Sotah 4

ממשמע שנאמר לא יקום עד באיש איני יודע שהוא אחד מה ת"ל אחד זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר עד הרי כאן שנים עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב אחד

From the fact that it is stated: '[A] witness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not witnesses. ');">¹</span>

ואמר רחמנא תרי לית בה אלא חד (במדבר ה, יג) והיא לא נתפשה אסורה

shall not rise up against a man', do I not know that one is intended? Why is there a teaching to declare 'one witness'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word one is superfluous if a single witness is intended, since it would have been sufficient to state a witness. ');">²</span>

אלא טעמא דכתיב לא יקום עד אחד באיש הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא עד דסוטה חד הוא ואי אפילו חד ליכא אלא במאי מיתסרא

This establishes the rule that wherever it is stated 'witness', it signifies two unless the text specifies 'one'; and [in the case under discussion] the All-Merciful declares that when there are not two witnesses against her but only one, and she has not been violated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But consented to the act. Num. V, 13. The English Version translates the verb she be not taken in the act; but the Rabbis understood it in the sense that she was not forced to misconduct and was a consenting party. Cf. the use of the same verb in Deut. XXII, 28. If she had been violated, she was exempt from the ordeal. ');">³</span>

איצטריך סד"א עד אין בה אין נאמן בה

she is forbidden [to her husband].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 31b. [This proves that in the matter of misconduct one witness is believed, as otherwise whence is it known that she was not violated?] ');">⁴</span>

אין נאמן בה ואלא מאי בעי

Now the reason for that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For maintaining that the term witness' in the case of the Sotah denotes two. ');">⁵</span>

עד דאיכא תרי לישתוק קרא מיניה דאתיא דבר דבר מממון ואנא ידענא מידי דהוה אכל עדיות שבתורה

is because it is written: One witness shall not rise up against a man. Were it however not so [stated], I might have supposed that 'witness' in the verse relating to a suspected woman means one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And there be no witness against her' means not even one. ');">⁶</span>

איצטריך סד"א סוטה שאני דרגלים לדבר שהרי קינא לה ונסתרה ליתהימן בה עד אחד

But if there be not even one witness against her, why should she then be prohibited [to her husband]? — [The verse: One witness etc.] is necessary, because otherwise it might have occurred to me to suppose that 'there be no witness against her' means, he is not believed against her. He is not believed against her! What, then, [does the text] want unless there are two witnesses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is the purpose of the words if the meaning of there be no witness indicates only one and that his evidence is not accepted? ');">⁷</span>

ומי מצית אמרת דאין נאמן בה ושריא והא מדכתיב והיא לא נתפשה מכלל דאסורה

Let the Scriptural text be silent on the point [and not mention it at all], since the rule could have been deduced by analogy from the occurrence of the word dabar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with infidelity the text has he hath found some unseemly matter (dabar) in her (Deut. XXIV, 1), and in connection with civil actions At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter (dabar) be established (ibid. XIX, 15). By the rule of Gezerah Shawah, analogy of expression, the principle of the latter with regard to the number of witnesses required is also applied to the former. ');">⁸</span>

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. ');">⁹</span>

רבי יהושע אומר מקנא לה על פי שנים וכו' מ"ט דרבי יהושע אמר קרא (במדבר ה, יג) בה בה ולא בקינוי בה ולא בסתירה

it is implied that she is forbidden to him! It was necessary [for Scripture to have mentioned this], because otherwise it might have occurred to me to suppose that [the evidence against her] is not believed unless there are two witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a charge of misconduct. ');">¹⁰</span>

ורבי אליעזר אומר בה ולא בקינוי

and [that the verse means] that she had not been violated on the evidence of two witnesses. We are consequently taught [that one witness is believed].

ואימא בה ולא בסתירה סתירה איתקש לטומאה דכתיב (במדבר ה, יג) ונסתרה והיא נטמאה

R. JOSHUA SAYS: HE WARNS HER ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO etc. What is R. Joshua's reason? Scripture states 'against her' — I.e., 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One witness is sufficient; but for warning and seclusion two are necessary. ');">¹¹</span>

קינוי נמי איתקש לטומאה דכתיב (במדבר ה, יד) וקנא את אשתו והיא נטמאה הא מיעט רחמנא בה

but not in the matter of warning, 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of seclusion. R. Eliezer, [on the other hand] says: 'Against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of warning only. Perhaps, however, 'against her' does mean, and not in the matter of seclusion! — Seclusion is compared to 'defilement' [misconduct], for it is written, and he kept close and she be defiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 13. ');">¹²</span>

ומה ראית מסתברא סתירה עדיפא שכן אוסרתה כטומאה

But warning also is compared to 'defilement', for it is written, and he be jealous of his wife and she be defiled!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 14. ');">¹³</span>

אדרבה קינוי עדיף שכן עיקר גרם לה

— The All-Merciful excluded this by the phrase 'against her'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The phrase 'against her' was explained above as relating only to misconduct. ');">¹⁴</span>

אי לאו סתירה קינוי מי איכא ואי לאו קינוי סתירה מאי אהני

But what leads you to this conclusion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'against her' excludes the idea that warning is to be compared to misconduct, and that only seclusion is to be likened to it. ');">¹⁵</span>

אפ"ה סתירה עדיפא דאתחלתא דטומאה היא

— It is obvious that seclusion is more serious [than warning] because she is forthwith prohibited to her husband as with 'defilement'. On the contrary, warning is more serious since it is the root cause [of her seclusion rendering her forbidden to her husband]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without previous warning she would not be prohibited to her husband because of seclusion. ');">¹⁶</span>

מתני' דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר משום ר' אליעזר המקנא לאשתו מקנא ע"פ עד אחד או ע"פ עצמו ומשקה לה על פי שנים השיבו חכמים לדברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אין לדבר סוף

— If there was no seclusion, would there have been any warning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There must have been seclusion to cause jealousy and consequently a warning. ');">¹⁷</span>

מ"ט דר' יוסי ברבי יהודה אמר קרא בה ולא בסתירה

But if there was no warning, what effect would seclusion have? — Nevertheless seclusion is the more serious since it is the beginning of 'defilement'.

ואימא בה ולא בקינוי קינוי איתקש לטומאה דכתיב וקנא את אשתו והיא נטמאה

Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah says in the name of R. Eliezer: He who warns his wife does so on the testimony of one witness or his personal testimony, and makes her drink [the water of bitterness] on the testimony of two witnesses. The Sages replied: According to the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, there is no purpose in the matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In requiring the husband's personal testimony, since, as the Gemara will explain, it may be false. ');">¹⁸</span>

סתירה נמי איתקש לטומאה דכתיב ונסתרה והיא נטמאה ההוא לכמה שיעור סתירה כדי טומאה הוא דאתא

What is the reason of R. Jose son of R. Judah? — Scripture states 'against her', i.e., 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of seclusion. Perhaps, however, 'against her' means: and not in the matter of warning? — Warning is compared to 'defilement', for it is written, and he be jealous of his wife and she be defiled. But seclusion is also compared to 'defilement', for it is written, and he kept close and she be defiled? — That refers to a length of time sufficient for 'defilement' to have occurred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if the time of seclusion was insufficient, she is not required to drink the water. ');">¹⁹</span>

השיבו חכמים לדברי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אין לדבר סוף מאי ניהו דזמנין דלא קני ואמר קנאי

[It was stated above:] 'The Sages replied: According to the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, there is no purpose in the matter'. What does this mean? — There may be times when he did not warn her and he claims that he did warn her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So what purpose is there in requiring the husband's unsupported evidence? ');">²⁰</span>

הא למשנתינו יש לדבר סוף זמנין דלא איסתתר ואמר איסתתר

Is there, then, according to our Mishnah any purpose in the matter, since there may be times when she had not been secluded with the man and the husband claims that she had been secluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah compels the woman to drink the water on the unsupported evidence of the husband. ');">²¹</span>

אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן אף לדברי רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אין לדבר סוף

— R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan, [Read] also according to the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, there is no purpose in the matter. 'Also according to the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah' [you say]; is there, then, no question with respect to our Mishnah? On the contrary, according to our Mishnah there is foundation [for the charge], but in the other case [the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah] there may be no foundation!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the Mishnah there must have been warning on the testimony of two witnesses, so there is some foundation for the charge; but according to R. Jose the husband can give her warning on his uncorroborated testimony which might be groundless. ');">²²</span>

אף לדברי רבי יוסי בר' יהודה ולא מיבעיא למשנתינו אדרבה למשנתינו איכא עיקר התם ליכא עיקר

— But if the teaching is reported, it must be in this form: R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan: 'According to the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, and also according to our Mishnah, there is no purpose in the matter.'

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר א"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן לדברי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אף למשנתינו אין לדבר סוף

R. Hanina of Sura said: Nowadays a man should not say to his wife, 'Do not be secluded with So-and-so', lest we decide according to R. Jose son of R. Judah who said: A warning [is effective] if given on [the husband's] personal testimony. If she then secluded herself with the man, since we have not now the water for a suspected woman to test her, the husband forbids her to himself for all time.

א"ר חנינא מסורא לא לימא איניש לאיתתיה בזמן הזה לא תיסתרי בהדי פלוני דילמא קי"ל כרבי יוסי בר' יהודה דאמר קינוי על פי עצמו ומיסתתרא וליכא האידנא מי סוטה למיבדקה וקאסר לה עילויה איסורא דלעולם

Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of the term kinnui?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the term used in Num. V, 14, 'he be jealous'. ');">²³</span>

אמר ריש לקיש מה לשון קינוי דבר המטיל קנאה בינה לבין אחרים אלמא קסבר קינוי על פי עצמו וכולי עלמא לא ידעי דקני לה ואמרי מאי דקמא דקא בדלה ואתו למיעבד קנאה בהדה

A matter which causes hatred [Kin'ah] between her and others. Consequently he holds that the warning can be on [the husband's] personal testimony; and since not everybody knows that he gave her a warning and they say: 'What has happened that she holds herself aloof?' they will proceed to cause hatred against her. R. Jemar b. Shelemia said in the name of Abaye: [Kinnui means] a matter which causes hatred between husband and wife. Consequently he holds that the warning must be on the testimony of two witnesses and everybody is aware that he gave her a warning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the witnesses are likely to talk of it to others. ');">²⁴</span>

ורב יימר בר ר' שלמיא משמיה דאביי אמר דבר המטיל קנאה בינו לבינה אלמא קסבר קינוי על פי שנים עדים כולי עלמא ידעי דקני לה ואיהו הוא דאתי למיעבד קנאה בהדה

and it is he who proceeds to cause hatred against her.