Sotah 62
עדות אחרונה שאוסרתה איסור עולם הרי היא מתקיימת בעד אחד עדות הראשונה שאין אוסרתה איסור עולם אינו דין שתתקיים בעד אחד
THE FINAL EVIDENCE [REGARDING MISCONDUCT], WHICH PROHIBITS HER TO HER HUSBAND FOR ALL TIME, IS ESTABLISHED BY ONE WITNESS, IS IT NOT PROPER THAT THE FIRST EVIDENCE, WHICH DOES NOT PROHIBIT HER TO HIM FOR ALL TIME, SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY ONE WITNESS! THEREFORE THERE IS A TEXT TO STATE, BECAUSE HE HATH FOUND SOME UNSEEMLY MATTER IN HER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
תלמוד לומר (דברים כד, א) כי מצא בה ערות דבר ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים יט, טו) על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר מה להלן על פי שנים אף כאן פי שנים
AND ELSEWHERE IT STATES, AT THE MOUTH OF TWO WITNESSES, OR AT THE MOUTH OF THREE WITNESSES, SHALL A MATTER BE ESTABLISHED;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIX, 15. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
עד אומר נטמאת ועד אומר לא נטמאת אשה אומרת נטמאת ואשה אומרת לא נטמאת היתה שותה
AS THE 'MATTER' MENTIONED IN THIS LATTER CASE MUST BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES, SO ALSO HERE [IN THE CASE OF THE SUSPECTED WOMAN] THE 'MATTER' MUST BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES.
אחד אומר נטמאת ושנים אומרים לא נטמאת היתה שותה שנים אומרים נטמאת ואחד אומר לא נטמאת לא היתה שותה
IF ONE WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND ANOTHER WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE DID NOT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time of seclusion. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> האי תלמוד לומר כי מצא בה ערות דבר ת"ל
OR IF A WOMAN SAYS [OF HER] THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND ANOTHER WOMAN SAYS THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DRINKS THE WATER. IF ONE WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND TWO SAY THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DRINKS THE WATER. IF TWO SAY THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND ONE SAYS THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DOES NOT DRINK IT.
בה בה ולא בקינוי בה ולא בסתירה מיבעי ליה
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [Why does the teacher in the Mishnah use] the Scriptural text: 'Because he hath found some unseemly matter in her'? He should have used [the teaching]: 'Against her' — i.e., 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of warning, 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of seclusion!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 3b. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
הכי נמי קאמר תלמוד לומר בה בה ולא בקינוי בה ולא בסתירה
— He does also intend to say this: Therefore there is a text to state 'against her' — i.e., 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of warning, 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of seclusion. Whence, however, have we it that one witness is not believed in an ordinary charge of infidelity where there was neither warning nor seclusion? Here [in connection with infidelity] the word 'matter' occurs and it also occurs [in the law of evidence]; as with the latter [a charge is established] by two witnesses so [is the former established] by two witnesses.
וטומאה בעלמא בלא קינוי ובלא סתירה דלא מהימן עד אחד מנלן נאמר כאן דבר ונאמר להלן דבר מה להלן בשני עדים אף כאן בשני עדים
IF ONE WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF. The reason [why one witness is not accepted] is because there is another who contradicts him; but where nobody contradicts him one witness is believed — Whence have we this rule? Because our Rabbis have taught: 'And there be no witness against her' — the text refers to two witnesses. You say that it refers to two witnesses; but perhaps it is not so and even one [suffices]! There is a teaching to declare, One witness shall not rise up against a man etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
עד אומר נטמאת טעמא דקא מכחיש ליה הא לא קא מכחיש ליה עד אחד מהימן
From the fact that it is stated: '[A] witness shall not rise up against a man,' do I not know that one is intended? Why is there a teaching to declare one witness'? 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,' she is forbidden [to her husband].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 3b. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (במדבר ה, יג) ועד אין בה בשנים הכתוב מדבר
But since, according to the Torah one witness is believed, how is it possible for another to contradict him? Surely 'Ulla has said: Wherever the Torah accepts the testimony of one witness, he is regarded as two, and the evidence of one is of no account when opposed by two!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the evidence of the first witness, being accepted by the Torah, must stand though it is contradicted by another. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אתה אומר בשנים או אינו אלא באחד תלמוד לומר (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד אחד באיש וגו'
— But, said 'Ulla, read the Mishnah as, 'She does not drink';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of 'she drinks the water', and she is held to be guilty. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ממשמע שנאמר לא יקום עד איני יודע שהוא אחד מה תלמוד לומר אחד זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר עד הרי כאן שנים עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב אחד
and R. Isaac similarly declared that she does not drink, but R. Hiyya said that she does drink. The view of 'Ulla creates a difficulty against the statement of R. Hiyya!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the Torah accepts one witness, why should she drink the water? ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
וכיון דמדאורייתא עד אחד מהימן אידך היכי מצי מכחיש ליה והא אמר עולא כל מקום שהאמינה תורה עד אחד הרי כאן שנים ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים
and the other when one witness follows the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one witness had testified and been accepted, another cannot come subsequently and offer contradictory evidence. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
אלא אמר עולא תני לא היתה שותה וכן אמר רבי יצחק לא היתה שותה ורבי חייא אמר היתה שותה
We learnt: IF ONE WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND TWO SAY THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DRINKS THE WATER. Consequently if there was one [against her] and one [for her], she would not drink; this is a refutation of R. Hiyya! — R. Hiyya can reply: And according to your view [that she does not drink] consider the next clause: IF TWO SAY THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND ONE SAYS THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DOES NOT DRINK IT. Consequently if there was one [against her] and one [for her], she would drink! But the whole [of this section of Mishnah] refers to disqualified witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., women and slaves; and it teaches that two witnesses of this class can discredit the evidence of a competent witness. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
לרבי חייא קשיא דעולא לא קשיא כאן בבת אחת כאן בזה אחר זה
and it is R. Nehemiah's teaching; for it has been taught: R. Nehemiah says: 'Wherever the Torah accepts the testimony of one witness, [the decision] follows the majority of persons [who testify]', so that two women against one man is identical with two men against one man. But there are some who declare that wherever a com petent witness came [and testified] first, even a hundred women are regarded as equal to one witness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they cannot upset his testimony. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>