Sotah 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

Shmuel said: A person should marry

a duma,

a woman about whose adultery everyone speaks,

but he should not marry the daughter of a duma.

According to

this woman,

the duma,

comes from fit seed.

But

if

this woman,

her daughter,

comes from unfit seed,

as perhaps she was born of a gentile or a mamzer.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: A person should marry the daughter of a duma, but he should not marry a duma.

According to

this woman,

the daughter,

has presumptive status of fitness,

as there is no concern regarding her that perhaps she will commit adultery while married and thereby become forbidden to her husband. There is likewise no concern that perhaps she was born from an illicit union, since, as will be explained below, the majority of a woman’s relations are with her husband, and presumably she was born from her mother’s relations with her father.

But

if

this woman,

the duma,

does not have presumptive status of fitness,

but is likely to commit adultery with another man without her husband’s knowledge, and he will subsequently have relations with her in a forbidden manner.

Meytivi

from that which was taught in a beraita:

A person may marry a duma!

And this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan.

And we answer:

Rava said: But can you understand it

as meaning that

he may marry

her

initially,

a duma? Surely it is certainly improper to do so initially, lest she lead him to sin.

Rather,

you are compelled to emend this beraita and read:

“If he married

a duma,” meaning that after the fact he is permitted to remain married to her. If so, one may say that there is another error in the words of the tanna, and

it also taught:

“the daughter of a duma.”

The dispute between Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan likewise does not concern what one should do initially, but rather a case in which a person cannot find any other woman to marry besides these two: which of them is preferable?

And the halakha is: A person should marry the daughter of a duma, but he should not marry a duma.

For Rav Taḥlifa bar Maarava taught before Rav Abbahu: “A woman who commits adultery—her children are fit,”

because

the majority of relations

of a woman are

with her husband.

Thus, the daughter is a fit duma with regard to lineage, and she is therefore preferable, since she always has presumptive status as permitted to her husband, to the duma herself, who is likely to commit adultery while married and thereby become forbidden to him.

Rav Amram raised a dilemma: If she was exceedingly promiscuous,

to the extent that there is reason to be concerned that the majority of her relations were with other men,

what is

the halakha? Are her children also fit?

And we explain the dilemma:

According to the one who says that a woman becomes pregnant only close to the onset of her menstrual period,

the day before the onset of her period,

you need not raise the dilemma

that her children are not fit,

as he does not know it,

for her husband does not know when that is,

and he cannot guard her,

as he cannot prevent her from committing adultery on that day and becoming pregnant through adultery.

The dilemma is necessary according to the one who says that a woman becomes pregnant only close to her immersion,

on that day or the next day.

What is the halakha?

Do we say:

Since he knows it,

her husband knows the day of her immersion,

he surely guards her,

so that she will not commit adultery then;

or perhaps, since she is exceedingly promiscuous,

she

does not—

she suddenly disappears from him, and he cannot guard her even at that time?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

And these are the women for whom the

court administers the warning of kinui.

The Sages taught: It is stated in the passage concerning the sota: “When any man’s wife goes astray.” It would have been sufficient for Scripture to write

“

a man”

only once.

What is the meaning of

“

any man”?

To include the wife of a deaf-mute, the wife of a mentally incompetent man, and the wife of one afflicted with derangement,

and one whose husband went overseas, and one whose husband was imprisoned, for whom the court administers the warning of kinui.

They warn the woman, if they see that she behaves immodestly, not to seclude herself with other men, in order

to disqualify them from their ketuba

if they do seclude themselves.

One might have thought

that this warning would be effective

even for making them drink the bitter waters?

The verse states

with regard to making her drink:

“And the man shall bring his wife.”

This indicates that specifically her husband can make her drink.

Rabbi Yosei says:

The warning administered by the court is effective

even for making her drink.

This does not mean that the court itself makes her drink. Rather,

when her husband leaves the prison, he shall make her drink.

And we explain:

With regard to what do

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei disagree?

The Rabbis hold: We require

“and he warned” followed by

“and he brought.”

Only when he himself warned her can he make her drink.

Rabbi Yosei holds: We do not require

“and he warned and brought,”

but her husband can make her drink even on the basis of the warning administered by the court.

The Sages taught: It is stated at the end of the passage concerning the sota: “This is the law of jealousies,

which is when a woman goes astray beneath her husband.”

“When a woman goes astray beneath her husband” is superfluous, and it comes

to juxtapose a man to a woman, and a woman to a man.

And we inquire:

For what halakhic purpose?

For which laws were they juxtaposed to one another?

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: Just as when he is blind, he would not make her drink,

for it is written:

“And it is hidden from the eyes of her husband,”

which indicates that he sees with his eyes,

so too, if she were blind, she would not drink.

Rav Ashi said:

This juxtaposition comes for the following purpose:

Just as if she were lame

and

had lost a hand,

she would not drink,

because

it is written