Sotah 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

and the wife of a shoteh,

and the wife

of one afflicted with bewilderment,

who was stricken with confusion of heart, whose cases the court warns them about, since their husbands are unable to warn them.

We raised an objection concerning this:

Rabbi Yoshiya, what does he do with

“under her husband”?

What does he derive from it?

And we answer:

He requires it

in order

to juxtapose a man to a woman and a woman to a man

with regard to various laws of Sota, as explained in the beraita at the end of the chapter.

We raised an objection concerning this:

Rather, the reason is that these verses are written,

which were cited above to exclude a betrothed woman,

and if not for this, I would have said

that

a betrothed woman drinks?!

But this cannot be, for

when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina came from the South, he came and brought a teaching with him,

in which we learned: It is stated, “and a man gives you his emission of semen

apart from your husband,”

and this indicates specifically that

the husband’s intercourse preceded that of the adulterer

is the woman whom the waters examine,

but not

in a case where

the adulterer’s intercourse preceded that of the husband,

as in such a case she does not drink.

If so, why is a verse needed to exclude a betrothed woman? In her case, the husband’s intercourse did not precede that of the adulterer.

And we answer:

Rami bar Ḥama said: You can find it

—there is a circumstance in which we require a special verse to exclude a betrothed woman—

for example, where her betrothed had intercourse with her in her father’s house,

as an act of promiscuous intercourse not intended for marriage; she nevertheless remained betrothed, and afterward the adulterer had intercourse with her. Consequently, the husband’s intercourse preceded that of the adulterer, and it is only because of the verses cited above that this betrothed woman is excluded from the law of drinking. We raised an objection concerning this: If so,

similarly,

in an analogous case,

with regard to a woman awaiting levirate marriage,

who too was excluded above by the verse from drinking, and concerning whom it may likewise be asked: Since the husband’s intercourse did not precede that of the adulterer, we are necessarily required to establish the case as

for example, where the yavam had intercourse with her in her father-in-law’s house,

after the death of his brother, as an act of promiscuous intercourse, and only afterward did the adulterer have intercourse with her.

If so, the following difficulty arises: Is

this,

a woman of this sort,

called “a woman awaiting levirate marriage”

by you!?

For once the yavam had intercourse with her,

she is his full-fledged wife,

despite the fact that he had intercourse with her for the purpose of promiscuity. Why, then, should we exclude her from drinking?

For Rav said,

in tractate Yevamot, concerning the Mishna that states that one who has intercourse with his yevama through promiscuity acquires her:

He acquires her for all purposes!

She is considered married to him in every respect through this intercourse. And we answer: Actually, the case concerns one who had intercourse with her in his father-in-law’s house, and

it is in accordance with Shmuel, who said: He does not acquire her

—the yavam does not acquire his yevama in every respect through promiscuous intercourse—

but

only

for the matters stated in the passage,

of levirate marriage: Namely, that the yavam takes his brother’s place with regard to his inheritance, to inherit his estate, and that he may divorce her only with a bill of divorce, so that she no longer requires ḥalitza from him. But with regard to other matters—for example, inheriting her as his wife, or, if he is a koen, enabling her to eat teruma, or becoming impure for her if she dies—she is not yet considered married to him. Therefore, she is still called “a woman awaiting levirate marriage,” and the verse comes to exclude her, teaching that she does not drink.

And we challenge this:

If so, let us say that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yoshiya,

who maintains that a woman awaiting levirate marriage drinks. This can be so only when the yavam had intercourse with her in his father-in-law’s house, [since otherwise the husband’s intercourse did not precede that of the adulterer], and because he acquired her for every purpose and she is considered his full-fledged wife, she drinks.

And Shmuel, who said so, holds in accordance with Rabbi Yonatan,

who excludes a woman awaiting levirate marriage from drinking, since he did not acquire her for every purpose and she is still a woman awaiting levirate marriage?

And we answer:

Rav could say to you: I speak even in accordance with Rabbi Yonatan,

for although she is his full-fledged wife, nevertheless the verse excluded her from drinking. On the contrary, Rabbi Yonatan provides support for my words:

Since a verse was required to exclude her, it follows that she is his full-fledged wife!