Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 20, 2015 | 讞壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sotah 25

Does a woman who get a second chance before losing her ketuba money? 聽Can a husband change his mind after starting the process? 聽At what point? 聽Are the same laws true for a parent who accuses their son of being a ben sorer u’moreh, or a zaken mamreh that the court pardons.

Study Guide Sotah 25


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗讜 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 讻诇诇

And Shmuel could have said: I state my opinion even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya. Since it was necessary for the verse to specifically include in the sota ritual a yevama who engaged in sexual intercourse with her yavam, by inference one may conclude that she is not his wife at all with regard to any matters other than those explicit in the verse.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 爪专讬讻讛 讛转专讗讛 诇讛驻住讬讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 讛讬讗 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讛转专讗讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转讬讘注讬 讛转专讗讛 讚讗讬 讛讚专讛 讘讛 转讬讛讚专 讘讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a woman who violates the precepts of halakha or Jewish custom with regard to modesty, who may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract, is forewarning from her husband required in order to cause her to forfeit her right to collect payment of her marriage contract or is forewarning not required? Do we say that since she is a woman who violates the precepts, forewarning is not required, as she is aware that her actions are prohibited? Or perhaps forewarning is required, so that if she desires to repent, she will be reminded to repent?

转讗 砖诪注 讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛 诪讬砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬讗 讛讗 拽谞讜讬讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讛 诇诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讛驻住讬讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: A betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her yavam neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts. It is possible to infer that she does not drink, but the husband or yavam can warn her against secluding herself with another man. For what halakha is his warning relevant? Is it not relevant to cause her to forfeit her right to collect payment of her marriage contract? Accordingly, a woman forfeits payment of her marriage contract due to immodest behavior only if she is warned.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讗专讜住讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗讘诇 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讗专讜住讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛

Abaye said: No, the relevance of the warning of the husband or yavam is to render her forbidden to him in the event that she secludes herself with another man. Rav Pappa said: The relevance of the warning is to have her drink if she secludes herself with another man when she is married, as it is taught in a baraita: One does not issue a warning to a betrothed woman in order to have her drink while she is betrothed. However, one can issue a warning to a betrothed woman in order to have her drink when she is married.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪诪讝专 讜诇谞转讬谉 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛

Rava said: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: A widow who was married to a High Priest, or a 岣lutza who was married to a common priest, or a mamzeret or Gibeonite woman who was married to a Jew of unflawed lineage, or a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage who was married to a mamzer or a Gibeonite; all of these women neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts.

诪讬砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬讗 讛讗 拽谞讜讬讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讛讜 讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讜住专谉 注诇讬讜 讛讗 讗住讬专谉 讜拽讬讬诪谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讛驻住讬讚谉 讻转讜讘转谉

The Gemara infers: She does not drink, but the husband or yavam can warn her against secluding herself with another man. But for what halakha is his warning relevant? If it is in order to prohibit these women to him, aren鈥檛 they currently prohibited to him? Rather, is it not relevant to cause them to forfeit their rights to collect payment of their marriage contracts? This indicates that only when a woman is warned in advance does her immodest behavior cause her to forfeit her right to collect payment of her marriage contract.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬住拽专转讗 诇讗 诇讗讜住专讛 诇讘讜注诇 讻讘注诇 讚转谞谉 讻砖诐 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇 讻讱 讗住讜专讛 诇讘讜注诇

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: No, the relevance of the warning is to render her permanently forbidden to her paramour, should she seclude herself with him, just as she would become forbidden to her husband, as we learned in a mishna (27b): Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so is she forbidden to her paramour.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇讜 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讬 砖谞转讞专砖 讘注诇讛 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜诇讗 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇驻讜住诇讛 诪讻转讜讘转讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬 讛转专讗讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav 岣nina of Sura said: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: And these are the women to whom the court issues a warning in place of their husbands: One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison. And the Sages said that the court warns her not in order to have her drink the bitter water if she disobeys the warning; rather in order to disqualify her from receiving payment of her marriage contract. Since the sole purpose of the warning issued by the court is to disqualify her from receiving payment of her marriage contract in the event she secludes herself with the man, one can learn from the mishna that similarly, a woman who violates the precepts requires forewarning. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, one can learn from the mishna that a warning is required.

讜讻讜诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪讛讗 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讗讬诪转讗 讚讘注诇 讻诇诇

The Gemara asks: With regard to all of the other Sages, who proposed inconclusive proofs from other clauses of the mishna, what is the reason they did not say that proof can be adduced from this explicit statement? The Gemara answers: They reasoned that perhaps it is different there, as the wife has no fear of her husband at all, since he is either incapacitated or incarcerated, and therefore she must be warned first. In other cases, an explicit warning is unnecessary.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 讜专爪讛 讘注诇 诇拽讬讬诪讛 诪拽讬讬诪讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讬讬诪讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘拽驻讬讚讛 讚讘注诇 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 拽驻讬讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽驻讬讚 拽驻讬讚

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a woman violates the precepts and her husband desires to maintain her as his wife, may he maintain her as his wife or may he not maintain her as his wife? Do we say that the Merciful One made the requirement to divorce her dependent on the husband鈥檚 objection to her behavior, and as this husband does not raise an objection he may maintain her as his wife? Or perhaps, since the Torah objects to this behavior, it is considered as though he objected, as the requirement to divorce her is due to the Torah鈥檚 objection to this behavior, irrespective of the husband鈥檚 wishes.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇讜 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讬 砖谞转讞专砖 讘注诇讛 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 专爪讛 讘注诇 诇拽讬讬诪讛 诪拽讬讬诪讛 注讘讚讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 住转诪讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 讛讬讗 诪讬谞讞 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara cites poof: Come and hear the mishna: And these are the women to whom the court issues a warning in place of their husbands: One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison. And if you say that should the husband desire to maintain her as his wife he may maintain her as his wife, perhaps he may not want the court to warn her. Would the court perform a matter that is perhaps not amenable to the husband? The Gemara replies: The ordinary situation is that since she is violating the precepts, it is amenable to the husband to divorce her, and the court acts under this assumption.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讚讘注诇 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注诇 讛讗 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讜讬讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who issued a warning to his wife and later retracted his warning, as he did not wish his wife to acquire the status of a sota, is his warning retracted, or is it not retracted? Do we say that the Merciful One made acquiring the status of a sota dependent on the husband鈥檚 warning, and the husband retracted his warning? Or perhaps, since he warned her at the outset, he can no longer retract his warning?

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇讜 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讬 砖谞转讞专砖 讘注诇讛 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 注讘讚讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讗转讬 讘注诇 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 住转诪讗 讚诪诇转讗 讗讚诐 诪住讻讬诐 注诇 讚注转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara cites proof that the husband cannot retract his warning: Come and hear the mishna: And these are the women to whom the court issues a warning in place of their husbands: One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison. And if you say that in the case of a husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted, would we, i.e., the court, do something that the husband can come and retract? This would cause a diminution of the esteem of the court. The Gemara replies: The ordinary situation is that a person concurs with the opinion of the court and would not retract a warning issued by the court, so this is not a concern. Therefore, no proof can be brought from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 讜诪讜住专讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 诇讞诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讜讬讛 讜诇讘注讜诇

The Gemara cites proof: Come and hear another mishna (7a): When the husband takes the sota to the Temple, he first takes her to the local court, and the court provides him with two Torah scholars who accompany them, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple, which is prohibited due to her status as a sota. And if you say that with regard to a husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted, let him retract his warning and engage in sexual intercourse with her.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讞诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讜讬讬讱 讜讘注诇讛

