Sotah 2a (ב.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who warns his wife,

one who cautions his wife not to seclude herself with a particular man—how does he warn her?—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He warns her in the presence of two witnesses,

meaning that he must caution her not to seclude herself with a specific person, and the warning must be issued in the presence of two witnesses.

But if he did not warn her in the presence of two, even if he warned her privately, between himself and her, she is not rendered forbidden to him, and he cannot have her drink the water.

And he has her drink,

after she violated his warning and secluded herself with that man, her husband may have her drink the water—even

on the testimony of one witness,

who testifies that she secluded herself with that man, with whom he had warned her not to seclude herself.

Or on the basis of his own testimony,

even if he himself testifies that she secluded herself with him.

She is forbidden to her husband, whether she secluded herself according to the testimony of one witness or according to his own testimony, as a matter of uncertainty, until she is examined by the bitter waters.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He warns her in the presence of two,

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

And he has her drink on the testimony of two,

meaning that two witnesses are also required regarding the fact that she secluded herself with the particular man.

How does he warn her?

If he

said to her in the presence of two,—

in the wording of—

“Do not speak with so-and-so,”

and his entire warning is that she should not speak with that man.

And she spoke with him,

meaning that she violated his warning and spoke with him, even if she also secluded herself with him.

She nevertheless remains permitted to her household,

that is, to her husband.

And she is permitted to eat teruma,

if she is the wife of a kohen.

Since he did not warn her not to seclude herself with that man, she is not forbidden to her husband.

But if he warned her not to seclude herself with that man—

and nevertheless

she entered with him into a secluded place,

violating his warning and secluding herself with him,

and remained with him for the amount of time sufficient for defilement,

meaning that the duration of the seclusion was sufficient for the beginning of intercourse,

then she is

forbidden to her household,

that is, to her husband, as is the law of a sotah who is forbidden as a matter of uncertainty.

And

if she was married to a kohen, she is

forbidden to eat teruma as a matter of uncertainty.

until she is examined by drinking the bitter waters, and it becomes evident that she did not commit adultery.

And if he dies,

and she falls before his brother for levirate marriage, she

performs ḥalitza and does not enter into levirate marriage,

and the Gemara below [5b] will explain the reason that she does not enter into levirate marriage.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

Now,

the

tanna has just come from tractate Nazir,

as the tanna taught tractate Nazir before tractate Sotah, and upon completing tractate Nazir he came to teach tractate Sotah.

Therefore, it is necessary to consider:

What did he teach,

what subject did we learn in tractate Nazir that resembles the tractate Sotah that follows it,

that he taught Sotah,

so that the tanna taught tractate Sotah after tractate Nazir?

And we answer:

In accordance with Rabbi’s teaching.

It follows Rabbi’s homiletical teaching.

As it was taught

in a beraita—

Rabbi says: Why was the passage concerning a nazirite juxtaposed to the passage concerning a sotah?

Why did the Torah write the passage concerning a nazirite after the passage concerning a sotah?

To tell you

to teach us

that anyone who sees a sotah in her disgrace,

seeing how she is punished in the Temple and humiliated and disgraced—

should consecrate himself,

undertaking to abstain

from wine,

because wine leads to frivolity, and wine was what caused the woman to commit adultery against her husband.

And since the Torah juxtaposed the passage concerning a nazirite to the passage concerning a sotah for this reason—

the tanna therefore taught tractate Sotah after tractate Nazir.

And the Gemara asks:

But let him teach Sotah, and afterward teach Nazir!

If so, just as we find in the Torah that the passage concerning a sotah is written before the passage concerning a nazirite, the tanna should have placed tractate Nazir after tractate Sotah.

And we answer:

Since

once

he taught tractate Ketubbot,

as the tanna first taught tractate Ketubbot,

and taught “One who vows,”

and within tractate Ketubbot he wrote the chapter of “One who vows,” which concerns vows,

he taught Nedarim.

Therefore, the tanna taught tractate Nedarim after tractate Ketubbot.

And since he taught Nedarim,

once he had already taught tractate Nedarim,

he taught Nazir.

The tanna included tractate Nazir since

it resembles Nedarim,

for naziriteship is a vow belonging to the general category of vows: naziriteship takes effect when one undertakes by means of a vow to be a nazirite. Therefore, the tanna arranged tractate Nazir after tractate Nedarim.

And he taught,

and therefore the tanna placed tractate

Sotah

after tractate Nazir

in accordance with Rabbi’s teaching,

because of Rabbi’s reason, as explained in the beraita.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who warns”

his wife.

And the Gemara infers:

It follows

that after the fact, yes.

If, after the fact, he warned his wife, this is his law, as explained in the Mishna.

But

initially, no!

It is not proper for a man to warn his wife.

For if it were proper to warn his wife, the tanna should have said: “Rabbi Eliezer says: A man warns his wife,” and the entire introductory phrase, “One who warns his wife,” would be superfluous.

And it is evident from this that

the tanna of our Mishna holds that it is forbidden to warn one’s wife.

It is not proper initially to warn one’s wife, because by doing so he brings himself to strife with his wife, and also because he causes his wife to be humiliated in the Temple.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said—

When Reish Lakish would begin teaching Sotah,

when Reish Lakish would come to expound the passage concerning a sotah,

he would say as follows—

A man is paired with a wife only in accordance with his deeds.

A modest woman is paired with a righteous man, and a promiscuous woman with a wicked man.

As it is stated: “For the scepter of the wicked

will not rest

upon the lot of the righteous.”

The dominion of the wicked

“upon the lot of the righteous.”

From this we learn that a promiscuous woman will not fall to the lot of a righteous man.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said—

And difficult

are those pairings that are determined according to a person’s deeds, before the Almighty,

to pair them, like the splitting of the Red Sea,

for the Almighty had to split the sea for them and alter the natural order.

As it is stated

at the beginning of the verse: “God settles the individuals,

the Almighty pairs a single man and a single woman

and establishes

a home for them.”

He establishes a home from them.

And at the end of the verse it says:

“He brings out prisoners

for the Almighty brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt

at a favorable time.”

In the month of Nisan, which is a suitable time for the Exodus, as it is neither cold nor hot.

Thus, the verse compares a person’s pairing to the splitting of the Red Sea:

And the Gemara asks:

Is that so?

How can it be said that a pairing is determined according to a person’s deeds?

But Rav Yehuda said that Rav said—

Forty days before the formation of the fetus,

before the formation of the male, and even if the female has not yet been born,

a Divine voice emerges and says: The daughter of so-and-so is destined for so-and-so! The house of so-and-so is destined for so-and-so! The field of so-and-so is destined for so-and-so!

Thus, the pairing is determined before a person is born; how, then, can it be said that the pairing is determined according to a person’s deeds?

And we answer:

This is not difficult:

This refers to the first pairing; that refers to the second pairing.

The first pairing is determined forty days before the formation of the fetus, according to one’s constellation, but the second pairing [that is, a widower with a widow], since she is not the partner who was determined forty days before the formation of the fetus, but rather must be matched to him, is determined according to a person’s deeds, and this is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Eliezer says: He warns her in the presence of two, etc.”

And we inquire about this:

They disagree only up to this point,

meaning, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree only concerning the requirement for two witnesses

with regard to the warning,

for according to everyone two witnesses are required,

and the seclusion

that follows the warning, for which Rabbi Yehoshua requires two witnesses.

But with regard to defilement,

if there are witnesses concerning the warning and the seclusion, and afterward there comes

one witness

who testifies that during that seclusion she committed adultery,

he is trusted,

and she does not drink; rather, she leaves without her ketubba, and she is forbidden to her husband and to the man with whom she committed adultery, and she is forbidden to eat teruma.

And we also learned: “One witness says: I saw that she was defiled,”

during that seclusion—

she would not drink

the bitter waters, since the witness is trusted.

And we inquire about this:

From where do we know from the Torah that one witness is trusted?

From where do we know from the Torah that one witness is trusted?

The Gemara answers:

As the Sages taught

in a beraita:

It is written in the passage concerning a sotah: “A man, a man, if his wife goes astray and commits treachery against him, and a man lies with her with an emission of seed, and it is concealed from the eyes of her husband, and she secluded herself and became defiled,”

“If any man’s wife goes astray and betrays him, and a man lies with her with an emission of semen, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she secluded herself, and she was defiled,

“and there is no witness against her,”

“and she was not seized, and a spirit of jealousy passed over him and he warned his wife, and she became defiled.”

Since the words of the verse, “and there is no witness against her,” are stated after “and a man lies with her,” it is evident that the verse is speaking of testimony concerning defilement. Afterward it says, “and a spirit of jealousy passed over him.” Below, the Gemara explains that the verse means that he had warned her even before the seclusion, and concerning this it says, “and there is no witness against her.”

Thus, one witness is trusted to testify that she was defiled after the warning and seclusion.

The beraita analyzes this: Perhaps the verse is speaking

of two witnesses,

and the meaning of the phrase “and there is no witness against her” is based on the word “testimony”: It is saying that there is no testimony of two witnesses against her, but only one witness. Concerning this it says, “and she was not seized,” meaning that she was not raped but acted intentionally, and therefore she is forbidden. If so, it is proven that one witness is trusted to testify that she was defiled.

Or perhaps it refers even to one.

Perhaps the meaning of the phrase “and there is no witness against her” is not based on the word “testimony,” but refers to a single witness; the meaning of the verse would then be that there is not even one witness against her [and the Gemara later in the discussion explains how she is rendered forbidden]. Accordingly, this cannot serve as a source that one witness is trusted to render her forbidden.

The verse states—

It is written in the passage concerning judges:

“One witness shall not stand against a person.”