Sotah - Daf 6

• אם נאסרה במותר לה באסור לה לא כל שכן

Rava offers another explanation why a sotah cannot be taken in yibum: קל וחומר, אם נאסרה במותר לה – It is a kal vachomer: If she became forbidden to the husband who was permitted to her, באסור לה לא כל שכן – then to one who was forbidden to her before (the husband’s brother), all the more so she should not become permitted for yibum. Rashi explains that if the marriage was sufficiently damaged to prohibit her to her husband, it certainly should not permit a formerly forbidden yavam. Abaye challenged his reasoning: אשת כהן שנאנסה ומת – A Kohen’s wife who was violated (prohibiting her to her husband), and [the husband] died without children, ויש לו אח חלל – and he has a brother who is a chalal (a disqualified Kohen who is permitted to women forbidden to valid Kohanim), yibum should be prohibited according to Rava’s logic: If she became forbidden to her husband, she certainly should not become permitted to the chalal brother who was forbidden until now. The Gemara answers: אונס בישראל מישרא שרי, וגבי דהאי ליכא איסורא – A violated [wife] is permitted to a Yisroel, and for this [chalal] there is no prohibition. Rava’s logic applies only to willing relations, where the yavam would be subject to the same prohibition as the husband.

• סוטה שיש לה עדים במדינת הים אין המים בודקין אותה

Rav Amram quoted Rav Sheishess: סוטה שיש לה עדים במדינת הים – A sotah about whom there are witnesses overseas who saw her adultery, אין המים בודקין אותה - the waters do not examine her to establish her innocence or guilt. Rav Sheishess brought support from the Mishnah: ושבאו לה עדים שהיא טמאה – and one about whom witnesses came and testified that she is defiled through adultery [cannot eat terumah as a confirmed adulteress]. These witnesses must have testified after she drank (otherwise, the ruling is obvious), and her survival from the sotah waters should demonstrate her innocence, proving that the witnesses are lying about her adultery! Rather, Rav Sheishess must be correct that whenever witnesses to her adultery exist, the waters are ineffective, and that is how she survived. Rav Yosef rejected the proof, because there may be another explanation for her survival (despite her guilt): אימור זכות תולה לה – say that a merit temporarily suspends the punishment for her. The Gemara discusses their dispute. A Baraisa is later quoted to support Rav Sheishess, although a different derashah is brought.

• The minchah of a sotah after testimony of her guilt

Rav Sheishess was challenged from a Mishnah: ואלו שמנחותיהן נשרפות – These are the ones whose minchahs are burned (and are ineligible for offering or redemption): האומרת טמאה אני – One who says, “I am defiled,” confessing to her guilt, ושבאו לה עדים שהיא טמאה – and one about whom witnesses came and testified that she is defiled. If the waters would examine her (despite the existence of witnesses), it is understood that the minchah was originally valid, and became invalid after the testimony. But if the very existence of witnesses renders sotah waters ineffective for her (as Rav Sheishes holds), then their testimony actually informs us that she was never fit for them, and the minchah was sanctified in error and should revert to its original chullin state (and not be burned)!? Three answers are given: כגון שזינתה בעזרה – The case is where she committed adultery in the azarah (after the minchah was sanctified). Although she was escorted by young Kohanim during the procedure, she may have sinned with one of them. Alternatively, they may have granted her privacy to relieve herself, allowing her the opportunity for adultery. Finally, Rav Pappa says that although the sanctification of the minchah was indeed in error, it is burned because of a Rabbinic decree.