The Gemara replies that perhaps the husband can retract his warning: What is different about Torah scholars that they are chosen to accompany the husband? They differ from other people as they are learned, and if they see that the husband desires to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife, they say to him: Retract your warning and then you may engage in sexual intercourse with her in a permitted manner.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 住讞 诇讬 讝注讬专讗 诪讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 砖专爪讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇诪讞讜诇 诇讜 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜 讜讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖专爪讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 诇诪讞讜诇 诇讜 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara cites proof: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yoshiya says: Ze鈥檈ira, who was one of the men of Jerusalem, told me three matters: A husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted; and in the case of a rebellious Elder whom the court wishes to forgive, the court may forgive him; and in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son whose father and mother wish to forgive him for his sins, they may forgive him.

讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讬 砖讘讚专讜诐 注诇 砖谞讬诐 讛讜讚讜 诇讬 讜注诇 讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讬 砖诇讗 讬专讘讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And when I came to my colleagues in the South and told them these rulings, they agreed with me with regard to two of them, but with regard to forgiving a rebellious Elder they did not agree with me. They held that a rebellious Elder cannot be forgiven, in order that discord not proliferate among the Jewish people. The Gemara comments: One can conclude from Rabbi Yoshiya鈥檚 statement that with regard to a husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, one can conclude from Rabbi Yoshiya鈥檚 statement that the husband can retract his warning.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 拽讜讚诐 住转讬专讛 诪讞讜诇 诇讗讞专 住转讬专讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 住转讬专讛 谞诪讬 诪讞讜诇 讜诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇

Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to the limits of this halakha permitting a husband to retract his warning. One says that if he retracts his warning before her seclusion with another man, his warning is retracted, but if he retracts his warning after her seclusion with another man, it is not retracted. And one says that if he retracts his warning after her seclusion with another man, it is also retracted. And it is reasonable to hold according to the one who says that the husband鈥檚 warning is not retracted after her seclusion with another man.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽讗 诪讛讚专讬 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讛 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 谞讚讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讻专转 讘注诇讛 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬讛 住讜讟讛 砖讛讬讗 讘诇讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara asks: From where can one derive that after the wife鈥檚 seclusion with another man, the warning cannot be retracted? It can be derived from the answer that the Rabbis gave in reply to Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: It is unnecessary to provide an escort to accompany the sota and her husband, as the husband of a sota is trusted not to engage in sexual intercourse with her, on the basis of an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, as he is permitted to seclude himself with her, so too, with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband only by an ordinary prohibition, is it not all the more so that he should be trusted?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘谞讚讛 砖讻谉 讬砖 诇讛 讛讬转专 转讗诪专 讘住讜讟讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讛讬转专

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: No, if you say that he is trusted with regard to a menstruating woman, the reason is not due to the severity of the prohibition. Rather, he is trusted because she has the ability to become permitted to her husband after her menstrual flow has ceased and she has immersed in a ritual bath. Shall you also say that he is trusted with regard to a sota, who potentially does not have the ability to become permitted to her husband, due to her suspected adultery?

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗讞专 住转讬专讛 诪讞讜诇 诇讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬砖 诇讛 讛讬转专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讜讬讛 讜讘注讬诇 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讞专 住转讬专讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara explains the proof: And if you say that after her seclusion with another man the warning can be retracted for her, you therefore find an instance in which the sota has the ability to become permitted to her husband, as, if the husband desires he can retract his warning and engage in sexual intercourse with her. Rather, conclude from the Rabbis鈥 statement that if he retracts his warning after her seclusion with another man, the warning is not retracted. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, one can conclude from the Rabbis鈥 statement that the warning cannot be retracted.

诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖诇讗 砖转讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讜壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬

搂 The mishna states: If the husbands of the sota women died before their wives drank the bitter water, Beit Shammai say: They collect payment of their marriage contracts and they do not drink the bitter water. And Beit Hillel say: They either drink the bitter water or they do not collect payment of their marriage contracts. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai hold that a promissory note that stands to be collected is considered to be as though it was already collected, and since the woman possesses the marriage contract, the payment of the marriage contract is considered as though it is already in her possession. Since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, she does not lose her rights to the money unless the inheritors prove that she committed adultery.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 诇讗讜 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬

And Beit Hillel hold that a promissory note that stands to be collected is not considered as though it was already collected. Therefore, the payment of the marriage contract is not considered to be in the wife鈥檚 possession, and as this means that she is the claimant, she is not entitled to the money unless she proves that she did not commit adultery.

诪注讜讘专转 讞讘讬专讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注拽专讛 讜讝拽讬谞讛

搂 The mishna states (24a): A woman who was pregnant with the child of another man at the time of her marriage鈥 sexually underdeveloped woman, who is incapable of bearing children [ailonit], and an elderly woman, and a woman who is incapable of giving birth for other reasons, neither collect payment of their marriage contracts nor drink the bitter water. Rabbi Elazar says: He can marry another woman and procreate through her; therefore these are considered permitted marriages, and the women can drink the bitter water. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar is only in the case of a barren woman and an elderly woman.

讗讘诇 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 砖讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 讝专注 诪讬 砖讚专讻讛 诇讛讝专讬注 讬爪讗讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 诇讛讝专讬注

However, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, all agree that she neither drinks the bitter water nor collects payment of her marriage contract. This is as it is stated with regard to a sota who is found to be innocent of adultery: 鈥淎nd she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28), indicating that the sota ritual pertains only to one whose way is to bear seed and give birth, excluding this sexually underdeveloped woman, whose way is not to bear seed.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪拽谞讗 诇讗专讜住转讜 讜诇砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诇讜 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讻谞住讛 谞住转专讛 诇讗 砖讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement from a baraita in the Tosefta (5:4): With regard to one who issues a warning to his betrothed, or to his yevama while she is a widow awaiting her yavam, if she secluded herself with the other man before her husband consummated the marriage, she neither drinks the bitter water nor collects payment of her marriage contract.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sotah 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 25

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗讜 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 讻诇诇

And Shmuel could have said: I state my opinion even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya. Since it was necessary for the verse to specifically include in the sota ritual a yevama who engaged in sexual intercourse with her yavam, by inference one may conclude that she is not his wife at all with regard to any matters other than those explicit in the verse.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 爪专讬讻讛 讛转专讗讛 诇讛驻住讬讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 讛讬讗 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讛转专讗讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转讬讘注讬 讛转专讗讛 讚讗讬 讛讚专讛 讘讛 转讬讛讚专 讘讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a woman who violates the precepts of halakha or Jewish custom with regard to modesty, who may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract, is forewarning from her husband required in order to cause her to forfeit her right to collect payment of her marriage contract or is forewarning not required? Do we say that since she is a woman who violates the precepts, forewarning is not required, as she is aware that her actions are prohibited? Or perhaps forewarning is required, so that if she desires to repent, she will be reminded to repent?

转讗 砖诪注 讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛 诪讬砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬讗 讛讗 拽谞讜讬讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讛 诇诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讛驻住讬讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: A betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her yavam neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts. It is possible to infer that she does not drink, but the husband or yavam can warn her against secluding herself with another man. For what halakha is his warning relevant? Is it not relevant to cause her to forfeit her right to collect payment of her marriage contract? Accordingly, a woman forfeits payment of her marriage contract due to immodest behavior only if she is warned.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讗专讜住讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗讘诇 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讗专讜住讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛

Abaye said: No, the relevance of the warning of the husband or yavam is to render her forbidden to him in the event that she secludes herself with another man. Rav Pappa said: The relevance of the warning is to have her drink if she secludes herself with another man when she is married, as it is taught in a baraita: One does not issue a warning to a betrothed woman in order to have her drink while she is betrothed. However, one can issue a warning to a betrothed woman in order to have her drink when she is married.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪诪讝专 讜诇谞转讬谉 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛

Rava said: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: A widow who was married to a High Priest, or a 岣lutza who was married to a common priest, or a mamzeret or Gibeonite woman who was married to a Jew of unflawed lineage, or a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage who was married to a mamzer or a Gibeonite; all of these women neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts.

诪讬砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬讗 讛讗 拽谞讜讬讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讛讜 讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讜住专谉 注诇讬讜 讛讗 讗住讬专谉 讜拽讬讬诪谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讛驻住讬讚谉 讻转讜讘转谉

The Gemara infers: She does not drink, but the husband or yavam can warn her against secluding herself with another man. But for what halakha is his warning relevant? If it is in order to prohibit these women to him, aren鈥檛 they currently prohibited to him? Rather, is it not relevant to cause them to forfeit their rights to collect payment of their marriage contracts? This indicates that only when a woman is warned in advance does her immodest behavior cause her to forfeit her right to collect payment of her marriage contract.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬住拽专转讗 诇讗 诇讗讜住专讛 诇讘讜注诇 讻讘注诇 讚转谞谉 讻砖诐 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇 讻讱 讗住讜专讛 诇讘讜注诇

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: No, the relevance of the warning is to render her permanently forbidden to her paramour, should she seclude herself with him, just as she would become forbidden to her husband, as we learned in a mishna (27b): Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so is she forbidden to her paramour.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇讜 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讬 砖谞转讞专砖 讘注诇讛 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜诇讗 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇驻讜住诇讛 诪讻转讜讘转讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬 讛转专讗讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav 岣nina of Sura said: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: And these are the women to whom the court issues a warning in place of their husbands: One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison. And the Sages said that the court warns her not in order to have her drink the bitter water if she disobeys the warning; rather in order to disqualify her from receiving payment of her marriage contract. Since the sole purpose of the warning issued by the court is to disqualify her from receiving payment of her marriage contract in the event she secludes herself with the man, one can learn from the mishna that similarly, a woman who violates the precepts requires forewarning. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, one can learn from the mishna that a warning is required.

讜讻讜诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪讛讗 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讗讬诪转讗 讚讘注诇 讻诇诇

The Gemara asks: With regard to all of the other Sages, who proposed inconclusive proofs from other clauses of the mishna, what is the reason they did not say that proof can be adduced from this explicit statement? The Gemara answers: They reasoned that perhaps it is different there, as the wife has no fear of her husband at all, since he is either incapacitated or incarcerated, and therefore she must be warned first. In other cases, an explicit warning is unnecessary.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 讜专爪讛 讘注诇 诇拽讬讬诪讛 诪拽讬讬诪讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讬讬诪讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘拽驻讬讚讛 讚讘注诇 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 拽驻讬讚 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽驻讬讚 拽驻讬讚

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a woman violates the precepts and her husband desires to maintain her as his wife, may he maintain her as his wife or may he not maintain her as his wife? Do we say that the Merciful One made the requirement to divorce her dependent on the husband鈥檚 objection to her behavior, and as this husband does not raise an objection he may maintain her as his wife? Or perhaps, since the Torah objects to this behavior, it is considered as though he objected, as the requirement to divorce her is due to the Torah鈥檚 objection to this behavior, irrespective of the husband鈥檚 wishes.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇讜 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讬 砖谞转讞专砖 讘注诇讛 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 专爪讛 讘注诇 诇拽讬讬诪讛 诪拽讬讬诪讛 注讘讚讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 住转诪讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 讛讬讗 诪讬谞讞 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara cites poof: Come and hear the mishna: And these are the women to whom the court issues a warning in place of their husbands: One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison. And if you say that should the husband desire to maintain her as his wife he may maintain her as his wife, perhaps he may not want the court to warn her. Would the court perform a matter that is perhaps not amenable to the husband? The Gemara replies: The ordinary situation is that since she is violating the precepts, it is amenable to the husband to divorce her, and the court acts under this assumption.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讚讘注诇 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注诇 讛讗 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讜讬讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a husband who issued a warning to his wife and later retracted his warning, as he did not wish his wife to acquire the status of a sota, is his warning retracted, or is it not retracted? Do we say that the Merciful One made acquiring the status of a sota dependent on the husband鈥檚 warning, and the husband retracted his warning? Or perhaps, since he warned her at the outset, he can no longer retract his warning?

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇讜 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讬 砖谞转讞专砖 讘注诇讛 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 注讘讚讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讗转讬 讘注诇 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 住转诪讗 讚诪诇转讗 讗讚诐 诪住讻讬诐 注诇 讚注转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara cites proof that the husband cannot retract his warning: Come and hear the mishna: And these are the women to whom the court issues a warning in place of their husbands: One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison. And if you say that in the case of a husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted, would we, i.e., the court, do something that the husband can come and retract? This would cause a diminution of the esteem of the court. The Gemara replies: The ordinary situation is that a person concurs with the opinion of the court and would not retract a warning issued by the court, so this is not a concern. Therefore, no proof can be brought from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 讜诪讜住专讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 诇讞诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讜讬讛 讜诇讘注讜诇

The Gemara cites proof: Come and hear another mishna (7a): When the husband takes the sota to the Temple, he first takes her to the local court, and the court provides him with two Torah scholars who accompany them, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple, which is prohibited due to her status as a sota. And if you say that with regard to a husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted, let him retract his warning and engage in sexual intercourse with her.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讞诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讜讬讬讱 讜讘注诇讛

The Gemara replies that perhaps the husband can retract his warning: What is different about Torah scholars that they are chosen to accompany the husband? They differ from other people as they are learned, and if they see that the husband desires to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife, they say to him: Retract your warning and then you may engage in sexual intercourse with her in a permitted manner.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 住讞 诇讬 讝注讬专讗 诪讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 砖专爪讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇诪讞讜诇 诇讜 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜 讜讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖专爪讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 诇诪讞讜诇 诇讜 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara cites proof: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yoshiya says: Ze鈥檈ira, who was one of the men of Jerusalem, told me three matters: A husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted; and in the case of a rebellious Elder whom the court wishes to forgive, the court may forgive him; and in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son whose father and mother wish to forgive him for his sins, they may forgive him.

讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讬 砖讘讚专讜诐 注诇 砖谞讬诐 讛讜讚讜 诇讬 讜注诇 讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讬 砖诇讗 讬专讘讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇 砖诪讞诇 注诇 拽讬谞讜讬讜 拽讬谞讜讬讜 诪讞讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And when I came to my colleagues in the South and told them these rulings, they agreed with me with regard to two of them, but with regard to forgiving a rebellious Elder they did not agree with me. They held that a rebellious Elder cannot be forgiven, in order that discord not proliferate among the Jewish people. The Gemara comments: One can conclude from Rabbi Yoshiya鈥檚 statement that with regard to a husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, one can conclude from Rabbi Yoshiya鈥檚 statement that the husband can retract his warning.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 拽讜讚诐 住转讬专讛 诪讞讜诇 诇讗讞专 住转讬专讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 住转讬专讛 谞诪讬 诪讞讜诇 讜诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇

Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to the limits of this halakha permitting a husband to retract his warning. One says that if he retracts his warning before her seclusion with another man, his warning is retracted, but if he retracts his warning after her seclusion with another man, it is not retracted. And one says that if he retracts his warning after her seclusion with another man, it is also retracted. And it is reasonable to hold according to the one who says that the husband鈥檚 warning is not retracted after her seclusion with another man.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽讗 诪讛讚专讬 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讛 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 谞讚讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讻专转 讘注诇讛 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬讛 住讜讟讛 砖讛讬讗 讘诇讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara asks: From where can one derive that after the wife鈥檚 seclusion with another man, the warning cannot be retracted? It can be derived from the answer that the Rabbis gave in reply to Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: It is unnecessary to provide an escort to accompany the sota and her husband, as the husband of a sota is trusted not to engage in sexual intercourse with her, on the basis of an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, as he is permitted to seclude himself with her, so too, with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband only by an ordinary prohibition, is it not all the more so that he should be trusted?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘谞讚讛 砖讻谉 讬砖 诇讛 讛讬转专 转讗诪专 讘住讜讟讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讛讬转专

