The question was asked: Does a woman who transgresses [the Jewish] ethical code1 require to be warned in order to make her lose her marriage-settlement or does she not require it? Do we say that since she transgresses the ethical code she does not require to be warned; or perhaps warning is necessary because she may reform? — Come and hear: A BETROTHED MAIDEN AND A CHILDLESS WIDOW WAITING FOR HER BROTHER-IN-LAW2 DO NOT DRINK AND DO NOT RECEIVE WHAT IS DUE UNDER THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT. [In these instances the man] does not let her drink but he may give her warning. But for what purpose [does he warn her]? Is it not to make her lose her marriage-settlement!3 — Abaye said: No; [the purpose is] to prohibit her to himself [in marriage]. R. Papa said: [The purpose is] to make her drink when she is married;4 as it has been taught: We may not warn a betrothed maiden with the object of making her drink while she is betrothed; but we may warn a betrothed maiden with the object of making her drink when she is married.
Raba said: Come and hear: A WIDOW WHO HAD MARRIED A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A HALUZAH WHO HAD MARRIED AN ORDINARY PRIEST, AN ILLEGITIMATE OR A NETHINAH WHO HAD MARRIED AN ISRAELITE, AND AN ISRAELITE'S DAUGHTER WHO HAD MARRIED AN ILLEGITIMATE OR A NATHIN DO NOT DRINK AND DO NOT RECEIVE WHAT IS DUE UNDER THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT. They do not drink but they receive a warning. But for what purpose? If [you answer] to make them prohibited to the husband, behold they are already prohibited;5 rather must it be to make them lose the marriage-settlement! — Rab Judah of Diskarta6 said: No; [the purpose is] to prohibit her to the paramour as to the husband; as we learn: Just as she is prohibited to the husband so is she prohibited to the paramour.7
R. Hanina of Sura said; Come and hear: IN THE FOLLOWING CASES A COURT OF LAW CAN GIVE WARNING: WHEN THE HUSBAND IS A DEAF-MUTE OR HAS BECOME INSANE OR IS IMPRISONED. NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING HER DRINK DID THEY SAY THIS BUT TO DISQUALIFY HER IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT. Conclude from this that she does require to be warned! That conclusion is to be drawn. But why did not [the other Rabbis] draw the inference from this passage? — [They thought] perhaps it is different in the circumstance where she had no cause at all to be afraid of her husband.8
The question was asked: If a woman transgresses [the Jewish] ethical code and the husband desired to retain her, may he do so or may he not? Do we say that the All-Merciful depends upon the husband's objection [to her conduct],9 and in this case he does not object; or, perhaps, since [a husband normally] objects, he must object [and divorce her]? — Come and hear: IN THE FOLLOWING CASES A COURT OF LAW CAN GIVE WARNING: WHEN THE HUSBAND IS A DEAF-MUTE OR HAS BECOME INSANE OR IS IMPRISONED. Should you maintain that if the husband desired to retain her he may do so, can the Court of Law do something of which the husband may not approve?10 — As a general rule, when a woman transgresses the ethical code, [the husband] is agreeable [to the warning].
The question was asked: If a husband retracted his warning, is the warning retracted or not?11 Do we say that the All-Merciful depends upon the husband's warning and here the husband retracted it; or perhaps since he already gave a warning he is unable to withdraw it? — Come and hear: IN THE FOLLOWING CASES A COURT OF LAW CAN GIVE WARNING: WHEN THE HUSBAND IS A DEAF-MUTE OR HAS BECOME INSANE OR IS IMPRISONED. Should you maintain that if a husband retracted his warning his warning is retracted, can we12 perform an action which the husband may come and retract!13 — As a general rule, a man agrees with the opinion of a Court of Law.14
Come and hear: And they assign to him two disciples of the Sages lest he cohabit with her on the journey.15 Should you maintain that if a husband retracted his warning the warning is retracted, let him then withdraw it and cohabit with her! — Why are disciples of the Sages specified? Because they are learned men, so that if he wishes to cohabit with her, they say to him, 'Withdraw your warning and cohabit with her'.16
Come and hear: R. Joshiah said: Three things did Ze'ira tell me as emanating from the men of Jerusalem:17 If a husband retracted his warning the warning is retracted; if a Court of Law wished to pardon an elder who rebelled [against their decision] they may pardon him; and if the parents wished to forgive a stubborn and rebellious son18 they may forgive him.19 When, however, I came to my colleagues in the South, they agreed with me in respect of two but did not agree with me in respect of the rebellious elder, so that disputes should not multiply in Israel. Deduce therefrom that if a husband retracted his warning the warning is retracted. Draw that conclusion.
In this connection R. Aha and Rabina differ. One said that [the warning can be] retracted before seclusion but not after seclusion, and the other said that also after seclusion it can be retracted. The more probable view is that of him who said that it cannot be retracted. Whence is this learnt? — [It is to be inferred] from the answer which the Rabbis gave to R. Jose; for it has been taught: R. Jose says: By a fortiori reasoning [it is deduced] that a husband Is trusted with her. If a husband is trusted in the matter of his wife during menstruation where the penalty is excision, how much more so in the matter of his wife while under suspicion in connection with which there is a mere prohibition! [The Rabbis] replied to him, No; if you argue [that he may be trusted] in the case of his wife during menstruation to whom he will have a right [on her recovery], will you argue so in the case of his wife while under suspicion when he may never have a right to her!20 Now if you maintain that [a warning may be] retracted after seclusion, then it can happen that he may again have a right to her; because if he so desire, he can retract his warning and cohabit! Therefore deduce from this that after seclusion it cannot be retracted. Draw that conclusion.
IF THE HUSBANDS DIED BEFORE [THE WOMEN] DRANK, BETH SHAMMAI etc. On what point [do the two Schools] differ?
Beth Shammai are of opinion that a bond which is due for redemption is considered as having been redeemed;21
Sotah 25bwhereas Beth Hillel are of opinion that a bond which is due for redemption is not considered as having been redeemed.1
[A WIFE] WHO WAS PREGNANT BY A FORMER HUSBAND etc. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The dispute2 is in connection with a barren woman and one too old to bear children; but as for a woman incapable of conception, all agree that she does not drink and does not receive her marriage-settlement, as it is said: Then she shall be free and shall conceive seed3 — i.e., one whose way it is to conceive seed, thus excluding one whose way is not to conceive seed.
An objection was raised: 'If a man gives a warning to his betrothed or to his brother's childless widow, should she seclude herself [with the other man] before the marriage, she does not drink and does not receive her marriage-settlement'.4
- To Next Folio -