How is the view of Rebbi Yonasan and the Mishnah here to be reconciled with
the Mishnah earlier (18b) that states that when the woman is given the Mei
Sotah to drink, she must affirm an oath that not only did she not sin while
married (during Nesu'in), but that she also did not sin while she was an
Arusah or a Shomeres Yavam? The Mishnah there implies that a woman *does*
drink the Mei Sotah when her husband (or Yavam) accuses her of infidelity
while she is a Shomeres Yavam or Arusah!
(a) The Gemara in Kidushin (27b) explains that the Mishnah earlier in Sotah
(18b) is not discussing a case of giving a woman the Mei Sotah to drink
because of a Kinuy and Setirah that occur while she is a Shomeres Yavam or
an Arusah. Rather, it is referring to a case where the woman is given the
Mei Sotah to drink because of a Kinuy and Setirah that occur after Nesu'in.
The Mishnah is saying that once she is drinking the Mei Sotah for a Kinuy
and Setirah that occurred after Nesu'in, we make her swear that not only did
she not sin with the Setirah for which she is accused, but that she also did
not sin at any other time of her marriage, such as when she was an Arusah or
Shomeres Yavam. The Gemara states there that this Mishnah provides the
source for the concept of "Gilgul Shevu'ah."
This seems to be the approach of the Gemara here in Sotah (19b) as well,
which infers from the Mishnah that a Shomeres Yavam who sinned with another
man is prohibited to the Yavam from the fact that the Mishnah says that we
only append an additional clause to the Shevu'ah ("Gilgul") for the type of
sin that would make her prohibited to her husband. The Gemara is clearly
understanding the Mishnah literally -- that the case of Shomeres Yavam in
the Mishnah refers to a normal case of a Yevamah who is waiting to perform
Yibum.
This is also the approach of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak in Yevamos (58b).
(b) However, Rav Sheshes and Rav Papa in Yevamos (58b) avoid this approach.
Apparently, they find this approach unsatisfactory because it leads to one
of two conclusions: it either supports the view of Rav Hamnuna that a
Shomeres Yavam who sinned is prohibited to the Yavam, or it supports the
view of Rebbi Akiva that Chayavei Lavim are the same as Chayavei Kerisus and
therefore a Shomeres Yavam who sinned is prohibited to the Yavam just like
an Eshes Ish who sinned is prohibited to her husband (as the Gemara says
here on 18b). The problem is that the Gemara itself rules against both of
these opinions. It rules against Rav Hamnuna's opinion earlier in Sotah
(18b; see, however, Tosfos there, DH Amrei, who rules contrary to the
Gemara's conclusion), and it rules against Rebbi Akiva in Yevamos (49a).
Therefore, Rav Sheshes and Rav Papa suggest that the Mishnah (18b) is not
discussing the case of "Gilgul Shevu'ah," but rather the Mishnah is
discussing a case of Kinuy of a woman who is actually a Shomeres Yavam or an
Arusah. Why is such a woman given the Mei Sotah to drink? Rav Papa in
Yevamos suggests that the Mishnah means that the husband did Kinuy while she
was a Shomeres Yavam or Arusah, and then after the woman did Yibum or became
married she was Nisterah with the other man. The Kinuy done when she was a
Shomeres Yavam or Arusah is effective, like our Gemara says; it is only the
Setirah which must occur after she is fully married in order to require her
to drink the Mei Sotah. (This is one way of understanding Rav Papa's answer
in Yevamos according to Rashi there. However, Rashi himself points out that
this answer is very weak because -- if the Setirah occurred after she was
married -- the Mishnah should not say that she "became a Sotah" while she
was a Shomeres Yavam or Arusah. Rashi therefore offers another explanation
there for Rav Papa's answer; see (c) below.)
(c) The Gemara in Yevamos suggests further that the Mishnah in Sotah (18b)
means that an Arusah -- who had Kinuy *and* Setirah while she was an
Arusah -- could be made to drink the Mei Sotah later, after she becomes
married (like the Gemara here says on 25a).
However, this raises a new problem: if she was Nisterah while she was an
Arusah, before the Nesu'in, then the Shechivas ha'Bo'el (the sin with the
adulterer) occurred *before* the husband lived with her! There is a rule
that the Shechivas *ha'Ba'al* (the husband) must precede the Shechivas
ha'Bo'el in order for the woman to drink the Mei Sotah. Why, then, should an
Arusah have to drink the Mei Sotah? The Gemara answers there (like it
answers here in Sotah) that the Mishnah must be discussing a case when the
husband had relations with her before marrying her ("b'Beis Chamihah").
However, this answer only suffices to explain why an Arusah drinks the Mei
Sotah -- since it is possible for her to become a Nesu'ah after the Setirah
through Chupah (without Bi'ah with the husband) and thus to remain "Menukah
m'Avon" (the rule is that in order to drink the Mei Sotah, the husband and
the accused woman may not have relations after the Setirah). However, if a
Shomeres Yavam underwent Kinuy and Setirah before doing Yibum, how can the
Yavam possibly marry her and still remain "Menukeh m'Avon?" The only way to
marry her is through the Bi'ah of Yibum! Moreover, how can he fulfill the
requirement that the Shechivas ha'Ba'al precede the Shechivas ha'Bo'el; how
can he have relations with the Shomeres Yavam before the adulterer? If he
has relations with her, then she will no longer be a Shomeres Yavam at the
time of the Setirah, because by having relations with her he thereby marries
her fully!
The Gemara in Yevamos suggests a number of answers to this question.
1. The case is when the Yavam had relations with the Shomeres Yavam against
her will, before the Setirah, and thus he is not Koneh her with regard to
all matters. Therefore, she is still considered a Shomeres Yavam (this
follows the opinion of Shmuel who says that Bi'ah against her will is not
Koneh her with regard to Terumah), and yet she is able to drink the Mei
Sotah since the Yavam had relations with her (this follows the opinion of
Rebbi Yoshiyah who says that a Shomeres Yavam after Bi'ah against her will
does drink the Mei Sotah, not like the Mishnah on 23b).
2. The Gemara suggests further that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Beis
Shamai who says that Ma'amar is Koneh a Shomeres Yavam, and -- after
Ma'amar -- Bi'ah can no longer be Koneh her without Chupah (see Yevamos 29b,
where the Gemara is in doubt about this point). In this case, the Yavam
lived with her after Ma'amar, following which the Bo'el was Nisterah with
her.
3. RASHI in Yevamos suggests another interpretation of the Gemara there,
according to which the Gemara answers that it is indeed not necessary for
the Yavam himself to live with the Yevamah before the adulterer. It suffices
that the Yavam's *brother* lived with her before the adulterer, and the
Yavam merely takes the place of his deceased brother.
The only problem that needs to be resolved is why the Shomeres Yavam may
drink the Mei Sotah at all, if Rebbi Yonasan says that a Shomeres Yavam does
not drink the Mei Sotah. The Gemara could have answered that the Mishnah
follows the opinion of Rebbi Yoshiyah who says that a Shomeres Yavam does
drink the Mei Sotah. However, the Gemara answers that the Mishnah can even
follow the opinion of Rebbi Yonasan if it holds like Beis Shamai who says
that Ma'amar is Koneh the Yevamah, and if Rebbi Yonasan agrees that after
Ma'amar, the Yevamah may drink the Mei Sotah. (Alternatively, the Mishnah
can follow the opinion of Rebbi Yonasan if it holds like Shmuel who says
that Bi'ah against her will is not Koneh the Yevamah for all matters, and if
Rebbi Yonasan agrees that it *is* Koneh her with regard to drinking the Mei
Sotah.)
How, though, can Rashi say that the Bi'ah of the deceased brother is
considered to be the Shechivas ha'Ba'al that precedes the Shechivas
ha'Bo'el? This clearly contradicts our Sugya (TOSFOS 58a, DH d'Kavasah)! The
answer is that Rashi learns that the Machlokes between the Sugyos regarding
whether the Mishnah (18b) is discussing "Gilgul Shevu'ah" or is discussing a
normal case of Kinuy revolves around this very point. The Gemara in Yevamos
holds that the Mishnah is discussing a normal case of Kinuy, because it
holds that the Bi'ah of the deceased husband is considered Shechivas
ha'Ba'al, and therefore we can explain the Mishnah as discussing a Kinuy of
a Shomeres Yavam (as in 3 above). Our Sugya, though, and the Sugya in
Kidushin hold that the deceased husband's Bi'ah does not count as the
Shechivas ha'Ba'al, and therefore it is not possible to explain that the
Mishnah is referring to a normal case of Kinuy while the woman was a
Shomeres Yavam, since the condition of Shechivas ha'Ba'al preceding the
Shechivas ha'Bo'el cannot be fulfilled. This forces the Sugya to explain the
Mishnah to be discussing a case of "Gilgul Shevu'ah."