Sotah - Daf 25
- If an עוברת על דת requires a warning before forfeiting her kesubah
The Gemara inquires: עוברת על דת צריכה התראה להפסידה כתובתה או אינה צריכה – Regarding [a woman] who transgresses the code of Jewish conduct (e.g., she goes to public places with her hair uncovered), does she require a warning to forfeit her kesubah, or does she not require a warning? It may be that she loses the kesubah for the actions themselves, even without warning, or perhaps she was given a chance to repent. After two attempts are rejected, a proof is brought from our Mishnah, which taught that Beis Din will warn a woman (not to be secluded with someone) on behalf of a husband who cannot do so himself (e.g., he became a deaf-mute, insane, or is imprisoned), and it concludes: ולא להשקותה אמרו אלא לפוסלה מכתובתה – they did not say this warning regarding giving her to drink (since the husband did not issue the warning), but only to disqualify her from her kesubah. This proves that a warning is required before forfeiting a kesubah for עוברת על דת.
- בעל שמחל על קינויו
The Gemara inquires: בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול או אינו מחול – A husband who waived his warning, is his warning waived or not? Is the efficacy of the warning dependent on the husband, allowing him to cancel it (and permit her to him), or not? Ultimately, the Gemara quotes Rebbe Yoshiyah, who testified he heard three things from Zeira of Yerushalayim: בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול – A husband who waived his warning, his warning is waived; וזקן ממרא שרצו בית דין למחול לו מוחלין לו – a rebellious elder whom Beis Din wished to pardon, they may pardon him; ובן סורר ומורה שרצו אביו ואמו למחול לו מוחלין לו – and a wayward and rebellious son whom his father and mother wished to pardon, they may pardon him. His colleagues in the South disagreed in the case of the rebellious elder: שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל – so that disputes should not increase in Yisroel. This Baraisa proves that a husband may cancel his warning. Rav Acha and Ravina argued if the husband is only able to cancel the warning before she secludes herself, but not afterwards (when she is already forbidden), or if he can do so even afterwards. The Gemara supports the first opinion from a Baraisa from Daf 7, where the Rabbonon argued that a husband is more trustworthy regarding a niddah, who will become permitted, than a sotah, who will not. This indicates she can never become permitted again, even through canceling the warning.
- Rav Nachman says an aylonis is unanimously ineligible for sotah
In the Mishnah, the Tanna Kamma and Rebbe Eliezer argued if women who could not bear children were eligible for sotah, since the husband is required to have children (or if we say he can marry another at the same time). Here, Rav Nachman says in the name of Rabba bar Avahu: מחלוקת בעקרה וזקינה – The argument is only in the cases of a barren woman and an elderly woman, אבל איילונית דברי הכל לא שותה ולא נוטלת כתובתה – but regarding an aylonis, everyone agrees she neither drinks nor collects her kesubah, because the pasuk says: "ונקתה ונזרעה זרע" – Then she will be innocent and bear seed (children), teaching that only מי שדרכה להזריע – one whose way is to bear seed is eligible for drinking, יצאה זו שאין דרכה להזריע – excluding this [aylonis] whose way is not to bear children from birth, as opposed to the elderly woman or barren woman (who lost the ability to bear children through injury).
