Previous Folio / Sotah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah

Folio 26a

'[A wife] who was pregnant by a former husband or was suckling a child by a former husband does not drink and does not receive the marriage-settlement.'1  Such is the statement of R. Meir; because R. Meir says: A man may not marry a woman who is pregnant by a former husband or is suckling a child by a former husband, and if he married her he must let her go and never take her back; the Sages, on the other hand, say: He must let her go, but when the time arrives when he may marry her2  he marries her. 'If a youth married a barren woman or one too old to bear, and he did not previously have a wife and children, she does not drink and does not receive the marriage-settlement. R. Eliezer says: He is able to marry another wife and have offspring by her'.3  But 'if a man gives a warning to his betrothed or to his brother's childless widow and she secluded herself after marriage, she either drinks or does not receive the marriage-settlement. If the wife is pregnant or suckling a child by himself,4  she either drinks or does not receive the marriage-settlement. And if a youth married a barren woman or one too old to bear, and he already had a wife and children, she either drinks or does not receive the marriage-settlement. The legal wife of an illegitimate,5  the legal wife of a Nathin, the wife of a proselyte or freed slave, and a woman incapable of conception either drink or do not receive the marriage-settlement.6  Here the woman incapable of conception is specified [among the woman who are required to drink]! It is a refutation of R. Nahman.7

R. Nahman can reply, [That which I stated above is a difference between] Tannaim, whereas I agree with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: A woman incapable of conception does not drink and does not receive the marriage-settlement, as it is said: Then she shall be free and shall conceive seed8  — i.e., one whose way is to conceive seed, thus excluding one whose way is not to conceive seed.9  What, then, do the Rabbis make of the phrase 'Then she shall be free and shall conceive seed'? They require it in accordance with the following teaching: 'Then she shall be free and conceive seed' — so that if she had been barren, she now becomes visited.10  Such is the statement of R. Akiba. R. Ishmael said to him, In that case, all barren women will seclude themselves and be visited, and since this one did not seclude herself she will be the loser!11  If so, what is the purpose of 'Then she shall be free and shall conceive seed'? If she formerly bore children in pain she will now bear with ease; if formerly girls she will now give birth to boys; if formerly short she will now bear tall children; if formerly dark she will now have fair children.

'The legal wife of an illegitimate [either drinks or does not receive the marriage-settlement]' — this is self-evident!12  — What you might have said was that disqualified [members of the Community] should not be multiplied.13  Therefore he informs us [that such a marriage is treated like any other].

'The wife of a proselyte or freed slave and a woman incapable of conception [either drink or do not receive the marriage-settlement]' — this is self-evident! — What you might have said was, Speak unto the children of Israel14  — but not to proselytes. Therefore he informs us [that proselytes are included in the law]. Or as an alternative answer: And say15  is to be interpreted as including [the wife of a proselyte, etc.].

THE WIFE OF A PRIEST DRINKS etc. This is self-evident! — What you might have said was, And she had not been violated16  — then she is prohibited [to her husband];17  hence if she had been violated she is permitted to him; but this woman [being the wife of a priest] is prohibited to him even if she had been violated, and consequently she does not drink. Therefore he informs us [that she does undergo the ordeal].

AND IS PERMITTED TO HER HUSBAND. This is self-evident! — R. Huna said: [This refers to a case where] she becomes ill.18  But if she becomes ill, the water has proved her [guilty]! — [It refers to a case where] she becomes ill in other limbs.19  What you might have said was that she had committed adultery, and the fact that the water did not affect her in the usual way was due to her having acted immorally under force and as such she is prohibited to a priest. Therefore he informs us [that she is permitted to her husband].

THE WIFE OF A EUNUCH DRINKS. This is self-evident! — What you might have said was, Besides thine husband20  declared the All Merciful, and this man [being a eunuch] does not come within the category [of husband]. Therefore he informs us [that he is considered to be her husband for the law of the ordeal].

THROUGH [SECLUSION WITH] ALL PERSONS FORBIDDEN TO HER IN MARRIAGE JEALOUSY IS ESTABLISHED. This is self-evident!

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Ibid. 6.
  2. I.e., after the lapse of two years from the birth of the child.
  3. Tosef. ibid. 5. The last sentence occurs in the Mishnah p. 120, and instead the Tosef. reads: R. Eliezer says: He is able to separate from her and take her back after a time.
  4. I.e., by the husband who gives her warning.
  5. Viz., a woman who was competent to marry such a man, and she secluded herself after warning.
  6. Tosef. ibid. 1-4.
  7. He asserted above, 'All agree that she does not drink'.
  8. Num. V, 28.
  9. Tosef. ibid. 4.
  10. The Biblical term used of barren women who conceive.
  11. By remaining loyal to her husband and avoiding all suspicion a barren woman will continue sterile!
  12. Since her marriage is legal.
  13. The purpose of the Torah cannot be to restore harmony between such a couple, since the offspring of the union would be disqualified from membership in the Community.
  14. Num. V, 12.
  15. Ibid.
  16. Num. V, 13; i.e., she had been a consenting party.
  17. V. supra 2b.
  18. After drinking the water.
  19. Not those enumerated in Num. V, 22.
  20. Ibid. 20.

Sotah 26b

 — What you might have said was, The phrase 'and she be defiled' occurs twice1  — once with respect to the husband and the other with respect to the paramour2  — but it only applies when she becomes prohibited [to the paramour] by this act of adultery; but where she was in any event forbidden to him, conclude that she is not [barred from marrying him]. Therefore he informs us [that she has to undergo the ordeal although the paramour was forbidden to her in any case and if guilty she cannot marry her paramour].

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A MINOR etc. A man3  declared the All-Merciful, not a minor.

AND ONE NOT A MAN. Whom does this exclude? If I answer that it is to exclude one whose flesh is wasted,4  behold Samuel has said: A warning [against seclusion] can be given in connection with a man who is wasting and he disqualifies for partaking of the heave-offering!5  (A warning [against seclusion] can be given in connection with him — this is self-evident! — What you might have said was, 'And a man lie with her carnally' declared the All-Merciful and such a one does not come within that category; therefore he informs us [that seclusion with him does bring the woman within the scope of the law]. And he disqualifies for partaking of the heave-offering — that is self-evident! — What you might have said was, He shall not profane his seed6  declared the All-Merciful-one who had 'seed' can profane,7  but one who had no 'seed' cannot profane; therefore he informs us [that he can profane].8  ) If, on the other hand, it is to exclude a gentile, behold R. Hamnuna has said: A warning [against seclusion] can be given in connection with a gentile and he disqualifies for partaking of the heave-offering! (A warning [against seclusion] can be given in connection with him — this is self-evident! — What you might have said was, The phrase 'and she be defiled' occurs twice — once with respect to the husband and the other with respect to the paramour — but it only applies when she becomes prohibited [to the paramour] by this act of adultery; but where she was in any event forbidden to him,9  conclude that she is not [warned against seclusion]. Therefore he informs us [that a warning can be given with respect to a gentile]. And he disqualifies for partaking of the heave-offering — this is self-evident! — What you might have said was, And if a priest's daughter be married unto a stranger10  declared the All-Merciful, i.e., when there was a legal marriage-status, but not when there is no legal marriage-status. Therefore he informs us [that a gentile]

     

Dilling Exhibit 168
Begins
    does disqualify her. This is in agreement with R. Johanan who said in the name of R. Ishmael: Whence is it that a gentile or a slave who had intercourse with a priest's daughter or Levite's daughter or an Israelite's daughter disqualifies her [for the heave-offering]? As it is said: But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced11  — only in the case of a man where her widowhood or divorce [is legally recognised],12  thus excluding a gentile or slave where her widowhood or divorce is not [legally recognised].)13  What, then, [does the phrase AND NOT A MAN] exclude? — R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal.14

Raba of Parazika15  asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? — Because it is written: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.;16  and it has been taught: The hire of a dog17  and the wages of a harlot18  are permissible, as it is said: Even both these19  — the two [specified in the text are abominations] but not four.20

What is the purpose [of the Scriptural phrase] carnally?21  — It is required for this teaching: 'Carnally' to the exclusion of something else. What means 'something else'? — R. Shesheth said: It excludes the case where he warned her against unnatural intercourse. Raba said to him, [It excludes the case where he warned her against] unnatural intercourse? It is written: As lying with womankind!22  But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies.23  Abaye said to him, That is

     

Dilling Exhibit 169
Begins
    merely an obscene act [and not adultery], and did the All-Merciful prohibit [a wife to her husband] for an obscene act? But, said Abaye, it excludes the case where he warned her against external contact. This is quite right according to him who maintains that by sexual contact is to be understood insertion24  inasmuch as external contact is not regarded, and consequently the Scriptural phrase is intended to exclude the latter; but according to him who maintains that sexual contact is the external contact what is there to say? — Certainly [the Scriptural phrase is intended to exclude the case where] he warned her against contact of the bodies; and should you argue that the All-Merciful made it depend upon the husband's objection [to such conduct] and behold the husband did object,25  therefore he informs us [that the phrase 'carnally' is to exclude this].

Samuel said: Let a man marry

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Ibid. 13f.
  2. She must be divorced by her husband and is not allowed to marry her paramour. V. Mishnah p. 135.
  3. Lie with her carnally. Num. V, 13.
  4. Tosef. Bek. V, 4, identifies the term with he who hath his stones broken in Lev. XXI, 20.
  5. If he married a priest's daughter when he was so afflicted, she loses the right to eat of the heave-offering.
  6. Lev. XXI, 15.
  7. A priest's daughter by marriage.
  8. Consequently a person who is so afflicted is regarded as 'a man' and cannot be intended by the Mishnah.
  9. He being a gentile.
  10. Lev. XXII, 12.
  11. Lev. XXII, 13.
  12. Does she return to her father's house and eat the heave-offering.
  13. Therefore a gentile cannot be intended by the Mishnah.
  14. She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act.
  15. Farausag near Bagdad v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 15. n. 4. He is thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name
  16. Deut. XXIII, 19.
  17. Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery.
  18. If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered.
  19. Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid.).
  20. Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbis.
  21. In Num. V, 13, since the law applies to a man who is incapable.
  22. Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for 'lying' is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural intercourse.
  23. With the other man, although there is no actual coition.
  24. Which is legally equal to complete coition.
  25. As evidenced by his warning.