תלמוד על סוטה 6:1

HALAKHAH: “If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place⁵That the husband had some information that his wife met the man forbidden to her.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place⁶If there is not even a single witness against her.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa: Not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding⁷There is no difference of interpretation between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish; the latter only follows the opinion attributed to R. Eliezer in Mishnah 1:1.. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously⁸The opinion attributed to R. Eliezer in Mishnah 6:1.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana⁹R. Mana I.: Rebbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rebbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua says, only if¹⁰This is the reading of the Mishnah in the Babli, which can be read as meaning that if the wife is the talk of the town, even a rumor of unknown origin forces the husband to divorce his wife. she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rebbi Abba Mari asked: There¹¹‘Orlah, Chapter 2, Note 30., Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so¹²If Mishnah 6:1 is stated anonymously, it would imply that in Mishnah 1:1 practice follows R. Eliezer. However, it is evident not only that general practice follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer but also that in the case of the suspected wife, two witnesses of her misbehavior are needed to prohibit her to her husband. Therefore, the argument that R. Joshua only makes an anonymous statement precise is invalid.?

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.