משנה: אָמַר עֵד אֶחָד אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת לֹא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ עֶבֶד אֲפִילוּ שִׁפְחָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין אַף לְפָסְלָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ וִיבִמְתָּהּ וּבַת בַּעֲלָהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת. לֹא לְפָסְלָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ אָֽמְרוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתֶּה. MISHNAH: If a single witness said “I saw her when she became impure”, she could not drink18Even though by biblical standards a single witness usually is not considered, here he is accepted by biblical standards as explained in Sotah 6:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.6.3.1">Mishnah 4 to bar the husband from bringing his wife to the Temple. He is not a witness in a criminal case (against the wife and her paramour) but his testimony indirectly forces the husband to divorce his wife and also frees him from payment of the ketubah since, as stated at the end of Sotah 6:4:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.6.4.2-4">Halakhah 4, his testimony “has feet”, i. e., after two witnesses for the declaration of jealousy and two witnesses that she went to a secluded place, the testimony that he saw them having sex is credible (if his testimony holds up under cross examination).. Not only that, but even a slave or a slave-girl are believed to cause her to lose her ketubah. Her mother-in-law, the mother-in-law’s daughter, her co-wife, her sister-in-law, and her husband’s daughter are trustworthy19These women are barred from testifying to her husband’s death (Yevamot 15:4" href="/Mishnah_Yevamot.15.4">Mishnah Yebamot 15:4, Notes 81,82) because they are presumed to hate her.. They said this not to make her lose her ketubah but that she could not drink20Then the husband has to divorce her and pay the ketubah, which is not in the personal interest of these women..
הלכה: אָמַר עֵד אֶחָד אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת כול׳. וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֵד. מְנַיִין אֲפִילוּ עֶבֶד אֲפִילוּ שִׁפְחָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. וּכְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. כָּל־מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה עֵד סְתָם הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ בִכְלָל שְׁנֵי עֵדִים עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהוּא עֵד אֶחָד. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. HALAKHAH: “If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure’,” etc. “And there is no witness against her21Numbers.5.13">Num. 5:13.”; not only a witness [of good standing], from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “and there is no witness against her”, any one22This follows R. Aqiba, who interprets every “and” as an addition [more explicitly Num. rabba 9(6)].. And following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael said23In the Sotah.31b">Babli, 31b and Sanhedrin.30a">Sanhedrin30a, and Sifry Num. 7, this is quoted as everybody’s opinion., at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness”, in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says two witnesses24This seems to be the opinion of the Tanna of Sifry Num. 7. The Sotah.31b">Babli, 31b, explains the problem away by reading the verse “and two witnesses are not against her,” meaning that one is. If one does not need two witnesses, one does not need quality witnesses..
מַתְנִיתָא מִשֶׁהוֹדָה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לְרִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. דְּתַנֵּי. רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר. עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְטַמְאוֹתָהּ וְאֵין עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִידָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְטַמּוֹתָהּ. כֵּן עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִידָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. אֵיכָן מָצִינוּ עֵד אֶחָד בְּמָמוֹן כְּלוּם. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וְאֵיכָן מָצִינוּ עֵד אֶחָד בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְטַמּוֹתָהּ. כָּךְ עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִידָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. חָזַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לִהְיוֹת שׁוֹנֶה כְרִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. Was our Mishnah [formulated] after Rebbi Aqiba agreed with Rebbi Ṭarphon25Since the Mishnah states that the single witness can also deprive the wife of her ketubah, the Mishnah follows R. Aqiba before he changed his mind.? As it was stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon says, a single witness is believed to declare her impure26This follows a general principle formulated in the Babli as: “A single witness is believable in matters of prohibitions.” For example, if a single witness shows that some food a person ate was of a forbidden kind, if the eater was unaware of the fact and therefore the sin was unintentional, he is obligated for a purification sacrifice on the testimony of a single witness. but not to let her lose her ketubah27Since this needs two witnesses.. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him: Where do we find that a single witness proves anything in money matters28While a single witness cannot prove anything in court (Deuteronomy.19.15">Deut. 19:15), the same verse is interpreted to mean that the testimony of a single witness in support of a claim of one of the parties can obligate a defendant to swear that he owes nothing (Šebuot 6:1 fol. 36d; Ketubot.87b">Babli Ketubot 87b). In the case here, there is no claim from any of the concerned parties.? Rebbi Aqiba answered him, but where do we find that a single witness proves anything in matrimonial matters29Since they have implications in criminal law, marriage or divorce are invalid unless executed in front of two witnesses. It is true that a single witness can inform about the dissolution of a marriage by the husband’s death, but this does not have the status of testimony (Yebamot Chap. 15).? But just as a single witness is believed to declare her impure, so he is believed to let her lose her ketubah. Rebbi Aqiba changed his mind and taught following Rebbi Ṭarphon30The rules of testimony for prohibitions (in cases which cannot lead to criminal prosecution) and money matters are distinct and testimony acceptable for one facet of a case may not be acceptable for the rest..
רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בָּעֵי. חֲמוֹתָהּ שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת. [וְאַתְּ אָמַר. לֹא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת.]מָה [הָיָה] בָא לְהֵעִיד. אִם לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ. כְּבָר נִרְאֵית שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁתּוֹת. אֶלָּא לֹא בָא [אֶלָּא] לְהַפְסִידָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. שֶׁאֵין מַפְסִידִין מָמוֹן עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. שָׁמַע מִן הָעוֹף הַפּוֹרֵחַ. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת. אַתְּ אָמַר. לא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וּבָא אֶחָד וְאָמַר. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת. מָה בָא לְהָעִיד. אִם לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ. כְּבָר נִרְאֵית שֶׁלֹּא [לִשְׁתּוֹת]. אֶלָּא לֹא בָא אֶלָּא לְהַפְסִידָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. שֶׁאֵין מַפְסִידִין מָמוֹן עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If her mother-in-law said “I saw her when she became impure”, [you say that she did not drink. If then somebody else came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”], about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness33Even if we agree with the Mishnah that a single witness is empowered to forbid the woman to her husband and as a consequence to make her forfait her ketubah (Sotah 6:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.6.2.1">Note 18), this is because the court is biblically empowered to forbid her to her husband on the testimony (Sotah 6:2:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.6.2.2">Note 24). But if the acceptable testimony is not needed, it is questionable whether its consequence should be enforced.! Rebbi Yose asked: If he heard from a bird flying by: “I saw her when she became impure”, you say that she did not drink. If then somebody came and said, “I saw her when she became impure”, about what does he testify? If to make her drink, it was clear beforehand that she does not drink. He would come only to deny her ketubah to her, but one cannot make a person lose money on the testimony of one witness33Even if we agree with the Mishnah that a single witness is empowered to forbid the woman to her husband and as a consequence to make her forfait her ketubah (Sotah 6:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.6.2.1">Note 18), this is because the court is biblically empowered to forbid her to her husband on the testimony (Sotah 6:2:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.6.2.2">Note 24). But if the acceptable testimony is not needed, it is questionable whether its consequence should be enforced.!
מִמַּה דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. פְּלוֹנִי אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אָמַר לוֹ אֶחָד. חֵלֶב הוּא. וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ שְׁנַיִם. לוֹקֶה. וְעִיקָּר עֵידוּתוֹ לֹא בְעֵד אֶחָד הוּא. מִמַּה דְרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. פְּלוֹנִי נָזִיר וְנִיטְמָא. הִתְרִיתִּי בוֹ. אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אָמַר לוֹ אֶחָד. נָזִיר אַתָּה. וְהָיָה נוֹהֵג בְּנְזִירוּת עַל פִּיו. שָׁתָה יַיִן וְנִיטְמָא לַמֵּתִים. הִתְרוּ בוֹ שְׁנַיִם. לוֹקֶה. וְעִיקָּר עֵדוּתוֹ לֹא בְעֵד אֶחָד הוּא. מִמַּה דְרִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. פְּלֹנִית כּוֹהֶנֶת וְזִינָת. וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בַּעֲלָהּ הַכֹּהֵן וְהִתְרֵיתִי בָוֹ. [אֵינוֹ] לוֹקֶה. נִסְתְּרָה בִפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר אֶחָד. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת. וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בַעֲלָהּ כֹּהֵן. הִתְרוּ בוֹ שְׁנַיִם. לוֹקֶה. עִיקָּר עֵדוּתוֹ לֹא בְעֵד אֶחָד הוּא. From what Rebbi Yose said, “X ate suet, and they warned him,” he is not whipped37Eating suet from cattle, sheep, or goats, the part of the fat of sacrificial animals which is burned on the altar, is a crime (Leviticus.7.23">Lev. 7:23,Leviticus.7.25">25). If a single witness comes and accuses somebody of having eaten suet criminally, i. e., after having been duly informed by two adults that eating that suet would be a criminal offense, his testimony is nothing since he is a single witness.
The entire paragraph is also in Nazir 8:1:2-10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.8.1.2-10">Nazir 8:1, fol. 57a. If one person said to him, that is suet, and two warned him, he is whipped38If a single witness (after due examination by the court) testifies that a certain piece of meat is suet, that piece legally has the status of suet (Sotah 6:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.6.2.3">Note 26). If then two people warn a third person that eating the meat would be criminal (thereby establishing intent; cf. Sotah 3:4:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.3.4.7">Chapter 3, Note 121) and two witnesses testify to the act, this is testimony by two witnesses, valid in court, even though the status of the piece of meat as suet was based on the testimony of only one witness.. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness39By analogy, on the questions raised in the preceding paragraph, one might argue that the preceding information given either from a person precluded from being a witness in court or from an unsubstantiated rumor does not impair the validity of the later testimony.? From what Rebbi Jehudah is saying: “X is a nazir40Numbers.6">Num. 6. The witness testified that he heard X declaring a vow of nazir (cf. Berakhot 7:2:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.7.2.7">Berakhot Chapter 7, Note 79) but that he did not keep it. Again he is a single witness whose word carries no weight in court., he became defiled, and I had warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, you are a nazir, and based on this testimony he behaved like a nazir, when then he drank wine or became impure in the impurity of the dead, if two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness41The argument is totally parallel to the first one.? From what Rebbi Mana said, “X is the wife of a Cohen and whored; her husband, a Cohen, then had relations with her42After she was desecrated, a felony (cf. Sotah 1:2:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.1.2.8">Chapter 1, Note 123). but I had warned him;” he is [not] whipped. If she went to a secluded place in the presence of two, and one said, I saw her that she became impure; when her husband, the Cohen, had relations with her but two had warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness41The argument is totally parallel to the first one.?