Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת סוטה דף י״ח. We will start on the fifth line from the beginning of עמוד א׳. גמרא says, בעי רבא, רבא asked a question: כתב שתי מגילות לשתי סוטות, if he wrote two מגילות for two סוטות, as it should be, but ומחקן לתוך כוס אחד, but he erased it into one cup, because the דין is that you have to write a מגילה with the different פסוקים of the פרשה of סוטה for every סוטה, and you have to erase it into a cup of water that has sand from the floor of the בית המקדש. And every סוטה must have a separate cup of water with a separate מגילה written for this סוטה, and you erase it into her cup and then she drinks it. So רבא's question was: if you wrote two מגילות for two סוטות, but you erased them into one cup of water, מהו, what is the דין? And the reason for his question is: כתיבה לשמה בעינן והאיכא. The

main thing is that when we write the מגילה, we have to write it לשמה, we have to write it with the intentions for this specific woman. And as רש״י says, because the פסוק says: ועשה לה הכהן את כל התורה הזאת, that the כהן should do to her as this דין is, so since the תורה uses the לשון ועשה לה, should be done to her, so we דרשן, לה means לשמה, that it has to be done to her, for her sake, intending for this specific woman, which means it has to be done לשמה. So if the main thing that has to be written לשמה, and that והאיכא, that was here, because since they wrote two separate מגילות for the two separate women, so it was written לשמה, because for every woman they wrote a separate מגילה intending for this specific woman. או דילמא, maybe, בעינן נמי מחיקה לשמה? We also have to erase it לשמה for this specific woman, and therefore it has to be ניכר, you have to be able to see that the erasing was done for this specific woman. And since they were both erased into one cup, so you can't tell that the erasing was done for this specific woman because they both went into the same cup. So the question is: is it okay or not? And he continues: ואם תמצי לומר, and if you're going to want to say that בעינן נמי מחיקה לשמה, that you do have to erase it לשמה, and therefore the case mentioned before would not be good because it did not have the מחיקה לשמה, he has another question:

What would be the דין if מחקן בשתי כוסות, he did erase it into two separate cups, so you even have the מחיקה לשמה, the erasing for the sake of this specific woman, but וחזר ועירבן, then he mixed the two cups together, מהו, what is the דין then? Do we say that מחיקה לשמה בעינן והאיכא, you have to erase it לשמה, and you have it because you did erase לשמה, because when you erased it, you did it into two separate cups, so each woman was ניכר that it was erased for her. או דילמא, or maybe, הא לאו דידה קא שתיה והא לאו דידה קא שתיה, this one is not drinking hers, and this one is not drinking hers? Since it was mixed together, so when each of the women drink, maybe she is not drinking her own water, and therefore it should not be good. And he continues: ואם תמצי לומר, and if you're going to want to say that we do accept this סברא that הא לאו דידה קא שתיה והא לאו דידה קא שתיה, that this one is not drinking hers, and this one is not drinking hers, therefore in the case where he mixed them together and you gave it to them to drink, it would not be good, I have another question, he says:

What would be the דין if חזר וחלקן, מהו? If he later on separated, divided it again, he erased two מגילות into two cups, then he mixed them together, and then he separated it again into two cups, מהו, what is the דין? Do we say יש ברירה או אין ברירה? Do we accept the סברא that הוברר הדבר למפרע, that retrospective there was a differentiation, or don't we accept the סברא of הוברר הדבר למפרע that retrospective there was a differentiation? Because sometimes we accept the כלל of ברירה, which means that when we have to have two things separated, and they are not separated, they are together, but later on we separate the two, so then there is a סברא to say that after we separate it, looking back retroactive, it's as if the separation already took place before, but we just didn't know about it. Just to give an example, we have the case that it is brought down in מרובה in בבא קמא דף ס״ט עמוד ב׳, earlier in גיטין דף כ״ה עמוד א׳, and different places in ש״ס. And this is the case of הלוקח יין מבין הכותיים. If someone buys wine And he knows that there was no תרומה and מעשר taken off from the wine. And the דין is that you're not allowed to drink wine before you take off the תרומה and the מעשר, etc., because it is טבל. So let's say instead of him first taking off 2% for תרומה and 10% for מעשר, so what he would say is that the 2% that will be left at the end when I finish with this barrel, and the 10% that will be left at the end, that should be the תרומה and the מעשר. So if we hold of the סברא, הוברר הדבר למפרע, that we look back retroactive and we say it is as if it was separated before, then this is okay to do. Because after he will leave over at the end the תרומה and the מעשר, we will look back and say that originally these 10% and these 2% were the תרומה and the מעשר. So therefore when he drank the wine, it was not טבל that he drank. He drank the חולין after the תרומה and the מעשר was taken off. If we do not accept this סברא of הוברר הדבר למפרע, that we look back retroactive and we say that it was already divided before, then while he drank the wine, it was still טבל. Just at the end when he leaves over the תרומה and the מעשר, that's when it becomes תרומה ומעשר. So therefore, according to the opinion that says that we do not say ברירה, we do not say הוברר הדבר למפרע, he could not do this. He couldn't drink first and then leave over the תרומה ומעשר at the end. He would have to first take off תרומה ומעשר and then he would be able to drink. And this is רבא's question here too. Do we say here הוברר הדבר למפרע or not? In the

case where he erased the two מגילות into the two cups of water, then he mixed the two cups together, and then he separated them. If we say ברירה, if we say הוברר הדבר למפרע, that retroactive we look at it as if it was separated before too, then it would be good. Because it's as if the separation that took place now really took place before, and the whole time they were two cups of water, and therefore it is כשר to be used for two סוטות. But if we do not say ברירה, we do not accept this סברא here of הוברר הדבר למפרע, so then what we would be saying is that when he separated the two, he did it now, but before it was not separated, it was together. And therefore this would not be able to be used for two סוטות, because at one point the two cups of water were mixed together. And even though the truth is that the case of ברירה here is not exactly as the case of ברירה that we mentioned before, because in the case of ברירה that we mentioned before, the case of the תרומה and the מעשר, there it was never separated. Then, when it becomes separated, when the תרומה and the מעשר is left over, we're able to say that this separation really was there the whole time. In our case, even if we're going to say ברירה, there still will be a problem. Because since before they were separated because he put them into two separate cups, then he mixed them together, and then he separated, so even if we're going to say that it was separated before, but how do we know that the separation that took place now is the exact same separation as it was originally? In other words, here it was separated before and then got mixed and then was separated again. So here if we say ברירה, what we would have to say is that the separation that's going to take place later goes back retroactive, and it's as if this is the exact same separation as it was before. So really the case of ברירה here is not exactly as the case of ברירה in the example given before or in other cases of ברירה. Nevertheless, תוספות says that we do find in other places the case of ברירה even in a case where it was first separated, and then got mixed, and then got separated again, that we say הוברר הדבר למפרע, we look at it retroactive and we say as if the separation that's now is the exact same separation as before. So since we do say ברירה even in a case like that, that is רבא's question here: do we say here too ברירה, and therefore the דין would be that you could use this water for the two סוטות, or we do not say ברירה and you cannot use these waters for the two סוטות? And the גמרא says, תיקו, that we stay with the question, there is no answer to this question. Then the גמרא continues, בעי רבא, רבא asked a question:

השקה בסיב מהו? If he gave her to drink the water through a straw, בשפופרת מהו? through a tube, דרך שתיה בכך, do we say that this is a form of drinking and therefore it is okay, או אין דרך שתיה בכך, or this is not considered the normal way of drinking and therefore it should be no good? And the גמרא says, תיקו, this remains unanswered. And תוספות brings here that we do find in the גמרא in פסחים that using a straw is not considered דרך אכילה, the normal way of eating, and this is concerning the דין of מצה. The גמרא says in פסחים דף קט״ו עמוד ב׳, כרכם בסיב, if he took the מצה and you surrounded it with a straw, אפי מצה לא יצא, you're not יוצא the מצוה of מצה. So we see from there that to eat it through a straw is not the normal way of eating. תוספות says, why can't the גמרא prove it from there? The גמרא's question here was, is it considered דרך שתיה, the normal way of drinking through a straw, why can't we answer that question through bringing in the גמרא there, and the גמרא says that eating with a straw is not דרך אכילה, is not the normal way of eating? And תוספות says very simple: over there, when you covered the food, the מצה, with a straw, that is definitely not דרך אכילה, that is not a normal way of eating. But here, you're not covering the drink with the straw, you're using just the straw as a tool, that through the straw you are drinking the water itself. That is the גמרא's question: is that considered דרך שתיה, or is it not considered דרך שתיה? Is it considered the normal way of drinking or not? And the גמרא remains with a תיקו. Then the גמרא continues: בעי רב אשי, רב אשי asked a question in a בעיא:

נשפכו מהן, if some of the water spilled out, ונשתיירו מהן, but some of it was left over, מהו, what is the דין? לכתחילה, definitely she must drink all the water, but in a case where some of it spilled out, what is the דין? Could she just drink the rest or not? תיקו, this also remains unanswered. Then the גמרא continues: אמר רב זירא אמר רב, רב זירא said in the name of רב: ב' שבועות האמורות בסוטה למה? Why are two שבועות mentioned in the תורה concerning סוטה? Because when we look into the פרשה of סוטה, which is in פרשת נשא, קפיטל ה', we see that in פסוק י"ט, it starts off: והשביע אותה הכהן, the כהן should make her swear, ואמר אל האשה, he would say to the woman, אם לא שכב איש אותך ואם לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך, if you didn't do the עבירה, הנקי ממי המרים המאררים האלה, you should be clean from the water. And then the פסוק continues in פסוק כ': ואת כי שטית תחת אישך וכי נטמאת, if you did become טמאה, you did do the עבירה, ויתן איש בך את שכבתו מבלעדי אישך, and another man slept with you other than your husband, so then the פסוק, כ"א, continues again: והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבועת האלה, the כהן should make the woman swear with the שבועה, the oath of the curse, ואמר הכהן לאשה, and the כהן should say to the woman, יתן ה' אותך לאלה ולשבועה בתוך עמך, ה' should give you for a curse and for a שבועה in your nation, בתת ה' את ירכך נופלת ואת בטנך צבה, ה' will make that your thigh should fall and your stomach should blow up. And then פסוק כ"ב continues: ובאו המים המאררים האלה במעיך, and this water that will curse will come into your stomach, לצבות בטן ולנפיל ירך, to blow up your stomach and to have your thigh drop. But we see here that the תורה mentions the word שבועה twice: in the beginning of פסוק י"ט it says, והשביע אותה הכהן ואמר אל האשה, the כהן should make the woman swear and speak to the woman, then in פסוק כ"א it says again, והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבועת האלה, that the כהן should make the woman swear with the שבועה of the curse, ואמר הכהן לאשה, and he should say to the woman. So רב זירא in the name of רב's קשיא was, why does the תורה mention twice a שבועה concerning סוטה? And he answers:

אחת קודם שנמחקה מגילה, one is before the מגילה was erased, ואחת לאחר שנמחקה, one is after the מגילה was erased. In other words, one שבועה you make her swear before you erase the מגילה, and there's a second שבועה that you make her swear after you erase the מגילה. מתקיף לה רבא, but רבא asked a קשיא: how could you say that? תרווייהו קודם שנמחקה מגילה כתיבן! Both are mentioned in the תורה before the מגילה was erased! Because after both שבועות, the תורה says in פסוק כ"ג, וכתב את האלת האלה הכהן בספר, that the כהן should write these words, these curses on a ספר, on a מגילה, ומחה אל מי המרים, and he should erase it into the water that cursed! So we see that the both שבועות come before the מגילה is erased, so how could he say that one שבועה is before the מגילה is erased and one is after the מגילה is erased? אלא אמר רבא, so therefore רבא said: אחת שבועה שיש עמה אלה, one שבועה is a שבועה that goes along with a curse, ואחת שבועה שאין עמה אלה, and one is a שבועה that doesn't have a curse with it. And he explains: היכי דמי שבועה שיש עמה אלה? What do we mean a שבועה that has a curse with it? What would he say? Which kind of שבועה would he make her swear that has a curse along with it? אמר רב עמרם אמר רב, so רב עמרם in the name of רב said, it would mean: משביע אני עליך, I make you swear, שלא נטמאת, that you didn't become טמאה, שאם נטמאת, because if you did become טמאה, יבואו בך, these קללות should come unto you. So we see here a שבועה that has a קללה with it, because he starts off by saying: I make you swear that you didn't become טמאה, that if you did become טמאה, all these קללות, all these curses should come upon you. Well, that's a שבועה with a קללה together. אמר רבא, but רבא said: אלה לחוד לחודה קיימא ושבועה לחודה קיימא. This is not a שבועה that has a curse in the שבועה, but this curse is a separate thing here, and the שבועה is a separate thing here. First you start off by saying, "I make you swear that you didn't become טמאה," that's the שבועה. Then he adds, "if you did become טמאה, then the קללות should come upon you." So that's a separate קללה. This is not what we said before, a שבועה שיש עמה אלה, a שבועה that has a קללה in it, but this is a שבועה and a קללה as two separate things. אלא אמר רבא, so therefore רבא said, what is a שבועה that has a קללה in it? משביע אני עליך, "I make you swear שאם נטמאת יבואו בך," that if you became טמאה, these קללות should come upon you. So here you don't have two things here. First you make her swear that she didn't become טמאה, and then you say, "if you did become טמאה, the קללות should come upon you," but the שבועה לכתחילה is, "I make you swear that if you became טמאה, the קללות should come upon you." אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, אלה איכא, שבועה ליכא. In this case, all you have is a קללה, but you don't have a שבועה. He didn't make her swear concerning anything that she did, he just made her swear that if she became טמאה, she would get the קללות. So all it is is a קללה. The whole שבועה is only a קללה, but there is no שבועה here saying he's making her swear that she didn't become טמאה. אלא אמר רב אשי, so therefore רב אשי said, what is a שבועה שיש עמה אלה, what is a שבועה that has a קללה in it? He says to her, משביע אני עליך שלא נטמאת, "I make you swear that you didn't become טמאה, ואם נטמאת יבואו בך, and if you did become טמאה, the קללות should come upon you." So here you have two things, but they're really together. You have the שבועה that she didn't become טמאה, then you say, "if you did become טמאה, they should come upon you," but this is part of the שבועה. He makes her swear that if she did become טמאה, the קללות come upon her. This is not like the case that רב עמרם said in the name of רב, that he says to her, "I make you swear that you didn't become טמאה, because if you did become טמאה, the קללות should come upon you," because in that case, the second half, where he says, "if you became טמאה, the קללות should come upon you," is not part of the שבועה. This is a side statement. It says, "I make you swear that you didn't become טמאה," and he's adding, "because if you did, the קללות will come upon you." So there, the גמרא asks the קשיא, the שבועה is separate and the קללה is separate. The way רב אשי says it is different. He says that both of the things are included in the שבועה. He says to her, "I make you swear that you didn't become טמאה, and if you did become טמאה, the קללות should come upon you." So this is part of the שבועה. The שבועה says two things. He makes her swear two things: that you didn't become טמאה, and this is included in the שבועה, if you did become טמאה, then the קללות should come upon you. So this is the case of a שבועה שיש בה אלה, a שבועה, but in the שבועה, you also have a curse. And this is the תירץ on the שאלה, why the פסוק has two שבועות, because one שבועה is without an אלה, without a curse, because in the first פסוק, פסוק י״ט, it just says והשביע אותה הכהן, that the כהן should make her swear, but there is no curse there. In פסוק כ״א, when the תורה says והשביע הכהן את האשה בשבועת האלה, there we have a שבועה with a curse together, and that is the expression as רב אשי said, that he tells, says to her, "I make you swear that you didn't become טמאה, and if you did, the curse should come upon you." Now we will continue with the משנה. The משנה says, על מה היא אומרת אמן אמן, and on what does she say אמן אמן? Because if you look in the פרשה of סוטה, at the end of the different things the כהן is supposed to say to her, so at the end of פסוק כ״ב, the פסוק says, ואמרה האשה אמן אמן, the woman should say אמן אמן. The reason she says אמן is, as we know, that אמן is an acceptance of a שבועה. If someone says to somebody else, "I make you swear this and that," and the other person answers אמן, that is as if the other person himself made the שבועה, swore. So therefore, we understand why the woman has to answer אמן. The question is, why does she answer אמן twice? Why does she say אמן אמן? So the פשט is, the משנה says, אמן על האלה, אמן על השבועה, אמן on the curse, and אמן on the שבועה, on the oath. Another reason is אמן מאיש זה, אמן מאיש אחר, אמן that I did not do the עבירה with this man that you're suspecting me with, but also she says אמן that I didn't do the עבירה with any other man. In other words, even though he only suspected her with one man, and the reason she drinks this water and she becomes a סוטה is because of that man that her husband suspected her and warned her not to hide with, but at the same time, while he already makes her swear on this man, he is מגלגל on her, he brings upon her the שבועה for any other man. Even though normally he has no right to come to her and say, "swear to me that you didn't go with any other man," but while he's already making her swear on this man, where the הלכה is that he is allowed to make make her swear, he should make her swear, so already we are מגלגל, and we make her swear that you didn't do the עבירה with any other man. Also, the אמן אמן means, אמן שלא שטיתי ארוסה ונשואה, אמן that I didn't become a סוטה, I didn't do an עבירה while I was an ארוסה, and also while I was a נשואה. Because there are two stages to the process of marriage. First there is אירוסין, then there is נישואין. אירוסין means engagement, and נישואין means the marriage. And when we say here engagement, we don't mean engagement as we call nowadays, because nowadays engagement is only a promise that he is going to marry her, but it doesn't mean that she becomes an אשת איש, a married woman. But the way it used to be is that when they were engaged, he would give her the קידושין, that was called אירוסין or קידושין, and from that moment on, she becomes an אשת איש, a married woman. A year later, he would marry her, that

