## Sotah Daf 2b

###### Sotah 2b:1
[Sotah 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:1)

מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יָקוּם עֵד בְּאִישׁ״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא אֶחָד? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶחָד״? זֶה בָּנָה אָב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״עֵד״ — הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרוֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ״אֶחָד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* infers a general principle from this verse by asking: **By inference from that** which **is stated** in the verse, even with the omission of the word “one”: **“A witness shall not rise up against a man”** (Deuteronomy 19:15), **do I not know that it is** referring to **one** witness, as the term “rise up [*yakum*]” is written in the singular form? **What** is the meaning when **the verse states** explicitly: **“One** witness,” since it is obviously referring to only one witness? The *baraita* answers: **This established a paradigm** that **every place** where the word **“witness [*ed*]” is stated** in the Torah without specifying a number, **there are two** witnesses **here, unless the verse specifies** that it is referring to only one witness by writing the word **“one.”**


###### Sotah 2b:2
[Sotah 2b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:2)

וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: תְּרֵי לֵית בַּהּ אֶלָּא חַד, ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* returns to discuss the verse concerning a *sota*. **And the Merciful One states:** “There is no witness [*ed*] against her” (Numbers 5:13), which therefore means that **there are not two** witnesses to the sexual intercourse that could testify **with regard to her; rather,** there is only **one** witness. The *baraita* completes its interpretation: Further in the verse it states: **“And she was not taken,”** indicating that the verse is referring to a case in which it is known that the woman had not been raped. This knowledge is based on the testimony of only one witness, as the verse had already stated that there were not two witnesses, and since one witness saw her willingly engage in sexual intercourse with another man, **she is forbidden.**


###### Sotah 2b:3
[Sotah 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:3)

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא ״עֵד״ דְּסוֹטָה חַד הוּא. וְאִי אֲפִילּוּ חַד לֵיכָּא, אֶלָּא בְּמַאי מִיתַּסְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this reasoning: **But** this would seem to indicate that **the** only **reason** to interpret the verse concerning a *sota* as referring to a case where there is only one witness is **that it is written** in the other verse: **“One witness shall not rise up against a man”** (Deuteronomy 19:15), indicating that any unspecified usage of the word *ed* in the Torah refers to two witnesses, **but** were it **not** for **this** inference, **I would say** that when the term **witness** is employed in the verse **concerning a *sota*** it **is** referring to **one** witness. However, this would mean that the woman is forbidden to her husband even if there is not even one witness who saw the alleged sexual intercourse, **and if there is not even one** witness to testify, **then with what** testimony **does she become forbidden** to her husband? Obviously, even without another verse, it must be understood that the verse is indicating that there are not two witnesses but there is one, or else there would be no testimony to her actions.


###### Sotah 2b:4
[Sotah 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:4)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״עֵד אֵין בָּהּ״ — אֵין נֶאֱמָן בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** to infer the interpretation of the verse concerning the *sota* from the other verse mentioning one witness. Otherwise it might **enter your mind to say** that the verse here that states: **“There is no witness against her,”** means that a single witness testifying about the sexual intercourse **is not deemed credible with regard to her** under any circumstances, and the testimony of one witness is not accepted in the case of a *sota*.


###### Sotah 2b:5
[Sotah 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:5)

אֵין נֶאֱמָן בָּהּ?! וְאֶלָּא מַאי בָּעֵי —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this analysis: What would be the logic in interpreting the verse as indicating that a single witness **is not deemed credible with regard to her? But** if that is the interpretation, **what** does the verse **require** in order for a *sota* to be rendered forbidden?


###### Sotah 2b:6
[Sotah 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:6)

עַד דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי? לִישְׁתּוֹק קְרָא מִינֵּיהּ. דְּאָתְיָא ״דָּבָר״ ״דָּבָר״ מִמָּמוֹן. וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַכׇּל עֵדֻיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains its question: If the verse is understood as indicating that a woman isn’t forbidden **until there are two witnesses** to testify to her infidelity, then **let the verse be silent from** any mention of witnesses, **as** the requirement for two witnesses in matters of sexual impropriety **is derived** by means of a verbal analogy **from** the word **“matter”** written with regard to forbidden relations, and the word **“matter”** written with regard to **monetary matters.** The verbal analogy by which it is learned that two witnesses are required is as follows: A verse concerning forbidden relations states: “Because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and a verse concerning monetary matters states: “By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). **And I** would **know** that the requirement that two witnesses testify applies in the case of a *sota*, **just as it does in all** other matters of **testimony in the Torah.**


###### Sotah 2b:7
[Sotah 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:7)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: סוֹטָה שָׁאנֵי, דְּרַגְלַיִם לְדָבָר, שֶׁהֲרֵי קִינֵּא לָהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה — לִיתְהֵימַן בַּהּ עֵד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** that the verse be stated in the case of a *sota* as well, for it might **enter your mind to say** that testimony concerning **a *sota* is different** from other testimony, and even testimony of one witness would be sufficient **because** there is **a basis for** anticipating **the matter. Since** the husband **issued a warning to her** about this particular man **and she** then **secluded** herself with him, perhaps even **one witness should be deemed credible with regard to her.** Therefore, the verse informs us that one witness is not deemed credible to render her forbidden to her husband.


