Commentary for Numbers 5:12

איש איש כי תשטה אשתו IF ANY MAN’S WIFE GO ASIDE [AND ACT DECEITFULLY AGAINST HIM] — What is stated above, immediately before this section? ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו: If you withhold the gifts due to the priest (cf. Rashi on v. 10), by your life, you will have to come to him in order to bring him your faithless wife for the ordeal by the waters (Berakhot 63a). (The translation therefore is: “A man who remains with his holy things, not giving them to the priest, לו יהיו they — the man and his wife — will become subject to him [require his services])”.

כי תשטה אשתו, she deviates from the path of chastity.

דבר..ואמרת..איש איש, speak..and say.."any man whose wife is unfaithful, etc." Why did the Torah write both "speak," and "say"? Why did it use different words for the same thing, i.e. דבר, אמר? Why is the word איש repeated? A Sotah, a woman suspected of marital infidelity by her husband, may belong to either one of two categories. Either the suspicion is found to have been unjustified, or 2) she is found guilty either by her own admission or by having brazenly drunk the מים המאררים, the waters of bitterness. This accounts for the Torah employing two different words for "say!" The harsher דבור is intended for the woman who is guilty, whereas the softer אמרת is addressed to the woman who turns out to have been faithful though she gave cause for suspicion. The word איש is repeated for the same consideration. At the time her husband accuses her he does not know yet if his suspicions are justified. If the woman is innocent G'd will help her to prove her innocence. We find a popular proverb in Megillah 12 which suggests that the words ומעלה בו מעל could be interpreted to mean "if he (the husband) were guilty of a trespass" i.e. both husband and wife may be guilty of infidelity. As a result our sages stated that if the husband is certain that he has not sinned at all in his marital relations he is entitled to resume relations with his wife after she has undergone the procedure of the "bitter waters" and has been vindicated. The "bitter waters" actually examined the husband as well, i.e. the procedure did not work, the miracle would not take place if the husband himself were found guilty of marital trespass. The word איש is repeated to teach us that regardless of whether the husband knows himself to be pure or not, he still has to bring his wife to the priest.

כי תשטה, she deviates from “the straight and narrow.” The word and its spelling is used by Solomon in this sense in Proverbs 4,15 שטה מעליו, “pass it by!” Compare also Hoseah 5,2 ושחטה שטים העמיקו, “people who detoured to escape the guards, etc.”

What is written [immediately] above this subject? Normally Rashi only makes inferences from juxtapositions when matters are not written in their normal place, because then they were certainly written so for one to make an inference. Nonetheless, since there is no comparison between the laws of marriage and those of terumah and sanctified property, it is certain that they were only juxtaposed in order for one to make an inference. (Gur Aryeh) explains that [Rashi’s inference] is not from the juxtaposition of the passages, because if this were so he should have said “why was the Parshah of the sotah juxtaposed to that of sacred property,” as is his normal style. Rather, Rashi was answering the question: The Parshah should not have begun with the man, rather with the woman — saying “a woman who goes astray and acts treacherously…” given that she was the source of the sin. Therefore he explains “what is written above…” meaning that he was the source of the sin and “any man” refers to the passage above. See there. (Nachalas Yaakov) The matter is puzzling — ‘Tuviah sinned and Zeigud was punished?’ So too here — the husband sinned because he withheld the gifts to the kohanim and the woman was disgraced such that she had to come before the kohein! All the more so if she literally became defiled, it is difficult to understand how the sin of the husband could cause the sin of the wife. Rather, this is the correct explanation: The woman certainly has sins of her own and her sins caused the sin of promiscuity. Nonetheless if it were not for the combination of the sin of the husband with her sin of promiscuity, her sin would certainly have caused it to become publicized without the warning and seclusion. Thus the Beis Din would have killed her without causing disgrace to the husband, obliging him to bring her before the kohein and cause her to drink in order for her to die through the lethal waters. Instead, the combination with the sin of the husband caused there to be witnesses to the seclusion rather than witnesses to the defilement, and he had to bring her to the kohein in order to cause her to drink. Likewise, if she were to come away exonerated from the charge of promiscuity, had it not been for the combination with the husband’s sin, the sin of the wife would have lead to a simple rumor, without witnesses to her seclusion. Alternatively, there would have been only one witness to her defilement or she would have said that she would not drink — and in all of these cases one would not cause her to drink. Rather, here the combination with the sin of the husband caused him to have to bring her to the kohein in order to cause her to drink. (Gur Aryeh) [One may ask:] It appears that this is not specific to the case of a sotah, because had he been a zav or metzora he would also have needed a kohein, given that they too require a kohein. For if one did not say so, why should sotah be different? One may answer that the cases of a zav or metzora are different. If he wanted to be a sinner and not bring an atonement, who would know? Thus he would not necessarily need a kohein. However with a sotah, even a sinner would not wish his wife to be promiscuous, since it is the nature of people for this to be detestable, as the Torah writes “and he was jealous.” And since he was jealous, he would certainly bring her before the kohein. When one appreciates this matter further, one will see that it is measure for measure. Since he did not wish to give the gifts to the kohein, asking why he should give his money to the kohein, the Torah said “By your life you will need him.” You shall know the greatness of the kohein — that he is the intermediary between Hashem and Yisroel, making peace between them through the offerings. Yisroel are called Hashem’s wife as it writes, “If you do not know, most beautiful of women” (Shir Hashirim 1:8) and in many other places where they are termed a wife. Therefore this man will now require a kohein to whom he will bring the sotah, in order that he can also make peace between him and his wife. She strayed from him and the kohein would make peace between them. Surely this is exactly the same as when a kohein makes peace between Yisroel and their Father in Heaven, causing the Divine Presence to rest in the world. Similarly Rashi explains in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 35:25) that Hashem is called a husband to Yisroel (see Gur Aryeh there). This man was one of them but he did not wish to recognize the greatness of the kohein, therefore he had to bring the sotah to the kohein in order to make peace between himself and his wife.

