Sotah 49

ושמואל אמר אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבי יאשיה מדאיצטריך קרא לרבוייה מכלל דלאו אשתו היא כלל

Similarly Samuel can reply. I even agree with R. Joshiah. because from the fact that it was necessary for the text to include her, it follows that she is not his wife at all.

איבעיא להו עוברת על דת צריכה התראה להפסידה כתובתה או אינה צריכה מי אמרינן כיון דעוברת על דת היא לא בעיא התראה או דלמא תיבעי התראה דאי הדרה בה תיהדר בה

The question was asked: Does a woman who transgresses [the Jewish] ethical code<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thereby shows an indifference for public opinion; such a woman is put away without recovering her kethubah, v. Keth. 72a. ');">¹</span>

ת"ש ארוסה ושומרת יבם לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה מישתא הוא דלא שתיא הא קנויי מקני לה למאי לאו להפסידה כתובתה

require to be warned in order to make her lose her marriage-settlement or does she not require it? Do we say that since she transgresses the ethical code she does not require to be warned; or perhaps warning is necessary because she may reform? — Come and hear: A BETROTHED MAIDEN AND A CHILDLESS WIDOW WAITING FOR HER BROTHER-IN-LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These too had transgressed the ethical code by their act of seclusion. ');">²</span>

אמר אביי לא לאוסרה עליו רב פפא אמר להשקותה כשהיא נשואה כדתניא אין מקנין לארוסה להשקותה כשהיא ארוסה אבל מקנין לארוסה להשקותה כשהיא נשואה

DO NOT DRINK AND DO NOT RECEIVE WHAT IS DUE UNDER THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT. [In these instances the man] does not let her drink but he may give her warning. But for what purpose [does he warn her]? Is it not to make her lose her marriage-settlement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently, without warning she would not lose it. ');">³</span>

אמר רבא ת"ש אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ממזרת ונתינה לישראל בת ישראל לממזר ולנתין לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה

— Abaye said: No; [the purpose is] to prohibit her to himself [in marriage]. R. Papa said: [The purpose is] to make her drink when she is married;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she secluded herself with a man after marriage, then the warning which the husband gave her for a previous action, while she was betrothed, is still valid. ');">⁴</span>

מישתא הוא דלא שתיא הא קנויי מקני להו ולמאי אי לאוסרן עליו הא אסירן וקיימן אלא לאו להפסידן כתובתן

as it has been taught: We may not warn a betrothed maiden with the object of making her drink while she is betrothed; but we may warn a betrothed maiden with the object of making her drink when she is married.

אמר רב יהודה מדיסקרתא לא לאוסרה לבועל כבעל דתנן כשם שאסורה לבעל כך אסורה לבועל

Raba said: Come and hear: A WIDOW WHO HAD MARRIED A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A <i>HALUZAH</i> WHO HAD MARRIED AN ORDINARY PRIEST, AN ILLEGITIMATE OR A NETHINAH WHO HAD MARRIED AN ISRAELITE, AND AN ISRAELITE'S DAUGHTER WHO HAD MARRIED AN ILLEGITIMATE OR A NATHIN DO NOT DRINK AND DO NOT RECEIVE WHAT IS DUE UNDER THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT. They do not drink but they receive a warning. But for what purpose? If [you answer] to make them prohibited to the husband, behold they are already prohibited;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since such a marriage is contrary to law. ');">⁵</span>

א"ר חנינא מסורא ת"ש ואלו שבית דין מקנין להן מי שנתחרש בעלה או נשתטה או שהיה חבוש בבית האסורין ולא להשקותה אמרו אלא לפוסלה מכתובתה ש"מ בעי התראה ש"מ

rather must it be to make them lose the marriage-settlement! — Rab Judah of Diskarta<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 26, n. 7. ');">⁶</span>

וכולהו מאי טעמא לא אמרי מהא דלמא שאני התם דלית לה אימתא דבעל כלל

said: No; [the purpose is] to prohibit her to the paramour as to the husband; as we learn: Just as she is prohibited to the husband so is she prohibited to the paramour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 27b. ');">⁷</span>

איבעיא להו עוברת על דת ורצה בעל לקיימה מקיימה או אינו מקיימה מי אמרינן בקפידא דבעל תלא רחמנא והא לא קפיד או דלמא כיון דקפיד קפיד

R. Hanina of Sura said; Come and hear: IN THE FOLLOWING CASES A COURT OF LAW CAN GIVE WARNING: 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-SETTLEMENT. Conclude from this that she does require to be warned! That conclusion is to be drawn. But why did not [the other Rabbis] draw the inference from this passage? — [They thought] perhaps it is different in the circumstance where she had no cause at all to be afraid of her husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he was incapacitated; but in normal circumstances, they imagined that she would lose her marriage-settlement without a warning. ');">⁸</span>