###### Sotah 2b:8
[Sotah 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:8)

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּאֵין נֶאֱמָן בָּהּ וְשַׁרְיָא? וְהָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — מִכְּלָל דַּאֲסוּרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question concerning its earlier analysis: **But how can you** think to **say** that the verse would be stating that one witness **is not deemed credible with regard to her** having engaged in sexual intercourse **and she** would remain **permitted** to her husband? **But from** the continuation of the same verse, from the fact **that it is written: “And she was not taken,”** which indicates that the verse is referring to a case where she was not raped, one concludes **by inference** that the verse is referring to a woman **who** becomes **forbidden** to her husband for engaging in consensual adulterous sexual intercourse.


###### Sotah 2b:9
[Sotah 2b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:9)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אֵין נֶאֱמָן בָּהּ — עַד דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי, וּבִתְרֵי נָמֵי ״הִיא דְּלֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it still **was necessary** to teach the principle derived from the other verse that the term “*ed*” is referring to two witnesses even in the context of a *sota*, as it might **enter your mind to say** that the verse should be understood to mean that one witness **is not deemed credible with regard to her,** and she remains permitted **until there are two** witnesses who testify to the sexual intercourse, **and with** the testimony of **two witnesses as well, it is** only **when she was not seized** and forced to cohabit with the man. Therefore, to refute this possible interpretation, the *baraita* **teaches us** that “*ed*” always refers to two witnesses unless stated otherwise. Therefore, the phrase in the verse concerning a *sota* that says: “There is no witness [*ed*] against her,” means that there were not two witnesses, but if there was only one witness he is deemed credible.


###### Sotah 2b:10
[Sotah 2b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:10)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מְקַנֵּא לָהּ עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״בָּהּ״ — בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּקִינּוּי, ״בָּהּ״ — וְלֹא בִּסְתִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** He both **issues a warning to her based on two** witnesses, and he gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of two witnesses who saw her secluded. The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua?** The Gemara answers: The **verse states:** “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. Rabbi Yehoshua 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.** Additionally, he 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.


###### Sotah 2b:11
[Sotah 2b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:11)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״בָּהּ״ — וְלֹא בְּקִינּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now explains Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion. **And Rabbi Eliezer says** that the only derivation to be learned is: **With regard to it, but not with regard to** the **warning.** Therefore, the warning, unlike the defilement, requires two witnesses. The seclusion is not contrasted with the defilement, and, like the defilement, requires only one.


###### Sotah 2b:12
[Sotah 2b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:12)

וְאֵימָא: ״בָּהּ״ וְלֹא בִּסְתִירָה! סְתִירָה אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְטוּמְאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion: **But** why not **say** that one should also derive: **With regard to it, but not with regard to** the **seclusion,** as does Rabbi Yehoshua? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that derivation, as **seclusion is juxtaposed to defilement** by the verse, **as it is written: “And she was defiled secretly”** (Numbers 5:13), and the term “secretly” is referring to seclusion. Therefore, the same *halakha* should apply to both.


###### Sotah 2b:13
[Sotah 2b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:13)

קִינּוּי נָמֵי אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְטוּמְאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״! הָא מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״בָּהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But the **warning is also juxtaposed to defilement, as it is written: “And he warned his wife, and she had become defiled”** (Numbers 5:14) and the same *halakha* should apply to both. The Gemara answers: **The Merciful One excluded** at least one of the two by use of the expression ***bah*,** which teaches that in one matter other than defilement, two witnesses are required.


###### Sotah 2b:14
[Sotah 2b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:14)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא סְתִירָה עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁכֵּן אוֹסַרְתָּהּ כְּטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what did you see** to determine that the exclusion from the *halakha* of one witness sufficing is with regard to the warning? Perhaps the exclusion from the *halakha* of one witness sufficing is with regard to the seclusion. The Gemara answers: It **stands to reason** that it is **preferable** to compare **seclusion** to defilement, **as** testimony with regard to seclusion **forbids her** to her husband **just as** testimony with regard to **defilement** does.


