Sotah

IF ONE WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND ANOTHER WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE DID NOT,  OR IF A WOMAN SAYS [OF HER] THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND ANOTHER WOMAN SAYS THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DRINKS THE WATER. IF ONE WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND TWO SAY THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DRINKS THE WATER. IF TWO SAY THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND ONE SAYS THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DOES NOT DRINK IT. GEMARA. [Why does the teacher in the Mishnah use] the Scriptural text: 'Because he hath found some unseemly matter in her'? He should have used [the teaching]: 'Against her' — i.e., 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of warning, 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of seclusion!  — He does also intend to say this: Therefore there is a text to state 'against her' — i.e., 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of warning, 'against her' [in the matter of misconduct] but not in the matter of seclusion. Whence, however, have we it that one witness is not believed in an ordinary charge of infidelity where there was neither warning nor seclusion? Here [in connection with infidelity] the word 'matter' occurs and it also occurs [in the law of evidence]; as with the latter [a charge is established] by two witnesses so [is the former established] by two witnesses. IF ONE WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF. The reason [why one witness is not accepted] is because there is another who contradicts him; but where nobody contradicts him one witness is believed — Whence have we this rule? Because our Rabbis have taught: 'And there be no witness against her' — the text refers to two witnesses. You say that it refers to two witnesses; but perhaps it is not so and even one [suffices]! There is a teaching to declare, One witness shall not rise up against a man etc.  From the fact that it is stated: '[A] witness shall not rise up against a man,' do I not know that one is intended? Why is there a teaching to declare one witness'? This establishes the rule that wherever it is stated witness, it signifies two unless the text specifies 'one', and [in the case under discussion] the All-Merciful declares that when there are not two witnesses against her but only one, 'and she has not been violated,' she is forbidden [to her husband]. But since, according to the Torah one witness is believed, how is it possible for another to contradict him? Surely 'Ulla has said: Wherever the Torah accepts the testimony of one witness, he is regarded as two, and the evidence of one is of no account when opposed by two!  — But, said 'Ulla, read the Mishnah as, 'She does not drink';  and R. Isaac similarly declared that she does not drink, but R. Hiyya said that she does drink. The view of 'Ulla creates a difficulty against the statement of R. Hiyya!  — There is no difficulty; one statement refers to evidence given simultaneously  and the other when one witness follows the other. We learnt: IF ONE WITNESS SAYS THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND TWO SAY THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DRINKS THE WATER. Consequently if there was one [against her] and one [for her], she would not drink; this is a refutation of R. Hiyya! — R. Hiyya can reply: And according to your view [that she does not drink] consider the next clause: IF TWO SAY THAT SHE MISCONDUCTED HERSELF AND ONE SAYS THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE DOES NOT DRINK IT. Consequently if there was one [against her] and one [for her], she would drink! But the whole [of this section of Mishnah] refers to disqualified witnesses,  and it is R. Nehemiah's teaching; for it has been taught: R. Nehemiah says: 'Wherever the Torah accepts the testimony of one witness, [the decision] follows the majority of persons [who testify]', so that two women against one man is identical with two men against one man. But there are some who declare that wherever a com petent witness came [and testified] first, even a hundred women are regarded as equal to one witness;