Comentario sobre Números 5:13

ושכב איש AND A MAN LIETH [WITH HER] — a man, thus excluding a minor and a being that does not come under the term איש (i. e., an animal) (Sifrei Bamidbar 7:2; Sotah 24a).

ושכב איש אותה, and another man has lain with her It is characteristic of the evil urge to cause the sinner to proceed from a relatively mild sin to ever more serious sins.

ועד אין בה, to testify that she had been guilty of adultery,

Lying with her. Rashi’s text read “And a man has lain with her conjugally. Lying with her disqualifies her but lying with her sister does not disqualify her from her husband (Yevamos 95).” Meaning that if her husband lay with her sister, she is not disqualified to her husband due to her sister’s promiscuity. For one might have said that she was disqualified due to a kal vachomer (a fortiori reasoning): Just as when one has relations with a ‘lesser’ prohibition, the one who causes the prohibition becomes forbidden — in a case where one has relations with a ‘stricter’ prohibition, the one who causes the prohibition should certainly be forbidden. Rashi explains that the ‘lesser’ prohibition is that of a married woman who can become permitted to others through divorce. [The kal vachomer is as follows]: If the wife was promiscuous, she becomes forbidden to her husband, which means she is forbidden to the entire world. Thus, in a case where he had relations with a ‘strict’ prohibition, such as the sister of his wife who is prohibited to him through by his marriage to his wife all the time that she is alive. Is it not logical that the one who ‘caused’ this prohibition should be prohibited — his wife should be prohibited to her husband, since she ‘caused’ the prohibition of her sister to her husband? Therefore the Torah said “with her” to teach that “lying with her disqualifies her…” (Yevamos 95a). However, a mistake occurred in the Rashi texts. I heard this from Rabbi Yitzchak Cohen z’l. I have found written that the comment, “incident of the two sisters…” should have been placed on the verse “if any man” (v. 12) where Rashi explained that she is doubly treacherous — against the “Man” in Heaven, and the man on earth. There the Midrash teaches: Against the “Man” on High and the man below — Hashem says to her “You are fooling your husband, perhaps you think that you can fool me” — there was an incident of two sisters …

V. 13. ושכב וגו׳. Da dieser Vers mit der Klausel schließt: והיא לא נתפשה, dass das, was geschehen, sich nicht als ein an ihr verübter Gewaltakt, sondern als eine von ihr geübte freie Tat darstellt, ihr somit nicht אונס, die Entschuldigung erlittenen Zwanges, zur Seite steht: so muss dieser Vers den Fall ihrer konstatierten Schuld besprechen, der ohne weiteres die gesetzliche Fortdauer der Ehe verbietet und diese nicht mehr zu einer, göttlicher Entscheidung zu unterstellenden, Zweifelfrage macht. So sehr wird in der Halacha in dieser Klausel והיא וגו׳ der Ausspruch des איסור erkannt, dass sie überall sofort mit der erläuternden Beifügung אסורה zitiert wird, והיא לא נתפשה אסורה, und wird an das begrenzende Pronomen והיא die Lehre geknüpft, dass wohl im allgemeinen תפישה, d.i. אינס die Fortdauer der Ehe nicht hindert, bei אשת כהן jedoch selbst in והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת :solchem Falle die Ehe nicht fortdauern dürfe ויש לך אחרת שאף על פי שנתפשה אסורה ואיזו זו אשת כהן (Ketubot 51 b u. f.). Es setzt ja auch in der Tat der Fall den vollzogenen Ehebruch ושכב איש וגו׳ voraus; er ist jedoch nicht konstatiert וגעלם וגו׳; konstatiert ist nur ונסתרה, dass sie mit einem Manne, und zwar mit dem Manne, hinsichtlich dessen sie schon durch ihr von ehelicher Züchtigkeit abweichendes Benehmen (V. 12) zur Warnung (V. 14) Veranlassung gegeben, sich בסתר derart befunden, dass והיא נטמאה möglich gewesen. Dieses ונסתרה, sowie die vorangegangene Warnung קנוי (siehe V. 14) muss, wie jedes zivilrechtlich oder kriminalrechtlich relevante Faktum, דבר שבממון und דבר שבערוה (siehe zu Dewarim 19, 15 und 24, 1) durch zwei Zeugen konstatiert sein (Sota 2 a und 31 a u. b). Dann aber: ועד אין בה, bedarfs keines vollen Zeugnisses wider sie. Wenn auch nicht zwei Zeugen, sondern wenn auch nur ein Zeuge ihre wirkliche טומאה bezeugt, so kommt es nur darauf an, dass לא נתפשה; steht ihr die Entschuldigung אונס nicht zur Seite, so ist sie ohne weiteres אסורה לבעלה. Diese Bestimmung des Gesetzes, dass in diesem Falle ein Zeuge zur Entscheidung genüge, wird (daselbst 3 a) daraus motiviert, dass רגלים לדבר, dass das von dem einen Zeugen konstatierte Faktum bereits durch vollständig konstatierte Vorvorgänge, קנוי und סתירה על פי שנים, indiziert sei, מפני מה האמינה תורה עד א׳ בסוטה שרגלים לדבר שהרי קינא לה ונסתרה ועד א׳ מעידה שהיא טמאה (daselbst). Es hat übrigens dieses auf die Aussage eines Zeugen begründete Zeugnis, obgleich רגלים לדבר, nur die Auflösung der Ehe und deren zivilrechtlichen Folgen, in keiner Weise aber kriminalrechtliche Wirkung zur Folge.

ונסתרה והיא נטמאה, “and the fact that she had become defiled by having sexual relations with a man not her husband was concealed from him;” according to our Rabbis, this verse teaches that when there is a doubt about whether an object reposing in private property is ritually clean, the doubt is treated as if certainty of it being ritually unclean as doubt of this nature is by definition only possible in a privately owned property that the public has no access to. The Torah here describes the doubt about the woman’s actions as if fact, and she lost her previous status of being assumed to be ritually pure.

אתה שכבת זרע [AND A MAN LIETH] WITH HER CARNALLY — This implies: that only her sexual intercourse with another man makes her unfit for continuing in marital relation with her husband, but the fact that her sister had sexual intercourse with him does not make her unfit for such (Yevamot 95a) [as was once the case with two sisters who greatly resembled each other (Tanchuma 5:2:6)]

ונעלם מעיני אישה, even though there had been indications of mistrust, jealousy, etc., her latest indiscretion remained hidden from the eyes of her husband. It is as if his eyes had been too weak to see what was going on. Had her husband been aware of her infidelity, the waters would not even have the power to bring this to light. Our sages have made this quite clear (Sifrey 7).

והיא לא נתפשה, she had not been raped. If she had been taken to a secret hideout and raped she is considered as being in the clear.

This excludes a blind man. Meaning that there are two matters here and both are excluded by the verse. From the word מעיני (from [his] eyes) we exclude a blind man, who, even if it is known that she was promiscuous, does not cause her to drink given that he cannot see. While from the word נעלם (hidden) we infer that if he saw the two of them, but feigned ignorance that both of them were together, the waters do not examine her. The word מעמעם (feigned ignorance) is understood as in גחלים עממות (dimmed coals) which the Targum uses to translate the word “dim” (Vayikra 13:6).

והיא נטמאה “and she had become ritually defiled;” through the semen of the man she had carnal relations with;” the word והיא here is spelled with letter י. [The Torah emphasized her impurity, ignoring her partner’s. Ed.]

תעלם מעיני אשה AND IT BE HID FROM THE EYES OF HER HUSBAND — Since it speaks of the eyes of the husband, it excludes the case of a blind man (i.e., a blind man cannot subject his wife to the ordeal). On the other hand, it states: “if it be concealed from his eyes”; it follows therefore that if he sees her improper conduct and wilfully closes his eyes to it the waters cannot try her (i.e., she cannot be subjected to the ordeal) (Sifrei Bamidbar 7:3; Sotah 27a).

ונסתרה, she had subsequently hidden, and this fact had become known to her husband.

Long enough. Meaning that the words “and she has been defiled” that are written after “and she was concealed” refer to a time long enough to have been defiled. This is the time that it takes to roast an egg and swallow it. Because if you were to think that it means that she was actually defiled, surely the Torah previously wrote “and a man has laid with her” which referred to defilement. Therefore I would not need the Torah to write the words “and she has been defiled”? Rather they must have come to teach that she was concealed long enough to have been defiled.

ועד אין בה, “and there is no witness who could accuse her of infidelity;” the reason why there is no witness is because she had not been raped. (according to Rabbi Saadyah gaon, as well as Rash’bam) (This could have served as a defense.) Because there is a doubt about her conduct, she has to undergo an examination.

ונסתרה AND SHE WAS ASIDE SECRETLY with him such a period of time wherein there was a possibility for her to become defiled by intercourse (Sotah 4a).

Even one witness. You might ask: From where does this inference come — is it because the Torah wrote “and there is no עד (witness) against her”. Surely we have established that wherever the Torah says עד (lit. witness in the singular) it refers to two. This is because it had to specify “one עד (witness) shall not arise” (Devarim 19:15) which implies that every עד written in the Torah refers to two, unless the Torah specifies that it is one, as Rashi explains in Parshas Shoftim (ad loc.). If so, here where it writes עד alone, this would imply that there are not two witnesses against her but there is one against her (and in such a circumstance one would cause her to drink the bitter waters). The answer is that the words “and there is no witness against her” refer to the words “and she was not seized forcibly” and not to “and he is jealous of his wife … that man shall bring his wife to the kohein” to cause her to drink (v. 14-15). Meaning that if there is no witness against her that she was not seized forcibly, i.e. there were not two witnesses to defilement, though there was one witness who saw that she was defiled — one would not cause her to drink, but she would be forbidden to her husband (Sotah 2a). Thus the word הא (but) in Rashi is like והא למדת (you have learned) and does not imply an inference, only a conclusion “you have learned this, but if there was [even one witness]…” Furthermore, Rashi was answering the question: Why is one witness believed to prohibit her to her husband? He answers that “there is no witness against her” to the defilement but there are witnesses to the concealment. Since there are two witnesses to the concealment who say that they saw that she was concealed with a certain person long enough for defilement, and there is one witness against her who say that she was defiled, this is enough circumstantial evidence to believe that she was certainly promiscuous. Thus the Torah writes “and there is no witness against her” here to teach you that it refers to the word נטמאה (and she had become defiled) above. Meaning that when there are [two] witnesses to concealment then one witness [to defilement] is believed. However, had it not been written here then I would not know that there were witnesses to the concealment.

ועד אין בה, Rashi comments on this phrase that we must contrast it with what the law would be if there had been a witness testifying against her. Even the testimony of a single witness would be enough not to let her drink the potentially disastrous waters. The line also means that whereas we do not have a witness that she had carnal relations with a man not her husband, we do have witnesses that she had hidden herself, so that she could have committed that sin easily. The grammatical construction here is similar to Leviticus 24,14: ורגמו אותו, “they will (all) stone him;” the extra word אותו instead of the pronoun ending, i.e. ורגמוהו, teaches that he will be stoned naked, his clothing will not be stoned. Here, the word אותה means the reverse, i.e. while she was clothed. (Talmud Sanhedrin, folio 45). There are numerous examples of such constructions in the Torah and the reason why extra letters were used to teach us certain halachot, legal rulings. The word אפילו, “even,” in Rashi’s commentary here, is clearly a printer’s error. The Talmud in tractate Sota, folio 3 has Rabbi Yishmael raise the question why in the case of this woman suspected of marital infidelity, the Torah chose to accept the testimony of a single witness at all? In answer it is suggested that there is some logic for such a procedure. This was a case where the husband had legitimate reason to suspect his wife of immoral conduct, and he had warned her not be alone with the person whom he suspects her of being too friendly with. His suspicions had been aroused because she had already once contravened his warnings and had been known to have been alone with the man in question after that warning. Moreover we have a statement in the Talmud tractate Ketuvot folio 9, according to which: a woman (wife) is not forbidden for a husband to continue to have marital relations with on the basis of the testimony of a single witness, until we have two valid witnesses that can accuse her of having been unfaithful to her husband, and her husband had already been jealous of her and she had subsequently secluded herself with the man against whom her husband had warned her not to seclude herself. In commenting on this statement in the Talmud, Rashi writes that the Talmud cites an example when there was no witness at all that accused her of having had carnal relations, but that there had been witnesses to the husband expressing his jealousy, and her secreting herself with the man in question nonetheless. If however, there was one witness accusing her of additional seclusion, after all this, such a witness is sufficient. He bases himself on the word: בה, ”against her,” in our verse. In Rashi’s opinion that word refers to testimony of carnal union, [although there had not been two witnesses. Ed.] We read the line as if it had said; “there were no two witnesses against her but only one.” In other words, the extent of the value of this one witness is for the accused woman not to have to drink the bitter waters in order to prove her innocence and the consequences if she had lied.

ועד אין בה AND THERE BE NO WITNESS AGAINST HER — But if there was even only one witness against her who stated that she was defiled she did not drink the מים המאררים, but was henceforth forbidden to her husband (Sotah 2b).

Ravished. The verse is saying as follows: “And there is no witness against her” — meaning that there are not two [witnesses] against her but there is one, “and she was not seized forcibly” - rather he testifies that she did so willingly. In such a case she is forbidden to her husband. Thus it is a separate law on its own.

והיא לא נתפשה, “she had not been caught in the act.” [alternate meaning of the word נתפשה.]

ועד אין בה AND THERE WAS NO WITNESS AGAINST HER, as regards defilement, but there were witnesses regarding her meeting with the man privily.

ונתפשה [AND SHE WAS NOT] SEIZED — i.e. subjected to force (Sifrei Bamidbar 7:3). Similar is, (Deuteronomy 22:28) “And seizes her (ותפשה) and lieth with her”.