Sotah

R. Hisda said: Immorality in a house is like a worm in the sesame plant. Further said R. Hisda: Anger in a house is like a worm in the sesame plant. Both these statements refer to a woman, but in the case of a man there is no objection.  Further said R. Hisda, At first, before Israel sinned [against morality], the Shechinah abode with each individual; as it is said: For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp.  When they sinned, the Shechinah departed from them; as it is said: That he see no unclean thing in thee and turn away from thee. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whoever performs one precept in this world, it precedes him for the world to come; as it is said: And thy righteousness shall go before thee;  and whoever commits one transgression in this world, it clings to him and precedes him for the Day of Judgment, as it is said: The paths of their way are turned aside; they go up into the waste and perish.  R. Eleazar says: It attaches itself to him like a dog; as it is said: He hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her  — to lie by her in this world, or to be with her in the world to come. We learn elsewhere: It is a proper conclusion that if the first evidence [that the woman had secluded herself with the man], which does not prohibit her [to her husband] for all time,  is not established by fewer than two witnesses, is it not right that the final evidence [that she had misconducted herself] which prohibits her to him for all time, should not be established by fewer than two witnesses! Therefore there is a text to state, 'And there be no witness against her', [implying that], whatever [evidence] there may be against her [is believed, even if it be only one witness]. And with respect to the first evidence [about her seclusion with the man, that one witness suffices may be argued by] a fortiori reasoning as follows: If the final evidence [regarding misconduct], which prohibits her to her husband for all time, is established by one witness, is it not proper that the first evidence, which does not prohibit her to him for all time, should be established by one witness! Therefore there is a text to state, Because he hath found some unseemly matter in her,  and elsewhere it states: At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established;  as the 'matter' mentioned in this latter case must be confirmed by the testimony of two witnesses, so also here [in the case of the suspected woman] the 'matter' must be confirmed by the testimony of two witnesses.  Is this deduction to be drawn from the words, 'Because he hath found some unseemly matter in her'? It ought to be derived from '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 also says similarly  [and his teaching is to be cited as follows]: Therefore there is a text to state '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; and whence is it that merely in a case of misconduct, where there had been no warning or seclusion one witness is not believed? It is stated here, 'Because he hath found some unseemly matter in her', and elsewhere it states: 'At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established'; as in the 'matter' mentioned in the latter case two witnesses are required, so also here [where there has been misconduct without warning and seclusion] two witnesses are required. Our Rabbis have taught: Which is the 'first testimony'? Evidence of seclusion, and the 'final testimony' is evidence of 'defilement' [misconduct].