Sotah 6a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna Do we impose on him an obligation to marry her against his will? Unlike levirate marriage, there is no obligation for an…

Do we impose on him an obligation to marry her against his will? Unlike levirate marriage, there is no obligation for another man to marry her. Therefore, the verse is not instructing him to do so. And there are those who say that Rav Yosef said differently: The verse calls a man who marries a woman after she was divorced from her first husband due to suspicion of adultery “another man,” as the verse states: “And she departs out of his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). This indicates that one who subsequently marries her is not a peer of her first husband because this one, the first husband, removed an evil woman from his house, and that one brought an evil woman into his house. There is an implied criticism of the second husband in the verse; and yet you say that the verse instructs that she should also enter into levirate marriage. Abaye said to him: If that is so, then if she married another man and he died without children, then she should not enter into levirate marriage with the brother of her second husband even if she did not commit adultery during the second marriage, since the verse calls the second husband “another man,” which excluded the possibility of levirate marriage. Rav Yosef answered Abaye: With regard to that one, i.e., this second husband, at least she remained with a good name. Since she did not engage in illicit behavior during her second marriage, she can enter into levirate marriage with the brother of her second husband. Rava says a different reason why a sota cannot enter into levirate marriage: This prohibition can be deduced through an a fortiori inference: If, due to the suspicion of adultery, she becomes forbidden to the one who was previously permitted to her, i.e., her first husband, then with regard to one who was forbidden to her, i.e., the husband’s brother, is it not all the more so that she remains forbidden to him? Abaye said to him: If that is so, if this a fortiori reasoning is the basis of the prohibition against her entering into levirate marriage, then in the case of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, which he is prohibited from doing, and he died before the marriage took place, and he has a brother who is a common priest, who is permitted to marry a widow, she should still not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage with him, since the same inference can be stated: If she becomes forbidden to the one who was permitted to her, i.e., her husband the High Priest, who was prohibited from marrying a widow, then with regard to one who was forbidden to her, i.e., his brother, the common priest who wishes to enter into levirate marriage with her, is it not all the more so that she should be forbidden? The Gemara refutes this inference. In the case of the High Priest, can one say: She becomes forbidden? But she was forbidden to him and remains forbidden to him. She did not become forbidden to her husband, the High Priest, due to the marriage. Furthermore, in the case of the High Priest, can one say: Permitted to her? But the High Priest is forbidden to her always. Therefore, the case of the High Priest does not serve as a refutation of the a fortiori inference. Rather, the refutation is as follows: In the case of a priest’s wife who was raped, who becomes forbidden to her husband, and then her husband dies; and he has a brother who is a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [ḥalal], who is not bound by the restrictions on marriage given to a priest, then she should not be permitted to enter into levirate marriage with him. If she becomes forbidden to the one who was permitted to her, i.e., her husband the priest, then with regard to one who was forbidden to her, i.e., her brother-in-law, is it not all the more so that she remains forbidden to him? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, this a fortiori inference is not applicable here because a raped woman is completely permitted to an Israelite. Therefore, a married woman raped by another man may remain with her Israelite husband. And with regard to this person, i.e., the brother of the deceased, who is a ḥalal, in any event there is no prohibition. The fact that the woman was forbidden to her ḥalal brother-in-law while she was married to her husband is immaterial. This is because, had she been raped while she was married to the ḥalal, it would not render her forbidden to him, as he has the status of an Israelite with regard to marriage. Consequently, this case cannot be compared to the case of the mishna, as a woman who commits adultery is forbidden to any husband, not only a priest. And these are women who, despite being married to priests, are prohibited from partaking of teruma due to suspicion of adultery: A woman who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she admitted to having committed adultery with another man; and in a case where witnesses came forth and testified that she is defiled; and a woman who says after a warning and seclusion: I will not drink the bitter water of a sota; and in a case where her husband does not want to force her to drink the water even after she secluded herself with another man after his warning; and in a case where her husband engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the way to bringing her to the Temple to drink the bitter water, as in such a case the water will not be effective in evaluating whether she was unfaithful, due to the husband’s own prohibited act.

▶ 💬 Guemara Rav Amram says: Rav Sheshet told us this matter, and he enlightened our eyes for us by citing support for his statement …

Rav Amram says: Rav Sheshet told us this matter, and he enlightened our eyes for us by citing support for his statement from the mishna: In the case of a sota for whom there are witnesses concerning her in a country overseas, who can testify that she engaged in sexual intercourse, the bitter water of a sota does not evaluate whether or not she was unfaithful. Although she committed adultery, the water evaluates her fidelity only when there is no possibility of proving her guilt in court. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: “And a man lie with her carnally, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was defiled secretly, and there was no witness against her” (Numbers 5:13). This indicates that the bitter water is given only when there is no one who knows about her action, to the exclusion of the case of this woman who is not given the bitter water, as there are those who know about her. And Rav Sheshet enlightened our eyes for us by adducing support for his ruling from the mishna, as it teaches: And where witnesses came forth and testified that she is defiled, this is one of the women who can no longer partake of teruma, Rav Sheshet asks: This is a case where the witnesses came when? If we say that they came before she drank, then what is novel about the fact that it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma? She is a woman who had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona], as she is a confirmed adulteress, and it is obviously prohibited for her to partake of teruma. Rav Sheshet answers: Rather, it must be referring to a case where the witnesses testified after she already drank. Granted, if you say that the bitter water of a sota does not evaluate her in a case where there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify with regard to her infidelity, it is well. But if you say that the water evaluates her in a case where there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify with regard to her infidelity, then it should be revealed retroactively that they are false witnesses, as the fact that she survived the drinking of the bitter water would indicate that she never committed adultery. Rav Yosef said to Rav Sheshet: Actually, I will say to you that the bitter water evaluates her in a case where there are witnesses elsewhere who can testify with regard to her infidelity. Nevertheless, the fact that the woman survived the drinking of the water does not prove her innocence, and one can say that this woman who already drank had merit that delayed the punishment for her. According to some opinions, if an unfaithful woman has certain merits, she will not die immediately upon drinking the water. Therefore, if witnesses were to testify to her infidelity after she drank the water without dying, it is not clear that their testimony is false. The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef disagree? With regard to whether she deteriorates [mitnavvena], as explained by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as we learned in a mishna (22a): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Merit delays punishment with regard to the bitter water of a sota. Even if a woman actually committed adultery, she will not die immediately due to the merit that she has. But she will not give birth, and she will not improve in terms of her physical condition after having drunk the bitter water. Rather, she will progressively deteriorate until she ultimately dies in the same manner of death as suffered by a sota who drank the bitter water without having merit. Rav Sheshet holds: Both according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him, she begins to deteriorate despite her merit. Therefore, if she doesn’t begin to deteriorate immediately, the witnesses who testified subsequent to her drinking must be false witnesses. And Rav Yosef holds: Only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is it so that she begins to deteriorate when she has merit. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, she does not begins to deteriorate. Therefore, Rav Yosef explains that the mere fact that she survived the drinking of the bitter water and didn’t begin deteriorating does not prove that the testimony was false. Rav Shimi bar Ashi raises an objection from the aforementioned mishna (22a), which also teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Merit does not delay punishment with regard to the bitter water of a sota, and if you say that merit delays punishment with regard to the bitter water, then you push aside the deterrent force of the bitter water before all the women who must drink it, as guilty women will rely on their merit to protect them from the immediate consequences. And furthermore, you defame the untainted women who drank and survived. People will not view this as proof of their innocence, and they will say: They are defiled, but their merit delayed the punishment for them. After quoting the statement of Rabbi Shimon, Rav Shimi bar Ashi now explains his objection: And if it is so that the bitter water of a sota does not evaluate the faithfulness of a women about whom there are witnesses in a country overseas, then the same claim can be made as well: You defame the untainted women who drank and survived. People will not view this as proof of their innocence, and they will say: They are defiled, but there are witnesses about them in a country overseas. The Gemara responds: Do you say this according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Indeed, according to Rabbi Shimon, from the same logic that merit does not delay punishment, witnesses in a country overseas do not delay it either, and Rav Sheshet would concede that his statement would not be accepted by Rabbi Shimon. Rav raises an objection from the latter clause of the mishna there (22a), which teaches: And these are the sota women whose meal-offerings are burned and not offered on the altar:

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français Rav Amram dit : Rav Sheshet nous a rapporté cette affaire, et il a éclairé nos yeux pour nous en citant un appui à sa dé…

