## Sotah Daf 31b

###### Sotah 31b:1
[Sotah 31b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:1)

עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — הֲרֵי הִיא מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד, עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּים בְּעֵד אֶחָד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Sotah 31b:2
[Sotah 31b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:2)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים ... יָקוּם דָּבָר״, מָה לְהַלָּן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם — אַף כָּאן פִּי שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.”


###### Sotah 31b:3
[Sotah 31b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:3)

עֵד אוֹמֵר ״נִטְמֵאת״ וְעֵד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא נִטְמֵאת״, אִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת ״נִטְמֵאת״ וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת ״לֹא נִטְמֵאת״ — הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Sotah 31b:4
[Sotah 31b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:4)

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״נִטְמֵאת״ וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״לֹא נִטְמֵאת״ — הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״נִטְמֵאת״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא נִטְמֵאת״ — לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Sotah 31b:5
[Sotah 31b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:5)

**גְּמָ׳** הַאי תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara questions why the mishna proves the need for two witnesses to testify about the seclusion based upon the verbal analogy of “matter” and “matter,” if there is an explicit source in the Torah stating that two witnesses are required. **This** reason is given by the mishna: **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), which through a verbal analogy based on the word “*davar*” teaches the need for two witnesses, seems to be superfluous.


###### Sotah 31b:6
[Sotah 31b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:6)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בָּהּ״ — בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּקִינּוּי, בָּהּ וְלֹא בִּסְתִירָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As, the mishna **should have** said in its place: The **verse states:** “She was defiled secretly and there was no witness [*ed*] **against her [*bah*]”** (Numbers 5:13), which is explained to mean there were not two witnesses, but only one, who testified concerning her defilement. One can infer 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, one can infer: **With regard to it, but not with regard to** the **seclusion.** Therefore, there must be two witnesses to testify about both the warning and seclusion.


###### Sotah 31b:7
[Sotah 31b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:7)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בָּהּ״ — בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּקִינּוּי, בָּהּ וְלֹא בִּסְתִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That is also what** the *tanna* of the mishna **is saying.** The source for the *halakha* that there is a requirement for two witnesses to testify about the seclusion is that **the verse states: With regard to it,** that in this matter of defilement one witness suffices, **but not with regard to** the **warning. With regard to it, but not with regard to** the **seclusion.**


###### Sotah 31b:8
[Sotah 31b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:8)

וְטוּמְאָה בְּעָלְמָא בְּלֹא קִינּוּי וּבְלֹא סְתִירָה, דְּלָא מְהֵימַן עֵד אֶחָד מְנָלַן? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״דָּבָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״דָּבָר״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים — אַף כָּאן בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to explain the mishna: **And** concerning **an ordinary** accusation of **defilement without a** previous **warning and without** an act of **seclusion** with another man, **from where do we** derive that **a single witness is not deemed credible?** It is for this *halakha* that the mishna cites the verbal analogy: **It is stated here:** “Because he has found some unseemly **matter [*davar*]** in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), **and it is stated there** concerning monetary matters: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall **a matter [*davar*]** be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). **Just as** the “matter” stated **there** with regard to monetary matters is clarified specifically **by** the testimony of **two witnesses, so too, here** with regard to adultery the “matter” of her defilement must be established **by** the testimony of at least **two witnesses.**


###### Sotah 31b:9
[Sotah 31b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:9)

עֵד אוֹמֵר נִטְמֵאת. טַעְמָא דְּקָא מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ, הָא לָא קָא מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ — עֵד אֶחָד מְהֵימַן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: If one **witness says: She was defiled,** and another witness says: She was not defiled, she drinks the bitter water of a *sota*. The Gemara infers from this statement in the mishna that **the reason** the woman would drink the bitter water in this case is specifically **because** the second witness **refutes his** testimony, **but if** a second witness **did not refute his testimony,** then **a single witness** would be **relied upon** in this case and the woman would be forbidden to her husband forever.


###### Sotah 31b:10
[Sotah 31b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:10)

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ״ — בִּשְׁנַיִם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in reference to the verse describing the circumstances in which a woman defiled through an act of adultery becomes prohibited to her husband, which states: “And a man lie with her carnally…**and there be no witness [*ed*] against her”** (Numbers 5:13); **the verse is speaking of** a lack of **two** witnesses. When the verse refers to the lack of an *ed*, written in the singular, it actually indicates that there are not two witnesses against her, but only one, as the *baraita* will now explain.


###### Sotah 31b:11
[Sotah 31b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:11)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues and asks: Do **you say** that the verse refers **only** to a case where there was not **even one** witness to the act of sexual intercourse, as the singular usage of the word *ed* would seem to indicate? The *baraita* now proves that the singular usage notwithstanding, elsewhere the word *ed* is used to indicate two witnesses, as **the verse states: “One witness [*ed*] shall not rise up against a man** for any iniquity or any sin that he sins; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15).


###### Sotah 31b:12
[Sotah 31b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:12)

מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יָקוּם עֵד״, 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 verse is written in the singular form? **What** is the meaning when **the verse states** explicitly: **“One** witness,” being that it is obviously referring to only one witness? The *baraita* answers: **This established a paradigm** for the principle that **every place** where the word **“witness [*ed*]” is stated** in the Torah without specifying a number, **there are two** witnesses **here, until the verse specifies** that it is referring to only one witness, by writing the word **“one.”**


###### Sotah 31b:13
[Sotah 31b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:13)

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 was no witness [*ed*] against her,” 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 in the act”** (Numbers 5:13), 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** to her husband.


###### Sotah 31b:14
[Sotah 31b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:14)

וְכֵיוָן דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא עֵד אֶחָד מְהֵימַן, אִידַּךְ הֵיכִי מָצֵי מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ? וְהָא אָמַר עוּלָּא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד, הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But since** the *baraita* taught **that by Torah law one witness is deemed credible** to state that the woman is defiled, **how can the other** witness who denies the wife’s infidelity **refute him** with his conflicting testimony and enable the woman to drink the bitter water instead of becoming forbidden outright to her husband? **But doesn’t Ulla say: Wherever the Torah relies on one witness, there is** the equivalent of the testimony of **two** witnesses **here.** Consequently, the testimony of the contradicting witness should be insignificant, as **the statement of one** witness **has no** standing **in a place where** it is contradicted by **two** witnesses, for the witness testifying about her infidelity is deemed credible as if two witnesses had testified.


###### Sotah 31b:15
[Sotah 31b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר עוּלָּא, תְּנִי: לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר: הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Ulla said: Teach** the mishna in the following way: If one witness says: She was defiled, and another witness says: She was not defiled, **she would not drink** the bitter water. **And likewise, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: She would not drink. But Rabbi Ḥiyya says** in line with the standard text of the mishna: **She would drink** the bitter water even in the case of a contradiction between two single witnesses with regard to her infidelity.


###### Sotah 31b:16
[Sotah 31b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:16)

לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא קַשְׁיָא דְּעוּלָּא. לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּבַת אַחַת. כָּאן בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **for Rabbi Ḥiyya,** how will he respond to the same **difficulty** due to the teaching **of Ulla,** who explained that when a single witness is deemed credible he is considered as two and cannot be contradicted by a single witness to the contrary? The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult: Here,** the mishna is discussing a case where both witnesses arrived in court and testified **simultaneously,** thereby canceling each other out. But **there,** Ulla’s principle, that whenever a single witness’s testimony is accepted it is considered as two and cannot be contradicted by a single witness testifying to the contrary, is referring to a case **in which** the two conflicting witnesses came to court and testified **one after the other.**


###### Sotah 31b:17
[Sotah 31b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:17)

תְּנַן: עֵד אוֹמֵר ״נִטְמֵאת״ וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״לֹא נִטְמֵאת״ — הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הָא חַד וְחַד — לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **we learned** in the mishna above that if **one witness says: She was defiled, and two say: She was not defiled, she would drink** the bitter water. The Gemara deduces from here: The implications of this statement are that the woman drinks only because the testimony of the incriminating witness was contradicted by two witnesses, **but** if there was **one** witness saying she was defiled **and** only **one** witness saying the opposite, **she would not drink;** this is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥiyya.**


###### Sotah 31b:18
[Sotah 31b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:18)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי חִיָּיא: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״נִטְמֵאת״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא נִטְמֵאת״ — לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הָא חַד וְחַד — הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Ḥiyya** could have **said to you: And according to your reasoning** that she would not drink, **say the latter clause** of the mishna, which states: If **two** witnesses **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. **But** you should deduce from here that if there was **one** witness testifying to her defilement **and one** witness stating the opposite, **she would drink** the bitter water. This inference is in line with Rabbi Ḥiyya’s explanation, and contradicts the inference from the previous clause.


###### Sotah 31b:19
[Sotah 31b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:19)

אֶלָּא, כּוּלַּהּ בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת, וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה עֵד אֶחָד — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב דֵּעוֹת, וְעָשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד כִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather,** the correct understanding is that **the entire** mishna is not dealing with valid witnesses, and stating an obvious *halakha* in order to enable an inference, but **with** people who are **disqualified** from giving **testimony,** and is teaching us a novel ruling. **And** the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion **of Rabbi Neḥemya. As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta Yevamot* 14:1) that **Rabbi Neḥemya says: Wherever the Torah relies on one witness, follow the majority of opinions.** In other words, if the testimonies of two disqualified witnesses conflict, the court rules in accordance with the version supported by more witnesses, whether or not they are qualified to testify. **And** the Sages **established** that the testimony of **two women,** who are usually disqualified from testifying, when they testify in opposition to **one man,** should be **like** that of **two men against one man,** and the court will rule in accordance with the testimony of the two women.


###### Sotah 31b:20
[Sotah 31b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31b:20)

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כׇּל הֵיכָא דַּאֲתָא עֵד אֶחָד כָּשֵׁר מֵעִיקָּרָא — אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה נָשִׁים נָמֵי כְּעֵד אֶחָד דָּמְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** that Rabbi Neḥemya actually stated something different: **And there are** those **who say** a different version of Rabbi Neḥemya’s approach: **Anywhere that one valid witness came initially, even one hundred women** who later contradict him **are considered like one** witness, and do not override his testimony.