Mishneh Torah — Sotah הלכות סוטה, Chapter 4

בַּחֲמִשָׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר נִפְנִין בֵּית דִּין לְצָרְכֵי הָרַבִּים. וּבוֹדְקִין עַל הָרְאוּיָה לִשְׁתּוֹת לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ. וְעַל הָרְאוּיָה לְקַנֵּא לָהּ וּלְהוֹצִיאָהּ בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה. וּבְכָל זְמַן מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַסּוֹטוֹת:

On the fifteenth of Adar, the court attends to the needs of the community at large. 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, 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. 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.

וְאֵין מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַסּוֹטָה אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם. וְכָל הַיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר לְהַשְׁקוֹת סוֹטָה. וְאֵין מַשְׁקִין שְׁתֵּי סוֹטוֹת כְּאַחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה טז) "וְהֶעֱמִיד אֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֵן":

A sotah is compelled to drink the bitter water only during the daytime. 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]: should be compelled to drink at one time. "And the priest shall have her stand."

סוֹטָה שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה וָפַחַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזֹר וְלוֹמַר הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹתָה. אֲבָל אָמְרָה אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה וְהִיא בְּרִיאָה וְאֵינָהּ יְרֵאָה וְלֹא פּוֹחֶדֶת אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזֹר וְלוֹמַר הִנְנִי שׁוֹתָה:

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].

אָמְרָה אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּמָּחֵק הַמְּגִלָּה הֲרֵי מְגִלָּתָהּ נִגְנֶזֶת וְאֵינָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה לְהַשְׁקוֹת בָּהּ סוֹטָה אַחֶרֶת. וּמִנְחָתָהּ מִתְפַּזֶּרֶת עַל הַדֶּשֶׁן. וְאִם אָמְרָה אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִלָּה מְעַרְעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כָּרְחָהּ:

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. Her meal offering is scattered on the ash heap. 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.

וּמְאַיְּמִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁתִּשְׁתֶּה וְאוֹמְרִין לָהּ בִּתִּי אִם בָּרוּר לָךְ הַדָּבָר שֶׁטְּהוֹרָה אַתְּ עִמְדִי עַל בֻּרְיֵךְ וּשְׁתִי וְאַל תִּפְחֲדִי לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּיִם דּוֹמִין אֶלָּא לְסַם יָבֵשׁ מֻנָּח עַל בָּשָׂר חַי. יֵשׁ שָׁם מַכָּה מְחַלְחֵל וְיוֹרֵד. אֵין שָׁם מַכָּה אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה כְּלוּם:

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."

אָמְרָה טְמֵאָה אֲנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִלָּה הַמַּיִם נִשְׁפָּכִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן קְדֻשָּׁה. וּמִנְחָתָהּ מִתְפַּזֶּרֶת עַל הַדֶּשֶׁן:

If she says, "I committed adultery," although the scroll has been blotted out, the waters should be poured out, 20a). for they are not of a sacred nature, and her meal offering is scattered on the ash heap.

מְגִלַּת סוֹטָה שֶׁכְּתָבָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכָתַב וְגוֹ' (במדבר ה כד) "וְהִשְׁקָה" וְגוֹ' (במדבר ה כה) "וְהִקְרִיב" וְגוֹ' כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקָּרְבָּנָהּ בַּיּוֹם כָּךְ כְּתִיבַת הַמְּגִלָּה וְהַשְׁקָיָתָהּ בַּיּוֹם. כְּתָבָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הָאָלָה עַל הַסֵּדֶר. כְּתָבָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל עָלֶיהָ הַשְּׁבוּעָה פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה כא) "וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ" וְכָתַב:

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, so too the writing of the scroll and making the woman drink must be performed during the day. 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."

כְּתָבָהּ אִגֶּרֶת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה כג) "בַּסֵּפֶר". כְּתָבָהּ עַל שְׁנֵי דַּפִּין פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּסֵּפֶר סֵפֶר אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵינוֹ כּוֹתֵב לֹא עַל הַנְּיָר וְלֹא עַל הַדִּפְתְּרָא אֶלָּא בִּמְגִלַּת סֵפֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּסֵּפֶר. וְאִם כְּתָבָהּ עַל נְיָר אוֹ דִּפְתְּרָא פְּסוּלָה:

If he wrote it as a letter, 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, 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.

וְאִם כְּתָבָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ כֹּהֵן קָטָן פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה כג) "וְכָתַב הַכֹּהֵן". אֵינוֹ כּוֹתְבָהּ לֹא בְּקוֹמוֹס וְלֹא בְּקַנְקַנְתּוֹם וְלֹא בְּכָל דָּבָר שֶׁרִשּׁוּמוֹ נִכָּר וְעוֹמֵד אֶלָּא בִּדְיוֹ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ קַנְקַנְתּוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכָתַב (במדבר ה כג) "וּמָחָה" כְּתָב שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְהִמָּחוֹת. וְאִם כָּתַב בְּדָבָר הַמִּתְקַיֵּם פְּסוּלָה:

If the scroll is written by an Israelite, 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, 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 ink 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.

נִשְׁאַר בַּמְּגִלָּה רשֶׁם כְּתָב נִכָּר פְּסוּלָה עַד שֶׁיִּמְחֹק יָפֶה יָפֶה. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת וּמְחָקָהּ וְחָזַר וְכָתַב אוֹת שְׁנִיָּה וּמְחָקָהּ עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים פְּסוּלָה עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה כֻּלָּהּ כְּתוּבָה:

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].

כְּתָבָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ אוֹ מְחָקָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה. כָּתַב שְׁתֵּי מְגִלּוֹת לִשְׁתֵּי סוֹטוֹת וּמְחָקָן לְתוֹךְ כּוֹס אֶחָד אוֹ לְתוֹךְ שְׁתֵּי כּוֹסוֹת וְעֵרְבָן בְּכוֹס אֶחָד וְהִשְׁקָה לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן פְּסוּלָה. לְפִי שֶׁכָּל אַחַת מֵהֶן לֹא שָׁתְתָה מְגִלָּתָהּ. מְחָקָן בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת וְעֵרְבָן וְחָזַר וְחִלְּקָן לִשְׁנֵי הַכּוֹסוֹת לֹא יַשְׁקֶה אוֹתָן וְאִם הִשְׁקָה כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם נִשְׁפְּכוּ הַמַּיִם הֲרֵי זֶה כּוֹתֵב מְגִלָּה אַחֶרֶת וּמֵבִיא מַיִם אֲחֵרִים. נִשְׁפְּכוּ וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּר מֵהֶן לֹא יַשְׁקֶה אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. וְאִם הִשְׁקָה כָּשֵׁר:

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. 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]. is spilled, [the priest] should write another scroll and bring other water. If [the water] spills, but some remains, the woman should not be forced to drink it. If she drinks [the remaining water], it is acceptable. (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.

מֵי סוֹטָה שֶׁלָּנוּ נִפְסָלִין בְּלִינָה. הִקְדִּים עָפָר לַמַּיִם פְּסוּלָה. לֹא הָיָה שָׁם עָפָר בַּהֵיכָל מֵבִיא עָפָר מִבַּחוּץ וּמַנִּיחוֹ בַּהֵיכָל וְלוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ וְנוֹתֵן עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם. וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֵפֶר אֲבָל מֵבִיא רַקְבּוּבִית שֶׁהִיא כְּעָפָר:

If the water for a sotah is kept overnight, it becomes unacceptable., ch. 3. If one placed the dust [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; 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, 16b. The Meiri states that this refers to rotten wood. for it is considered to be dust.

וְלֹא יַחְפֹּר בְּקוֹרְדוֹם בַּהֵיכָל וְיוֹצִיא עָפָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה יז) "אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן". וְאִם חָפַר וְהוֹצִיא עָפָר כָּשֵׁר:

[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." 15b). If one did dig and remove dust, it is acceptable.

הִקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִשְׁקָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. נִטְמֵאת מִנְחָתָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּנִּיחֶנָה בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּפָּדֶה כְּכָל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתְקַדְּשׁוּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת וְיָבִיאוּ מִנְחָה אַחֶרֶת. נִטְמֵאת הַמִּנְחָה אַחַר שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּשָּׂרֵף. וְכֵן אִם אָמְרָה טְמֵאָה אֲנִי קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּקָּמֵץ הַמִּנְחָה. אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה. אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה בַּעְלָהּ לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ. אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדֵי טֻמְאָה. אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת הוּא. אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא. הֲרֵי הַמִּנְחָה כֻּלָּהּ נִשְׂרֶפֶת. וְאִם אֵרַע אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ אַחַר שֶׁקָּרַב הַקֹּמֶץ אֵין הַשְּׁיָרִים נֶאֱכָלִין:

If [the priest] first brought her meal offering and then had her drink the water, it is acceptable. 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, 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. If the meal offering became impure after being consecrated in a sacred vessel, it should be burned. 19:1.Similarly, if a woman admitted to committing adultery before the fistful of meal was taken from the meal offering, 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], her husband was unwilling to have her drink [the water], witnesses came [and testified that she] committed adultery, [her husband] died, or she died, 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.

הָיָה בַּעְלָהּ כֹּהֵן אֵין שְׁיָרֵי מִנְחָתָהּ נֶאֱכָלִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַבַּעַל חֵלֶק בָּהֶם. וְאֵינָהּ עוֹלָה כֻּלָּהּ לְאִשִּׁים כְּמִנְחַת זִכְרֵי כְּהֻנָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ חֵלֶק בָּהּ. אֶלָּא הַקֹּמֶץ קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ וּשְׁיָרִים מִתְפַּזְּרִין עַל בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן. נִמְצְאוּ עֵדֵיהָ זוֹמְמִין מִנְחָתָהּ תֵּצֵא לְחֻלִּין:

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. 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. 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, 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.

הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ עַל יְדֵי אֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה וְנִסְתְּרָה עִם כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא מִנְחָה אַחַת עַל יְדֵי כֻּלָּן כְּשֶׁמַּשְׁקֶה אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה טו) "מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הִיא". מִנְחָה אַחַת לְקִנּוּיִין הַרְבֵּה:

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. (Sifre Zuta), instead of citing the Talmud (Keritot 9b), which cites a different proof-text.

יֵשׁ לַבַּעַל לְגַלְגֵּל בִּשְׁבוּעָה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא זִנְּתָה עִם אִישׁ זֶה שֶׁקִּנֵּא לָהּ בּוֹ וְלֹא עִם אִישׁ אַחֵר. וְשֶׁלֹּא זִנְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּנָּשֵׂא וְלֹא אַחַר שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מְגַלְגֵּל עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא זִנְּתָה קֹדֶם הָאֵרוּסִין וְלֹא אַחַר שֶׁגֵּרְשָׁהּ אִם גֵּרְשָׁהּ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ. שֶׁאִם זִנְּתָה בְּעֵת זֶה לֹא תֵּאָסֵר עָלָיו. וְכָל שֶׁתִּבָּעֵל וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה לוֹ אֵינוֹ מַתְנֶה עִמָּהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם כָּנַס יְבִמְתּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְגַלְגֵּל עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא זִנְּתָה כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. אֲבָל מְגַלְגֵּל עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא זִנְּתָה תַּחַת אָחִיו שֶׁאִם זִנְּתָה תַּחַת אָחִיו הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו. וְכֵן אִם גֵּרְשָׁהּ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ מְגַלְגֵּל עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא זִנְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו בַּנִּשּׂוּאִין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְגַלְגֵּל עָלֶיהָ בִּלְהַבָּא שֶׁלֹּא תִּזְנֶה תַּחְתָּיו וְשֶׁלֹּא תִּזְנֶה אַחַר שֶׁיַּחְזִירֶנָּה אִם יְגָרֵשׁ וְיַחֲזִיר. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁתִּזְנֶה לְהַבָּא מַיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ וְיֶאֶרְעוּ לָהּ אוֹתָן הַמְאֹרָעוֹת. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר (במדבר ה כב) "אָמֵן אָמֵן". אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ זֶה אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר. אָמֵן נְשׂוּאָה אָמֵן אֲרוּסָה. אָמֵן לְשֶׁעָבַר אָמֵן לְהַבָּא:

[Based on the principle of] gilgul [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. (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.

מִצְוַת חֲכָמִים עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְקַנְּאוֹת לִנְשֵׁיהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה יד) "וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ". וְכָל הַמְקַנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ נִכְנְסָה בּוֹ רוּחַ טָהֳרָה. וְלֹא יְקַנֵּא לָהּ לֹא מִתּוֹךְ שְׂחוֹק וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂיחָה וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ מְרִיבָה וְלֹא לְהַטִּיל עָלֶיהָ אֵימָה. וְאִם עָבַר וְקִנֵּא לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים מִתּוֹךְ אֶחָד מִכָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה קִנּוּי:

It is a mitzvah for Israelites to issue warnings to their wives, 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.

אֵין רָאוּי לִקְפֹּץ וּלְקַנְּאוֹת בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ בְּנַחַת וּבְדֶרֶךְ טָהֳרָה וְאַזְהָרָה כְּדֵי לְהַדְרִיכָהּ בְּדֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה וּלְהָסִיר הַמִּכְשׁוֹל. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ וְעַל בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ וּמַזְהִירָן וּפוֹקֵד דַּרְכֵיהֶן תָּמִיד עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁהֵן שְׁלֵמִין מִכָּל חֵטְא וּמֵעָוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹטֵא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב ה כד) "וְיָדַעְתָּ כִּי שָׁלוֹם אָהֳלֶךָ וּפָקַדְתָּ נָוְךָ וְלֹא תֶחֱטָא":

It is not proper for a man to rush and at the outset issue a warning 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, 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."