Sotah 36

ושומרת יבם וכנוסה אמן שלא נטמאתי ואם נטמאתי יבואו בי

OR [A CHILDLESS WIDOW] WAITING FOR MY BROTHER-IN-LAW'S [DECISION WHETHER HE WOULD MARRY ME] OR TAKEN TO HIS HOUSE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the purpose of marriage, but before its consummation. ');">¹</span>

ר"מ אומר אמן שלא נטמאתי אמן שלא אטמא

AND AN 'AMEN' THAT I HAVE NOT MISCONDUCTED MYSELF AND IF I HAVE MAY [THE CURSES] BEFALL ME. R. MEIR SAYS: ONE 'AMEN' IS THAT I HAVE NOT MISCONDUCTED MYSELF AND THE OTHER 'AMEN' THAT I WILL NOT MISCONDUCT MYSELF.

הכל שוין שאין מתנה עמה לא על קודם שתתארס ולא על אחר שתתגרש

ALL AGREE THAT A MAN CANNOT MAKE A STIPULATION WITH HER IN RESPECT OF THE TIME BEFORE SHE WAS BETROTHED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she had never acted immorally. ');">²</span>

נסתרה לאחד ונטמאת ואח"כ החזירה לא היה מתנה עמה

OR AFTER SHE IS DIVORCED. IF SHE SECLUDES HERSELF WITH ANOTHER MAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After being divorced, and the divorce was not on account of misconduct because in that event there could be no re-marriage. ');">³</span>

זה הכלל כל שתבעל ולא היתה אסורה לו לא היה מתנה עמה

AND MISCONDUCTS HERSELF AND SUBSEQUENTLY [HER HUSBAND] TAKES HER BACK, HE CANNOT MAKE A STIPULATION WITH HER [IN RESPECT OF THIS].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of what she may have done after the divorce. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב המנונא שומרת יבם שזינתה אסורה ליבמה ממאי מדקתני שומרת יבם וכנוסה

THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: HE CANNOT MAKE A STIPULATION WITH HER IN RESPECT OF ANY ACT OF COHABITATION WHICH DOES NOT RENDER HER PROHIBITED TO HIM.

אא"ב אסירה משום הכי מתנה בהדה אלא א"א לא אסירה היכי מתנה בהדה והתנן זה הכלל כל שאילו תיבעל ולא תהא אסורה לו לא היה מתנה עמה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Hamnuna said: [A childless widow] waiting for her brother-in-law's [decision whether he would marry her] who acted immorally is forbidden to her levir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she is regarded as a wife who was unfaithful to her husband. ');">⁵</span>

אמרי במערבא לית הילכתא כרב המנונא

Whence is this? Since the Mishnah teaches: [A CHILDLESS WIDOW] WAITING FOR MY BROTHER-IN-LAW'S [DECISION WHETHER HE WOULD MARRY ME] OR TAKEN TO HIS HOUSE. This is quite right if you say that she is prohibited [to her brother-in-law] then he can make a stipulation with her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of her conduct before he married her; and if she was immoral, he may not marry her. ');">⁶</span>

אלא הא דקתני שומרת יבם וכנוסה הא מני ר"ע היא דאמר אין קידושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין ומשוי לה כי ערוה

but if you say that she is not prohibited to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For immorality before marriage. ');">⁷</span>

בעי רבי ירמיה מהו שיתנה אדם על נישואין הראשונים על נישואי אחיו מהו

how can he make a stipulation with her; for we have learnt: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: HE CANNOT MAKE A STIPULATION WITH HER IN RESPECT OF ANY ACT OF COHABITATION WHICH DOES NOT RENDER HER PROHIBITED TO HIM! In the West,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Palestinian Schools. ');">⁸</span>

ת"ש זה הכלל כל שתיבעל ולא תהא אסורה לו לא היה מתנה עמה הא אסירה ה"נ דמתנה ש"מ

however, they said: The legal decision is not in agreement with R. Hamnuna. But whose [then] is the teaching concerning [A CHILDLESS WIDOW] WAITING FOR HER BROTHER-IN-LAW OR TAKEN TO HIS HOUSE? — It is R. Akiba's; for he said: No betrothal can take effect in cases which are subject to a mere negative prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without carrying with them the death penalty or of kareth. There is such a prohibition in connection with a childless widow's marriage (v. Deut. XXV, 5) v. Yeb. 10b. ');">⁹</span>

ר"מ אומר אמן שלא נטמאתי וכו' תניא לא כשאמר ר"מ אמן שלא אטמא שאם תטמא מים בודקין אותה מעכשיו אלא לכשתטמא מים מערערין אותה ובודקין אותה

and he regards her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The childless widow who acted immorally. ');">¹⁰</span>

בעי רב אשי מהו שיתנה אדם על נישואין האחרונים השתא מיהא לא אסירה ליה או דילמא זימנין דמגרש לה והדר מהדר לה

act as equal to an incestuous union.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And therefore forbidden to her brother-in-law just as a wife who misconducted herself is forbidden to her husband.] ');">¹¹</span>

ת"ש הכל שוין שלא היה מתנה עמה לא על קודם שתתארס ולא על אחר שתתגרש נסתרה לאחד נטמאת ואח"כ יחזירנה לא היה מתנה הא יחזירנה ותיטמא ה"נ דמתני ש"מ

R. Jeremiah asked: Can he make a stipulation in connection with a first marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he had remarried her after divorcing her can he make her swear that she had been faithful to him during their first marriage? ');">¹²</span>

ת"ר (במדבר ה, כט) זאת תורת הקנאות מלמד שהאשה שותה ושונה

or her marriage with his brother?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After he had gone through the levirate-marriage with her, can he make her swear that she had not misconducted herself whilst living with his brother? ');">¹³</span>

רבי יהודה אומר זאת שאין האשה שותה ושונה אמר ר' יהודה מעשה והעיד לפנינו נחוניא חופר שיחין שהאשה שותה ושונה וקיבלנו עדותו בשני אנשים אבל לא באיש אחד

— Come and hear: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: HE CANNOT MAKE A STIPULATION WITH HER IN RESPECT OF ANY ACT OF COHABITATION WHICH DOES NOT RENDER HER PROHIBITED TO HIM. Consequently when it would render her prohibited to him he can make a stipulation with her. Draw that conclusion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both of the contingencies mentioned immorality would render her prohibited; so he can make the stipulation. ');">¹⁴</span>

וחכ"א אין האשה שותה ושונה בין באיש אחד בין בב' אנשים

R. MEIR SAYS: ONE 'AMEN' IS THAT I HAVE NOT MISCONDUCTED MYSELF etc. It has been taught: When R. Meir declares, AND THE OTHER 'AMEN' THAT I WILL NOT MISCONDUCT MYSELF, it does not imply that if she in the future misconducts herself, the water affects her now; but should she later misconduct herself, the water will bestir and affect her.

ות"ק נמי הכתיב זאת ורבנן בתראי נמי הא כתיב תורת

R. Ashi asked: Can a man make a stipulation with regard to remarriage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Meir interprets 'Amen' as referring to what may occur in the future, suppose a husband makes a condition that his wife shall not misconduct herself if he divorces her and remarries her, and after remarriage she is unfaithful? ');">¹⁵</span>

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,