## Sotah Daf 25a

###### Sotah 25a:1
[Sotah 25a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:1)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי — אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיַהּ — מִכְּלָל דְּלָאו אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel** could have **said: I state** my opinion **even according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoshiya. Since** it **was necessary** for **the verse to** specifically **include** in the *sota* ritual a *yevama* who engaged in sexual intercourse with her *yavam*, **by inference** one may conclude **that she is not his wife at all** with regard to any matters other than those explicit in the verse.


###### Sotah 25a:2
[Sotah 25a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:2)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עוֹבֶרֶת עַל דָּת צְרִיכָה הַתְרָאָה לְהַפְסִידָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, אוֹ אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּעוֹבֶרֶת עַל דָּת הִיא — לָא בָּעֲיָא הַתְרָאָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא תִּיבְעֵי הַתְרָאָה, דְּאִי הָדְרָה בַּהּ תִּיהְדַּר בַּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **a woman who violates** the **precepts** of *halakha* or Jewish custom with regard to modesty, who may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract, is **forewarning** from her husband **required** in order to cause **her to forfeit** her right to collect payment of **her marriage contract or is** forewarning **not required? Do we say** that **since she is a woman who violates** the **precepts, forewarning is not required,** as she is aware that her actions are prohibited? **Or perhaps forewarning is required,** so **that if she** desires to **repent, she will** be reminded to **repent?**


###### Sotah 25a:3
[Sotah 25a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֲרוּסָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם לֹא שׁוֹתוֹת וְלֹא נוֹטְלוֹת כְּתוּבָה. מִישְׁתָּא הוּא דְּלָא שָׁתְיָא, הָא קַנּוֹיֵי מְקַנֵּי לַהּ. לְמַאי? לָאו לְהַפְסִידָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: **A betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her *yavam* neither drink** the bitter water **nor collect** payment of their **marriage contracts.** It is possible to infer that **she does not drink, but** the husband or *yavam* **can warn her** against secluding herself with another man. **For what** *halakha* is his warning relevant? **Is it not** relevant **to cause her to forfeit** her right to collect payment of **her marriage contract?** Accordingly, a woman forfeits payment of her marriage contract due to immodest behavior only if she is warned.


###### Sotah 25a:4
[Sotah 25a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא, לְאוֹסְרָהּ עָלָיו. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נְשׂוּאָה. כִּדְתַנְיָא: אֵין מְקַנִּין לַאֲרוּסָה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אֲבָל מְקַנִּין לַאֲרוּסָה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נְשׂוּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: No,** the relevance of the warning of the husband or *yavam* is **to render her forbidden to him** in the event that she secludes herself with another man. **Rav Pappa said:** The relevance of the warning is **to have her drink** if she secludes herself with another man **when she is married, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One does not issue a warning to a betrothed woman** in order **to have her drink while she is betrothed. However, one can issue a warning to a betrothed woman** in order **to have her drink when she is married.**


###### Sotah 25a:5
[Sotah 25a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:5)

אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר וּלְנָתִין — לֹא שׁוֹתוֹת וְלֹא נוֹטְלוֹת כְּתוּבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Come** and **hear** a proof from the continuation of the mishna: **A widow** who was married **to a High Priest,** or **a *ḥalutza*** who was married **to a common priest,** or **a *mamzeret* or Gibeonite woman** who was married **to a Jew** of unflawed lineage, **or a Jewish woman** of unflawed lineage who was married **to a *mamzer* or a Gibeonite;** all of these women **neither drink** the bitter water **nor collect** payment of their **marriage contracts.**


###### Sotah 25a:6
[Sotah 25a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:6)

מִישְׁתָּא הוּא דְּלָא שָׁתְיָא, הָא קַנּוֹיֵי מְקַנֵּי לְהוּ. וּלְמַאי? אִי לְאוֹסְרָן עָלָיו — הָא אֲסִירָן וְקָיְימָן, אֶלָּא לָאו: לְהַפְסִידָן כְּתוּבָּתָן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **She does not drink, but** the husband or *yavam* **can warn her** against secluding herself with another man. **But for what** *halakha* is his warning relevant? **If** it is in order **to prohibit** these women **to him, aren’t they currently prohibited** to him? **Rather, is it not** relevant **to cause them to forfeit** their rights to collect payment of **their marriage contracts?** This indicates that only when a woman is warned in advance does her immodest behavior cause her to forfeit her right to collect payment of her marriage contract.


###### Sotah 25a:7
[Sotah 25a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:7)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּיסְקַרְתָּא: לָא, לְאוֹסְרָהּ לַבּוֹעֵל כַּבַּעַל. דִּתְנַן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל — כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: No,** the relevance of the warning is **to render her** permanently **forbidden to** her **paramour,** should she seclude herself with him, just **as** she would become forbidden **to** her **husband, as we learned** in a mishna (27b): **Just as she is forbidden to** her **husband, so is she forbidden to** her **paramour.**


###### Sotah 25a:8
[Sotah 25a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:8)

אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מְקַנִּין לָהֶן: מִי שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ בַּעְלָהּ, אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חָבוּשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין. וְלֹא לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא לְפוֹסְלָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּעֵי הַתְרָאָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanina of Sura said: Come** and **hear** a proof from the continuation of the mishna: **And these** are the women **to whom the court issues a warning** in place of their husbands: **One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison. And** the Sages **said** that the court warns her **not** in order **to have her drink** the bitter water if she disobeys the warning; **rather** in order **to disqualify her from** receiving payment of **her marriage contract.** Since the sole purpose of the warning issued by the court is to disqualify her from receiving payment of her marriage contract in the event she secludes herself with the man, one can **learn from** the mishna that similarly, a woman who violates the precepts **requires forewarning.** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, one can **learn from** the mishna that a warning is required.


###### Sotah 25a:9
[Sotah 25a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:9)

וְכוּלְּהוּ, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמְרִי מֵהָא! דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּלֵית לַהּ אֵימְתָא דְבַעַל כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to **all of** the other Sages, who proposed inconclusive proofs from other clauses of the mishna, **what is the reason they did not say** that proof can be adduced **from this** explicit statement? The Gemara answers: They reasoned that **perhaps** it **is different there, as** the wife **has no fear of** her **husband at all,** since he is either incapacitated or incarcerated, and therefore she must be warned first. In other cases, an explicit warning is unnecessary.


###### Sotah 25a:10
[Sotah 25a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עוֹבֶרֶת עַל דָּת וְרָצָה בַּעַל לְקַיְּימָהּ, מְקַיְּימָהּ אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְקַיְּימָהּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן בִּקְפִידָה דְבַעַל תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לָא קָפֵיד. אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּקָפֵיד — קָפֵיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If a woman **violates the precepts and** her **husband desires to maintain her** as his wife, **may he maintain her** as his wife **or may he not maintain her** as his wife? **Do we say** that **the Merciful One made** the requirement to divorce her **dependent on the husband’s objection** to her behavior, **and** as **this** husband **does not raise an objection** he may maintain her as his wife? **Or perhaps, since** the Torah **objects** to this behavior, it is considered as though **he objected,** as the requirement to divorce her is due to the Torah’s objection to this behavior, irrespective of the husband’s wishes.


###### Sotah 25a:11
[Sotah 25a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע, וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מְקַנִּין לָהֶן: מִי שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ בַּעְלָהּ, אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חָבוּשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ רָצָה בַּעַל לְקַיְּימָהּ מְקַיְּימָהּ, עָבְדִי בֵּית דִּין מִידֵּי דְּדִלְמָא לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ לְבַעַל? סְתָמָא דְמִילְּתָא: כֵּיוָן דְּעוֹבֶרֶת עַל דָּת הִיא — מֵינָח נִיחָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites proof: **Come** and **hear** the mishna: **And these** are the women **to whom the court issues a warning** in place of their husbands: **One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison. And if you say** that should the **husband desire to maintain her** as his wife **he may maintain her** as his wife, perhaps he may not want the court to warn her. Would **the court perform a matter that is perhaps not amenable to the husband?** The Gemara replies: **The ordinary situation** is that **since she is violating the precepts, it is amenable to** the husband to divorce her, and the court acts under this assumption.


###### Sotah 25a:12
[Sotah 25a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:12)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בַּעַל שֶׁמָּחַל עַל קִינּוּיוֹ — קִינּוּיוֹ מָחוּל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מָחוּל? מִי אָמְרִינַן בְּקִינּוּי דְּבַעַל תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא, וּבַעַל הָא מָחֵיל לֵיהּ לְקִינּוּיוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקַנִּי לַיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא מָצֵי מָחֵיל לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **a husband who** issued a warning to his wife and later **retracted his warning,** as he did not wish his wife to acquire the status of a *sota*, **is his warning retracted, or is it not retracted? Do we say** that **the Merciful One made** acquiring the status of a *sota* **dependent on** the **husband’s warning, and** the **husband retracted his warning? Or perhaps, since he warned** her **at the outset, he can no** longer **retract** his warning?


###### Sotah 25a:13
[Sotah 25a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע, וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מְקַנִּין לָהֶן: מִי שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ בַּעְלָהּ, אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חָבוּשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בַּעַל שֶׁמָּחַל עַל קִינּוּיוֹ — קִינּוּיוֹ מָחוּל, עָבְדִינַן מִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי בַּעַל מָחֵיל לֵיהּ? סְתָמָא דְמִלְּתָא, אָדָם מַסְכִּים עַל דַּעַת בֵּית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites proof that the husband cannot retract his warning: **Come** and **hear** the mishna: **And these** are the women **to whom the court issues a warning** in place of their husbands: **One whose husband became a deaf-mute or became an imbecile, or was incarcerated in prison. And if you say** that in the case of **a husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted,** would **we,** i.e., the court, **do something that** the **husband** can **come** and **retract?** This would cause a diminution of the esteem of the court. The Gemara replies: **The ordinary situation** is that **a person concurs with the opinion of the court** and would not retract a warning issued by the court, so this is not a concern. Therefore, no proof can be brought from the mishna.


###### Sotah 25a:14
[Sotah 25a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: וּמוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בַּעַל שֶׁמָּחַל עַל קִינּוּיוֹ — קִינּוּיוֹ מָחוּל, לַחְלֵיהּ לְקִינּוּיֵהּ וְלִבְעוֹל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites proof: **Come** and **hear** another mishna (7a): When the husband takes the *sota* to the Temple, he first takes her to the local court, **and** the court **provides him** with **two Torah scholars** who accompany them, **lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way** to the Temple, which is prohibited due to her status as a *sota*. **And if you say** that with regard to **a husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted, let him retract his warning and engage in sexual intercourse** with her.


###### Sotah 25a:15
[Sotah 25a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:15)

מַאי שְׁנָא תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים — דִּגְמִירִי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי לְמִיבְעַל, אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אַחֲלֵיהּ לְקִינּוּיָיךְ וּבַעְלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara replies that perhaps the husband can retract his warning: **What is different** about **Torah scholars** that they are chosen to accompany the husband? They differ from other people **as they are learned, and if** they see that the husband **desires to engage in sexual intercourse** with his wife, **they say to him: Retract your warning and** then you **may engage in sexual intercourse with her** in a permitted manner.


###### Sotah 25a:16
[Sotah 25a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:16)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים סָח לִי זְעֵירָא מֵאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם: בַּעַל שֶׁמָּחַל עַל קִינּוּיוֹ — קִינּוּיוֹ מָחוּל, וְזָקֵן מַמְרֵא שֶׁרָצוּ בֵּית דִּין לִמְחוֹל לוֹ — מוֹחֲלִין לוֹ, וּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה שֶׁרָצוּ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ לִמְחוֹל לוֹ — מוֹחֲלִין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites proof: **Come** and **hear that** which **Rabbi Yoshiya says: Ze’eira,** who was one **of the men of Jerusalem, told me three matters: A husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted; and** in the case of **a rebellious Elder whom the court wishes to forgive,** the court **may forgive him; and** in the case of **a stubborn and rebellious son whose father and mother wish to forgive him** for his sins, they **may forgive him.**


###### Sotah 25a:17
[Sotah 25a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:17)

וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי אֵצֶל חֲבֵירַי שֶׁבַּדָּרוֹם, עַל שְׁנַיִם הוֹדוּ לִי, וְעַל זָקֵן מַמְרֵא לֹא הוֹדוּ לִי — שֶׁלֹּא יִרְבּוּ מַחֲלוֹקֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בַּעַל שֶׁמָּחַל עַל קִינּוּיוֹ — קִינּוּיוֹ מָחוּל. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And when I came to my colleagues in the South** and told them these rulings, **they agreed with me with regard to two** of them, **but with regard to** forgiving **a rebellious Elder they did not agree with me.** They held that a rebellious Elder cannot be forgiven, in order **that discord not proliferate among the Jewish people.** The Gemara comments: One **can conclude from** Rabbi Yoshiya’s statement that with regard to **a husband who retracted his warning, his warning is retracted.** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, one **can conclude from** Rabbi Yoshiya’s statement that the husband can retract his warning.


###### Sotah 25a:18
[Sotah 25a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:18)

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא. חַד אָמַר: קוֹדֶם סְתִירָה — מָחוּל, לְאַחַר סְתִירָה — אֵינוֹ מָחוּל. וְחַד אָמַר: לְאַחַר סְתִירָה, נָמֵי מָחוּל. וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ מָחוּל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to** the limits of **this** *halakha* permitting a husband to retract his warning. **One says** that if he retracts his warning **before** her **seclusion** with another man, his warning **is retracted,** but if he retracts his warning **after** her **seclusion** with another man, it **is not retracted. And one says** that if he retracts his warning **after** her **seclusion** with another man, it **is also retracted. And it is reasonable** to hold **according to the one who says** that the husband’s warning **is not retracted** after her seclusion with another man.


###### Sotah 25a:19
[Sotah 25a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:19)

מִמַּאי — מִדְּקָא מְהַדְּרִי רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת — בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, סוֹטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו, לֹא — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where** can one derive that after the wife’s seclusion with another man, the warning cannot be retracted? It can be derived **from** the answer **that the Rabbis gave in reply to Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei says:** It is unnecessary to provide an escort to accompany the *sota* and her husband, as the **husband** of a *sota* **is trusted** not to engage in sexual intercourse **with her, on** the basis of **an *a fortiori*** inference: **And just as** in the case of **a menstruating woman, who is** prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband **by** penalty of ***karet*, her husband is** nevertheless **trusted with regard to her,** as he is permitted to seclude himself with her, so too, with regard to **a *sota*, who is** prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband only **by an** ordinary **prohibition,** is it **not all the more so** that he should be trusted?


###### Sotah 25a:20
[Sotah 25a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:20)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנִדָּה — שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר, תֹּאמַר בְּסוֹטָה — שֶׁאֵין לָהּ הֶיתֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yosei: **No, if you say** that he is trusted **with regard to a menstruating woman,** the reason is not due to the severity of the prohibition. Rather, he is trusted **because she has** the ability to become **permitted** to her husband after her menstrual flow has ceased and she has immersed in a ritual bath. **Shall you** also **say** that he is trusted **with regard to a *sota*, who** potentially **does not have** the ability to become **permitted** to her husband, due to her suspected adultery?


###### Sotah 25a:21
[Sotah 25a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:21)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לְאַחַר סְתִירָה מָחוּל לָהּ, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּיֵשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מָחֵיל לֵיהּ לְקִינּוּיֵהּ וּבָעֵיל. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לְאַחַר סְתִירָה אֵינוֹ מָחוּל. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof: **And if you say** that **after** her **seclusion** with another man the warning can be **retracted for her, you** therefore **find** an instance in **which** the *sota* **has** the ability to become **permitted** to her husband, **as, if** the husband **desires** he **can retract his warning and engage in sexual intercourse** with her. **Rather, conclude from** the Rabbis’ statement that if he retracts his warning **after** her **seclusion** with another man, the warning **is not retracted.** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, one can **conclude from** the Rabbis’ statement that the warning cannot be retracted.


###### Sotah 25a:22
[Sotah 25a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/25a:22)

מֵתוּ בַּעְלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁלֹּא שָׁתוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כּוּ׳. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: שְׁטָר הָעוֹמֵד לִגְבּוֹת — כְּגָבוּי דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **If the husbands** of the *sota* women **died before** their wives **drank** the bitter water, **Beit Shammai** say: They collect payment of their marriage contracts and they do not drink the bitter water. And Beit Hillel say: They either drink the bitter water or they do not collect payment of their marriage contracts. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do** Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel **disagree?** The Gemara answers: **Beit Shammai hold** that a promissory **note that stands to be collected is considered** to be **as** though it was already **collected,** and since the woman possesses the marriage contract, the payment of the marriage contract is considered as though it is already in her possession. Since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, she does not lose her rights to the money unless the inheritors prove that she committed adultery.