Commentary for Sotah 4:9
איצטריך סד"א אין נאמן בה עד דאיכא תרי ובתרי נמי היא דלא נתפשה קמ"ל
in the verse relating to civil actions, and I would know that it applies to every case of testimony mentioned in the Torah! — It was necessary [for Scripture to have mentioned it], because otherwise it might have occurred to me to suppose that the matter is different in the case of a suspected woman inasmuch as there was some basis for the charge, seeing that he had warned her and she had been secluded [with the man]; consequently one witness should be believed against her. But how is it possible to say [that if the Torah had not specified that 'witness' always means two, I might have supposed that the intention of 'there be no witness against her' was] that he is not believed against her and she is permitted to her husband? Surely from what is written: 'and she had not been violated'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore it is maintained that misconduct has occurred with her consent. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Sotah 4:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.