זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַקְּנָאֹ֑ת אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּשְׂטֶ֥ה אִשָּׁ֛ה תַּ֥חַת אִישָׁ֖הּ וְנִטְמָֽאָה׃
Esta es la ley de los celos, cuando la mujer hiciere traición á su marido, y se amancillare;
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
It was stated7In order to prove that the adulterer is punished by the bitter water just as the adulteress is., בוא ובה8A copyist’s error makes this expression unintelligible. It must read ובא ובה. Than means that instead of וּבָאוּ בָהּ “they will come into her” (v. 27), the final vaw is transferred from the end of the first word to the beginning of the second to read וּבָא וּבָהּ “it will come, and into her”, implying that the water will come into somebody and into her, establishing that the presumed adulterer can also be checked out by the water. The technique of transferring letters is accepted not only by the Yerushalmi (also Nazir 5:1, 43d line 67; Horaiot 1:3, 46a, line 24) but possibly also in the Babli (Yoma 48a, Baba batra 111b, Zebaḥim 25a, Bekhorot 44b).
(Such an argument is quite impossible in a paleo-Hebrew text where the words are separated by a physical divider. The technique of moving letters from the end of one word to the beginning of the following, so much in fashion in modern criticism, presupposes that a change occured at a late time when there were no longer any paleo-Hebrew texts in use.). Is that written? It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end9It really should be “from end to beginning”.. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring10Lev. 1:6: “You have to break it into little pieces and pour oil over it; [because] it is a flour offering”, speaking of a pan-fried offering. For some flour offerings it is only specified that oil has to be included, or that oil has to be put on it. From this verse one concludes that “putting on” or “mixing” means “pouring oil over the flour”. The argument here proposes to read וְיָצַקְתָּ שֶׁמֶן מִנְחָ֑ה instead of וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁ֑מֶן מִנְחָה הִֽיא. This is based on the teaching of R. Aqiba who disregards masoretic accents in all cases (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, pp. 306–307) but in the Babli (cf. Note 8) is strongly opposed by Rava who objects to applying a surgeon’s knife to a verse (cf. the explanations of R. Ḥananel in ‘Arukh, s. v. גרע and Rashbam in Baba batra 111b, s. v. אלא.).
(Such an argument is quite impossible in a paleo-Hebrew text where the words are separated by a physical divider. The technique of moving letters from the end of one word to the beginning of the following, so much in fashion in modern criticism, presupposes that a change occured at a late time when there were no longer any paleo-Hebrew texts in use.). Is that written? It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end9It really should be “from end to beginning”.. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring10Lev. 1:6: “You have to break it into little pieces and pour oil over it; [because] it is a flour offering”, speaking of a pan-fried offering. For some flour offerings it is only specified that oil has to be included, or that oil has to be put on it. From this verse one concludes that “putting on” or “mixing” means “pouring oil over the flour”. The argument here proposes to read וְיָצַקְתָּ שֶׁמֶן מִנְחָ֑ה instead of וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁ֑מֶן מִנְחָה הִֽיא. This is based on the teaching of R. Aqiba who disregards masoretic accents in all cases (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, pp. 306–307) but in the Babli (cf. Note 8) is strongly opposed by Rava who objects to applying a surgeon’s knife to a verse (cf. the explanations of R. Ḥananel in ‘Arukh, s. v. גרע and Rashbam in Baba batra 111b, s. v. אלא.).
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
“And from the dust.117Num. 5:17: “And from the dust which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary, the Cohen has to take and put on the water.” The parallel version in the Babli, 15b, [and Num. rabba 9(13)], is formulated differently.” One could think, from what lies in a chest. The verse says, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”. If “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think only that he has to dig with a pick-axe118This דקל is not Aramaic “date palm” but the equivalent of Mishnaic דקר “pick-axe” by a change of liquids., the verse says “which will be”. How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. 119R. Abin reformulates the preceding argument from a slightly different angle. His polemic is directed against a baraita preserved only in the Babli (15b, bottom; variant readings in the critical edition p. רלו) which requires the dust to be prepared outside, brought inside, and spread on the floor of the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think [the dust] qualified only if he digs with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. From anywhere. “The Sanctuary”, that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House120The order given here is also in the Munich ms. of the Babli. The historic order would be: the Tabernacle, Shilo, Nob, Gibeon, and the Eternal House (the Temple which in rabbinic tradition cannot be replaced by a Sanctuary at any other place, Mishnah Zebaḥim 14:8.).