סוטה ו׳Sotah 6

Mishnah

משנה: שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין. וּמָה אִם עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אוֹסְרַתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם אֵינָהּ מִתְקַיֶימֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם עֵדוּת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאוֹסְרַתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַיֵים בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ כָּל עֵדוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ. קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְעֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵעַתָּה. וּמָה עֵדוּת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאוֹסְרַתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם הֲרֵי הִיא מִתְקַיֶימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אוֹסְרַתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵים בְּעֵד אֶחָד. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר. מַה לְהַלָּן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אַף כָּאן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים.

MISHNAH: It would have been logical: Since the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, is not confirmed if not from two [witnesses], the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, should reasonably only be confirmed by [witnesses]. The verse says: “There is no witness about her”, any kind of testimony about her. There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony! Since the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, is confirmed from a single witness, the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, should logically be confirmed from a single witness. The verse says, “for he found out about her a matter of sexual misbehavior,” and further, it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses a matter should be confirmed.”

Halakhah

הלכה: שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין. וּמָה אִם עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כול׳. עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה זוֹ סְתִירָה. עֵדוּת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה זוֹ טוּמְאָה. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר. מְקַנֵּא מַתְרֶה לָהּ עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וּמַשְׁקֶה לָהּ עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. וַאֲפִילוּ כָּאהֵן תַּנָּא אַתְיָיא הִיא. דְּתַנֵּי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. מְקַנֵּא לָהּ עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. וּמַשְׁקֶה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם.

HALAKHAH: “It would have been logical: Since the first testimony,” etc. The first testimony is about being in a secluded place; the last testimony is about impurity. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Joshua says, “he declares his jealousy and warns her by the testimony of two [witnesses], and makes her drink by the testimony of two [witnesses].” Rebbi Mana said, it even follows the Tanna, about whom was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He declares his jealousy before one witness or by himself, but makes her drink by the testimony of two [witnesses].”

Mishnah

משנה: עֵד אוֹמֵר נִיטְמֵאת וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. אִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת נִיטְמֵאת וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא נִיטְמֵאת הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר נִיטְמֵאת וְעֵדִים שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִיטְמֵאת הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִיטְמֵאת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה.

MISHNAH: If one witness says, she became impure, but another witness says, she did not become impure, or one woman says, she became impure, but another woman says, she did not become impure, she would drink. If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she did drink. If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one [witness] says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.

Halakhah

הלכה: קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְעֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵעַתָּה כול׳. גִּידוּל בַּר מִינְיָימִין בְּשֵׁם רַב. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהִכְשִׁירוּ עֵדוּת הָאִשָּׁה בָאִישׁ הָאִישׁ מַכְחִישׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְהָאִשָּׁה מַכְחֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאִישׁ. נִיתְנֵי. עֵד אֶחָד אָמַר. נִטְמֵית. וְאִשָּׁה אָמְרָה. לֹא נִיטְמֵית. אִשָּׁה אָמְרָה. נִיטְמֵית. וְעֵד אָמַר. לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. תַּנֵּיי דְּבֵית רִבִּי כֵן. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. הוֹלְכִין אַחַר רוֹב עֵדוּת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וְאִשָּׁה אַחַת עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְעֵד אֶחָד. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּאִשָּׁה וְנָשִׁים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מֵאָה נָשִׁים וְעֵד אֶחָד כְּעֵד בְּעֵד אִינּוּן.

HALAKHAH: “There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony,” etc. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that she became impure, and a woman says that she did not become impure; a woman said that she became impure and a witness said that she did not become impure.” In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

רַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָה אָמַר. עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְטַמּוֹתָהּ. אֵין עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִידָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מַה טַעַם אָמְרוּ. עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְטַמּוֹתָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לְדָבָר.

Rav Ada bar Aḥawah said, a single witness is believed to declare her impure, but a single witness is not believed to make her lose her ketubah. Rav Ḥisda said, why did they say that a single witness is believed to declare her impure? Because the thing has feet to stand on.

שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּאן לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה וּבְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין. רַב אָמַר. הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. נִטְמֵאת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִטְמֵאת. הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הָא [עֵד] בְּעֵד אֶחָד לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת. וְאִין בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת אֱמוֹר סוֹפָאּ. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִיטְמֵאת. וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הָא עֵד בְּעֵד לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וְהֵיךְ רַב אָמַר. הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִיטְמֵאת. וְעֵד אָמַר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת [לֹא הָיְתָה] שׁוֹתָה. הָא עֵד בְּעֵד (לֹא) הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת. וְאִין בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת אֱמוֹר רֹאשָׁהּ. עֵד אוֹמֵר. נִטְמֵאת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִטְמֵית. הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הָא עֵד בְּעֵד הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הֵיךְ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. אָמְרִון בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. בִּסְתִירָה אֲחֶרֶת הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מַהוּ בִּסְתִירָה אֲחֶרֶת הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כָּל הָהֵן פִּירְקָא מִשֶׁקִּינֶּא לָה וְנִסְתְּרָה. נִסְתְּרָה בִפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר אֶחָד. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. יֵשׁ כָּאן סְתִירָה וְיֵשׁ כָּאן טוּמְאָה. לְאַחַר כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. יֵשׁ כָּאן סְתִירָה וְאֵין כָּאן טוּמְאָה. הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. יֵשׁ כָּאן סְתִירָה וְאֵין כָּאן טוּמְאָה. לְאַחַר כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. אֵין כָּאן סְתִירָה וְאֵין כָּאן טוּמְאָה. הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁלֹּא נִיטְמֵאת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. כְּעֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כוּלָּהּ אוֹ תִתְקַיֵים הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּמָרִי. מִכֵּיוָן דְּאַתָּ מַר. בְּעֵידוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כוּלָּהּ מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא שֶׁתִתְקַיֵים הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁאָר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לְדָבָר.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.