משנה: עֵד אוֹמֵר נִיטְמֵאת וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. אִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת נִיטְמֵאת וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא נִיטְמֵאת הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר נִיטְמֵאת וְעֵדִים שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִיטְמֵאת הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִיטְמֵאת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת לֹא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. MISHNAH: If one witness says, she became impure, but another witness says, she did not become impure, or one woman50This case has to be treated separately since a woman, while she can point out facts, cannot be a formal witness. says, she became impure, but another woman says, she did not become impure, she would drink51Mishnah 1 stated that in case of certainty, the woman may not be brought to the Temple. In the case here, two contradicting statements cancel one another; there is uncertainty. In all cases, it is supposed that there are two witnesses who attest that the wife met another man in a secluded place.. If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she did drink52One witness against two witnesses accounts for nothing.. If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one [witness] says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.
הלכה: קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְעֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵעַתָּה כול׳. גִּידוּל בַּר מִינְייָמִין בְּשֵׁם רַב. כָּל־מָקוֹם שֶׁהִכְשִׁירוּ עֵדוּת הָאִשָּׁה בָאִישׁ הָאִישׁ מַכְחִישׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְהָאִשָּׁה מַכְחֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאִישׁ. נִיתְנֵי. עֵד אֶחָד אָמַר. נִטְמֵית. וְאִשָּׁה אָֽמְרָה. לֹא נִיטְמֵית. אִשָּׁה אָֽמְרָה. נִיטְמֵית. וְעֵד אָמַר. לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. תַּנֵּיי דְּבֵית רִבִּי כֵן. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. הוֹלְכִין אַחַר רוֹב עֵדוּת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וְאִשָּׁה אַחַת עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְעֵד אֶחָד. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּאִשָּׁה וְנָשִׁים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מֵאָה נָשִׁים וְעֵד אֶחָד כְּעֵד בְּעֵד אִינּוּן. HALAKHAH: “There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony,” etc. 53Essentially the same text, only referring to testimony of the husband’s death instead of the wife’s infidelity, in Yebamot Chapter 15, Notes 135–138 and here, Chapter 9, Halakhah 7. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that she became impure, and a woman says that she did not become impure; a woman said that she became impure and a witness said that she did not become impure.” In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.
רַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָה אָמַר. עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְטַמּוֹתָהּ. אֵין עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִידָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מַה טַעַם אָֽמְרוּ. עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן לְטַמּוֹתָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לְדָבָר. Rav Ada bar Aḥawah said, a single witness is believed to declare her impure, but a single witness is not believed to make her lose her ketubah.54He strictly follows the rule that a single witness is acceptable about prohibitions but not in money matters. Rav Ḥisda said, why did they say that a single witness is believed to declare her impure? Because the thing has feet to stand on55The single witness is believed to prohibit her to her husband because there are two other witnesses who accuse her of going to a secluded place with another man. Then he can also be believed, by rabbinic rule, that the husband does not have to pay (certainly for those who hold that the ketubah is a rabbinic institution.).
שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּאן לֹא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה וּבְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין. רַב אָמַר. הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. נִטְמֵאת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נִטְמֵאת. הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הָא [עֵד] בְּעֵד אֶחָד לֹא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת. וְאִין בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת אֱמוֹר סוֹפָאּ. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִיטְמֵאת. וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. לֹא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הָא עֵד בְּעֵד לֹא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וְהֵיךְ רַב אָמַר. הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לֹא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִיטְמֵאת. וְעֵד אָמַר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת [לֹא הָֽיְתָה] שׁוֹתָה. הָא עֵד בְּעֵד (לֹא) הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת. וְאִין בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת אֱמוֹר רֹאשָׁהּ. עֵד אוֹמֵר. נִטְמֵאת. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִטְמֵית. הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הָא עֵד בְּעֵד הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. הֵיךְ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לֹא הָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. אָֽמְרִון בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. בִּפְסוּלֵי עֵדוּת הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אָֽמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. בִּסְתִירָה אֲחֶרֶת הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מַהוּ בִּסְתִירָה אֲחֶרֶת הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כָּל־הָהֵן פִּירְקָא מִשֶׁקִּינֶּא לָה וְנִסְתְּרָה. נִסְתְּרָה בִפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר אֶחָד. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. יֵשׁ כָּאן סְתִירָה וְיֵשׁ כָּאן טוּמְאָה. לְאַחַר כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. יֵשׁ כָּאן סְתִירָה וְאֵין כָּאן טוּמְאָה. הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. יֵשׁ כָּאן סְתִירָה וְאֵין כָּאן טוּמְאָה. לְאַחַר כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. אֵין כָּאן סְתִירָה וְאֵין כָּאן טוּמְאָה. הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁלֹּא נִיטְמֵאת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי סְתִירָה. מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. כְּעֵדוּת שֶׁבָּֽטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּֽטְלָה כוּלָּהּ אוֹ תִתְקַייֵם הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּמָרִי. מִכֵּיוָן דְּאַתָּ מַר. בְּעֵידוּת שֶׁבָּֽטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּֽטְלָה כוּלָּהּ מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא שֶׁתִתְקַייֵם הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁאָר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לְדָבָר. 59In the Yerushalmi text quoted by Tosaphot, 32b, s. v. הא, the discussion starts: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר נִיטְמֵאת וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. “A single witness says, she became impure, but another single witness says, she did not become impure, …” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here60In the first case treated in Mishnah 5, that there is the word of one witness against the word of another single witness, cf. Note 59. He amends the Mishnah to read: “She does not drink.” The reason seems to be the order in which the testimony is described in the Mishnah: The first witness says that she became impure. By rabbinic rules, he is believed. This means that his testimony counts as much as the testimony of two witnesses. In the language of the Babli (Soṭah 32b, 47b; Yebamot 88b, 117b; Ketubot 22b): “In any case where the Torah declared that a single witness can be believed, he has the status of two.” If the Yerushalmi would accept such a statement, it would have to accept R. Joḥanan’s statement here. One has to assume that the second witness states that he observed the woman and the other man during the entire time they were together in a secluded place and that nothing untoward happened., she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it61Deut. 21:1–9. If two witnesses came and one said that he saw the murderer but the other one said that he saw the murder but not the murderer, there is no testimony which has any standing in court. Therefore, the murderer is unknown.. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav62Since Rav accepts the text of the Mishnah as is, one attempts to show that that text is self-contradictory.: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That63Since the sentence states that in the presence of a witness who states that she became impure one needs at least two witnesses who state that she did not become impure in order to declare the matter one of doubt, it would follow that there is no scenario in which a single witness can invalidate the testimony of another single witness. This contradicts the first sentence of the Mishnah and Rav’s statement. implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid64A witness who cannot testify in money matters because his integrity is in question (Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:3–4), or a woman or a slave. These have no standing against a single believable witness; one needs at least two, following R. Neḥemiah in the first paragraph.
In the Babli, 32b, the problem is solved in a first explanation that in the case of the first sentence, the two contradicting witnesses came to court together. Then there never was testimony and the woman is not held to be an adulteress. For the second case, the single witness came first and his testimony was accepted as fact. Then one needs two witnesses to annul the first testimony. The second explanation follows the Yerushalmi.. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink65If the Mishnah would state only the second and third cases, it would be a case of the undistributed middle and could be solved by postulating different scenarios for the different cases. But since the first case is stated apodictically, that way (the first explanation of the Babli) seems to be excluded and neither Rav nor R. Joḥanan can have a totally coherent position.. How could Rav say, she would drink? 59In the Yerushalmi text quoted by Tosaphot, 32b, s. v. הא, the discussion starts: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר נִיטְמֵאת וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִיטְמֵאת. “A single witness says, she became impure, but another single witness says, she did not become impure, …” Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink65If the Mishnah would state only the second and third cases, it would be a case of the undistributed middle and could be solved by postulating different scenarios for the different cases. But since the first case is stated apodictically, that way (the first explanation of the Babli) seems to be excluded and neither Rav nor R. Joḥanan can have a totally coherent position.? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid66In the Babli, an anonymous statement in support of R. Ḥiyya (bar Abba, student of R. Joḥanan).. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai67Cf. Note 5.: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity68Since the testimony of this witness about the wife going to a secluded place must be accepted, since it is supported by a second witness, his testimony about her infidelity also must be accepted.. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity69There is no difference whether one of two witnesses first testifies together with another that the wife went with another man to a secluded place and then he alone testifies that at the occasion of another rendez-vous she committed adultery, or if the second occasion is mentioned by a third witness. In any case, since it is not claimed that the second witness was present at the second occasion, there are distinct testimonies and the statement about adultery does not have the status of validity conferred by two independent testimonies.. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony70This is a separate case. The two witnesses agree about time and place when the wife went to a secluded place with another man. The first witness claims to have witnessed the sexual act, the second witness claims to have observed the couple all the time but that nothing untoward happened. Their testimonies about what happened in seclusion must be thrown out. Does this invalidate the testimony that a secluded rendez-vous took place? In criminal proceedings, the entire testimony would have to be thrown out.? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on71That there are two witnesses who testify that the husband formally declared his jealousy before them gives all following testimonies a basis which allows for the relaxation of the rules of criminal proceedings..