Sotah 2b — the Talmud in English

And the beraita is precise:

But

From the implication of what is stated, “A witness shall not arise against a man,” do I not know that it is one?

For since the Torah wrote, “a witness shall not arise,” its meaning is a single witness; why, then, does the Torah need to add and emphasize that it concerns “one

What is the verse teaching by stating “one”—

This establishes a principle,

we learn from here, by the derivation of “what do we find,” for the entire Torah, that

every place where “witness” is stated, here there are two.

For every place where the Torah writes in the language “witness,” its intention is two witnesses.

until the verse specifies “one,”

unless the Torah explicitly writes “one witness.”

And from this beraita our doubt is resolved: in the passage of the sota as well, the verse “and there is no witness against her” is interpreted

and the Merciful One said: there are not two in her,

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

but

one witness

. And concerning this it is stated,

“

and she was not seized,” she is forbidden,

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

But the Gemara asks:

Rather, the reason

is apparently only because

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

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

If it were not so,

if we did not have this exposition,

I would say, the witness of a sota—

is one!

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

And if there is not even one,

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

but by what does she become forbidden?

How does she become forbidden to her husband?

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary. It might enter your mind to say

that the meaning of the verse

“there is no witness against her,”

is that

there is no

one witness

trusted concerning her

to forbid her; rather, specifically two witnesses.

And the Gemara asks:

If the meaning of the verse is that

there is no one trusted concerning her.

But what does it need,

and what does it come to teach us? Is it that she does not become forbidden

until there are two,

that we have two witnesses that she became impure?—

Let the verse be silent about it!

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

For it can be derived,

for this can be learned by a

“matter, matter”

gzera shava from monetary matters, because concerning monetary matters it is explicitly stated, “by the mouth of two witnesses shall a matter be established,” and in the passage of adultery it is stated, “because he found in her a matter of nakedness”; and from here we learn that a matter of forbidden relations cannot have fewer than two witnesses.

And I know it,

we know this in any event: testimony concerning impurity requires two witnesses,

as is the case with every testimony in the Torah,

just as we require two witnesses in every matter of forbidden relations.

And the Gemara answers:

It was necessary.

If we had not learned from the verse “A witness shall not arise against a man” that the meaning of the verse is two witnesses, we would have interpreted the verse as teaching us that no witness is trusted concerning her. And what we challenged—that this is obvious, that one witness is not trusted concerning her—we can say:

it might enter your mind to say

that

a sota is different,

and it is impossible to learn from every matter of forbidden relations that two witnesses are also required for testimony concerning a sota,

for there are grounds for the matter,

since we have proof supporting the statement of the one witness,

for he warned her and

nevertheless

she secluded herself,

and therefore I might have said that even

one witness should not be trusted concerning her

regarding the impurity.

Therefore the verse had to teach us that one witness is not trusted concerning her. But once we learn, by the derivation of “what do we find,” from the verse “A witness shall not arise against a man,” that the meaning of the verse “and there is no witness against her” is in the language of testimony and not in the language of a single witness, we learn in any event that even one witness is trusted concerning impurity.

The Gemara asks:

And can you say,

how is it possible to say that, were it not for the exposition from the verse “A witness shall not arise against a man,” we could interpret the verse as teaching us

that there is no

one witness

trusted concerning her, and she is permitted,

and until we have two witnesses concerning the impurity she is permitted?

But from the fact that it is written

at the end of the verse,

“and she was not seized,” by implication, she is forbidden!

It follows that since she acted deliberately, she is forbidden; yet we do not have two witnesses that she became impure, and nevertheless she is forbidden.

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary.

If we had not learned from the verse “A witness shall not arise against a man” that the meaning of the verse is two witnesses,

it might enter your mind to say,

we would have interpreted the verse:

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.

