Previous Folio / Sotah Directory / Tractate List

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah

Folio 6a

Do we compel any other man to marry her [as in the case of a brother-in-law where it is a duty]! Another version is: R. Joseph replied: The text calls [the second husband] 'another', because he is not the equal of the first husband, since the latter removes wickedness from his house [by divorcing his wife] whereas the other introduces wickedness into his house [by marrying such a woman]; and you argue, let her also contract a levirate marriage! Abaye said to him, According to your argument, if she does marry another man and he died without issue, she may not contract a levirate marriage since the text calls him 'another'!1  — While living with the second husband she may have been of spotless reputation! Raba said: It is an a fortiori argument:2  if she is forbidden to [her husband] to whom she is [otherwise] allowed, how much more so to [her brother-in-law] to whom she is [normally] forbidden! Abaye said to him, According to your argument, if a High Priest betrothed a widow and he died and had a brother who was an ordinary priest, she may not marry him, since if she becomes forbidden to one to whom she is [otherwise] allowed, how much more so to one to whom she is [normally] forbidden!3  [You say,] 'If she becomes forbidden' — she is actually forbidden;4  'to one to whom she is allowed' — he is forbidden [to marry her]! But [ask rather as follows: According to Raba's argument] if the wife of a priest had been violated and he died, and he had a brother who was disqualified,5  she may not marry him, since if she is forbidden to [her husband]6  to whom she is [otherwise] allowed, how much more so to one to whom she is [normally] forbidden!7  — A woman who had been violated is permitted to a non-priest and the prohibition does not apply in his case.8

MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING9  ARE PROHIBITED TO PARTAKE OF THE HEAVE-OFFERING:10  SHE WHO SAYS, 'I AM UNCLEAN TO THEE';11  WHEN WITNESSES CAME [AND TESTIFIED] THAT SHE HAD MISCONDUCTED HERSELF;12  SHE WHO SAYS, I REFUSE TO DRINK [THE WATER]'; WHEN THE HUSBAND IS UNWILLING TO MAKE HER DRINK [THE WATER]: AND WHEN THE HUSBAND COHABITED WITH HER ON THE JOURNEY.13

GEMARA. R. Amram said: The following did R. Shesheth tell us and enlighten our eyes from our Mishnah:14  In the case of a suspected woman where the witnesses against her are in a far-distant land,15  the water does not prove her.16  What is the reason? Because Scripture states: And be kept close and she be defiled and there be no witness against her17  — this is when there is nobody who knows anything against her, thus excluding the case when there are men who know something against her.18  And he enlightened our eyes from our Mishnah where it is taught: WHEN WITNESSES CAME [AND TESTIFIED] THAT SHE HAD MISCONDUCTED HERSELF. When did the witnesses come? If we say that they came before she drank the water, she is an adulteress;19  consequently they could only have come after she had drunk the water. This is quite right if you say that the water does not prove her,20  then all is clear; but if you say that [in such a circumstance] the water does prove her, the water may demonstrate retrospectively that the witnesses were false!21  — R. Joseph said to him, Still I maintain that the water does prove her, and answer that some merit she possesses causes the water to suspend its effect.22 

In what do [R. Joseph and R. Shesheth] differ? — In the matter of her becoming ill, according to the teaching of Rabbi. For we learn: Rabbi says: Merit [in the woman] causes the water of bitterness to suspend its effect, and she never bears a child or thrives, but she gradually grows ill and finally dies through that death.23  R. Shesheth is of the opinion that both in the view of Rabbi and of the Rabbis she grows ill;24  and R. Joseph is of the opinion that in the view of Rabbi she grows ill but in the view of the Rabbis she does not.25

R. Shimi b. Ashi raised an objection: R. Simeon says: Merit does not cause the water of bitterness to suspend its effect; and if you say that merit does cause the water of bitterness to suspend its effect, you discredit the water in the case of all the women who drink it and defame the pure woman who drank it, since people will say: They were unclean, only their merit caused the water to suspend its effect upon them.26  But if it is so,27  then through [the teaching], 'Where the witnesses against her are in a far-distant land', you likewise defame the pure women who drank and people will say: They were unclean, only the witnesses against them are in a far-distant land! — [The reply to R. Shimi is:] You quote R. Simeon; but as R. Simeon holds that merit does not cause the water to suspend its effect, he similarly holds that the existence of witnesses does not cause it to suspend its effect.

Rab raised an objection: The following have their meal-offerings destroyed:28

To Part b
Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. [And how can we compel the brother-in-law to marry her?]
  2. [To forbid her to the brother-in-law.]
  3. As wife of his brother. The conclusion is false, because such a levirate marriage is permissible.
  4. A High Priest is not allowed to marry a widow; Lev. XXI, 14.
  5. From the priesthood because he was the issue of another marriage which was illegal.
  6. A priest could not continue to live with his wife after she had been violated.
  7. The argument is false, because the man disqualified from the priesthood could marry his childless brother's widow if she had been violated.
  8. I.e., a non-priest was not obliged to divorce his wife who was the victim of violation.
  9. Wives of priests.
  10. For all time, even if the woman be a priest's daughter (v. Bertinoro).
  11. She admits misconduct.
  12. Even if she had successfully come through the ordeal, v. Gemara.
  13. To Jerusalem, where alone the ordeal was carried out. V. Mishnah p. 30.
  14. He found support for his teaching in the statement of the Mishnah.
  15. And unable to appear before a Court to give evidence that she misconducted herself.
  16. It has no effect, though she be guilty.
  17. Num. V, 13.
  18. 'No witness' is now interpreted literally, and not as before, viz., only one witness.
  19. As the result of their evidence; [consequently she is forbidden to partake of the heave-offering, v. Yeb. 44b].
  20. If there are witnesses of her misconduct who have not testified.
  21. Because, if she came through successfully, her reputation is cleared. [Why then should she be prohibited to partake of the heave-offering for all time?]
  22. This point is discussed immediately. If this view is accepted, the water does not affect her although the witnesses are true.
  23. Through her belly swelling and her thigh falling (Num. V, 27). The passage is cited from infra 22b.
  24. And the Sages only disagree with him on the question whether she dies. In any case, if she does not grow ill, it cannot be attributed to her merit but to the fact that there are witnesses who have not given evidence.
  25. So that on either view, if the water has no effect, it is due to her merit.
  26. Also quoted from infra 22b.
  27. Viz., that the existence of absent witnesses causes the water not to take effect.
  28. V. Num. V, 15 for this offering. In the cases mentioned, it is not burnt upon the altar or redeemed by payment in money of its value, but destroyed by fire.
Contents

Sotah 6b

 She who says: 'I am unclean'; and when witnesses came [and testified] that she had misconducted herself.1  When did the witnesses come? If I say that they came before the offering was hallowed,2  then it can become non-holy?3  Consequently they could only have come after it had been hallowed. This is quite right if you say that the water proves her;4  consequently she is qualified to have [the flour] hallowed and offered on her behalf, and since it was hallowed from the commencement, it is certainly holy5  and for that reason her meal-offering is destroyed. But if you say that the water does not prove her, it becomes evident retrospectively that the hallowing was from the commencement in error,6  and therefore [the flour] becomes non-holy!7  — Rab Judah of Diskarta8  said: Suppose that [after the hallowing] she committed adultery within the Temple-precincts,9  since it was hallowed from the commencement, it is certainly holy! R. Mesharsheya objected: But do not the priestly novitiates accompany her?10  — Rab Judah [meant,] She committed adultery with one of these novitiates. R. Ashi11  said: Suppose it was necessary for her to relieve herself, do you think that the priestly novitiates hang on to her headgear!12  R. Papa said: The matter is certainly as we originally explained;13  and when you argue, [The offering] becomes non-holy, [the answer is that the rule by which the offering is destroyed] is a decree of the Rabbis lest it should be said, we may take [the flour] out of the ministering vessel for secular use.

R. Mari raised an objection: If her offering became ritually defiled before it became hallowed in the vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings14  and is redeemed; but if [it became defiled] after it had been hallowed in the vessel, behold it is like all meal-offerings [in such a circumstance] and is destroyed.15  If the handful of flour16  was hallowed but there was not sufficient time to offer it before [the husband] died17  or she died, behold it is like all the meal-offerings and must be destroyed. If the handful had been offered but there was not sufficient time [for the priest] to eat the remainder18  before [the husband] died or she died, behold it is like all the meal-offerings and is eaten; because it was brought from the commencement in connection with a matter of doubt,19  it atoned for the doubt which is now ended. If witnesses came [and testified] against her that she had misconducted herself, her meal-offering is destroyed; should the witnesses against her be proved to be perjurers,20  her meal-offering is non-holy?21  — You mention perjured witnesses; the fact that they were perjured witnesses is generally known.22

There is a teaching in accord with the view of R. Shesheth23  but not for the same reason as his,24  viz., If she be clean25  — [this indicates] there are no witnesses against her in a far-distant land;26  'and if she be clean' — [the addition of and indicates] it is not merit that causes the water to suspend its effect; ['and if] she [be clean'] — [meaning that she has escaped the effect of the water because she is in fact clean] and not because women who spin by moonlight were discussing her.27  Now as for R. Simeon,28  agreed that he does not expound the conjunction and;29  still there is the case

- To Next Folio -
Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. Quoted from infra p. 144.
  2. By the priest placing the flour in one of the ministering vessels.
  3. By being redeemed; so why does the Mishnah say it is destroyed?
  4. And she drank the water before witnesses testified.
  5. Even after the witnesses gave evidence.
  6. Since witnesses proved her guilty and the ordeal was unnecessary.
  7. And does not even have to be redeemed since the hallowing was based on an error.
  8. [Deskarah, 16 miles N.E. of Bagdad; Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonian, p. 116.]
  9. And witnesses came to testify concerning this act of infidelity.
  10. So that adultery could not occur there.
  11. Who rejects the thought that she could be guilty with one of the novitiates.
  12. When she retired to relieve herself. Consequently she could have the opportunity with another than the novitiates.
  13. That the witnesses came concerning the first act of infidelity.
  14. Which became defiled before being hallowed.
  15. Mishnah, p. 114. What follows is cited in the main from Tosefta Sotah II.
  16. Num. V, 26.
  17. In the event of the husband's death she does not drink the water.
  18. Of the flour which is not burnt upon the altar and is the priest's perquisite.
  19. The woman's chastity.
  20. Zomemim v. Glos. Before the meal-offering was burnt upon the altar.
  21. Though it has been placed in the vessel; and we do not say, as above, that by a Rabbinic decree, it must be destroyed. This contradicts the view given by R. Papa.
  22. So that it will be recognised that the offering was never holy.
  23. Viz., that the water does not take effect when there are absent witnesses.
  24. Which is based on the phrase 'No witness against her' (v. supra p. 24). The teaching finds another derivation in support.
  25. Num. V, 28.
  26. The verse is thus explained; if she be really pure and did not escape the effect of the water through the witnesses being far away, then she will conceive.
  27. Women gather together in the moonlight to spin and gossip. To be talked about by them was a sufficient disgrace to suspend the effect of the water.
  28. Who holds that merit does not suspend the effect of the water.
  29. To derive from it a Scriptural basis for his view.
Contents