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: No, if you say that he is trusted with regard to a menstruating woman, the reason is not due to the severity of the prohibition. Rather, he is trusted because she has the ability to become permitted to her husband after her menstrual flow has ceased and she has immersed in a ritual bath. Shall you also say that he is trusted with regard to a sota, who potentially does not have the ability to become permitted to her husband, due to her suspected adultery?

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗讞专 住转讬专讛 诪讞讜诇 诇讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬砖 诇讛 讛讬转专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讜讬讛 讜讘注讬诇 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讞专 住转讬专讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara explains the proof: And if you say that after her seclusion with another man the warning can be retracted for her, you therefore find an instance in which the sota has the ability to become permitted to her husband, as, if the husband desires he can retract his warning and engage in sexual intercourse with her. Rather, conclude from the Rabbis鈥 statement that if he retracts his warning after her seclusion with another man, the warning is not retracted. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, one can conclude from the Rabbis鈥 statement that the warning cannot be retracted.

诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖诇讗 砖转讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讜壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬

搂 The mishna states: If the husbands of the sota women died before their wives drank the bitter water, Beit Shammai say: They collect payment of their marriage contracts and they do not drink the bitter water. And Beit Hillel say: They either drink the bitter water or they do not collect payment of their marriage contracts. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai hold that a promissory note that stands to be collected is considered to be as though it was already collected, and since the woman possesses the marriage contract, the payment of the marriage contract is considered as though it is already in her possession. Since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, she does not lose her rights to the money unless the inheritors prove that she committed adultery.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 诇讗讜 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬

And Beit Hillel hold that a promissory note that stands to be collected is not considered as though it was already collected. Therefore, the payment of the marriage contract is not considered to be in the wife鈥檚 possession, and as this means that she is the claimant, she is not entitled to the money unless she proves that she did not commit adultery.

诪注讜讘专转 讞讘讬专讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注拽专讛 讜讝拽讬谞讛

搂 The mishna states (24a): A woman who was pregnant with the child of another man at the time of her marriage鈥 sexually underdeveloped woman, who is incapable of bearing children [ailonit], and an elderly woman, and a woman who is incapable of giving birth for other reasons, neither collect payment of their marriage contracts nor drink the bitter water. Rabbi Elazar says: He can marry another woman and procreate through her; therefore these are considered permitted marriages, and the women can drink the bitter water. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar is only in the case of a barren woman and an elderly woman.

讗讘诇 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 砖讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 讝专注 诪讬 砖讚专讻讛 诇讛讝专讬注 讬爪讗讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 诇讛讝专讬注

However, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, all agree that she neither drinks the bitter water nor collects payment of her marriage contract. This is as it is stated with regard to a sota who is found to be innocent of adultery: 鈥淎nd she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28), indicating that the sota ritual pertains only to one whose way is to bear seed and give birth, excluding this sexually underdeveloped woman, whose way is not to bear seed.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪拽谞讗 诇讗专讜住转讜 讜诇砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诇讜 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讻谞住讛 谞住转专讛 诇讗 砖讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement from a baraita in the Tosefta (5:4): With regard to one who issues a warning to his betrothed, or to his yevama while she is a widow awaiting her yavam, if she secluded herself with the other man before her husband consummated the marriage, she neither drinks the bitter water nor collects payment of her marriage contract.

Scroll To Top