💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishnah%20Sotah%206 captured on 2024-05-26 at 15:19:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-05-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6 ‎[1] In the case of **one who warned his wife** not to seclude herself with a particular man **and she** subsequently **secluded herself** with the man she was warned about, **even if he heard** about it **from a flying bird,** or any other source whatsoever, **he must divorce** his wife. However, he must still **grant her** the money accorded to her by her **marriage contract** because there is no actual proof of her seclusion with the man in question. This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,** who, as quoted in the first mishna of the tractate (2a), holds that there is no necessity for witnesses to testify with regard to the seclusion, and the woman becomes forbidden to her husband even in the absence of witnesses, by the husband’s word alone. **Rabbi Yehoshua** disagrees, as he did in the mishna (2a), and **says:** He does not divorce his wife in the absence of witnesses **until** the gossiping women who sit and **spin** thread **by** the **light of the moon** begin to **discuss her** behavior, as they share the gossip of the town. The Gemara earlier (6b) taught that a woman whose infidelity became subject to this public discussion can no longer be tested by the bitter water of a *sota*. Consequently, she must get divorced.
‎[2] The mishna continues to list various possible testimonies concerning of such acts of seclusion. If **one witness said: I saw that she became defiled** during her seclusion by engaging in sexual intercourse with that other man, **she does not drink** the bitter water, but rather, he divorces her immediately. **And furthermore, even** if the one who testified was **a slave or a maidservant,** neither of whom is generally regarded as a valid witness, **they are deemed credible** to testify to the wife’s adultery **even to** the extent that their testimony **disqualifies her from** receiving **her marriage contract** and prevents her from drinking the bitter water. The mishna continues by listing women whose testimony is only partially accepted concerning this matter: **Her mother-in-law, and her mother in-law’s daughter, and her rival wife,** i.e., a second wife of the husband, **and her *yevama*,** i.e., her husband’s brother’s wife, **and her husband’s daughter,** all of whom are generally not deemed credible if they say anything incriminating pertaining to this woman due to the tumultuous relationships these women often have. **They are** all **deemed credible** to testify concerning the woman’s defilement while in seclusion, **but** are **not** deemed credible **to** the extent that their testimony will **disqualify her from** receiving **her marriage contract; rather,** it is deemed credible to the extent that she will **not drink** of the bitter water of a *sota*.
‎[3] This ruling allowing one witness’s testimony with regard to defilement needs to be stated, **as, by right,** it **should** not **have been** deemed credible based on the following *a fortiori* inference: **And just as if** with regard to **the first testimony** concerning seclusion, **which does not forbid her** with **an irrevocable prohibition,** as the woman can be found innocent permitting her again to her husband by drinking the bitter water, **is not established with fewer than two** witnesses, since according to the mishna the testimony of seclusion requires two witnesses, then with regard to **the final testimony** concerning defilement, **which forbids her** to her husband with **an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it** should also **not be established with fewer than two** witnesses? Therefore, to counter this derivation, **the verse states: “And there be no witness against her”** (Numbers 5:13), teaching that **any** testimony with regard to defilement **that there is against her** is sufficient, and two witnesses are not required. The Gemara asks: **And from now** that it is established that one witness suffices to testify with regard to defilement, **an *a fortiori*** inference can be made **with regard to the first testimony** of seclusion: **And just as if** concerning **the final testimony** of defilement, **which forbids her** with **an irrevocable prohibition,** yet it **is established by one witness,** then with regard to **the first testimony, which does not forbid her** with **an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it should be established with** only **one witness?** Therefore, to counter this derivation, **the verse states:** “When a man takes a wife, and marries her, and it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, **because he has found some unseemly matter [*davar*] in her”** (Deuteronomy 24:1), **and there,** in the laws concerning monetary matters, **it states: “At the mouth of two witnesses,** or at the mouth of three witnesses, **shall a matter [*davar*] be established”** (Deuteronomy 19:15), teaching that **just as** the “matter” stated **there** is established **“at the mouth of two witnesses,” so too, here** the “matter” of her seclusion must be established **“at the mouth of two** witnesses.”
‎[4] The mishna discusses the *halakha* in a case where two single witnesses contradict each other concerning her defilement. If one **witness says: She was defiled, and** another **witness says: She was not defiled,** or similarly in the case of those normally disqualified from bearing witness, if one **woman says: She was defiled, and** another **woman says: She was not defiled, she would drink** the bitter water of a *sota*, due to the uncertainty engendered by the contradictory testimonies. Similarly, if **one** witness **says: She was defiled, and two** witnesses **say: She was not defiled, she would drink** the bitter water. However, if **two** would **say: She was defiled, and one says: She was not defiled,** the testimony of the two witnesses is accepted and **she would not drink** the bitter water, and the husband must divorce her.
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC