Previous Daf

SOTAH 2

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) 'Kinuy' is - the warning that a man issues his wife not to go with another man, as will be explained shortly.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua in our Mishnah agree that 'Kinuy' requires two witnesses. When Rebbi Eliezer says 'u'Mashkeh al-Pi Eid Echad'. he means - that he can make her drink the water of a Sotah even if their subsequent seclusion was witnessed by only one witness or even just by the husband himself.
(c) According to Rebbi Yehoshua - that too, requires two witnesses.
(d) If a husband warns his wife in front of witnesses 'Do not speak with so-and-so!', subsequently speaking with him does not render her a Sotah - unless they entered a secluded location together.

click for question
2)
(a) The Torah writes three times "ve'Nitme'ah" in Naso with regard to a Sotah. The ramifications of these three words are - that she is forbidden both to her husband and to the adulterer (should her husband die or divorce her), and she is also forbidden to eat Terumah (assuming her husband is a Kohen).
(b) The Mishnah rules that if a Sotah's husband dies, leaving a brother but no children - he performs Chaliztah but not Yibum.

click for question
3)
(a) We ascribe Rebbi's juxtaposition of Sotah after Nazir to another statement of his - where he says that someone who sees a Sotah in her disgrace should make a Nazarite vow to abstain from wine.
(b) He changed the order in which they appear in the Torah (first Sotah and then Nazir) - because Nazir (which is a form of Neder) goes together with Nedarim (but not Sotah).
(c) And he placed Nedarim after Kesuvos - because Perek ha'Madir (the seventh Perek of Kesuvos) deals with Nedarim.
(d) The Tana of our Mishnah uses the Lashon 'ha'Mekane' (a Lashon of Bedi'eved) because he holds that Lechatchilah, a husband should not set the process of Sotah into motion (by warning his wife) - seeing as it will cause strife in the home (interfering with Shalom Bayis) and eventually, his wife to be publicly humiliated (even if it transpires that she is not guilty of having committed adultery).

click for question
4)
(a)
1. Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Ki Lo Yanu'ach Sheivet ha'Resha al Goral ha'Tzadikim" - that a man gets the wife he deserves.
2. Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk there "Elokim Moshiv Yechidim Baysah, Motzi Asirim ba'Kosharos" - that matching couples is as difficult 'Kevayachol' as the splitting of the Reed Sea (which entailed going against the laws of nature).
(b) "ba'Kosharos" means - in the month that was convenient to go out (that of Nisan), when it was neither too hot, nor too cold.
(c) Rav reconciles Resh Lakish's statement with his own; that already forty days before a man is born, a Heavenly Voice announces 'Bas P'loni li'Ploni' - by restricting his own statement to a man's first marriage, and Resh Lakish's, to the second marriage (which is termed as 'difficult', because the woman was not initially destined for him).
(d) we know from Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement that a man's first wife is not necessarily a reflection of his merits - because although the match is fixed (based on the principle 'ha'Kol bi'Yedei Shamayim Chutz mi'Yir'as Shamayim') their deeds are not.

click for question
5)
(a) Even Rebbi Yehoshua in our Mishnah, who requires two witnesses for both the 'Kinuy' and the 'S'tirah', will agree that when it comes to the actual act of adultery, even one witness will suffice, as we will see later in Perek ke'Shem. The ramifications of this observation are - that if just one witness, or even just the husband himself, saw them committing adultery, she becomes forbidden to her husband, to the adulterer and to eat Terumah, and her husband divorces her without a Kesuvah (without the need to drink the Mei Sotah).
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish" - that whenever the Torah writes "Eid" (without the word "Echad"), it implies two witnesses.
(c) In light of that, the Pasuk (written in connection with the Tum'ah of Sotah) "ve'Eid Ein Bah" means - that if two witnesses did not see the adultery, but one did, she has the Din of a Sotah (as we just explained).

click for question
6)
(a) If not for the Pasuk "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish", we would have explained the Pasuk "ve'Eid Ein Bah" to mean that there wasn't even one witness. The problem with saying that is - that if there wasn't even one witness, on what grounds would the woman have been forbidden to her husband?
(b) We at first think that the Pasuk could not be coming to teach us the inference, that one witness is not believed, but that two are required - because we know that already from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Davar" ("Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar") "Davar" ("al-Pi Sh'nei Eidim Yakum Davar") from money matters.
(c) We would nevertheless have explained the Pasuk to preclude one witness - because we would otherwise have thought that in this case (based on the fact that they were secluded together) even one witness is believed (which we conclude, he in fact, is) because of the strong evidence that they sinned .
(d) And we would have explained "ve'Eid Ein Bah" as a leniency, (in spite of the following phrase "ve'Hi Lo Nispasah", which clearly intimates a Chumra) - by explaining that phrase as a follow-on from the inference of this phrase: "ve'Eid Ein Bah", but two are, in which case she would be considered guilty, seeing as she was not taken by force.

click for question
7)
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Eid Ein Bah" - "Bah", 've'Lo be'Kinuy'; "Bah", ve'Lo bi'Setirah' (i.e. that one witness is not believed).
(b) Rebbi Eliezer too, makes the inference "Bah", 've'Lo be Kinuy', but omits "Bah", 've'Lo bi'S'tirah' - because, we initially suggest 'S'tirah is compared to Tum'ah, as the Torah writes "ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah'.
(c) Despite the fact that both Kinuy and S'tirah are compared to Tum'ah ("ve'Kinei es Ishto, ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah"), and by Tum'ah, one witness will certainly suffice, we nevertheless preclude Kinuy from the Din of Tum'ah (to insist on two witnesses), and not S'tirah - because S'tirah is closer to Tum'ah, inasmuch as it is its first stage.
(d) We refute the suggestion that S'tirah is more comparable to Tum'ah because it forbids her (at least temporarily) like Tum'ah - because it is only on account of Kinuy that it does.

click for question
8)
(a) The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, who Darshens from "ve'Eid Ein Bah - "Bah", 've'Lo bi'Stirah' (which consequently requires two witnesses, whereas Kinuy requires only one).
(b) from the Hekesh "ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah", he learns - that the Shiur of S'tirah is the time it takes to perform the act of Tum'ah (as we shall see later).

click for question
9)
(a) When the Chachamim queried Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah 'Ein le'Davar Sof' - they meant that if that is so, then, whenever a man becomes angry with his wife, all he needs to do is bring two witnesses to testify that she secluded with another man and declare that he had previously warned her (even though he never did).
(b) This Kashya is not really confined to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Eliezer - because according to Rebbi Eliezer, we could ask the same Kashya regarding S'tirah (which, in his opinion, does not require two witnesses). In that case, after having warned his wife in front of two witnesses, not to seclude herself with a certain man, all the husband needs to do is to testify that he caught her red-handed, even if she is innocent.
(c) The Kashya is stronger - on Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, because Kinuy is the first stage of anger, and is the more likely of the two to happen.
(d) So we amend Rebbi Yochanan's statement 'Af to read - 'le'Divrei Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, Af le'Mishnaseinu, Ein le'Davar Sof'.

click for question
10)
(a) Rebbi Chanina from Sura said that nowadays one should not warn one's wife not to seclude herself with a specific man - on the grounds that the Halachah might be like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, and seeing as there is no Mei Sotah nowadays, he faces the prospect of losing his wife for good.
(b) Resh Lakish and Rav Yeimar bar Shalmaya define 'Kinuy' - as anger.
(c) We can extrapolate from this definition - that both Amora'im prohibit Kinuy Lechatchilah (like we learned above).

click for question
11)
(a) According to Resh Lakish it is so-called because it causes others to become angry with her. He must hold like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who does not require two witnesses for the Kinuy. As a result, people do not know about the husband's warning, and become angry with her for having become so stand-offish.
(b) Whereas according to Rav Yeimar bar Shalmaya in the name of Abaye it is so-called because it causes her husband to become angry with her. He holds like Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim, who require two witnesses for the Kinuy. Consequently, everyone knows about the warning and it is the husband who becomes angry with his wife, when she takes it out of him for warning her.

Next Daf