would be called נישואין, through the חופה, and then she would be able to go home, and she was 100% his wife. Nowadays, we do both of these things together under the חופה. We have the קידושין, and then right away we have the נישואין. But the way it used to be was that first you had the קידושין, and a year later there would be the נישואין. So, it comes out that there was a year when she was an ארוסה, she was engaged, but she was an אשת איש already, and she wasn't with her husband at home. And if during that time she would have relations with another man, the penalty would be death, like a regular אשת איש. The only difference is it would be a different type of death penalty than after the נישואין, but nevertheless she was considered an אשת איש, and it would be a חיוב of מיתה. So, when he brings her to the בית המקדש, and he gives her to drink because of that man that she suspected him of, he tells her, "Say אמן that you didn't do anything wrong while you were an ארוסה, while you were engaged to me before the נישואין, and also after the נישואין." If the case is that she was a יבמה, if the case of this סוטה was that he didn't marry her regularly, but she was first married to his brother, and his brother died without children, the דין is that the brother has to be מייבם her or give her חליצה. So, let's say this סוטה was a יבמה. He married her because his brother died, and he was מייבם her. So, when she says אמן אמן to him, so what he means to say is, and he tells her, "Say אמן that when you were a שומרת יבם, that you didn't do the עבירה while you were awaiting ייבום." After her husband died, before she gets married to his brother, she is considered a שומרת יבם, she's awaiting ייבום. At that time, she's not allowed to have relations with any other man, because there is a לאו. The תורה says, "לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה לאיש זר", that the wife of the one that died is not allowed to be with any other stranger except her יבם, which is her brother-in-law, her husband's brother. So,

when he takes this סוטה to the בית המקדש, and makes her swear that she didn't do the עבירה with the one that he suspects her of, he tells her, "Say אמן that while you were a שומרת יבם, while you were awaiting me to be מייבם you, you also didn't sin, and וכנוסה, and you didn't sin after I married you, after I took you into my house and you became my wife." Also, the two אמן's mean: אמן שלא נטמאתי, ואם נטמאתי יבואו בי. אמן that I didn't become טמאה, I didn't do the עבירה, and if I did become טמאה, I did do the עבירה, those curses should come upon me. ר' מאיר אומר, ר' מאיר says: אמן שלא נטמאתי, אמן that I didn't become טמאה before. אמן שלא איטמא, אמן that I will never become טמאה. Never meaning in a case that if she would become טמאה, she would become אסורה to her husband. And as רש"י brings here from the גמרא later on, it doesn't mean that if she will ever become טמאה later, now the מים המאררים will have effect on her, but what it means is, she drinks the water now, if she will ever become טמאה later, so then the water will start taking effect then. Then the משנה continues: הכל שוין, everyone agrees, שאין מתנה עמה, that he cannot make a condition with her. In

other words, he cannot be מגלגל on her to swear, לא על קודם שתתארס, not on the עבירות that she did before she became engaged to him. In other words, he cannot say to her, "Say אמן that you weren't מזנה, you didn't commit adultery before you were engaged to me." And also, we will learn now the גירסא in the משנה as the ב"ח brings it down according to רש"י, that also not לא על אחר שתתגרש ותסתר לאחד, not after if I will ever divorce you, and then you will hide with somebody, ותטמא, and you will become טמאה, ואחר כך יחזירנה, and I will take you back, לא היה מתנה עמה, for that he didn't make a condition. In other words, there is a possibility that he would divorce his wife, and then later on he will take her back, because the דין is that if you divorce your wife and she does not marry somebody else, then you are allowed to take her back. The דין of מחזיר גרושתו, that you're not allowed to take back your divorcee, that is only if after you divorced her, she married somebody else. But if she didn't marry somebody else, then the first husband is allowed to take her back. So we might think that he could make her swear that if he divorces her and then takes her back, he wants her to swear that she will not be מזנה in the time between the first marriage and the second marriage while she was not married to him. So the משנה said that for that he cannot make this condition. And the reason is, because the conditions that he could make, which means the גלגול שבועה that he could have her swear, is only concerning those things that if she would become טמאה in that case, she would be אסורה to live with her husband. But in a case where even if she did do the עבירה, she still is not אסורה to him, he cannot make her swear for that. And therefore, he cannot make her swear that before she became an ארוסה, before she was engaged to him, she wasn't מזנה, because even if she was מזנה then, she's still allowed to go to her husband because she was not an אשת איש, she was not a married woman then.

Also the case of her being מזנה in between the two marriages, he can't have her swear that, because even if she would be מזנה between the two marriages, her husband could marry her. In other words, the דין that you're not allowed to marry your wife after she married somebody else is only if she married somebody else after you divorced her, but if she was מזנה with somebody else after the divorce, her first husband is allowed to take her back. So therefore he cannot make her swear that, "After I will divorce you, you will be מזנה before I remarry you," because even if she did that, she is not אסורה to her husband. And that is what the משנה continues: זה הכלל, this is the rule, כל שתיבעל ולא היתה אסורה לו, if any case that she will have relations with somebody and she still will not become אסורה to him, לא היה מתנה עמה, for something like that, he couldn't be מתנה with her, he couldn't make the condition with her, he couldn't make her swear for that. Then there is another גירסא that the ב״ח brings down in the משנה. Instead of the words ולא על אחר שתתגרש etc., that גירסא was: ולא משהתגרשה ונסתרה לאחד ונטמאה ולאחר כך החזירה לא היה מתנה עמה. And the פשט in that גירסא is that if he divorced her and then he remarried her, so by the second marriage, if she is a סוטה during the second marriage, he cannot make her swear then that she was not מזנה in the time between the first marriage and the second. Because as the משנה says, since even if she was מזנה, she was not אסורה to him, he could remarry her, so therefore he cannot make her swear for that. And now we will continue with the גמרא.

אמר רב הונא, רב הונא said, שומרת יבם שזינתה, a woman who's awaiting יבום, her husband died without children, and now she is awaiting her husband's brother to be מייבם her, שזינתה, if she was מזנה, אסורה ליבמה, she is אסורה to marry her יבם. Just like an אשת איש, a married woman who is מזנה, she is not allowed to go back to her husband, so too a שומרת יבם who is מזנה is not allowed to marry her יבם. Even though she wasn't married to him at that time yet, she was not his wife, but since she was his שומרת יבם, she was awaiting his יבום, if she was מזנה, she is not allowed to marry him. And the גמרא asks: מנא ליה? How do we know that? How do we know that even though she wasn't his wife, but since she was his שומרת יבם, if she was מזנה while she was a שומרת יבם, he is not allowed to marry her? And the גמרא answers: מדקתני שומרת יבם וכנוסה, since it says in the משנה that one of the things that are meant with the אמן אמן is that he tells her that she should say אמן that she wasn't מזנה while she was a שומרת יבם and while she was married to him. So אי אמרת בשלמא אסורה, if you're going to say that a שומרת יבם that is מזנה is אסורה to marry her יבם, משום הכי מתנה בהדה, therefore he makes this condition too. He tells her that she should swear that she wasn't מזנה while she was a שומרת יבם, because if she would have been מזנה, then she would be אסורה to him. אלא אי אמרת, but if you're going to say that לא אסורה, that even if she was מזנה while she was a שומרת יבם, she doesn't become אסורה to him, היכי מתנה בהדה? How could he make her swear on this ענין, how could he make this condition? והתנן, didn't we learn in the משנה: זה הכלל, this is the rule, כל שאילו תיבעל ולא תהא אסורה לו, any case that if she would have relations with somebody, she still would not be אסורה to him, לא היה מתנה עמה, for something like that, he couldn't make the condition with her, he couldn't make her swear for that. So how could he could he make her swear that she wasn't מזנה while she was a שומרת יבם? So that proves that a woman who is a שומרת יבם who is מזנה is אסור to her יבם. אמרי במערבא, but in מערבא they said, לית הלכתא כרב המנונא, the הלכה is not like רב המנונא. אי רב המנונא had a good ראיה from our משנה, that a שומרת יבם that's מזנה is אסור to her יבם, because otherwise, how could he make her swear that she wasn't מזנה while she was a שומרת יבם? אלא הא דקתני שומרת יבם וכנוסה, when it says in the משנה he makes her swear that she wasn't מזנה while she was a שומרת יבם, כמאן? כרבי עקיבא! That goes according to רבי עקיבא, דאמר רבי עקיבא says, אין קידושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין, that the קידושין are not valid if the marriage is prohibited by a לאו. It's a מחלוקת between רבי עקיבא and the רבנן. רבנן hold that קידושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין, that a woman who is prohibited to somebody only through a לאו, through a negative prohibition of the תורה, so then the קידושין is תופס. If the man gives her קידושין, she becomes his wife. He is not allowed to live with her. He must divorce her, but nevertheless, if he was מקדש her, the קידושין is תופס. The only case the קידושין are not תופסין, that the marriage is not valid at all, is if it is חייבי כריתות. If it is not only prohibited through a לאו, but the תורה says that such a relation would be חייב כרת, the punishment would be כרת, in such a case, if he gives her קידושין, the קידושין are not תופסין. But according to רבי עקיבא, the קידושין are not תופסין also by חייבי לאוין. And this

leads us to another difference: that according to the רבנן, the child is a ממזר only from a marriage that was חייבי כריתות, that the עבירה is כרת. According to רבי עקיבא, even from a חייבי לאוין, even if the prohibition is only a לאו, the child that is born from that relation is also a ממזר. Since רבי עקיבא holds that also by חייבי לאוין the קידושין is not תופס, it is not valid, so the child is a ממזר. But according to the רבנן, the child is a ממזר only from חייבי כריתות. And this is what the גמרא says here: that the משנה goes according to רבי עקיבא, who holds that the קידושין is not תופס בחייבי לאוין, ומשוי לה כי ערוה. And according to רבי עקיבא, he makes her like an ערוה, that חייבי לאוין has the same דין like an ערוה, which is חייבי כריתות. So according to רבי עקיבא, all the דינים that we know apply to חייבי כריתות also apply to חייבי לאוין. And therefore, according to רבי עקיבא, just like when a woman is מזנה while she's married to somebody, which is כרת and also מיתת בית דין, the דין is that she cannot remain married to her husband, the same would be with a שומרת יבם, that if someone was מזנה with a שומרת יבם, which is only a לאו, she cannot go to her יבם. So therefore, we have no ראיה from our משנה that we hold that a שומרת יבם which is מזנה is אסור to her יבם from the fact that the משנה says that he makes her swear that she wasn't מזנה while she was a שומרת יבם, because the משנה goes according to רבי עקיבא, and according to רבי עקיבא, it is true that a שומרת יבם that's מזנה is אסור to her יבם. But according to the רבנן that hold that only by חייבי כריתות the קידושין are not תופס, but חייבי לאוין the קידושין are תופס, they would hold that a שומרת יבם that's מזנה is מותר to her יבם. This is the opinion of מערבא. But obviously רב המנונא did not hold that way. רב המנונא held that even according to the רבנן that hold that קידושין are תופס בחייבי לאוין, nevertheless, a שומרת יבם that's מזנה is אסור to her יבם. And תוספות explains that what should be the reason for that? If the קידושין are תופס בחייבי לאוין, why should the שומרת יבם that's מזנה, which is only a לאו, why should she be אסור to her יבם? So according to רב המנונא, תוספות explains because the פסוק says, לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה לאיש זר, which means that the wife of the deceased should not be outside to a strange person, so we דרש'ן when the תורה says she should not be, that it means to say that if she will marry somebody else, it will not be, which means the קידושין will not be תופס. So therefore, even though קידושין are תופס בחייבי לאוין according to the רבנן, שומרת יבם is an exception. It's as if the תורה says clearly that this case the קידושין are not תופס. And therefore, even according to the רבנן, רב המנונא holds that if a שומרת יבם is מזנה, then the דין is that she is not allowed to go to her יבם. Then the גמרא continues,

בעי רב ירמיה, רב ירמיה asked the question, מהו, what is the דין, שיתנה אדם על נשואין הראשונים, can he make a condition on the previous marriage? In other words, if he married her first and then divorced her, and then married again, and then he suspected her of a man, and he made her drink the water, can he make her swear that she wasn't מזנה while she was married to him in the first marriage? או על נשואי אחיו, on the marriage of his brother, if he was מיבם her and then he made her into a סוטה, can he make her swear that while she was married to his brother, she was not מזנה? And the גמרא answers תא שמע, come here, I will answer your question. We learn in the משנה, זה הכלל, this is the rule: כל שתיבעל, in any case that if she would have relations with somebody ולא תהא אסורה לו, and she wouldn't become אסורה to him, לא היה מתנה עמה, for that he couldn't make the condition, he couldn't make her swear for that. So we see from there הא אסירה הכא נמי דמתנה, but in a case where if she would have relations with somebody, this would make her אסורה to her husband, he could make her swear from that. שמע מינה, from here we see that in the two cases we mentioned, he could make her swear. Because if she was מזנה during the first marriage, she is not allowed to live with him now either, because the דין is that an אשת איש that's מזנה cannot go to her husband even if her husband divorces her, he cannot take her back. So therefore, if she was מזנה in the first marriage, she would become אסורה to him, so now, even though it's the second marriage, he's allowed to make her swear that she wasn't מזנה in the first marriage. And the same is with the brother, because the דין is that if she was מזנה while she was married to the brother, she is not allowed to become a יבום to his brother after he dies. So therefore, if she is a סוטה during the marriage of the brother, he is allowed to make her swear that she was not מזנה while she was married before to his brother, because if she would have been מזנה, she would have become אסורה to him. There's one thing important to make clear here, because one might ask: what is the גמרא's שאלה? Whether he is allowed to make her swear concerning the marriage of his brother, it seems like this is exactly what the משנה was talking about! Because in the משנה it said that she says אמן שלא סטיתי ארוסה ונשואה ושומרת יבם וכנוסה. She says אמן that I didn't become a סוטה, I didn't do the עבירה while I was engaged, while I was married, while I was a שומרת יבם, and while I was married to you. So it seems as if he is making her swear for the marriage of his brother. Because this is the order of things: before she was a שומרת יבם, we see here, she was a נשואה, and before that she was an ארוסה. Now, to whom was she the ארוסה and to whom was she the נשואה, to whom was she engaged and to whom was she married before she was a שומרת יבם, before she became his יבמה? So obviously it must be that she was married to his brother. So we see from the משנה that what he says is, he makes her swear that she didn't do the עבירה while she was engaged or married to his brother, and then she says while she was a שומרת יבם and married to him. So we see clearly from the משנה that you could make her swear for the marriage of the brother. So what is the גמרא's שאלה? So רש״י says that this is not the פשט in the משנה. The פשט in the משנה, as we had learned it when we learned the משנה, is that the משנה is divided into two cases. One case is she says that she swears she didn't become a סוטה while she was an ארוסה ונשואה, while she was engaged or married to him. This is a case where he married her not as a יבמה. Then when it says in the משנה ושומרת יבם וכנוסה, that's a separate case, another woman. If the case happened to be that she was married to him through יבום, so then he makes her swear that she wasn't מזנה while she was awaiting יבום and while she was married to him after he was מיבם her. But this is not talking about the same woman that we would say that the ארוסה ונשואה that the משנה mentions means when she was engaged and married to his brother. This means engaged and married to him, if he married her not through יבום. On the other hand, if he married her through יבום, he says the other expression, שומרת יבם וכנוסה. But we don't see from the משנה what would be the דין concerning the marriage of his brother. And therefore, the גמרא asks: can he make her swear that she wasn't מזנה while she was married to his brother? And the גמרא's answer is: yes, that he could make her swear that, too. Now we continue with the גמרא. The גמרא explains the משנה. It says, רבי מאיר אומר, רבי מאיר said, אמן שלא נטמאתי וכו׳. The משנה said that רבי מאיר says the two אמן's mean: אמן that I didn't become טמאה in the past, and אמן that I will not become טמאה in the future. תניא, we learned in a ברייתא, לא כשאמר רבי מאיר אמן שלא אטמא, it doesn't mean what רבי מאיר says, that she says אמן that she will not become טמאה in the future, it doesn't mean that she, אם תיטמא, if she will become טמאה in the future, מים בודקין אותה מעכשיו, the water starts taking effect now already. אלא, but the פשט is, לכשתטמא, when she will become טמאה, מים מערערין אותה, the water will start awakening and it starts stirring again in her, ובודקין אותה, and then it will take effect. And רש״י says it's similar to a person who has liquid in himself, and then if the liquid goes up to the throat, he starts choking on it. And that's what would happen: she drinks the water now and it stays in her, if she ever becomes טמאה, then the water is reawakened again and goes up to her throat, and she starts choking, and the water takes effect then. Then the גמרא continues, בעי רב אשי, רב אשי asked a question in a בעיא, מהו שיתנה אדם על נישואין האחרונים? According to רבי מאיר who says that you could make her swear for the future, can you make her swear for a second marriage? In other words, if he will ever divorce her and then remarry her, so he wants to make her swear now that if this will ever happen, she will not become טמאה then? Do we say, השתא מיהא לא אסירא ליה, that now she is not אסור to him, now she is married to him, and he didn't divorce her yet that we should be able to speak about the next marriage? או דילמא, or maybe, זימנין דמגרש לה, it is possible, it could happen that he will divorce her, והדר מהדר לה, and then he will take her back, and therefore he is allowed to make her swear now for the second marriage. And the גמרא says, תא שמע, come hear, I will answer your question. We learned in a משנה, הכל שוין, everyone agrees, שלא היה מתנה עמה, לא על קודם שתתארס, that he wasn't allowed to make the condition, make her swear, on the עבירות that she did before she became engaged to him, and also, ולא אחר שתתגרש ותסתר לאחד, and not concerning after he will divorce her, and she would then, after he divorces her, hide with somebody, ותטמא, and she will become טמאה, ואחר כך יחזירנה, and then he

would take her back, for that, לא היה מתנה, for that he couldn't make the condition, he couldn't make her swear. In other words, he couldn't make her swear for the future for the time in between the first marriage and the second marriage. So it comes out, הא יחזירנה ותטמא, but if he'll take her back and she will become טמאה after he takes her back, הכי נמי דמתנה, for that he could make her swear. He just can't make her swear for the time between the marriages, but it seems like the משנה is saying that for the time after he takes her back, he could make the condition, he could make her swear. שמע מינה, so from here we see that for the second marriage, he could make her swear even now. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, and the רבנן learned, the פסוק says, זאת תורת הקנאות, this is the תורה of the קנאות, of the jealousies, which means of the סוטות, מלמד, this comes to teach us, שהאשה שותה ושונה, that a woman is able to drink as a סוטה and do it again. If her husband will warn her again, and she will again hide, she will again have a דין of a סוטה, and have to drink again. And this is learned out from the word הקנאות. הקנאות, לשון רבים, in plural, it says this is the דין of the jealousies to teach us that every time it happens, the same דין will apply again. That even if it happens more than once, the same דין applies that she drinks as a סוטה. רבי יהודה אומר, but רבי יהודה says, זאת, since it says זאת תורת הקנאות, this is the law of the קנאות, the word זאת comes to be ממעט, comes to exclude, to teach us, שאין האשה שותה ושונה, that a woman cannot drink and then repeat it again. Only once it could happen, but if it happens again, she doesn't become a סוטה, she doesn't drink.

אמר רבי יהודה, and רבי יהודה said, מעשה, there was a story, והעיד לפנינו נחוניא חופר שיחין, that this person נחוניא, the one that used to dig the holes, the wells in ירושלים for the people who would come up to ירושלים for יום טוב to fulfill the מצוה of עליה לרגל, so his job was he would dig the wells for their water. So this person נחוניא חופר שיחין testified in front of us, שהאשה שותה ושונה, that he knows the דין is that a woman could drink as a סוטה and then repeat it again. וקבלנו עדותו, and we accepted his testimony, בשני אנשים, only by two men. If her husband died, and then she remarried, and her second husband warns her, and she goes and hides with a man, so then we accepted the testimony that she becomes a סוטה again. אבל לא באיש אחד, but we didn't accept the testimony concerning one man, that if the same husband warns her again, and she hides again, she does not drink the water of a סוטה. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, אין האשה שותה ושונה, a woman does not drink and then drink again, בין באיש אחד בין בשני אנשים, whether it's by the same husband or by two husbands. So we

have three opinions here: the תנא קמא holds that in all cases she could drink again; רבי יהודה holds that only by a second husband she could drink again, but not in the same husband; while the חכמים hold that she could never drink again. And the reason why רבי יהודה makes this difference, that by the second husband she could drink again, and by the first husband, by the same husband, she cannot drink again, רש״י explains very simply. Because as we see in the גמרא, we do have two words concerning the סוטה: one word that tells us that she could drink again, and that is the word תורת, which comes to be מרבה that she could drink again; then we have one word, זאת, which comes to be ממעט, to exclude, that she cannot drink again. So therefore, רבי יהודה says that both of the פסוקים make sense: in the case of the same husband, we דרשן זאת that she cannot drink again, in the case of another husband, There we דרשן תורת that she could drink again. And that's where the גמרא comes up now with a question. The גמרא asks, ותנא קמא נמי, the תנא קמא too, הכתיב זאת, doesn't it say זאת? How could the תנא קמא say that in all cases she is allowed to drink again when the פסוק says זאת, which comes to exclude that there should be at least certain cases where she could not drink again? And the same קשיא is ורבנן בתראי נמי, also the second רבנן that hold that she could never drink again, הכתיב תורת, doesn't it say תורת, which comes to include that at least in certain cases she should be able to drink again? So אמר רבא, רבא answered: באיש אחד ובועל אחד, if it's the same husband and she is suspected from the same man, דכולי עלמא לא פליגי, no one argues, everyone agrees דאין אשה שותה ושונה, that a woman cannot drink again, דכתיב זאת, because it says זאת, it comes to exclude if it's the same husband and the same man. בשני אנשים ושני בועלים, if it's two husbands and she is suspected from two men, in other words, first her husband suspected her concerning a certain man and she drank, then her husband divorced her and she remarried, and her second husband suspected her from another man, so here too דכולי עלמא לא פליגי, no one argues, everyone agrees דהאשה שותה ושונה, that she could drink again, דכתיב תורת, because the תורה says תורת comes to be מרבה, to include that in certain cases she could drink again, and this is the case. So that

automatically this answers the question what the תנא קמא does with זאת, and what do the רבנן do with תורת, because the תנא קמא will דרשן זאת comes to exclude the case of the same husband with the same man. The רבנן, what do they do with תורת? They say that comes to include the case where it's a second husband and a second man. כי פליגי, where is the argument of these three opinions? באיש אחד ושני בועלים, if it's the same husband, but suspected from another man, או בשני אנשים ובועל אחד, or by a second husband, but he suspects her from the same man. So here there is a מחלוקת. תנא קמא סבר, the first תנא holds, תורת לרבויי כולהו. He says when we approach the פסוק, so first thing we see is the תורה comes to include all cases. Since it says תורת, so it comes to include all cases. Therefore, we assume that in all cases she is allowed to drink again, but since it says זאת, למיעוטי איש אחד ובועל אחד, so it comes to exclude the minimum, which is one case, and that is the furthest extreme case, and that would be if it's the same husband and the same man. So that's when the תורה says she does not drink again. ורבנן בתראי סברי, but the second רבנן, they hold just the opposite: זאת למיעוטי כולהו. We approach it the other way. We start off, since it says זאת, comes to exclude, so it excludes everything, that in all cases the woman could not drink again, but since it says תורת and the word תורת comes to include, so we include the furthest extreme: לרבויי, that comes to include to add שני אנשים ושני בועלים, that if it's two husbands and suspected from two men, then she could drink a second time. But רבי יהודה, רבי יהודה says like this. And as רש''י explains the opinion of רבי יהודה, according to רבי יהודה they're both equal: we have a word זאת, which comes to exclude; we have a word תורת, which comes to include, and we don't know which one to exclude and which ones to include. So therefore, רבי יהודה feels that the תורה gave it over to the חכמים that they should decide which cases are included or added, and which cases are excluded. And therefore, he says, we assume that if it's the same husband, that is a case where we should exclude. Since the husband warned her the first time and brought her to the בית המקדש and she drank and he found her clean, otherwise she would have died, that shows that the husband is a very suspicious husband. And therefore, when he suspects her again, even if it's from another man, but since we see already that he's a suspicious husband without basis, therefore the סברא makes us say that he is not able to make her drink again. And this is what the גמרא says: according to רבי יהודה, זאת למיעוטי תרתי, and תורת לרבויי תרתי. זאת comes to exclude, and we exclude two cases. תורת comes to include, it comes to include two cases. Because altogether we have here four cases: two extremes, one case two husbands with two men, the other case the same husband with the same man, and then we have the two cases in between: one case of the two husbands with the same man, and the other case is one husband with two men. So he says like this: the word זאת comes to exclude two cases, and the word תורת comes to include two cases. Now which are the two? As we said before, the one with the same husband, the סברא says that that we should exclude. He says, זאת למיעוטי תרתי, זאת comes to exclude two cases, so it excludes definitely איש אחד ובועל אחד, the same husband with the same man definitely is excluded that she can't drink again, but it also comes to exclude איש אחד ושני בועלים, if it's the same husband And suspected of two men, also she can't drink, and the reason for that is, as we said before, that since we saw he suspected her once, and she drank and she was clean, that shows that he is a suspicious husband without a basis, and therefore the סברא says that he shouldn't be able to suspect her again and have her drink again, even if it's another man that he suspects her from. And the word תורת is לרבות שתים. The word תורת comes to include two. Which two? שני אנשים ובועל אחד, if it's two husbands and suspected from the same man, but as long as it's two husbands, so here we don't have that סברא that this husband is a suspicious husband, and therefore she does drink again if the second husband suspects her, even if it's from the same man. And certainly it comes to include if it's שני אנשים ושני בועלים, two husbands and suspected from two men, that if her husband suspected her first from a man and then he divorced her, and the second husband suspected her from another man, she certainly drinks again by the second husband. הדרן עלך היה מביא, הדרן עלך היה מביא, הדרן עלך היה מביא. היה נוטל את מנחתה מתוך כפיפה מצרית, etc. Concerning what we learned before that according to רבי יהודה, if it was two husbands and the same man, he says then she would drink a second time, but if it was the same husband, then she would not drink a second time. So we see from this גמרא that the סברא of רבי יהודה is that by two different people there is more סברא that you should be able to repeat the thing rather than by one person.

תוספות asks a קושיא in the first פרק of קידושין דף י״ח עמוד א׳, the גמרא says there concerning a person who stole and didn't have any money to pay, so the דין is that he is sold as an עבד עברי, and the money that he gets for his sale, that goes to pay the גניבה. And the גמרא there learns out from the word בגנבתו, because the תורה says ונמכר בגנבתו, he should be sold for his גניבה. So the גמרא learns out from here that if he is sold once, you can't sell him a second time. And the גמרא explains that that only could be done by two people: if he stole later on from another person, so then we say if he was already sold for stealing from one person before, he cannot be sold later for stealing from another person. But if he stole again from the same person, then he could be sold again. So we see from there that it's more סברא to say that you should be able to repeat the action if it's with the same person rather than by two people. And in this גמרא it seems to be saying that it's more סברא to repeat the action if it was done by two people rather than by one person. This קושיא, תוספות says, is only according to the way תוספות learns פשט in the גמרא in קידושין, but the way רש״י learns the פשט in that גמרא קידושין, this is לכתחילה no קושיא, because this is not what the גמרא in קידושין is saying according to רש״י's פשט. Because רש״י learns there that when the גמרא makes a difference between one person and two people, it is not whether he stole from the same person or whether he stole from two different people. The difference is when he was taken to בית דין. If he was taken to בית דין from both people together, then the דין is that he could only be sold once, because the two דין תורות, the two גניבות that he had, are really like one because he was taken to בית דין together for both of them. But if he was taken to בית דין from two people separately, so then the דין is that he could be sold first for the first גניבה and later on sold for the second גניבה. So according to that פשט in the גמרא in קידושין, there is no contradiction between that גמרא and the גמרא here in סוטה.

Concerning what the גמרא says later on that the opinion of the רבנן בתראי is that a woman cannot become a סוטה twice, cannot drink a second time, and the גמרא טאקע asks a קושיא, what do they do with the word תורת, and then the גמרא answers it, so תוספות asks a קושיא, in the גמרא in כריתות דף כ״ז עמוד ב׳, the גמרא says that a man could bring one קרבן for his wife, the סוטה, even if he warned her concerning many men. So we see clearly that we hold that you could warn your wife concerning many men and she becomes a סוטה. And here the חכמים hold a woman cannot become a סוטה more than once. And תוספות answers there's a big difference: there we were talking about a case that he warned her once concerning a man, then he warned her concerning another man, but he warned her the second time, or the third, or whatever it might be, before she drank for the first, and there we say that she would drink once for all the different warnings. Our גמרא here is talking about when he warned her and she already drank, and then he warned her again. The question is, can she drink a second time for a second warning? And that's where we have the מחלוקת here between the תנא קמא, רבי יהודה, and the רבנן בתראי.