Sotah 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

He said to him

Rav Yosef—

Are we imposing her upon him against his will!?

Are we requiring the other man to marry her?

And this is understandable with regard to the yavam: If the Torah were to permit her to undergo yibbum, the yavam would be obligated to perform yibbum with her, as required by the mitzva of yibbum. Yet it is impossible to obligate him to perform yibbum with her, since we are concerned that she will destroy his household.

Some say,

and this was the course of the give-and-take:

Rav Yosef said:

The reason that a woman suspected of adultery does not undergo yibbum is that

the verse calls

the man who married her after she was divorced by her first husband

“another.”

For

this

is not the partner of the first,

because his conduct is not comparable to that of the first.

For this one,

the first husband,

removed a wicked woman from his home

because she committed adultery while married to him,

whereas this one,

the other man who marries her,

brought a wicked woman into his home.

And you say: Let her likewise undergo yibbum!?

Can you really say that we should obligate him to perform yibbum with her?

The Gemara asks:

Abaye said to him:

If that is so,

then, if

she married another

after her first husband divorced her, without her having committed adultery while married to him, and

he died

her second husband

without children, she should not undergo yibbum

with the brother of her second husband,

since the verse calls him “another”!

Are we to say that even with regard to this marriage, since he is called “another,” she may not undergo yibbum?

The Gemara answers:

With regard to this one, at least, she stood with a good reputation.

With the second husband, she was regarded as having a good reputation, and it is possible that she repented. Therefore, the second husband’s brother may perform yibbum with her. The entire ruling that she is exempt from yibbum applies when she requires yibbum by virtue of the marriage that she had corrupted.

Rava said

another answer as to why a woman suspected of adultery does not undergo yibbum:

We learn through a

kal va-chomer

that she is forbidden to undergo yibbum:

If she became forbidden to

her deceased husband, who had been

permitted to her

before he divorced her and she married his brother,

to

the yavam, who had been

forbidden to her

during her husband’s lifetime under the prohibition of a brother’s wife,

all the more so

she should be forbidden to undergo yibbum with him! For the reason she falls before him for yibbum is the marriage to his brother, her first husband; and since she became forbidden to his deceased brother while he was alive, all the more so she should be forbidden to his surviving brother, who comes by virtue of him.

The Gemara asks:

Abaye said to him:

If that is so,

if you derive such a kal va-chomer, what would be the law in the case of

a High Priest who betrothed a widow,

for although a High Priest is forbidden to betroth a widow, the betrothal takes effect, as is the case with those liable for violating a negative commandment,

and

now

the

High Priest

died without children,

and he has a brother who is an ordinary kohen,

she should not undergo yibbum!

Should we say here as well that he is forbidden to perform yibbum with her by virtue of a kal va-chomer:

If she became forbidden to one to whom she was permitted,

for she is forbidden to her High Priest husband,

to one to whom she was forbidden,

to her husband’s brother, to whom she was forbidden during her husband’s lifetime under the prohibition of a brother’s wife,

all the more so

she should be forbidden for yibbum?

But the Gemara is astonished by the wording of the question, “If she became forbidden to one to whom she was permitted”:

“Became forbidden”!?

Did she become forbidden only now?

She was already forbidden!

A widow to a High Priest is forbidden from the outset of the betrothal.

And similarly, how can you call him

“one to whom she was permitted”?

After all,

he was forbidden to her

from the outset! She was never permitted to him.

Therefore, the kal va-chomer does not apply, and certainly when she was already forbidden to her husband during his lifetime, there is no mitzva of yibbum.

Rather,

the question should be formulated as follows: If you derive a kal va-chomer, what would be the law in the case of

a kohen’s wife who was raped,

for the law is that an Israelite’s wife who was raped remains permitted to her husband, whereas a kohen’s wife who was raped becomes forbidden to her husband—

and

her kohen husband

died without children,

and he has a brother who is a chalal,

she should not undergo yibbum.

She should be forbidden for yibbum by virtue of the kal va-chomer that

if she became forbidden

the kohen’s wife

to one to whom she was permitted

to her husband, because of the rape,

to one to whom she was forbidden,

to his brother, to whom she was forbidden during her husband’s lifetime because of the prohibition of a brother’s wife,

all the more so

she should become forbidden for yibbum.

