Mishnayos Sotah Perek 6 Mishnah 3

This ruling allowing one witness’s testimony with regard to defilement needs to be stated, as, by right, it should not have been deemed credible based on the following a fortiori inference: And just as if with regard to the first testimony concerning seclusion, which does not forbid her with an irrevocable prohibition, as the woman can be found innocent permitting her again to her husband by drinking the bitter water, is not established with fewer than two witnesses, since according to the mishna the testimony of seclusion requires two witnesses, then with regard to the final testimony concerning defilement, which forbids her to her husband with an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it should also not be established with fewer than two witnesses? Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: “And there be no witness against her” (Numbers 5:13), teaching that any testimony with regard to defilement that there is against her is sufficient, and two witnesses are not required. The Gemara asks: And from now that it is established that one witness suffices to testify with regard to defilement, an a fortiori inference can be made with regard to the first testimony of seclusion: And just as if concerning the final testimony of defilement, which forbids her with an irrevocable prohibition, yet it is established by one witness, then with regard to the first testimony, which does not forbid her with an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it should be established with only one witness? Therefore, to counter this derivation, the verse states: “When a man takes a wife, and marries her, and it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter [davar] in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and there, in the laws concerning monetary matters, it states: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter [davar] be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), teaching that just as the “matter” stated there is established “at the mouth of two witnesses,” so too, here the “matter” of her seclusion must be established “at the mouth of two witnesses.”

שֶׁהָיָה בְדִין, וּמָה אִם עֵדוּת רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֵינָהּ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם, עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַיֵּם בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנָיִם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, כָּל עֵדוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ. קַל וָחֹמֶר לָעֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵעַתָּה, וּמָה אִם עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, הֲרֵי הִיא מִתְקַיֶּמֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד, עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּם בְּעֵד אֶחָד, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים כד) כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר (שם יט), עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר, מַה לְּהַלָּן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, אַף כָּאן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים: