Mesorat%20hashas for Sotah 49:22

מתו בעליהן עד שלא שתו ב"ש כו' במאי קמיפלגי בית שמאי סברי שטר העומד לגבות כגבוי דמי

they may forgive him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For further notes v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 585. ');">¹⁹</span> When, however, I came to my colleagues in the South, they agreed with me in respect of two but did not agree with me in respect of the rebellious elder, so that disputes should not multiply in Israel. Deduce therefrom that if a husband retracted his warning the warning is retracted. Draw that conclusion. In this connection R. Aha and Rabina differ. One said that [the warning can be] retracted before seclusion but not after seclusion, and the other said that also after seclusion it can be retracted. The more probable view is that of him who said that it cannot be retracted. Whence is this learnt? — [It is to be inferred] from the answer which the Rabbis gave to R. Jose; for it has been taught: R. Jose says: By <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning [it is deduced] that a husband Is trusted with her. If a husband is trusted in the matter of his wife during menstruation where the penalty is excision, how much more so in the matter of his wife while under suspicion in connection with which there is a mere prohibition! [The Rabbis] replied to him, No; if you argue [that he may be trusted] in the case of his wife during menstruation to whom he will have a right [on her recovery], will you argue so in the case of his wife while under suspicion when he may never have a right to her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 7a. ');">²⁰</span> Now if you maintain that [a warning may be] retracted after seclusion, then it can happen that he may again have a right to her; because if he so desire, he can retract his warning and cohabit! Therefore deduce from this that after seclusion it cannot be retracted. Draw that conclusion. IF THE HUSBANDS DIED BEFORE [THE WOMEN] DRANK, BETH SHAMMAI etc. On what point [do the two Schools] differ? Beth Shammai are of opinion that a bond which is due for redemption is considered as having been redeemed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the bond was on the security of the borrower's property, then at the time of the redemption the property is considered as automatically passing into the possession of the creditor pending payment. By analogy, the widow is automatically entitled to her marriage-settlement on the husband's death and the onus is upon the heirs to prove that she had forfeited it by producing witnesses that she had committed adultery. ');">²¹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Sotah 49:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.