Talmud su Deuteronomio 19:15

What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “For he found in her a word of nakedness.^16”Deut. 24:1.. “Nakedness”, that is the rendez-vous¹⁷“Meeting in secret” with another man.. “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “Word, word”; just as “word” mentioned there requires two witnesses¹⁸Deut. 19:15: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a word (fact, circumstance) be confirmed.” The argument is based on the second hermeneutical rule (Sifra Introduction) that the meaning of words is unchanged from one occurrence to the other.
In the Babli, Giṭṭin 90a, this is quoted as the argument of the House of Shammai., 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 untruthfulness¹⁹Num. 5:12. The root מעל denotes the sin of embezzlement or fraud (Lev. 5:15, Num. 5:6; cf. Arabic مغالة) or general mischief (Lev. 26:40, Ez. 18:24, Ezr. 9:4; cf. Arabic معالة).”, about the conditions spelled out to her through the mouth of others²⁰In this interpretation, מעל refers to fraud as breach of contract; it does not imply unfaithfulness of the wife, as explained in Num. 5:14. Therefore, the breach of contract is that the wife went to a rendez-vous with the man forbidden to her by the declaration of jealousy in front of two witnesses. The clause (Num. 5:12) that she breached her contract with him is read to mean that he is empowered to prosecute this breach before the Temple priests..

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose¹⁶Here it seems better to read “Rav Joseph” with the other two sources.. It is said here two and it is said there¹⁷Deut. 19:15. by the mouth of two witnesses. Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two¹³Deut. 19:17.? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one he puts up, to the other he is unfriendly.

MISHNAH: It would have been logical: Since the first testimony,⁴³As the Halakhah explains, the first testimony is the testimony about the wife’s going to a secluded place, where R. Joshua requires two witnesses of good standing. The last testimony is that of adultery, where the preceding Mishnaiot accept even the proverbial “bird flying by”. The confirmation is the acceptance of the testimony by a competent court. which does not forbid her permanently, is not confirmed if not from two [witnesses], the last testimony,⁴³As the Halakhah explains, the first testimony is the testimony about the wife’s going to a secluded place, where R. Joshua requires two witnesses of good standing. The last testimony is that of adultery, where the preceding Mishnaiot accept even the proverbial “bird flying by”. The confirmation is the acceptance of the testimony by a competent court. which forbids her permanently, should reasonably only be confirmed by [witnesses]. The verse says: “There is no witness about her⁴⁴Num. 5:13.”, any kind of testimony about her.
⁴⁷This is the second half of Mishnah 3. There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony! Since the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, is confirmed from a single witness, the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, should logically be confirmed from a single witness. The verse says, “for he found out about her a matter of sexual misbehavior,⁴⁸Deut. 24:1. For the House of Shammai, this is the only reason admitted for a divorce (Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:10); for the House of Hillel, this is a reason why there must be a divorce.” and further, it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses a matter should be confirmed.⁴⁹Deut. 19:15. The verse proves that in any judicial proceedings, דבר means a proof by two witnesses. Since the husband cannot make his wife drink unless he presents his case to the Temple court, all judicial rules apply here. But a divorce because of the wife’s adultery can be given by the husband on his own (even though to deprive her of her ketubah after the divorce he needs the judgment of a court.)”