Sotah 6a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara explains:

He said to him:

Rab Yosef —

Do we indeed impose her upon him against his will!?

And do we obligate the other [brother] 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, according to the law of the mitzva of yibbum; but it is indeed impossible to obligate him to perform yibbum with her, since we fear that she will destroy his household.

Some say,

and some say that the give-and-take was as follows:

Rav Yosef said:

The reason that a doubtful sota does not undergo yibbum is because

the verse called

the one who married her after he divorced her

“another.”

For

this one

is not the partner of the first one,

because his deeds are not similar to those of the first.

For this one,

the first husband,

removed a wicked woman from his household

because she committed adultery while married to him,

whereas this one,

the other one who marries her,

brought a wicked woman into his household.

And you say: Let her also undergo yibbum, indeed!?

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

The Gemara asks:

Abaye said to him:

But if that is so,

if so, if

she married another

after her first husband divorced her, and she did not commit 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,

for the verse called her “another”!

And shall we say that also with regard to this marriage, since she was called “another,” she should not undergo yibbum?

And the Gemara answers:

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

With the second husband, she indeed stood with a good name, and it is possible that she repented; therefore the brother of the second husband may perform yibbum with her. And the entire law that she is exempt from yibbum was stated in a case in which she requires yibbum by virtue of the marriage through which she corrupted herself.

Rava said

another answer as to why a doubtful sota does not undergo yibbum:

For we learn by means of a

kal va-chomer

that she is forbidden to undergo yibbum:

If she was forbidden by

the deceased husband, who had been

permitted to her

before he divorced her and she married his brother,

by

the yavam, who was

forbidden to her

before her husband’s death, by the prohibition of a brother’s wife,

all the more so

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

The Gemara asks:

Abaye said to him:

But if that is so,

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

a High Priest who betrothed a widow,

for although it is forbidden for a High Priest to betroth a widow, the betrothal takes effect with regard to her, as with those liable for negative commandments,

and

now

the

High Priest died

without children, and he has a brother who is an ordinary priest,

who is permitted to a widow—

she should not undergo yibbum!

Shall it also be said here that it is forbidden for him to perform yibbum with her by virtue of a kal va-chomer:

If she was forbidden by one who was permitted to her,

for she was forbidden to her High Priest husband,

by one who was forbidden to her,

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

all the more so

she is forbidden in yibbum?

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

“Was forbidden”!?

And was she forbidden only now?

She is already forbidden and stands so!

For a widow is forbidden to a High Priest and stands forbidden from the beginning of the betrothal.

And likewise it is difficult: how do you call him

“permitted to her”?

After all,

he is forbidden to her

from before! For she was never permitted to him.

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

Rather,

this is how the question should be raised: If you derive a kal va-chomer, what will be the law in the case of

a priest’s wife who was raped,

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

and

her priest husband died

without children, and he has a halal brother,

who is disqualified from priesthood. Although ordinarily a halal is permitted to marry her, for he does not have the laws of priesthood, shall we say

she should not undergo yibbum,

that she should be forbidden in yibbum on account of the kal va-chomer:

If she was forbidden

the priest’s wife

by one who was permitted to her

to her husband because of the rape,

by one who was forbidden to her

her husband’s 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 to undergo yibbum?

The Gemara answers:

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 whatsoever, it is not applicable to forbid her by means of a kal va-chomer. It is specifically in a case where, if the yavam had been her husband, she would have become forbidden that it is applicable to forbid her on account of the kal va-chomer. But here, since with regard to him, who is disqualified from priesthood, she would not have become forbidden when raped, she is not forbidden now for yibbum either.

Mishna:

And these are

the women who, despite being married to a priest, nevertheless

are forbidden to eat teruma,

because of the concern that they committed adultery. ,

The one who says: “I am impure to you!”

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

And

likewise in a case

where witnesses came that she was impure—

that she committed adultery.

And

likewise

the one who says, “I will not drink,”

that is, her husband warned her not to be secluded with a certain man, and witnesses came that she was secluded, so that her law is that she is examined by the bitter waters, but she refuses to be examined, and she is forbidden to her husband.

And

likewise

when her husband does not wish to make her drink,

although she was secluded after he warned her.

And

likewise in the case

where her husband had relations with her on the way,

when he went with her to have her examined by the water, she too is forbidden to eat teruma. Here as well, the reason is that she is forbidden to her husband, and it is impossible for her to be examined by the water, for the water does not examine the woman if her husband is not free of iniquity. For so the Torah said: “And 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, since he had relations with her after he warned her and she was secluded, the waters no longer examine her.

Gemara:

Rav Amram said: This matter—

this law—

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

and he enlightened our eyes by proving this novel law from the Mishna.

A sota who has witnesses overseas,

that she indeed committed adultery when she was secluded, even if she drinks the water

the water does not examine her,

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

What is the reason?

For the verse says

because in the Torah’s section of sota it is written,

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

And the wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking

of there being no one who knows about her,

that there is no one who knows and can testify whether she indeed committed adultery.

To exclude this one,

to exclude 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 speak of having the waters examine her.