The Gemara answers:

A rape is permitted with an Israelite. And with regard to this one, at least, there is no prohibition.

Since with regard to the yavam there is no prohibition here at all, it cannot render her forbidden by means of a kal va-chomer. The kal va-chomer applies specifically when, if the yavam were her husband, she would become forbidden to him. But here, since he is disqualified from the status of a kohen, she would not have become forbidden to him through rape; therefore, she is not now rendered forbidden for yibbum either.

Mishna:

And these

are the women who, despite being married to a kohen, nevertheless

are forbidden to eat teruma,

because of the concern that they committed adultery. ,

One who says: “I am impure to you!”

That is, she admits that she committed adultery, although there is no testimony concerning it.

And

likewise, in a case

where witnesses came and testified that she was impure—

that she committed adultery.

And

likewise,

one who says, “I will not drink,”

meaning that her husband warned her not to seclude herself with a certain man, witnesses came and testified that she secluded herself, and her law is that she must be tested by the bitter waters, but she refuses to be tested; she is consequently forbidden to her husband.

And

likewise,

when her husband does not wish to have her drink,

although she secluded herself after he warned her.

And

likewise, when

her husband had intercourse with her on the way,

while he was taking her to be tested by the water, she too is forbidden to eat teruma. Here as well, the reason is that she is forbidden to her husband and therefore cannot be tested by the water. The water does not test a woman if her husband is not free of iniquity, as the Torah says: “Then the man shall be free of iniquity, but that woman shall bear her iniquity.” From here they learned that if the husband is not free of iniquity, because he had intercourse with her after warning her and after she secluded herself, the water no longer tests her.

Gemara:

Rav Amram said: This matter—

this ruling—

was told to us by Rav Sheshet, and he enlightened our eyes from the Mishna,

showing us a proof from the Mishna for this novel ruling.

A woman suspected of adultery who has witnesses overseas,

who know that she in fact committed adultery when she secluded herself—even if she drinks the water—

the water does not test her,

and nothing will happen to her, although she truly committed adultery.

What is the reason?

For the verse says

that in the Torah’s passage concerning a woman suspected of adultery it is written:

“And she secluded herself, and she became impure, and there is no witness against her.”

The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of a case

where no one knows about her,

where there is no one who knows and can testify whether she in fact committed adultery.

To exclude this case,

this woman,

for there is one who knows about her,

since there is someone who knows and can testify that she committed adultery; concerning her, the Torah did not state that the water should test her.

And he enlightened our eyes from the Mishna.

He proved this ruling from our Mishna, since one of the cases concerning which the Mishna says that the woman may not eat teruma is

when witnesses came and testified that she was impure.

And the Gemara analyzes and seeks to understand this matter:

When did the witnesses come?

When did those witnesses mentioned by the Mishna come?

If you say

that they came

before she drank,

before she was tested by drinking the water, then she is already forbidden to eat teruma because

she is certainly a zonah,

and it is obvious that she is forbidden to eat teruma.

Rather,

the witnesses must certainly have come

after she had drunk,

after she drank the water and nothing happened to her.

If you maintain that the water does not test her

when there are witnesses that she is impure, even though they have not yet testified, the words of the Mishna are understandable. The fact that nothing happened to the woman does not prove that the witnesses are liars; on the contrary, this is precisely the point: Because there are witnesses, the water did not cause her to die, since the water does not test such a woman.

But if you maintain that the water does test her,

even when she has witnesses, then, if the witnesses are telling the truth, she should have died immediately when she was tested, since she is impure. And since nothing happened to her,

the matter will become clear retroactively,

from the outset,

that the witnesses

are liars,

and their testimony in this matter is false.

Rav Yosef said

to Rav Amram, who had cited Rav Sheshet’s statement and its proof from the Mishna:

I will always say to you that the water does test her.

It is possible to disagree with Rav Sheshet and say that even a woman concerning whom there are witnesses who have not yet come to testify is tested by the water, and if she committed adultery, she dies from the water. As for the difficulty we raised from the Mishna, which assumes that the witnesses’ testimony is true and that the woman is forbidden to eat teruma, despite our assumption that if the water tests her, these witnesses must be liars—for if their testimony were true, she would have died—

this is not difficult, because

perhaps

a merit suspends the punishment for her.

