Dedicate Daf 25a to:



ושמואל אמר אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבי יאשיה
And Shmuel could answer
that he agrees with both Rabbi Yonasan and
Rabbi Yoshia,

מדאיצטריך קרא לרבוייה מכלל דלאו אשתו היא כלל
From the fact that
a verse has to
go out of its way
to include
one whose Yibum was improperly done,
implies that
with regard to all other laws, such a woman
is not considered his wife at all.

 
 
 
The Gemara Asks:
איבעיא להו
A question
was asked in the Beis Medrash :

עוברת על דת צריכה התראה להפסידה כתובתה או אינה צריכה
Does
someone who goes against the
Jewish
religion
(by breaking all laws of modesty)
require a warning to lose her Kesuba?

 
The Gemara says that if a woman decides to break all laws of modesty (for example, goes outside with an uncovered head, weaves in the marketplace or speaks to sundry men), her husband must divorce her and she does not receive her Kesuba payment.
 
The question is if she needs to be warned.
 
 
The Gemara Answers:
מי אמרינן כיון דעוברת על דת היא לא בעיא התראה
Can one say that since she goes against the
customs of modesty,
she doesn't need a warning
to lose her Kesuba,

או דלמא תיבעי התראה דאי הדרה בה תיהדר בה
Or perhaps she requires warning, so she can repent
and keep her Kesuba.

The Gemara answers three answers:
ת"ש
תא שמע
1. The Mishna
taught:

ארוסה ושומרת יבם לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה
"An Arusa and one awaiting Yibum do not drink
the bitter water
and do not collect their Kesuba."

מישתא הוא דלא שתיא הא קנויי מקני לה
This implies
that while
one who is an Arusa or one who awaits Yibum
doesn't drink
the bitter water,
they are warned.

The Gemara continues the proof:
למאי
Why
should we warn someone who will never drink the bitter waters?

 
If, as the Mishna says, she won't drink the bitter waters, why warn her?
 
 
לאו להפסידה כתובתה
Is it not to make her loose her Kesuba?

 
So without this warning, she (who, secluding herself with other men, violates the laws of modesty) would not lose her Kesuba.
 
 
The Gemara give two answers:
אמר אביי לא לאוסרה עליו
1.
Abaye said
that the reason her future husband would want to warn her is that now she'll
become forbidden to him.

 
Either way she won't be allowed to collect her Kesuba, but the husband will warn her to impress onto her the severity of the situation: That if she secludes herself one more time, she will be permanently forbidden to him.
 
 
רב פפא אמר להשקותה כשהיא נשואה
2.
Rav Papa said
that her future husband would warn her
to make her eligible to drink after
they consummate their marriage.

כדתניא
As a Braisa
taught:

אין מקנין לארוסה להשקותה כשהיא ארוסה אבל מקנין לארוסה להשקותה כשהיא נשואה
One may not warn an Arusa to force her to drink while still an Arusa, but one may warn
an Arusa
to force her to drink after they consummate their marriage.

Rejecting the previous answer, the Gemara tries another:
אמר רבא
2.
Rava answers:

ת"ש
תא שמע
אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ממזרת ונתינה לישראל בת ישראל לממזר ולנתין לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה
The Mishna said that
a widow
married to a
Kohen Gadol , a divorcee or a Chalutza
married to a
regular Kohen, a Mamzer or a Nesinah
married to a regular
Jew, and a
regular
Jew
married to
a Nasin or Mamzer don't drink
the bitter waters if suspected of immorality, and
do not collect their Kesuba.

 
Like in the previous answer, we can imply that...
 
 
מישתא הוא דלא שתיא הא קנויי מקני להו
While they are
not
permitted to
drink
the bitter waters
, they
do
get warned.

ולמאי
What
purpose is there in warning people that will never have an opportunity to be tested?

 
And one cannot answer as above, since...
 