ת"ש ואלו שבית דין מקנין להן מי שנתחרש בעלה או נשתטה או שהיה חבוש בבית האסורין ואי אמרת רצה בעל לקיימה מקיימה עבדי ב"ד מידי דדלמא לא ניחא ליה לבעל סתמא דמילתא כיון דעוברת על דת היא מינח ניחא ליה

The question was asked: If a woman transgresses [the Jewish] ethical code and the husband desired to retain her, may he do so or may he not? Do we say that the All-Merciful depends upon the husband's objection [to her conduct],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Scripture declares, 'and he be jealous of his wife'. If he is not jealous, is her conduct to be overlooked? ');">⁹</span>

איבעיא להו בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול או אינו מחול מי אמרינן בקינוי דבעל תלא רחמנא ובעל הא מחיל ליה לקינויו או דלמא כיון דקני ליה מעיקרא לא מצי מחיל ליה

and in this case he does not object; or, perhaps, since [a husband normally] objects, he must object [and divorce her]? — Come and hear: IN THE FOLLOWING CASES A COURT OF LAW CAN GIVE WARNING: WHEN THE HUSBAND IS A DEAF-MUTE OR HAS BECOME INSANE OR IS IMPRISONED. Should you maintain that if the husband desired to retain her he may do so, can the Court of Law do something of which the husband may not approve?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Court, representing the husband, would thereby involve him in an act which was contrary to his wish, and this is not legally possible, v. Keth. 11a. ');">¹⁰</span>

ת"ש ואלו שב"ד מקנין להן מי שנתחרש בעלה או נשתטה או שהיה חבוש בבית האסורין ואי אמרת בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול עבדינן מידי דאתי בעל מחיל ליה סתמא דמלתא אדם מסכים על דעת ב"ד

— As a general rule, when a woman transgresses the ethical code, [the husband] is agreeable [to the warning].

ת"ש ומוסרין לו שני ת"ח שמא יבא עליה בדרך ואי אמרת בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול לחליה לקינויה ולבעול

The question was asked: If a husband retracted his warning, is the warning retracted or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Assuming that the husband may retain a wife who transgresses the ethical code, the question still arises whether he can retract or not in the case where he had given her a warning.] ');">¹¹</span>

מ"ש תלמידי חכמים דגמירי דאי בעי למיבעל אמרי ליה אחליה לקינוייך ובעלה

Do we say that the All-Merciful depends upon the husband's warning and here the husband retracted it; or perhaps since he already gave a warning he is unable to withdraw it? — Come and hear: IN THE FOLLOWING CASES A COURT OF LAW CAN GIVE WARNING: WHEN THE HUSBAND IS A DEAF-MUTE OR HAS BECOME INSANE OR IS IMPRISONED. Should you maintain that if a husband retracted his warning his warning is retracted, can we<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Court. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ש דאמר ר' יאשיה שלשה דברים סח לי זעירא מאנשי ירושלים בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול וזקן ממרא שרצו בית דין למחול לו מוחלין לו ובן סורר ומורה שרצו אביו ואמו למחול לו מוחלין לו

perform an action which the husband may come and retract!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then offer an affront to the court. ');">¹³</span>

וכשבאתי אצל חבירי שבדרום על שנים הודו לי ועל זקן ממרא לא הודו לי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל ש"מ בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול ש"מ

— As a general rule, a man agrees with the opinion of a Court of Law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if he wishes to retract he may do so. ');">¹⁴</span>

פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר קודם סתירה מחול לאחר סתירה אינו מחול וחד אמר לאחר סתירה נמי מחול ומסתברא כמאן דאמר אינו מחול

Come and hear: And they assign to him two disciples of the Sages lest he cohabit with her on the journey.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 7a. ');">¹⁵</span>

ממאי מדקא מהדרי רבנן לרבי יוסי דתניא רבי יוסי אומר בעלה נאמן עליה מקל וחומר ומה נדה שהיא בכרת בעלה נאמן עליה סוטה שהיא בלאו לא כל שכן

Should you maintain that if a husband retracted his warning the warning is retracted, let him then withdraw it and cohabit with her! — Why are disciples of the Sages specified? Because they are learned men, so that if he wishes to cohabit with her, they say to him, 'Withdraw your warning and cohabit with her'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a reply to the question. The husband indeed can withdraw, and that is the very reason why disciples of the Sages are specified. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בנדה שכן יש לה היתר תאמר בסוטה שאין לה היתר

Come and hear: R. Joshiah said: Three things did Ze'ira tell me as emanating from the men of Jerusalem:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Rashi: who was of the men of Jerusalem]. ');">¹⁷</span>

ואי אמרת לאחר סתירה מחול לה משכחת לה דיש לה היתר דאי בעי מחיל ליה לקינויה ובעיל אלא ש"מ לאחר סתירה אינו מחול שמע מינה

If a husband retracted his warning the warning is retracted; if a Court of Law wished to pardon an elder who rebelled [against their decision] they may pardon him; and if the parents wished to forgive a stubborn and rebellious son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXI, 18ff. ');">¹⁸</span>

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>