Sotah 24b — the Talmud in English

and the wife of a shoteh,

and the wife ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

of one afflicted with bewilderment,

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

And we raised it as a difficulty:

Rabbi Yoshiyah, this “

under a husband,”

what does he do with it?

And we answer:

He requires it

in order

to juxtapose man with woman and woman with man

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

And we raised it as a difficulty:

But the reason is that these verses are written,

which were brought above to exclude the betrothed woman,

then were it not so, I would say

that

a betrothed woman drinks?!

But this is not possible, for

when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina came from the South, he came and brought a teaching in his hand,

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

apart from your husband,”

and it implies specifically that

the husband’s lying preceded the paramour’s lying

the waters examine her,

but not

in a case

where the paramour’s lying preceded the husband’s lying,

for in such a manner she does not drink.

And if so, why is a verse needed to exclude a betrothed woman, for in her case the husband’s lying did not precede the paramour’s lying?

And we resolve:

Rami bar Ḥama said: You find it

that there is a manner in which we need a special verse to exclude a betrothed woman,

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

an illicit intercourse not for the purpose of marriage, so that she still remained betrothed, and afterward the paramour had intercourse with her; and it follows that the husband’s lying preceded the paramour’s lying, and it is only because of the verses above that we exclude this betrothed woman from the law of drinking. And we raised it as a difficulty: If so,

similarly,

analogously to this,

with regard to a woman awaiting levirate marriage,

who likewise was excluded above by the verse, which teaches that she does not drink—and with regard to her too it is difficult, for the husband’s lying did not precede the paramour’s lying—you are compelled to establish it

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

after the death of his brother, an illicit intercourse, and only afterward the paramour had intercourse with her.

And if so, the difficulty arises: Is

this,

for such a woman,

“a woman awaiting levirate marriage”

what you call her!?

For once the levir had intercourse with her,

she is a full-fledged wife,

even though he had intercourse with her for the purpose of illicit intercourse; so why should we exclude her from drinking?

For Rav said,

in tractate Yevamot, concerning the Mishna that one who has intercourse with his levirate woman through illicit intercourse acquires her:

He acquires her for everything!

For through this intercourse she is considered married to him in every respect. And we answer: In truth, it is speaking of one who had intercourse with her in his father-in-law’s house, and

in accordance with Shmuel, who said: He did not acquire her

the levir did not acquire his levirate woman through illicit intercourse in every respect,

but

only

for the matters stated in the passage,

of levirate marriage: namely, that the levir rises in the name of his brother, in his inheritance, to inherit from him, and with regard to the fact that he can divorce her only with a bill of divorce and she no longer requires ḥalitza from him; but with regard to other matters—for example, to inherit from her by virtue of her being his wife, or if he is a priest, that he may feed her teruma, or that he may become impure for her if she dies—she is not yet considered married, and 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:

If so, let us say that Rav agrees with Rabbi Yoshiyah,

who holds that a woman awaiting levirate marriage drinks—and this can be so only where the levir had intercourse with her in his father-in-law’s house [for otherwise the husband’s lying did not precede the paramour’s], and because he acquired her in every respect and she is considered his fully-fledged wife, she therefore drinks.

And Shmuel agrees with Rabbi Yonatan,

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

And we answer:

Rav can say to you: I speak even according to Rabbi Yonatan,

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

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