Sotah 057

1:
The last mishnah in Chapter Four is concerned with a situation in which there are persistent rumours that a certain woman is unfaithful to her husband but he – the husband – is not able to warn her not to consort with a certain person. We have seen, from the very beginning of our study of this tractate, that unless the husband has issued this formal warning to his wife in the presence of competent witnesses, he cannot subsequently make her go through the ordeal of the Sotah. Furthermore, without such formal warning, while he certainly could divorce her, the court could not, in all fairness, excuse him the payment of his wife's Ketubah money.

2:
Therefore, our mishnah institutes that in such circumstances the Bet Din may issue the warning on behalf of the husband. This is not as simple as it sounds, since the Torah seems specifically to place the onus of warning on the husband. As Rambam wrote – in a completely different context – "the doors of interpretation are never closed" – and the sages found in an exact reading of the text of the Torah the 'out' that they were looking for. A translation of Numbers 5:11-12 is usually given as follows:

However, this does not do justice to the exact Hebrew wording. What we have translated as 'any man', in the Hebrew is 'ish ish' (literally: 'man man'). The Gemara [Sotah 27a] says that this doubling of the noun is in order to indicate firstly an ordinary husband and then, secondly, an incapacitated husband.

3:
In the Gemara [ibid.] the list given in our mishnah is lengthened to include the deaf-mute, who can neither hear the rumours nor utter the warning, the mentally incapacitated and the insane, who cannot understand the situation, a man who is travelling abroad and a man who is in prison, who are not present to do it themselves.

4:
The sages did not consider themselves qualified to force a woman whose husband was in one or more of these categories to drink the 'cursing waters'. This is because the Torah [Numbers 5:15] specifically says that it is the husband who must bring his wife to the ordeal. Without the husband all the Bet Din can do is issue a warning to the woman in his behalf, so that should there be a divorce she would not be able to collect the money in her Ketubah. Rabbi Yosé is of the opinion that the woman might even end up drinking the 'cursing waters': should the husband return, physically or mentally, he might well demand that she undertake the ordeal on the basis of the warning issued on his behalf by the court.

5:
The Gemara [ibid.] also quotes another Baraita which tries to even the balance: whatever physical or mental incapacity may prevent the husband from issuing a warning to his wife will also prevent the capable husband from issuing a warning to his incapacitated wife.

Concerning the manumission of the Eved Kena'ani, Ze'ev Orzech writes:

You quote the Rambam: "If one buys an adult non-Jewish slave and the slave did not wish to be circumcised [i.e. convert], he may be held for a twelvemonth; for a longer period it is forbidden to hold on to him in his uncircumcised state, and he must be resold to a non-Jew" However, we find in Leviticus 25:46, "You may keep them (non-Jewish slaves) as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time." Would you please resolve this seeming contradiction. Also, in the second part of the quote you write: "if while he (the non-Jewish slave) was still with his original non-Jewish master, he agreed to become the slave of the Jew on condition that he not be circumcised, it is then permissible for the Jew to continue to hold on to him in his uncircumcised state, provided that he accepts the seven mitzvot of the sons of Noah." Does that mean the Jewish master can hold that slave for ever?

I respond:

A non-Jew who is bought by a Jew as his slave is not like a slave among other peoples. He may be held as a non-Jew for one year only; at the end of that year he must decide whether he wishes to live among non-Jews or to continue living among Jews. If he chooses the former his Jewish master must sell him to a non-Jew (or manumit him, of course). If he chooses the latter he must consent to begin the process of conversion to Judaism (circumcision and bathing in a Mikveh). From that moment he is a Jew who has the same duties and obligations as a Jewish woman. However, if he specifically demanded that he remain a non-Jew (and therefore with no rights at all) this is up to him.

The Eved Kena'ani becomes a full Jew with all the obligations of a Jewish male in one of three circumstances: either his master manumits him, or the slave has enough money to buy his freedom, or the 50 year of Jubilee intercedes. The verse mentioned by Ze'ev, Leviticus 25:46 – "You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time" – was interpreted by the sages as follows: 'for all time' means until the Jubilee. This, of course, does not apply to the slave who chose to remain a non-Jew.

This concludes our study of Chapter Four of this Tractate.