Sotah 065

1:
Before we begin our study of this mishnah it might be helpful if we review a previous mishnah, the 2nd mishnah of chapter 4, which reads as follows:

2:
It is important always to recall that the only woman who could be required by her husband to drink the 'cursing waters' was one who had been formally warned not to consort with a certain man and who was suspected of nevertheless having done so but there was not sufficient proof of her infidelity. Thus, if the question of her infidelity was beyond doubt she would not undergo this ordeal. (Let us clarify that she and her paramour would only be guilty of the capital offence of adultery in almost impossible conditions: two competent witnesses would have to warn the couple in advance that they were about to commit an act whose punishment was death and those two witnesses had then to be able to testify that the couple then copulated knowing full well the legal implications of what they were doing.) If there was 'reasonable' testimony that a woman had been unfaithful to her husband with a man with whom he had previously warned her to avoid her husband was required to divorce her.

3:
Thus, it is reasonable to assume, that there were virtually no cases of flagrant adultery (a capital offence); furthermore, if there was 'reasonable' testimony that the woman had been unfaithful (but not sufficient to bring a charge of adultery) the woman could not be required to undergo the ordeal of the 'cursing waters'. It now becomes clear that the more flexible one can be regarding the perceptibility of testimony the greater the likelihood that the ordeal of the Sotah will be obviated and the matter will end in divorce. This is the subject of our present mishnah.

4:
Our mishnah recounts several cases where the usual rules of admissible testimony are relaxed in the case of the Sotah. Usually the concurrent testimony of two witnesses is required to establish a fact at law; however, in the case of the Sotah it is enough that one witness be able to give creditable testimony that the wife had been unfaithful to her husband. Such testimony did not have to be as to an actual act of infidelity; it would be sufficient for the witness to testify that she had secluded herself with the man despite her husband's formal 'warning' that she may not do so. The testimony of this sole witness would be sufficient to deny the husband his right to challenge her to the ordeal and to require him to divorce her.

5:
When we studied Tractate Sanhedrin we noted that there were stringent rules as to who could be a creditable witness. Many kinds of person were under a general disqualification because of their social status or because of their way of life. In addition, others could be disqualified in specific cases because of their familiar proximity to the accused. In general, women and Canaanite slaves were disqualified as witnesses. However, in the case of the Sotah we have already seen in the previous mishnah that even the persistent gossip of the women "who spin by moonlight" would be sufficient cause for the divorce of the Sotah. Our present mishnah adds that the testimony of a Canaanite slave or a handmaid would also be sufficient to prevent the ordeal and to require a divorce.

6:
As noted, in other cases the evidence of family members who might have reason to want to accused to be found guilty is not acceptable. However, in the case of the Sotah such family members may give creditable testimony as to the woman's infidelity:

• Her husband's mother (whose loyalty would doubtless be towards her son);
• The daughter of her mother-in-law (regardless of whether this woman is her sister-in-law or not);
• Her co-wife (in a society where a man may be married to more than one woman at the same time);
• Her husband's brother's wife (who would be required to contract a levirate marriage with the husband of the Sotah should her own husband leave her a childless widow;
• Her husband's daughter – from a different wife.

7:
In some of the cases mentioned above the testimony was sufficient to compel a divorce but not to disqualify the woman from receiving the monies assured her in her marriage deed. In other cases she would lose this financial support.