Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 28, 2015 | 讟状讜 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sotah 2

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽谞讗 诇讗砖转讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪砖拽讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪砖拽讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who issues a warning to his wife not to seclude herself with a particular man, so that if she does not heed his warning she will assume the status of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], Rabbi Eliezer says: He issues a warning to her based on, i.e., in the presence of, two witnesses for the warning to be effective. If two witnesses were not present for the warning, she is not a sota even if two witnesses saw her seclusion with another man. And the husband gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of one witness who saw the seclusion, or even based on his own testimony that he himself saw them secluded together, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that only the warning requires witnesses, not the seclusion. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He both issues a warning to her based on two witnesses and gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses.

讻讬爪讚 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讗诇 转讚讘专讬 注诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讚讘专讛 注诪讜 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 诇讘讬转讛 讜诪讜转专转 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛

The mishna asks: How does he issue a warning to her in an effective manner? If he says to her in the presence of two witnesses: Do not speak with the man called so-and-so, and she nevertheless spoke with him, she is still permitted to her home, i.e., she is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, and if she is the wife of a priest she is still permitted to partake of teruma.

谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇讘讬转 讛住转专 讜砖讛转讛 注诪讜 讻讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讘讬转讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诪转 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

However, if after he told her not to speak with so-and-so, she entered into a secluded place and remained with that man long enough to become defiled, i.e., sufficient time to engage in sexual intercourse, she is forbidden to her home from that moment until she undergoes the sota rite. And likewise, if she was the wife of a priest she is prohibited from partaking of teruma, as she was possibly disqualified by her infidelity, so long as her innocence is not proven by means of the bitter water. And if her husband dies childless before she drinks the bitter water, she perform 岣litza with her late husband鈥檚 brother and may not enter into levirate marriage, as, if she had been unfaithful, levirate marriage is forbidden.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 转谞讗 诪谞讝讬专 住诇讬拽 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽讗 转谞讗 住讜讟讛

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the placement of this tractate within the mishnaic order of Nashim. Now, the tanna arose from tractate Nazir, which is the tractate preceding Sota in the order of the Mishna. What did he teach in Nazir that required that he teach tractate Sota immediately afterward, as at first glance there seems to be no connection between this tractate and Nazir?

讻讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇诪讛 谞住诪讻讛 驻专砖转 谞讝讬专 诇驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 住讜讟讛 讘拽诇拽讜诇讛 讬讝讬专 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛讬讬谉

The Gemara answers: This was done in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to the sequence of passages in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Why is the portion of a nazirite (Numbers, chapter 6) placed adjacent to the portion of a sota (Numbers, chapter 5)? This was done to tell you that anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace as she undergoes the rite of the bitter water should renounce wine, as wine is one of the causes of sexual transgression, as it loosens inhibitions. For the same reason that the Torah teaches these passages one after the other, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged these tractates one after the other.

讜诇讬转谞讬 住讜讟讛 讜讛讚专 诇讬转谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讻转讜讘讜转 讜转谞讗 讛诪讚讬专 转谞讗 谞讚专讬诐 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 谞讚专讬诐 转谞讗 谞讝讬专 讚讚诪讬 诇谞讚专讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 住讜讟讛 讻讚专讘讬

The Gemara asks: But if so, let him teach tractate Sota first and then let him teach tractate Nazir, which is the way these topics are ordered in the Torah, and also accords better with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara answers: Since the tanna taught tractate Ketubot, and in that tractate he taught a chapter that begins: One who vows, in which there are several mishnayot concerning vows between husbands and wives, he then taught tractate Nedarim, whose subject is the halakhot of vows. And since he taught tractate Nedarim, he then taught tractate Nazir, which is similar to tractate Nedarim in that one becomes a nazirite by taking a vow. And he then teaches tractate Sota, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讛诪拽谞讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 拽住讘专 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讗住讜专 诇拽谞讗讜转

搂 The Gemara begins clarifying the mishna. The mishna states: One who issues a warning to his wife. By employing the descriptive phrase: One who issues a warning, and not the prescriptive phrase: One issues a warning, the tanna indicates that after the fact, yes, it is effective if he issues a warning in this manner, but ideally, no, one should not issue a warning to his wife at all ab initio. Apparently, the tanna of our mishna holds that it is prohibited to issue a warning to one鈥檚 wife ab initio in a manner that can cause her to become a sota, and all the halakhot concerning a sota are for one who issued a warning when not obligated to do so.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讻讬 讛讜讛 驻转讞 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘住讜讟讛 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 诪讝讜讜讙讬谉 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 讗砖讛 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 诪注砖讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 讬谞讜讞 砖讘讟 讛专砖注 注诇 讙讜专诇 讛爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽砖讬谉 诇讝讜讜讙谉 讻拽专讬注转 讬诐 住讜祝 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇讛讬诐 诪讜砖讬讘 讬讞讬讚讬诐 讘讬转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讗住讬专讬诐 讘讻讜砖专讜转

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: When Reish Lakish would introduce his discussion of the Torah passage of sota he would say this: Heaven matches a woman to a man only according to his actions, as it is stated: 鈥淔or the rod of wickedness shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous鈥 (Psalms 125:3), indicating that if one has a wicked wife it is due to his own evil conduct. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And it is as difficult to match a couple together as was the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is stated in a verse that speaks of the exodus from Egypt: 鈥淕od makes the solitary individuals dwell in a house; He brings out prisoners into prosperity [bakosharot]鈥 (Psalms 68:7). God takes single individuals and causes them to dwell in a house by properly matching a man to a woman. This is similar to the exodus from Egypt, which culminated in the splitting of the Red Sea, where He released prisoners into prosperity.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐 拽讜讚诐 讬爪讬专转 讛讜诇讚 讘转 拽讜诇 讬讜爪讗转 讜讗讜诪专转 讘转 驻诇讜谞讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬转 驻诇讜谞讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬

The Gemara asks: Is that so that a man is matched to a woman according to his actions? But Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Forty days before an embryo is formed a Divine Voice issues forth and says: The daughter of so-and-so is destined to marry so-and-so; such and such a house is destined to be inhabited by so-and-so; such and such a field is destined to be farmed by so-and-so. This clearly states that these matters, including marriage, are decreed for a person even before he is formed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement that Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav is with regard to a first match [zivug], while this statement of Rabba bar bar 岣na in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan is with regard to a second match. A first match is decreed in heaven; a second match is according to one鈥檚 actions.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讗讘诇 讘讟讜诪讗讛 注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛讬诪谉

搂 The Gemara now clarifies the dispute in the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer says: The husband must issue a warning to her based on, i.e., in the presence of, two witnesses, and he gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of one witness. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He both issues a warning to her based on two witnesses and gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses who saw them secluded together. The Gemara notes: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree only with regard to the requisite number of witnesses for the warning and the seclusion, whether one or two witnesses are required, but with regard to the testimony concerning defilement after the warning was issued and seclusion had occurred, they agree that even the testimony of one witness is deemed credible to establish that the woman actually engaged in sexual intercourse with the man while secluded.

讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 砖谞讬讟诪讗转 诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛

The Gemara comments: And we learned also in another mishna (31a) that if a single witness says: I saw that she was defiled, then she would not drink the bitter water, as the testimony is accepted, and her husband must divorce her and she forfeits payment of her marriage contract. Therefore, there is no need to perform the sota rite.

诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪谞诇谉 讚诪讛讬诪谉 注讚 讗讞讚 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注讚 讗讬谉 讘讛 讘砖谞讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara asks: By Torah law, from where do we derive that one witness is deemed credible with regard to testifying that a sota engaged in sexual intercourse? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in reference to the verse describing the circumstances in which a woman defiled through an act of adultery becomes forbidden to her husband, which states: 鈥淎nd a man lie with her carnally and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there is no witness [ed] against her鈥 (Numbers 5:13), the verse is speaking of a lack of two witnesses. When the verse refers to the lack of an ed, written in the singular, it actually indicates that there are not two witnesses against her, but only one, as the baraita will now explain.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽讜诐 注讚 讗讞讚 讘讗讬砖

The baraita continues and asks: Or perhaps the verse is referring only to a case where there was not even one witness to the act of sexual intercourse, as the singular usage of the word ed would seem to indicate? The baraita now proves that elsewhere the word ed is used to indicate two witnesses, as the verse states: 鈥淥ne witness [ed] shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or any sin that he sins; by the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15).

诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬拽讜诐 注讚 讘讗讬砖 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讗讞讚 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗讞讚

The baraita infers a general principle from this verse by asking: By inference from that which is stated in the verse, even with the omission of the word 鈥渙ne鈥: 鈥淎 witness shall not rise up against a man鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), do I not know that it is referring to one witness, as the term 鈥渞ise up [yakum]鈥 is written in the singular form? What is the meaning when the verse states explicitly: 鈥淥ne witness,鈥 since it is obviously referring to only one witness? The baraita answers: This established a paradigm that every place where the word 鈥渨itness [ed]鈥 is stated in the Torah without specifying a number, there are two witnesses here, unless the verse specifies that it is referring to only one witness by writing the word 鈥渙ne.鈥

讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 转专讬 诇讬转 讘讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛

The baraita returns to discuss the verse concerning a sota. And the Merciful One states: 鈥淭here is no witness [ed] against her鈥 (Numbers 5:13), which therefore means that there are not two witnesses to the sexual intercourse that could testify with regard to her; rather, there is only one witness. The baraita completes its interpretation: Further in the verse it states: 鈥淎nd she was not taken,鈥 indicating that the verse is referring to a case in which it is known that the woman had not been raped. This knowledge is based on the testimony of only one witness, as the verse had already stated that there were not two witnesses, and since one witness saw her willingly engage in sexual intercourse with another man, she is forbidden.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讜诐 注讚 讗讞讚 讘讗讬砖 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚住讜讟讛 讞讚 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 诪讬转住专讗

The Gemara questions this reasoning: But this would seem to indicate that the only reason to interpret the verse concerning a sota as referring to a case where there is only one witness is that it is written in the other verse: 鈥淥ne witness shall not rise up against a man鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), indicating that any unspecified usage of the word ed in the Torah refers to two witnesses, but were it not for this inference, I would say that when the term witness is employed in the verse concerning a sota it is referring to one witness. However, this would mean that the woman is forbidden to her husband even if there is not even one witness who saw the alleged sexual intercourse, and if there is not even one witness to testify, then with what testimony does she become forbidden to her husband? Obviously, even without another verse, it must be understood that the verse is indicating that there are not two witnesses but there is one, or else there would be no testimony to her actions.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讘讛

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to infer the interpretation of the verse concerning the sota from the other verse mentioning one witness. Otherwise it might enter your mind to say that the verse here that states: 鈥淭here is no witness against her,鈥 means that a single witness testifying about the sexual intercourse is not deemed credible with regard to her under any circumstances, and the testimony of one witness is not accepted in the case of a sota.

讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讘讛 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘注讬

The Gemara questions this analysis: What would be the logic in interpreting the verse as indicating that a single witness is not deemed credible with regard to her? But if that is the interpretation, what does the verse require in order for a sota to be rendered forbidden?

注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 诇讬砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗转讬讗 讚讘专 讚讘专 诪诪诪讜谉 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讻诇 注讚讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara explains its question: If the verse is understood as indicating that a woman isn鈥檛 forbidden until there are two witnesses to testify to her infidelity, then let the verse be silent from any mention of witnesses, as the requirement for two witnesses in matters of sexual impropriety is derived by means of a verbal analogy from the word 鈥渕atter鈥 written with regard to forbidden relations, and the word 鈥渕atter鈥 written with regard to monetary matters. The verbal analogy by which it is learned that two witnesses are required is as follows: A verse concerning forbidden relations states: 鈥淏ecause he has found some unseemly matter about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and a verse concerning monetary matters states: 鈥淏y the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15). And I would know that the requirement that two witnesses testify applies in the case of a sota, just as it does in all other matters of testimony in the Torah.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 住讜讟讛 砖讗谞讬 讚专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖讛专讬 拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讜谞住转专讛 诇讬转讛讬诪谉 讘讛 注讚 讗讞讚

The Gemara answers: It was necessary that the verse be stated in the case of a sota as well, for it might enter your mind to say that testimony concerning a sota is different from other testimony, and even testimony of one witness would be sufficient because there is a basis for anticipating the matter. Since the husband issued a warning to her about this particular man and she then secluded herself with him, perhaps even one witness should be deemed credible with regard to her. Therefore, the verse informs us that one witness is not deemed credible to render her forbidden to her husband.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讘讛 讜砖专讬讗 讜讛讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗住讜专讛

The Gemara asks another question concerning its earlier analysis: But how can you think to say that the verse would be stating that one witness is not deemed credible with regard to her having engaged in sexual intercourse and she would remain permitted to her husband? But from the continuation of the same verse, from the fact that it is written: 鈥淎nd she was not taken,鈥 which indicates that the verse is referring to a case where she was not raped, one concludes by inference that the verse is referring to a woman who becomes forbidden to her husband for engaging in consensual adulterous sexual intercourse.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讘讛 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讜讘转专讬 谞诪讬 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it still was necessary to teach the principle derived from the other verse that the term 鈥ed鈥 is referring to two witnesses even in the context of a sota, as it might enter your mind to say that the verse should be understood to mean that one witness is not deemed credible with regard to her, and she remains permitted until there are two witnesses who testify to the sexual intercourse, and with the testimony of two witnesses as well, it is only when she was not seized and forced to cohabit with the man. Therefore, to refute this possible interpretation, the baraita teaches us that 鈥ed鈥 always refers to two witnesses unless stated otherwise. Therefore, the phrase in the verse concerning a sota that says: 鈥淭here is no witness [ed] against her,鈥 means that there were not two witnesses, but if there was only one witness he is deemed credible.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua says: He both issues a warning to her based on two witnesses, and he gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses who saw her secluded. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd there is no witness [ed] against her [bah]鈥 (Numbers 5:13), which was explained to mean there were not two witnesses, but only one, who testified concerning her defilement. Rabbi Yehoshua derives from the term bah, which could also be understood as: With regard to it, that in this matter of defilement one witness suffices, but not with regard to the warning. Additionally, he derives: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion. Therefore, there must be two witnesses to testify about both the warning and the seclusion.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion. And Rabbi Eliezer says that the only derivation to be learned is: With regard to it, but not with regard to the warning. Therefore, the warning, unlike the defilement, requires two witnesses. The seclusion is not contrasted with the defilement, and, like the defilement, requires only one.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛 住转讬专讛 讗讬转拽砖 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞住转专讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛

The Gemara questions Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion: But why not say that one should also derive: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion, as does Rabbi Yehoshua? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that derivation, as seclusion is juxtaposed to defilement by the verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd she was defiled secretly鈥 (Numbers 5:13), and the term 鈥渟ecretly鈥 is referring to seclusion. Therefore, the same halakha should apply to both.

拽讬谞讜讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讘讛

The Gemara asks: But the warning is also juxtaposed to defilement, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife, and she had become defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14) and the same halakha should apply to both. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excluded at least one of the two by use of the expression bah, which teaches that in one matter other than defilement, two witnesses are required.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 住转讬专讛 注讚讬驻讗 砖讻谉 讗讜住专转讛 讻讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to determine that the exclusion from the halakha of one witness sufficing is with regard to the warning? Perhaps the exclusion from the halakha of one witness sufficing is with regard to the seclusion. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that it is preferable to compare seclusion to defilement, as testimony with regard to seclusion forbids her to her husband just as testimony with regard to defilement does.

讗讚专讘讛 拽讬谞讜讬 注讚讬祝 砖讻谉 注讬拽专 讙专诐 诇讛

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: On the contrary, it is preferable to compare the warning to the defilement, as it is the main cause of her becoming forbidden. Seclusion alone, absent a warning, would not cause her to be forbidden to her husband.

讗讬 诇讗讜 住转讬专讛 拽讬谞讜讬 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 拽讬谞讜讬 住转讬专讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬

The Gemara counters: If there is no seclusion, is there any significance to the warning? The warning results in a prohibition only after the warned woman secludes herself with the man. The Gemara counters: And if there is no warning, what effectiveness does seclusion have? Both the warning and the seclusion are required for her to be forbidden.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 住转讬专讛 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗转讞诇转讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara concludes: Even so, it is preferable to compare the seclusion to the defilement, as the seclusion is the beginning of defilement. Therefore, just as the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to the defilement, the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to the seclusion.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛诪拽谞讗 诇讗砖转讜 诪拽谞讗 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪砖拽讛 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讛砖讬讘讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, who presents a different version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:1) that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: One who issues a warning to his wife issues a warning based on one witness or based on his own testimony, and he gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses who saw her secluded. The baraita further states that the Rabbis responded: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that one need not issue a warning in the presence of two witnesses, there is no end to the matter, as the Gemara will explain.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states: 鈥Bah,鈥 from which he infers that one witness suffices to testify with regard to it, i.e., the defilement, but not with regard to seclusion, as above.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 拽讬谞讜讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: But why not say that one should also derive: With regard to it, but not with regard to the warning? The Gemara answers: The warning is juxtaposed to defilement, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife, and she had become defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14), and the same halakha should apply to both.

住转讬专讛 谞诪讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞住转专讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 住转讬专讛 讻讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara counters this argument: Seclusion is also juxtaposed in the verse to defilement, as it is written: 鈥淎nd she was defiled secretly鈥 (Numbers 5:13). Therefore, the same halakha should apply to both. The Gemara responds: That verse is coming to teach how much is the measure of seclusion, i.e., the amount of time that the man and woman must be secluded together for it to be defined as seclusion, which, as the comparison indicates, is the amount of time sufficient for defilement.

讛砖讬讘讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讜讗诪专 拽谞讗讬

The Gemara continues to clarify the baraita. The Rabbis responded: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, there is no end to the matter. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: There is no end to the matter? The Gemara answers: It is that there may be times when the husband did not warn his wife but after hearing of her seclusion with another man says: I warned her, which will be sufficient to render her forbidden to him until she drinks.

讛讗 诇诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讬砖 诇讚讘专 住讜祝 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 讗讬住转转专 讜讗诪专 讗讬住转转专

The Gemara is puzzled by this logic: But according to our mishna, does the matter in fact have an end? Rabbi Eliezer states in the mishna that a woman must drink the bitter water based upon her husband鈥檚 own statement that she secluded herself with the man about whom he had warned her. There too, one could ask whether there may be times when she did not seclude herself with the other man and where her husband says: She secluded herself, thereby rendering her forbidden to him until she drinks the bitter water. If so, why do the Rabbis take issue only with the version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion as presented by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and not with the version recorded in the mishna?

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝

Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Rabbis in the baraita meant to state that even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, there is no end to the matter. The Rabbis wished to say that even according to his version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, the husband can cause her to drink if he were to lie. The same is obviously true for the mishna.

讗祝 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讗讚专讘讛 诇诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讗讬讻讗 注讬拽专 讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 注讬拽专

The Gemara notes: The phrase even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, indicates it is a lesser novelty to say that there is no end to the matter according to him, and it is not necessary to say that the same would be true according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in our mishna. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in our mishna, there is a legitimate basis of suspicion with regard to the woman, as there are witnesses who saw the husband issue a warning to her, and therefore, it is understandable that the testimony of the husband may be relied upon when he testifies that she secluded herself with another man. By contrast, there, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, there is no legitimate basis to prohibit her to him, since there are no witnesses that she had been warned by her husband at all. Therefore, it may be that the Rabbis took issue only with the version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion presented by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 诇诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝

The Gemara clarifies the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the Rabbis said: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who is not concerned that accepting the testimony of one person with regard to the warning will enable false claims by the husband, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in our mishna there is no end to the matter, since the concern there is less severe, as there is no legitimate basis to render her forbidden to her husband.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诇讗 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 诇讗讬转转讬讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诇讗 转讬住转专讬 讘讛讚讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讚讬诇诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽讬谞讜讬 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讬住转转专讗 讜诇讬讻讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讬 住讜讟讛 诇诪讬讘讚拽讛 讜拽讗住专 诇讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇注讜诇诐

Rav 岣nina of Sura says: In the present a man should not say to his wife: Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so. The reason is that perhaps we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a warning is effective even based on his own testimony, and if she were then to seclude herself with that man she would be required to drink the bitter water to render herself permitted to her husband, and since today the bitter water of a sota is not used to evaluate her fidelity and permit her to her husband, he will end up forbidding her to himself with an irrevocable prohibition.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讛 诇砖讜谉 拽讬谞讜讬 讚讘专 讛诪讟讬诇 拽谞讗讛 讘讬谞讛 诇讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 拽讬谞讜讬 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讜讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 讚拽诪讗 讚拽讗 讘讚诇讛 讜讗转讜 诇诪讬注讘讚 拽谞讗讛 讘讛讚讛

Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of the term: Warning [kinnui]? It means a matter that causes anger [kina] between her and others, as other men will not understand why she does not wish to be friendly with them any longer. The Gemara comments: Apparently, he holds that a warning is effective based on the husband鈥檚 own testimony, and therefore everyone else will not know that her husband issued a warning to her, and they will say: What is this matter happening before us that she separates herself from us, and they will come to act in anger with her.

讜专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 专讘讬 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讚讘专 讛诪讟讬诇 拽谞讗讛 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 拽讬谞讜讬 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 讜讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讜讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗转讬 诇诪讬注讘讚 拽谞讗讛 讘讛讚讛

And Rav Yeimar bar Rabbi Shelemya says in the name of Abaye: The term kinnui means a matter that causes anger between him and her, i.e., between husband and wife. The Gemara comments: Apparently, he holds that a warning is effective based on the testimony of two witnesses. And since there are two witnesses, everyone knows that he issued a warning to her. Therefore, the warning does not cause anger between her and others. And the husband is he who will come to act in anger with her, as they will have mutual antagonism toward each other.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sotah 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 2

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽谞讗 诇讗砖转讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪砖拽讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪砖拽讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who issues a warning to his wife not to seclude herself with a particular man, so that if she does not heed his warning she will assume the status of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], Rabbi Eliezer says: He issues a warning to her based on, i.e., in the presence of, two witnesses for the warning to be effective. If two witnesses were not present for the warning, she is not a sota even if two witnesses saw her seclusion with another man. And the husband gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of one witness who saw the seclusion, or even based on his own testimony that he himself saw them secluded together, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that only the warning requires witnesses, not the seclusion. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He both issues a warning to her based on two witnesses and gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses.

讻讬爪讚 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讗诇 转讚讘专讬 注诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讚讘专讛 注诪讜 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 诇讘讬转讛 讜诪讜转专转 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛

The mishna asks: How does he issue a warning to her in an effective manner? If he says to her in the presence of two witnesses: Do not speak with the man called so-and-so, and she nevertheless spoke with him, she is still permitted to her home, i.e., she is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, and if she is the wife of a priest she is still permitted to partake of teruma.

谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇讘讬转 讛住转专 讜砖讛转讛 注诪讜 讻讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讘讬转讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诪转 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

However, if after he told her not to speak with so-and-so, she entered into a secluded place and remained with that man long enough to become defiled, i.e., sufficient time to engage in sexual intercourse, she is forbidden to her home from that moment until she undergoes the sota rite. And likewise, if she was the wife of a priest she is prohibited from partaking of teruma, as she was possibly disqualified by her infidelity, so long as her innocence is not proven by means of the bitter water. And if her husband dies childless before she drinks the bitter water, she perform 岣litza with her late husband鈥檚 brother and may not enter into levirate marriage, as, if she had been unfaithful, levirate marriage is forbidden.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 转谞讗 诪谞讝讬专 住诇讬拽 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽讗 转谞讗 住讜讟讛

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the placement of this tractate within the mishnaic order of Nashim. Now, the tanna arose from tractate Nazir, which is the tractate preceding Sota in the order of the Mishna. What did he teach in Nazir that required that he teach tractate Sota immediately afterward, as at first glance there seems to be no connection between this tractate and Nazir?

讻讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇诪讛 谞住诪讻讛 驻专砖转 谞讝讬专 诇驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 住讜讟讛 讘拽诇拽讜诇讛 讬讝讬专 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛讬讬谉

The Gemara answers: This was done in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to the sequence of passages in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Why is the portion of a nazirite (Numbers, chapter 6) placed adjacent to the portion of a sota (Numbers, chapter 5)? This was done to tell you that anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace as she undergoes the rite of the bitter water should renounce wine, as wine is one of the causes of sexual transgression, as it loosens inhibitions. For the same reason that the Torah teaches these passages one after the other, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged these tractates one after the other.

讜诇讬转谞讬 住讜讟讛 讜讛讚专 诇讬转谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讻转讜讘讜转 讜转谞讗 讛诪讚讬专 转谞讗 谞讚专讬诐 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 谞讚专讬诐 转谞讗 谞讝讬专 讚讚诪讬 诇谞讚专讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 住讜讟讛 讻讚专讘讬

The Gemara asks: But if so, let him teach tractate Sota first and then let him teach tractate Nazir, which is the way these topics are ordered in the Torah, and also accords better with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara answers: Since the tanna taught tractate Ketubot, and in that tractate he taught a chapter that begins: One who vows, in which there are several mishnayot concerning vows between husbands and wives, he then taught tractate Nedarim, whose subject is the halakhot of vows. And since he taught tractate Nedarim, he then taught tractate Nazir, which is similar to tractate Nedarim in that one becomes a nazirite by taking a vow. And he then teaches tractate Sota, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讛诪拽谞讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 拽住讘专 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讗住讜专 诇拽谞讗讜转

搂 The Gemara begins clarifying the mishna. The mishna states: One who issues a warning to his wife. By employing the descriptive phrase: One who issues a warning, and not the prescriptive phrase: One issues a warning, the tanna indicates that after the fact, yes, it is effective if he issues a warning in this manner, but ideally, no, one should not issue a warning to his wife at all ab initio. Apparently, the tanna of our mishna holds that it is prohibited to issue a warning to one鈥檚 wife ab initio in a manner that can cause her to become a sota, and all the halakhot concerning a sota are for one who issued a warning when not obligated to do so.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讻讬 讛讜讛 驻转讞 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘住讜讟讛 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 诪讝讜讜讙讬谉 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 讗砖讛 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 诪注砖讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 讬谞讜讞 砖讘讟 讛专砖注 注诇 讙讜专诇 讛爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽砖讬谉 诇讝讜讜讙谉 讻拽专讬注转 讬诐 住讜祝 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇讛讬诐 诪讜砖讬讘 讬讞讬讚讬诐 讘讬转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讗住讬专讬诐 讘讻讜砖专讜转

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: When Reish Lakish would introduce his discussion of the Torah passage of sota he would say this: Heaven matches a woman to a man only according to his actions, as it is stated: 鈥淔or the rod of wickedness shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous鈥 (Psalms 125:3), indicating that if one has a wicked wife it is due to his own evil conduct. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And it is as difficult to match a couple together as was the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is stated in a verse that speaks of the exodus from Egypt: 鈥淕od makes the solitary individuals dwell in a house; He brings out prisoners into prosperity [bakosharot]鈥 (Psalms 68:7). God takes single individuals and causes them to dwell in a house by properly matching a man to a woman. This is similar to the exodus from Egypt, which culminated in the splitting of the Red Sea, where He released prisoners into prosperity.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐 拽讜讚诐 讬爪讬专转 讛讜诇讚 讘转 拽讜诇 讬讜爪讗转 讜讗讜诪专转 讘转 驻诇讜谞讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬转 驻诇讜谞讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬

The Gemara asks: Is that so that a man is matched to a woman according to his actions? But Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Forty days before an embryo is formed a Divine Voice issues forth and says: The daughter of so-and-so is destined to marry so-and-so; such and such a house is destined to be inhabited by so-and-so; such and such a field is destined to be farmed by so-and-so. This clearly states that these matters, including marriage, are decreed for a person even before he is formed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement that Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav is with regard to a first match [zivug], while this statement of Rabba bar bar 岣na in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan is with regard to a second match. A first match is decreed in heaven; a second match is according to one鈥檚 actions.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讗讘诇 讘讟讜诪讗讛 注讚 讗讞讚 诪讛讬诪谉

搂 The Gemara now clarifies the dispute in the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer says: The husband must issue a warning to her based on, i.e., in the presence of, two witnesses, and he gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of one witness. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He both issues a warning to her based on two witnesses and gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses who saw them secluded together. The Gemara notes: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree only with regard to the requisite number of witnesses for the warning and the seclusion, whether one or two witnesses are required, but with regard to the testimony concerning defilement after the warning was issued and seclusion had occurred, they agree that even the testimony of one witness is deemed credible to establish that the woman actually engaged in sexual intercourse with the man while secluded.

讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 砖谞讬讟诪讗转 诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛

The Gemara comments: And we learned also in another mishna (31a) that if a single witness says: I saw that she was defiled, then she would not drink the bitter water, as the testimony is accepted, and her husband must divorce her and she forfeits payment of her marriage contract. Therefore, there is no need to perform the sota rite.

诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪谞诇谉 讚诪讛讬诪谉 注讚 讗讞讚 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注讚 讗讬谉 讘讛 讘砖谞讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara asks: By Torah law, from where do we derive that one witness is deemed credible with regard to testifying that a sota engaged in sexual intercourse? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in reference to the verse describing the circumstances in which a woman defiled through an act of adultery becomes forbidden to her husband, which states: 鈥淎nd a man lie with her carnally and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there is no witness [ed] against her鈥 (Numbers 5:13), the verse is speaking of a lack of two witnesses. When the verse refers to the lack of an ed, written in the singular, it actually indicates that there are not two witnesses against her, but only one, as the baraita will now explain.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽讜诐 注讚 讗讞讚 讘讗讬砖

The baraita continues and asks: Or perhaps the verse is referring only to a case where there was not even one witness to the act of sexual intercourse, as the singular usage of the word ed would seem to indicate? The baraita now proves that elsewhere the word ed is used to indicate two witnesses, as the verse states: 鈥淥ne witness [ed] shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or any sin that he sins; by the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15).

诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬拽讜诐 注讚 讘讗讬砖 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讗讞讚 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗讞讚

The baraita infers a general principle from this verse by asking: By inference from that which is stated in the verse, even with the omission of the word 鈥渙ne鈥: 鈥淎 witness shall not rise up against a man鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), do I not know that it is referring to one witness, as the term 鈥渞ise up [yakum]鈥 is written in the singular form? What is the meaning when the verse states explicitly: 鈥淥ne witness,鈥 since it is obviously referring to only one witness? The baraita answers: This established a paradigm that every place where the word 鈥渨itness [ed]鈥 is stated in the Torah without specifying a number, there are two witnesses here, unless the verse specifies that it is referring to only one witness by writing the word 鈥渙ne.鈥

讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 转专讬 诇讬转 讘讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛

The baraita returns to discuss the verse concerning a sota. And the Merciful One states: 鈥淭here is no witness [ed] against her鈥 (Numbers 5:13), which therefore means that there are not two witnesses to the sexual intercourse that could testify with regard to her; rather, there is only one witness. The baraita completes its interpretation: Further in the verse it states: 鈥淎nd she was not taken,鈥 indicating that the verse is referring to a case in which it is known that the woman had not been raped. This knowledge is based on the testimony of only one witness, as the verse had already stated that there were not two witnesses, and since one witness saw her willingly engage in sexual intercourse with another man, she is forbidden.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讜诐 注讚 讗讞讚 讘讗讬砖 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚住讜讟讛 讞讚 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 诪讬转住专讗

The Gemara questions this reasoning: But this would seem to indicate that the only reason to interpret the verse concerning a sota as referring to a case where there is only one witness is that it is written in the other verse: 鈥淥ne witness shall not rise up against a man鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), indicating that any unspecified usage of the word ed in the Torah refers to two witnesses, but were it not for this inference, I would say that when the term witness is employed in the verse concerning a sota it is referring to one witness. However, this would mean that the woman is forbidden to her husband even if there is not even one witness who saw the alleged sexual intercourse, and if there is not even one witness to testify, then with what testimony does she become forbidden to her husband? Obviously, even without another verse, it must be understood that the verse is indicating that there are not two witnesses but there is one, or else there would be no testimony to her actions.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讘讛

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to infer the interpretation of the verse concerning the sota from the other verse mentioning one witness. Otherwise it might enter your mind to say that the verse here that states: 鈥淭here is no witness against her,鈥 means that a single witness testifying about the sexual intercourse is not deemed credible with regard to her under any circumstances, and the testimony of one witness is not accepted in the case of a sota.

讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讘讛 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘注讬

The Gemara questions this analysis: What would be the logic in interpreting the verse as indicating that a single witness is not deemed credible with regard to her? But if that is the interpretation, what does the verse require in order for a sota to be rendered forbidden?

