Sotah 11

Chapter 11

א מי קא רמינן לה עליה בעל כרחיה
1 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'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And how can we compel the brother-in-law to marry her?] ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב יוסף הכתוב קראו אחר שאין בן זוגו של ראשון שזה הוציא רשעה מביתו וזה הכניס רשעה לתוך ביתו ואת אמרת תתיבם נמי יבומי
2 — While living with the second husband she may have been of spotless reputation! Raba said: It is an <i>a fortiori</i> argument:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [To forbid her to the brother-in-law.] ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה נשאת לאחר ומת בלא בנים לא תתיבם דהכתוב קראו אחר גביה דהאי מיהא בשם טוב הוה קיימא
3 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As wife of his brother. The conclusion is false, because such a levirate marriage is permissible. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד רבא אמר ק"ו אם נאסרה במותר לה באסור לה לא כל שכן
4 [You say,] 'If she becomes forbidden' — she is actually forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A High Priest is not allowed to marry a widow; Lev. XXI, 14. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה כ"ג שקידש את האלמנה ומת ויש לו אח כהן הדיוט לא תתיבם אם נאסרה במותר לה באסור לה לא כל שכן
5 '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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the priesthood because he was the issue of another marriage which was illegal. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו נאסרה הא אסירא וקיימא מותר לה אסור לה הוא
6 she may not marry him, since if she is forbidden to [her husband]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest could not continue to live with his wife after she had been violated. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז אלא אשת כהן שנאנסה ומת ויש לו אח חלל לא תתיבם אם נאסרה במותר לה באסור לה לא כל שכן
7 to whom she is [otherwise] allowed, how much more so to one to whom she is [normally] forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The argument is false, because the man disqualified from the priesthood could marry his childless brother's widow if she had been violated. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח אונס בישראל מישרא שרי וגבי דהאי (מיהא) ליכא איסורא
8 — A woman who had been violated is permitted to a non-priest and the prohibition does not apply in his case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a non-priest was not obliged to divorce his wife who was the victim of violation. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ואלו אסורות מלאכול בתרומה האומרת טמאה אני לך ושבאו עדים שהיא טמאה והאומרת איני שותה ושבעלה אינו רוצה להשקותה ושבעלה בא עליה בדרך
9 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE FOLLOWING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wives of priests. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב עמרם הא מילתא אמר לן רב ששת ואנהר לן עיינין ממתניתין סוטה שיש לה עדים במדינת הים אין המים בודקין אותה מ"ט דאמר קרא (במדבר ה, יג) ונסתרה והיא נטמאה ועד אין בה דליכא דידע בה לאפוקי הא דהא איכא דידע בה
10 ARE PROHIBITED TO PARTAKE OF THE HEAVE-OFFERING:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all time, even if the woman be a priest's daughter (v. Bertinoro). ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא ואנהר לן עיינין ממתני' דקתני ושבאו לה עדים שהיא טמאה דאתו עדים אימת אי נימא מקמי דתשתי זונה היא
11 SHE WHO SAYS, 'I AM UNCLEAN TO THEE';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She admits misconduct. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יב אלא לבתר דשתאי אי אמרת בשלמא אין המים בודקין אותה שפיר אלא אי אמרת מים בודקין אותה תיגלי מילתא למפרע דסהדי שקרי נינהו
12 WHEN WITNESSES CAME [AND TESTIFIED] THAT SHE HAD MISCONDUCTED HERSELF;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if she had successfully come through the ordeal, v. Gemara. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יג אמר ליה רב יוסף לעולם אימא לך מים בודקין אותה והא אימור זכות תולה לה
13 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Jerusalem, where alone the ordeal was carried out. V. Mishnah p. 30. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יד במאי קמיפלגי במתנוונה דרבי דתנן רבי אומר זכות תולה במים המרים ואינה יולדת ואינה משבחת אלא מתנוונה והולכת לסוף שהיא מתה באותה מיתה
14 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Amram said: The following did R. Shesheth tell us and enlighten our eyes from our Mishnah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He found support for his teaching in the statement of the Mishnah. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טו רב ששת סבר בין לרבי ובין לרבנן הויא מתנוונה ורב יוסף סבר לרבי הויא מתנוונה לרבנן לא הויא מתנוונה
15 In the case of a suspected woman where the witnesses against her are in a far-distant land,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And unable to appear before a Court to give evidence that she misconducted herself. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
טז מתיב רב שימי בר אשי ר' שמעון אומר אין זכות תולה במים המרים ואם אתה אומר זכות תולה במים המרים מדחה אתה את המים בפני כל הנשים השותות ואתה מוציא שם רע על הטהורות ששתו והן אומרים טמאות היו אלא שתלה להן זכות
16 the water does not prove her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It has no effect, though she be guilty. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יז ואם איתא יש לה עדים במדינת הים נמי אתה מוציא שם רע על הטהורות ששתו והן אומרים טמאות היו אלא שיש להן עדים במדינת הים
17 What is the reason? Because Scripture states: And be kept close and she be defiled and there be no witness against her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 13. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יח לר' שמעון קאמרת לר' שמעון מדזכות לא תליא עדים נמי לא תלו
18 — this is when there is nobody who knows anything against her, thus excluding the case when there are men who know something against her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'No witness' is now interpreted literally, and not as before, viz., only one witness. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יט מתיב רב ואלו שמנחותיהן נשרפות
19 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the result of their evidence; [consequently she is forbidden to partake of the heave-offering, v. Yeb. 44b]. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there are witnesses of her misconduct who have not testified. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?] ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This point is discussed immediately. If this view is accepted, the water does not affect her although the witnesses are true. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through her belly swelling and her thigh falling (Num. V, 27). The passage is cited from infra 22b. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> R. Shesheth is of the opinion that both in the view of Rabbi and of the Rabbis she grows ill;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that on either view, if the water has no effect, it is due to her merit. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Also quoted from infra 22b. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> But if it is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the existence of absent witnesses causes the water not to take effect. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>