Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1.1

משנה: הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מְקַנֵּא עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וּמַשְׁקֶה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר מְקַנֵּא עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וּמַשְׁקֶה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם.

MISHNAH: If a man declares his jealousy to his wife, Rebbi Eliezer says, he declares his jealousy in front of two [witnesses] and takes her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony. Rebbi Joshua says, he declares his jealousy in front of two [witnesses] and takes her to drink by the testimony of two [witnesses].

הלכה: הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כול׳. כְּתִיב וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וגו׳. שֶׁלֹּא יְקַנֵּא לָהּ לֹא מִתּוֹךְ שְׂחוֹק וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂיחָה וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ מִתּוּן. אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ דָּבָר שֶׁל אֵימָה. עָבַר וְקִינֵּא לָהּ בְּאֶחָד מִכָּל הַדְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ. מַה אִיתְאֲמָרַת. לְמִצְוָה. לְעִיכּוּב. אִין תֵּימַר לְמִצְוָה. קִינּוּיוֹ קִינּוּי. אִין תֵּימַר לְעִיכּוּב. אֵין קִינּוּייוֹ קִינּוּי. אַתְיָיא כְהָדָא. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר חוּקָּה תּוֹרָה מְעַכֵּב.

HALAKHAH: “If a man declares his jealousy to his wife,” etc. It is written: “A spirit of jealousy overcame him and he declared his jealousy to his wife;” this implies that he should not declare his jealousy jokingly, or in the middle of a conversation, or lightly, or in a friendly manner but in a way that inspires fear. If he transgressed and declared his jealousy in one of the aforementioned ways: was this said as an obligation or as a necessity? If you say as an obligation, his declaration of jealousy is valid. If you say as a necessity, his declaration of jealousy is invalid. This is resolved referring to the statement: Anywhere “law” or “teaching” is mentioned, it is an absolute necessity.

הַקִּינּוּי. רִבִּי יהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. חוֹבָה. רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ אָמַר רְשׁוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. אַתְיָיא דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוָה. מָצָא בָהּ דְּבָרִים כְּאוּרִין. לְגָרְשָׁהּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל שֶׁלֹּא מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוָה. לְקַיְימָהּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל שֶׁמָּצָא בָהּ דְּבָרִים כְּאוּרִין. לְפוּם כֵּן הוּא אוֹמֵר. חוֹבָה. וְהָא תַנֵּי מִשּׁוּם בֵּית שַׁמַּי. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵאת מִשֵּׁם עֶרְוָה. מְנַיִין הַיּוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ וּצְדָדֶיהָ מְפְוּרָמִין וּזְרוֹעוֹתֶיהָ חֲלוּצוֹת. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קִיַימְתִּיהָ בְּעֵדִים. וְכָאן שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים.

The declaration of jealousy, Rebbi Joshua said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, is obligatory; but Rebbi Joshua said, it is optional. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, it turns out that Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel. As the House of Shammai say, a man may not divorce his wife except if he found in her a matter of nakedness. If he found her behavior ugly, he cannot divorce her since he found no proof of adultery; he cannot keep her since he found her behavior ugly. Therefore, he says, it is obligatory. But was it not stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s [hair] is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this if there are witnesses, but not if there are no witnesses.

וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִׁילוֹ. לְפוּם כֵּן הוּא אוֹמֵר. רְשׁוּת. רָצָה לְקַנְאוֹת יְקַנֶּא. רָצָה לְגָרֵשׁ יְגָרֵשׁ.

“And Rebbi Joshua [follows] the House of Hillel.” For the House of Hillel say, even if she burned his food. Therefore, he says it is optional. If he wants to declare his jealousy, he declares his jealousy; if he wants to divorce her, he divorces her.

וּמַה טַעְמָא דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. עֶרְוָה זוֹ סְתִירָה. דָּבָר זֶה קִינּוּי. דָּבָר דָּבָר. מַה דָבָר הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. אַף דָּבָר הָאָמוּר כָּאן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. וּמַשְׁקֶה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ. בִּתְנָאִים שֶׁהִיתְנָה עִמָּהּ עַל פִּי אֲחֵרִים.

What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “For he found in her a word of nakedness.. “Nakedness”, that is the rendez-vous. “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “Word, word”; just as “word” mentioned there requires two witnesses, so “word” mentioned here requires two witnesses. “But he can take her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness”, about the conditions spelled out to her through the mouth of others.

תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. מְקַנֵּא עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ וּמַשְׁקֶה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. וְאֵין מְצִיאָה בְכָל מָקוֹם אֶלָּא בְעֵדִים. מַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר דָּבָר. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מַרְגִּיל לָבוֹא לִידֵי עֶרְוָה. עֵד אֶחָד מַהוּ שֶׁיַּשְׁקֶה. מַה אִם פִּיו שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹקְקוֹ לִשְׁבוּעַת מָמוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא מַשְׁקֶה. עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא זוֹקְקוֹ לִשְׁבוּעַת מָמוֹן לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. קָרוֹב מָהוּ שֶׁיַּשְׁקֶה. מִי קָרוֹב מִבַּעֲלָהּ. עֵד מִפִּי עֵד מָהוּ שֶׁיַּשְׁקֶה. מַה בֵינוֹ לְבֵין הַקָּרוֹב. קָרוֹב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר עַכְשָׁיו כָּשֵׁר הוּא לְאַחַר זְמָן. עֵד מִפִּי עֵד אֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר לֹא עַכְשָׁיו וְלֹא לְאַחַר זְמָן.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, he declares his jealousy by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony; he takes her to drink on the testimony of two witnesses.” It is said here: “For he found in her a word of nakedness”; “finding” anywhere has to be validated by witnesses. How does Rebbi Eliezer explain “a word”? A circumstance that brings into the habit of nakedness. May a single witness let him take her to drink? His own testimony can never obligate him to swear in money matters but it will let him take her to drink, a single witness who will obligate him to swear in money matters not so much more? May a relative bring her to drink? Who is a closer relative than her husband? May a hearsay witness bring her to drink? What is the difference between him and a relative? A relative may be disabled today but he might be enabled later, a hearsay witness is not acceptable either today or later.

מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. דָּבָר זֶה הִקִּינּוּי. כִּי מָצָא. אֵין מְצִיאָה אֶלָּא בְעֵדִים. וּמְקַנֵּא עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ. בְקִינּוּי. מַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עֶרְוָה. עֶרְוָה שֶׁהִיא בָאָה מִכֹּחַ דָּבָר.

What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? ““For he found in her a word of nakedness.” “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “For he found”; “finding” has to be validated by witnesses. (“But he can take her to drinkby the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness”.) How does Rebbi Joshua explain “nakedness”? [A prohibition of] nakedness that came because of a word.

הֵשִׁיבוּ עַל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוּדָה. אִם כֵּן אֵין לְדָבָר סוֹף. הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לְקַנְאוֹת לָהּ בשנים וּלְהָבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁנִּסְתְּרָה וּלְפוֹסְלָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַה טִיבָהּ לְהִיסָּתֵר. אֶלָּא אַתְיָא דִי לָא עַל דְּמַתְנִיתִין. הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לַקְנוֹת לָהּ מִפִּיו וְלוֹמַר שֶׁנִּסְתְּרָה וּלְפוֹסְלָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אֲפִילוּ כְהָדֵין תַּנָּיָיא אַתְיָיא הִיא כְּמָאן דָּמַר. מְקַנֵּא לָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ וּמִבְּנָהּ. הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לַקְנוֹת לָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ וּמִבְּנָהּ וּלְהָבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁנִּסְתְּרָה וּלְפוֹסְלָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אִין תֵּימַר. מַה טִיבָהּ לְהִיסָּתֵר. הַתּוֹרָה הִתִּירָהּ לְהִיסָּתֵר. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. כְּתִיב כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶּן אִמֶּךָ וגו׳. בִּתְּךָ בַּסֵּתֶר. אִמֶּךָ בַּסֵּתֶר. מִתְיַיחֵד אָדָם עִם אִמּוֹ וְדָר עִמָּהּ. עִם בִּתּוֹ וְדָר עִמָּהּ. עִם אֲחוֹתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ דָר עִמָּהּ.

They answered on the words of Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah: If so, there is no end to it. If he is believed, he declares his jealousy (before two) [by himself], brings witnesses that she was in a secluded place and disables her from receiving the ketubah. Rebbi Yose said, what business did she have in a secluded place? But it refers to the statement in the Mishnah. Is he believed to declare formally his jealousy and then say that she was in a secluded place and disable her from receiving her ketubah? Rebbi Mana said, even for that other Tanna it is [a] valid [objection], following him who says that he may declare his jealousy in respect to her father or her son. Is he believed to declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, can he then bring witnesses that she was in a secluded place with them and disable her from receiving her ketubah? If you ask, what business did she have in a secluded place? The Torah permitted her to be in a secluded place, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written: “If your brother, your mother’s son, incites you, etc.,” Your daughter, in secret; your mother, in secret; a man may be alone with his mother and dwell with her, with his daughter and dwell with her, with his sister but may not dwell with her.

עֵידֵי קִינּוּי שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין לוֹקִין. עֵידֵי סְתִירָה שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לוֹקִין. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלְּמוּ. לֹא מִכּוֹחָן הִיא מַפְסֶדֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אוֹ יָיבֹא כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. אֵין לְמֵידִין דָּבָר מִדָּבָר בְּעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין. וְהָכָא כֵן.

Witnesses of a declaration of jealousy who were found to be false are whipped. About witnesses concerning her being in a secluded place who were found to be false, you say that they are whipped; why should they not pay? It is not through their action that she loses her ketubah. Or it might be, following what Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah, said in the name of Samuel: One does not infer one thing from another in the matter of false witnesses. And here it is so.

נִסְתְרָה בְּעֵד אֶחָד בְּשַׁחֲרִית וּבְעֵד אֶחָד בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. נִתְיַיחֲדָה עִמּוֹ בִפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. צְרִיכָה הִימֶּינּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי. בְּאֶחָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הִימֶּינּוּ גֵט שֵׁינִי. בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁחֲרִית וְאֶחָד בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם. זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְשָׁאַל רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן תַּדַּאי אֶת הַחֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ. אֵין זֶה יִיחוּד. קִינָּא לָהּ בְּעֵד אֶחָד בְּשַׁחֲרִית וּבְעֵד אֶחָד בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא אִישׁ וְהִיא אִשָּׁה אֵין קִינּוּיוֹ קִינּוּי. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִן הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רָאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר. וַאֲפִילוּ רָאוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק בְּשֵׁם רַב. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה בְּעֵידֵי הַבְּכוֹרָה וּבְעֵידֵי הַחֲזָקָה. רַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אַף בְּעֵידֵי סֵימָנִין כֵּן. מֵהָדָא פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁזֶּה אָמַר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁנֵי שְׂעָרוֹת בְגַבּוֹ. זֶה אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְּגַבָּהּ. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְּגַבָּהּ. לָאו כְּלוּם. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן גַּבּוֹ וְגַבּוֹ. [שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. רָאִינוּ שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְגַבּוֹ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. רָאִינוּ] שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שַׁמַּי. חַד אָמַר. פָּסוּל. וְחַד אָמַר. כָּשֵׁר. מָאן דָּמַר. פָּסוּל. כְּמֵעִיד עַל חֲצִי סֵימָן. וּמָאן דָּמַר. כָּשֵׁר. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁרוּ. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. רָאִינוּ שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְּגַבּוֹ. וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. רָאִינוּ שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסָהּ. רִבִּי חַגַּיי אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל. רִבִּי בָּא אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי חַגַּיי. וְהָא רִבִּי יוּדָן סָבַר כְּוָותִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. עַל רַבֵּיהּ אֲנָא פְלִיג. לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן עִילָוֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. אִילּוּ שְׁטָר שֶׁהוּא מְחוּתָּם בְּאַרְבָּעָה עֵדִים וְקָרָא עֲלוּי עִרְעֵר. זֶה מֵעִיד עַל שְׁנַיִם וְזֶה מֵעִיד עַל שְׁנַיִם. שֶׁמָּא כְּלוּם הוּא. וְאֵין כָּל חֲתִימָה וַחֲתִימָה צְרִיכָה (אֶלָּא) שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וָכָה כָּל סֵימָן וְסֵימָן צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה יְלִיף לָהּ מִשְּׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אִילּוּ אֶחָד מֵעִיד שֶׁאָכְלָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָיה וּשְׁלִישִׁית. וְאֶחָד מֵעִיד שֶׁאָכְלָהּ רְבִיעִית חֲמִישִית וְשִׁשִּׁית. שֶׁמָּא כְּלוּם הוּא. וְאֵין כָּל חֲזָקָה וַחֲזָקָה צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וָכָה כָּל סֵימָן וְסֵימָן צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים.

If she was seen going to a secluded place by one witness in the morning and by one witness in the evening, it is to be treated like the following: “If she was together alone with him by the testimony of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him; if there was a single witness she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. With one witness in the morning and one witness in the evening, such a case happened and Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus asked the Sages, who told him that this is not being together alone.” If he declared his jealousy before one witness in the morning and before one witness in the evening; since he is a man and she is a woman, his declaration is nothing. Or is it to be treated like the following: “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar [Rav] Isaac in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on her back and the other says, I saw one hair on her back, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia the son of Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. Two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement; Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.