注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 诇讬砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗转讬讗 讚讘专 讚讘专 诪诪诪讜谉 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讻诇 注讚讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara explains its question: If the verse is understood as indicating that a woman isn鈥檛 forbidden until there are two witnesses to testify to her infidelity, then let the verse be silent from any mention of witnesses, as the requirement for two witnesses in matters of sexual impropriety is derived by means of a verbal analogy from the word 鈥渕atter鈥 written with regard to forbidden relations, and the word 鈥渕atter鈥 written with regard to monetary matters. The verbal analogy by which it is learned that two witnesses are required is as follows: A verse concerning forbidden relations states: 鈥淏ecause he has found some unseemly matter about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and a verse concerning monetary matters states: 鈥淏y the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15). And I would know that the requirement that two witnesses testify applies in the case of a sota, just as it does in all other matters of testimony in the Torah.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 住讜讟讛 砖讗谞讬 讚专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖讛专讬 拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讜谞住转专讛 诇讬转讛讬诪谉 讘讛 注讚 讗讞讚

The Gemara answers: It was necessary that the verse be stated in the case of a sota as well, for it might enter your mind to say that testimony concerning a sota is different from other testimony, and even testimony of one witness would be sufficient because there is a basis for anticipating the matter. Since the husband issued a warning to her about this particular man and she then secluded herself with him, perhaps even one witness should be deemed credible with regard to her. Therefore, the verse informs us that one witness is not deemed credible to render her forbidden to her husband.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讘讛 讜砖专讬讗 讜讛讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗住讜专讛

The Gemara asks another question concerning its earlier analysis: But how can you think to say that the verse would be stating that one witness is not deemed credible with regard to her having engaged in sexual intercourse and she would remain permitted to her husband? But from the continuation of the same verse, from the fact that it is written: 鈥淎nd she was not taken,鈥 which indicates that the verse is referring to a case where she was not raped, one concludes by inference that the verse is referring to a woman who becomes forbidden to her husband for engaging in consensual adulterous sexual intercourse.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讘讛 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讜讘转专讬 谞诪讬 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it still was necessary to teach the principle derived from the other verse that the term 鈥ed鈥 is referring to two witnesses even in the context of a sota, as it might enter your mind to say that the verse should be understood to mean that one witness is not deemed credible with regard to her, and she remains permitted until there are two witnesses who testify to the sexual intercourse, and with the testimony of two witnesses as well, it is only when she was not seized and forced to cohabit with the man. Therefore, to refute this possible interpretation, the baraita teaches us that 鈥ed鈥 always refers to two witnesses unless stated otherwise. Therefore, the phrase in the verse concerning a sota that says: 鈥淭here is no witness [ed] against her,鈥 means that there were not two witnesses, but if there was only one witness he is deemed credible.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪拽谞讗 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua says: He both issues a warning to her based on two witnesses, and he gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses who saw her secluded. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd there is no witness [ed] against her [bah]鈥 (Numbers 5:13), which was explained to mean there were not two witnesses, but only one, who testified concerning her defilement. Rabbi Yehoshua derives from the term bah, which could also be understood as: With regard to it, that in this matter of defilement one witness suffices, but not with regard to the warning. Additionally, he derives: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion. Therefore, there must be two witnesses to testify about both the warning and the seclusion.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion. And Rabbi Eliezer says that the only derivation to be learned is: With regard to it, but not with regard to the warning. Therefore, the warning, unlike the defilement, requires two witnesses. The seclusion is not contrasted with the defilement, and, like the defilement, requires only one.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛 住转讬专讛 讗讬转拽砖 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞住转专讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛

The Gemara questions Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion: But why not say that one should also derive: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion, as does Rabbi Yehoshua? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that derivation, as seclusion is juxtaposed to defilement by the verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd she was defiled secretly鈥 (Numbers 5:13), and the term 鈥渟ecretly鈥 is referring to seclusion. Therefore, the same halakha should apply to both.

拽讬谞讜讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讘讛

The Gemara asks: But the warning is also juxtaposed to defilement, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife, and she had become defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14) and the same halakha should apply to both. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excluded at least one of the two by use of the expression bah, which teaches that in one matter other than defilement, two witnesses are required.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 住转讬专讛 注讚讬驻讗 砖讻谉 讗讜住专转讛 讻讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to determine that the exclusion from the halakha of one witness sufficing is with regard to the warning? Perhaps the exclusion from the halakha of one witness sufficing is with regard to the seclusion. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that it is preferable to compare seclusion to defilement, as testimony with regard to seclusion forbids her to her husband just as testimony with regard to defilement does.

讗讚专讘讛 拽讬谞讜讬 注讚讬祝 砖讻谉 注讬拽专 讙专诐 诇讛

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: On the contrary, it is preferable to compare the warning to the defilement, as it is the main cause of her becoming forbidden. Seclusion alone, absent a warning, would not cause her to be forbidden to her husband.

讗讬 诇讗讜 住转讬专讛 拽讬谞讜讬 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 拽讬谞讜讬 住转讬专讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬

The Gemara counters: If there is no seclusion, is there any significance to the warning? The warning results in a prohibition only after the warned woman secludes herself with the man. The Gemara counters: And if there is no warning, what effectiveness does seclusion have? Both the warning and the seclusion are required for her to be forbidden.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 住转讬专讛 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗转讞诇转讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara concludes: Even so, it is preferable to compare the seclusion to the defilement, as the seclusion is the beginning of defilement. Therefore, just as the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to the defilement, the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to the seclusion.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛诪拽谞讗 诇讗砖转讜 诪拽谞讗 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪砖拽讛 诇讛 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讛砖讬讘讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, who presents a different version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:1) that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: One who issues a warning to his wife issues a warning based on one witness or based on his own testimony, and he gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses who saw her secluded. The baraita further states that the Rabbis responded: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that one need not issue a warning in the presence of two witnesses, there is no end to the matter, as the Gemara will explain.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘住转讬专讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states: 鈥Bah,鈥 from which he infers that one witness suffices to testify with regard to it, i.e., the defilement, but not with regard to seclusion, as above.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讬谞讜讬 拽讬谞讜讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜拽谞讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: But why not say that one should also derive: With regard to it, but not with regard to the warning? The Gemara answers: The warning is juxtaposed to defilement, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he warned his wife, and she had become defiled鈥 (Numbers 5:14), and the same halakha should apply to both.

住转讬专讛 谞诪讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞住转专讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 住转讬专讛 讻讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara counters this argument: Seclusion is also juxtaposed in the verse to defilement, as it is written: 鈥淎nd she was defiled secretly鈥 (Numbers 5:13). Therefore, the same halakha should apply to both. The Gemara responds: That verse is coming to teach how much is the measure of seclusion, i.e., the amount of time that the man and woman must be secluded together for it to be defined as seclusion, which, as the comparison indicates, is the amount of time sufficient for defilement.

讛砖讬讘讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讜讗诪专 拽谞讗讬

The Gemara continues to clarify the baraita. The Rabbis responded: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, there is no end to the matter. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: There is no end to the matter? The Gemara answers: It is that there may be times when the husband did not warn his wife but after hearing of her seclusion with another man says: I warned her, which will be sufficient to render her forbidden to him until she drinks.

讛讗 诇诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讬砖 诇讚讘专 住讜祝 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 讗讬住转转专 讜讗诪专 讗讬住转转专

The Gemara is puzzled by this logic: But according to our mishna, does the matter in fact have an end? Rabbi Eliezer states in the mishna that a woman must drink the bitter water based upon her husband鈥檚 own statement that she secluded herself with the man about whom he had warned her. There too, one could ask whether there may be times when she did not seclude herself with the other man and where her husband says: She secluded herself, thereby rendering her forbidden to him until she drinks the bitter water. If so, why do the Rabbis take issue only with the version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion as presented by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and not with the version recorded in the mishna?

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝

Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Rabbis in the baraita meant to state that even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, there is no end to the matter. The Rabbis wished to say that even according to his version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, the husband can cause her to drink if he were to lie. The same is obviously true for the mishna.

讗祝 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讗讚专讘讛 诇诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讗讬讻讗 注讬拽专 讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 注讬拽专

The Gemara notes: The phrase even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, indicates it is a lesser novelty to say that there is no end to the matter according to him, and it is not necessary to say that the same would be true according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in our mishna. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in our mishna, there is a legitimate basis of suspicion with regard to the woman, as there are witnesses who saw the husband issue a warning to her, and therefore, it is understandable that the testimony of the husband may be relied upon when he testifies that she secluded herself with another man. By contrast, there, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, there is no legitimate basis to prohibit her to him, since there are no witnesses that she had been warned by her husband at all. Therefore, it may be that the Rabbis took issue only with the version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion presented by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 诇诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝

The Gemara clarifies the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the Rabbis said: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who is not concerned that accepting the testimony of one person with regard to the warning will enable false claims by the husband, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in our mishna there is no end to the matter, since the concern there is less severe, as there is no legitimate basis to render her forbidden to her husband.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诇讗 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 诇讗讬转转讬讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诇讗 转讬住转专讬 讘讛讚讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讚讬诇诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽讬谞讜讬 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讬住转转专讗 讜诇讬讻讗 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讬 住讜讟讛 诇诪讬讘讚拽讛 讜拽讗住专 诇讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇注讜诇诐

Rav 岣nina of Sura says: In the present a man should not say to his wife: Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so. The reason is that perhaps we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a warning is effective even based on his own testimony, and if she were then to seclude herself with that man she would be required to drink the bitter water to render herself permitted to her husband, and since today the bitter water of a sota is not used to evaluate her fidelity and permit her to her husband, he will end up forbidding her to himself with an irrevocable prohibition.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讛 诇砖讜谉 拽讬谞讜讬 讚讘专 讛诪讟讬诇 拽谞讗讛 讘讬谞讛 诇讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 拽讬谞讜讬 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讜讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 讚拽诪讗 讚拽讗 讘讚诇讛 讜讗转讜 诇诪讬注讘讚 拽谞讗讛 讘讛讚讛

Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of the term: Warning [kinnui]? It means a matter that causes anger [kina] between her and others, as other men will not understand why she does not wish to be friendly with them any longer. The Gemara comments: Apparently, he holds that a warning is effective based on the husband鈥檚 own testimony, and therefore everyone else will not know that her husband issued a warning to her, and they will say: What is this matter happening before us that she separates herself from us, and they will come to act in anger with her.

讜专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 专讘讬 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讚讘专 讛诪讟讬诇 拽谞讗讛 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 拽讬谞讜讬 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 讜讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讜讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗转讬 诇诪讬注讘讚 拽谞讗讛 讘讛讚讛

And Rav Yeimar bar Rabbi Shelemya says in the name of Abaye: The term kinnui means a matter that causes anger between him and her, i.e., between husband and wife. The Gemara comments: Apparently, he holds that a warning is effective based on the testimony of two witnesses. And since there are two witnesses, everyone knows that he issued a warning to her. Therefore, the warning does not cause anger between her and others. And the husband is he who will come to act in anger with her, as they will have mutual antagonism toward each other.

Scroll To Top