סוטה דף ג

אלמא קסברי דאסור לקנאות.

Apparently, both Reish Lakish and Rav Yeimar bar Rabbi Shelemya hold that it is prohibited to issue a warning. Both are of the opinion that the word kinnui is a term for anger. Since causing anger is a negative trait, it follows that it is prohibited to issue a warning.

ומאן דאמר מותר לקנאות, מהו לשון ״קינוי״? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: אין ״קינוי״ אלא לשון התראה, וכן הוא אומר: ״ויקנא ה׳ לארצו״.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that it is permitted for him to issue a warning, what is the meaning of the term kinnui? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The term kinnui means nothing other than a term of forewarning, and so it says: “Then the Lord warned [vayekanneh] concerning His land and had pity for His people” (Joel 2:18). As detailed in that passage, the Lord ordered the locusts to stop destroying Eretz Yisrael.

תניא, היה רבי מאיר אומר: אדם עובר עבירה בסתר והקדוש ברוך הוא מכריז עליו בגלוי, שנאמר: ״ועבר עליו רוח קנאה״, ואין עבירה אלא לשון הכרזה, שנאמר:

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: A person commits a transgression in private and the Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about him openly, i.e., in public, that he transgressed, as it is stated concerning a sota, who transgressed in private: “The spirit of jealousy came [avar] upon him” (Numbers 5:14); and the term avira means nothing other than a term of proclamation, as it is stated: “And Moses gave the commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed [vaya’aviru] throughout the camp” (Exodus 36:6).

״ויצו משה ויעבירו קול במחנה״.

ריש לקיש אמר: אין אדם עובר עבירה אלא אם כן נכנס בו רוח שטות, שנאמר: ״איש איש כי תשטה אשתו״, ״תשטה״ כתיב.

Reish Lakish says: A man commits a transgression only if a spirit of folly [shetut] enters him, as it is stated: “If any man’s wife goes aside [tisteh]” (Numbers 5:12). The word tisteh is written with the Hebrew letter shin, affording an alternative reading of tishteh, which is related to the term for folly, the word shetut.

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: מפני מה האמינה תורה עד אחד בסוטה — שרגלים לדבר, שהרי קינא לה, ונסתרה, ועד אחד מעידה שהיא טמאה.

§ The Gemara discusses why the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to defilement. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a baraita: For what reason did the Torah deem credible a single witness with regard to the defilement of a sota? It is because there is a basis for anticipating the matter, as there is strong circumstantial evidence that she committed adultery. What is the basis for anticipating the matter? As he warned her not to seclude herself with a specific man, and she nevertheless secluded herself with him, and one witness testifies that she is defiled, then the combination of her behavior and the testimony renders it reasonable to assume that she has in fact committed adultery.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי: והא כי כתיבה קינוי, בתר סתירה וטומאה הוא דכתיבה!

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But when the warning is written in the Torah, it is written in the verse after seclusion and defilement are mentioned, indicating that the circumstance in which one witness is deemed credible with regard to defilement is even when there was no previous warning. The order in which the Torah describes the sota process seems to indicate that the husband’s warning is issued only after the wife already secluded herself with the other man and was defiled, as the verses state: “And a man lie with her carnally, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was defiled secretly, and there is no witness against her, and she was not taken. And the spirit of jealousy came [ve’avar] upon him, and he warned his wife, and she had become defiled” (Numbers 5:13–14).

אמר ליה: ״ועבר״ — וכבר עבר.

Abaye said to him in response: That which the verse states: “And the spirit of jealousy came [ve’avar] upon him,” means: And it had already come upon him, that the husband warned his wife not to seclude herself with a specific man prior to her seclusion and defilement.

אלא מעתה: ״ועבר לכם כל חלוץ״, הכי נמי?

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that “ve’avar” is referring to a matter that already occurred, then in the case of the agreement between Moses and the tribes of Gad and Reuben before they entered Eretz Yisrael, where he stated: “And every armed man of you will pass over [ve’avar] the Jordan” (Numbers 32:21), so too did he mean that they had already crossed? Moses was stipulating a condition with regard to the future; they had yet to cross the Jordan.