V. 12. שטה :איש איש כי תשטה אשתו, Abweichen von einer Richtung im Wege, שטה מעליו (Prov. 4, 15) so hier: Abweichen von dem vorgeschriebenen sittlichen Wege. So chaldäisch שטה: Abweichen von der rechten Verstandesrichtung; der Irrsinn, Wahnsinn. Daher beides zusammenfassend das Wort der Weisen: אין אדם עובר עבירה אא׳׳כ נכנס בו רוח שטות (Sota 3 a), jedes sittliche Irrgehen ist zugleich ein logisches Irrgehen, sittliche Wahrheit und logische Wahrheit fällt zusammen, und keiner sündigt, er habe denn zuvor die richtige Ansicht der Verhältnisse verloren. — ומעלה בו מעל, wie in der vorhergehenden פרשה durch den Ausdruck, למעל מעל כד׳ das soziale Verhalten des Menschen zum Menschen zugleich als ein Gott heiliges bezeichnet ist, so ist hier das eheliche Verhältnis von Mann und Weib geradezu durch מעילה als ein gottheiliges gekennzeichnet, und wird hier daher im folgenden Verse und weiter die Entwürdigung der Frau zur Fortsetzung der Ehe geradezu: והיא נטמאה genannt. Die Ehe ist ein קדש: das entsprechende sittliche Verhalten in ehelicher Treue heißt טהרה (V. 28), der Gegensatz heißt טומאה, und wenn die Frau dem Mann zur Fortsetzung der Ehe אסורה geworden, so heißt dies ganz so: נטמאה, wie der טומאה-Zustand überall den Ausschluss von מקדש וקדשים bedeutet. Das hier in V. 12 gezeichnete Benehmen der Frau schließt noch nicht den vollzogenen Ehebruch in sich, allein es bezeichnet jedenfalls schon eine tadelnswerte Abweichung von dem der jüdischen Eheweibe eigenen Wege der Zucht und der Sitte, die dem Manne gerechte Ursache zur Warnung (V. 14) gegeben.

כי תשטה אשתו, “any man whose wife goes astray;” the reason the following paragraph appears at this junction is that both paragraphs discuss the kind of trespass called מעילה by the Torah. (Compare verse 6)

איש איש — The double expression איש איש is employed to teach you that she (the faithless wife) deals treacherously in two respects — against Him above Who bears the appelation of איש, as in the text "[the Lord is] a Man of the war” (Exodus 15:3), and against her husband (אישה) here below (Midrash Tanchuma, Vaetchanan 5).

ומעלה בו מעל, she has profaned what is holy to G’d, that which He loves, marital union, by embracing and kissing someone other than her husband. (compare Maleachi 2,11)

Spirit of foolishness. Meaning that their evil inclination would tell them that it was permitted - and this is the foolishness. If one did not say so then why would she be liable for death, given that it was due to foolishness?

Perhaps our verse referred to this idea when writing both דבר and ואמרת. A husband who is himself not blameless may be afraid to have his wife examined by the priest and the bitter waters as his own shortcomings would be exposed both in the eyes of G'd and that of his peers. As a result, he might prefer not to publicise his suspicions of his wife. On the other hand, even if this husband feels certain that his own conduct was always completely blameless he may not wish to expose marital friction between himself and his wife in public. For these various reasons he might balk at the duty the Torah imposes upon him here. The Torah therefore uses a "carrot and stick" approach" i.e. with soft urgings and with tough talk so that he would comply with the legislation in our paragraph.

כי תשטה — Our Rabbis have taught (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 5): “Adulterers do never sin until a spirit of madness enters into them”, as it written, of her כי תשטה “if she becomes mad” (taking תִשְׂטֶה in the sense of תִשְׂטֶה, i.e. to become a שׁוֹטֶה, and so, too, of him Scripture writes, (Proverbs 6:32) “Whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding”. — But the plain sense of the verse is that כי תשטה means: if she deviates from the path of modesty and thereby becomes suspect in his eyes. The word is similar to, (Proverbs 4:15) “turn away (שְׂטֵה) from it, and pass by”; (Proverbs 7:25) “Let not your heart turn (יַשְׂטְ) to her ways”.

Turns aside from the ways of modesty. Rashi specifically said “from the ways of modesty” and not “from the ways of the Torah,” because if it was from the ways of the Torah this would imply that she certainly was promiscuous, and if it was certain that she was promiscuous then we do not give her [the waters] to drink. Therefore he stated “from the ways of modesty,” meaning that she was seen embracing or kissing another man and there was a suspicion that she had been promiscuous.

ומעלה בו מעל AND SHE ACTS UNFAITHFULLY AGAINST HIM — Wherein consists this infidelity? ושכב איש אתה THAT A MAN LIETH WITH HER.

What is the treachery. Rashi is answering the question: The words “acts treacherously toward him. And a man has lain [with her]” imply that there are two matters. Thus Rashi explains “What is the treachery? [A man] lay…,” as if it had written that a man lay with her. However this does not mean that a man really lay with her, because if this were so we not give her the waters to drink. Consequently the sequence of events in the passage is as follows: When she goes astray and turns away from the ways of modesty, and a spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of his wife; If afterwards she is concealed long enough to have been defiled, then whether she acted treacherously towards him, for a man to lay with her conjugally and it was hidden from him, or whether a man did not lay with her and she was not defiled, rather he was only jealous of her even though she did not act, then the man shall bring his wife … (Re’m).