Q&A: One Witness in the Case of a Sotah
One Witness in the Case of a Sotah
Question
Hello Rabbi!
The Mishnah in Sotah 6a discusses witnesses who arrived after the sotah had drunk, and the medieval authorities (Rishonim) were uncertain about the law in a case where one witness arrived. Seemingly, Tosafot there implies that the law of two witnesses is the same as the law of one witness (the Mishneh LaMelekh argues that even according to Tosafot, two witnesses are required), whereas from Maimonides it is explicit that specifically two witnesses are required.
Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik (Sotah 3:23) explains that according to Maimonides, for the testimony of the one witness to be believed, there must be an act of warning and seclusion, and also a prohibition generated by warning and seclusion. I would be glad if the Rabbi could explain what exactly each of these two concepts means.
In addition, Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik explains that in light of this, Maimonides specifically requires two witnesses, since in any case the drinking has already taken place, and now the one witness is no longer effective, because his entire power is only to prevent the drinking. But why can’t one say that the fact that there is one witness undermines the act of administering the water? I don’t think that is absolutely necessary, but from his words it seems that once the drinking has taken place, it is effective. Seemingly, why can’t one say that the drinking itself is invalidated? Seemingly, one could say that this is a dispute between Tosafot and Maimonides. I’d be glad to know the Rabbi’s opinion. Thank you very much.
Answer
I haven’t looked at Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik right now, but Tosafot itself explains why there would be a difference between one and two. What the Torah trusted a single witness for is only to prevent the drinking of the sotah water (that is, after warning and seclusion, and before the drinking), and in any other situation two witnesses are needed. Tosafot agrees with that, but concludes that one witness is enough because from its perspective this is like the rule of one witness in matters of prohibition, even though that was only newly established before the drinking. Maimonides apparently understands this as a matter of sexual prohibition, not ordinary prohibitions, and therefore two witnesses are required.
I didn’t understand what it means to say that the witness undermines the act of administering the water.