1) The Shulchan Aruch (Even ha'Ezer 6:12) rules that if the wife of a Kohen claims she was raped, she does not become forbidden to her husband. We do not believe her claim, since she might be saying so only in order to get a divorce from her husband so that she can marry another man of her choice.

2) However, she should drink the Sotah waters because this will tell us whether or not she had relations willfully. If she drinks the waters and nothing happens to her, she stays with her husband.

3) However, one might ask here: Why are we not concerned that the reason that nothing happened to her when she drank the waters is because she was in fact raped? Drinking the waters does nothing to a woman who was raped, but nevertheless she is forbidden to her Kohen husband! One may answer this question by saying that "Ones Lo Shechi'ach" -- rape is not common, and we are not concerned that it happened unless we have good reason to believe that it did. Instead, we assume that the reason why the water had no bad effect is indeed because she did not have relations at all.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) A source for what I wrote above is the Talmud Yerushalmi on our Mishnah. Rebbi Yitzchak states that the Mishnah is referring to a case where the wife of the Kohen drank the water and nothing happened, but one might have said that this does not prove anything because the waters do not have the power to show whether the woman was raped, and are only effective if she acted intentionally.

We see from the Yerushalmi that the drinking does not show anything if she was raped. So why is the wife of the Kohen permitted when she drinks? The Korban ha'Edah writes that this is in fact the Chidush of the Mishnah -- that it is sufficient for the wife of the Kohen to drink because, since rape is uncommon, we are not concerned that it might have happened. The Korban ha'Edah adds another reason: Since the husband originally suspected his wife of willful Znus, which is why he warned his wife not to be alone with this man, it is logical to be concerned only that it happened deliberately, not forcibly.

2) However, I have been looking more into this question and it seems that it is not so simple at all. Let us try and think what would be the Halachah if such a scenario happened nowadays, when we do not possess the Sotah waters. The Shulchan Aruch (Even ha'Ezer 115:6) states (as mentioned in my first reply) that if the wife says that she was unfaithful, she is not believed because she might be lying in order to get a divorce and marry someone else. However, the Rema there adds that if there are "Raglayim l'Davar" (literally, "legs to the matter,"), or strong grounds to believe, that something really happened, the wife is believed. The Gemara in Sotah 2b states that if there was Kinuy followed by seclusion with the suspect, this is considered as "Raglayim l'Davar" that there was Bi'ah.

According to this, in our case, where the wife of the Kohen said she was raped, we should believe her. She would have to leave her husband, but she would receive her Kesubah payment (as the Gemara in Nedarim 91a states, the wife of a Kohen receives the Kesubah payment if she must leave her husband because she was raped). However, there is another point involved here. The Gemara in Kesuvos 51b states that in a case of rape, even if the woman eventually consented, it is considered that it started under duress and finished willfully, but if she is the wife of a Yisrael she is permitted because of "Yetzer Albeshah" (it is only because of her Yetzer ha'Ra that she consented at the end). However, the Pnei Yehoshua (end of Kesuvos 51b) writes that if the woman was alone with immoral men in a forbidden way, then even if she was raped at the end she is forbidden to her husband (even if the husband is a Yisrael), because this is considered as an episode which started willfully and finished willfully.

3) According to this, in our scenario -- where the wife of the Kohen was alone in a forbidden way and then claimed that she was raped -- according to the Pnei Yehoshua this would actually be considered as willful and she would lose her Kesubah.

This matter may require further thought.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Yechezkel, thank you very much for referring us to the Yad ha'Melech. I have been grappling with this Sugya for the last few days and maybe it will become a bit clearer now.

1) In fact, in my first reply I related mostly to the woman who drank the waters, but I did not go into the fact that in Dr. Kaplan's question she said she had been raped. In my second reply I discussed mostly a woman who said she had been raped, but I did not discuss what would be the Din if she drank the waters and they had no bad effect. Now I will try to put the two together; namely, the woman claimed she had been raped, and then drank the waters and nothing bad happened.

2) The argument of the aforementioned Yad ha'Melech is chiefly that the Pnei Yehoshua (that I cited above) seems to disagree with the Rambam. In fact, the Pnei Yehoshua is based on the opinion of Rabeinu Simchah (cited in the Mordechai, Kesuvos #147. An incident is reported there involving a woman who went on a journey with two untrustworthy men, was alone with them, and then claimed she was raped. Rabeinu Simchah ruled that she is forbidden to her husband (even if he is a Yisrael) because she violated the Halachah by being alone with them voluntarily and, therefore, she is not believed afterwards to say she was raped. This is similar to the reasoning of the Pnei Yehoshua.

3) However, the Yad ha'Melech argues that the Rambam (Hilchos Sotah 3:24) disagrees with Rabeinu Simchah. The Rambam writes that the Sotah waters do not check a woman who was forced to do Z'nus. However, since the Rambam is discussing a Sotah, this means that she had been warned by her husband not be alone with this man but she did not listen to him. Even so, we see that if she is raped, this is considered as rape for which the Sotah waters do not find her guilty. So we learn from the Rambam that we do not say that it started willfully (because she was willfully alone with the man) and it concluded willfully (because we assume that the woman consented at the end of the Bi'ah) and therefore is automatically considered as deliberate, not rape. Therefore, the Yad ha'Melech argues that the Rambam does not agree with Rabeinu Simchah and the Pnei Yehoshua.

4) I would just point out that Rabeinu Simchah and the Pnei Yehoshua are not discussing a scenario where the woman drank the waters. They are discussing a contemporary scenario, when we do not possess the Sotah waters. Possibly they would agree with the Rambam that at the time when we had Sotah waters and she drank them, if she came through this process safely this proves that it was totally forced, and she did not consent at the end of the Bi'ah.

