אַהֲלוֹיֵי דְּהָווּ הָכָא הָאִידָנָא, אִי אַנְתְּ לָא – דִּלְמָא מִנְּהוֹן. אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן: עֵינֶיהָ נָתְנָה בְּאַחֵר, וְלֵית בָּהּ מְשָׁשָׁא בְּמִלָהּ.

aloe merchants [ ahaloyei ] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. The case came before Rav Naḥman, who said: There is reason to suspect that she might have cast her eyes upon another man, and therefore there is no substance to her words. She lacks credibility and her statement is unreliable, and so she remains permitted to her husband.

הַהִיא אִיתְּתָא דְּלָא הֲוָה בְּדִיחָא דַּעְתָּהּ בַּהֲדֵי גַּבְרָא. אֲמַר לָהּ: הָאִידָנָא מַאי שְׁנָא? אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: מֵעוֹלָם לָא צֵעַרְתָּן בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ כִּי הָאִידָנָא. אֲמַר לָהּ: לָא הֲוָה הָדָא מִילְּתָא הָאִידָנָא. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן הָלֵין נָכְרִים נַפְטוֹיֵי דְּהָווּ הָכָא הָאִידָנָא, אִי אַנְתְּ לָא – דִּלְמָא חַד מִנְּהוֹן. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: לָא תַּשְׁגִּיחוּן בָּהּ, נוֹתֶנֶת עֵינֶיהָ בְּאַחֵר הֲוַאי.

It is further related that there was a certain woman who was displeased with her man. He said to her: What is different now? What have I done to make you angry? She said to him: I am upset because you never hurt me while we were engaged in proper relations as you did just now. He said to her: This matter did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile oil merchants [ naftoyei ] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. Rav Naḥman said to them: Take no notice of her; she has cast her eyes upon another man, and her words are therefore unreliable.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה מְהַרְזֵיק בְּבֵיתָא הוּא וְאִינְתְּתָא, עָל אֲתָא מָרֵיהּ דְּבֵיתָא, פְּרָטֵיהּ נוֹאֵף לְהוּצָא וַעֲרַק. אֲמַר רָבָא: אִיתְּתָא שַׁרְיָא, אִם אִיתָא דַּעֲבַד אִיסּוּרָא – אִרְכּוּסֵי הֲוָה מִירְכַּס.

The Gemara relates another incident about a certain man who was secluding himself [ meharzeik ] in a house, he and a certain married woman. When the owner of the house entered, the adulterer burst through the wall of palm branches and fled. Rava said: The woman is permitted to her husband. The assumption is that she did not sin, for if it is so that the man had committed a transgression, he would have hidden himself in the house instead of revealing his identity by escaping in the open.

הַהוּא נוֹאֵף דְּעָל לְגַבֵּי דְּהַהִיא אִנְתְּתָא, אֲתָא גַּבְרָא, סְלֵיק נוֹאֵף אֵיתִיב [בְּכִלְאֵי] בָּבָא. הֲוָה מַחְתָּן תַּחְלֵי תַּמָּן וְטַעֲמִינוּן חִוְיָא, בְּעָא מָרִי דְּבֵיתָא לְמֵיכַל מִן הָנְהוּ תַּחְלֵי בְּלָא דַּעְתָּא דְּאִינְתְּתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַהוּא נוֹאֵף: לָא תֵּיכוּל מִנְּהוֹן, דְּטַעֲמִינוּן חִוְיָא.

The Gemara concludes with one final incident about a certain adulterer who entered the house of a certain married woman. When the man, i.e., her husband, came home, the adulterer went and sat himself behind the door, so that the husband would not know that he was there. There was some cress [ taḥlei ] lying there in the house, and the adulterer, but not the husband, saw that a snake had come and tasted of it, perhaps thereby contaminating it with its venom. The master of the house wanted to eat from that cress, without the woman’s knowledge. The adulterer said to him: Do not eat from the cress, as a snake has tasted of it.

אֲמַר רָבָא: אִינְתְּתֵיהּ שַׁרְיָא, אִם אִיתֵיהּ דַּעֲבַד אִיסּוּרָא – נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְלֵיכוּל וְלֵימוּת, דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי נָאֲפוּ וְדָם בִּידֵיהֶן״.

The case was brought before Rava, who said: His wife is permitted to him, for were it so that the adulterer had committed a transgression, it would have been preferable for him that the husband should eat the cress and die. This is because one who commits adultery is also suspected of bloodshed, as it is written: “For they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands” (Ezekiel 23:45),

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיסּוּרָא עֲבַד, וְהַאי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ – דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלָא לֵימוֹת בַּעַל, דְּתֶהֱוֵי אִינְתְּתֵיהּ עִלָּוֵיהּ ״מַיִם גְּנוּבִים יִמְתָּקוּ וְלֶחֶם סְתָרִים יִנְעָם״ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן. הדרן עלך ואלו נדרים וסליקא לה מסכת נדרים

The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is the case. What then does Rava come to teach us? The Gemara answers: Rava’s ruling is necessary, lest you say that the man did in fact commit a transgression with the other man’s wife, and the reason that he said to the husband that he should not eat and saved his life is because it is preferable for him that the husband should not die. This is in order that his wife should be to him as it says in the verse: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” (Proverbs 9:17). That is to say, a person derives greater pleasure from forbidden fruit. Rava therefore teaches us that this is not a concern. Rather, the assumption is that he had not yet actually sinned and therefore acted in the proper manner.