THE FOLLOWING DO NOT DRINK AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT: SHE WHO SAYS 'I AM UNCLEAN WHEN WITNESSES CAME [AND TESTIFIED] THAT SHE HAD MISCONDUCTED HERSELF, AND SHE WHO SAYS 'I REFUSE TO DRINK'. WHEN HER HUSBAND IS UNWILLING TO LET HER DRINK, OR WHEN HER HUSBAND COHABITED WITH HER ON THE JOURNEY [TO JERUSALEM]. SHE RECEIVES THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT BUT DOES NOT DRINK. IF THE HUSBANDS DIED BEFORE [THE WOMEN] DRANK, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THAT THEY RECEIVE THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT BUT DO NOT DRINK, AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE THAT THEY EITHER DRINK OR DO NOT RECEIVE THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT.
[A WIFE] WHO WAS PREGNANT BY A FORMER HUSBAND OR WAS SUCKLING A CHILD BY A FORMER HUSBAND2 DOES NOT DRINK AND DOES NOT RECEIVE THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT. SUCH IS THE STATEMENT OF R. MEIR; BUT THE RABBIS DECLARE THAT HE IS ABLE TO SEPARATE FROM HER AND TAKE HER BACK AFTER THE PERIOD [OF TWO YEARS]. A WOMAN INCAPABLE OF CONCEPTION,3 ONE TOO OLD TO BEAR CHILDREN, AND ONE WHO IS UNFIT TO BEAR CHILDREN4 DO NOT RECEIVE THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT AND DO NOT DRINK.5 R. ELIEZER SAYS: HE IS ABLE TO MARRY ANOTHER WIFE6 AND HAVE OFFSPRING BY HER. AS FOR ALL OTHER WOMEN, THEY EITHER DRINK OR DO NOT RECEIVE THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT.
THE WIFE OF A PRIEST DRINKS AND IS PERMITTED TO HER HUSBAND.7 THE WIFE OF A EUNUCH8 DRINKS. THROUGH [SECLUSION WITH] ALL PERSONS FORBIDDEN TO HER IN MARRIAGE9 JEALOUSY [NECESSITATING THE ORDEAL] IS ESTABLISHED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A MINOR10 AND ONE NOT A MAN.11
IN THE FOLLOWING CASES A COURT OF LAW CAN GIVE WARNING:12 WHEN THE HUSBAND IS A DEAF-MUTE OR HAS BECOME INSANE OR IS IMPRISONED. NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING HER DRINK DID THEY SAY THIS, BUT TO DISQUALIFY HER IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE-SETTLE MENT. R. JOSE SAYS: ALSO TO MAKE HER DRINK; WHEN HER HUSBAND IS RELEASED FROM PRISON HE MAKES HER DRINK.
GEMARA. [In the instances enumerated by the Mishnah, the husband] does not let her drink, but he may give her a warning.13 Whence is this learnt? — Our Rabbis taught: Speak unto the children of Israel and say14 — [the addition of 'and say'] is to include a betrothed maiden and a childless widow waiting for her levir in the law respecting the warning. Whose is [the teaching of] our Mishnah? — It is R. Jonathan's; for it has been taught: Being under thy husband15 excludes a betrothed maiden. It is possible to think that we are also to exclude a childless widow; therefore the text repeats the word 'man'.16 Such is the statement of R. Joshiah. R. Jonathan says: 'Being under thy husband' excludes a childless widow. [It is possible to think that] we exclude a childless widow waiting for her levir but not a betrothed maiden; therefore there is a text to declare, When a wife, being under her husband, goeth aside,17 thus excluding a betrothed maiden. One teacher18 considers a betrothed maiden as more bound to him since the marriage ensues through him and they stone her on his account;19 whereas the other teacher considers that a childless widow is more bound to [her brother-in-law] since the nuptial surrender is not lacking.20 What, then, does R. Jonathan make of the repetition of the word 'man'? — He requires it to include the wife of a deaf-mute man, the wife of an imbecile, and the wife of
Sotah 24ba weak-minded man.1 And what does R. Joshiah make of the phrase 'being under her husband'? — He requires it to draw an analogy between a husband and wife and between a wife and husband.2
Now the reason [given why a betrothed maiden is excluded] is because these Scriptural texts occur, otherwise I would have said that a betrothed maiden must drink; but when R. Aha b. Hanina came from the South he brought this teaching with him: Besides thine husband3 — i.e., when intercourse with a husband had preceded intercourse with a paramour and not when intercourse with a paramour had preceded intercourse with a husband!4 — Rami b. Hama said, [It is necessary to rely upon the texts] for such a contingency as when the fiance had had intercourse with her in her father's house.5 Similarly with a childless widow the texts would be required for the contingency as when the brother-in-law had had intercourse with her in her father-in-law's house;6 but can you call her a childless widow waiting for her levir'? [In such circumstances], Surely she is his legal wife; for Rab has said: He7 has acquired her [as his wife] in every respect!8 — It is as Samuel said: He has only acquired her for the objects mentioned in the Scriptural portion.9 If that is so, are we to say that Rab agrees with R. Joshiah10 and Samuel with R. Jonathan?11 — Rab can reply. I even agree with R. Jonathan, because from the fact that it was necessary for the text to exclude her,12 it follows that she is his legal wife.
- To Next Folio -