Commentary for Shevuot 63:25

והכל מודים בעדי סוטה שפטור בעדי קינוי דהוה גורם דגורם

- Can you really think so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon holds one witness is sufficient in money matters?');">³³</span> Surely Abaye said: All agree in [the case of] the witness of the sotah and all agree in [the case of] the witnesses of the sotah; and they disagree in [the case of] the witnesses of t sotah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wife suspected by husband of unfaithfulness, Num. V, 11-31; all agree that in certain circumstances even if one witness of the sotah is adjured and denies knowledge he is liable; and in certain circumstances even if two witnesses are adjured and deny knowledge they are exempt; and in certain circumstances if two witnesses are adjured, R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon and the Sages disagree, the former holding they are liable, and the latter that they are exempt. The circumstances are explained below.');">³⁴</span> All agree in [the case of] one witness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in certain circumstances (such as those at which R. Abba was present; infra 32b) he is liable, if be denies on oath knowledge of testimony.');">³⁵</span> and all agree in [the case of] the witness where his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference will be explained infra.');">³⁶</span> adversary is suspected of swearing falsely!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he is liable (v. infra ');">³⁷</span> - Well then, all agree that one witness, when he comes [to bear testimony], comes [to make the defendant liable] for an oath; and here, they disagree in this: one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, in saying that if one witness is adjured he is liable, though if he had given evidence, he would have made the defendant liable for an oath only.');">³⁸</span> holds that which causes [extraction of] money is counted as [if it had actually extracted] money;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This witness, though not actually extracting money, causes extraction of money, because the defendant, rather than take an oath, pays the claim. hube hsg');">³⁹</span> and the other holds it is not counted as [if it had actually extracted] money. [To revert to] the text above: 'Abaye said: All agree in [the case of] the witness of the sotah; and all agr [the case of] the witnesses of the sotah, and they disagree in [the case of] the witnesses of the sotah. All agr in [the case of] one witness, and all agree in [the case of] the witness where his adversary is suspected of swearing falsely.' 'All agree in [the case of] the witness of the sotah that he is liable' - the witness of defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' First there must be two witnesses before whom the husband warns his wife, 'Do not go with So-and-so secretly' ( , witnesses of his vrh,x hsg jealousy) ; and two witnesses that she did go secretly with him ( , witnesses of the secret meeting) . If now there is one witness that vtnuy hsg she actually was unfaithful at this secret meeting ( , witness of defilement) , the witness is believed, and the husband need not pay his vcu,f wife her (marriage settlement) . If this witness of defilement avoids giving testimony by swearing falsely that he knows no testimony, he is liable to bring an offering, for he has, by his avoidance of evidence, occasioned a pecuniary loss to the husband (who has to pay his wife the kethubah) . sg sg sjt');">⁴⁰</span> for Scripture believes him, as it is written: and there be no witness against her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 13; though Scripture says, there is no (singular) , it is explained (Sotah 31b) that (without the qualifying numeral) denotes two witnesses; hence, Scripture means, 'there be not two witnesses', but only one.');">⁴¹</span> - as long as there is [some testimony] against her.' And all agree in [the case of] the witnesses of the sotah that they are exempt' - the witnesses of jealousy, for they are the cause of a cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if they had given evidence, there is still the need of the other two witnesses that the wife had secreted herself with her paramour; and even these latter do not actually benefit the husband directly (by freeing him from paying the kethubah) , but indirectly, for by their evidence they cause the wife to drink the 'bitter waters' (Lev. V. 17-24) , and possibly, out of fear, she might confess her unfaithfulness, and lose her kethubah. vrh,x hsg hube hsg Hence, the are merely the cause of pecuniary loss, and the the cause of the cause, i.e., remote and very indirect cause. If, hube hsg therefore, the avoided giving evidence by swearing falsely, they are not liable, for they did not directly cause any pecuniary loss.');">⁴²</span>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 63:25. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.