Sotah 18b — the Talmud in English

and a waiting yevama

and one who was taken in,

that is, if he administers the sota water to a yevama after he has taken her in, he extends the oath to her that she did not commit adultery when she was a waiting yevama, and she is tested concerning this. And the Mishna explains what we learned: “Amen concerning the curse, amen concerning the oath,” namely:

“Amen”

that I did not become impure,

and this is the amen concerning the oath, for by saying the amen she swears that indeed she did not become impure.

And “amen”

that

“if I became impure, may they enter me”

is the amen of accepting the curse upon herself.

Rabbi Meir

adds and

says [

and the Sages did not agree with him]:

“Amen”

that I did not become impure,

“Amen”

that I will not become impure.

That is, he extends the oath to her that she will not become impure in the future while married to him, and when she becomes impure, the water that she drank now will test her.

All—

Rabbi Meir and the Sages—

agree

in this law,

that he does not stipulate with her concerning the time before she becomes betrothed,

he does not extend the oath to her concerning adultery committed before betrothal.

And

also

not concerning the time after she becomes divorced, commits seclusion with another, and becomes impure, and afterward he remarries her—

he did not stipulate with her.

This is the general rule: Whenever she has intercourse and would not be forbidden to him, he did not stipulate with her,

and since if she committed adultery before she became betrothed she is not forbidden to him, or if she committed adultery after she became divorced she is not forbidden to return to him—for the Torah prohibited him from remarrying his divorced wife only once she married another, but not when she committed adultery—therefore he cannot extend an oath to her concerning these acts of adultery.

Gemara:

Rav Hamnuna said: A waiting yevama who committed adultery

when she was a waiting yevama, and violated “The wife of the dead man shall not be outside, to a strange man,” she is

forbidden to her yevam,

like a woman who committed adultery while married to her husband.

And we explain:

From where,

from where does Rav Hamnuna derive this law?

From what it teaches

in our Mishna: “Amen that I did not commit adultery

as a waiting yevama and as one who was taken in,”

for he extends the oath with her concerning adultery that she committed while she was a waiting yevama.

And necessarily, a waiting yevama who committed adultery is forbidden to her yevam. For

if you say, admittedly,

that if she indeed committed adultery while she was a waiting yevama, she is

forbidden

to her yevam,

that is why he stipulates with her [

therefore he extends the oath to her concerning that adultery], since he can extend the oath to her concerning every adultery that forbids her to him.

But if you say

that even if she committed adultery while she was a waiting yevama she is

not forbidden

to her yevam—

how can he stipulate with her [

how can he extend the oath concerning this adultery]!?

But we learned

in our Mishna:

“This is the general rule: Whenever, if she were to have intercourse, she would not be forbidden to him, he would not stipulate with her!”

Rather, necessarily, if she committed adultery while she was a waiting yevama, she is forbidden to her yevam, and therefore he extends the oath to her concerning this adultery.

They said in the West [

in the Land of Israel]:

The halakha is not according to Rav Hamnuna.

And should you say,

rather,

this difficulty remains:

that which it teaches

in our Mishna,

“a waiting yevama and one who was taken in,”

which implies that she is forbidden to him if she committed adultery, as we deduced!

This is not difficult, for it may be said:

Who is the author?

Our Mishna follows the view of

Rabbi Akiva, who says: Betrothal does not take effect with those liable for lavin [

betrothal does not take effect with a woman who is forbidden to the betrother by a lav],

and he makes them

those liable for lavin,

like

like a

forbidden relation,

with whom betrothal does not take effect.

And it follows, according to Rabbi Akiva, that every intercourse forbidden by a lav is like intercourse with a forbidden relation [that is, those liable for karet, with whom betrothal does not take effect]; and therefore, if she committed adultery with her yevam, she is like a woman who committed adultery with her husband, which is intercourse with a forbidden relation. But according to the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and hold that betrothal takes effect with those liable for lavin, the adultery of a yevama is not considered like adultery with a forbidden relation; and if so, according to their view she is not forbidden to her yevam.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question:

What is the law: may a person stipulate concerning his first marriage

with her?