 
אי לאוסרן עליו הא אסירן וקיימן
The reason cannot that the husband warns her in order
to forbid her
to stay married to him, as in all of these cases
they are already forbidden
to be married.

 
So it must be that the husband would warn his wife...
 
 
אלא לאו להפסידן כתובתן
Is it not to make her lose her Kesuba?

 
Implying that even one who behaves immodestly is given a warning before she loses her Kesuba.
 
 
The Gemara rejects this proof:
אמר רב יהודה מדיסקרתא
Rav Yehuda from Diskarta said:

לא לאוסרה לבועל כבעל
No,
the husband will warn his wife
to forbid her
to ever marry
her
suspected
adulterer.

דתנן כשם שאסורה לבעל כך אסורה לבועל
For the Mishna
taught
that
just as
an immoral woman
is forbidden to
live with
her husband, so too, she's forbidden
to marry
her adulterer.

The Gemara finally brings a conclusive answer:
א"ר
אמר רבי
חנינא מסורא
3.
Rav Chanina from Sura said:

ת"ש
תא שמע
The Sages
taught:

ואלו שבית דין מקנין להן מי שנתחרש בעלה או נשתטה או שהיה חבוש בבית האסורין
"The court warns one whose husband became deaf-mute , became insane, or is in jail
(and the husband himself is unable to warn her)."

ולא להשקותה אמרו אלא לפוסלה מכתובתה
The court doesn't warn her
to make her eligible to drink
the Sotah waters,
but to make her lose her Kesuba.

ש"מ
שמע מינה
בעי התראה ש"מ
שמע מינה
We can infer from
this Braisa that a warning is required to make one lose their Kesuba.

 
 
Attempt Source Proof Disproof
One "An Arusa and one awaiting Yibum do not drink the bitter water and do not collect their Kesuba." Don't drink but are warned - to lose their Kesuba 1. They're warned to forbid them permanently 2. They're warned to forbid the suspected adulterer
Two "A widow married to a Kohen Gadol , a divorcee or a Chalutza married to a regular Kohen, a Mamzer or a Nesinah married to a regular Jew, and a regular Jew married to a Nasin or Mamzer don't drink the bitter waters if suspected of immorality, and do not collect their Kesuba." Don't drink but are warned - to lose their Kesuba They're warned to forbid them to ever marry their adulterer
Three "The court warns one whose husband became deaf-mute , became insane, or is in jail (and the husband himself is unable to warn her). The court doesn't warn her to make her eligible to drink the bitter water, but to make her lose her Kesuba. - -
 
 
The Gemara Asks:
וכולהו מאי טעמא לא אמרי מהא
Why didn't
all the other Rabbis use
this
(last) Braisa as a proof right away?

The Gemara Answers:
דלמא שאני התם דלית לה אימתא דבעל כלל
In
those cases
(if the husband is deaf-mute , insane, or is in jail)
a wife has no fear of her husband at all,
and if the court wouldn't warn her, she would
not
lose her Kesuba since her immorality is not
that
blatant.

The Gemara asks two question, all based around the above Braisa:
איבעיא להו
1.
They inquired
in the Beis Medrash :

עוברת על דת ורצה בעל לקיימה מקיימה או אינו מקיימה
May a husband stay married to a woman
who violates the basic Jewish laws of modesty?

מי אמרינן בקפידא דבעל תלא רחמנא והא לא קפיד
Perhaps since the Torah leaves the warning
up to the husband,
if the wife's immorality doesn't bother the husband he may stay married to her.

או דלמא כיון דקפיד קפיד
Or,
on the other hand,
since
most husbands are
bothered
by their wife's immorality, he must also divorce?

The Gemara Answers:
ת"ש
תא שמע
The Rabbis
taught:

ואלו שבית דין מקנין להן מי שנתחרש בעלה או נשתטה או שהיה חבוש בבית האסורין
"The court warns one whose husband became deaf-mute , became insane, or is in jail
(and the husband himself is unable to warn her)".

