Ce serait ainsi selon la logique: tout comme le premier témoignage [d'avertissement], qui ne lui interdit pas à jamais [d'être mariée avec lui], n'est valable que par deux [témoins], de même que le dernier témoignage [de l'isolement], cela l'interdit pour toujours - n'est-il pas logique que cela ne soit valable qu'avec deux [témoins]? Ainsi le verset vient enseigner: "et il n'y a eu aucun témoignage contre elle" (Nombres 5:13) - aucun témoignage qu'il y a contre elle. Il y a un kal vachomer [induction logique du mineur au majeur] de ceci! Tout comme le dernier témoignage l'interdit [de son mari] pour toujours et est valable pour un seul témoin, le premier témoignage qui ne l'interdit pas pour toujours - n'est-il pas logique qu'il soit valable avec un seul témoin? Ainsi le verset vient pour enseigner: (Deutéronome 24: 1) «Quand il trouve en elle une chose inconvenante» (Deutéronome 24: 1) et plus tôt il dit: «à travers deux témoins la chose sera confirmée» (Deutéronome 19:15 ). Tout comme tout à l'heure, [le témoignage] se fait par l'intermédiaire de deux témoins, de même ici aussi par l'intermédiaire de deux témoins.
Bartenura on Mishnah Sotah
שהיה בדין – that one witness should not be believed concerning her if it is not from the decree of the Biblical verse.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah
Introduction
This mishnah provides the midrashic basis for why two witnesses are necessary to testify that the sotah was secluded with the suspected man but one witness is sufficient to testify that she had been defiled (committed adultery). The mishnah notes that this is counterintuitive, for the second type of testimony is surely more consequential. Therefore, it proves this halakhah using strict exegetical methods, methods which are allowed to be counterintuitive.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sotah
עדות הראשונה – her retirement under suspicious circumstances which does not make her forbidden [to her husband] eternally other than until she drinks [the bitter waters].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah
For it would have been logical: Now if the first evidence [that the woman had secluded herself with the man], which does not prohibit her [to her husband] for all time, is not established by fewer than two witnesses, is it not logical that the final evidence [that she had been defiled] which does prohibit her to him for all time, should not be established by fewer than two witnesses! In order to understand this mishnah in its totality we need to understand that its intent is to defend the following halakhah: two witnesses are required in order to make the suspected adulteress drink the sotah waters. These two witnesses must testify that they saw her secluded with the man with whom her husband warned her not to be secluded. If two valid witnesses testify that she is secluded with him, her husband brings her to the Temple to drink the sotah waters, which will determine her guilt or innocence. If she is found innocent, she may return to normal married life. In other words, the result of their testimony may be temporary. However, only one witness is needed to testify that she actually committed adultery, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. Seemingly this testimony should require two witnesses for its results are permanent. After testimony that she was defiled by committing adultery, she may never return to her husband. This is the “logical” problem brought up in section one of the mishnah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sotah
אינה מתקיימת בפחות משנים – since we require to state from an analogy–Gezerah Shavah, and this is Rabbi Yehoshua’s view.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah
Scripture states, “And there is no witness against her” (Numbers 5:13) whatever testimony there may be against her [is believed]. The resolution is that this rule is learned from a counterintuitive midrash. Numbers 5:13 states, “And there is no witness against her”, using the singular of the word witness. Had there been a witness, even one witness, even a witness who is normally invalid (such as a slave), she does not go on to drink the water.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sotah
עדות האחרונה – ritual impurity.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah
And now with respect to the first evidence [about her seclusion with the man] there is an a fortiori (kal argument: Now if the final evidence [regarding her being defiled], which prohibits her to her husband for all time, is established by one witness, is it not logical that the first evidence, which does not prohibit her to him for all time, should be established by one witness! Now that the mishnah has established that one witness who saw her defiled is sufficient to cause her to be permanently prohibited to her husband, the requirement for two witnesses to testify that she was secluded does not make logical sense. Why should testimony regarding seclusion, whose consequences can be temporary, require two witnesses, while testimony regarding defilement requires only one?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sotah
כל [עדות] שיש בה – it is believed concerning her, as it is written (Numbers 5:13): “and there is no witness against her,” and all mentions of the word "עד"–witness that is mentioned in the Torah, undefined, is not other than two, as it necessitated the Bible to state (Deuteronomy 19:15): “A single witness may not validate against a person [any guilt or blame for any offense that may be committed: a case can be valid only on the testimony of two witnesses or more].” We learn from this that "עד"–witness implies two [witnesses], until the Biblical verse explicitly specifies one [witness]. And as it states, that she was not caught to be forbidden, so we see that one witness is believed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sotah
Scripture states, “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and elsewhere [Scripture] states, “By the mouth of two witnesses ... shall the matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15); just as the “matter” mentioned in this latter case must be based on the testimony of two witnesses, so also here [in the case of the suspected woman] the “matter” must be based on the testimony of two witnesses. Again, the answer is a midrash. Deuteronomy 24:1 states that if a man finds in his wife “an unseemly matter”, he may divorce her. The midrash assumes that this “unseemly matter” refers to her having been secluded with the suspected other man. The word “matter” is connected with the same word used in Deuteronomy 19:15, which states that two witnesses are required in order for any “matter” to stand. The linguistic connection means that in the case of seclusion, two witnesses are required.
