Mishnah.org Logo

Today's Mishnah Yomi

Sotah 6:3 - 6:4

The Mishnah Yomi for Thursday, May 23, 2024 is Sotah 6:3 - 6:4

＜ Previous DayTodayNext Day ＞

Mishnah 1

Mishnayos Sotah Perek 6 Mishnah 3

סוטה פרק ו׳ משנה ג׳

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.”
שֶׁהָיָה בְדִין, וּמָה אִם עֵדוּת רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֵינָהּ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם, עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַיֵּם בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנָיִם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, כָּל עֵדוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ. קַל וָחֹמֶר לָעֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵעַתָּה, וּמָה אִם עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, הֲרֵי הִיא מִתְקַיֶּמֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד, עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּם בְּעֵד אֶחָד, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים כד) כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר (שם יט), עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר, מַה לְּהַלָּן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, אַף כָּאן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים:
ג׳

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

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].

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

עדות האחרונה – ritual impurity.

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.

שהיה בדין. שלא יהא נאמן בה עד אחד, אם לא מגזירת הכתוב:

עדות הראשונה. סתירה:

שאין אוסרתה איסור עולם. אלא עד שתשתה:

אינה מתקיימת בפחות משנים. כדבעינן למימר מגזירה שוה, ור׳ יהושע היא:

עדות האחרונה. טומאה:

כל עדות שיש בה. נאמן בה דכתיב ועד אין בה, וכל עד האמור בתורה סתם אינו אלא שנים, מדאיצטריך קרא לומר (דברים י״ט:ט״ו) לא יקום עד אחד באיש, שמע מינה דעד שנים במשמע, עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב אחד. והכי קאמר קרא תרי לית בה אלא חד, וקאמר והיא לא נתפסה לאוסרה, אלמא עד אחד מהימן:

Mishnah 2

Mishnayos Sotah Perek 6 Mishnah 4

סוטה פרק ו׳ משנה ד׳

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.
עֵד אוֹמֵר נִטְמֵאת וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמֵאת, אִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת נִטְמֵאת וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא נִטְמֵאת, הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר נִטְמֵאת וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִטְמֵאת, הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִטְמֵאת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמֵאת, לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה:
ד׳

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].

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.

עד אומר נטמאת ועד אומר לא נטמאת. אוקי חד להדי חד, והרי היא בספיקה ושותה. ודוקא בי אתו בהדי הדדי, אבל בזה אחר זה, כשאמר הראשון נטמאת, הוי מהימן כבתרי. והשני האומר לא נטמאת הוי ליה חד, ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים:

ושנים אומרים לא נטמאת. כלומר לא נטמאת בפניך, שכשבאת ומצאת שנסתרו יחד גם אנו היינו עמך ובפנינו לא נטמאת, הרי נסתלק העד ובטלו דבריו מפני השנים, והרי היא בספיקה אם נטמאת קודם שבאו אלו ומצאום, ולפיכך שותה. ואשמועינן תנא בהני תרי בבי דמתניתין דבפסולי עדות הלך אחר רוב דעות בין לקולא בין לחומרא כלומר בין להשקותה בין שלא להשקותה:

Mishnah Yomi FAQ

Still have a question? Contact Us