###### Sotah 2b:15
[Sotah 2b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:15)

אַדְּרַבָּה: קִינּוּי עָדִיף, שֶׁכֵּן עִיקָּר גָּרַם לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this reasoning: **On the contrary,** it is **preferable** to compare the **warning** to the defilement, **as** it is the **main cause** of **her** becoming forbidden. Seclusion alone, absent a warning, would not cause her to be forbidden to her husband.


###### Sotah 2b:16
[Sotah 2b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:16)

אִי לָאו סְתִירָה, קִינּוּי מִי אִיכָּא? וְאִי לָאו קִינּוּי, סְתִירָה מַאי אַהֲנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **If** there is **no seclusion, is there** any significance to the **warning?** The warning results in a prohibition only after the warned woman secludes herself with the man. The Gemara counters: **And if** there is **no warning, what effectiveness does seclusion have?** Both the warning and the seclusion are required for her to be forbidden.


###### Sotah 2b:17
[Sotah 2b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:17)

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, סְתִירָה עֲדִיפָא, דְּאַתְחַלְתָּא דְטוּמְאָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **Even so,** it is **preferable** to compare the **seclusion** to the defilement, **as** the seclusion **is the beginning of defilement.** Therefore, just as the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to the defilement, the testimony of one witness suffices with regard to the seclusion.


###### Sotah 2b:18
[Sotah 2b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:18)

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ — מְקַנֵּא עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, וּמַשְׁקֶה לָהּ עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. הֵשִׁיבוּ חֲכָמִים: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*,** who presents a different version of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:1) that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: One who issues a warning to his wife issues a warning based on one witness or based on his own** testimony, **and** he **gives** the bitter water to her **to drink based on** the testimony of **two** witnesses who saw her secluded. The *baraita* further states that **the Rabbis responded: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** as to Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion that one need not issue a warning in the presence of two witnesses, **there is no end to the matter,** as the Gemara will explain.


###### Sotah 2b:19
[Sotah 2b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:19)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא ״בָּהּ״ — בָּהּ וְלֹא בִּסְתִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states: “*Bah*,”** from which he infers that one witness suffices to testify **with regard to it,** i.e., the defilement, **but not with regard to seclusion,** as above.


###### Sotah 2b:20
[Sotah 2b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:20)

וְאֵימָא: ״בָּהּ״ וְלֹא בְּקִינּוּי? קִינּוּי אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְטוּמְאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **say** that one should also derive: **With regard to it, but not with regard to** the **warning?** The Gemara answers: The **warning is juxtaposed to defilement, as it is written: “And he warned his wife, and she had become defiled”** (Numbers 5:14), and the same *halakha* should apply to both.


###### Sotah 2b:21
[Sotah 2b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:21)

סְתִירָה נָמֵי אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְטוּמְאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״?! הַהוּא, לְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר סְתִירָה — כְּדֵי טוּמְאָה, הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters this argument: **Seclusion is also juxtaposed** in the verse **to defilement, as it is written: “And she was defiled secretly”** (Numbers 5:13). Therefore, the same *halakha* should apply to both. The Gemara responds: **That** verse **is coming to** teach **how much** is the **measure of seclusion,** i.e., the amount of time that the man and woman must be secluded together for it to be defined as seclusion, which, as the comparison indicates, is the amount of time **sufficient for defilement.**


###### Sotah 2b:22
[Sotah 2b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:22)

הֵשִׁיבוּ חֲכָמִים: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף. מַאי נִיהוּ? דְּזִמְנִין דְּלָא קַנִּי וְאָמַר ״קַנַּאי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to clarify the *baraita*. **The Rabbis responded: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** as to Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, **there is no end to the matter.** The Gemara asks: **What is** the meaning of: There is no end to the matter? The Gemara answers: It is **that** there may be **times when** the husband **did not warn** his wife **but** after hearing of her seclusion with another man **says: I warned her,** which will be sufficient to render her forbidden to him until she drinks.


###### Sotah 2b:23
[Sotah 2b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:23)

הָא לְמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ יֵשׁ לַדָּבָר סוֹף? זִמְנִין דְּלָא אִיסְתַּתַּר וְאָמַר ״אִיסְתַּתַּר״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara is puzzled by this logic: **But according to our mishna, does the matter** in fact **have an end?** Rabbi Eliezer states in the mishna that a woman must drink the bitter water based upon her husband’s own statement that she secluded herself with the man about whom he had warned her. There too, one could ask whether there may be **times when she did not seclude herself** with the other man **and** where **her husband says: She secluded herself,** thereby rendering her forbidden to him until she drinks the bitter water. If so, why do the Rabbis take issue only with the version of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion as presented by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and not with the version recorded in the mishna?


###### Sotah 2b:24
[Sotah 2b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:24)

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The Rabbis in the *baraita* meant to state that **even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, there is no end to the matter.** The Rabbis wished to say that even according to his version of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the husband can cause her to drink if he were to lie. The same is obviously true for the mishna.


###### Sotah 2b:25
[Sotah 2b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:25)

אַף לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלֹא מִיבַּעְיָא לְמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ? אַדְּרַבָּה: לְמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ אִיכָּא עִיקָּר, הָתָם לֵיכָּא עִיקָּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: The phrase **even according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** indicates it is a lesser novelty to say that there is no end to the matter according to him, **and it is not necessary** to say that the same would be true **according to** the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in **our mishna.** The Gemara asks: **On the contrary, according to** the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in **our mishna,** there **is** a legitimate **basis** of suspicion with regard to the woman, as there are witnesses who saw the husband issue a warning to her, and therefore, it is understandable that the testimony of the husband may be relied upon when he testifies that she secluded herself with another man. By contrast, **there,** according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, **there is no** legitimate **basis** to prohibit her to him, since there are no witnesses that she had been warned by her husband at all. Therefore, it may be that the Rabbis took issue only with the version of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion presented by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.


###### Sotah 2b:26
[Sotah 2b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:26)

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר — הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַף לְמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that the Rabbis said: **According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** who is not concerned that accepting the testimony of one person with regard to the warning will enable false claims by the husband, **even according to** the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer cited in **our mishna there is no end to the matter,** since the concern there is less severe, as there is no legitimate basis to render her forbidden to her husband.


###### Sotah 2b:27
[Sotah 2b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:27)

אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: לָא לֵימָא אִינִישׁ לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה ״לֹא תִּיסָּתְרִי בַּהֲדֵי פְלוֹנִי״, דִּילְמָא קַיְימָא לַן כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר קִינּוּי עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, וּמִיסְתַּתְּרָא, וְלֵיכָּא הָאִידָּנָא מֵי סוֹטָה לְמִיבְדְּקַהּ, וְקָאָסַר לַהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ אִיסּוּרָא דִּלְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanina of Sura says: In the present a man should not say to his wife: Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so.** The reason is that **perhaps we maintain** that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **a warning** is effective even **based on his own** testimony, **and** if she were then to **seclude herself** with that man she would be required to drink the bitter water to render herself permitted to her husband, **and** since **today** the bitter **water of a *sota*** is **not** used **to evaluate her** fidelity and permit her to her husband, **he will** end up **forbidding her to himself** with **an irrevocable prohibition.**


###### Sotah 2b:28
[Sotah 2b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:28)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מָה לְשׁוֹן ״קִינּוּי״ — דָּבָר הַמֵּטִיל קִנְאָה בֵּינָהּ לְבֵין אֲחֵרִים. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר קִינּוּי עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, וְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא יָדְעִי דְּקַנִּי לַהּ, וְאָמְרִי: מַאי דְּקַמָּא דְּקָא בָּדְלָה, וְאָתוּ לְמִיעְבַּד קִנְאָה בַּהֲדַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Reish Lakish says: What** is the meaning of the **term: Warning [*kinnui*]?** It means **a matter that causes anger [*kina*] between her and others,** as other men will not understand why she does not wish to be friendly with them any longer. The Gemara comments: **Apparently, he holds** that **a warning** is effective **based on** the husband’s **own** testimony, **and** therefore **everyone else will not know that her husband issued a warning to her, and they will say: What is this** matter happening **before us that she separates herself** from us, **and they will come to act in anger with her.**


###### Sotah 2b:29
[Sotah 2b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/2b:29)

וְרַב יֵימַר בַּר רַבִּי שֶׁלֶמְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי אָמַר: דָּבָר הַמֵּטִיל קִנְאָה בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר קִינּוּי עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, וְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָדְעִי דְּקַנִּי לַהּ, וְאִיהוּ הוּא דְּאָתֵי לְמִיעְבַּד קִנְאָה בַּהֲדַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yeimar bar Rabbi Shelemya says in the name of Abaye:** The term *kinnui* means **a matter that causes anger between him and her,** i.e., between husband and wife. The Gemara comments: **Apparently, he holds** that **a warning** is effective **based on** the testimony of **two witnesses.** And since there are two witnesses, **everyone knows that he issued a warning to her.** Therefore, the warning does not cause anger between her and others. **And the husband is he who will come to act in anger with her,** as they will have mutual antagonism toward each other.