⚖️ Mishnah Sotah 6

Chapter 6 of Mishnah Sotah

Verses: 4

Verses

Verse 1

מִי שֶׁקִּנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִסְתְּרָה, אֲפִלּוּ שָׁמַע מֵעוֹף הַפּוֹרֵחַ, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂאוּ וְיִתְּנוּ בָהּ מוֹזְרוֹת בַּלְּבָנָה:

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.

Verse 2

אָמַר עֵד אֶחָד, אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת, לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ עֶבֶד, אֲפִלּוּ שִׁפְחָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין אַף לְפָסְלָהּ מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ. חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ וִיבִמְתָּהּ וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת, וְלֹא לְפָסְלָהּ מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתֶּה:

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.

Verse 3

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:

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.”

Verse 4

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:

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.