Sotah 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

A pregnant woman and a woman nursing another's child do not drink and do not receive their ketuba, according to Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir would say: A man may not marry a pregnant woman or a woman nursing another's child, and if he married one, he must divorce her and may never remarry her.

The Sages imposed this penalty upon him because he violated the prohibition, and consequently he is not fit to keep her; therefore, she does not drink.

And the Sages say: He must divorce her, and when the time arrives for him to take her back

when the child reaches two years of age,

he may take her back,

and therefore she drinks, since she is fit for him to keep.

And a young man

a youth [who is capable of fathering children]

who married a barren woman

or an old woman, and has no other wife

or

children from the outset,

from before,

does not drink and does not receive her ketuba.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

She drinks,

since he can marry another woman and procreate through her.

But one who warned his betrothed or his yevama, and

only

after he took her into his household [

after he married her]

she secluded herself, either drinks or does not receive her ketuba.

That is, her status is like that of an ordinary sota, who drinks, since the seclusion took place after the marriage; and if she does not wish to drink, she forfeits her ketuba.

A pregnant woman or a nursing woman of his own child,

whose wife was pregnant or nursing and whom he warned, and she secluded herself,

either drinks or does not receive her ketuba.

For this woman drinks even while she is still pregnant, and we do not wait until she gives birth, although the fetus might die if she is impure.

A young man

a youth

who married a barren woman or an old woman, and has

a wife

or

children, either drinks or does not receive her ketuba,

since he is permitted to keep her.

The wife of a mamzer,

that is, a woman who is fit to marry a mamzer, such as a mamzeret or a convert, who is married

to a mamzer; and the wife of a Natin,

a Natin woman married

to a Natin; and the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave,

and the novelty in each of these cases will be explained below;

and an aylonit,

whose husband has a wife or children,

either drinks or does not receive her ketuba.

We conclude the objection:

In any event, it teaches the case of an aylonit,

who drinks when her husband has a wife or children!

This is a refutation of Rav Naḥman!

For according to his view, even in this case she does not drink, because Scripture excluded her since she is not fit to conceive; there is no distinction between whether she is fit to be kept or not?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman could have said to you: It is a dispute between tannaim,

as the matter is disputed by tannaim: Is an aylonit different from other women who do not give birth, or not?

And I state my view in accordance with this tanna,

who holds that an aylonit has a special reason for exclusion, and everyone agrees that she does not drink.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: An aylonit does not drink and does not receive her ketuba,

because

it is stated: “

And she shall be cleared and shall conceive seed,”

meaning one who is capable of conceiving; this one, who is not capable of conceiving, is excluded.

Since this tanna mentioned only an aylonit and not a barren or old woman, and gave the reason “she is capable of conceiving” rather than the reason that she is not fit to be kept, it necessarily follows that he holds like Rabbi Eliezer, who disputes the reason that she is not fit to be kept, since the husband can marry another woman; nevertheless, he agrees that an aylonit is excluded because she is not capable of conceiving,

and this is proof of my position: According to everyone, an aylonit does not drink.

We inquire:

And what do the Rabbis,

the tanna of the earlier beraita, who holds that an aylonit is no different from other women who do not give birth,

do with this “

and she shall be cleared and shall conceive seed”?

What do they derive from it?

And we answer: They require it for that which was taught in a beraita: “

And she shall be cleared and shall conceive

seed.”

The verse teaches

that if she had been barren

previously,

she will be remembered,

after being cleared through the drinking,

according to Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If so, all barren women should seclude themselves and be remembered, and this

modest barren woman,

because she did not seclude herself, has she lost out?!

If so, what is the meaning of “

and she shall be cleared and shall conceive seed”? —

If she had been giving birth

previously with

pain, she will give birth

from now on

with ease;

and if she had been

giving birth to girls, she will give birth

from now on to

boys; if she had been giving birth to short children, she will give birth to tall ones; if she had been giving birth to dark ones, she will give birth to fair ones.

We learned in a beraita:

The wife of a mamzer

either drinks or does not receive her ketuba.

We inquire:

Is it not obvious

that she drinks, since she is fit for him to keep?

And we answer:

Lest you say: We should not increase the number of disqualified persons,

why should we increase the number of those disqualified from entering the congregation in Israel? It would be preferable not to make her drink and not to bring peace between them, so that mamzerim would not be born.

It teaches us

that nevertheless, we make her drink.

We learned in a beraita:

The wife of a convert or an emancipated slave.

We inquire:

Is it not obvious

that she drinks? And we answer:

Lest you say

that since it is written at the beginning of the passage concerning a sota,

“Speak to the children of Israel,”

we should expound it as referring specifically to the children of Israel

and not to converts.

It teaches us

that the law of drinking applies to converts as well.

And we object:

But say that this is indeed so,

that converts should truly be excluded?

And we answer: “

And you shall say,”

which is stated later in the passage,

is an inclusive expression!

It comes to include converts as well.

We learned in the Mishna:

The wife of a kohen drinks.

We inquire:

Is it not obvious

that she drinks?

And we answer:

Lest you say

that since it is written in the passage concerning a sota, “

and she was not seized,”

this implies that only when she committed adultery willingly is she

forbidden

to her husband,

but

if she was

seized,

meaning that she was raped, she is

permitted, and this

wife of a kohen,

since

even if she was

seized, she is forbidden

to her kohen husband [for we derive from the word “she” the exclusion of the wife of a kohen], the passage does not address her;

say that she should not drink.

It teaches us

that the wife of a kohen also drinks.

We learned in the Mishna: The wife of a kohen drinks

and is permitted to her husband.

We inquire:

Is it not obvious

that if she is found to be pure, she is permitted to her husband? And we answer:

Rav Huna said: The case is one in which she is wasting away,

having become ill through drinking the bitter waters, and nevertheless we do not suspect that she committed adultery.

And we object:

If she is wasting away, does that not mean that the waters tested her,

and it became clear that she had indeed committed adultery, but the reason she did not die was that she had merit, as we learned above in the Mishna [20a]?

And we answer:

The case is one in which she is wasting away through her limbs,

not having become ill in her intestines and thighs, but in her head and other limbs. Had she committed adultery, she would have become ill in her intestines and thighs, in accordance with the manner in which the waters test her.

Lest you say, this

woman

did commit adultery,

but she committed adultery only under duress,

and the reason the waters did not test her in their usual manner

in her intestines and thighs

is that she committed adultery under duress, and with regard to a kohen she is forbidden.

It teaches us

that she is permitted to her husband.

We learned in the Mishna:

The wife of a eunuch drinks.

We inquire:

Is it not obvious?

And we answer:

Lest you say: “And a man shall lie with you

apart from your husband,”

apart from your husband,

the Merciful One said,

implying that her husband is capable of intercourse,

but

the eunuch

is not capable of this,

and the passage concerning a sota does not apply to her.

It teaches us

that the verse comes only to establish the precedence of intercourse with the husband over intercourse with the adulterer, and not to exclude the wife of a eunuch. A eunuch is indeed capable of intercourse; he is merely incapable of producing seed.

We learned in the Mishna:

A husband may warn his wife concerning any forbidden relations.

We inquire:

Is it not obvious

that he may warn her not to seclude herself with her relatives?