And 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

the verse “A witness shall not arise against a man”: every place where the Torah writes “witness,” its meaning is in the language of testimony. And since in the passage of the sota it says, “and there is no witness against her,” it follows that even one witness can testify concerning the impurity:

We learned in the Mishna:

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

What is the reason

of Rabbi Joshua, that for warning and seclusion two witnesses are required, whereas for impurity one witness is sufficient?

The verse says,

“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 impurity, but one witness.

And we exclude:

“against her,”

concerning impurity, one witness is sufficient,

but not for warning,

rather, two witnesses are required for the warning.

And likewise we exclude:

“against her,”

concerning impurity, one witness is sufficient,

but not for seclusion,

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

And Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that only for the warning two witnesses are required,

says—

“Against her,” but not for the 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 is sufficient.

The Gemara asks:

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

From where does Rabbi Eliezer know that the verse came to exclude [the possibility] that the warning requires two witnesses? Perhaps the verse came to exclude [the possibility] that seclusion also requires two witnesses.

The Gemara answers:

Seclusion is linked to impurity, as it is written, “and she secluded herself and became impure.”

Since seclusion was linked to impurity, we learn: just as one witness is sufficient for impurity, so one witness is sufficient for seclusion.

The Gemara asks:

The warning, too, is linked to impurity, as it is written, “and he warned his wife, and she became impure.”

And since the warning, too, was linked to impurity, why does Rabbi Eliezer hold that two witnesses are required for the warning?

The Gemara answers:

Here the Merciful One excluded it, “against her.”

And since the verse came to exclude, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the verse came to exclude [the possibility] that the warning requires two witnesses.

The Gemara asks:

And what have you seen?

Why do we interpret that the verse came to exclude the warning, and do not interpret that “the verse ‘against her’” came to exclude seclusion?

The Gemara answers:

It is logical: seclusion is preferable

to make stringent concerning it, so that she becomes forbidden even through one witness,

since

the seclusion

forbids her

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

just as

in

impurity,

where she becomes forbidden as a matter of certainty to her husband and to the paramour. Therefore we interpret that the verse came to exclude only the warning, for the warning requires two witnesses, whereas seclusion was linked to impurity, and one witness is sufficient for it.

The Gemara asks:

On the contrary, the warning is preferable

to link to impurity, for one witness is sufficient,

since it is the principal cause for her!

For it is only because of the warning that she becomes forbidden through seclusion, and it is what causes her to become forbidden, since through ordinary seclusion she does not become forbidden.

The Gemara answers:

If not for seclusion—

would there be a warning?

For the warning causes no prohibition whatsoever without seclusion.

The Gemara asks:

And if not for the warning—

what benefit does seclusion have?

For seclusion accomplishes nothing without the warning, and it would be preferable to link the warning to impurity.

The Gemara answers:

Even so, seclusion is preferable

to link to impurity, for one witness is sufficient,

for it is the beginning of impurity,

since impurity begins with seclusion:

The Mishna,

in which it is written that Rabbi Eliezer’s view is that the warning is with two witnesses and seclusion with one witness and on his own testimony.

Not like this tanna—

As it was taught

we learned in a beraita—

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer—

One who warns his wife—

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

and he gives her to drink on the testimony of two. Thus Rabbi Eliezer’s view is that the warning is on his own testimony and seclusion is on the testimony of two.

The Sages replied to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah’s statement

that the warning is on his own testimony: if so,

there is no end to the matter [

and later in the discussion it will be explained why there is no end to the matter].

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah

that the warning is with one witness and seclusion with two?

The verse says,

“and there is no witness

against her,”

which means that one witness is sufficient for the impurity.

And we exclude:

“against her,”

concerning impurity, one witness is sufficient,

but not for seclusion,

for she becomes forbidden through seclusion only with two witnesses.

The Gemara asks:

But say,

perhaps we should exclude

“against her”

concerning impurity,

but not for the warning.

And for the warning as well, let us require two witnesses.

The Gemara answers:

The warning is linked to impurity,

for one witness is sufficient.

As it is written—

“and he warned his wife, and she became impure.”

The Gemara asks:

Seclusion, too, is linked to impurity, as it is written, “and she secluded herself and became impure,”

and if so, why are two required for seclusion?

The Gemara answers:

That,

the linkage of seclusion to impurity, came

to

teach

what the measure of seclusion is,

that if she stayed with him in seclusion she becomes forbidden only if she stayed for the measure of

the time sufficient for impurity,

during which she could become impure through him;

that is what it came for.

We learned in a beraita—

The Sages replied to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah’s statement: There is no end to the matter.

The Gemara asks:

What is it?

Why is there no end to the matter?

The Gemara answers:

For sometimes he did not warn,

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

And he says, “I warned.”

And here, when he is angry with her, he will say to the court that he warned her not to seclude herself with so-and-so, and we believe him; afterward he will bring witnesses that she secluded herself with so-and-so, and he will forbid her to himself , and therefore the Sages said: There is no end to the matter.

The Gemara asks:

It follows:

but according to our Mishna, that

Rabbi Eliezer’s view is that the warning is with two witnesses,

there is an end to the matter.

But

sometimes she did not seclude herself, and he says, “She secluded herself.”

For every time that he warns her before two witnesses, he will afterward say to the court that he saw that she secluded herself; and even according to the Mishna he is trusted concerning the seclusion. If so, even according to the Mishna it should be asked that there is no end to the matter.

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Isaac son of Joseph said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan—

even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah there is no end to the matter,

and also according to the tanna of the Mishna there is no end to the matter.

The Gemara asks:

It follows that

even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah

there is no end to the matter,

and it is unnecessary to say according to our Mishna

and all the more so, according to the tanna of the Mishna there is no end to the matter.

But

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

for according to the tanna of our Mishna he must warn her before two witnesses. If so, this is a more remote concern: that when he becomes angry with her he will be able to forbid her, since at the very least two witnesses are required for the warning.

There, there is no principal basis.

According to the tanna of the beraita, who does not require witnesses for the principal matter, namely, for the warning, 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 said, this is what was said—

Rabbi Isaac son of Joseph said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan—

According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah, and even according to our Mishna, there is no end to the matter:

Rabbi Hanina of Sura said—

Let a person not say,

let him not say

a person

to

his wife

to his wife

at this time,

when we do not have the Temple:

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

do not be alone with so-and-so, even when it is only the two of them.

Perhaps we hold,

because perhaps the halakha is

according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah, who says that the warning is on his own testimony,

and he need not warn her before two witnesses,

and she will seclude herself,

and become forbidden to him .

And we do not have nowadays,

we do not have at this time

the waters of a sota to test her,

to test whether she committed adultery with him or not,

and he imposes upon her a prohibition upon himself forever,

and she will be forbidden to him forever as a matter of doubt:

Reish Lakish said:

What is the meaning of the word warning,

what is the meaning of the word “warning” in the Torah?—

A matter that creates jealousy,

in the sense of anger,

between her and others.

It follows that he holds

like the tanna who holds

that the warning is on his own testimony,

and he can warn her even privately, between him and her,

and everyone does not know that he warned her,

and there will be no one who knows that he warned her,

and they say, “What is this before us,

they will say, “What is this act before us,

that she is separating herself,

that she is separated from men, does not speak with them, and does not approach them, all because she is afraid that she will come to seclusion,

and they come to create jealousy with her,

and they will come with her to anger and strife.

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

the term kinui is

a matter that arouses jealousy

anger

between him and her.

It is evident that he holds

like the tanna, who holds

that kinui is according to two witnesses,

and kinui according to himself is not effective,

and everyone knows that he warned her,

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

And it is he who comes to create jealousy with her,

only her husband will come with her to anger and quarrel, because, since he suspects her of having committed adultery beneath him, she will come with him to quarrel.