Sotah 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

And the beraita precisely states:

But

from the implication of the statement, “A single witness shall not arise against a person,” do I not know that it means one?

Since, once the Torah wrote “a witness shall not arise,” its meaning is a single witness, why must the Torah add and emphasize that it concerns “one”?

What does “one” come to teach? —

This establishes a principle:

we learn from here, by the method of mah matzinu, for the entire Torah, that

wherever “witness” is stated, the reference is to two.

For wherever the Torah uses the term “witness,” it means two witnesses,

unless the verse explicitly specifies “one,”

unless the Torah explicitly writes “one witness.”

And from this beraita our doubt is resolved: in the passage concerning a sota as well, the verse “and there is no witness against her” is interpreted as referring to testimony.

And the Merciful One says: She does not have two,

we do not have two witnesses to the act of adultery,

but

one

witness.

And concerning this it is stated:

“But she was not seized,” she is forbidden,

since, once there is one witness that she acted deliberately, she becomes forbidden to her husband.

But the Gemara asks:

Rather, the reason is

that only because

it is written, “A single witness shall not arise against a person,”

do we interpret the verse “and there is no witness against her” in the language of testimony.

If not for this,

if we did not have this exposition,

I would say that the witness concerning a sota —

is one!

And the meaning of the verse would be that we do not even have one witness.

And if there is not even one,

if the meaning of the verse is that we do not even have one witness that she secluded herself,

then by what means does she become forbidden?

How does she become forbidden to her husband?

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary. It might have entered your mind to say

that the meaning of the verse

“there is no witness against her”

is that there

is no

one witness

who is trusted concerning her

to forbid her, but specifically two witnesses are required.

The Gemara asks:

If the meaning of the verse is that there

is no one who is trusted concerning her,

then what does it need to teach?

What is it coming to teach us? Is it that she is not forbidden

until there are two,

that we have two witnesses that she became defiled? —

Let the verse remain silent about this!

Why does the Torah need to teach us anew that one witness is not trusted?

It can be derived

by means of the gzera shava

“matter” and “matter” from monetary law,

for with regard to monetary law it is explicitly stated: “By the mouth of two witnesses shall a matter be established,” while in the passage concerning adultery it is stated: “Because he has found in her a matter of nakedness.” From this we learn that testimony concerning a matter of forbidden relationships requires no fewer than two witnesses.

And we already know

that testimony concerning defilement requires two witnesses,

as is the case with all testimony in the Torah,

just as we require two witnesses for every matter of forbidden relationships.

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary.

If we had not learned from the verse “A single witness shall not arise” that the verse refers to two witnesses, we would have interpreted the verse as teaching that no witness is trusted concerning her. And as to our objection that this is obvious—that one witness is not trusted concerning her—we can say:

It might have entered your mind to say

that

a sota is different,

and it is impossible to learn from other matters of forbidden relationships that testimony concerning a sota also requires two witnesses,

for there is circumstantial evidence,

since we have corroboration for the statement of the one witness,

for he warned her and

even so

she secluded herself,

and therefore we might have said that even

one witness should not be trusted concerning her

regarding her defilement.

Therefore the verse was necessary to teach us that one witness is not trusted concerning her. But once we learn, by the method of mah matzinu, from the verse “A single witness shall not arise” that the verse “and there is no witness against her” uses the language of testimony rather than referring to a single witness, we consequently learn that even one witness is trusted concerning defilement.

The Gemara asks:

Can you really say

that, without the exposition from the verse “A single witness shall not arise,” one could interpret the verse as teaching

that there is no

one witness

trusted concerning her, and she is permitted,

and that she remains permitted until we have two witnesses concerning her defilement?

But from the fact that

at the end of the verse it is written

“But she was not seized”—by inference, she is forbidden!

This indicates that once she acted deliberately, she is forbidden, although we do not have two witnesses that she became defiled. Nevertheless, she is forbidden.

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary.

If we had not learned from the verse “A single witness shall not arise” that the verse refers to two witnesses,

it might have entered your mind to say

that we should interpret the verse as follows:

no one is trusted concerning her until there are two,

and she becomes forbidden only if there are two witnesses.

And even with two, only if she was not seized.

The meaning of the verse would be that even if there are two witnesses, she becomes forbidden only if she acted deliberately.

It teaches us

through the verse “A single witness shall not arise” that wherever the Torah writes “witness,” the term means testimony. Since in the passage concerning a sota it says, “and there is no witness against her,” this means that even one witness can testify concerning her defilement:

We learned in the Mishna:

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

What is the reason

for Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion, that warning and seclusion require two witnesses, whereas one witness suffices for defilement?

The verse states:

“and there is no witness

against her,”

and the Gemara explained above that the meaning of the verse is that she does not have two witnesses concerning her defilement, but one witness.

And we exclude:

“against her,”

with regard to defilement, one witness suffices,

but not for warning,

for two witnesses are required for the warning.

And likewise we exclude:

“against her,”

with regard to defilement, one witness suffices,

but not for seclusion,

for two witnesses are required for the warning and for the seclusion.

And Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that only warning requires two witnesses,

says —

“Against her,” but not for warning!

Only with regard to the law of warning do we exclude from the verse that two witnesses are required; but with regard to seclusion, one witness suffices.

The Gemara asks:

But say: “against her,” but not for seclusion!

From where does Rabbi Eliezer know that the verse comes to exclude warning, which requires two witnesses? Perhaps the verse comes to exclude seclusion as well, so that two witnesses are required for seclusion.

The Gemara answers:

Seclusion is juxtaposed with defilement, as it is written: “And she secluded herself, and she became defiled.”

Since seclusion is juxtaposed with defilement, we learn that just as one witness suffices for defilement, so one witness suffices for seclusion.

The Gemara asks:

Warning is also juxtaposed with defilement, as it is written: “And he warned his wife, and she became defiled.”

Since warning too is juxtaposed with defilement, why does Rabbi Eliezer hold that two witnesses are required for warning?

The Gemara answers:

The Merciful One excluded it with the phrase “against her.”

Since the verse comes to exclude one of them, Rabbi Eliezer holds that it excludes warning, which requires two witnesses.

The Gemara asks:

What have you seen

that leads us to interpret the verse as excluding warning, rather than interpreting “against her” as excluding seclusion?

The Gemara answers:

It is logical that seclusion is preferable

as the subject of the stricter rule, so that she becomes forbidden even through one witness,

since

seclusion

forbids her

to her husband and to the paramour as a matter of doubt,

just

as with

defilement,

which renders her certainly forbidden to her husband and to the paramour. Therefore, we interpret the verse as excluding only warning, for warning requires two witnesses, whereas seclusion is juxtaposed with defilement, and one witness suffices for it.

The Gemara asks:

On the contrary, warning is preferable

as the subject of the juxtaposition with defilement, so that one witness suffices,

since it is the principal cause of it!

For she becomes forbidden through seclusion only because of the warning, and the warning is what causes her to become forbidden; ordinary seclusion, without a warning, does not render her forbidden.

The Gemara answers:

Without seclusion —

would there be any warning?

For warning causes no prohibition without seclusion.

The Gemara asks:

And without warning —

what benefit does seclusion provide?

Seclusion accomplishes nothing without warning, so it would be preferable to juxtapose warning with defilement.

The Gemara answers:

Even so, seclusion is preferable

for juxtaposition with defilement, so that one witness suffices,

because it is the beginning of defilement,

since defilement begins with seclusion:

The Mishna,

which states that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is that warning requires two witnesses, while seclusion requires one witness or the husband’s own testimony.

Not in accordance with this tanna —

As it was taught

in a beraita —

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer —

One who warns his wife —

may warn her on the testimony of one witness or on his own testimony,

and he has her drink on the testimony of two witnesses. Thus, Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is that warning may be based on the husband’s own testimony, whereas seclusion requires two witnesses.

The Sages responded to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who allowed warning on the basis of the husband’s own testimony: If so,

there would be no end to the matter [the continuation of the discussion will explain why there would be no end to the matter].

What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda’s

opinion

that warning requires one witness and seclusion requires two?

The verse states:

“and there is no witness

against her,”

which teaches that one witness suffices concerning defilement.

And we exclude:

“against her,”

with regard to defilement, one witness suffices,

but not for seclusion,

for she becomes forbidden through seclusion only on the testimony of two.

The Gemara asks:

But say

that we should exclude

“against her”

with regard to defilement,

but not for warning.

Let us likewise require two witnesses for warning.

The Gemara answers:

Warning is juxtaposed with defilement,

for which one witness suffices,

as it is written:

“And he warned his wife, and she became defiled.”

The Gemara asks:

Seclusion is also juxtaposed with defilement, as it is written: “And she secluded herself, and she became defiled,”

and if so, why are two witnesses required for seclusion?

The Gemara answers:

That

juxtaposition of seclusion with defilement

came

to teach us

the measure of seclusion,

that if she remained secluded with him, she becomes forbidden only if she remained there for the amount of time

required for defilement,

during which she could become defiled by him;

that is what it came to teach.

We learned in a beraita —

The Sages responded to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: There would be no end to the matter.

The Gemara asks:

What does that mean?

Why would there be no end to the matter?

The Gemara answers:

For sometimes he did not warn her,

there will be cases in which he truly did not warn her.

Yet he says that he warned her.

When he is angry with her, he will tell the court that he warned her not to seclude herself with a certain man. We will believe him, and afterward he will bring witnesses that she secluded herself with that man, thereby forbidding her to him and this is why the Sages said that there would be no end to the matter.

The Gemara asks:

It would seem

that according to our Mishna,

where Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is that warning requires two witnesses,

there would be an end to the matter.

But

sometimes she did not seclude herself, yet he says that she secluded herself.

For every time he warns her in the presence of two witnesses, he can afterward tell the court that he saw her seclude herself; even according to the Mishna, he is trusted concerning the seclusion. If so, even according to the Mishna it should be difficult that there would be no end to the matter.

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said —

even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, there would be no end to the matter,

and likewise, according to the tanna of the Mishna, there would be no end to the matter.

The Gemara asks:

It would seem that

even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

there would be no end to the matter,

and it is unnecessary to say that this is so according to our Mishna,

for certainly, according to the tanna of the Mishna, there would be no end to the matter.

But

on the contrary, according to our Mishna there is a principal safeguard,

for according to the tanna of our Mishna, he must warn her in the presence of two witnesses. Thus, there is a more remote concern that when he becomes angry with her he will be able to forbid her, since at least two witnesses are required for the warning.

There, there is no principal safeguard.

According to the tanna of the beraita, witnesses are not required for the essential matter, namely, the warning. Therefore there is a greater concern that every time he becomes angry with her he will forbid her, since no witnesses are required at all.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows —

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said —

According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and even according to our Mishna, there would be no end to the matter:

Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura said —

One should not say

that a person should not say

a man

to

his wife

in the present time,

when we do not have the Temple:

“Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so,”

meaning, “Do not be alone with so-and-so,” even if it is only the two of you.

Perhaps we know

because perhaps the halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that warning may be based on the husband’s own testimony,

and he need not warn her in the presence of two witnesses,

and she may seclude herself,

and thereby become forbidden to him .

And we do not have nowadays

at the present time

the waters of the sota with which to examine her,

to determine whether or not she committed adultery with him,

and he forbids her to himself with an everlasting prohibition,

so that she becomes forbidden to him forever as a matter of doubt:

Reish Lakish said:

What is the meaning of the term warning,

what is the meaning of the word kinui in the Torah? —

Something that engenders jealousy,

in the sense of anger,

between her and others.

Apparently, he holds

like the tanna who holds that

warning may be based on the husband’s own testimony,

and he can warn her even in private,

but everyone does not know that he warned her,

and no one will know that he warned her.

And they will say, “What is this that is happening before us,”

they will say, “What is the meaning of this conduct before us?”

that she is separating herself,

that she distances herself from men, does not speak with them, and does not approach them, all because she is afraid that she may come to seclusion,

and they will come to arouse jealousy against her,

and they will come to quarrel and engage in strife with her.

And Rav Yemar bar Rabbi Shelamya said in the name of Abaye -

The term kinui is

something that arouses jealousy

and anger

between him and her.

This indicates that he holds

like the

tanna, who holds that kinui is in the presence of two witnesses,

and a kinui based on his own word is ineffective,

and everyone knows that he warned her,

since the witnesses publicize that her husband warned her, they will not be brought with her to anger.

And he is the one who comes to create jealousy between him and her,

for only her husband will be brought with her to anger and quarrel, because, since he suspects that she committed adultery while married to him, she will come to quarrel with him.