The fact that the woman did not die from the water can be explained by saying that she had merits that caused her not to die immediately, but only after some time. Therefore, even if she did in fact commit adultery, as the witnesses testified, it is possible that she has not yet died.

The Gemara discusses:

Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet disagree as to whether this ruling can be proved from the Mishna.

With regard to what do they disagree?

What is the root of their disagreement?

And we answer:

With regard to Rabbi’s case of wasting away,

the ruling stated by Rabbi, that a woman’s merit causes her not to die immediately, but to waste away until she dies.

As we learned:

Rabbi says: A merit suspends the effect of the bitter waters.

If the woman has merits, Heaven delays her punishment and she does not die immediately.

And she neither gives birth ever again nor grows stronger,

from the time she drinks until she dies,

but she wastes away,

becoming weaker and thinner from day to day, and

ultimately she dies that death,

her abdomen swelling and her thigh falling, as the verse states.

And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi’s statement and maintain that a merit is effective to a greater extent than this.

Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef disagree concerning the opinion of the Rabbis.

Rav Sheshet holds: According to both Rabbi and the Rabbis, she wastes away,

and the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi only in that they do not agree with him that ultimately she dies an unusual death, with her abdomen swelling.

Therefore, if a woman drank and nothing happened to her—not even that she became weaker or thinner—this is a sign, according to the Rabbis, that she is pure. When witnesses then come and testify that she became impure, they must necessarily be liars, unless one adopts Rav Sheshet’s view that the fact that nothing happened to her is not proof, because when there are witnesses overseas, the water does not test her.

And Rav Yosef holds: According to Rabbi she wastes away; according to the Rabbis she does not waste away.

That is, according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi, the merit is effective to such an extent that she remains as she was, and she does not even become weaker or thinner; it is obvious that she does not die an unusual death. Therefore, even if we say that the water tests a woman concerning whom there are witnesses overseas who know that she became impure, it is possible to say that the witnesses who came to testify to her impurity after she drank are telling the truth. The reason nothing happened to her when she drank the water is that she had a merit that caused this; therefore, the Mishna cannot prove Rav Sheshet’s ruling.

And we challenge this:

Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised an objection:

We learned:

Rabbi Shimon says,

unlike the view of the other tannaim:

Merit does not suspend the effect of the bitter waters. And if you say that merit suspends the effect of the bitter waters,

by doing so

you weaken

the effect of

the water in the eyes of all the women who drink it,

for they will not be afraid to drink, since even if they have indeed become impure, it is not certain that they will die by drinking the water. Consequently, many women will not confess that they have become impure, and the Name of Heaven will be profaned when the Ineffable Name is erased into the water.

And

not only that, but also

you cast aspersions on the ritually pure women who drank it. And they say,

those who see that nothing happened to her say that the fact that nothing happened to them is no proof, since perhaps they

were impure, but

the reason that nothing happened to them was

that merit suspended the effect of the water for them.

Therefore Rabbi Shimon maintains that it is certainly impossible for merit to be effective; rather, anyone who became impure immediately receives her punishment, so that her belly swells, as explained in the verse.

Therefore Rav Shimi bar Ashi challenges the statement of Rav Sheshet that, in the case of a sota who has witnesses in an overseas country, the water does not test her -

And if it is so,

if the law is indeed that when

she has witnesses in an overseas country

the water does not test her, then every time a woman drinks and nothing happens to her,

also,

it will be found that

you cast aspersions on the ritually pure women who drank it, and they say,

those who see that she did not die say:

They were impure, but they have witnesses in an overseas country,

and that is why they did not die, since the water does not test such a woman.

And we answer:

Are you saying this with regard to Rabbi Shimon?!

The challenge and proof were from the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Indeed, Rav Sheshet also concedes

with regard to Rabbi Shimon,

who maintains that merit does not suspend the effect of the water because of the concern that aspersions will be cast, that

since merit does not suspend, witnesses likewise do not suspend

for the same reason.

Rav Sheshet stated his ruling only in accordance with the Rabbis, who do not share Rabbi Shimon's concern about casting aspersions.

And we challenge Rav Sheshet's ruling -

Rav raised an objection:

We learned in the Mishna several circumstances in which a sota's meal-offering is burned and is not sacrificed on the altar, and the Mishna says as follows -

And these are the meal-offerings that are burned: