Comentario citado sobre Números 5:22

ובאו ובאו – both of them (Numbers 5:22 and Numbers 5:27) have an extra [letter] “vav” for interpretation.

Just as the water checks her so the water checks him, as it is said, “And shall enter”, “And shall enter” (Numbers 5:22, 27). The first four chapters have all been dealing with the woman as suspected adulteress. Now the Mishnah states that the water doesn’t only check the woman, but checks the man with whom she is suspected of committing adultery as well, for he is just as guilty as she. If the waters cause her belly to swell and her thigh to fall, then they will do so to him as well. There are two possible ways of understanding how this midrash works. The first is that the midrash is based on the double appearance of the word “and shall enter”. The second is that the midrash is based on the extra “and” (the letter vav) in one of the words.

And the third thing, even the words which are in the holy tongue have great mistakes in them, as inאנסיכה מלכי לפניו. This matter is found herein — ואני נסכתי מלכי as for me, I established my King(Psalm 2:6). But that is in the qal form, in the structure of נפלתי "I fell" and נדרתי "I vowed," so the future form is אסוך or אנסוך "I will establish", as in אפול "I will fall" or אדור "I will vow." And from the causative form of הפיל "he made to fall," the future is אפיל "I will make to fall," and thus הסיך "he made a libation" becomes אסיך or אנסיך "I will make a libation" when the nun appears, as in ולנפיל ירך to make the thigh fall (Numbers 5:22). Thus, the interpretation of אנסיכה מלכי would be "I will make him into a libation" — as in let me not make a libation of their bloody libations (Psalm 16:4). And some interpret נסכתי מלכי as "I anointed," but if that interpretation is true, there is a mistake.^note In that it would be mistaken to assume a human could anoint God. Secondly, why not say "I will exalt my King" or "I will praise and thank" or "I will sanctify?" He wanted a word that would show off his wisdom to those listening!

From the extension of an oath due to the testimony of one witness - if he had been obligated to take an oath due to the testimony of one witness, as we have stated, and there was another claim against him for which no oath had been imposed, we may extend this oath onto him and make him swear to both of them. The extension of an oath is from Torah law, as is derived in Kiddushin [Kiddushin 27b:5] from "and the woman shall say: Amen, amen" [Numbers 5:22] -- one can be made to swear even regarding that about which the witness did not testify.