5) After writing the above, I noticed that the Yad ha'Melech stresses that the Din of the Rambam is not his own, but is in fact taken from the Gemara in Sotah 32b where we learn that they told the Sotah before she drank the waters that if she had been raped the waters would not check her. She was told this so that the waters should not get a bad reputation -- because it could be that she knew she was raped, and might come to think that if she had been willful the waters would also not have checked her. The Yad ha'Melech argues that this Gemara is a contradiction to the Pnei Yehoshua because it proves that the waters do not check for rape, while according to the Pnei Yehoshua, any rape of Sotah is in effect consent.

6) It may be possible to answer this challenge on the Pnei Yehoshua according to what Rav Elyashiv zt'l says in his Notes on Sotah (32b, page 211). He explains that there is a difference between consent that forbids a woman to her husband in standard Halachah and when the Sotah waters will be effective. For the Halachah to be that she is forbidden to her husband it is sufficient that we have a betrayal of the husband. If the husband told her not to be alone with the man and she did not listen, and afterwards she was raped as a result, this is considered betrayal. However, the effectiveness of the waters is only when it was all totally voluntary, and this is not the case when the Bi'ah started as rape.

This is a difficult Inyan and I hope we are starting to get to the bottom of it.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

I think we now may be in a postion, bs'd, to summarize what we have said above and to reach a conclusion.

1) The key factor here is the idea I mentioned in the previous reply in the name of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt'l, that there can sometimes be a difference between the Halachic decision that is giving in Beis Din and what would happen if the wife was given the Sotah waters to drink. I will try to explain this more fully than I did above.

2) The Gemara (32b) cites a Beraita that says that before drinking the water, the Sotah is told certain things. One of these things is that it makes a difference why she had the suspected Bi'ah: was it Shogeg, inadvertent, or was it deliberate; was it forced (Ones), or was it willing? The waters do not have any effect if the act was Shogeg or Ones. Rav Elyashiv cites Achronim who ask on this Beraisa that since the Beraisa said at the beginning that she was told that the waters do not work if she was Shogeg, why is it still necessary to tell her that they do not work if it was Ones? It should be a Kal va'Chomer: if it does not work for Shogeg, where she deliberately had relations but merely wrongly thought that it was permitted to do so (for example, she had been mistakenly told that her husband had died, - Rashi), then it should certainly not work for forced relations!

3) Rav Elyashiv answers that sometimes Ones can actually be worse than Shogeg. He cites Rabeinu Simchah (whom I cited above) who maintains that since a woman violated the Halachah by being alone with untrustworthy men, she is no longer believed to say she was raped. Rav Elyashiv cites the Beis Meir (Shulchan Aruch EH 178:3) who explains that being alone with these men is considered as betraying her husband (see Bamidbar 5:12, "And she betrayed him"), and therefore she becomes forbidden to him even if he is a Yisrael.

4) However, now we come to the difference between what makes a woman forbidden to her husband on one hand, and what sins are revealed by drinking the waters on the other hand. When the wife was alone with the men, this is considered as "Ratzon," a willful act, and she must leave her husband, but it is not the sort of Ratzon that the waters can check. The waters do not check betrayal, they only check what is a totally voluntary Biyah. So we now have an example where Ones is worse than Shogeg, at least according to the Halachah as applied in Beis Din. Even though the Bi'ah happened b'Ones, she still has to leave her husband. In contrast, if a Bi'ah happened b'Shogeg (for example, if she mistakenly thought it was her husband), the Rema (Shulchan Aruch EH 178:3) writes that she remains permitted to her husband if he is a Yisrael. We now have an answer to the question of the Achronim for why Ones is not a Kal va'Chomer from Shogeg.

5) Now let us go back to Dr. Kaplan's original question. When the wife of a Kohen says she was raped, and there is Raglayim l'Davar that it is true, the Rema (Shulchan Aruch EH 115:6) writes that she is believed (it does not mention explicitly there the wife of a Kohen, but regarding Raglayim l'Davar there should be no difference between the wife of a Kohen or the wife of a Yisrael). The Gemara (Sotah 2b) states that Kinuy and seclusion represent Raglayim l'Davar, so it follows that she must leave her husband.

6) Why, though, does the wife receive her Kesuvah payment? When the Gemara (Nedarim 91a) states that the wife of a Kohen who was raped receives the Kesuvah when she leaves him, the Pnei Yehoshua (end of Kesuvos 51b) says that when she had a forbidden seclusion to start off with, this is considered "Techilaso b'Ratzon." Since, according to the Gemara in Kesubos 51b, we assume that usually she consents at the end of the rape because of "Yetzer Albesha," this is also "Sofo b'Ratzon." Hence, the episode started willfully and finished willfully, and it is not significant that she was forced in the middle, and therefore she should not receive her Kesuvah because she is the wife of a Kohen who had willful relations. In addition, I found that the Noda b'Yehudah cites the Pnei Yehoshua in two places (Even ha'Ezer, Mahadura Tinyana, #18, end of DH v'Hineh, and #21, DH u'Mah she'Huksheh) and agrees with him. Since she was alone with the suspect she lost her "Chezkas Kashrus," and the deliberate Yichud is considered as the start of the Bi'ah.

7) Does she drink the waters? The Rambam (Hilchos Sotah 3:24) writes that the waters do not work for a rape case. Therefore, there is no point in her drinking them (this is not like I wrote in my first reply). The Sotah waters check only for a Bi'ah which was totally b'Ratzon, so even if nothing would happen to her when drinking the waters, she would still have to leave her husband.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom