Sota 25: The Warning - Is It Required? Can It Be Retracted?

A woman drinks the bitter waters of the sota if she secludes herself with a man after her husband has warned her not to do so.  Today's daf focuses on the warning.  Is it required for a husband to warn his wife about the forbidden seclusion for her to lose her rights to her ketubah?  To lose her rights to ever be with her husband or with this other man again?  What if the husband is unable to warn her - the court warns her, but this assumes that the husband would want his wife to go through the sota ritual.  Must the court warn her, or has she broken a Torah law that she should have known about anyway?  Is she accountable on her own?  Does a betrothed or widowed woman face the same punishments as other women, for they are not truly married when they seclude themselves?  

Our daf also considers whether or not a husband can retract his warning.  The rabbis go back and forth numerous times regarding this question - whenever I thought that we had come to an end to the discussion and the final halacha, another argument would ensue.  Some of the rabbis considerations include a husband who decides that he wants to be permitted to have sexual intercourse with his wife again, and a husband who changes his mind about putting his wife through the ordeal of the sota.  Does it matter when he wants to retract his warning - before or after the seclusion?  

Ze'eira is quoted as permitting a retraction based on other halachot.  A husband who retracts his warning, an elder who rebels, and a stubborn and rebellious son whose parents wish to forgive him are all forgiven.  But a rebellious elder is not forgiven, we are reminded.  He is to set an example to the community, and so he cannot continue to lead after demonstrating rebellious behaviour.  The son, however, is liable for the death penalty if he does not repent.  Our notes remind us that this was never enacted - and in fact was limited to those boys between thirteen and thirteen and three months of age who stole their parents money to drink wine with unsavoury people. If brought to court by their parents, those boys would then have to commit the same act within that three month period to deserve the death penalty (justified as ending their lives while they are innocent rather than allowing them to become evil).  Thankfully, this was never done!

Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai argue about what to do if a husband dies before his wife drinks the bitter waters - does she drink?  Should she be permitted to keep her ketubah?   They use proofs taken from what is done with promissory notes.  Beit Shammai regard a promissory note as if the lender has already received his payment.  Beit Hillel do not recognize the future action of payment in the promissory note.  This means that the ketuba is not yet paid out to the wife, and should not be paid out until she proves that she did not commit adultery via the sota ritual.

What should be done if a woman is pregnant with the child of another man, a woman is barren, or an aylonit, or elderly?  The end of the sota ritual involves an innocent woman returning to her husband where "she shall conceive seed".  None of these women can become pregnant - does that mean that they cannot engage in the sota ritual at all?

The rabbis are concerned with the appearance of propriety as much as they are concerned about following halacha.  And so they are torn between helping couples rebuild their broken relationships and ensuring that adultery is not socially sanctioned.