Комментарий к Сота 6:5

משקינא לה ונסתרה אפילו שמע מעף הפורח that she retired under suspicious circumstances–secluded herself,

Introduction Chapter six returns to discuss the process which needs to occur for a woman to become a sotah, the same topic with which the tractate began. In the first mishnah of the tractate we learned that the husband must first warn her not to be secluded with a certain man, and then she must be secluded with that man. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate whether witnesses are needed to testify that she was secluded with that man in order for her to become a sotah. According to Rabbi Eliezer, witnesses are not necessary. However, in the absence of witnesses the husband himself must see that she was secluded. According to Rabbi Joshua, two witnesses are necessary. In our mishnah, these same two tannaim debate whether or not the woman is prohibited to her husband if there is just a rumor that she was secluded. Although without at least some witnessing she cannot become a sotah, such that she drinks the water, a rumor might, under certain circumstances, be sufficient to cause her to be prohibited to her husband.

יוציא ויתן כתובה – he should divorce her and provide her Ketubah settlement. Rabbi Eliezer, according to his reasoning who said in the first chapter (Tractate Sotah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1), that a married woman’s retirement with a man under suspicious circumstances does not require testimony and even a slave and even a maid-servant are believed, that is (identical with) a flying bird for a married woman’s retirement with a man under suspicious circumstances is compared through close analogy of Biblical verses to ritual defilement and everyone is believed regarding her. Therefore, if she retired with a man under suspicious circumstances and he does not want to have to cause her to drink [the bitter waters], he should divorce her and provide her with her Ketubah settlement.

If a man warned his wife and she secluded herself [with another man], even if he heard [that she had done so] from a flying bird, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. In this situation, the husband has already warned his wife not to be secluded with a certain man. He then heard a rumor that she had secluded herself with the suspected man. The husband heard the rumor from “a flying bird”, which means that he had no idea where the rumor came from. This is not sufficient for the husband to make her drink the sotah waters. Nevertheless, according to Rabbi Eliezer this is sufficient to cause her to be forbidden to him due to suspected adultery. In any case, since he does not have any evidence that she was indeed secluded, he must pay her the ketubah.

רבי יהושע אומר עד שישאו ויתנו בה מוזרות בלבנה – women who spin by the light of the moon. Rabbi Yehoshua, according to his reasoning, who said that we cause her to drink [by the testimony] of two [witnesses]. However, when they (i.e., the women twisting yarn) speak of her by [the light of] the moon, the matter is ugly licentiousness, and she should be divorced for even water, moreover, does not examine her as it is taught in the first chapter. But she is ritually pure, and women twisting yarn by moonlight should be talking about her. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

Rabbi Joshua says: until women who spin by moonlight discuss her. Rabbi Joshua requires that the rumor be one that the “women who spin by moonlight” are gossiping about. Since the women are saying that his wife committed adultery, it would not be appropriate for him to maintain her as a wife. Therefore, he must divorce her, but still pay her the ketubah. However, a rumor “from a flying bird” is not sufficient to make her prohibited to him.

אני ראיתיה שנטמאת – in that retirement [of hers] under suspicious circumstances which is through two witnesses according to Rabbi Yehoshua or through the flying bird according to Rabbi Eliezer.

If one witness said, “I saw that she was defiled”, she does not drink the water. Not only that, but even a slave, male or female, is believed even to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah.
Her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her rival wife, her sister-in-law, and the daughter of her husband are believed, not to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah, but that she should not drink.
Above in mishnah 1:3 we learned that if witnesses testify that the woman had committed adultery with the suspected man (and not just that they saw her secluded with him) she doesn’t drink the sotah waters. The waters test only those with regard to whom there is doubt. Today’s mishnah teaches that if even one witness saw her committing adultery, she does not drink the sotah waters and she loses her ketubah.
Section one: Generally in Jewish law two witnesses are needed for a court to act. However, in this case since there has already been a process of warning the woman, even one witness is sufficient to prove that she has committed adultery. If this happens she does not drink the sotah waters, as would a suspected adulteress. Furthermore, even a witness who is normally not allowed to testify may testify in this case. This includes slaves, both male and female. Such testimony is sufficient even to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah. This is a more significant step because it causes her to lose money promised to her.
However, there is a small list of people who are suspected of lying under such circumstances, and therefore while they can testify against her and thereby prohibit her to her husband, they cannot cause her to lose her ketubah. We have seen this list before in Yevamoth 15:4. There we learned that these women cannot testify that a woman’s husband is dead. The fear is that they are lying because they have a “natural” hatred for the woman. The suspicion that they hate this woman is what disqualifies them from testifying here as well, at least with regard to her ketubah. However, with regard to causing her to become prohibited to her husband, they are believed.

לא היתה שותה – for one witness is believed concerning her even to cause her to lose her Ketubah settlement for there is a basis for it.

אף לפסלה מכתובתה – that she should not drink [the bitter waters] not take [the settlement of] her Ketubah.

יבמתה – the wife of her husband’s brother.

ובת בעלה – from another wife.

הרי אלו נאמנות – for this testimony, even though they are ineligible for all other testimony which is to her detriment because the Torah believed all testimony that there is concerning her. But, however, not to make her ineligible for her Ketubah [settlement], for they hate her, but rather, that she should not be suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful.

שהיה בדין – that one witness should not be believed concerning her if it is not from the decree of the Biblical verse.

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.

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].

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.

אינה מתקיימת בפחות משנים – since we require to state from an analogy–Gezerah Shavah, and this is Rabbi Yehoshua’s view.

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.

עדות האחרונה – ritual impurity.

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?

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.

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.

עד אומר נטמאת ועד אומר לא נטמאת – establish one near one, and there is doubt regarding her and she drinks, and especially when they come one in the presence of the other. But this one after that one, when the first stated that she was defiled, he is believed as two [witnesses]. But the second who states that was not defiled, is just considered as one, for the words of the one are not in place of two [witnesses].

Introduction The last mishnah of this chapter deals with a case where there is contradictory testimony with regard to whether or not she committed adultery (was defiled). We should remember that there has already been a process of warning before these witnesses come and testify.

ושנים אומרים לא נטמאת – meaning to say that she was not defiled in your presence, that when you came and found that they retired under suspicious circumstances together and we also were with you and in your presence she was not defiled, the one witness was dismissed and his words were voided because of the two [witnesses] and she remains in a state of “doubt” if she had been defiled before they came and found them [together] and therefore, she drinks [the bitter waters]. And we are taught by the Tanna–teacher in these two clauses of our Mishnah that they are ineligible for [providing] testimony, they went after the majority opinion whether for leniency or stringency, meaning to say, whether to cause her to drink or not to cause her to drink.

If one witness says that she was defiled and another witness says that she was not defiled; Or if a woman says [of her] that she was defiled and another woman says that she was not defiled, she drinks. The testimony of the first witness is contradicted by that of the second witness; each witness’s testimony nullifies that of the other. Since there is no testimony that she was defiled but there was evidence that she was warned and secluded, she drinks the water. The same is true if both witnesses are women. Although women are generally not allowed to testify, they are allowed to testify in this case. However, since they contradict each other, their testimony is nullified.

If one witness says that she was defiled and two say that she was not defiled, she drinks. In this case, after one witness testifies that she was defiled, two witnesses testify that she was not defiled. One might have thought that this would have been sufficient not only to nullify the first testimony, but to totally prove her innocence. However, it is still possible that she was defiled before the witnesses saw that she was not (they had completed their adulterous act before the witnesses saw them). Since she was after all secluded with the man whom her husband suspects, she must drink the sotah waters in order to establish her innocence.

If two say that she was defiled and one says that she did not, she does not drink. Since two witnesses say that she was defiled, a single witness who says that she was not defiled cannot nullify their testimony. Hence, it is established that she has committed adultery and therefore she does not drink the water. Rather she becomes prohibited to her husband and loses her ketubah.