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

Daf Yomi

April 24, 2023 | 讙壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.

Sotah 26

Today’s daf is sponsored by聽Goody and Eric Weil in loving memory of the beloved Rav Dov Shabtai ben Yehoshua Leib and Ethel Greenstone after a short illness. ‘He inspired so many of the women and men of his family to learn daf yomi. Many are part of the Hadran community that embraces them today and learns in his honor. Yehi Zichro Baruch!”

Rabbi Elazar ruled in cases of a man who married a woman who can’t have children that since he can have another wife, he is permitted to marry her, in which case, she can also be brought to drink the sotah water. Rav Nachman limits his opinion to a woman who at some point was able to have children, as an aylonit for sure cannot become a sotah. A difficulty is raised against Rav Nachman from a braita. Rav Nachman explains that there is a tannaitic debate about this based on the understanding of how to explain the verse “she shall be clean and will be able to retain seed.” What are the different ways to understand this verse? The Gemara delves into many of the other cases mentioned in the braita that was quoted and explains them. The same is then done to the cases mentioned in our Mishna, such as the wife of a kohen or a eunuch. Each time the Gemara explains why it was necessary to explain the law in the braita/Mishna as it seems at first glance that it would be obvious. The Mishna excluded one who is a minor and one who is not a man from laws of kinui (one does not warn a wife about going into a room alone with them). What is “one who is not a man?” Three possibilities are raised, the first two (one who is impotent and a gentile) are rejected. The conclusion is that it means an animal as engaging in bestiality is not considered ‘znut‘ (licentiousness).

诪注讜讘专转 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讬谞拽转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The baraita continues: A woman who was pregnant with the child of another man at the time of her marriage and a woman who was nursing the child of another man at the time of her marriage neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts, as their marriages were prohibited by rabbinic law. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪注讜讘专转 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讬谞拽转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讜诇诪讬转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讻砖讬讙讬注 讝诪谞讜 诇讻谞讜住 讬讻谞讜住


The baraita continues: The reason for this is as Rabbi Meir would say: A man may not marry a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man or a woman who is nursing the child of another man, until twenty-four months pass after the baby鈥檚 birth, so as to ensure that the woman will not become pregnant while the child needs to nurse. And if he married her, he must divorce her and may never remarry her, as the Sages penalized him for transgressing the prohibition. And the Rabbis say: He must divorce her, and when his time to marry her arrives, i.e., twenty-four months after the baby鈥檚 birth, he can marry her again.


讜讛专讜讘讗 砖谞砖讗 注拽专讛 讜讝拽讬谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 砖讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讬砖讗 讗讞专转 讜诇驻专讜转 讜诇专讘讜转 讛讬诪谞讛


The baraita continues: In the case of a young man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and he did not have a wife and children beforehand, the woman neither drinks nor collects payment of her marriage contract, as it is prohibited for him to marry a woman with whom he cannot procreate. Rabbi Elazar says: This marriage is not forbidden, as he can marry another woman and procreate through her, and therefore she can drink the bitter water.


讗讘诇 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 讜诪砖讻谞住讛 谞住转专讛 讗讜 砖讜转讛 讗讜 诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪讬谞拽转 注爪诪讜 讗讜 砖讜转讛 讗讜 诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘转讛 讛专讜讘讗 砖谞砖讗 注拽专讛 讜讝拽讬谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讜 砖讜转讛 讗讜 诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛


The baraita continues: However, in the case of one who issued a warning to his betrothed, or to his yevama while she was a widow awaiting her yavam, and she secluded herself with the other man after he consummated the marriage, she either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. If his own pregnant or nursing wife becomes a sota, then despite the concern that the bitter water may harm the fetus, she either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. In the case of a young man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and he already had a wife and children and was therefore permitted to marry his barren or elderly wife, the woman either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract.


讗砖转 诪诪讝专 诇诪诪讝专 讜讗砖转 谞转讬谉 诇谞转讬谉 讜讗砖转 讙专 讜注讘讚 诪砖讜讞专专 讜讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖讜转讛 讗讜 诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉


The baraita concludes: With regard to the wife of a mamzer who is married to a mamzer in a permitted marriage, and the wife of a Gibeonite who is married to a Gibeonite in a permitted marriage, and the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped woman, if any of these women becomes a sota she either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract, as the marriage is permitted. After citing the entire baraita, the Gemara explains the difficulty: In any event, the baraita teaches that a sexually underdeveloped woman can drink the bitter water if the marriage is permitted, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Na岣an.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 诇讗 砖讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛 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 讬爪讗转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 诇讛讝专讬注


The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an could have said to you: There is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m with regard to this matter, and I state my opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar says: A sexually underdeveloped woman neither drinks nor collects payment of her marriage contract, as it is stated: 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.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 讝专注 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 [讝专注] 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 注拽专讛 谞驻拽讚转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诐 讻谉 讬住转专讜 讻诇 讛注拽专讜转 讜讬驻拽讚讜 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞住转专讛 讛驻住讬讚讛


The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this verse: 鈥淎nd she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥? Since they hold that a sexually underdeveloped woman drinks the bitter water, what do they derive from the verse? The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淎nd she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28), indicates that if she was barren, she will be remembered and conceive a child; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If so, all the barren women will seclude themselves with other men, and they will be remembered and conceive after drinking the bitter water and being found innocent; but that virtuous barren woman, who does not transgress the prohibition of seclusion, since she does not seclude herself with other men, she loses the opportunity to receive this blessing.


讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 讝专注 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 讬讜诇讚转 讘爪注专 讬讜诇讚转 讘专讬讜讞 谞拽讘讜转 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专讬诐 拽爪专讬诐 讬讜诇讚转 讗专讜讻讬诐 砖讞讜专讬诐 讬讜诇讚转 诇讘谞讬诐:


Rabbi Yishmael continues: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28)? This means that if in the past she would give birth in pain, from then on she will give birth with ease; if she gave birth to females, she will now give birth to males; if her children were short, she will now give birth to tall children; if her children were black, she will give birth to white children.


讗砖转 诪诪讝专 诇诪诪讝专: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗驻讜砖讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗 诇讬驻讜砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


搂 The baraita in the Tosefta cited above states: The wife of a mamzer who is married to a mamzer in a permitted marriage鈥 either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Since their marriage is permitted, why should the sota ritual not apply? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that she should not drink, since if she drinks and is found to be innocent of adultery, she is permitted to her husband. This is undesirable since their offspring are also mamzerim, and we do not cause the number of individuals of flawed lineage to proliferate. The baraita in the Tosefta therefore teaches us that this is not a concern, and the wife of a mamzer is permitted to drink.


讗砖转 讙专 讜注讘讚 诪砖讜讞专专 讜讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转: 驻砖讬讟讗


The aforementioned baraita in the Tosefta states: The wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped woman can drink the bitter water. The Gemara asks with regard to the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, who also has the status of a convert: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Since their marriage is permitted, why should the sota ritual not apply?


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讙专讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诪专转 专讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗:


The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that she does not drink, as the verse states: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, and say unto them: If the wife of any man goes astray, and acts unfaithfully against him鈥 (Numbers 5:12). One might have inferred from this verse that the sota ritual applies only to those born as Jews and not to converts; the baraita in the Tosefta therefore teaches us that this is not so. The Gemara asks: Why not say that indeed the verse excludes converts? The Gemara answers: The subsequent term: 鈥淎nd say unto them鈥 (Numbers 5:12) is an amplification, which serves to include converts.


讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖讜转讛 讻讜壮: 讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖讜转讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转砖转讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


搂 The mishna states: The wife of a priest drinks the bitter water, and if she is found to be innocent of adultery she is permitted to her husband. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna state: The wife of a priest drinks? Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that she does not drink, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd a man lay with her鈥either was she seized鈥 (Numbers 5:13). This indicates that if the sota was not seized she is forbidden; however, if she was seized, i.e., raped, she is permitted to her husband. And with regard to this woman, the wife of a priest, since even if she was seized she is forbidden to her husband, as a priest may not remain married to his wife if she was raped while they were married, one might say that the sota ritual does not apply to her, and she does not drink. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that she does drink.


讜诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘诪转谞讜讜谞讛 诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讛讗 讘讚拽讜讛 诪讬讗


搂 The mishna states: The wife of a priest drinks, and if she is found to be innocent of adultery, she is permitted to her husband. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Rav Huna says: The mishna is referring to a case where the woman鈥檚 health deteriorates after she drinks the bitter water, and one might have thought that she is defiled. The Gemara asks: In the case of a woman whose health deteriorates, hasn鈥檛 the bitter water already evaluated that she was unfaithful? The fact that her health deteriorates indicates that she is defiled and forbidden to her husband, and her death is delayed due to her merit in other matters.


讘诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讚专讱 讗讘专讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 讝谞讜讬讬 讝谞讗讬 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讜讛 诪讬讗 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讗讜谞住 讝谞讗讬 讜诇讙讘讬 讻讛谉 讗住讬专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where her health deteriorates, but not in the manner of a sota, who is afflicted in her belly and thighs (see Numbers 5:27). Rather, she is afflicted by way of other limbs. Lest you say: This woman engaged in licentious intercourse, and the fact that the bitter water did not evaluate her in the usual manner is because she engaged in licentious intercourse under duress, and with regard to a priest, even rape renders her forbidden to her husband, the mishna therefore teaches us that the woman鈥檚 deteriorating health does not indicate anything.


讗砖转 住专讬住 砖讜转讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讘诇注讚讬 讗讬砖讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


搂 The mishna states: The wife of a eunuch drinks. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Since their marriage is permitted, why should the sota ritual not apply? The Gemara replies: It is necessary lest you say that she does not drink, since the Merciful One states with regard to the sota: 鈥淏ut if you have gone astray while under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband鈥 (Numbers 5:20). This indicates that her husband had lain with her, and this husband, the eunuch, is not capable of that. The mishna therefore teaches us that the wife of a eunuch does drink the bitter water.


注诇 讬讚讬 讻诇 注专讬讜转 诪拽谞讬谉: 驻砖讬讟讗


搂 The mishna states: A husband can issue a warning to his wife with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden, e.g., her father or brother. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious?


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讟诪讗讛 谞讟诪讗讛 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讗讞讚 诇讘讜注诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬转住专讗 讘讛讗 讝谞讜转 讗讘诇 讛讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗住讜专讛 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: It is necessary, lest you say that the sota ritual does not apply with regard to forbidden relatives, as the Torah states: 鈥淎nd she was defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:13), 鈥淎nd she was defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14), two times. One verse teaches that she is defiled and forbidden to her husband, and one verse teaches that she is forbidden to her paramour. One might understand that the sota ritual applies only where she is forbidden to the paramour due to this licentious intercourse; however, with regard to that woman, who secluded herself with a forbidden relative, since the woman already stands prohibited to him due to the prohibition of incest, one might say that the sota ritual does not apply. The mishna therefore teaches us that one can issue a warning even with regard to forbidden relatives.


讞讜抓 诪谉 讛拽讟谉 [讜讻讜壮]: 讗讬砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 拽讟谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讗讬砖 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讞讜祝 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讜祝 诪拽谞讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讜驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛


搂 The mishna states: A husband can issue a warning to his wife with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden, with the exception of a minor and of one who is not a man. The Gemara cites the source for this halakha: The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd a man lay with her鈥 (Numbers 5:13), indicating that one can warn his wife with regard to a man but not with regard to a minor. The Gemara asks: The phrase: And of one who is not a man, serves to exclude what? If we say that it serves to exclude a sick man who lacks the ability to complete intercourse [sha岣f], but didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: One can issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f, and if a sha岣f engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, he disqualifies her from partaking of teruma.


诪拽谞讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜砖讻讘 讗讬砖 讗转讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


With regard to Shmuel鈥檚 statement that one can issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f, the Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, lest you say that one cannot issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd a man lay with her carnally [shikhvat zera]鈥 (Numbers 5:13), literally, a lying of seed, and this man is not capable of that, as he cannot ejaculate. Shmuel therefore teaches us that one can issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f.


讜驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 诇讬讞诇诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 诇讗 诇讬讞诇诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks with regard to Shmuel鈥檚 statement that a sha岣f who engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest disqualifies her from partaking of teruma: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that a sha岣f does not disqualify the daughter of a priest from partaking of teruma, as the Merciful One states in the Torah with regard to a priest: 鈥淎nd he shall not disqualify his offspring among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:15). One might infer from this verse that one who can have offspring disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, through forbidden sexual intercourse, and that one who cannot have offspring does not disqualify a woman from partaking of teruma. Shmuel therefore teaches us that this is not so. In any event, Shmuel states that one can issue a warning on account of a sha岣f, unlike the initial interpretation of the mishna.


讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讻专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 谞讻专讬 诪拽谞讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讜驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛


Since Shmuel鈥檚 statement contradicts the suggestion that the mishna excludes a sha岣f, the Gemara suggests another explanation: Rather, the mishna serves to exclude a gentile, and teaches that one cannot issue a warning with regard to him. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Hamnuna say: One can issue a warning with regard to a gentile, and if a gentile engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, he disqualifies her from partaking of teruma.


诪拽谞讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讟诪讗讛 谞讟诪讗讛 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讗讞讚 诇讘讜注诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽诪讬转住专讗 讘讛讗 讝谞讜转 讗讘诇 讛讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗住讜专讛 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 statement that one can issue a warning with regard to a gentile: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that one cannot issue a warning in this case, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd she was defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:13), 鈥淎nd she was defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14), twice. One verse teaches that she is defiled and forbidden to her husband, and one verse teaches that she is forbidden to her paramour. One might understand that the sota ritual applies only where she is forbidden to the paramour due to this licentious intercourse; however, with regard to that woman, who engaged in sexual intercourse with a gentile, since she already stands prohibited to him, one might say that the sota ritual does not apply. Rav Hamnuna therefore teaches us that one can issue a warning even with regard to a gentile.


讜驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讘专 讛讜讬讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讛讜讬讛 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻住讬诇 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 statement that a gentile who engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest disqualifies her from partaking of teruma: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that he does not disqualify her, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter should be unto a strange man, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things鈥 (Leviticus 22:12), indicating that if a woman engages in sexual intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. Since the term 鈥渟hould be unto鈥 denotes marriage, one might say that one who is eligible for betrothal, yes, he disqualifies the woman; but a gentile, who is not eligible for betrothal, does not disqualify her. Rav Hamnuna therefore teaches us that a gentile disqualifies the woman from partaking of teruma, as one can learn from the ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讛讻讛谞转 讜注诇 讛诇讜讬讬讛 讜注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖驻住诇讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛 讬爪讗讜 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛


This is as Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is it derived that a gentile or a slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest or with the daughter of a Levite or with the daughter of an Israelite, disqualified her from marrying a priest and from partaking of teruma? This is derived as it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter should be a widow or a divorc茅e鈥she returns to her father鈥檚 house鈥he may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). This indicates that the daughter of a priest returns to eat of her father鈥檚 bread, i.e., teruma, if she engaged in sexual intercourse with one whose marriage to her has the potential to end in widowhood or divorce, i.e., a Jew whom she is permitted to marry. This excludes a gentile and a slave, whose marriage to her does not have the potential to end in widowhood or divorce, as their betrothal is invalid.


讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬谉 讝谞讜转 讘讘讛诪讛


Since Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 statement contradicts the suggestion that the mishna excludes a gentile, the Gemara asks: Rather, what does the term: And of one who is not a man, serve to exclude? Rav Pappa says: This serves to exclude an animal, as the concept of licentiousness does not apply with regard to an animal. Therefore, the halakhot of a sota do not apply in this case.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讝谞讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讘讬讗 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜诪讞讬专 讻诇讘 讜讙讜壮


Rava of Parzakya said to Rav Ashi: From where is this matter that the Sages stated derived, that licentiousness does not apply with regard to an animal? Rav Ashi replied that it is as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God for any vow; for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). This verse prohibits one from sacrificing an animal that served as payment to a prostitute or as payment for the purchase of a dog.


讜转谞讬讗 讗转谞谉 讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 诪讜转专讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛


And it is taught in a mishna (Temura 30a): In the converse cases, the hire of a dog, i.e., a kosher animal that was given to the owner of a dog as payment for engaging in intercourse with it, and the price of a prostitute, i.e., a kosher animal which served as payment in the purchase of a maidservant acquired for prostitution, are permitted to be sacrificed, as it is stated in the aforementioned verse: For both of them. This term indicates that only those two animals may not be sacrificed, i.e., those which served as the hire of a harlot and as the price of a dog; and not four animals, as the reverse cases are excluded from this halakha. This indicates that the concept of licentiousness does not apply with regard to animals, as the payment for intercourse with a dog is not considered payment for prostitution.


讜讗诇讗 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖讻讘转 讝专注 驻专讟 诇讚讘专 讗讞专


The Gemara asks: Shmuel states that one can issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f even though he is unable to discharge semen. But rather, why do I need the verse to state: 鈥淎nd a man lay with her carnally [shikhvat zera]鈥 (Numbers 5:13)? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The term shikhvat zera鈥 excludes something else.


诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 驻专讟 诇砖拽讬谞讗 诇讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诪砖讻讘讬 讗砖讛 讻转讬讘


The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term: Something else? Rav Sheshet said: This excludes a case where the husband issued a warning to his wife not to engage in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, with another man, and teaches that this is not considered a valid warning. Rava said to Rav Sheshet: Intercourse in an atypical manner is considered sexual intercourse, as it is written: 鈥淭he cohabitations of a woman鈥 (Leviticus 18:22), indicating that there are two forms of sexual intercourse with a woman, vaginal and anal, and there is no halakhic differentiation between them.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻专讟 诇砖拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讱 讗讘专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻专讬爪讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 讜驻专讬爪讜转讗 诪讬 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗


Rather, Rava said: It excludes a case where the husband issued a warning to his wife not to engage in intimate contact with another man by way of other limbs, as this is not considered sexual intercourse. Abaye said to Rava: That is merely licentious behavior, and does the Merciful One render a woman forbidden to her husband on account of merely licentious behavior, without sexual intercourse? Since this does not render her forbidden to her husband, it is obvious that if the husband issues a warning in this manner, violating the warning does not cause her to become a sota. The verse is therefore not required to exclude this case.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 驻专讟 诇砖拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讘谞砖讬拽讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注专讗讛 讝讜 讛讻谞住转 注讟专讛 讗讘诇 谞砖讬拽讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗转讬 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞砖讬拽讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注专讗讛 讝讜 谞砖讬拽讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


Rather, Abaye said: The verse excludes a case where the husband issued a warning to his wife with regard to engaging in genital contact without actual penetration. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the definition of the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona but that genital contact is nothing; this is the reason that the verse came to exclude genital contact. However, according to the one who says that the definition of the initial stage of intercourse is genital contact, what is there to say? Why should this case be excluded from the halakhot of a sota?


