Sotah 53

דומה ואל ישא בת דומה שזו באה מטיפה כשרה וזו באה מטיפה פסולה

a woman of ill-repute rather than the daughter of a woman of ill-repute, since the former comes from pure stock and the latter from impure stock.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [As it is not known with whom the mother had relation.] ');">¹</span>

ור' יוחנן אמר ישא אדם בת דומה ואל ישא דומה שזו עומדת בחזקת כשרות וזו אינה עומדת בחזקת כשרות

R. Johanan, however, said: Let a man marry the daughter of a woman of ill-repute rather than a woman of ill-repute, since the former is presumably chaste whereas the latter is not. An objection was raised: One should marry a woman of ill-repute! — Raba said: Can you possibly think that [the meaning is that] he should marry [a woman of ill-repute who is such] at the outset? But the statement should take this form: 'If a man married [a woman of ill-repute']; and similarly [read] 'the daughter of a woman of ill-repute'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since the Baraitha has to be amended in any case we might just as well amend 'a woman' into 'the daughter of a woman etc.'.] ');">²</span>

מיתיבי נושא אדם דומה אמר רבא ותסברא נושא לכתחלה אלא אם נשא תני נמי בת דומה

But the legal decision is: Let a man marry the daughter of a woman of ill-repute rather than a woman of ill-repute; because R. Tahlifa, the son of the West,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Palestinian. ');">³</span>

והלכתא ישא אדם בת דומה ואל ישא דומה דתני רב תחליפא בר מערבא קמיה דר' אבהו אשה מזנה בניה כשרין רוב בעילות אחר הבעל

recited in the presence of R. Abbahu, If a woman is an adulteress, her children are legitimate since the majority of the acts of cohabitation are ascribed to the husband.

בעי רב עמרם היתה פרוצה ביותר מהו אליבא דמ"ד אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לווסתה לא תיבעי לך דלא ידע בה ולא מנטר לה

R. Amram asked: How is it if she was excessively dissolute?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are the children legitimate? ');">⁴</span>

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמ"ד אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לטבילתה מאי כיון דידע בה נטורי מנטר לה או דלמא כיון דפרוצה ביותר לא תיקו

According to him who maintains that a woman only conceives immediately before her period the question does not arise, because [the husband] may not know [when this is] and does not watch her; but the question does arise according to him who maintains that a woman only conceives immediately after the time of her purification. How is it then? Does he watch her since he knows when this occurs; or perhaps this is of no account since she is excessively dissolute?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she may deceive him although he is careful to watch her. ');">⁵</span>

ואלו שב"ד כו' ת"ר איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות אשת חרש ואשת שוטה ואשת שעמום ושהלך בעלה למדינת הים ושהיה חבוש בבית האסורין שב"ד מקנין להן לפוסלן מכתובתן

The question remains unanswered.

יכול אף להשקותן ת"ל (במדבר ה, טו) והביא האיש את אשתו ר' יוסי אומר אף להשקותה ולכשיצא בעלה מבית האסורין ישקנה

IN THE FOLLOWING CASES A COURT OF LAW etc. Our Rabbis taught: 'Man' — why does Scripture repeat the word?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Hebrew text of Num. V, 12. ');">⁶</span>

במאי קא מיפלגי רבנן סברי בעינן וקינא והביא ור' יוסי סבר לא בעינן וקינא והביא

To include the wife of a deaf man, the wife of an imbecile, the wife of a weak-minded man, and cases where the husband has gone on a journey to a distant country or is imprisoned, that a Court of Law can give them warning to disqualify them in connection with the marriage-settlement. It is possible [to think that the warning] is also to make them drink; therefore there is a text to say: Then shall the man bring his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 25. ');">⁷</span>

ת"ר (במדבר ה, כט) אשר תשטה אשה תחת אישה להקיש איש לאשה ואשה לאיש למאי הלכתא אמר רב ששת כשם שאם הוא סומא לא היה משקה דכתיב (במדבר ה, יג) ונעלם מעיני אישה כך היא אם היתה סומא לא היתה שותה רב אשי אמר כשם שחיגרת וגידמת לא היתה שותה דכתיב

R. Jose says: It is also to make the woman drink so that when the husband is released from prison he makes her drink.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 24a. ');">⁸</span> On what do they differ? — The Rabbis are of the opinion that we require that the same man who 'warned' her must 'bring' her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the ordeal, and only the husband can bring her. ');">⁹</span> whereas R. Jose is of the opinion that we do not require that the same man who 'warned' her must 'bring' her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so he gives the Court power to warn her for the purpose of the ordeal. ');">¹⁰</span> Our Rabbis taught: When a wife, being under her husband, goeth aside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V. 29. ');">¹¹</span> — this is to compare a husband with a wife and a wife with a husband. For what practical purpose? — R. Shesheth said: Just as he does not make her drink if he is blind, as it is written: And it be hid from the eyes of her husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13. He presumably could see. ');">¹²</span> so she does not drink if she is blind. R. Ashi said: Just as a woman who is lame or armless does not drink, for it is written,