ואי אמרת רצה בעל לקיימה מקיימה עבדי ב"ד
בית דין
מידי דדלמא לא ניחא ליה לבעל
Will the court act against the
(possible)
wishes of the husband
to keep her?

 
The court warns the wife as unspoken emissaries of the husband, assuming he doesn't want to stay married to an immoral wife.
 
But if people wouldn't mind staying married to their immoral wives, then the above assumption is no longer valid, as one may be an unappointed emissary only when he's helping the other and not hurting.
 
 
The Gemara Answers:
סתמא דמילתא כיון דעוברת על דת היא מינח ניחא ליה
The court may presume
that the husband will not want
to stay married
to a wayward wife.

 
So while the court can assume that the husband would want them to warn his wife, the husband has the final say, and can stay married.
 
 
איבעיא להו
2. Another
question was asked
in the Beis Medrash
:

בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול או אינו מחול
Can a husband
cancel his
warning
(whether before or after the seclusion)
or not?

מי אמרינן בקינוי דבעל תלא רחמנא ובעל הא מחיל ליה לקינויו
Perhaps,
just as
Torah made the warning dependent on the husband, so
too the Torah permits the husband
to cancel
his
warning,

או דלמא כיון דקני ליה מעיקרא לא מצי מחיל ליה
Or, on the other hand, once
the husband
warned
his wife
, he may no longer
cancel the warning.

The Gemara will give three answers:
ת"ש
תא שמע
1. The Rabbis
taught:

ואלו שבית דין מקנין להן מי שנתחרש בעלה או נשתטה או שהיה חבוש בבית האסורין
"The court warns one whose husband became deaf-mute , became insane, or is in jail
(as the husband himself is unable to warn her)"

ואי אמרת בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול עבדינן מידי דאתי בעל מחיל ליה
Would the court do something which the husband can cancel?

 
Surely not, as it would be a disgrace to the court!
 
 
The Gemara rejects this question:
סתמא דמלתא אדם מסכים על דעת ב"ד
בית דין
Presumably, one would agree to the court's
actions (in warning his wife), so the court may warn the wife and doesn't have to be concerned that it will be subject to contempt.

The Gemara will try another answer:
ת"ש
תא שמע
2. The Rabbi
taught:

ומוסרין לו שני ת"ח שמא יבא עליה בדרך
"We have two Torah scholars
escorts the husband and wife to Yerushalayim,
lest he live with
his suspected wife
on the way."

ואי אמרת בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול לחליה לקינויה ולבעול
If a husband can cancel his warning, why
wouldn't the husband
cancel his warning and then live with her?

 
Why would he live with his wife in a forbidden state when he can live with his wife in a permitted way (by forgiving her first?) Must be that once she was secluded, he may no longer forgive her and must make her take the Sotah test.
 
 
The Gemara rejects this answer:
מ"ש
מאי שנא
תלמידי חכמים
close
The Gemara above (on page 7a) mentions another reason why the escorts must be Torah scholars.
Why must
they be
Torah scholars?

דגמירי דאי בעי למיבעל אמרי ליה אחליה לקינוייך ובעלה
So they
will be knowledgeable enough to
inform
the husband
that if he wants to live with her, he must first cancel the warning.

 
And there is no evidence that the husband is not able to forgive his wife.
 
 
The Gemara brings the final answer:
ת"ש
תא שמע
3. The Rabbis
taught:

דאמר ר'
רבי
יאשיה שלשה דברים סח לי זעירא מאנשי ירושלים
Rabbi Yoshia said that the following three
teachings
were taught to him by Zeira from the men of Yerushalayim:

בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול
1.
A husband can cancel his warning,

וזקן ממרא שרצו בית דין למחול לו מוחלין לו
2.
A court can forgive a rebellious sage,

ובן סורר ומורה שרצו אביו ואמו למחול לו מוחלין לו
3.
And parents can forgive their wayward son.

וכשבאתי אצל חבירי שבדרום על שנים הודו לי ועל זקן ממרא לא הודו לי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל
But when I came to my colleagues in the south, they agreed to two
of the above three teachings,
but they disagreed on
the teaching that a court may forgive
a rebellious sage,
because it will cause
arguments
to
proliferate in Israel.

ש"מ
שמע מינה
בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול ש"מ
שמע מינה
But, either way, it says clearly
that a husband
can
cancel his warning
to his wife.

 
 
 
פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא
There is an argument between Rav Acha and Ravina:

חד אמר קודם סתירה מחול לאחר סתירה אינו מחול וחד אמר לאחר סתירה נמי מחול
One said that one can only cancel
the warning
before seclusion, and the other says that one may cancel
the warning
even after seclusion.

ומסתברא כמאן דאמר אינו מחול
However,
the opinion which says that
after the seclusion one may
no
longer
cancel the warning makes sense.

ממאי
Why?

מדקא מהדרי רבנן לרבי יוסי
From the way the Sages answered Rabbi Yossi
in the following Braisa:

דתניא
As it was taught
in a Braisa:

רבי יוסי אומר בעלה נאמן עליה מקל וחומר
Rabbi Yossi said that
there is no need to send two escorts with the husband to prevent him from sinning
as
we can
trust
that the husband will not live
with his wife:

ומה נדה שהיא בכרת בעלה נאמן עליה סוטה שהיא בלאו לא כל שכן
If husband is trusted not to live with his wife when she's a Niddah (which is punished with Kares) all the more so he should be trusted not to live with his wife when she's a Sotah (who's sin is only a regular negative commandment).

אמרו לו
The Sages answered back:

לא
No,
this logic can be refuted
,

אם אמרת בנדה שכן יש לה היתר תאמר בסוטה שאין לה היתר
Can the leniency found by
a Niddah, who will be permitted to her husband after purification apply to a Sotah who may never be permitted to her husband again?

 
The Gemara will now prove that after one's wife was secluded, the husband may may no longer forgive her:
 
 
ואי אמרת לאחר סתירה מחול לה משכחת לה דיש לה היתר
And if one will say that
even
after seclusion one may cancel the warning,
a Sotah
has
the same leniency a Niddah has, that is
she can be permitted
if the husband cancels the warning.

דאי בעי מחיל ליה לקינויה ובעיל
As
if
the husband
wants to live with his wife, he may
simply
cancel the warning and live with her.

אלא ש"מ
שמע מינה
לאחר סתירה אינו מחול שמע מינה
Rather, we derive from
that Braisa
that after seclusion
it is too late
to cancel the warning.

 
 
 
 
:מתו בעליהן עד שלא שתו ב"ש
בית שמאי
כו':
Discussed in Mishna If the husbands pass away before they drink, Beis Shammai says ...

במאי קמיפלגי
About what are Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel arguing?

בית שמאי סברי שטר העומד לגבות כגבוי דמי
Beis Shammai holds that a contract which is ready for collection is considered collected
(regarding the rule of "possession is nine tenth of the law").

 
According to Beis Shammai , the one who holds a contract is considered to be in possession of it, and the other side must prove that that it doesn't have to pay. So when a woman gets married, she's given a contract by her husband that he'll pay her in case of their divorce or death. Now, after his death, the heirs claim that she was immoral and is ineligible to collect it (as discussed above). As neither side has evidence (the heirs don't have witnesses that she was immoral and the wife has no evidence that she was innocent), the money stays in the hand of it's "original owner" which is, 1according to Beis Shammai , the one with the contract - the wife.
 
 





Translation copyright by the OpenGemara project. If you would like permission to use our data, please contact us

Dedicated in loving memory of Leah Rivka Bas Reb Dovid HaKohen A"H.
Last build: 2019-01-31T02:13:57Z