What are the implications of the words "Lashuv Lekachtah"?
Kidushin, 75a: It implies that Machzir Gerushaso is only Chayav if he takes her back in the conventional manner - by betrothing her and being intimate with her - but not one without the other. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 77 & 78.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) phrase "Acharei asher Hutama'ah"?
Rashi: To include a Sotah who was secluded (with whom she had relations - Ramban) with the man she was warned about in the prohibition. 1
Ramban #1: The Pasuk is presenting two La'avin here, 1. Against a husband taking back his wife after she commited adultery and he sent her away; 2. Against a husband taking back his divorced wife after she was married to another man.
Ramban #2: The Torah means simply 'Now that she became Tamei (forbidden) to her first husband - by virtue of her having had relations with another man (her second husband - albeit be'Heter) she is forbidden to return to him. 2
Yevamos 56b: If a married woman commited adultery, "Acharei asher Hutama'ah" forbids her to her husband. 3 In the event that she was an Oneis, the Torah wrote - "ve'Hi Lo Nispasah" permitting the wife of a Yisrael. But the wife of a Kohen remains forbidden to her husband.
See Sifsei Chachamim.
And is subject to Malkos. See Torah Temimah, note 82.
Even though she is forbidden anyway - since she is a Sotah she'Niv'alah via an Asei, the Torah is now adding a Lo'Sa'aseh. See Torah Temimah, citing the Yerushalmi Gitin, 9:11 and note 75. Ramban: And the reason the Torah issues these prohibitions is to avoid wife-swapping. See Ramban and refer to 24:4:1:1:1.
Which To'evah is the Torah referring to?
Seforno: It is referring to the disgusting habit of wife-swapping - where a man divorces his wife so that another man may sleep with her before her husband remarries her. 1
Oznaim la'Torah (citing Sefer ha'Chinuch): Going back to her first husband after having lived with other men is a form of adultery.
What is the word "Ki To'evah Hi" coming to preclude?
Targum Yonasan and Yevamos, 11b: "Hi" To'evah, ve'Ein Banehah To'evim' - to render Kasher the children of a divorced woman whose husband took her back after she was married to another man. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 83.
Why does the Torah forbid a man to take back his wife once she has been married to somebody else?
Ramban and Seforno: To avoid wife-swapping - where (at the request of Shimon - Seforno) Reuven divorces his wife in the evening, Shimon marries her and lives with her for one night and divorces her, and Reuven takes her back in the morning.
Moshav Zekenim: If not for this Isur, the La'av of coveting would be nullified. A rich man who desires a poor man's wife would tell him 'divorce your wife and I will marry her for a month or two, and divorced her and return her 1 .'
The Gemara in Yevamos 108b states that if a girl performs Mi'un, she may not return to a man who previously divorced her. If it were permitted, he might gesture and wink at her to do Mi'un to her new husband, in order to remarry him. Perhaps this concern applies even to Torah marriage. She cannot divorce herself, but she can anger her husband until he will want to divorce her. 2 (PF)
What are the implications of the words "To'evah Hi"?
Seforno: Refer to 24:4:2:1.
Targum Yonasan and Yevamos 11b: It implies that although she is an abomination, the children that she will bear are Kasher 1 (and are even eligible to marry a Kohen Gadol - Nidah, 70a).
See Torah Temimah, note 83.
Why does the Torah add "ve'Lo Sachti es ha'Aretz"?
Ramban: Because of the major sins to which this can lead. 1
Sifri: It is a warning to Beis-Din 2 to ensure that men do not take back their ex-wives after they have been married to someone else.
Why does the Torah write "Lih'yos lo le'Ishah", implying that he may he return her to be a Pilegesh (a concubine)?
Kidushin 78a: Machzir Gerushaso receives Malkos only if he was intimate with her, but not for Kidushin alone, which does not fall under the category of "Lih'yos lo le'Ishah".
This is not difficult according to the Ramban (Hilchos Melachim 4:4), who permits a Pilegesh only to a king, or an Amah Ivriyah after Yi'ud - and the Torah cannot be discussing a king's wife, since she is forbidden to others even after divorce, and everyone agrees that her father cannot sell her to be a slave after marriage (Kidushin 18a). 1 (PF)..
Moshav Zekenim left this difficult. He must hold like the Ramban in Sefer ha'Mitzvos Shoresh 5 and the Rashba (Teshuvah 284 (or 232) attributed to the Ramban), who permit a Pilegesh to any man. However, why did he not answer like the Gemara? (Refer to 24:4:151:2) (PF)
What is the conjugation "Hutama'ah", and what do we learn from it?
Ha'Kesav veha'Kabalah: It is a graft of Huf'al (which would be 'Hatme'ah') and Hispa'el (which would be 'Hasta'm'ah', or 'Hateme'ah' with a Dagesh on the 'Tes'). There are three cases, with different reasons to forbid her: 1. If her first husband divorced her due to Z'nus be'Mezid, this itself forbids her to him permanently. This corresponding to Hispa'el, which implies Ratzon; 2. If he divorced her because he thought erroneously that she commited adultery, the divorce was invalid, and her second 'marriage' was Z'nus with an Eishes Ish, which forbids her to her real husband. The Tum'ah was Oneis, since she married legally based on a Get, This corresponding to Huf'al, which implies coerced; 3. If he divorced her absolutely (without any stipulation), or not due to adultery, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that she is called Tamei and forbidden to return. Rabanan forbid her even if the latter was merely Mekadesh her (refer to 24:4:153:1,2)! The Torah used an expression of Tum'ah to teach about one who commited adultery under her husband. 1
Meshech Chachmah: It is Huf'al, which implies coerced
Ha'Kesav veha'Kabalah: Also regarding Z'nus under her husband, the graft of Huf'al and Hispa'el alludes to becoming Asur even if the Bi'ah was be'Oneis (a Kohen's wife), or only if she was Meizid (a Yisrael's wife). The Sifri extrapolates this to teach us about a woman who remarried based on witnesses who testified falsely that her husband died. Also there, there was Ratzon (she remarried willingly) and Oneis (she had no reason to think that it is forbidden). Meshech Chachmah
Is the Isur only from Nisu'in, or even from Erusin?
Yevamos 11b #1 (according to R. Yossi ben Kipar): It is only if she had married her second husband - "Acharei asher Hutama'ah".
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "Acharei Asher Hutama'ah" forbids a Sotah who was secluded. But if it is a Safek, this is not [Vadai] Tum'ah, and the Gemara in Yevamos 11b concludes that it is one who was Vadai Mezanah with another man?
The 'conclusion' in Yevamos 11b was in defense of Rav. Rav Ashi, who challenged Rav, held like Rashi says. Perhaps Rashi learns from Yevamos 3b that the S'tam Gemara holds [like Rav Ashi,] and not like Rav. 1 (PF)
The Ramban and Moshav Zekenim left this difficult. They hold that the Gemara concluded not like Rav Ashi, but this does not prove that the Halachah follows Rav. (PF)
Rashi writes that "Acharei asher Hutama'ah" forbids a Sotah who was secluded. But she is already forbidden based on the Pasuk "Venisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah" (Bamidbar 5:13)?
Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh (citing Yevamos 11b): The current Pasuk forbids her with a La'av.