התם, מדכתיב ״ונכבשה הארץ לפני ה׳ ואחר תשבו״ — משמע דלהבא. אלא הכא, אי סלקא דעתך כדכתיבי, ״ועבר״ בתר טומאה וסתירה — קינוי למה לי?

The Gemara answers: There, from the fact that it is written: “And the land be subdued before the Lord, and you return afterward” (Numbers 32:22), it is clear that it teaches concerning the future. But here, if it enters your mind that the verses should be understood as they are written in the Torah, that “ve’avar” (Numbers 5:14) is after the defilement and seclusion, then why do I need a warning? If the woman had already secluded herself with the man and become defiled, the husband’s warning would be irrelevant, as she had already become forbidden to him. Therefore, the word ve’avar in this context must be referring to a past event, i.e., the husband issuing a warning to his wife prior to the seclusion.

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: אין אדם מקנא לאשתו אלא אם כן נכנסה בו רוח, שנאמר: ״ועבר עליו רוח קנאה וקנא את אשתו״. מאי רוח?

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A man issues a warning to his wife only if a spirit entered him, as it is stated: “And the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife” (Numbers 5:14). The Gemara asks: Of what spirit does Rabbi Yishmael speak?

רבנן אמרי: רוח טומאה. רב אשי אמר: רוח טהרה.

The Rabbis say: A spirit of impurity, as one should not issue a warning to one’s wife. Rav Ashi says: A spirit of purity, as issuing a warning indicates that he will not tolerate promiscuous behavior.

ומסתברא כמאן דאמר רוח טהרה. דתניא: ״וקנא את אשתו״ — רשות, דברי רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר: חובה. אי אמרת בשלמא רוח טהרה — שפיר,

The Gemara comments: And it stands to reason like the one who says that Rabbi Yishmael was speaking of a spirit of purity, as it is taught in a baraita: “And he warned his wife,” i.e., the issuing of the warning, is optional, that the husband is neither enjoined to nor prohibited from issuing a warning; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, as one who sees his wife behaving in an inappropriate manner with another man is obligated to warn her. The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yishmael was speaking of a spirit of purity, then it is well, as it may be optional, or even mandatory, to issue a warning. But if you say that he was speaking of a spirit of impurity, can it be optional or mandatory for a person to introduce a spirit of impurity into himself? The Torah would not require a husband to act in a manner that results from having a spirit of impurity enter him.

אלא אי אמרת רוח טומאה, רשות וחובה לעיולי לאיניש רוח טומאה בנפשיה?

גופא: ״וקנא את אשתו״ — רשות, דברי רבי ישמעאל. ורבי עקיבא אומר: חובה. ״לה יטמא״ — רשות, דברי רבי ישמעאל. ורבי עקיבא אומר: חובה.

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself. “And he warned his wife,” i.e., the warning, is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva engage in a similar dispute with regard to several other verses. Although under normal circumstances it is prohibited for a priest to become ritually impure through contact with a corpse, the verse states that he may do so for the sake of burying his relatives. The baraita teaches: “For her may he become impure” (Leviticus 21:3), i.e., for a priest to participate in the burial of his sister, despite the fact that he will contract ritual impurity, is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. A priest is not obligated to participate, but he may. And Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory for him to do so.

״לעלם בהם תעבדו״ — רשות, דברי רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר: חובה.

The verse states: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., keeping one’s Canaanite slave forever, is optional, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. One is not enjoined against emancipating a Canaanite slave, but one is permitted to keep his Canaanite slaves forever. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, and it is prohibited for one to free his Canaanite slave.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי, ואמרי לה רב משרשיא לרבא: לימא רבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא בכל התורה כולה הכי פליגי, דמר אמר רשות ומר אמר חובה? אמר ליה:

Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say that Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: Shall we say that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree in this manner with regard to the entire Torah? In other words, is it so that whenever there is a statement where it is unclear whether it is referring to an optional or mandatory act, that one master, Rabbi Yishmael, says that it is optional, and the other master, Rabbi Akiva, says that it is mandatory. Abaye said to Rav Pappa in response: Here, in these particular cases, they disagree with regard to the meaning of these specific verses, but it is not a general dispute.

הכא בקראי פליגי.

״וקנא את אשתו״ — רשות, דברי רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר: חובה.

The Gemara explains their dispute in these specific contexts, beginning with the dispute concerning a man’s warning to his wife: “And he warned his wife,” the warning is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory.

מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל — סבר לה כי האי תנא, דתניא, רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: כלפי שאמרה תורה ״לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך״,

What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? He holds in accordance with the statement of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: With regard to that which the Torah said: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17), one might have thought that this prohibition applies in a case such as this one, when one sees his wife behaving improperly with another man, and the verse would instruct the husband to avoid conflict and strife. Therefore, the verse states: “And the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife” (Numbers 5:14), teaching that it is permitted for one to issue a warning to his wife in such a case.

יכול כגון זו? תלמוד לומר: ״ועבר עליו רוח קנאה וקנא את אשתו״.

ורבי עקיבא: קינוי אחרינא כתיב.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive that it is mandatory? The Gemara answers: There is another warning written in the same verse, as the entire verse reads: “And the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife, and she be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy came upon him, and he warned his wife, and she be not defiled.” Therefore, the first half of the verse teaches that it is permitted to issue a warning, and the second half teaches that it is in fact mandatory.

ורבי ישמעאל? איידי דבעי למיכתב ״והיא נטמאה״ ״והיא לא נטמאה״ — כתיב נמי ״וקנא את אשתו״.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the repetition? The Gemara answers: Since it needed to write in this verse both possibilities as to whether the woman was unfaithful: “And she be defiled,” and also: “And she be not defiled,” to teach that although it is uncertain whether she had become defiled, she is still forbidden to her husband, therefore, it is also written: “And he warned his wife,” a second time. This repetition should not be interpreted as rendering the issuance of the warning as mandatory.

לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל. דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: כל פרשה שנאמרה ונישנית — לא נישנית אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה.

This manner of interpreting verses is as taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. Although the Torah could have merely mentioned the element necessary to teach an additional halakha, one should not interpret the repetition of a previously mentioned matter as teaching a second additional halakha, as the style of the Torah is to repeat a passage even to teach only one additional halakha. In the case of the passage concerning a sota as well, the repetition of the warning does not teach a new halakha.

״לה יטמא״ — רשות, דברי רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר: חובה.

The Gemara discusses the second dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The baraita teaches: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her may he become impure” (Leviticus 21:3), i.e., for a priest to participate in the burial of his sister despite the fact that he will contract ritual impurity is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. A priest is not obligated to participate, but he may do so. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory for him to do so.

מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל — איידי דכתיב: ״אמר אל הכהנים בני אהרן ואמרת אליהם לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו״, איצטריכא למיכתב ״לה יטמא״.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: There shall none become impure for the dead among his people” (Leviticus 21:1), indicating that a priest is enjoined from contact with the dead, it was necessary to be written: “For her may he become impure,” which teaches that a priest may become impure at the burial of a relative.

ורבי עקיבא מ״כי אם לשארו״ נפקא, ״לה יטמא״ למה לי — לחובה.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive that it is mandatory? The Gemara answers: He derives that it is permissible from the previous verse, which states: “Except for his kin, that is near to him” (Leviticus 21:2). Since it is derived that it is permitted from that verse, why do I need the additional verse: “For her may he become impure”? To teach that it is mandatory.

ורבי ישמעאל: לה מיטמא, ואין מיטמא לאיבריה.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the repetition? The Gemara answers: He explains that the verse teaches that he may become impure for her, but he may not become impure to bury only one of her limbs. This additional verse teaches that a priest may become ritually impure to bury a relative only in the case of burying a complete body.

ורבי עקיבא — אם כן, ליכתוב רחמנא ״לה״ ולישתוק, ״יטמא״ למה לי? שמע מינה.

And what does Rabbi Akiva respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse serves to render it prohibited for a priest to become impure to bury a limb, then let the Merciful One write: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near to him, that has had no husband, for her,” and then be silent. Why do I need the verse to write: “May he become impure”? Learn from the additional phrase that making himself impure is mandatory.

ורבי ישמעאל, איידי דכתב ״לה״, כתב נמי ״יטמא״. לכדתני דבי רבי ישמעאל. דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: כל פרשה שנאמרה ונישנית, לא נישנית אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה.

And how does Rabbi Yishmael explain the additional phrase? Since the verse wrote: “For her,” it also wrote: “May he become impure,” for the same reason as was taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated, was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. Therefore, it is possible that the verse serves to teach the halakha that a priest may not become impure in order to bury a limb, and that would account for the repetition of the phrase “may he become impure” as well.

״לעלם בהם תעבדו״ — רשות, דברי רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר: חובה.

The Gemara discusses the third dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The verse states: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., the halakha that one keeps his Canaanite slave forever, is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. One is not enjoined against emancipating a Canaanite slave, but one is permitted to keep a Canaanite slave forever. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, and one is prohibited from freeing his Canaanite slave.

מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל — איידי דכתיב ״לא תחיה כל נשמה״, איצטריך נמי למיכתב ״לעלם בהם תעבדו״, למישרי אחד מכל האומות שבא על הכנענית והוליד ממנה בן,

What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? Since it is written with regard to Canaanites: “You shall save alive nothing that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16), it was necessary to write: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46), as well, in order to permit one from any of the other, non-Canaanite nations who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite woman and she bore him a child. This verse teaches that you are permitted to purchase the child as a slave, as he is not included in the mitzva “You shall save alive nothing that breathes” that was stated with regard to full-fledged Canaanites. Therefore, this verse cannot be teaching that it is mandatory.

שאתה רשאי לקנותו.

דתניא: מנין לאחד מן האומות שבא על הכנענית והוליד ממנה בן, שאתה רשאי לקנותו בעבד, תלמוד לומר: ״וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו״.

This is as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that in the case of one from any of the other, non-Canaanite nations who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite woman, and she bore him a child, that you are permitted to purchase the child as a slave? The verse states: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may you buy” (Leviticus 25:45). This verse permits the purchase of slaves from among those individuals who are not members of the Canaanite nations, even if they settle in Eretz Yisrael.

יכול אף הכנעני שבא על אחת מן האומות והוליד ממנה בן, שאתה רשאי לקנותו בעבד, תלמוד לומר: ״אשר הולידו בארצכם״, מן הנולדים בארצכם, ולא מן הגרים בארצכם.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that even in the case of a Canaanite man who engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman from one of the other nations and she bore him a child, that you are permitted to purchase the child as a slave, despite the fact that his father is a Canaanite. Therefore, the same verse states: “Which they have given birth to in your land,” teaching that one is permitted to purchase slaves only from the ones who are born in your land but whose paternal origins are from other lands, but not from the ones who already reside in your land, i.e., ones who have a Canaanite father.

ורבי עקיבא מ״מהם תקנו״ נפקא, ״לעלם בהם תעבדו״ למה לי — לחובה.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the words in the same verse: “Of them may you buy.” Once the halakha is already taught that one may purchase as a slave the child of a Canaanite woman and a man from another nation, why do I need the verse to state: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46)? It is stated to teach that it is mandatory to enslave a Canaanite slave forever.

ורבי ישמעאל: ״בהם״ — ולא באחיכם.

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever,” teaches that you can enslave “of them,” but not of your brethren, i.e., it is prohibited to enslave a fellow Jew, even a slave, forever.

ורבי עקיבא: באחיכם — מסיפא דקרא נפקא: ״ובאחיכם בני ישראל איש באחיו לא תרדה בו בפרך״.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: The prohibition against enslaving your brethren is derived from the latter phrase of the verse, where it is explicitly stated: “But over your brethren the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with rigor” (Leviticus 25:46).

ורבי ישמעאל: איידי דכתיב ״ובאחיכם״, כתיב נמי ״בהם״. לכדתני דבי רבי ישמעאל. דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: כל פרשה שנאמרה ונישנית, לא נישנית אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה.

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He holds that since it is written: “But over your brethren,” which explicitly states that it is prohibited to subjugate a Jew forever, it also writes with regard to Canaanites “of them,” but that phrase does not teach any novel halakha, because of the reason that was taught by the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated, was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. Therefore, it is possible that the verse serves to teach the halakha that one may enslave a Canaanite forever, and that would account for the ostensibly superfluous phrase “of them.”

אמר רב חסדא: זנותא בביתא כי קריא לשומשמא. ואמר רב חסדא: תוקפא בביתא כי קריא לשומשמא. אידי ואידי באיתתא, אבל בגברא לית לן בה.

§ The Gemara discusses matters related to sin and sexual impropriety. Rav Ḥisda says: Licentious behavior in a home causes damage like a worm [karya] causes damage to sesame [shumeshema]. And Rav Ḥisda says: Anger in a home causes damage like a worm causes damage to sesame. The Gemara comments: Both this and that, i.e., that licentious behavior and anger destroy a home, were said with regard to the woman of the house, but with regard to the man, although these behaviors are improper, we do not have the same extreme consequences with regard to it, as the woman’s role in the home is more significant, resulting in a more detrimental result if she acts improperly.

ואמר רב חסדא: בתחילה, קודם שחטאו ישראל, היתה שכינה שורה עם כל אחד ואחד, שנאמר: ״כי ה׳ אלהיך מתהלך בקרב מחנך״. כיון שחטאו נסתלקה שכינה מהם, שנאמר:

And Rav Ḥisda says: Initially, before the Jewish people sinned, the Divine Presence resided with each and every one of them, as it is stated: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp” (Deuteronomy 23:15). Once they sinned, the Divine Presence withdrew from them, as it is stated in that same verse: “That He see no unseemly matter in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), teaching that when there is an “unseemly matter” among the Jewish people, the Divine Presence no longer resides among them.

״ולא יראה בך ערות דבר ושב מאחריך״.

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן: כל העושה מצוה אחת בעולם הזה — מקדמתו והולכת לפניו לעולם הבא, שנאמר: ״והלך לפניך צדקך״.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who fulfills one mitzva in this world, that mitzva precedes him and goes before him to the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your reward” (Isaiah 58:8). And anyone who commits one transgression in this world, it shrouds him and goes before him to the Day of Judgment, as it is stated: “The paths of their way do wind, they go up into the waste, and are lost” (Job 6:18).

וכל העובר עבירה אחת בעולם הזה — מלפפתו והולכת לפניו ליום הדין, שנאמר: ״ילפתו ארחות דרכם יעלו בתהו ויאבדו״.

רבי אלעזר אומר: קשורה בו ככלב, שנאמר: ״ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה להיות עמה״. ״לשכב אצלה״ — בעולם הזה, ״להיות עמה״ — לעולם הבא.

Rabbi Elazar says: The transgression is chained to him and accompanies him like a dog, as it is stated concerning Joseph’s refusal to commit adultery with the wife of Potiphar: “That he listened not to her, to lie by her, or to be with her” (Genesis 39:10), which is understood to mean: If he would agree “to lie by her” in this world, the result would be that he would have “to be with her” forever, as the transgression would accompany him to the World-to-Come.

תנן התם, שהיה בדין:

§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the number of witnesses necessary for different elements of the process of a woman becoming a sota. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (31a) with regard to the credibility of one witness who testifies concerning a woman’s infidelity: The halakha that one witness is deemed credible concerning defilement needs to be stated, as, by right, it should not have been deemed credible based on the following a fortiori inference:

ומה עדות הראשונה, שאין אוסרתה איסור עולם — אינה מתקיימת בפחות משנים, עדות האחרונה, שאוסרתה איסור עולם — אינו דין שלא תתקיים בפחות משנים?

And just as with regard to the first testimony concerning seclusion, which does not forbid her to her husband with an irrevocable prohibition, as the woman can be found innocent, permitting her again to her husband by drinking the bitter water, it is not established with fewer than two witnesses, as that mishna is written in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who stated (2a) that testimony of two witnesses must be provided by two witnesses, then with regard to the final testimony concerning defilement, which forbids her with an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it not be established with fewer than two witnesses?

תלמוד לומר: ״ועד אין בה״, כל שיש בה.

Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: “And there is no witness against her” (Numbers 5:13), teaching that any testimony that there is against her with regard to her defilement is sufficient, and two witnesses are not required.

וקל וחומר לעדות הראשונה מעתה: ומה עדות האחרונה, שאוסרתה איסור עולם — מתקיימת בעד אחד, עדות הראשונה, שאין אוסרתה איסור עולם — אינו דין שתתקיים בעד אחד?

The mishna asks: And 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 with regard to the final testimony concerning defilement, which forbids her with an irrevocable prohibition, yet it is established with 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?

תלמוד לומר: ״כי מצא בה ערות דבר״, ולהלן הוא אומר ״על פי שני עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר״.

Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: “If a man marries a woman and lives with her and it will be that she not find favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter [davar] about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there, in the verses concerning the halakhot of monetary matters, it states: “By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter [davar] be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). This teaches that just as the “matter” stated there is established by the mouth of two witnesses, so too here, the “matter” of her seclusion must be established by the mouth of two witnesses.

מה ״דבר״ האמור להלן — על פי שנים עדים, אף כאן — על פי שנים.

האי מ״כי מצא בה ערות דבר״ נפקא? מ״בה״ נפקא: בה — ולא בקינוי, בה — ולא בסתירה מיבעי ליה!

The Gemara asks: Is this need for two witnesses derived from: “Because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1)? It is derived from: “And there is no witness [ed] against her [bah]” (Numbers 5:13), which was explained to mean there were not two witnesses, but only one, who testified concerning her defilement (2a). The Gemara above (2b) derives from the term “bah,” which could also be understood as: With regard to it, that in this matter of defilement one witness suffices, but not with regard to the warning. And one also derives: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion. Therefore, there must be two witnesses to testify about both the warning and the seclusion. The mishna should have given this inference as the source for requiring two witnesses for seclusion, and not the juxtaposition of “matter” and “matter.”

הכי נמי קאמר: תלמוד לומר ״בה״: בה — ולא בקינוי, בה — ולא בסתירה.

The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying. The mishna should read: The verse states: “And there is no witness against her [bah],” teaching that: With regard to it [bah], but not with regard to the warning. And one also derives: With regard to it, but not with regard to the seclusion.

וטומאה בעלמא בלא קינוי ובלא סתירה, דלא מהימן עד אחד, מנלן? נאמר כאן: ״כי מצא בה ערות דבר״, ונאמר להלן: ״על פי שני עדים או על פי

The Gemara comments: And with regard to defilement in general, without a prior warning and without witnesses to seclusion, from where do we derive that one witness is not deemed credible? Here it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there it is stated: “By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), teaching that just as the “matter” stated there is established by two witnesses, so too here, with regard to defilement it is established by two witnesses.

שלשה עדים יקום דבר״. מה ״דבר״ האמור להלן — עדים שנים, אף כאן — עדים שנים.

תנו רבנן: אי זו היא עדות הראשונה — זו עדות סתירה, עדות אחרונה — זו עדות טומאה.

The Sages taught (Tosefta 1:1): In the mishna quoted above, which is the first testimony? This is referring to the testimony of seclusion. Which is the final testimony? This is referring to the testimony of defilement.