Commentary for Sotah 36:19

אמר רבא באיש אחד ובועל אחד דכ"ע לא פליגי דאין האשה שותה ושונה

[Do we argue] that for the present she is not prohibited to him [and therefore he cannot make a stipulation with her], or that it may happen that he will divorce and remarry her [and therefore can make a stipulation]? — Come and hear: ALL AGREE THAT A MAN CANNOT MAKE A STIPULATION WITH HER IN RESPECT OF THE TIME BEFORE SHE WAS BETROTHED OR AFTER SHE IS DIVORCED. IF SHE SECLUDES HERSELF WITH ANOTHER MAN AND MISCONDUCTS HERSELF AND SUBSEQUENTLY [HER HUSBAND] TOOK HER BACK, HE CANNOT MAKE A STIPULATION WITH HER [IN RESPECT OF THIS]. Hence if he takes her back and she then misconducts herself, he can make a stipulation [in respect of this]. Draw that conclusion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That such a stipulation is permissible. ');">¹⁶</span> Our Rabbis have taught: This is the law of jealousy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 29. The text is literally 'law of jealousies', which is taken to mean: the law is to be applied in every instance of suspicion. ');">¹⁷</span> — it teaches that a woman may drink [the water of bitterness] and do so again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If suspected a second time. ');">¹⁸</span> R. Judah says: 'This'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word has an exclusive meaning, and equals this is the only time the woman undergoes the ordeal. ');">¹⁹</span> indicates that a woman does not drink and do so again. R. Judah said: It happened that Nehonia the welldigger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [V. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 287. He however could not have testified before R. Judah who lived about 200 years later. The text must accordingly be connected with the parallel passage in J. Sotah II, where the reading is Nehemia of Shihin testified in the name of R. Akiba v. Hyman, A Toledoth, p. 924.] ');">²⁰</span> testified before us that a woman had drunk [the water of bitterness] and had done so a second time. We accepted his testimony as relating to two husbands but not one husband. The Sages, however, declared that a woman does not drink and do so again, whether it be in respect of one husband or two husbands. But for the first Tanna [cited above] it is likewise written 'This'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He permits a woman to drink a second time; why does he not interpret 'This' is an exclusive sense? ');">²¹</span> And for the latter Rabbis [cited above] it is likewise written 'the law of!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why do they not understand this as not permitting the second ordeal? ');">²²</span> — Raba said: In the case of the same husband and the same paramour none differ that a woman does not drink and do so again,

Explore commentary for Sotah 36:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.