And he enlightened our eyes from the Mishna.

And he proved this law from our Mishna. For one of the cases concerning which the Mishna says that the woman does not eat teruma is

that witnesses came to her that she was impure.

And this matter must be discussed and understood—

When did the witnesses come?

When did those witnesses about whom the Mishna speaks come?

If you say

that they came

before she drank,

before she was examined by drinking the water, then she is already forbidden to eat teruma for the reason that

she is certainly a prostitute,

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

Rather,

the witnesses who say that she committed adultery certainly came

after she drank,

after she drank the water and nothing happened to her.

If it is understandable if you say that the water does not examine her

when there are witnesses that she is impure, although they have not yet testified, the words of the Mishna are understood. The fact that nothing happened to the woman does not prove that the witnesses are lying, for it is precisely this: because there are witnesses, the water did not cause her to die, since the water does not examine such a woman.

But if you say that the water examines her

even though she has witnesses, then if the witnesses are telling the truth, she should have died immediately when she was examined, for she is impure; and since nothing happened to her,

the matter will be revealed retroactively,

the matter will become clear from the beginning,

that the witnesses

are liars,

that they are false witnesses in this testimony of theirs.

Rav Yosef said

to Rav Amram, who had brought Rav Sheshet’s words and the proof for them from the Mishna:

I will always say to you: the water examines 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 examined by the water, and if she committed adultery, she dies from the water. And what we raised from the Mishna, which states that the witnesses are telling the truth in their testimony and that the woman is forbidden in teruma, although we maintain that if the water examines her, it follows that these witnesses are liars—for if their words were true, she would have died—

This is not difficult, because

perhaps

merit suspends punishment for her.

It is possible to explain the fact that the woman did not die through the water by saying that she had merits that caused her not to die yet, but only after some time; therefore, even if she indeed committed adultery as the witnesses said, it is possible that she has not yet died.

The Gemara discusses:

Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet, who disagree whether this law can be proved from the Mishna or not,

in what do they disagree?

What is the root of their disagreement?

And we answer:

In the case of wasting away, according to Rabbi,

in this law stated by Rabbi, that a woman’s merit is effective so that she does not die immediately, but wastes away and continues until she dies.

As we learned:

Rabbi says: Merit suspends punishment through the bitter water.

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

and she never gives birth, and she does not improve

from the time she drinks until she dies,

but she wastes away and continues—

she weakens and becomes emaciated from day to day, and

in the end she dies that death,

her abdomen swells and her thigh falls, as the verse states.

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

And 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 continues,

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

Therefore, a woman who drank and nothing happened to her, and she did not even weaken or become emaciated, this is a sign, according to the Rabbis, that she is pure; and when witnesses come testifying that she became impure, they must necessarily be liars, unless we say according to Rav Sheshet that the fact that nothing happened to her is not proof, because when there are witnesses overseas, the water does not examine 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, merit is effective to such an extent that she remains as she was, and she does not even weaken or become emaciated; and it is obvious that she does not die an unusual death. Therefore, even if we say that the water examines a woman concerning whom there are witnesses overseas that she became impure, it is possible to say that the witnesses who came to testify about her impurity after she drank are telling the truth. And the fact that nothing happened to her when she drank the water is because she had merit that caused this; therefore, it is not possible to prove Rav Sheshet’s law from the Mishna.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects:

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,

thereby

you dull

weaken

the waters before all the women who drink,

for they will not be afraid to drink; for even if they have indeed become impure, it is not certain that they will die through drinking the waters. It will thus be found that many women will not admit that they have become impure, and the Name of Heaven will be profaned through erasing the Explicit Name into the waters.

And

not only this, but also

you bring a bad name upon the pure women who drank. And they say,

those who see that nothing happened to her—that the fact that nothing happened to them is no proof, for it is possible that

they were impure, but

the reason that nothing happened to them was

that merit suspended it for them.

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

Therefore Rav Shimi bar Ashi raises an objection to Rav Sheshet’s statement that a sota who has witnesses overseas is not examined by the waters—

And if it is so,

if indeed the law is thus, that when

she has witnesses overseas

the waters do not examine her, then every time a woman drinks and nothing happens to her,

also,

it likewise turns out that

you bring a bad name upon the pure women who drank, and they say,

those who see that she did not die,

they were impure, but they have witnesses overseas,

and therefore they did not die, for the waters do not examine such a woman.

And we answer:

Are you saying this of Rabbi Shimon!?

For the objection and the proof were from the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Indeed, Rav Sheshet also agrees

that for Rabbi Shimon

who holds that merit does not suspend, because of bringing a bad name,

since merit does not suspend, witnesses also do not suspend

for the same reason.

Rav Sheshet stated his words only according to the Rabbis, who are not concerned about bringing a bad name, as is Rabbi Shimon.

And we raise an objection to Rav Sheshet’s ruling—

Rav objects:

We learned in the Mishna several cases in which the meal-offering of a sota is burned and is not offered upon the altar, and thus the Mishna says—

And these are those whose meal-offerings are burned: