Midrash for Numbers 5:13

(Numb. 5:13:) IN THAT A MAN HAS SLEPT WITH HER CARNALLY, except for a minor, since he is not a man.⁴⁵On the exception, see Sifre, Numb. 5:13 (7). Cf. Sot. 4:4; TSot. 5:6; Sot. 26b; and the parallel text in Tanh., Numb. 2:6, all of which regard “one who is not a man” as a separate, non-human category. [WITH HER] CARNALLY. <This is> when her sleeping renders her unfit, and no other sleeping renders her unfit. <There is> a story about two sisters who resembled each other. Now one was married in one city and the other was married in another city. The husband of one of them wanted to accuse her of infidelity and have her drink the bitter water in Jerusalem. They went to that city where her married sister was. Her sister said to her: What was your reason for coming here? She said to her: My husband wants to have me drink <the bitter water>. Her sister said to her: I will go in your place and drink it. She said to her: Go. She put on her sister's clothes, went in her place, drank the bitter water, and was found clean. When she returned to her sister's house, she joyfully went out to meet her, then embraced and kissed her. As soon as the one kissed the other, she smelled the bitter water and immediately died, in order to fulfill what is stated (in Eccl. 8:8): NO HUMAN HAS CONTROL OVER THE WIND TO CONTAIN THE WIND, NOR IS THERE CONTROL ON THE DAY OF DEATH….

(Numb. 5:13, cont.:) AND IT IS HIDDEN FROM HER HUSBAND's EYES, except for one who is blind.⁴⁶Tanh., Numb. 2:7; Sifre, Numb. 5:13 (7); Sot. 27a. Cf. Numb. R. 9:10, which explains the exception as referring to a husband just pretending to be blind to his wife’s adultery, so that he can use the rite of the bitter water for killing his wife. Another interpretation (of Numb. 5:13, cont.:) AND IT IS HIDDEN FROM HER HUSBAND'S EYES. These words mean that> her husband would not have viewed <her transgression> and overlooked <it>. (Ibid., cont.:) SO THAT SHE IS UNDETECTED. We have not yet heard of a specific length of time for her to be in seclusion (with her lover) <in order to cause defilement>. R. Eleazer says: <The time needed> for a palm tree to sway back.⁴⁷See TSot. 1:2; Sot. 4a; Sifre, Numb. 5:13 (7). R. Joshua says: For mixing the cup. Ben 'Azzay says: For drinking it. R. Aqiva says: For roasting an Egg. R. Judah says: For eating three eggs one after the other. R. Eleazar ben Pinhas says: For a weaver⁴⁸Gk.: gerdios. to knot the thread.⁴⁹Gk.: nema. Hanan says: For her to put her finger in her mouth. Pelimo says: For his (sic) hand⁵⁰Cf. the parallel in Numb. R. 9:10, which reads, “her hand.” to reach over the basket and take a loaf of bread. Even though there is no evidence for the affair, there is a hint of the affair where it is stated (in Prov. 6:26): FOR ON BEHALF OF A WOMAN PLAYING THE HARLOT <ONE WILL BE REDUCED> TO A LOAF OF BREAD.

(Numb. 5:13, cont.:) AND THERE IS NO WITNESS AGAINST HER. Although she has no <witness against her> now, she will have one at another time.⁵¹In addition to Tanh., Numb. 2:7, and Numb. R. 9:10, see Gen. R. 38:14; PRK 18:3; PR 32:2. In a similar usage⁵²Kayyotse badavar. This repetitive use of kayyotse b… indicates that the sixth of the seven exegetical rules (middot) attributed to Hillel is being used here. you say (in Gen. 11:30): NOW SARAI WAS BARREN; SHE HAD NO CHILD. Although <Sarai> had no <child> then, she would have one at another time, as stated (in Gen. 21:1): THEN THE LORD VISITED SARAH…. In a similar usage you say (in Esth. 2:10): ESTHER HAD NOT DISCLOSED <HER PEOPLE AND HER NATIVE LAND>. Although she had not disclosed them to him then, she did disclose them to him at another time, as stated (in Esth. 8:1): THEN MORDECAI CAME BEFORE THE KING, FOR ESTHER HAD DISCLOSED WHAT RELATIONSHIP HE HAD TO HER. And here also (in Numb. 5:13): AND THERE IS NO WITNESS AGAINST HER. Although she has no <witness against her> now, she will have one at anther time, as stated (in Mal. 3:5): AND I WILL BE A SWIFT WITNESS [AGAINST SORCERERS, AGAINST ADULTERERS] <….>

(Bamidbar 6:9) "And if one die on him, etc.": to exclude a doubt (i.e., a possibility of one's having died on him.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah) where inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness (viz. (Bamidbar 5:13), doubt (i.e., the possibility of her having been adulterous while closeted) was equated with certainty, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where inadvertency was equated with wilfullness, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty! It is, therefore, written "And if one died on him" (i.e., to his certain knowledge) — to exclude an instance of doubt. "of an instant": to include (his shaving and bringing an offering) (if he becomes tamei) inadvertently. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah), where doubt was equated with certainty, inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt was not equated with certainty, how much more so should inadvertency not be equated with wilfullness! It is, therefore, written "of an instant" (i.e., inadvertently). "suddenly": to include (an instance of his becoming tamei) unwittingly. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, (in the instance of sotah), where doubt is equated with certainty, unwittingness (of his being forbidden to her) is not equated with wittingness, here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt (of his having become tamei) is not equated with certainty, how much more so should unwittingness (of his having become tamei) not be equated with wittingness! And whence is it derived that he is liable (to shave and bring an offering) for wilfullness (i.e., for wilfully having become tamei)? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of swearing (falsely) in respect to (having received) a pledge (viz. Vayikra 5:22), where he is not liable (to bring an offering) for unwittingness, he is liable for wilfullness, then here (in the instance of the Nazirite), where he is liable for unwittingness, how much more so is he liable for wilfullness! — No, this may be true of swearing in respect to a pledge, where he does not receive stripes, as opposed to the instance of the Nazirite, where he does receive stripes. And since he receives stripes, he should not bring an offering. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 6:11) "and he (the Cohein) shall atone for him for having sinned against the soul." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says "of an instant": This refers to unwittingness. "suddenly": This refers to inadvertency.

R. Yehoshua says: He forewarns her in the presence of two and causes her to drink by the word of two. For it would follow: If the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself), which forbids her universally (i.e., even to her husband), were by one witness, how much more so would the former testimony (to her forewarning), which does not forbid her universally (i.e., she is permitted to her husband) — how much more so should it be acceptable with one witness. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 24:1) "for he has found in her a thing of nakedness." And it is written here "By word of two witnesses … will a thing be established" — Just as here, two (are required), so, there, two. How much more so (are two required for) the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself.) For if the first testimony, which does not forbid her universally (i.e., to her husband) is not valid with fewer than two, then the latter testimony, which does forbid her to her husband, how much more so is it invalid with fewer than two. This is the intent of (Bamidbar 5:13) "and there be no witness in her" (see there).