocent, stand firm. Drink [the water] without fear. For the water can be compared to the powder of a drug placed on the skin. If there is a wound, it will penetrate and descend. If there is no wound, it will have no effect."

6. If she says, "I committed adultery," although the scroll has been blotted out, the waters should be poured out,⁹She is not compelled to drink them. At the outset, their purpose was to determine whether or not she was innocent. Through her admission, that determination was made (Rashi, Sotah 20a). for they are not of a sacred nature,¹⁰Although God's name was blotted out in it, this does not endow it with holiness. and her meal offering is scattered on the ash heap.

7. When the scroll for a sotah is written at night, it is unacceptable, as [implied by Numbers 5:22-25], which states: "[The priest] shall write,... he shall give to drink,... and he shall offer," [establishing an equivalence between these different activities]. Just as the sacrifice must be offered during the daytime,¹¹As must all sacrifices. so too the writing of the scroll and making the woman drink must be performed during the day.¹²Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sotah 2:4), the Rambam quotes a different proof-text as the source for this concept.

If [the scroll] is written in non-sequential order, it is not acceptable, [as implied by Numbers 5:23, which] states: "[The priest shall write] these [curses]" - i.e., in sequence.

If he wrote the scroll before she accepted the oath, it is unacceptable, [as implied by ibid.:21-23, which] state: "And he will administer the oath... and he will write."¹³I.e., in that order.

8. If he wrote it as a letter,¹⁴The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi (Sotah 17b) as stating that this means without having the lines of the scroll ruled (sirtut) before it is written. it is unacceptable, for the verse states "on a scroll." If he writes it on two sheets [of parchment], it is unacceptable, for the verse states "on a scroll" - i.e., one and not two or three.

It may not be written on paper or on untreated parchment,¹⁵For a more detailed definition of the term the Rambam uses, see Hilchot Tefillin 1:6. but rather on a parchment scroll, [as implied by] the use of the term: "on a scroll." If it is written on paper or on untreated parchment, it is unacceptable.

9. If the scroll is written by an Israelite,¹⁶I.e., a person other than a priest. or a priest who is a minor, it is unacceptable, for [Numbers 5:23] states: "And the priest shall write...."

He should not write it with kumos, kankantum,¹⁷In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 2:3, the Rambam mentions Arabic terms for these words. Rav Kapach explains the meaning as follows: Kumos and kankantum are two similar substances, yellow and green powders, which when mixed with gallnut juice produce a black substance. Others translate kumos as gum or resin and kankantum as vitriol or atramentum sutorum. or with any other substance that leaves a permanent mark. Instead, he should use ink¹⁸See Hilchot Tefillin 1:4, which describes how ink was made. without kankantum, for the verse states: "And he will write and he will blot out." [Implied is that one must] write [with a substance] that can be blotted out. If one writes with a substance that leaves a permanent impression, it is unacceptable.

10. If [when the writing of the scroll is being blotted out] any trace of the writing remains, it is unacceptable until it is thoroughly blotted out.

If [the priest] writes one letter and then blots it out, and then writes another letter and blots it out, completing [the writing of the entire scroll in this manner], it is unacceptable. It must be written out completely [at one time to be acceptable].

11. If the scroll was not written for the sake of the woman, or it was not blotted out for the sake of the woman, it is unacceptable.

If [a priest] wrote two scrolls, [one for each of] two sotot and blotted them out into the same cup or blotted them out into two cups, but [afterwards] mixed them together in one cup and gave the two women to drink from it, it is unacceptable. Neither of the women drank [only the water in which] her scroll [was blotted out].

If [two scrolls] were blotted out in two different cups, mixed together and then separated again into two different cups, the women should not be given the water to drink. If, however, they were forced to drink [this water], it is acceptable.¹⁹Sotah 18a states that the decision in this instance resolves around the question of bererah - i.e., the idea that retroactively it can be considered that an activity was performed originally with an intent that becomes clarified only afterwards.

There is an unresolved debate among the Sages if the principle of bererah is accepted with regard to questions of Scriptural law, and therefore, the more stringent approach is taken. In this instance, this implies that God's name should not be blotted out a second time.

Note the Minchat Chinuch, who asks how this questionable drinking of the water is considered sufficient to release a woman from the prohibition she incurred after violating her husband's warning and entering into privacy with the man in question.

Note also that Halachah 2 states that two sotot should not be forced to drink at the same time.

If [the water prepared for a sotah]²⁰This is not a continuation of the previous subject, but rather deals with an ordinary instance in which water was prepared for one sotah. is spilled, [the priest] should write another scroll and bring other water.²¹We do not say that God's name should not be blotted out a second time because of one woman. If [the water] spills, but some remains, the woman should not be forced to drink it.²²For at the outset, the woman must drink all the water in which her scroll was blotted out. If she drinks [the remaining water], it is acceptable.²³Sotah (ibid.) also leaves this as an unresolved question. Since there is no binding decision that it is acceptable, the Rambam rules as above, that one may not blot out God's name in such a situation.

12. If the water for a sotah is kept overnight, it becomes unacceptable.²⁴Since it came from the basin - and was measured in a sacred vessel - it must be used on the day on which it was taken. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin, ch. 3. If one placed the dust²⁵Mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 10. [in the cup] before the water, it is unacceptable.

If there is no dust in the Sanctuary, one should bring dust from outside the Sanctuary, leave it in the Sanctuary and then take some of it and place it on the water. He should not use ash;²⁶Although in some halachic contexts (see Hilchot Shechitah 14:13) ash is considered to be dust, in this instance, the phrase "from the dust that is on the earth of the Tabernacle" implies a similarity between dust and earth (Sotah 16a). he may, however, use rotten produce,²⁷Our translation follows Sotah 16b. The Meiri states that this refers to rotten wood. for it is considered to be dust.

13. [The priest] should not dig with a hatchet [under the floor of] the Sanctuary to remove dust, as [implied by Numbers 5:17]: "the dust that is on the earth of the Sanctuary."²⁸I.e., that it existed there previously (Sotah 15b). If one did dig and remove dust, it is acceptable.

14. If [the priest] first brought her meal offering and then had her drink the water, it is acceptable.²⁹Although this deviates from the order stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 15, Sotah 19a states that this order is also acceptable, after the fact.

If her meal offering became impure before it was placed in a sacred vessel, it should be redeemed like any other meal offering that became impure before being consecrated in a sacred vessel,³⁰See Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 6:5. In such an instance, although the meal has been designated for use as a sacrifice, since it has not been placed in a sacred vessel, its actual substance has not become consecrated. and she should bring another meal offering.³¹With the money received from redeeming the first one. If the meal offering became impure after being consecrated in a sacred vessel, it should be burned.³²Since it was placed in a sacred vessel, it became consecrated. Consequently, once it became impure it must be burned, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei Hamukdashim 19:1.

Similarly, if a woman admitted to committing adultery before the fistful of meal was taken from the meal offering,³³The meal offering must be burned, because the offering of a sotah is acceptable only when it is being used to test the fidelity of a woman. Once she has admitted her guilt, that is unnecessary. Nor may it be offered as a voluntary offering, for a sotah's offering is of barley meal, and voluntary offerings may be brought from wheat only, but not from barley. she refused to drink [the water],³⁴See Halachah 4. her husband was unwilling to have her drink [the water], witnesses came [and testified that she] committed adultery,³⁵In this instance as well, the question of the woman's fidelity has been clarified. [her husband] died, or she died,³⁶As stated above, the purpose of the offering is to test the woman's fidelity and thus allow her to resume relations with her husband. If that objective is no longer relevant, as in the latter two instances mentioned in the halachah, the offering is not brought. the entire meal offering should be burned. If any of these things happened after the fistful of meal was offered, the remainder of the meal offering should not be eaten.³⁷Many authorities maintain that a printer's error has crept into the text and the text should read "the remainder is eaten." Nevertheless, the majority favor the version stated above.

15. If [the sotah's] husband was a priest, the remainder of her meal offering should not be eaten, because he has a portion in it.³⁸As stated in Leviticus 6:15, a meal offering brought by a priest should not be eaten, but instead burned on the altar. It should not, however, be burned on the altar in its entirety, as are other meal offerings brought by male priests, because the woman also has a portion in it.³⁹The meal offerings brought by priests are offered on the altar entirely, without a fistful of meal being separated. For a meal offering brought by a non-priest to be acceptable, by contrast, the fistful of meal must be separated and burned as a distinct entity. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12. Therefore, the fistful [of meal] is offered as a distinct entity, and the remainder is scattered on the ash heap.

If the witnesses are discovered to have lied,⁴⁰The term used by the Rambam (and his source, Sotah 6b) refers to hazamah, when the testimony of the witnesses is disqualified because others testify that they and the witnesses were together in another place at the time the witnesses say the act took place. Seemingly, the same law would apply if the witnesses' testimony was disqualified on other grounds. the meal offering is considered to be a non-sacred entity.⁴¹It need not be redeemed. The rationale is that it was consecrated based on a false premise - that the woman had entered into privacy with the man in question. Whenever an entity is consecrated on a false premise, the consecration is not binding.

16. If a man warns his wife against [entering into privacy with] several men, and she entered into privacy with each of the men in question, she is required to bring one meal offering that includes them all when her husband requires her to drink [the bitter water].

[This is implied by Numbers 5:15, which uses a plural term when referring to] "the meal offering [brought because of] the warnings" - i.e., one offering can requite several warnings.⁴²The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam quotes the derivation of this concept from the Midrash (Sifre Zuta), instead of citing the Talmud (Keritot 9b), which cites a different proof-text.

17. [Based on the principle of] gilgul [sh'vuah],⁴³Gilgul Sh'vuah implies that when taking an oath on one claim, a person may be required to include a variety of related claims in that oath. See Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 1:12. the husband may have the woman include in her oath that she did not commit adultery with the man concerning whom she was given a warning or with any other man, that she did not commit adultery during the time between her consecration and the consummation of the marriage, nor after the consummation.

He may not, however, have her include that she did not engage in relations [with another man] before she was consecrated or between the time she was divorced [and remarried], if she was in fact divorced and remarried. The rationale is that even if she engaged in relations [with other men at that time], she would not be forbidden [to her husband]. And whenever she is not forbidden to him, he cannot make any stipulations regarding her conduct.

For this reason, if a man married his yevamah, he cannot compel her to include in her oath that she did not engage in relations with others while she was waiting for him to perform yibbum.⁴⁴For even if she did engage in relations with another man at that time, she would not be forbidden to her yavam (Hilchot Yibbum 2:20). He may, however, compel her to include in her oath that she did not commit adultery when married to his brother. For if she committed adultery when married to his brother, she is forbidden to him.

Similarly, if [the husband] divorced his wife and remarried her, he may compel her to include in her oath that she did not commit adultery when married to him originally. Similarly, he may have her include in her oath that she will not commit adultery in the future or that she will not commit adultery if he divorces her and remarries her. [In such an instance,] if she commits adultery in the future, the waters will check her [fidelity], and [if she is guilty,] the physical phenomena [described above] will be visited upon her.

All the above is implied by [the woman's response to the oath, Numbers 5:22]: "Amen, Amen." [This can be interpreted as meaning] Amen with regard to this man; Amen with regard to others. Amen with regard to the time when I was married; Amen with regard to the time when I was consecrated. Amen with regard to the past; Amen with regard to the future.

18. It is a mitzvah for Israelites to issue warnings to their wives,⁴⁵Sotah 3a records a difference of opinion regarding this matter between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva states, as the Rambam rules here, that a man is obligated to issue a warning, while Rabbi Yishmael maintains that the matter is optional. Other commentaries note that the first mishnah in the tractate of Sotah appears to indicate that it is forbidden for a husband to issue a warning. (This concept is derived as follows: The mishnah begins: "When a man issued a warning...." From this wording, our Sages infer that the mishnah is speaking after the fact. At the outset, a warning should not be given.)

Significantly, Rabbi Akiva was noted for his love of his fellow man, as he stated: "'Love your fellow man as yourself,'... this is a great general principle within the Torah." This implies - and so is evident from the continuation of the Rambam's words - that the warning is not an instrument of strife, but rather is intended to prompt love and closeness. [as implied by Numbers 5:14] "And he shall warn his wife." [Our Sages said that] whoever issues a warning to his wife has become possessed by a spirit of purity.

A warning should not be issued in a spirit of levity, nor in the midst of conversation, nor with frivolity, nor in the midst of an argument, nor with the purpose of instilling fear.

If, however, a man transgressed and issued a warning to his wife under such circumstances, the warning is binding.

19. It is not proper for a man to rush and at the outset issue a warning in the presence of witnesses.⁴⁶For this is likely to cause shame and embarrassment and prevent healthy communication between husband and wife. If, however, a warning that was delivered gently and in private is not effective, then the husband should warn his wife in the presence of witnesses. Instead, he should [first speak to his wife] privately and gently, in a spirit of purity and caution, in order to guide her to the proper path and remove obstacles.

Whenever a person is not careful regarding [the conduct of] his wife, his sons and the members of his household, warning them,⁴⁷I.e., giving them gentle warnings, as mentioned in the first clause of this halachah. and scrutinizing their ways at all times so that he knows that they are perfect without sin or transgression, he is himself a sinner, as [implied by Job 5:24]: "And you shall know that your tent is at peace and scrutinize your dwelling, and you shall not sin."⁴⁸One may infer that failing to invest oneself in such scrutiny is sinful.