Sotah 2a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The one who warns his wife,

the one who warns his wife not to seclude herself with a certain man — how does he warn her? —

Rabbi Eliezer says: He warns her on the basis of two,

for he must warn her not to seclude herself with a particular person, and the warning must be 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 him and her, she does not become forbidden to him, and he cannot have her drink.

And he has her drink,

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

on the basis of one witness,

who testifies that she secluded herself with that man, with whom he 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.

And she is forbidden to her husband, whether she secluded herself on the basis of one witness or on the basis of his own testimony, because of the doubt, until she is examined by the bitter waters.

Rabbi Joshua says: He warns her on the basis of two,

and his view is like that of Rabbi Eliezer.

And he has her drink on the basis of two,

for two witnesses are also required concerning the fact that she secluded herself with a certain man.

How does he warn her?

If

he said to her in the presence of two —

in the wording of —

“Do not speak with a certain man,”

and all his warning was that she should not speak with that man.

And she spoke with him,

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

She is still permitted to her home,

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 does not become forbidden to her husband.

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

and nevertheless

she entered with him into a place of seclusion

and violated his warning and secluded herself with him,

and remained with him for the time of impurity,

the duration of the seclusion being the measure of time required for initial intercourse,

she is

forbidden to her home,

to her husband, according to the law of a sota who is forbidden because of the doubt.

And

if she was married to a kohen, she is

forbidden to eat teruma because of the doubt.

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 chalitza, 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,

behold,

the tanna has come up from Nazir,

the tanna taught the tractate of Nazir before the tractate of Sota, and upon completing the tractate of Nazir he came to teach the tractate of Sota.

Therefore it must be considered:

what did he teach,

what subject did we learn in the tractate of Nazir that is similar to the tractate of Sota that follows it,

that he taught Sota,

so that the tanna taught the tractate of Sota after the tractate of Nazir?

And we answer:

In accordance with Rabbi.

According to Rabbi’s exposition.

For it was taught

in a beraita —

Rabbi says: Why was the passage of the nazirite juxtaposed to the passage of sota?

Why did the Torah write the passage of the nazirite after the passage of sota?

To tell you

to teach us

that anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace,

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

should make himself a nazir,

should undertake upon himself to abstain

from wine,

for wine causes frivolity, and wine is what caused the woman to commit adultery against her husband.

Since for this reason the Torah juxtaposed the passage of the nazirite after the passage of sota —

for this reason the tanna taught the tractate of Sota after the tractate of Nazir.

And the Gemara asks:

Let him teach Sota, and afterward teach Nazir!

If so, just as we find in the Torah that the passage of sota is written before the passage of the nazirite, the tanna should have written the tractate of Nazir after Sota.

And we answer:

Since

because

he taught Ketubot,

the tanna first taught the tractate of Ketubot,

and taught “The One Who Makes a Vow,”

and within the tractate of Ketubot he wrote the chapter The One Who Makes a Vow, which concerns vows.

he taught Nedarim.

Therefore the tanna taught the tractate of Nedarim after the tractate of Ketubot.

And since he taught Nedarim,

and since he had already taught the tractate of Nedarim,

he taught Nazir.

The tanna took up the tractate of Nazir since

it is similar to Nedarim,

for nazirut is a vow among the category of vows, since nazirut takes effect when one undertakes upon himself through a vow to be a nazir. Therefore the tanna arranged the tractate of Nazir after the tractate of Nedarim.

And he taught,

and therefore the tanna took up the tractate of

Sota

after the tractate of Nazir

in accordance with Rabbi

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

We learned in the Mishna:

The one who warns

his wife.

And the Gemara infers:

It implies

after the fact, yes.

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

But

initially, no!

For it is not proper for a person 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 opening phrase, “The one who warns his wife,” would be superfluous.

And it is demonstrated from this that

our tanna holds that it is forbidden to warn.

It is not proper initially to warn one’s wife, because through this he brings himself to quarrel with his wife, and also because he causes his wife to come to humiliation in the Temple.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said —

When Resh Lakish would begin with Sota,

when Resh Lakish would come to expound concerning the passage of sota,

he would say thus —

A wife is paired with a man only according to his deeds.

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

As it is stated: “For there shall not rest

there shall not be joined

the scepter of the wicked

the dominion of the wicked

upon the lot of the righteous.”

And from this we learn that an immoral woman will not fall into the lot of a righteous man.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan —

And difficult are

those pairings that are fixed according to a person’s deeds, before the Holy One, blessed is He,

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

for the Holy One, blessed is He, had to split the sea for them and alter the order of creation.

As it is stated

at the beginning of the verse:

“God settles the solitary,

the Holy One, blessed is He, pairs one single man with one single woman

in a house.”

He establishes a house from them.

And at the end of the verse it says:

“He brings out prisoners

for the Holy One, blessed is He, brought Israel out of Egypt

in prosperity.”

In the month of Nisan, which is a time suited for going out, a month that is neither cold nor hot.

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

And the Gemara asks:

Is that so?

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

But Rav Judah said in the name of Rav —

Forty days before the formation of the fetus,

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

a heavenly voice emerges and says: So-and-so’s daughter is for so-and-so! So-and-so’s house is for so-and-so! So-and-so’s field is for so-and-so!

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

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

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

The first pairing is determined forty days before the formation of the fetus according to one’s astrological destiny, but the second pairing, [that is, a widower with a widow], since she is not his partner who was determined forty days before the formation of the fetus, but it is necessary to fit her to him, this is determined according to a person’s deeds, and this is difficult like the splitting of the Reed Sea.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: He warns her on the basis of two, etc.

And we consider it:

They disagree only to this extent,

namely, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua did not disagree that two witnesses are required

concerning warning,

for according to everyone two witnesses are required,

and seclusion,

which follows the warning, for according to Rabbi Joshua two witnesses are required.

But concerning impurity,

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 ketuba, and she is forbidden to her husband and to the man with whom she committed adultery, and with regard to eating teruma..

And we also learned: One witness says: “I saw that she became impure”

during that seclusion —

she did not drink

the bitter waters, since the witness is trusted.

And we consider it:

By Torah law, from where do we know that one witness is trusted?

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

The Gemara answers:

For the Sages taught

in a beraita:

It is written in the passage of sota: “Every man, when his wife goes astray and commits treachery against him, and a man lies with her with a seed-bearing act, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she secluded herself, and she became impure,

“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 impure.”

Since the words of the verse, “and there is no witness against her,” are stated after “and a man lies with her,” it is demonstrated that the verse is speaking of testimony concerning matters of impurity. And afterward it says, “and a spirit of jealousy passed over him.” Below the Gemara explains that the intent of the verse is that he had already warned her before the seclusion, and concerning this it says, “and there is no witness against her.”

Thus, one witness is trusted to testify that she became impure after warning and seclusion.

And the beraita discusses: Shall we say that

the verse is speaking of two,

and the intent of the verse, “and there is no witness against her,” is in the sense of “testimony,” to say that there is not testimony of two concerning her, but only one witness; and concerning this it says, “and she was not seized,” meaning that she was not raped, but acted deliberately, and therefore she becomes forbidden? If so, it is demonstrated that one witness is trusted to testify that she became impure.

Or perhaps it is even with one.

Perhaps the intent of the verse, “and there is no witness against her,” is not in the sense of “testimony,” but in the sense of a single witness, and the intent of the verse is that there is not even one witness concerning her [and the Gemara later in the discussion explains how she becomes forbidden]. According to this, it cannot be learned from here that one witness is trusted to forbid her.

The verse states —

It is stated in the passage of Judges:

“One witness shall not stand against a man.”