Mesorat%20hashas for Sotah 47:15

ורבי יונתן האי איש איש מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לרבות אשת חרש ואשת שוטה ואשת

IN THE FOLLOWING CASES A COURT OF LAW CAN GIVE WARNING:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the husband, when they have cause to suspect the wife. ');">¹²</span> WHEN THE HUSBAND IS A DEAF-MUTE OR HAS BECOME INSANE OR IS IMPRISONED. NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING HER DRINK DID THEY SAY THIS, BUT TO DISQUALIFY HER IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE-SETTLE MENT. R. JOSE SAYS: ALSO TO MAKE HER DRINK; WHEN HER HUSBAND IS RELEASED FROM PRISON HE MAKES HER DRINK. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [In the instances enumerated by the Mishnah, the husband] does not let her drink, but he may give her a warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to associate with the man, in order to deny her right to the marriage. settlement if she disobeyed. ');">¹³</span> Whence is this learnt? — Our Rabbis taught: Speak unto the children of Israel and say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 12. ');">¹⁴</span> — [the addition of 'and say'] is to include a betrothed maiden and a childless widow waiting for her levir in the law respecting the warning. Whose is [the teaching of] our Mishnah? — It is R. Jonathan's; for it has been taught: Being under thy husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 19. ');">¹⁵</span> excludes a betrothed maiden. It is possible to think that we are also to exclude a childless widow; therefore the text repeats the word 'man'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In verse 12 any man's wife is literally: a man, a man, his wife. The addition of the word 'man' is taken to include the case of a childless widow, waiting for her levir. ');">¹⁶</span> Such is the statement of R. Joshiah. R. Jonathan says: 'Being under thy husband' excludes a childless widow. [It is possible to think that] we exclude a childless widow waiting for her levir but not a betrothed maiden; therefore there is a text to declare, When a wife, being under her husband, goeth aside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 29. ');">¹⁷</span> thus excluding a betrothed maiden. One teacher<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jonathan. ');">¹⁸</span> considers a betrothed maiden as more bound to him since the marriage ensues through him and they stone her on his account;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she is unchaste (Deut. XXII, 24). ');">¹⁹</span> whereas the other teacher considers that a childless widow is more bound to [her brother-in-law] since the nuptial surrender is not lacking.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the death of her husband she ipso facto becomes the wife of her brother-in-law if he wishes to take her, and an act of cohabitation constitutes a marriage. ');">²⁰</span> What, then, does R. Jonathan make of the repetition of the word 'man'? — He requires it to include the wife of a deaf-mute man, the wife of an imbecile, and the wife of

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Sotah 47:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.