Talmud sobre Números 5:28

There²⁶Mishnah 4:4; a fuller text in Tosephta 5:4 and Babli 26a as the minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar; as an alternative explanation in Sifry Num. 19., we have stated: “A she-ram²⁷A woman lacking secondary female sex characteristics, cf. Yebamot, Chapter 1, Note 65., an old woman²⁸A post-menopausal woman., or a sterile one neither drinks nor collects her ketubah,” as it is said²⁹Num. 5:28.: “She will be declared innocent and bear seed,” [this refers to] one able to bear seed; it excludes one who is unable to bear seed. They objected, is there not the widow [married to] the High Priest, is she not able to bear seed³⁰Why is she excluded from drinking (Mishnah 2)?? There is a difference, since it is written³¹Lev. 21:15.: “He may not desecrate his seed among his people.³¹Lev. 21:15.” There³²Since any child of the widow will be desecrated, it is not counted as the High Priest’s child. Therefore, as far as he is concerned, his wife is unable to bear children., we have stated: “A bastard disables and enables to eat. How is this?” And here he says so? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, there, “she has no issue” of any kind, but here³³Mishnah Yebamot7:7. An Israel woman widowed from a Cohen may eat heave as long as any Jewish descendant of her husband’s is alive; a Cohen woman widowed from an Israel may not eat heave as long as any Jewish descendant of her husband’s is alive. one requires enabled seed, not disabled seed. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the water only serves to permit her to her house; but about this one one tells him to divorce once she went to a secluded place³⁴He rejects the earlier attempt to find a biblical source to the rejection of the widow and explains Lev. 21:15 as: “He is forbidden to desecrate his seed.” The rule excluding the High Priest’s widow is rabbinical. If the Temple court refuses to administer the water, the widow remains permanently forbidden to her husband, who therefore is forced to divorce her..

HALAKHAH: “One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated¹²⁹Ketubot 1:9 (Notes 248–254); a slightly different version in the Tosephta 5:2, Babli Ketubot 14a.: “What is qualified dough¹³⁰As dough is kneaded from different ingredients, so a dough woman is descended from both more and less qualified sources; cf. Ketubot1:9 Note 251. [For “mixture of dough” used as simile for lineage, perhaps also cf. Swiss-German expression vom Teig“from the dough”, meaning “from (the best) families”. (E.G.)]? Anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.¹³¹Until he finds the source of the trouble.” Rav said, these¹³²The interpretation of the position of the Sages. are the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries¹³³All women in a family from whom one married into the priesthood are qualified unless her personal disqualification be known. In the Babli, 76b, Rav’s statement is stronger: A presumption of legitimacy applies to all families (unless anything derogatory be known).. Through whom does he check? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: He checks through his female relatives¹³⁴Testimony by females is close to be hearsay evidence, but sufficient to qualify a marriage. The language of the statement is derived from Mishnah Ketubot 1:9, dealing with a woman’s bodily defects.. To Rebbi Ḥama came an old man¹³⁵Interpretation of Pene Moshe.Qorban Ha‘eda reads: Rebbi saw an old man coming. Both interpretations are possible; in neither case is the text idiomatic Aramaic.; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he¹³⁶R. Ḥama. was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife¹³⁷Rav had married a noble woman and relative who gave him a hard time.. Rebbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.¹³⁸Num. 5:28.” If she was not impure, she is pure¹³⁹They reject the Mishnah and hold that anybody can marry any woman about whose family nothing derogatory is known.. Not like Pappos ben Jehudah who locks the door before his wife¹⁴⁰Cf. Soṭah 1:7, Note 260. He did not permit his wife to talk to any male except himself.. One said to him, did your forefathers act like this¹⁴¹Jews do not lock up their wives in a harem; Soṭah 1:7; Babli Giṭṭin 90a.? A Cohen came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers which are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you¹⁴²If there was a problem a few generations earlier, would you know? Note that the Cohen quotes the Mishnah in Hebrew, claiming the status of a learned person, but R. Joḥanan answers him in Aramaic, demoting him to the unlearned class since he followed the Mishnah.?

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthias: It says, “but if the woman was not impure but was pure¹⁰⁰Num. 5:28..” Would we not know that if she was not impure she was pure? Why does the verse say, “but she was pure”¹⁰¹In Sifry Num. 19, the double expression is justified: R. Ismael holds that she only is permitted to her husband if the procedure had shown her innocence. An anonymous source notes that if she got a divorce after the procedure or her husband died, she was free to marry the man she was suspected of having an affair with; if she was divorced for adultery, the adulterer would be forbidden to her.
The Yerushalmi text is copied in Num. rabba 9(50).? Only that at the end the Omnipresent rewards her for the abuse, that if she was sterile she will become pregnant¹⁰²In the Babli, 36a, and Sifry Num. 19, the first clause, about the sterile becoming pregnant, is R. Aqiba’s; all the others are attributed to R. Ismael. In the Babli Berakhot 31b, the attributions are switched., [if she] was having difficult births she will have easy ones, [if she] had ugly children she will have good looking ones¹⁰³This clause is missing in the parallels. In Babylonian historical spelling, it would be כעורים., black ones she will have white ones, short ones she will have tall ones, females she will have males, single children she will have twins. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁰⁴This attribution to a second generation Amora is quite impossible in a tannaїtic text; in the Babli and Sifry Num. the argument is R. Ismael’s. It seems that the Yerushalmi refers to R. Simeon ben Ioḥai, quoted in the next sentence. said to him: If it were so then all women should be misbehaving in order to become pregnant! But does Rebbi Simeon not interpret “she will be found innocent and become pregnant with seed”? He does, legitimate seed, not illegitimate¹⁰⁵In Halakhah 4:1, a similar (anonymous) argument is quoted to show that a divorcee married to a priest cannot be subjected to the procedure of the suspected wife because even if she was innocent she could not have legitimate seed from the husband forbidden to her; her children from the priest are desecrated..

“And if the woman was not impure but was pure,¹⁶⁰Num. 5:28.” this refers to the one who is pure, not that there came witnesses declaring her impure¹⁶¹“And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).
The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed”. “If the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not one whose merit suspended [punishment] for her¹⁶²The latter will not experience any change in her fertility status.. This follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who said that merit suspends and it is recognizable¹⁶³There seems to be no reason for Rav Hamnuna’s position.? Rebbi Isaac said, here we deal with one who drank and the water did not test her. It comes to tell you that the water will not test a woman who is forbidden to her house^161,“And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).
The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed”¹⁶⁴There is no inference possible on Rav Hamnuna's statement.. Rebbi Yudan said, this follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. Why was it not recognized? Because merit suspended for her. “The man will be free of sin¹⁶⁵Num. 5:31.,” he should not worry that maybe merit suspended for her¹⁶⁶The husband who brought his wife to the Temple where the water had no influence on her is free to sleep with her and is told not to worry that she still might be forbidden to him.. Should I think that she also should not worry? The verse said, “but that woman shall carry her sin¹⁶⁵Num. 5:31.”. [This interpretation] follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable.