Torah Community Connections

Week 78 - Wednesday - 23 May 2001

SOTAH: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 2

How does he warn her? If he said to her before two witnesses: Do not converse with so-and-so, and she conversed with him, she is still permitted to her husband and may eat terumah. If she entered a hidden place with him, and remained with him long enough to become defiled, she is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to eat terumah. If he died, she must perform halitzah and may not contract yibum.

Kehati

This mishnah continues the previous mishnah; it discusses 'warning' and 'seclusion' as applied to a sotah.

How does he warn her? - what terms does the husband employ so that his words constitute a warning? If he said to her before two witnesses: Do not speak with so-and-so - if he forbade her to speak with him, without specifying that she not seclude herself with him, and she spoke with him - thus defying his warning, she is still permitted to her husband and may eat terumah if married to a priest, since she is not considered a sotah. The Gemara explains that if he said to her: "Do not speak with so-and-so," it is not considered a warning at all, and even if she secluded herself with him, she is not considered a sotah. And if he said to her: "Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so," and she spoke with him in a public place she is still permitted to her husband, and may eat terumah, since she has not secluded herself, and has not defied his warning.

But if she entered a hidden place with him - a secluded place where their conduct cannot be followed, and remained with him long enough to become defiled - i.e., to commit an adulterous act, she is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to eat terumah - since there was a warning and seclusion, she is considered a sotah, and is forbidden to her husband. If married to a priest, terumah is forbidden her until she drinks the curse-causing waters.

If he - her husband - died - before they made her drink the curse-causing waters, and left no children, whereupon she is obligated to marry her brother-in-law, she must perform halitzah and not yibum - since a sotah is also forbidden to her brother-in-law. The reason for this is explained in the Gemara: Concerning a woman whose husband had found something improper in her it is stated (Deut. 24:2): "and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife," which was interpreted to mean: the wife of another man, but not the wife of her brother-in-law, i.e., yibum. Nevertheless, she must perform halitzah, just as she would need a get (writ of divorce) to enable her to marry another man were her husband alive. Others explain her ineligibility for levirate marriage in that the mitzvah of yibum was instituted solely in order to build up the house of the deceased brother, as it is said (Deut. 25:9): "So shall it be done to the man that does not build up his brother's house." Since this woman is suspected of adultery, she would not be building up but rather destroying (Gemara; Tosafot).

SOTAH: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 3

These are forbidden to eat terumah; she who says, 'I am unclean to you;" and one about whom witnesses have testified that she is unclean; and one who says, "I will not drink;" and one whose husband does not wish to make her drink; and one whose husband cohabited with her on the way. How is he to act toward her? He takes her to the court, which is in that locality, and they appoint for him two scholars lest he cohabit with her while on the way. R. Yehudah says, Her husband is trusted concerning her.

Kehati

In the previous mishnah we learned that after warning and seclusion a woman is considered a sotah, and is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the curse-causing waters. If married to a priest, she is forbidden to eat terumah. However, once she has drunk the curse-causing waters and has been found pure, she is once again permitted to her husband, and may eat terumah. This mishnah deals with those women who have not undergone the test of the curse-causing waters, and are therefore forbidden to their husbands and forbidden to eat terumah permanently.

These - women listed below - are forbidden to eat terumah - permanently, if their husband is a priest (Barternura explains: even if she is the daughter of a priest), and they are also forbidden to their husbands forever, even if he is not a priest. One who says, "I am unclean to you" - i.e., after her husband has warned her and she secluded herself and she refuses to drink the water, and admits that she is forbidden to her husband, having committed adultery with so-and-so when she secluded herself with him. Although we learned (see end of Tractate Nedarim): "One who declares: I am unclean to you, must bring proof for her statement," here the law differs, since there is circumstantial evidence of defilement, for her husband warned her and yet she secluded herself; hence she is believed when declaring "I am unclean to you" (Tosafot according to Jer. Talmud);

and one about whom witnesses have testified that she is unclean - the Gemara explains that if witnesses to her defilement came before she drank the water, there is no need to say that she is forbidden, since two witnesses attesting that she has been defiled are believed even without any warning or seclusion; rather, the mishnah teaches us that even if witnesses came after they had made her drink, and the curse-causing waters failed to test her, their testimony is accepted. We do not maintain that since she was innocent the test by water should refute their testimony, since nothing can invalidate definite evidence. The water's failure to test her might be due to her merit, suspending the punishment, as explained below (mishnah 3:4). Others interpret the verse, "she became defiled and there was none to testify against her," to mean that only if there are no witnesses to her defilement, does the water test her; but if there are witnesses to her defilement, even if they are abroad, the water does not test her;

and one who says, "I will not drink" - "I am pure but refuse to drink the water," when we do not force her to drink, but she is forbidden to her husband, and is divorced without receiving her ketubah (the sum stated in the marriage contract), and may not eat terumah. And one whose husband does not wish to make her drink - where she consents to drink but her husband does not want her to drink; they do not force him, but she is forbidden to him, and collects her ketubah and is divorced;

and one whose husband cohabited with her on the way - when taking her to the court; i.e., he violated the prohibition of cohabitation, since she is forbidden to him after being warned and secluding herself. In this case the water does not test her, as it is said (Num. 5:31): "the man shall be free of guilt, while the woman shall bear her guilt," which the Sages interpreted: When the man is free of guilt, [the] woman shall bear her guilt; but if the man is not free of guilt, the water does not test his wife; hence, once he cohabits with his wife after she has secluded herself, she does not drink, and is forbidden to him, and likewise may never again eat terumah.

How is he to act toward her? - one who proceeds to make his wife drink, what procedure does he follow? He takes her to the court which is in that locality -where he lives, in order to substantiate before them by witnesses that he had warned his wife and she then secluded herself, and they - the court, after ascertaining that she is a sotah, and hence must undergo the water test, appoint for him two scholars - who accompany them to Jerusalem, since a sotah was made to drink solely by a court of seventy-one, as explained in the following mishnah; they did not allow the husband to take her there by himself, lest he cohabit with her while on the way - whereupon she is forbidden to him forever, and she can no longer be made to drink, because the water does not test her, as explained above; some explain the designation of two scholars was in order to ensure that they knew how to duly warn him (Rambam; Bartenura).

R. Yehudah says, Her husband is trusted concerning her - they do not designate two scholars for him, since he is believed when he claims he did not cohabit with her, and they make her drink. According to a baraita in the Gemara, R. Yehudah's ruling is based on the case of a niddah (menstruant woman) by a kal vahomer inference: "If in the case of a niddah, with whom cohabitation is punishable by karet, her husband is believed concerning her, all the more so a sotah with whom cohabitation violates a negative precept alone." The Sages say: On the contrary! In the case of a niddah where the punishment is karet, since he views it as severe, the husband is believed concerning her, whereas the case of a sotah where a negative precept alone is involved, he does not view it as so severe, and is therefore not believed concerning her (Sotah 7a).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives