## Sotah Daf 27a

###### Sotah 27a:1
[Sotah 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:1)

דּוּמָה, וְאַל יִשָּׂא בַּת דּוּמָה. שֶׁזּוֹ בָּאָה מִטִּיפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה, וְזוֹ בָּאָה מִטִּיפָּה פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**a woman whose suspected promiscuity is publicly spoken of [*duma*], and not marry the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, as this** woman, who is herself suspected of promiscuity, **comes from seed** of **unflawed** lineage; **but that** woman, the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, **comes from seed** of **flawed** lineage, as she might be a *mamzeret*.


###### Sotah 27a:2
[Sotah 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:2)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יִשָּׂא אָדָם בַּת דּוּמָה, וְאַל יִשָּׂא דּוּמָה. שֶׁזּוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת בְּחֶזְקַת כַּשְׁרוּת, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת בְּחֶזְקַת כַּשְׁרוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** It is better that **a man marry the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, and not marry a woman suspected of promiscuity, as this** daughter **maintains** the **presumptive status of virtuousness, but that** woman suspected of promiscuity **does not maintain** the **presumptive status of virtuousness.**


###### Sotah 27a:3
[Sotah 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:3)

מֵיתִיבִי: נוֹשֵׂא אָדָם דּוּמָה! אָמַר רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא נוֹשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִלָּה?! אֶלָּא: אִם נָשָׂא, תְּנִי נָמֵי: ״בַּת דּוּמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement from a *baraita*: **A man** may **marry a woman suspected of promiscuity. Rava said** in response: **And** how can **you understand** the *baraita* at face value? The *baraita* states that a man **may marry** her ***ab initio*,** yet clearly it is undesirable to do so. **Rather,** the wording of the *baraita* is imprecise, and one must render it: **If one married** a woman suspected of promiscuity, she is permitted to him. Since the *baraita* is imprecise, one should **also** correct it and **teach: The daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity.**


###### Sotah 27a:4
[Sotah 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:4)

וְהִלְכְתָא: יִשָּׂא אָדָם בַּת דּוּמָה, וְאַל יִשָּׂא דּוּמָה. דְּתָנֵי רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר מַעְרְבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אִשָּׁה מְזַנָּה — בָּנֶיהָ כְּשֵׁרִין, רוֹב בְּעִילוֹת אַחַר הַבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that it is better that **a man marry the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity, and not marry a woman suspected of promiscuity.** This is **as Rav Taḥalifa, from the West,** i.e., Eretz Yisrael, **taught before Rabbi Abbahu:** If a married **woman engages in adulterous sexual intercourse, her children are** considered of **unflawed** lineage, as **most** instances of **sexual intercourse are attributed to the husband,** and consequently it is presumed that the children were conceived by the husband and not by the paramour. Therefore, the daughter of a woman suspected of promiscuity is not suspected of being a *mamzeret*.


###### Sotah 27a:5
[Sotah 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:5)

בָּעֵי רַב עַמְרָם: הָיְתָה פְּרוּצָה בְּיוֹתֵר, מַהוּ? אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין אִשָּׁה מִתְעַבֶּרֶת אֶלָּא סָמוּךְ לְוִוסְתָּהּ — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּלָא יָדַע בַּהּ וְלָא מְנַטַּר לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Amram raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* if the woman **was extremely promiscuous** and one cannot reasonably attribute most instances of intercourse to the husband? Are her children considered of unflawed lineage, or is their lineage uncertain? **According to** the opinion of **the one who says** that **a woman becomes pregnant only close to** the time of the onset of **her menstruation, you do not** need to **raise this dilemma, as** the husband **does not know** the time of **this,** i.e., the time of her menstruation, in advance, **and** he **does not watch her** actions in order to prevent her from conceiving from another man. Her children are therefore of uncertain lineage.


###### Sotah 27a:6
[Sotah 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:6)

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין אִשָּׁה מִתְעַבֶּרֶת אֶלָּא סָמוּךְ לִטְבִילָתָהּ, מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּיָדַע בָּהּ, נַטּוֹרֵי מְנַטַּר לָהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דִּפְרוּצָה בְּיוֹתֵר — לָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When do you** need to **raise this dilemma?** It is necessary **according to** the opinion of **the one who says** that **a woman becomes pregnant only close to** the time of **her immersion. What** is the *halakha*? Can it be assumed that **since he knows** the time of **this,** i.e., of her immersion, **he watches her** actions on that day in order to prevent her from conceiving from another man; **or perhaps, since** she **is extremely promiscuous,** her husband **cannot** adequately watch her and her children are considered of uncertain lineage? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Sotah 27a:7
[Sotah 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:7)

וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁבֵּית דִּין כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֵשֶׁת חֵרֵשׁ, וְאֵשֶׁת שׁוֹטֶה, וְאֵשֶׁת שַׁעֲמוּם, וְשֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְשֶׁהָיָה חָבוּשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין — שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מְקַנִּין לָהֶן לְפוֹסְלָן מִכְּתוּבָּתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states (24a): **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 if he were incarcerated in prison. **The Sages taught:** The verse states: “If the wife of any man goes astray” (Numbers 5:12). As the verse could have said: The wife of **a man, what** is the meaning when **the verse states:** “The wife of **any man”?** It serves **to include the wife of a deaf-mute, and the wife of an imbecile, and the wife of an insane person, and** one **whose husband went overseas, and** one **whose** husband **was incarcerated in prison;** and it teaches **that the court issues a warning to** these women in order **to disqualify them from** receiving payment of **their marriage contract.**


###### Sotah 27a:8
[Sotah 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:8)

יָכוֹל אַף לְהַשְׁקוֹתָן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ, וְלִכְשֶׁיֵּצֵא בַּעְלָהּ מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין יַשְׁקֶנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that the court’s warning is effective **even to have** the women **drink** the bitter water; therefore, **the verse states: “Then the man shall bring his wife** to the priest” (Numbers 5:15), indicating that only the warning issued by the husband causes his wife to drink. **Rabbi Yosei says:** The court’s warning is effective **even to have her drink, and when her husband is released from prison he has her drink.**


###### Sotah 27a:9
[Sotah 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:9)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: בָּעֵינַן ״וְקִנֵּא ... וְהֵבִיא״, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: לָא בָּעֵינַן ״וְקִנֵּא ... וְהֵבִיא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do they disagree?** The Gemara answers: **The Rabbis hold** that **we require** the same person who issues the warning to bring the woman to the Temple, as the verse states: **“And he warned** his wife…**then** the man **shall bring** his wife to the priest” (Numbers 5:14–15). **And Rabbi Yosei holds** that **we do not require** that the actions stated in the verse, i.e., **“And he warned…then** the man **shall bring,”** be performed by the same person; and although only the husband may bring the woman to the priest to drink the bitter water, the warning may be issued by the court.


###### Sotah 27a:10
[Sotah 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/27a:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׂטֶה אִשָּׁה תַּחַת אִישָׁהּ״, לְהַקִּישׁ אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם הוּא סוֹמֵא לֹא הָיָה מַשְׁקָהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ״, כָּךְ הִיא, אִם הָיְתָה סוֹמָא — לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחִיגֶּרֶת וְגִידֶּמֶת לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה, דִּכְתִיב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** that the verse: “This is the law of jealousy, **when a wife, while under her husband, goes astray** and is defiled” (Numbers 5:29), is superfluous, and serves **to compare a man to a woman and a woman to a man.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what *halakha*** is this comparison necessary? **Rav Sheshet says:** This teaches that **just as if** the husband **was blind he would not have her drink, as it is written: “And it was hidden from the eyes of her husband”** (Numbers 5:13), indicating that the *sota* ritual applies only if the husband was capable of seeing her infidelity but did not do so; **so** too, with regard to the woman, **if she were blind, she would not drink. Rav Ashi** also **says: Just as a lame woman and a woman without hands would not drink, as it is written:**