诇注讜诇诐 诇砖拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讱 讗讘专讬诐 讜诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘拽驻讬讚讗 讚讘注诇 转诇讬讗 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注诇 讛讗 拽讗 拽驻讬讚 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: Actually, the verse serves to exclude a case where the husband issued a warning to his wife not to engage in intimate contact with another man by way of other limbs. And the verse explicitly excludes this case from the halakhot of a sota, lest you say that the woman is rendered a sota due to this warning, as the Merciful One made this halakha dependent on the husband鈥檚 objection, and the husband objects to contact of this nature. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not considered a warning, as it does not involve sexual intercourse.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬砖讗 讗讚诐


Shmuel says: It is better that a man marry


  • Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy who helped her fall deep in love with learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sotah: 21-28 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that if the Sota woman has merit, her punishment can be delayed. However, not everyone...
talking talmud_square

Sotah 26: Innocent, But Ill: Reacting to the Bitter Waters

More on women who would (or would not) drink the bitter waters. Plus, the forbidden relationships - for which the...

Sotah 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 26

诪注讜讘专转 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讬谞拽转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The baraita continues: A woman who was pregnant with the child of another man at the time of her marriage and a woman who was nursing the child of another man at the time of her marriage neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts, as their marriages were prohibited by rabbinic law. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讚诐 诪注讜讘专转 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讬谞拽转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讜诇诪讬转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讻砖讬讙讬注 讝诪谞讜 诇讻谞讜住 讬讻谞讜住


The baraita continues: The reason for this is as Rabbi Meir would say: A man may not marry a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man or a woman who is nursing the child of another man, until twenty-four months pass after the baby鈥檚 birth, so as to ensure that the woman will not become pregnant while the child needs to nurse. And if he married her, he must divorce her and may never remarry her, as the Sages penalized him for transgressing the prohibition. And the Rabbis say: He must divorce her, and when his time to marry her arrives, i.e., twenty-four months after the baby鈥檚 birth, he can marry her again.


讜讛专讜讘讗 砖谞砖讗 注拽专讛 讜讝拽讬谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 砖讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讬砖讗 讗讞专转 讜诇驻专讜转 讜诇专讘讜转 讛讬诪谞讛


The baraita continues: In the case of a young man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and he did not have a wife and children beforehand, the woman neither drinks nor collects payment of her marriage contract, as it is prohibited for him to marry a woman with whom he cannot procreate. Rabbi Elazar says: This marriage is not forbidden, as he can marry another woman and procreate through her, and therefore she can drink the bitter water.


讗讘诇 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 讜诪砖讻谞住讛 谞住转专讛 讗讜 砖讜转讛 讗讜 诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪讬谞拽转 注爪诪讜 讗讜 砖讜转讛 讗讜 诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘转讛 讛专讜讘讗 砖谞砖讗 注拽专讛 讜讝拽讬谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讜 砖讜转讛 讗讜 诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛


The baraita continues: However, in the case of one who issued a warning to his betrothed, or to his yevama while she was a widow awaiting her yavam, and she secluded herself with the other man after he consummated the marriage, she either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. If his own pregnant or nursing wife becomes a sota, then despite the concern that the bitter water may harm the fetus, she either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. In the case of a young man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and he already had a wife and children and was therefore permitted to marry his barren or elderly wife, the woman either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract.


讗砖转 诪诪讝专 诇诪诪讝专 讜讗砖转 谞转讬谉 诇谞转讬谉 讜讗砖转 讙专 讜注讘讚 诪砖讜讞专专 讜讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖讜转讛 讗讜 诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉


The baraita concludes: With regard to the wife of a mamzer who is married to a mamzer in a permitted marriage, and the wife of a Gibeonite who is married to a Gibeonite in a permitted marriage, and the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped woman, if any of these women becomes a sota she either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract, as the marriage is permitted. After citing the entire baraita, the Gemara explains the difficulty: In any event, the baraita teaches that a sexually underdeveloped woman can drink the bitter water if the marriage is permitted, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Na岣an.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 诇讗 砖讜转讛 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘讛 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 讬爪讗转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 诇讛讝专讬注


The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an could have said to you: There is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m with regard to this matter, and I state my opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar says: A sexually underdeveloped woman neither drinks nor collects payment of her marriage contract, as it is stated: 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.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 讝专注 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 [讝专注] 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 注拽专讛 谞驻拽讚转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诐 讻谉 讬住转专讜 讻诇 讛注拽专讜转 讜讬驻拽讚讜 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞住转专讛 讛驻住讬讚讛


The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this verse: 鈥淎nd she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥? Since they hold that a sexually underdeveloped woman drinks the bitter water, what do they derive from the verse? The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淎nd she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28), indicates that if she was barren, she will be remembered and conceive a child; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If so, all the barren women will seclude themselves with other men, and they will be remembered and conceive after drinking the bitter water and being found innocent; but that virtuous barren woman, who does not transgress the prohibition of seclusion, since she does not seclude herself with other men, she loses the opportunity to receive this blessing.


讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞拽转讛 讜谞讝专注讛 讝专注 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 讬讜诇讚转 讘爪注专 讬讜诇讚转 讘专讬讜讞 谞拽讘讜转 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专讬诐 拽爪专讬诐 讬讜诇讚转 讗专讜讻讬诐 砖讞讜专讬诐 讬讜诇讚转 诇讘谞讬诐:


Rabbi Yishmael continues: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed鈥 (Numbers 5:28)? This means that if in the past she would give birth in pain, from then on she will give birth with ease; if she gave birth to females, she will now give birth to males; if her children were short, she will now give birth to tall children; if her children were black, she will give birth to white children.


讗砖转 诪诪讝专 诇诪诪讝专: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗驻讜砖讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗 诇讬驻讜砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


搂 The baraita in the Tosefta cited above states: The wife of a mamzer who is married to a mamzer in a permitted marriage鈥 either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Since their marriage is permitted, why should the sota ritual not apply? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that she should not drink, since if she drinks and is found to be innocent of adultery, she is permitted to her husband. This is undesirable since their offspring are also mamzerim, and we do not cause the number of individuals of flawed lineage to proliferate. The baraita in the Tosefta therefore teaches us that this is not a concern, and the wife of a mamzer is permitted to drink.


讗砖转 讙专 讜注讘讚 诪砖讜讞专专 讜讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转: 驻砖讬讟讗


The aforementioned baraita in the Tosefta states: The wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped woman can drink the bitter water. The Gemara asks with regard to the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, who also has the status of a convert: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Since their marriage is permitted, why should the sota ritual not apply?


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讙专讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诪专转 专讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗:


The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that she does not drink, as the verse states: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, and say unto them: If the wife of any man goes astray, and acts unfaithfully against him鈥 (Numbers 5:12). One might have inferred from this verse that the sota ritual applies only to those born as Jews and not to converts; the baraita in the Tosefta therefore teaches us that this is not so. The Gemara asks: Why not say that indeed the verse excludes converts? The Gemara answers: The subsequent term: 鈥淎nd say unto them鈥 (Numbers 5:12) is an amplification, which serves to include converts.


讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖讜转讛 讻讜壮: 讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖讜转讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转砖转讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


搂 The mishna states: The wife of a priest drinks the bitter water, and if she is found to be innocent of adultery she is permitted to her husband. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna state: The wife of a priest drinks? Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that she does not drink, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd a man lay with her鈥either was she seized鈥 (Numbers 5:13). This indicates that if the sota was not seized she is forbidden; however, if she was seized, i.e., raped, she is permitted to her husband. And with regard to this woman, the wife of a priest, since even if she was seized she is forbidden to her husband, as a priest may not remain married to his wife if she was raped while they were married, one might say that the sota ritual does not apply to her, and she does not drink. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that she does drink.


讜诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘诪转谞讜讜谞讛 诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讛讗 讘讚拽讜讛 诪讬讗


搂 The mishna states: The wife of a priest drinks, and if she is found to be innocent of adultery, she is permitted to her husband. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Rav Huna says: The mishna is referring to a case where the woman鈥檚 health deteriorates after she drinks the bitter water, and one might have thought that she is defiled. The Gemara asks: In the case of a woman whose health deteriorates, hasn鈥檛 the bitter water already evaluated that she was unfaithful? The fact that her health deteriorates indicates that she is defiled and forbidden to her husband, and her death is delayed due to her merit in other matters.


讘诪转谞讜讜谞讛 讚专讱 讗讘专讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 讝谞讜讬讬 讝谞讗讬 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讜讛 诪讬讗 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讗讜谞住 讝谞讗讬 讜诇讙讘讬 讻讛谉 讗住讬专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where her health deteriorates, but not in the manner of a sota, who is afflicted in her belly and thighs (see Numbers 5:27). Rather, she is afflicted by way of other limbs. Lest you say: This woman engaged in licentious intercourse, and the fact that the bitter water did not evaluate her in the usual manner is because she engaged in licentious intercourse under duress, and with regard to a priest, even rape renders her forbidden to her husband, the mishna therefore teaches us that the woman鈥檚 deteriorating health does not indicate anything.


讗砖转 住专讬住 砖讜转讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讘诇注讚讬 讗讬砖讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


搂 The mishna states: The wife of a eunuch drinks. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Since their marriage is permitted, why should the sota ritual not apply? The Gemara replies: It is necessary lest you say that she does not drink, since the Merciful One states with regard to the sota: 鈥淏ut if you have gone astray while under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband鈥 (Numbers 5:20). This indicates that her husband had lain with her, and this husband, the eunuch, is not capable of that. The mishna therefore teaches us that the wife of a eunuch does drink the bitter water.


注诇 讬讚讬 讻诇 注专讬讜转 诪拽谞讬谉: 驻砖讬讟讗


搂 The mishna states: A husband can issue a warning to his wife with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden, e.g., her father or brother. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious?


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讟诪讗讛 谞讟诪讗讛 砖谞讬 驻注诪讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讗讞讚 诇讘讜注诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬转住专讗 讘讛讗 讝谞讜转 讗讘诇 讛讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗住讜专讛 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: It is necessary, lest you say that the sota ritual does not apply with regard to forbidden relatives, as the Torah states: 鈥淎nd she was defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:13), 鈥淎nd she was defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14), two times. One verse teaches that she is defiled and forbidden to her husband, and one verse teaches that she is forbidden to her paramour. One might understand that the sota ritual applies only where she is forbidden to the paramour due to this licentious intercourse; however, with regard to that woman, who secluded herself with a forbidden relative, since the woman already stands prohibited to him due to the prohibition of incest, one might say that the sota ritual does not apply. The mishna therefore teaches us that one can issue a warning even with regard to forbidden relatives.


讞讜抓 诪谉 讛拽讟谉 [讜讻讜壮]: 讗讬砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 拽讟谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讗讬砖 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讞讜祝 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讜祝 诪拽谞讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讜驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛


搂 The mishna states: A husband can issue a warning to his wife with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden, with the exception of a minor and of one who is not a man. The Gemara cites the source for this halakha: The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd a man lay with her鈥 (Numbers 5:13), indicating that one can warn his wife with regard to a man but not with regard to a minor. The Gemara asks: The phrase: And of one who is not a man, serves to exclude what? If we say that it serves to exclude a sick man who lacks the ability to complete intercourse [sha岣f], but didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: One can issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f, and if a sha岣f engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, he disqualifies her from partaking of teruma.


诪拽谞讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜砖讻讘 讗讬砖 讗转讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


With regard to Shmuel鈥檚 statement that one can issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f, the Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, lest you say that one cannot issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd a man lay with her carnally [shikhvat zera]鈥 (Numbers 5:13), literally, a lying of seed, and this man is not capable of that, as he cannot ejaculate. Shmuel therefore teaches us that one can issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f.


讜驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 诇讬讞诇诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 诇讗 诇讬讞诇诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks with regard to Shmuel鈥檚 statement that a sha岣f who engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest disqualifies her from partaking of teruma: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that a sha岣f does not disqualify the daughter of a priest from partaking of teruma, as the Merciful One states in the Torah with regard to a priest: 鈥淎nd he shall not disqualify his offspring among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:15). One might infer from this verse that one who can have offspring disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, through forbidden sexual intercourse, and that one who cannot have offspring does not disqualify a woman from partaking of teruma. Shmuel therefore teaches us that this is not so. In any event, Shmuel states that one can issue a warning on account of a sha岣f, unlike the initial interpretation of the mishna.


讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讻专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 谞讻专讬 诪拽谞讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 讜驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛


Since Shmuel鈥檚 statement contradicts the suggestion that the mishna excludes a sha岣f, the Gemara suggests another explanation: Rather, the mishna serves to exclude a gentile, and teaches that one cannot issue a warning with regard to him. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Hamnuna say: One can issue a warning with regard to a gentile, and if a gentile engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest, he disqualifies her from partaking of teruma.


诪拽谞讬谉 注诇 讬讚讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讟诪讗讛 谞讟诪讗讛 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讘注诇 讜讗讞讚 诇讘讜注诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽诪讬转住专讗 讘讛讗 讝谞讜转 讗讘诇 讛讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗住讜专讛 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 statement that one can issue a warning with regard to a gentile: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that one cannot issue a warning in this case, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd she was defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:13), 鈥淎nd she was defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14), twice. One verse teaches that she is defiled and forbidden to her husband, and one verse teaches that she is forbidden to her paramour. One might understand that the sota ritual applies only where she is forbidden to the paramour due to this licentious intercourse; however, with regard to that woman, who engaged in sexual intercourse with a gentile, since she already stands prohibited to him, one might say that the sota ritual does not apply. Rav Hamnuna therefore teaches us that one can issue a warning even with regard to a gentile.


讜驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚讘专 讛讜讬讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讛讜讬讛 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻住讬诇 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 statement that a gentile who engages in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest disqualifies her from partaking of teruma: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that he does not disqualify her, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter should be unto a strange man, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things鈥 (Leviticus 22:12), indicating that if a woman engages in sexual intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. Since the term 鈥渟hould be unto鈥 denotes marriage, one might say that one who is eligible for betrothal, yes, he disqualifies the woman; but a gentile, who is not eligible for betrothal, does not disqualify her. Rav Hamnuna therefore teaches us that a gentile disqualifies the woman from partaking of teruma, as one can learn from the ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讛讻讛谞转 讜注诇 讛诇讜讬讬讛 讜注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖驻住诇讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛 讬爪讗讜 谞讻专讬 讜注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛


This is as Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is it derived that a gentile or a slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with the daughter of a priest or with the daughter of a Levite or with the daughter of an Israelite, disqualified her from marrying a priest and from partaking of teruma? This is derived as it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter should be a widow or a divorc茅e鈥she returns to her father鈥檚 house鈥he may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). This indicates that the daughter of a priest returns to eat of her father鈥檚 bread, i.e., teruma, if she engaged in sexual intercourse with one whose marriage to her has the potential to end in widowhood or divorce, i.e., a Jew whom she is permitted to marry. This excludes a gentile and a slave, whose marriage to her does not have the potential to end in widowhood or divorce, as their betrothal is invalid.


讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬谉 讝谞讜转 讘讘讛诪讛


Since Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 statement contradicts the suggestion that the mishna excludes a gentile, the Gemara asks: Rather, what does the term: And of one who is not a man, serve to exclude? Rav Pappa says: This serves to exclude an animal, as the concept of licentiousness does not apply with regard to an animal. Therefore, the halakhot of a sota do not apply in this case.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讝谞讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讘讬讗 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜诪讞讬专 讻诇讘 讜讙讜壮


Rava of Parzakya said to Rav Ashi: From where is this matter that the Sages stated derived, that licentiousness does not apply with regard to an animal? Rav Ashi replied that it is as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God for any vow; for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). This verse prohibits one from sacrificing an animal that served as payment to a prostitute or as payment for the purchase of a dog.


讜转谞讬讗 讗转谞谉 讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 诪讜转专讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛


And it is taught in a mishna (Temura 30a): In the converse cases, the hire of a dog, i.e., a kosher animal that was given to the owner of a dog as payment for engaging in intercourse with it, and the price of a prostitute, i.e., a kosher animal which served as payment in the purchase of a maidservant acquired for prostitution, are permitted to be sacrificed, as it is stated in the aforementioned verse: For both of them. This term indicates that only those two animals may not be sacrificed, i.e., those which served as the hire of a harlot and as the price of a dog; and not four animals, as the reverse cases are excluded from this halakha. This indicates that the concept of licentiousness does not apply with regard to animals, as the payment for intercourse with a dog is not considered payment for prostitution.


讜讗诇讗 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖讻讘转 讝专注 驻专讟 诇讚讘专 讗讞专


The Gemara asks: Shmuel states that one can issue a warning with regard to a sha岣f even though he is unable to discharge semen. But rather, why do I need the verse to state: 鈥淎nd a man lay with her carnally [shikhvat zera]鈥 (Numbers 5:13)? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The term shikhvat zera鈥 excludes something else.


诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 驻专讟 诇砖拽讬谞讗 诇讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诪砖讻讘讬 讗砖讛 讻转讬讘


The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term: Something else? Rav Sheshet said: This excludes a case where the husband issued a warning to his wife not to engage in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, with another man, and teaches that this is not considered a valid warning. Rava said to Rav Sheshet: Intercourse in an atypical manner is considered sexual intercourse, as it is written: 鈥淭he cohabitations of a woman鈥 (Leviticus 18:22), indicating that there are two forms of sexual intercourse with a woman, vaginal and anal, and there is no halakhic differentiation between them.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻专讟 诇砖拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讱 讗讘专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻专讬爪讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 讜驻专讬爪讜转讗 诪讬 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗


Rather, Rava said: It excludes a case where the husband issued a warning to his wife not to engage in intimate contact with another man by way of other limbs, as this is not considered sexual intercourse. Abaye said to Rava: That is merely licentious behavior, and does the Merciful One render a woman forbidden to her husband on account of merely licentious behavior, without sexual intercourse? Since this does not render her forbidden to her husband, it is obvious that if the husband issues a warning in this manner, violating the warning does not cause her to become a sota. The verse is therefore not required to exclude this case.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 驻专讟 诇砖拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讘谞砖讬拽讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注专讗讛 讝讜 讛讻谞住转 注讟专讛 讗讘诇 谞砖讬拽讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗转讬 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞砖讬拽讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注专讗讛 讝讜 谞砖讬拽讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


Rather, Abaye said: The verse excludes a case where the husband issued a warning to his wife with regard to engaging in genital contact without actual penetration. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the definition of the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona but that genital contact is nothing; this is the reason that the verse came to exclude genital contact. However, according to the one who says that the definition of the initial stage of intercourse is genital contact, what is there to say? Why should this case be excluded from the halakhot of a sota?


诇注讜诇诐 诇砖拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讱 讗讘专讬诐 讜诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘拽驻讬讚讗 讚讘注诇 转诇讬讗 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注诇 讛讗 拽讗 拽驻讬讚 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: Actually, the verse serves to exclude a case where the husband issued a warning to his wife not to engage in intimate contact with another man by way of other limbs. And the verse explicitly excludes this case from the halakhot of a sota, lest you say that the woman is rendered a sota due to this warning, as the Merciful One made this halakha dependent on the husband鈥檚 objection, and the husband objects to contact of this nature. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not considered a warning, as it does not involve sexual intercourse.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬砖讗 讗讚诐


Shmuel says: It is better that a man marry


Scroll To Top