That is, a man who divorced his wife and then took her back, and warned her, and she secluded herself during this marriage: may he—when he administers the water to her—extend the oath to her that she did not commit adultery with him during the first marriage, since if she indeed committed adultery with him, she is forbidden to him forever, even after he divorced her? And Rabbi Yirmeya further raised a question:

Concerning

the yevama’s adultery at the time of

her brother-in-law’s marriage,

whose wife he performed yibbum with,

what is the law

that the yevam who took her in may stipulate, since if she indeed committed adultery with his brother, she is also forbidden to the yevam, because a sota becomes forbidden to the paramour, to the husband, and also to the yevam?

Come and hear

a proof that he stipulates concerning these two cases, from what we learned in our Mishna:

“This is the general rule: Whenever she has intercourse and would not be forbidden to him, he would not stipulate with her.”

This

if

forbidden

she is to him,

then here too, he does stipulate!

But these women are forbidden to him if they indeed committed adultery, and if so, he can stipulate concerning this.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this

that he can stipulate concerning these acts of adultery.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: “Amen that I did not become impure,”

amen that I will not become impure:

It was taught:

Not as Rabbi Meir said [

it did not enter Rabbi Meir’s mind when he said]

“Amen that I will not become impure,”

that if she becomes impure

in the future,

the water tests her

already

from now.

Rather, when she becomes impure, then the

те

water

that she drank now

returns upon her [

returns into her throat],

and tests her.

Rav Ashi raised a question:

Может ли человек заключить условие относительно последующего брака?

What is the law: may a person stipulate concerning the later marriage?

That is, according to Rabbi Meir, who stipulates concerning the future, can he also extend the oath to adultery that she will commit when he divorces her and then remarries her?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the uncertainty:

Shall we say:

“At present, in any event, she is not forbidden to him?”

That is: in the marriage in which she is now married to him she will not become forbidden to him, and he cannot stipulate concerning the prohibition of another marriage.

Or perhaps: Sometimes he divorces her and then takes her back [

sometimes he divorces her and then takes her back]?

That is, since if he divorces her and she returns to him she will become forbidden to him, this is included in: Whenever she has intercourse and becomes forbidden to him, he stipulates with her.

Come and hear

a proof from our Mishna that he can stipulate concerning the later marriage:

For we learned:

“All agree that he did not stipulate with her concerning the time before she became betrothed, nor concerning the time after she becomes divorced, commits seclusion with another, and becomes impure, and afterward he takes her back; he did not stipulate.”

It thus implies:

This

to stipulate for when he

takes her back and she becomes impure, here too

according to Rabbi Meir—

he stipulates.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this!

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage of the sota:

“This is the law of the jealousies,”

which implies: one law for all jealousies, that in all of them he should do for her according to this law—

It teaches that the woman drinks

once,

and drinks a second time

if her husband warned her and she secluded herself a second time after the first drinking; and the Gemara explains this as it proceeds.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Since it is stated

“this,”

this is an exclusion, teaching us, “this and not another,”

that the woman does not drink, and drink a second time.

Rabbi Yehuda said: It happened, and Nahunya the digger of cisterns testified before us [

he dug pits to bring water for pilgrims in the fields and on the roads],

that

he had received the tradition:

“The woman drinks, and drinks a second time!”

And we accepted his testimony

only

in the case of two men [

two husbands], where the first divorced her or died after she drank, and she went and married another, and the second warned her and she secluded herself, because the Torah expanded: “The law of the jealousies.”

But not in the case of one man [

one husband], who cannot administer the water to her again, because the Torah excluded it: “This.”

And the Sages say [

this is a third view]:

The woman does not drink and drink a second time, whether with one man [

husband]

or with two men [

husbands].

And we raise a difficulty:

And

also concerning

the first tanna as well,

since according to his view she drinks and drinks a second time even with one man,

is it not written

“this,”

and what does this come to exclude!?

And

another difficulty concerning

the later Sages [

the later Sages, the third view]

as well,

since according to their view she does not return and drink even with two men,

is it not written

“law,”

and what does this come to include!?

He said

explained

Rava:

with one man

[husband]

and one paramour,

that her husband warned her a second time about the same man—

According to everyone,

all three tannaim—

do not disagree, for a woman does not drink and repeat.