Rav Amram dit : Rav Sheshet nous a rapporté cette affaire, et il a éclairé nos yeux pour nous en citant un appui à sa déclaration à partir de la mishna : Dans le cas d’une sota pour laquelle il y a des témoins dans un pays d’outre-mer, qui peuvent témoigner qu’elle a eu des rapports sexuels, l’eau amère de la sota ne vérifie pas si elle a été infidèle ou non. Bien qu’elle ait commis l’adultère, l’eau ne vérifie sa fidélité que lorsqu’il n’y a aucune possibilité de prouver sa culpabilité en tribunal. Quelle est la raison de cela ? C’est comme le dit le verset : « Et un homme couche avec elle charnellement, et cela est caché aux yeux de son mari, et elle a été souillée en secret, et il n’y a pas de témoin contre elle » (Nombres 5:13). Cela indique que l’eau amère n’est donnée que lorsqu’il n’y a personne qui sait son action, à l’exclusion du cas de cette femme qui ne reçoit pas l’eau amère, car il y a ceux qui savent son action. Et Rav Sheshet a éclairé nos yeux pour nous en apportant un appui à sa décision à partir de la mishna, comme elle enseigne : Et lorsque des témoins sont venus et ont témoigné qu’elle est souillée, c’est l’une des femmes qui ne peuvent plus manger de teruma. Rav Sheshet demande : C’est un cas où les témoins sont venus quand ? Si nous disons qu’ils sont venus avant qu’elle boive, alors qu’y a-t-il de nouveau dans le fait qu’il lui soit interdit de manger de teruma ? Elle est une femme qui a eu des relations sexuelles avec un homme interdit par la Torah [zona], car elle est une adultère confirmée, et il est évidemment interdit pour elle de manger de teruma. Rav Sheshet répond : Plutôt, il faut que cela se réfère à un cas où les témoins ont témoigné après qu’elle ait déjà bu. Accordé, si tu dis que l’eau amère de la sota ne la vérifie pas dans un cas où il y a des témoins ailleurs qui peuvent témoigner de son infidélité, c’est bien. Mais si tu dis que l’eau la vérifie dans un cas où il y a des témoins ailleurs qui peuvent témoigner de son infidélité, alors il devrait être révélé rétroactivement que ce sont de faux témoins, car le fait qu’elle ait survécu à la boisson de l’eau amère indiquerait qu’elle n’a jamais commis d’adultère. Rav Yossef dit à Rav Sheshet : En réalité, je te dirai que l’eau amère la vérifie dans un cas où il y a des témoins ailleurs qui peuvent témoigner de son infidélité. Néanmoins, le fait que la femme ait survécu à la boisson de l’eau ne prouve pas son innocence, et on peut dire que cette femme qui a déjà bu avait un mérite qui a retardé le châtiment pour elle. Selon certaines opinions, si une femme infidèle a certains mérites, elle ne mourra pas immédiatement après avoir bu l’eau. Par conséquent, si des témoins témoignaient de son infidélité après qu’elle ait bu l’eau sans mourir, il n’est pas clair que leur témoignage soit faux. La Guemara explique : Sur quel principe sont en désaccord Rav Sheshet et Rav Yossef ? Sur la question de savoir si elle se détériore [mitnavvena], comme expliqué par Rabbi Yehouda HaNassi, comme nous l’avons appris dans une mishna (22a) : Rabbi Yehouda HaNassi dit : Le mérite retarde le châtiment en ce qui concerne l’eau amère de la sota. Même si une femme a réellement commis l’adultère, elle ne mourra pas immédiatement en raison du mérite qu’elle a. Mais elle n’enfantera pas, et elle ne s’améliorera pas en termes de condition physique après avoir bu l’eau amère. Plutôt, elle se détériorera progressivement jusqu’à ce qu’elle meure finalement de la même manière de mort que subit une sota qui a bu l’eau amère sans avoir de mérite. Rav Sheshet tient : Tant selon l’opinion de Rabbi Yehouda HaNassi que selon l’opinion des Rabbins, qui sont en désaccord avec lui, elle commence à se détériorer malgré son mérite. Par conséquent, si elle ne commence pas à se détériorer immédiatement, les témoins qui ont témoigné après sa boisson doivent être de faux témoins. Et Rav Yossef tient : Seulement selon l’opinion de Rabbi Yehouda HaNassi est-il ainsi que elle commence à se détériorer lorsqu’elle a du mérite. Selon l’opinion des Rabbins, elle ne commence pas à se détériorer. Par conséquent, Rav Yossef explique que le simple fait qu’elle ait survécu à la boisson de l’eau amère et n’ait pas commencé à se détériorer ne prouve pas que le témoignage était faux. Rav Shimi bar Ashi soulève une objection à partir de la mishna susmentionnée (22a), qui enseigne également que Rabbi Shimon dit : Le mérite ne retarde pas le châtiment en ce qui concerne l’eau amère de la sota, et si tu dis que le mérite retarde le châtiment en ce qui concerne l’eau amère, alors tu repousses la force dissuasive de l’eau amère devant toutes les femmes qui doivent boire cette eau, car les femmes coupables compteront sur leur mérite pour les protéger des conséquences immédiates. Et de plus, tu diffames les femmes pures qui ont bu et ont survécu. Les gens ne verront pas cela comme une preuve de leur innocence, et ils diront : Elles sont souillées, mais leur mérite a retardé le châtiment pour elles. Après avoir cité la déclaration de Rabbi Shimon, Rav Shimi bar Ashi explique maintenant son objection : Et s’il en est ainsi que l’eau amère de la sota ne vérifie pas la fidélité d’une femme au sujet de laquelle il y a des témoins dans un pays d’outre-mer, alors la même revendication peut être faite aussi : Tu diffames les femmes pures qui ont bu et ont survécu. Les gens ne verront pas cela comme une preuve de leur [...]

📜 Sotah — 6a

📋 Références bibliques — Sotah 6a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant