Commentaire sur Les Nombres 5:37

Kap. 5. V. 1. In den vorangehenden Kapiteln, Kap. 1-4, war das Volk als עדה, in seiner Gemeinsamkeit für das Gesetz gezählt, um das Gesetzesheiligtum als gemeinsamen Mittelpunkt in geteilte Lager im Fernkreis angewiesen, und in unmittelbarer Umgebung die zum Dienst am Gesetzesheiligtum erwählten Leviten bestellt. Diese örtliche Ordnung der Nation: als Mittelpunkt das Gottesheiligtum des Gesetzes, um dasselbe seine Wächter und Vertreter, das Lager der Leviten, und um diese in weiterer Umgebung das Volkslager, sprach unzweideutig Wesen und Bestimmung dieses Volkes aus. Das Gesetz ist seine Seele, sein Halt und sein Band, das Gesetz Gottes, der sich in ihm keine Tempel-, keine Kirchengemeinde, der sich in ihm eine Volksgemeine, ein Volk stiften wollte, das sein ganzes soziales Leben auf Gottes Gesetz und durch dessen Gesetz erbauen soll, Gottes, der die Erfüllung seines Gesetzes als Bedingung seiner Gegenwart im Volke gesetzt hat. Und die Leviten: Wächter, Träger, Vertreter und Förderer der Erfüllung dieses Gesetzes, von dem Volke und aus dem Volke selbst ausgeschieden und dem Heiligtum dieses Gesetzes "geschenkt" um durch sie immer mit dem Geiste dieses Gesetzes vermählt zu werden.

Hier folgen nun Gesetze, die sich sofort als konkrete Wirkung dieser organischen Gliederung und Ordnung der Nation um das Heiligtum des Gesetzes aussprechen. Zuerst: שלוח מחנה.

צו את בני ישראל וגו׳ COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL etc. — This section was spoken on the day when the Tabernacle was erected; there were eight sections spoken on that day, as is related in Treatise Gittin 60a, in the chapter beginning with the word הנזקין.

AND THEY SHALL SEND AWAY FROM THE CAMP EVERY LEPER etc. After he [Moses] had erected the Tabernacle, He commanded that the impure should be sent away from the camp in order that the camp should be holy and fit for the Divine Presence to reside therein, this being a commandment which was applicable immediately and in [all subsequent] generations.³²See ibid., Vol. I, pp. 39-40. And because He counted Israel after their families, by the house of their fathers,³³Above, 1:2, etc. and separated from them the mixed multitude³⁴Exodus 12:38. See Ramban above, 1:18. which was among them, He concluded with [the law of] the guilt-offering for robberies³⁵Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57. [which has to be brought] by one who robs a proselyte.³⁶Further, Verse 8.

צו את בני ישראל וישלחו מן המחנה, "Command the Israelites to expel from the camp, etc." The reason the Torah wrote this paragraph immediately after the appointment of the Levites to their respective tasks was because G'd had commanded the Levites themselves to keep away from areas possessing a certain degree of sanctity, areas reserved for priests alone. This is why the Torah added that also the Israelites were forbidden to enter areas normally available to them if they had become afflicted with ritual impurity, for instance.

וישלחו מן המחנה, after the Torah had described the procedures of encamping, it had to tell us that ritually impure people had to be removed from the camp(s).

וישלחו מן המחנה , “they are to expel from the camp, etc.” After the Torah had organized the encampment of the Israelites around the Tabernacle, the instructions are now issued to remove people afflicted with varying degrees of ritual impurity from the camp in order to prevent the entire camp from becoming infected with ritual impurity which would drive away the Shechinah which rested above the encampment. Not only the ritually impure but also the mixed multitude that had joined the Jewish people at the Exodus were separated from the camp seeing that the latter did not belong to any of the twelve tribes. Seeing that the Torah had already touched on specific rules applicable to converts such as the mixed multitude who could not be part of the regular encampment due to their legal status, it also appends here the laws pertaining to proselytes who died without leaving behind legal heirs, and the kind of guilt offering someone had to bring if he had wronged a convert by stealing from him and the convert had died before restitution had been made. (Verses 6-8)

וישלחו מן המחנה, “they shall expel from the camp, etc.” The reference is to the מחנה שכינה, “the camp of the Shechinah” i.e. the sacred domain of the Tabernacle and its courtyard. There were three categories of ritual impurity each of which required a minimum of seven days before it could be purified. They were the צרוע, the זב, and the טמא מת, “the person afflicted with the skin disorder known as tzoraat, the person suffering from semen-related emissions, and the person who contracted impurity through contact with a corpse. The first-named category is expelled from all three camps; the Torah spells this out in Leviticus 13,46 when it says: ”he shall dwell apart, his dwelling shall be outside the camp.” There the word “camp” means the camp of the Israelites. The person suffering from seminal emission needs to keep out of the inner two camps, the camp of the Levites, and, of course, the camp of the Shechinah. This is based on an interpretation by the Talmud Pessachim 68. Concerning someone who had nocturnal emissions (including deliberate marital intercourse) but whose emissions are not beyond his control, i.e. a disease, the relevant verse is found in Deut. 23,11: ”if anyone among you is rendered unclean by nocturnal emission, he must leave the camp, and he must not reenter the camp. Toward evening he shall immerse himself in a ritual bath and at sundown he may reenter the camp.” The camp such a person must leave is the camp of the Levites. Lastly, if someone has become ritually impure through contact with a dead person he must leave the camp of the Shechinah but may move freely in either of the other two camps.

This Parshah was said on the day. Rashi is answering the question: Why didn’t he command them this Parshah immediately after the Mishkon was erected? Surely they arranged the camps on the day that the Mishkon was erected, and immediately afterwards he should have commanded them to send everyone who was impure out of the camp. He answers that it was indeed said on the day that the Mishkon was erected. Rashi is also answering another question: Where do we find that that any other Parshah was said to them on the day that the Mishkon was erected? He answers that “eight parshiyos…”

VV. 2 u. 3. צו וגו׳. Da auch die bloße, den Willen Gottes aussprechende Gottesrede דבר אל בני ישראל ein verpflichtendes Gebot involviert, so sind solche Gesetzanordnungen, die noch besonders mit צו את בני ישראל eingeleitet werden, damit noch mit besonderem Ernst für die gewissenhafte Erfüllung gekennzeichnet. Es ist dies nach dem Ausdruck der Weisen im ספרי immer ein זירוז מיד ולדורות, eine zur sofortigen und immerwährenden Erfüllung anspornende Aufforderung, die besonders bei solchen Gesetzen ergeht, deren Erfüllung mit materiellen Opfern, חסרון כים, verknüpft ist (siehe zu Schmot 27, 20).

וישלחו מן המחנה, “that they shall put outside the encampment, etc.” we have heard the commandment; where do we find the penalty for disregarding this commandment? Answer: this is to be found in Numbers 19,20: ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא וגו' ״, “and anyone who has become ritually defiled and does not purify himself, etc.”

וישלחו מן המחנה [COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] THAT THEY SEND AWAY FROM THE CAMP [EVERY LEPER etc.] — There were three camps one within the other whenever they encamped: the area within the hangings was the “camp of the Shechinah”, the encampment of the Levites round about this, as is described in the Sedrah במדבר סיני (Numbers 1:53), was the “camp of the Levites”, and from there outward up to the end of the encampment of the divisions in all the four directions was the “camp of the Israelites”. The leper was sent out from all of them; the person suffering from a flux was allowed to stay in the “camp of the Israelites”, but was sent out from the two inner camps, whilst a person who had become unclean by reason of a corpse was allowed to stay in the “camp of the Levites” also, and was sent out only from that of the Shechinah. All this have our Rabbis deduced in Treatise Pesachim 67a from the verses of our text.

כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש, “anyone who is afflicted with the skin disease known as tzoraat, or experiences a seminal emission defined as zav, or who is impure due to some kind of direct or indirect contact with the body of a deceased human being.” The three categories of ritual impurity listed here are capable to contaminating others, whereas a person experiencing a normal seminal emission while personally ritually impure does not confer his impurity on others. Hence he does not need to leave any of the tree camps constituting the encampment of the Israelites in the desert.

Three camps. Because it wrote the word “camp” three times in this Parshah.

צו את בני ישראל: die bisherigen Gebote der organischen Zählung, Gliederung und Gruppierung der Nation waren an Mosche und Aharon und die Fürsten des Volkes ergangen. Die hier folgenden Konsequenzen dieser Ordnung sind an jeden im Volke gerichtet und erwarten deren Beachtung und Ausführung von jedem.

כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש, “anyone who has a leprouslike eczema, or a semen related issue, or has been contaminated through contact with a dead body, etc.;” there are three different categories of ritual defilement and we have three verses dealing with them. The common denominator of these three categories of ritual defilement is that the process of purification takes seven days. They also require that the person afflicted with any of these defilements be banned from one or possibly all three camps of the Israelites. This is in contrast with a ritual defilement caused by seminal emission not caused by a disease, which can be purified by immersion in a ritual bath on the same day, so that by nightfall the afflicted person is ritually clean again.

טמא לנפש — Onkelos translates this by דמסאב לטמי נפשא דאנשא. I say that it (the word טמי in this rendering) is an expression in Aramaic for human bones, so that the Targum means: “whosoever is unclean by reason of the bones of a human being’’. There are many examples of the use of this word in Genesis Rabbah, as e.g. (Genesis Rabbah 78:1): Hadrian, שחיק טמיא, which means, “Hadrian may his bones be crushed!”

Out of all of them. Regarding the metzoro the Torah writes “he shall dwell alone” (Vayikra 13:46) implying that he should dwell in a place where no other impure people go, i.e. outside the three camps. When the Torah wrote “and they shall not defile their camps,” (v.3) rather than writing “their camp” this implies that there was one camp for a zav and another camp for a person defiled by the dead. Now, since one defiled by the dead is permitted in the Levite camp, as explained previously, one may infer that a zav is permitted in the Israelite camp.

וישלחו מן המחנה. Die טומאה des צרוע ist Wajikra Kap. 13 angeordnet und heißt es schon dort V. 46: כל ימי אשר הנגע בו יטמא טמא הוא בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבן, dass er während der ganzen Zeit seines entschiedenen טומאה-Zustandes außerhalb des Lagers bleiben soll. Die טומאה des זב ist ebenfalls bereits daselbst Kap. 15 behandelt und umfasst dieselbe alle die dort und Kap. 12, 2 behandelten טומאה-Zustände (siehe מ׳ל׳מ zu 3 , 3 הל׳ ביאת המקדש) also זב וזבה נדה ויולדת ובעל קרי und heißt es von diesem letzteren auch Dewarim 23, 11 ויצא אל טמא לנפש .מחוץ למחנה לא יבא אל תוך המחנה ist der durch Berührung einer Menschenleiche Gewordene. Diese טומאה wird ausführlich in diesem Buche Kap. 19 besprochen. Ihrer ist schon Wajikra 5, 3 im Zusammenhang mit allen andern ausführlich daselbst Kap. 11 besprochenen Berührungs-טומאות, wie מגע שרץ ונבלה, gedacht, und dort schon das gebotene Fernbleiben aller durch Berührung טמא Gewordenen aus dem Bereiche des Heiligtums wie von der Berührung von Heiligtümern vorausgesetzt, wie denn schon Wajikra 15, 31 in dem Satze: והזרתם את בני ישראל מטמאתם ולא ימותו בטמאתם בטמאם את משכני אשר בתוכם die allgemeine Verpflichtung zur Fernhaltung im טומאה-Zustande von dem Heiligtum ausgesprochen ist (siehe daselbst). Diese Verpflichtung wird hier nun näher präzisiert. Die hier genannten drei טומאה-Kategorien: זב ,מצורע und טמא מת, stehen in dem Grade ihrer gesetzlichen Wirkungen sich nicht einander gleich. מצורע hat זב gegenüber die erschwerende Eigentümlichkeit, dass er מטמא בביאה ist. (Siehe Wajikra 13, 46), זב dem טמא מת gegenüber, dass er מטמא משכב ומושב und selbst תחת אבן מסמא ist (daselbst 15, 4), und lehrt die Halacha (Sifri z. St. und Pesachim 68 a), dass sie auch hinsichtlich der hier gebotenen Entfernung nicht gleich sind. Wie bereits zu V. 1 bemerkt und durch die in den vorangehenden Kapiteln vorgeschriebene Lagerordnung gegeben ist, zerfällt der nationale Kreis in drei Gebiete. Es ist der Mittelpunkt, das Bereich des Gottesheiligtums: מחנה שכינה, diesem zunächst das Levitenlager: מחנה לויה und sodann das Volkslager: מחנה ישראל. Dem entsprechend war in der späteren Gottesstadt das Tempelgebiet von עזרת ישראל an מחנה שכינה, der הר הבית bis zu עזרת ישראל, die mit dem Nikanortore begann: מחנה לויה, und die ganze übrige Stadt bis zum הר הבית das מצורע .מחנה ישראל, die schwerste der drei טומאה- Kategorien, משתלה חוץ לשלש מחנות ist aus sämtlichen drei Gebieten, also auch aus מחנה ישראל, zu entfernen; die zweite Kategorie: זב וזכה נדה ויולדת ובעל קרי, überhaupt: טומאה היוצאת עליו מגופו, die aus körperlichen Zuständen hervorgehende טומאה, diese משתלה חוץ לשתי מחנות, hat zwei Gebiete: מחנה שכינה ומחנה לויה zu meiden, darf aber in מחנה ישראל bleiben; die dritte Kategorie טמא מת, und so auch מגע שרץ ונבלה, überhaupt: טומאות מגע, hat bloß מחנה שכינה zu meiden, darf aber in מחנה לויה und מחנה ישראל verweilen.

From the encampment of the Shechinah. You might ask: From where did Rashi know this? The answer is that the fact that one defiled by the dead is even permitted in the Levite camp is learned from Moshe Rabbeinu who was himself a Levi. The Torah writes “Moshe took the bones of Yosef with him” (Shemos 13:19) and he entered the camp of the Levites.

Wir glauben nun, dass der erste Satz unseres Textes: וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש speziell מחנה שכינה im Auge hat, in welchem keine der drei Kategorien, selbst nicht טמא מת bleiben darf. Der zweite: מזכר עד נקבה תשלחו dürfte sich speziell auf מחנה לויה beziehen, aus welchem זב וזבה usw. also diejenigen טומאות zu entfernen sind, die sich nach den Geschlechtern unterscheiden und daher zu der Bestimmung מזכר עד נקבה Veranlassung geben (siehe Nidda 28 b: מזכר עד נקבה תשלחו זכר וראי נקבה וראית וכו׳ וכו׳ אי הכי כי איטמי בשאר טמאות לא לישלחי אמר קרא מזכר מטומאה הפורשת מן הזכר ע׳׳ש ברש׳׳י). Der dritte Satz endlich: אל מחוץ למחנה תשלחום spräche sodann speziell von מצורע, der ganz außerhalb des Lagers, auch aus מחנה ישראל hinaus sich zu entfernen hat, und daran schließt sich dann, auf alle drei bezogen, der Schlusssatz: ולא יטמאו את מחניהם, wo darum die Mehrheit der verschiedenen Lager hervortritt: jeder von ihnen soll das durch seine gebotene Entfernung speziell charakterisierte Lager nicht entweihen, אשר אני שוכן בתוכם, Ich bin in allen dreien gegenwärtig, in מחנה ישראל und מחנה לויה wie in מחנה שכינה und vor meiner Gegenwart haben die bezeichneten טמאים aus den verschiedenen מחנות zu weichen.

Means … bones. Meaning that the opinion of the Targum is that they were defiled through the bone of a corpse. Re’m explains Rashi’s proof: Had this been a term meaning impurity, a person who touched someone who became impure from a corpse would have also been rendered an av hatumoh (‘father’ i.e. originator of impurity) since [the verse would mean that] a person who touched someone who became impure from a corpse is commanded here to be sent out of the camp like a zav or a metzoro, which are both avos hatumoh. However this is not so, because a person who touches someone who became impure through touching a corpse only becomes a vlad hatumoh (‘offspring’ of impurity). Thus one is forced to say that “defiled by a [departed] soul” refers to bones. A bone is an avi avos hatumoh (‘father of a father’ of impurity) and one who touches it becomes an av hatumoh. You might ask: How did Rashi know this, perhaps the verse means that he was rendered impure by flesh rather than a bone. An answer is that if this was so the Torah should have written טמא בנפש (defiled by a soul), but what is meant by טמא לנפש (lit. defiled to a soul) — this implies that he was rendered impure by something connected to the soul — and this is the bones. Another answer is that it was because the Targum translates דמסאב לטמי נפשא (who were defiled by the bones of a soul) whereas he should have merely translated it as דמסאב נפשא (defiled by a soul). However the additional word לטמי implies bones.

Vergleichen wir nun die Bedeutung dieser drei טומאה-Kategorien, so erscheinen sie in sprechendster Beziehung zu den verschiedenen Lagergebieten, aus denen ihre Entfernung geboten ist. Die נגעי צרעת haben sich uns Wajikra Kap. 13 u. 14 in allen ihren gesetzlichen Bestimmungen als Gottesfinger für soziale Entartung ergeben. Es ist soziale Reinheit, welcher die Entfernung des מצורע fürsorgen soll, und ist es daher begreiflich, dass der מצורע auch aus dem מחנה ישראל zu entfernen ist. זב וזבה stehen auf dem Boden der zu pflegenden geschlechtlichen Reinheit (siehe daselbst Kap. 15). Geschlechtliche Reinheit, Reinheit des geschlechtlichen Lebens, ist aber die allererste Anforderung an alle diejenigen, die geistig höher, Gott näher sein sollen. Jüdischer Anschauung ist geistige Höhe kein Freibrief für sittliche Entartung. Vielmehr je höher die geistige-Begabung und der geistige Beruf, um so ernster und umfassender werden die Anforderungen der Sittenreinheit. Unsere Dichter, unsere Sänger usw. unsere Männer der schauenden Erkenntnis und des lehrenden und zündenden Wortes haben nicht den Geist der Gottheit und den Leib wollüstiger Sinnlichkeit zu ergeben. Uns ist es gesagt, dass wo ערוה weilt, Gott und das Göttliche entflieht, ולא יראה בך ערות דבר ושב מאחריך (Dewarim 23, 15) ספרי) מלמד שהעריות מסלקות את השכינה). Die jüdischen אורים waren immer mit תומים gepaart, und יחוס, geschlechtliche Reinheit, musste schon die Wiege umgeben haben, in welcher unsere Priester und der Sängerchor unseres Heiligtums zum Leben erwachten (siehe Arachin 11 a). Das ist der Geist, der מחנה לויה zu durchwehen hatte und ihn vergegenwärtigt שלוח זב וכו׳ ממחנה לויה. Den Gegensatz, welchen טומאת מת zu der Wahrheit des jüdischen Gottesgedankens bildet, welchem die תורה und ihr Heiligtum angehört, haben wir im Wajikra wiederholt zu berühren gehabt (siehe daselbst zu 5, 13 und 21, 5 u.s.). Dem heidnischen Gedanken ist Tod und Leiche eine Huldigung seiner Gottheit. Sie offenbarten die Macht, welcher der stolze Mensch erlegen, und diese Macht, die unwiderstehliche Macht der Naturgewalt, ist sein Gott. Die jüdische Wahrheit aber spricht: אין במות זכרך בשאול מי יודה לך, nicht Tod und Grab ist Gottes Signatur und Huldigung, die Gewalt, der der Mensch im Tode erliegt und die das Grab seiner Hülle bettet, ist selbst Gottes und — des göttlichen Menschen Untertan, der sie im Leben beherrscht und ihr auch im Tode nicht erliegt, לא תעזוב נפשי לשאול, der ihr nur die Hülle lässt, die, selbst irdisch, ihrer Natur ist, der aber im Leben mit der göttlichen, gottentstammenden Freiheit seiner sittlichen Kraft Gott schon nahe ist und sterbend mit entfesseltem Fluge ganz zu Ihm zurückeilt. Nicht der gestorbene, der lebende und mit seiner sittlichen Kraft in gottähnlicher Selbstbestimmung den irdischen Anteil seines Wesens frei meisternde, der lebende Pflichtmensch ist eine Offenbarung und Huldigung Gottes; denn die frei sich selbst bestimmende Kraft im Menschen, die der eigentliche Kern seiner Persönlichkeit ist, ist selber ein Funke von Gottes Geist, ist selber ein Hauch von Gottes allmächtig freiem Wesen und ist in jedem sich sittlich frei betätigendem Pflichtmomente eine unter Gottes Beistand gezeitigte Frucht aus der göttlichen Natur des Menschenwesens. Nicht die Leiche, חי חי הוא יודך, jubelt die jüdische Wahrheit, der lebendige Mensch ist Offenbarung und Huldigung des אלקים חיים und weist Tod und Leiche, טמא מת und die damit verwandten מגע שרץ ונבלה (siehe Wajikra zu 11, 47), überhaupt alle durch Berührung von außen dem Menschen werdende טומאה aus dem Bereiche des Gottesheiligtums: טמא מת משתלה חוץ למחנה שכינה.

אשר אני שכן בתוכם, "that I dwell amongst." This rule applied only as long as G'd's presence was still in the Tabernacle. Once the Tabernacle had been dismantled so that the שכינה had moved, even people afflicted with צרעת were allowed in the camp (Menachot 95).

מזכר עד נקבה תשלחו, “be such a person male or female he or she must be removed from the camps forbidden for their category of defilement.” The verse teaches that in respect of ritual defilement the Torah does not make a distinction between minors and adults, males or females.

ולא יטמאו את מחניהם, “in order that their presence while in such a state does not confer ritual impurity on the entire camp.” They must also undergo a purification process for having committed robbery, or possibly indulged in forbidden sexual relations. Also a Nazarite who is in doubt about having violated the terms of his vow must undergo purification.

ויעשו כן בני ישראל, וישלחו, “the Children of Israel did so, and they put outside, etc.” from the manner in which this is reported it is clear that this commandment was meant to be fulfilled without any delay

.כן עשו בני ישראל, “the Israelites did so;” the apparent repetition indicates that the people affected by this did not object or argue about their status.

V. 5. וידבר וגו׳. Es folgen nun drei Gesetzestitel: סוטה ,גזל הגר und נזיר, die, wie wir sehen werden, in engster Beziehung zu den oben besprochenen drei nationalen Gebieten: שכינה ,לויה ,ישראל und den aus ihnen zu entfernenden זב ,צרוע und טמא מת stehen. Was שלוח מחנה aus den drei Lagern symbolisch lehrt, wird durch die Gesetze über סוטה ,גזל הגר und נזיר in die Wirklichkeit des konkreten Lebens eingeführt. גזל הגר steht in Parallele zu שלוח מצורע ממחנה ישראל, und zeigt Gottes Gegenwart im sozialen Volksverkehr, סוטה in Parallele zu שלוח זב ממחנה לוי׳ und zeigt Gottes Gegenwart im geschlechtlichen Familienleben, נזיר in Parallele zu שלוח טמא מת ממחנה שכינה, und zeigt Gottes Gegenwart in dem zur sittlichen Freiheit aufstrebenden individuellen Menschenleben.

פרשת גזל הגר zuerst:

למעל מעל בה׳ [WHEN A MAN OR WOMAN SHALL DO ANY OF THE SINS AGAINST MAN,] TO ACT DECEITFULLY AGAINST THE LORD — Here, you see, Scripture writes down again the section dealing with a person who robs by violence from another, and swears falsely regarding it, — it is the same section that has already been stated in the Sedrah ויקרא (Lev 5:21), “[If a soul sin], and commits a trespass against the Lord, and deny unto his neighbour etc.” The reason why it is repeated here is because of two new points which are contained in it. The one is that it (Scripture) writes here, “and if they confess” which teaches that one is not liable to payment of the fifth (in addition to the capital; cf. Leviticus 5:24), nor to bring a guilt offering (cf. Leviticus 5:25) if he is convicted by the evidence of witnesses, but only when he himself confesses the matter (his guilt). The second new point is about something stolen from a proselyte (cf. Rashi on v. 8) — that it has to be handed over to the priests (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 2).

WHEN A MAN OR WOMAN SHALL DO ANY OF THE SINS OF MAN. [The sense of the verse] is as follows: “If a man does any of the sins by which one can transgress, of any sin which man commits against another man, and he deals falsely with his neighbor³⁷See Leviticus 5: 24. A fifth must be paid in addition to repaying the capital. [—that soul shall be guilty].” He states [here] to commit a trespass against the Eternal, which means that he swears by His Name falsely and is thus guilty before Him [as well]. Now because this sin has already been mentioned,³⁵Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57. and here it only comes to introduce the new point concerning robbing a proselyte,³⁶Further, Verse 8. He deals with it briefly. He stated here a man or woman because since it is not usual for a woman to rob, [we might think that] perhaps Scripture does not make her liable to pay the additional fifth³⁷See Leviticus 5: 24. A fifth must be paid in addition to repaying the capital. or to bring a guilt-offering [when she confesses the sin]³⁸Ibid., Verse 25. like a man, [therefore He stated here a man or woman, teaching that her liability is in all respects the same as that of a man]. He mentioned [here], And every heave-offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they present unto the priest, shall be his,³⁹Verse 9. meaning to say that once they have given the heave-offering to the priest it becomes his [personal property], and he who robs it from him is to be dealt with in accordance with the law of the guilt-offering for robberies.³⁵Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57. That is the reason why He mentioned it here. Or it may be that [this verse] comes to complete the laws of the priests regarding the heave-offering, since till now He only mentioned them by way of allusion, [stating] Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fulness of thy harvest, and of the outflow of thy presses,⁴⁰Exodus 22:28. See Ramban ibid., (Vol. II, pp. 398-400). and so also, they may eat of his bread,⁴¹Leviticus 22:11. but He did not explain the law of the heave-offering at all, that it is to be given to the priest; and as for the tithe, He [only] mentioned at the end of Torath Kohanim [i.e., the Book of Leviticus] that it is holy unto the Eternal.⁴²Ibid., 27:30. Now, therefore, He came to command that the heave-offering and the holy gifts should belong to the priests by the grant of the owners, who may give them to them as they please, meaning to say that the benefit of satisfaction [of choosing to whom to give it] belongs to the owner [and the priest may not come and take it by force, since the owner may have the pleasure of giving it to any priest he chooses].
The meal-offering of the sotah⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. is not mentioned together with the other meal-offerings in Torath Kohanim [i.e., Leviticus Chapter 2] because it is a meal-offering of jealousy⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. and does not come for atonement, therefore He completed the law thereof here [in the Book of Numbers]. Besides, since He traced the genealogy of the people by their fathers’ houses, He now gave them a law and judgment to ascertain who are the mamzerim⁴⁴The word mamzer, according to the final decision of the law, refers to a child born of a union which is prohibited, with the penalty of excision. It thus covers a child of any incestuous or adulterous relationship. who are not the children of their mothers’ husbands, when there arises a suspicion in a man’s heart concerning his wife.
Similarly He completed here [the laws of] the offerings with the law of the Nazirite, for [only] after the Tabernacle was put up and the impure people separated from the camp, He took of their young men for Nazirites,⁴⁵Amos 2:11. who crowded at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,⁴⁶Exodus 38:8. to stand before the Eternal to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name.⁴⁷Deuteronomy 10:8. Furthermore, a woman who makes the Nazirite vow is the opposite of the sotah,⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. [and for this reason the law of the Nazirite follows that of the sotah]. Therefore He stated in the section [of the Nazirite], when either man ‘or woman’ utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite.⁴⁸Further, 6:2. Since the law of vows applies equally to men and women, why did Scripture mention here or woman? It is to hint that this woman who takes upon herself the Nazirite vow, is the opposite of the sotah whose law has just been stated in the preceding section. Our Rabbis have furthermore said:⁴⁹Sotah 2 a. “Why is the section dealing with the Nazirite placed next to the section dealing with the sotah?⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. [It is to tell us] that whoever sees a sotah in her disgrace should abstain [by means of a vow] from wine,” the reason being that harlotry, wine, and new wine, take away the heart.⁵⁰Hosea 4:11. And [the commandment that] the Nazirite should let his hair grow loose is because this is the opposite of [the habit of] young men who curl their hair in order to beautify themselves, for allowing the hair to grow loose causes anxiety in man’s heart,⁵¹Proverbs 12:25. and therefore the Nazirite is holy⁵²Further, 6:8. and must guard himself from impurity,⁵³Ibid., Verse 7. for he is like the priest who ministers before his G-d [who likewise must be pure for service at the Sanctuary].

'למעול מעל בה, our traditional sources already told us that the subject is robbery from a proselyte who dies intestate before the robber confessed and made restitution. The robber had committed an act of desecrating the name of G’d in the eyes of the proselyte who must be appalled that a natural born Jew could be guilty of such a deed. This is why the sin of the robber in this verse is described as a “transgression against something sacred.”

איש ..כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם, "anyone committing any of the sins people are liable to commit, etc." The Torah uses the expression למעול instead of the customary ומעלו מעל, "and have committed a trespass;" this is explained in Baba Kama 110 where the sages say that the verse speaks about a case of someone who perjured himself after having denied being in possession of money belonging to his neighbour. Although the Torah had already dealt with such a situation in Parshat Vayikra it repeats it here as there are numerous details of this legislation which had not yet been revealed. Amongst other details, our verse informs us that the person in question is deemed to have committed his sin at the time when he first denied being in possession of that money, not at the time when he denied it on oath. The very denial is considered sinful as it leads to the person having to swear an oath if his accuser takes him to court. If the accused is not taken to court he is able to make amends for his denial at any time. The verse says: כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם to inform us that the moment one does so one is considered as about to also trespass against G'd, i.e. to render a false oath.

חטאת האדם, This is also because of גזל הגר, robbery from a convert who left no children after death and to whom no restitution can be made, nor to any of his non existent heirs. This is the reason why this has been repeated here.

איש או אשה, “man or woman, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah mentions a woman here, although it is not usual for women to rob proselytes, is that we might have thought that if a woman had been guilty of this crime she would not have to do more than make restitution without adding the fifth mentioned here as a penalty; to make sure we do not err in this matter the Torah made sure that we understand that man and woman are subject to the same rules. [Nachmanides presumably is bothered that the Torah did not simply write אדם that would have included man and woman. Ed.]

V. 6. דבר אל בני וגו׳. Dieses Gesetz ist in seinen Hauptbestimmungen bereits im Wajikra 5, 20 f. gegeben. Es ist das אשם גזלה. Es ist dort die Bestimmung ausgesprochen, dass, wenn jemand eine aus irgend einer Veranlassung erwachsene Schuld dem andern abgeleugnet und, gerichtlich oder außergerichtlich, abgeschworen hat, er קרן und חומש dem zur Forderung Berechtigten zu zahlen und ein אשם als Opfer zu bringen hat. Wir haben dieses Gesetz dort auch bereits ausführlich besprochen und verweisen hierauf. Hier steht dies Gesetz wiederholt, zunächst um es durch zwei Bestimmungen zu ergänzen; erstens, dass (V. 7) חומש und אשם nur in Folge seines Eingeständnisses zu leisten sind. Wird er aber des Meineids nur durch Zeugen überwiesen, so hat er nur einfach קרן zu zahlen, dagegen lastet auf ihm das לא ינקה ד׳. (Schmot 20, 7) in der ganzen ungemilderten Wucht seiner Schwere (siehe zu Wajikra 5, 8). Zweitens (V. 8): dass, wenn nach geleistetem Meineid der Forderungsberechtigte ohne Rechtsnachfolger verstorben ist, dem קרן und חומש zurückzuerstatten wäre, beides den כהנים zu geben ist.

כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם, “if they will commit any sin that people are in the habit of committing;” this paragraph concerns theft committed against the estate of a convert; the Rabbis derive this from the words 'מעל בה, “a trespass against the Lord;” seeing that the convert left behind no heirs, the thief or robber considered what he did as finder’s keeper. The Torah teaches that this is not so, but that the Lord is the One Who considers Himself as having been sinned against in this instance. A similar paragraph in Leviticus 5,21 has the words: וכחש בעמיתו, “and he denies having trespassed against his colleague,” as speaking of a natural born Jew. The reason why this paragraph follows that of the various types of ritual defilement is to remind us that this very defilement and the subsequent ostracism for at least seven days was a punishment for a trespass committed. (Ibn Ezra)

למעול מעל, “by committing treachery.” The Torah means that the guilty party not only stole, but swore an oath in the name of Hashem denying that he had done so. Seeing that the basic sin had already been discussed (Leviticus 5,15) and the only thing different here is the status of the victim, the Torah was very brief here. It goes on to mention:

ואשמה הנפש ההיא, and that soul will be considered guilty. Inasmuch as that person is guilty of perjury he has caused damage to his very soul. The Torah suddenly switched to the use of the singular although previously it had spoken about people (pl) committing sins. Afterwards, when the Torah discusses the sinner confessing his sin it again uses the plural, i.e. והתודו. You will note that the Torah did not write that the soul of the sinner i.e. נפשו is guilty, but it writes הנפש ההיא. This is a reference to the collective soul of the Jewish people which has become tarnished through one of its members committing perjury. You may do well to read what we have written in our commentary on Leviticus 7,20-21 about similar constructions. Inasmuch as the word ההיא is superfluous this is a hint that the Torah speaks about a soul other than merely that of the sinner in question. It is worth reading what the Zohar on Parshat Acharey Mot 67 has to say about Isaiah 26,9.

מכל חטאת האדם. So wie עון הקדשים (Schmot 28, 38), עון המקדש (Bamidbar 18, 1) die Sünde gegen die Heiligtümer und gegen das Heiligtum bezeichnet, so dürften hier auch חטאת האדם die Vergehen gegen den Menschen bedeuten; wahrscheinlich jedoch ist es auch hier der gewöhnliche Genitiv und verlässt sich hier das Gesetz auf die ganze ähnlich eingeleitete ausführliche Darstellung im Wajikra Wie denn ja auch hier aus dem Verfolg klar genug ersichtlich ist, dass es von einer ungetilgten Schuld, somit von Vergehen in Beziehung auf den Rechtsbesitz des Nächsten handelt. למעול מעל בד׳, ein jedes solches Vergehen gegen den Menschen ist zugleich eine Untreue gegen Gott, der der Garant und Bürge im Verkehr zwischen Menschen und Menschen ist. Es ist dies aber in erhöhtem Maße, wenn er im Eide zum Erweis der Rechtfertigkeit im Verkehrsleben aufgerufen und dieser Aufruf zum Deckmantel einer Unrechtfertigkeit missbraucht worden. Das dem Nebenmenschen schuldige Gut wird im Eide zu einem gottschuldigen Eigentum, zu einem "Heiligtum" erhoben, der Schwörende appelliert an seine "Gottesnähe", bekleidet sich gleichsam mit dem "Priestergewand", und die in solcher Weise an dem Nächsten geübte Untreue wird geradezu zu מעילה (siehe zu Wajikra 5, 15 u. 20 f). Dort heißt es ähnlich: נפש כי תחטא ומעלה וגו׳, und wird das Vergehen ausführlich erläutert: וכחש בעמיתו בפקדון usw. usw. או מכל אשר ישבע עליו לשקר usw. — ואשמה הנפש ההיא: durch eine solche meineidige Bereicherung des eigenen Besitzstandes hat der Schwörende eine Schuld der "Verödung" auf sich geladen (siehe Wajikra 5, 6 u. 20 f.).

.ואשמה הנפש ההיא, והתודו, ”and that soul shall be guilty, and confess;” Rabbi Natan claims that this is a line that can be used universally for all such trespasses, that the first step in rehabilitation of the sinner must be his confession of having committed this trespass. (Sifri)

את אשמו בראשו [HE SHALL RESTORE] THAT WHEREIN HE IS GUILTY, AS BEING THE CHIEF SUM — This means, he shall restore the principal about which he has sworn falsely (Bava Kamma 110a).

והשיב את אשמו, and he shall make restitution for his guilt, etc. The Torah again switched to use of the singular although the verse had commenced by speaking about sinners in the plural confessing their guilt. The reason is that when it comes to having to confess one's guilt all sinners are in a similar situation. When it comes to making restitution, however, this is not so as the Torah makes allowances for poor people whose sin-offering consists of lower priced birds or even a meal-offering only. We have learned this in Leviticus 5,7-5,13.

והשיב את אשמו, the capital value minus the penalty.

This is the principal [payment] concerning which he took the oath. This was the value originally payable, thus Rashi explains: What is termed the principle? — The money concerning which he took the oath. This means to say that it is the money concerning which he took an oath, and not the additional fifth.

V. 7. איש או אשה וגו׳: damit ist zugleich der große folgenreiche Rechtsgrundsatz gegeben: השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל עונשין שבתורה, dass das Gesetz in der Verantwortlichkeit für alle Gesetzübertretungen Frauen und Männer völlig gleichstellt (B. K. 15a, Pesachim 43 a u. f.).

וחמישתו יוסיף עליו, “and he is to add a fifth of it” (the value of the stolen property); if his confession is not the result of witnesses having accused him of his guilt, but it is simply an expression of his remorse, then he does not have to pay this extra 25% which was meant as a penalty. We have already explained in our commentary on Leviticus 5,16 precisely what is meant by the word .

לאשר אשם לו [AND HE SHALL RESTORE THE PRINCIPAL … AND GIVE UNTO HIM] TO WHOM HE IS GUILTY — i.e. unto him to whom he (the claimant) owes money (Ketubot 19a).

To whom he is liable. Rashi is answering the question: Why didn’t the Torah write “from whom he stole” instead of “to whom he is indebted”? This implies that [one returns the money] to the one to whom the principle belongs. For example, if someone lent money to the person who was robbed, and this [thief] came and stole it from him, he is obliged to give it to the lender who lent it to the person who he stole from. Thus Rashi stated “to the one to whom he is liable” to teach that one gives the money to the one to whom the victim of the theft is liable.

והתודו (siehe zu Wajikra 5, 5). Dies ist das erste neue Moment, das die im Wajikra bereits gegebene Darstellung dieses Gesetzes ergänzt. Nicht nur das אשם, das, wie jedes Opfer, Besserung gelobendes Geständnis voraussetzt (siehe Wajikra 5, 5), sondern auch חומש-Pflicht tritt nur in Folge des Geständnisses, nicht aber in Folge bloß gerichtlicher Überführung durch Zeugen ein. Auf Grund von Zeugen ist er nur zum einfachen Ersatz zu verurteilen. Sein Geständnis, sei es ein freies oder erst nach geschehener Zeugenaussage abgelegtes, verpflichtet ihn zu חומש und אשם (B. K. 108a u. b).

ונתן לאשר אשם לו, “he will give to the person against whom he trespassed etc.” this verse teaches that if someone had owed a certain person, Reuven, say 100 dollars, and he came to the court with the intent to pay Reuven that amount, but did not arrive until another creditor of Reuven had lodged a claim regarding an independent amount owed him by Reuven, the court will accept payment from the debtor and transfer it to the creditor, as the Torah specifically writes: “he will give it to the one against whom he had sinned by not paying it sooner.” (Sifri)[Malbim adds certain qualifications to the example quoted by Sifri. Ed]

ממון המשתלם בראש מוסיף חומש ממון שאין משתלם בראש אין מוסיף חמש :והשיב את אשמו בראשו וגו׳ (B. K. 65 b). Nur wo auf Grund von Zeugen die einfache Schuldsumme zu zahlen wäre, da tritt mit Geständnis חומש hinzu, wo aber auf Grund von Zeugen die doppelte Summe, כפל, wie bei גנבה oder טוען טענת גנב (siehe Schmot 22. 6) zu leisten ist, da tritt auch nach dem Geständnis nicht noch חומש hinzu, vielmehr ist in solchem Falle nur כפל und אשם zu leisten. Ja, es schließt כפל so sehr חומש aus, dass ein bereits mit כפל verfallenes Klageobjekt selbst dann nicht auch noch mit חומש belegt werden kann, wenn ein darauf bezüglicher Eid ganz unabhängig von der כפל-Frage ist, z. B. טען טענת גנב ונשבע וחזר וטען טענת אבד ונשבע ובאו עדים אקמייתא והודה אבתרייתא, weil, wie es dort heißt: ממון המחייבתו כפל פוטרו מן החומש (B. K. 108 a).

ונתן לאשר אשם לו: nach ר׳ נתן (Gittin 37 a) eventuell auch dem, dem er durch seine Unrechtfertigkeit indirekt verschuldet worden, denn נושה בחברו מנה וחברו בחברו גובין מזה ונותנין לזה, wenn sein Gläubiger mit einer gerichtlich liquiden Schuld einem dritten verschuldet ist, so hat er seine Schuld direkt an diesen dritten zu entrichten.

ואם אין לאיש גאל BUT IF THE MAN HAS NO KINSMAN — This means that the claimant who put him to the oath, died and has left no heirs,

'המושב לה, when the original owner of the stolen property no longer exists, it is proper to make restitution to the “boss” of the person from whom it has been taken, his “boss” being none other than G’d. [The author considers any property owned by any one on earth as only “on loan” from the real owner, from G’d. Ed.] Our sages phrase this as “when the servant dies he has to return it to the master.” (Baba Batra 51)

מלבד איל, the eyl ha-asham mentioned in Leviticus 5,25, compare Rashi.

When he recants. Rashi is answering the question: Since the thief denied it and the one who caused him to swear has already died, how could it be that he now wished to pay? He answers that it is “when he recants…”

V. 8. גואל :ואם אין לאיש גואל ist der nächste erbberechtigte Verwandte (vergl. Wajikra 25, 25). Das Gesetz übergeht den selbstverständlichen Fall, dass, wenn der Forderungsberechtigte verstorben ist, die Schuld an dessen Erben entrichtet werden muss. Dieser stillschweigende Übergang zu dem Fall des erblos Verstorbenen ist umsomehr erklärlich nach der von ר׳ נתן zu dem unmittelbar vorhergehenden Satze ונתן לאשר אשם לו gegebenen Erläuterung. Demgemäß ist ja dort bereits ausgesprochen, dass die Schuld nicht nur dem ursprünglichen Forderungsberechtigten, sondern auch an dessen Rechtsnachfolger, z. B. an dessen Gläubiger zu zahlen ist. Der Erbe ist da somit nur umsomehr als der natürliche Rechtsnachfolger inbegriffen und schließt sich daran ohne weiteres der Fall: ואם אין לאיש גואל, wenn der Forderungsberechtigte ohne Erben verstorben. Es kann aber nach jüdischem Recht, wie B. K. 109 a erläutert wird, dieser Fall nur bei einem גר stattfinden, der kinderlos verstorben. Bei jedem andern ist in solchem Falle immer unter den Aszendenten oder deren Deszendenten, und wäre es auch im entferntesten Grade, ein erbberechtigter Verwandter vorhanden. Ein גר tritt aber mit dem Momente seines גרות eine neue Existenz an, גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי, und kann daher nur unter den als גר von ihm erzeugten Deszendenten einen Erben haben. Stirbt er ohne solche Deszendenz, so hat er keinen Rechtsnachfolger und seine ausstehenden Schuldforderungen haben keinen zur Forderung berechtigten Gläubiger mehr. Als herrenloses Gut sind sie dem Schuldner, als dem ersten Okkupanten verfallen. Hat dieser aber, wie hier, bei Lebzeiten des Gläubigers ihm seine berechtigte Forderung abgeschworen, so statuiert hier das Gesetz — und dies ist das zweite die bereits im Wajikra gegebenen Bestimmungen ergänzende Moment: — האשם המושב לד׳ לכהן, dass wenn auch der durch Meineid verletzte Gläubiger ohne Rechtsnachfolger verstorben, mit dem Geständnis des Meineids das abgeschworene Gut Gotteseigentum geworden und von Gott dem כהן überwiesen ist, קנאו ד׳ ונתנו לכהן שבאותו משמר (B. K. 109 b). Es ist Gott zurückzugeben; als er schwur, hat er es nicht nur dem Menschen, sondern auch Gott abgeleugnet und mit seinem Geständnis Gott zugestanden; und zwar קרן und האשם זה קרן המושב :חומש זה חומש (daselbst 110 a), das Opfer wird ja besonders genannt: מלבד איל וגו׳. Es wird vielmehr hier das zurückzugebende קרן selbst אשם genannt, und mit dem המושב לד׳ ist חומש bezeichnet, das ja eben das Gut als ein durch den Eid Gott heilig gewordenes Gut kennzeichnet. Indem aber hier das Gott zurückzuerstattende Gut eines erblos Verstorbenen "אשם" genannt wird, ist auch der Zurückerstattung desselben ganz der Charakter einer Opferhandlung aufgeprägt: sie hat nur am Tage zu geschehen, sie kann nicht stückweise geleistet werden, es muss jedem einzelnen der diensttuenden Priesterabteilung ein Anteil von jeder solchen Zurückerstattung zukommen, sie können aber nicht eine Zurückerstattung gegen die andere bei der Verteilung anrechnen, מה אשם אין חולקין אשם כנגד אשם אף גול אין חולקין גזל הגר כנגד גזל הגר usw. (daselbst).

'המושב לה, “it shall be viewed as returned to the Lord,” through being given to a priest who is the representative of G-d on earth.

להשיב האשם אליו TO WHOM THAT WHEREIN HE IS GUILTY COULD BE RESTORED, when he decided at a later period to confess his sin. — Our Rabbis asked (Sifrei Bamidbar 4:1; Bava Kamma 109a): But can you find anyone in Israel who has no kinsman whatsoever, neither a son nor a brother nor other relative near akin to him from his father’s family, going back as far as Jacob? But this person referred to is a proselyte who died and has no heirs (his heathen relatives not being entitled to succeed to his property) (Sifrei Bamidbar 4:1; Bava Kamma 109a).

האשם המושב, the capital value, this will be returned (paid back to the priests who act as the deceased convert’s redeemer.)

[This refers to] a proselyte who died without heirs. You might ask: In Parshas Behar it writes “and a man who will not have a redeemer” (Vayikra 25:26). Rashi asks: Is there anyone in Yisroel who does not have a redeemer? He answers that it refers to a redeemer who can redeem him from his sale. Meaning that he certainly has a redeemer, however he does not have a wealthy redeemer who can redeem him from his sale. Why didn’t Rashi explain that it refers to a proselyte who died without heirs, as he answers here? The answer is that there it was not possible to say that it referred to a proselyte, because the Torah wrote “and he sold some of his holdings” meaning [land] that he inherited from his father. But a proselyte would not have an inheritance from his father. Here it was also not possible to answer as Rashi did there, because anyone would want to receive the debt — the principle and the additional fifth, whether poor or wealthy.

מלבד איל הכפורים אשר יכפר בו עליו. Das Opfer kann nicht früher dargebracht werden, als bis das Geld zurückgegeben ist, und beides, das zurückzuerstattende Geld und das Opfer gehören zusammen, beide fallen zunächst derselben diensthabenden Priesterabteilung (משמר, siehe Wajikra 6, 19) zu.

לה' לכהן, G-d is considered the Father of all converts and as such entitled to inherit him. It (the outstanding debt) will therefore be paid to G-d’s “heir” on earth, the priest.

האשם המושב THAT WHEREIN HE IS GUILTY AND WHICH HATH TO BE RESTORED — i.e. the principal (האשם) and the fifth thereof (המושב) (cf. Bava Kamma 110a),

This is the principle. The Torah did not write this previously when it said “But if the man has no redeemer to whom the debt may be returned,” omitting to write “[the debt] being returned,” because it relied on what was written previously where the Torah stated “and return the principal amount of his guilt, and [add] one fifth…” (v.7).

לה’ לכהן BELONGS TO THE LORD, FOR THE PRIEST — This means the Lord becomes its owner and gives it to the priest of that Mishmar (shift) (Bava Kamma 109b).

Then gives it to the kohein. Because if this were not so, if it was for Hashem it could not be for the kohein, and vice-versa. Furthermore, one cannot say that it would be for both — the sacrificial parts for Hashem and the meat for the kohanim, because then the Torah should have said “to Hashem and to the kohein.”

מלבד איל הכפרים BESIDES THE RAM OF EXPIATION which is mentioned in the Sedrah ויקרא (Leviticus 5:25), as being incumbent upon him to offer.

In that watch. You might ask: Perhaps he gives it to any kohein to whom he wishes, even if they are not in that watch. The answer is that since the Torah afterwards writes “besides the ram of forgiveness…” this implies that this should be given to the kohein aside from the ram of forgiveness. The ram of forgiveness was given specifically to a kohein in that watch, as the Torah writes in Parshas Shoftim “portion by portion they shall eat…” (Devarim 18:9). Therefore the principle and the additional fifth should also only be given to a kohein from that watch.

Mentioned in Vayikra (5:25). (Paneach Raza) The term “besides” implies that the Torah obliges one to bring it, therefore Rashi had to say that this is the one mentioned in Vayikra. Furthermore he had to mention this here, because one might think that when one returns stolen property to its owners, one requires an offering to atone for the heavenly judgment; however when one gives it to a kohein this itself is an atonement. Thus Rashi lets us know that this is not so.

וכל תרומה וגו׳ AND EVERY HEAVE OFFERING … WHICH THEY BRING UNTO THE PRIEST] — R. Ishmael asked, “Do they then have to bring the heave-offering to the priest; does he not have to go around the granaries begging for it? What, then, is the meaning of ‘which they bring unto the priest’? It refers to the first fruits of which it is said, (Exodus 23:19) ‘[The first of the first fruits of thy ground] thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord they God’, but I do not know what is to be done with them, (i.e., this is nowhere stated). Scripture therefore states here, ‘[and every heave-offering, …which they bring] unto the priest, shall be his’ — Scripture comes and teaches you with respect to the first fruits that they must be given to the priest” (Sifrei Bamidbar 5).

AND EVERY HEAVE-OFFERING OF ALL THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, WHICH THEY BRING UNTO THE PRIEST, SHALL BE HIS. Scripture is saying that the heave-offering which the children of Israel hallow, that is to say, which they set aside [of the produce] and declare holy, shall be the priest’s, for since there is no specific measure [required by law of the Torah⁵⁴But the Sages laid down a measure: a generous person should give one fortieth of his produce; an average man, one fiftieth, and an ungenerous person must give nonetheless a sixtieth part (Terumoth 4:3). when setting aside] the heave-offering, therefore Scripture said that however much they set aside of the produce [as the heave-offering] shall belong to the priest when the owners bring it and give it to him, but the priest may not take it by force. This is the plain meaning of the verse. And so the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:⁵⁵Sifre Naso 5. The “Sifre” is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Mechilta on Exodus, and the Sifra or Torath Kohanim on Leviticus. “Rabbi Akiba says: ‘Scripture comes [here] to teach you that if the owner wishes to declare his whole granary heave-offering, he may do so, provided that he leaves over a small amount’ [as ordinary food].”⁵⁶From this text in the Sifre it is also obvious that there is no prescribed measure for the heave-offering.
We have furthermore been taught there in the Sifre:⁵⁵Sifre Naso 5. The “Sifre” is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Mechilta on Exodus, and the Sifra or Torath Kohanim on Leviticus. “Which ‘yakrivu’ (they bring) unto the priest. Said Rabbi Yishmael: But do they bring the heave-offering to the priest? What then is the meaning of the expression, which ‘yakrivu’ (they bring) unto the priest, shall be his? [It is as follows:] Since He stated, The choicest first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the House of the Eternal thy G-d,⁵⁷Exodus 23:19. but we have not been informed yet what shall be done with them, therefore Scripture states [here], which ‘yakrivu’ (they bring) unto the priest, shall be his — Scripture comes and teaches you that the first-fruits are to be given to the priest.” Now Rashi [in citing here this text of the Sifre] explained [the question] “But do they bring the heave-offering to the priest?” in the following way: “Does not the priest have to go around the granaries asking for it?” But this is not clear.⁵⁸From Rashi’s comment it is obvious that even if the priest does not take it by force, but goes around the granaries to obtain the heave-offering, it is also prohibited on the basis of the expression stating which ‘yakrivu’ (they ‘bring’) unto the priest, shall be his. The heave-offering, according to Rashi, is to be “brought” to the priest. In the opinion of Ramban, only the priest’s taking it by force is forbidden, while his going around for it, is not prohibited in this verse, [[illegible]]since the yakrivu as explained by Rabbi Yishmael in the Sifre is to be understood as denoting offering on the altar, and his question is as follows: “Were they [really] (yakrivu) ‘bringing’ the heave-offering on the altar? Certainly not. Therefore it must refer to the first-fruits.” In brief, Rashi’s interpretation of yakrivu as “bringing” the heave-offering to the priest is therefore “not clear” (as Ramban expresses it). But the [correct] explanation is that in the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael [in the above text of the Sifre] the root hakravah in the Torah [“bringing” — as in yakrivu mentioned here] refers only to things which are offered up on the altar. Therefore he interpreted the expression ‘asher yakrivu’ (which they bring) as referring to the first-fruits, which require waving and bringing to the altar, Scripture thus stating [here] that all first-fruits which the owners bring to G-d shall belong to the officiating priest. And when Rabbi Yishmael said [in the Sifre above], “Since it is stated, The choicest first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the House of the Eternal thy G-d,⁵⁷Exodus 23:19. but I do not know what is to be done with them,” he means to say that we have not yet been taught at all that the first-fruits are amongst the gifts of the priests, and it is here that He taught us for the first time that they are to be given to the priest. But afterwards He taught it again in the section dealing with [the gifts of] the priests: The first ripe fruits of all that is in their Land, which they bring unto the Eternal, shall be thine,⁵⁹Further, 18:13. for there He also restated the [laws of the] heave-offering,⁶⁰Ibid., Verse 12. and hallowed objects,⁶¹Ibid., Verses 9, 17-19. in order to include together all gifts given to the priests, and to make a covenant of salt⁶²Ibid., Verse 19. for all of them [indicating that just as salt never decays, so will His covenant with Aaron endure]. It also [repeats the laws] for the sake of some new things added in that section, such as, every one that is clean in thy house may eat thereof.⁶³Ibid., Verse 13. The verse is speaking about first-fruits. We furthermore learn from the verse here [i.e., from the expression asher yakrivu which, as explained above, refers to some act of service in the Sanctuary] that the first-fruits are to be given to the men of the mishmar⁶⁴See Note 92 in Seder Bamidbar. to offer it up [i.e., to the priests who are then on duty in the Sanctuary], and that [the owner] may not give them to any priest he wants to, as is the law of the heave-offering.

וכל תרומה, according to Sifrey 5 the t’rumah of which the Torah speaks here are the first fruit which have to be offered to G’d, as it is customary for the owner of fields or orchards to present these first fruit of each year’s produce (seven species) and to recite the appropriate benediction when presenting same in the Temple. (compare Deuteronomy 26,3). Here the Torah tells us that just as property stolen from a proselyte who died intestate, which was described as “being returned to G’d,” winds up in the hands of the priest, i.e. G’d’s agent, so the bikkurim, the farmer’s gift to G’d has also been assigned by G’d to the priest of the respective roster on His behalf.

וכל תרומה…לו יהיה, "and every heave-offering…..shall be his." Why did the Torah repeat the same subject three times (verses 9 and 10)? Furthermore, why did the Torah repeat the same words, i.e. לו יהיה? Our sages in the Sifri explain that the apparently superfluous words "they shall be his" refer to the offering of the first ripe fruit which are normally called ראשית. They too are to be treated in the same way as the heave-offerings, תרומה. They become the priest's personal property. The second time the Torah repeats this expression it refers to priests who performed Temple service at a time which had not been allocated to them. If such a priest offered his own offering i.e. קדשיו, it remained his although his presence in the Temple at the time had not been authorised. The words אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה refer to a situation when a father had given to the priest money to redeem his firstborn son and that baby had died after 30 days. The Torah legislates that the priest does not need to return this redemption money to the father. There are numerous other halachic Midrashim in this vein. All of this does not suffice to explain the plain meaning of these verses.

וכל תרומה , the first tithe the Israelites set aside from their crops for the priests, as well as the ten per cent the Levites set aside for the priests from the tithe they had received from the ordinary Israelites as spelled out in Numbers chapter 18.

וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל, “and every portion from any of the holies that the Children of Israel bring, etc.” The point of the verse is to inform us that the portions spoken of by the Torah are henceforth the private property of the priest who had received them, and anyone stealing it from them is treated as having robbed the priest. Alternately, the meaning of our verse is that at this point the Torah completes previous legislation about the rights and duties of the priests, seeing it had not yet discussed certain aspects except obliquely with words such as מלאתך, and דמעך (Exodus 22,28). Not only that, but mention of the tithes at the end of the Book of Leviticus 27,30 does not include the תרומה to be given to the priests at all. Therefore the Torah complements the legislation at this stage by speaking both about תרומה and other holy gifts of even higher degrees of sanctity, i.e. קדשי בני ישראל. Both revert to the priests to whom they have been allocated, and become their personal property. The מנחת סוטה, meal offering to be presented by the woman accused of but not proven guilty of marital infidelity, is not mentioned in Leviticus at all, seeing that it is a meal offering resulting from a husband’s jealousy, not a free will offering like other meal offerings. This offering does not contribute to the atonement of that woman at all. (Verse 15-17) At this point the legislation governing meal-offerings is completed. Similarly, the Torah uses this opportunity to fill us in about the offerings a Nazir has to bring at the end of the term he vowed to abstain from ritual impurity and any grape-related products. After the Tabernacle had been erected and laws about maintaining ritual purity had been introduced, the Nazir legislation also became something of an actual rather than something theoretical. During the term of abstinence the Nazirites used to throng around the entrance of the Tabernacle, hoping to be useful in its service in some manner. Moreover, the Torah thought it appropriate to deal with the subject of the Nazirite at this juncture as a female Nazirite serves as the model for the exact opposite of the Sotah, the wife who by her conduct aroused the suspicion in the mind of her husband that she had indulged in marital infidelity.

But one does not know. (Ba’al Hamesader) A question is asked upon Rashi’s explanation: “Do we not know what must be done with them?” Surely there is an explicit verse in Parshas Korach “the bikurim of all that is in their land, which they bring before Hashem, shall be yours” (Bamidbar 18:13)! The answer is that in Parshas Mishpotim (Shemos 23:19) the mitzvah of bringing bikurim is listed as one of the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos, but Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 26:1-11) only lists the mitzvah of recitation over the bikurim that is stated in that Parshah. In Parshas Korach Rashi explains on the verse “I have given [you the guarding of my trumah-gifts]” (18:8) that there is “a comparison to a King…” consequently “I have given” means “that I have already given”; thus “shall be yours” (18:13) also means [that the bikurim] have already been given. However, we do not find in the entire Torah that the kohanim were given the bikurim like they were given the other twenty-three gifts. Therefore Rashi here needed to explain as he did and switch the word terumah for the word bikurim, using the force of Rabbi Yishmael’s question.

V. 9. וכל תרומה וגו׳. Dieser und der nächstfolgende Vers schließt sich nur als gelegentliche Bemerkung über die Priestern zugewiesenen Gaben dem vorigen an. Es heißt im Vorhergehenden: המושב לד׳ לכהן, dass das Gott Zurückzuerstattende den Priestern zu geben sei; daran knüpft sich die Bemerkung וכל תרומה usw. תרומה ist ja buchstäblich: das für Gott Ausgehobene und bezeichnet somit allgemein alles das, was Gott geweiht worden. Es ist daher hier der ungewöhnliche und sonst nur für Opfer vorkommende Ausdruck אשר יקריבו לכהן :הקרבה gebraucht. Man bringt es dem Priester, indem man es eigentlich "Gott nahe" bringen will. Es heißt nun, dass alle solche תרומה, die man als הקרבה dem כהן bringt, dessen Eigentum werden soll, da es ihm von Gott überwiesen ist. Es ist ganz das, was so eben für גול הגר ausgesprochen worden: קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן oder, wie es sonst von den den כהנים überwiesenen Heiligtümern heißt: כהני׳ משולחן גבוה קא זכו. So wird denn auch in ספרי aus dieser Stelle speziell für בכורים, über deren Verwendung Dewarim Kap. 26 nichts Näheres angegeben ist, nachgewiesen, dass sie dem כהן zu geben seien.

וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל, “and any portion from all the holies that the Children of Israel bring.” Nachmanides writes that the plain meaning of the verse is as if the Torah had written that seeing that there is no official minimum amount for such a gift set by the Torah [as opposed to the tithes. Ed.], the word כל may be understood as “any.” Such a gift is not one that may be demanded by the Levites or priests, but until it is offered as a totally voluntary offering the priest has no claim on it whatsoever. In the Sifrey our verse is interpreted as speaking of the bikkurim, the respective first fruit of each of his crops the farmer brings to Jerusalem, seeing that offering is on occasion referred to as תרומה. The words יקריבו אותה are also understood as the owner having the choice to which priest he wants to give these gifts.

I believe that we may approach these verses in accordance with the principle that when the Torah repeats something three times it is intended to show that we may not use the information contained in those statements exegetically by applying them to other commandments. The three statements teach us rules applying to the 24 types of gifts the Torah has allocated to the priests. In the first chapter of his treatise on the laws of בכורים, first ripe fruits, Maimonides writes that the 24 gifts G'd allocated to the priests were divided into five categories, which in reality are only three basic categories. 1) the portions of the sacrifices which they receive from animals which have been offered on the altar. These included: the meat of the sin-offering; the meat of the guilt-offering; the meat of the peace-offerings paid for by the public purse; the remainder of the Omer, i.e. the barley offering on the second day of the Passover festival; most of the meal-offerings except the fistful offered on the altar; the showbreads; the two loaves offered on Shavuot from the new wheat harvest; the oil of the person undergoing purification rites after having been afflicted with Tzoraat; the skins of any animal offered on the altar; the breast and right flank of all private peace-offerings; left-overs of the thanksgiving offerings; the part of the ram of the Nazirite not presented on the altar; the firstborn male of the pure animals. The first ripe fruit (of the seven species Israel is blessed with). These are 14 gifts allocated to the priests. The common denominateor of all the above is that the owner is obligated to offer them on the altar or bring them to the priest. They are all inherently sacred. The second category are such things as the Terumah, a tithe from the grain-harvest, olive trees or vineyard's produce; the Terumat Maasser i.e. the portion of his tithes the Levite has to give to the priest; Challah, i.e. 1/48th of a dough of certain proportions which the Israelite has to give to the priest. The third category are the gifts such as the tithe of the animals when they are shorn (1 tenth); certain fields which were sold by an Israelite and not redeemed within a specified time; the redemption money paid by a father for retaining his firstborn son; redemption money for the firstborn donkey; properties set aside for use by the priest. Property of an intestate convert stolen from him which is inherited by the priests by decree of the Torah. All the latter are not inherently sacred. They are not handed to the priest but he has to claim them by himself.

Let us now approach our verses. Concerning the first 14 items mentioned by Maimonides all of which are sacred by definition and which the Israelite is obligated to hand to the priests, the Torah wrote וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל. The Torah gives notice that these gifts are sacred by definition. It goes on: אשר יקריבו which they offer as a sacrifice; the Torah mentions that all these items have to be brought to a site which has been sanctified. Concerning the second category the Torah writes that איש את קדשיו לו יהיו. In this instance the Torah does refer to the sacred nature of the gifts but makes no mention of their qualifying as an offering on the altar, seeing the priest himself has to go after these gifts in order to secure his share. Concerning the final seven items the Torah writes איש אשר יתן לכהן, "that which a person has to give to the priest." Nothing is mentioned about any of these things being sacred as they are of an ordinary secular status, i.e. חולין. The word יתן, "he will give, or he may give" alerts us to the fact that a priest may not claim such gifts from the person whose duty it is to dispense them to a priest of his choosing. Once he has become the recipient of the gift, however, it is not reversible, i.e. לו יהיה, it remains his. Please read what I have written in my book Pri Toar item 61 concerning gifts to the priests. The word לו יהיה implies that a priest is cannot refuse to accept such gifts when they are offered to him (compare Yore Deyah 306,4). Having explained all this we see that the Torah had adequate reason to divide the priestly gifts into three categories so that it had to use the word לו יהיה separately for each category. Had the Torah not done so, I would not have known that the priest is obligated to accept these gifts.

ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו AND EVERY MAN’S HOLY THINGS SHALL BE HIS — Because the gifts due to the priests and the Levites are merely mentioned in the Torah (Deuteronomy 18:1—8) (without any statement as to how they are to come into possession of them), therefore one might think they may come and take them by force. On this account, it states here, ‘‘and every man’s holy things shall be his” — in some respect — thus it teaches us that the טובת הנאה, the gratification of using them in this respect as he wishes, belongs to the owner. — Many other Halachic rules have they (the Rabbis) deduced about it (this statement) in Sifrei Bamidbar 6:2. — An Agadic explanation of ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו is the following: Whosoever retains the tithes and does not give them to the Levite, only the tithes will be his, i.e., his field will ultimately yield no more than a tithe of what it was accustomed to yield (so that his whole possession will not exceed the gifts he should have given to the priests and the Levites; cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Re'eh 10).

AND EVERY MAN’S HALLOWED THINGS SHALL BE HIS; WHATSOEVER ANY MAN GIVETH THE PRIEST, IT SHALL BE HIS. The correct interpretation of this verse is that Scripture is saying that all hallowed things of a man shall be his, meaning to say that all hallowed things about which He has not commanded that they be given to the priest, [such as the Second Tithe, fourth-year produce of trees and the tithe of the cattle] shall be the owners’ [entirely], and they may have benefit from [and eat] them, even though they are called “holy.” But whatsoever any man giveth the priest as I have commanded him, it shall be his [partially], for even in the hallowed things about which Scripture commanded that they be given to the priest, the owners have a certain right, for although they belong to the priest to whom the owner gives them, as his personal property [but the owners have the right in these hallowed things to choose to whom to give them]. Thus the Second Tithe and the fourth-year produce of trees about which Scripture stated that they be holy to the Eternal⁶⁵Leviticus 27:30 (speaking of the Second Tithe): 19:24 (in reference to fourth-year produce of trees). Both of these “holy” things do not have to be given to the priest, but are to be eaten by the owner in Jerusalem. belong to the owner as his personal property, and likewise the tithe of cattle.⁶⁶Ibid., 27:32. The tithe of cattle likewise did not have to be given to the priest, but belonged wholly to the owner, after the blood and fat of the animal were offered upon the altar (see “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 90-91). But as for all other hallowed things concerning which He commanded in the section of Vayikach Korach⁶⁷Further, 16:1. The reference here is to the section on the gifts given to the priests (ibid., 18:8-32). that they should give them to the priest, they are to be given to him directly by the owners, and the priests cannot take them from them by force. From this we may deduce ourselves that the right of choosing to whom to give them [with the consequent satisfaction of so doing] is that of the owners. This is the correct interpretation in accordance with the plain meaning of the verse. It is also the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “and every man’s hallowed ‘tithe’ shall be his,” thus in dicating that he understood the verse as referring to a tithe which is the owner’s, for instance the Second Tithe].⁶⁸Onkelos’ expression “hallowed tithe” may also refer to the First Tithe [given to the Levites] or the Poorman’s Tithe (see my Hebrew commentary, p. 212), in which case Ramban understands that Onkelos supports the explanation he mentioned: namely, that these tithes, although given away by the owner, are still partially “his” inasmuch as the choice to whom to give them and satisfaction of so chosing, is his. It is interpreted in a similar manner in the Sifre, where the Rabbis have said:⁶⁹Sifre Naso 6. “All hallowed things are included in the general verse stating, And every man’s hallowed things shall be his. Scripture took away all hallowed things and gave them to the priests, leaving only the thanks-offering, the peace-offering, and the Passover-offering, because they too belong to the owners” [and they are permitted to eat them]. However, this verse is not necessary at all for these matters [i.e., to teach us that the thanks-offering, peace-offering, and Passover-offering belong to their owners, since in each of these cases Scripture clearly states that the meat is eaten by the owners, hence the verse before us must refer, as indicated above, to the Second Tithe, and fourth-year produce of trees].⁷⁰The Sifre, however, mentioned “the thanks-offering etc.” incidentally because it discusses all the hallowed things which belong to the owners.

ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו, however other kinds of “holy” gifts, namely ordinary tithes and trumot, may be given by the owner to whichever Levite or priest he chooses, not necessarily the priest officiating in the Temple at the time the gift is presented.

איש אשר יתן לכהן, something donated voluntarily which is appropriate to become the priest’s such as charamim, personal possessions sanctified to become the property of the Temple treasury.

ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו, “A man’s holies shall be his.” Nachmanides writes that the proper understanding of these somewhat enigmatic words is that all the holies someone has consecrated that were not obligatory are his to dispose of. The reason that the Torah had to write this was that we might have thought that as soon as something is described as קודש לה', “holy unto Hashem, it might have become the property of the Temple treasury or the priests administering same. Examples of this legislation are the second tithe, which the owners and his family consume in Jerusalem, or produce of a new orchard in the fourth year after it has been planted, known as נטע רבעי, which the owner may also consume in Jerusalem. Even the holies that have been given by the donor to the priest become the priest’s in the sense that anyone stealing them from the priest is not dealt with as if he had stolen from the Temple treasury, but is considered as having stolen the priest’s private property. Thus even other priests are not able to steal fro their colleagues claiming that it is all property of the Temple treasury.

Informing us that the executory benefits belong to the owner. Meaning that he can give them to any kohein to whom he wishes; this is termed טובת הנאה (executory benefits). Accordingly one may take a selah or more from an Israelite in order to give the produce to his daughter’s son who is a kohein, however one may not take money from a kohein in order to give the kohein these gifts. The Torah wrote “shall be his” meaning that the executory benefits belong to the owners.

V. 10. ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו. Nach der grammatischen Konstruktion sind dies zwei Sätze. ואיש את קדשיו, jeder seine Heiligtümer! d. h. jeder hat über seine Heiligtümer zu verfügen, לו יהיו: obgleich Gott geweiht und den Priestern überwiesen, so sind sie doch in gewisser Beziehung noch sein, und zwar insofern, dass איש אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה, dass nur das dem Priester gehört, was jemand ihm gibt, d.h. es steht keinem Priester ein direkter Anspruch auf irgend ein der Priesterschaft im allgemeinen zugewiesenes Heiligtum zu; vielmehr kann es der zum Geben Verpflichtete geben, welchem Priester er will. Kein Priester kann es von ihm fordern. Dieses dem Verpflichteten zustehende Verfügungsrecht über seine Heiligtümer heißt טובת הנאה. So erläutert ספרי z. St.: כל תרומת הקדשים (Kap. 18, 19), ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו למה נאמר לפי שהוא אומר אשר ירימו בני ישראל שומע אני יטלום בזרוע ת׳׳ל ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו מגיד שטובת טובת הנאה .הנאת קדשים לבעליהם heißt die Vergünstigung des Genusses. Jeder kann mit dem Genusse seiner Heiligtümer den Priester seiner Wahl begünstigen.

ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיה, “and every man’s hallowed things shall be his;” this somewhat enigmatic phrase, teaches that if a priest has sanctified some of his animals as sacrifices, he need not hand them over to the group of priests on duty at the time, but can proceed to offer such animals personally, although this particular time is not one during which he is on duty. (Sifri)

איש אשר יתן לכהן, A MAN, HOWEVER, WHO GIVES TO THE PRIEST the gifts that are due to him,

איש אשר יתן לכהן, once the owner has given “his” holy portion to the priest it becomes secular, mundane, not encumbered with any restrictions. Rather, לו יהיה, it is exclusively “his,” neither the previous owners nor other priests can legally deprive him of it.

לו יהיה, it will become the property of the priests officiating on that date.

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns die neuen Momente, die hier in פרשת גול הגר zum Ausspruch gekommen: das für חומש und אשם erforderliche Selbstgeständnis, והתודו, und die Bestimmung, dass selbst wenn kein Berechtigter mehr unter den Lebenden ist, das im Eide abgeschworene Gut Gott zurückzuerstatten ist: so begreifen sich beide offenbar als Momente, durch welche Gottes Gegenwart im Volksverkehr, mit anderen Worten: die Heiligkeit des Volkslagers, קדושת מחנה ישראל, in praktischer Folgenschwere zur Anwendung kommt. Schon die Berufung auf Gott im Eide, die Unterstellung seiner ganzen Güterwelt unter Gottes Gericht zum Erweis seiner Rechtschaffenheit in einem speziellen Fall seines Verkehrslebens, setzt Gottes Gegenwart bei jedem Worte und jeder Handlung voraus, die Mensch gegen Mensch im gewöhnlichsten Verkehre spricht und übt und stellt Gottes Schauen und Walten als die Macht hin, deren Richteramt da beginnt, wo das menschliche Gericht in seiner Geistes- und Machtkürze endet. Und wenn nun mit dem Geständnis diese Gottesmacht sich auch im Innern des Menschen, in der Gottesstimme sich gegenwärtig erweist, die wir "Gewissen" nennen, und die das Weisheitswort die "Gotteslampe" nennt, "mit welcher Gott die geheimsten Kammern unseres Innern suchend durchleuchtet" (Prov. 20, 27), und wenn das mit Berufung auf Gott abgeleugnete Gut damit ein Gottesheiligtum wird, das Ihm, mit dem wie bei jedem Heiligtum hinzuzufügenden Fünftel, auch dann noch zurückzugeben ist, wenn auch der Berechtigte von dannen geschieden und keinen Rechtsnachfolger hinterlassen: so erscheint das ganze Gesetz als die vollste Verkündigung und Verherrlichung Gottes in seiner das ganze soziale Leben tragenden und heiligenden Gegenwart. —

איש אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה, “whatsoever any man gives (prematurely) to a priest shall be (remain) his, the donor’s.” This verse or phrase, is understood to mean that if a father of a firstborn son had given a priest the money for his son’s redemption before said son was thirty days old, and in the interval that son had died before reaching the age of thirty days, (when it had become due) the priest is to return the money he has received to the deceased son’s father. (Sifri)

לו יהיה HE SHALL HAVE great riches (Berakhot 63a).

An aggadic Midrash (B’rachot 63) the words איש אשר יתן לכהן mean that he who meticulously gives to the priest his due, will eventually find himself becoming rich. The Talmud derives this exegesis from the apparent redundancy of the words in our verse.

Auch der Antagonismus zwischen כפל und חומש, dass, wie zu V. 7 bemerkt, ממון המחיבו כפל פוטרו מן החומש, beide in einem Klageobjekte nicht zusammentreffen können, begreift sich nach diesem leicht. כפל ist ja, wie zu Schmot 21, 37 entwickelt, Anerkennungsausdruck gleichsam der Allgegenwart der menschlichen Gerechtigkeit im sozialen Leben, welcher der Eigentümer sein Gut anvertraut und welche der Dieb missbraucht und gehöhnt hat; während חומש die wahrhaftige Allgegenwart der göttlichen Gerechtigkeit und gerade in solchen Fällen zu vergegenwärtigen hat, wo, wie im Eide, die menschliche nicht ausreicht. Weshalb ja auch חומש Geständnis voraussetzt, קנס aber gerade bei selbstanklagendem Geständnis wegfällt. קנס ist daher ein spezifisches Attribut menschengerichtlicher Wirkung. Hat also ein Klageobjekt bereits diese in erfolgreicher Weise provoziert, wie dies in קנס zu Tage tritt, so schließt dies von selbst חומש aus.

פרשת גול הגר ist nichts als konkrete Konsequenz des שלוח מצורע ממחנה ישראל.

V. 11. Hierauf folgt פרשת סוטה, die Lehre von der Gegenwart Gottes in dem geschlechtlichen Familienleben, parallel dem שלוח זב וזבה ממחנה לויה.

איש איש כי תשטה אשתו IF ANY MAN’S WIFE GO ASIDE [AND ACT DECEITFULLY AGAINST HIM] — What is stated above, immediately before this section? ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו: If you withhold the gifts due to the priest (cf. Rashi on v. 10), by your life, you will have to come to him in order to bring him your faithless wife for the ordeal by the waters (Berakhot 63a). (The translation therefore is: “A man who remains with his holy things, not giving them to the priest, לו יהיו they — the man and his wife — will become subject to him [require his services])”.

כי תשטה אשתו, she deviates from the path of chastity.

דבר..ואמרת..איש איש, speak..and say.."any man whose wife is unfaithful, etc." Why did the Torah write both "speak," and "say"? Why did it use different words for the same thing, i.e. דבר, אמר? Why is the word איש repeated? A Sotah, a woman suspected of marital infidelity by her husband, may belong to either one of two categories. Either the suspicion is found to have been unjustified, or 2) she is found guilty either by her own admission or by having brazenly drunk the מים המאררים, the waters of bitterness. This accounts for the Torah employing two different words for "say!" The harsher דבור is intended for the woman who is guilty, whereas the softer אמרת is addressed to the woman who turns out to have been faithful though she gave cause for suspicion. The word איש is repeated for the same consideration. At the time her husband accuses her he does not know yet if his suspicions are justified. If the woman is innocent G'd will help her to prove her innocence. We find a popular proverb in Megillah 12 which suggests that the words ומעלה בו מעל could be interpreted to mean "if he (the husband) were guilty of a trespass" i.e. both husband and wife may be guilty of infidelity. As a result our sages stated that if the husband is certain that he has not sinned at all in his marital relations he is entitled to resume relations with his wife after she has undergone the procedure of the "bitter waters" and has been vindicated. The "bitter waters" actually examined the husband as well, i.e. the procedure did not work, the miracle would not take place if the husband himself were found guilty of marital trespass. The word איש is repeated to teach us that regardless of whether the husband knows himself to be pure or not, he still has to bring his wife to the priest.

כי תשטה, she deviates from “the straight and narrow.” The word and its spelling is used by Solomon in this sense in Proverbs 4,15 שטה מעליו, “pass it by!” Compare also Hoseah 5,2 ושחטה שטים העמיקו, “people who detoured to escape the guards, etc.”

What is written [immediately] above this subject? Normally Rashi only makes inferences from juxtapositions when matters are not written in their normal place, because then they were certainly written so for one to make an inference. Nonetheless, since there is no comparison between the laws of marriage and those of terumah and sanctified property, it is certain that they were only juxtaposed in order for one to make an inference. (Gur Aryeh) explains that [Rashi’s inference] is not from the juxtaposition of the passages, because if this were so he should have said “why was the Parshah of the sotah juxtaposed to that of sacred property,” as is his normal style. Rather, Rashi was answering the question: The Parshah should not have begun with the man, rather with the woman — saying “a woman who goes astray and acts treacherously…” given that she was the source of the sin. Therefore he explains “what is written above…” meaning that he was the source of the sin and “any man” refers to the passage above. See there. (Nachalas Yaakov) The matter is puzzling — ‘Tuviah sinned and Zeigud was punished?’ So too here — the husband sinned because he withheld the gifts to the kohanim and the woman was disgraced such that she had to come before the kohein! All the more so if she literally became defiled, it is difficult to understand how the sin of the husband could cause the sin of the wife. Rather, this is the correct explanation: The woman certainly has sins of her own and her sins caused the sin of promiscuity. Nonetheless if it were not for the combination of the sin of the husband with her sin of promiscuity, her sin would certainly have caused it to become publicized without the warning and seclusion. Thus the Beis Din would have killed her without causing disgrace to the husband, obliging him to bring her before the kohein and cause her to drink in order for her to die through the lethal waters. Instead, the combination with the sin of the husband caused there to be witnesses to the seclusion rather than witnesses to the defilement, and he had to bring her to the kohein in order to cause her to drink. Likewise, if she were to come away exonerated from the charge of promiscuity, had it not been for the combination with the husband’s sin, the sin of the wife would have lead to a simple rumor, without witnesses to her seclusion. Alternatively, there would have been only one witness to her defilement or she would have said that she would not drink — and in all of these cases one would not cause her to drink. Rather, here the combination with the sin of the husband caused him to have to bring her to the kohein in order to cause her to drink. (Gur Aryeh) [One may ask:] It appears that this is not specific to the case of a sotah, because had he been a zav or metzora he would also have needed a kohein, given that they too require a kohein. For if one did not say so, why should sotah be different? One may answer that the cases of a zav or metzora are different. If he wanted to be a sinner and not bring an atonement, who would know? Thus he would not necessarily need a kohein. However with a sotah, even a sinner would not wish his wife to be promiscuous, since it is the nature of people for this to be detestable, as the Torah writes “and he was jealous.” And since he was jealous, he would certainly bring her before the kohein. When one appreciates this matter further, one will see that it is measure for measure. Since he did not wish to give the gifts to the kohein, asking why he should give his money to the kohein, the Torah said “By your life you will need him.” You shall know the greatness of the kohein — that he is the intermediary between Hashem and Yisroel, making peace between them through the offerings. Yisroel are called Hashem’s wife as it writes, “If you do not know, most beautiful of women” (Shir Hashirim 1:8) and in many other places where they are termed a wife. Therefore this man will now require a kohein to whom he will bring the sotah, in order that he can also make peace between him and his wife. She strayed from him and the kohein would make peace between them. Surely this is exactly the same as when a kohein makes peace between Yisroel and their Father in Heaven, causing the Divine Presence to rest in the world. Similarly Rashi explains in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 35:25) that Hashem is called a husband to Yisroel (see Gur Aryeh there). This man was one of them but he did not wish to recognize the greatness of the kohein, therefore he had to bring the sotah to the kohein in order to make peace between himself and his wife.

V. 12. שטה :איש איש כי תשטה אשתו, Abweichen von einer Richtung im Wege, שטה מעליו (Prov. 4, 15) so hier: Abweichen von dem vorgeschriebenen sittlichen Wege. So chaldäisch שטה: Abweichen von der rechten Verstandesrichtung; der Irrsinn, Wahnsinn. Daher beides zusammenfassend das Wort der Weisen: אין אדם עובר עבירה אא׳׳כ נכנס בו רוח שטות (Sota 3 a), jedes sittliche Irrgehen ist zugleich ein logisches Irrgehen, sittliche Wahrheit und logische Wahrheit fällt zusammen, und keiner sündigt, er habe denn zuvor die richtige Ansicht der Verhältnisse verloren. — ומעלה בו מעל, wie in der vorhergehenden פרשה durch den Ausdruck, למעל מעל כד׳ das soziale Verhalten des Menschen zum Menschen zugleich als ein Gott heiliges bezeichnet ist, so ist hier das eheliche Verhältnis von Mann und Weib geradezu durch מעילה als ein gottheiliges gekennzeichnet, und wird hier daher im folgenden Verse und weiter die Entwürdigung der Frau zur Fortsetzung der Ehe geradezu: והיא נטמאה genannt. Die Ehe ist ein קדש: das entsprechende sittliche Verhalten in ehelicher Treue heißt טהרה (V. 28), der Gegensatz heißt טומאה, und wenn die Frau dem Mann zur Fortsetzung der Ehe אסורה geworden, so heißt dies ganz so: נטמאה, wie der טומאה-Zustand überall den Ausschluss von מקדש וקדשים bedeutet. Das hier in V. 12 gezeichnete Benehmen der Frau schließt noch nicht den vollzogenen Ehebruch in sich, allein es bezeichnet jedenfalls schon eine tadelnswerte Abweichung von dem der jüdischen Eheweibe eigenen Wege der Zucht und der Sitte, die dem Manne gerechte Ursache zur Warnung (V. 14) gegeben.

כי תשטה אשתו, “any man whose wife goes astray;” the reason the following paragraph appears at this junction is that both paragraphs discuss the kind of trespass called מעילה by the Torah. (Compare verse 6)

איש איש — The double expression איש איש is employed to teach you that she (the faithless wife) deals treacherously in two respects — against Him above Who bears the appelation of איש, as in the text "[the Lord is] a Man of the war” (Exodus 15:3), and against her husband (אישה) here below (Midrash Tanchuma, Vaetchanan 5).

ומעלה בו מעל, she has profaned what is holy to G’d, that which He loves, marital union, by embracing and kissing someone other than her husband. (compare Maleachi 2,11)

Spirit of foolishness. Meaning that their evil inclination would tell them that it was permitted - and this is the foolishness. If one did not say so then why would she be liable for death, given that it was due to foolishness?

Perhaps our verse referred to this idea when writing both דבר and ואמרת. A husband who is himself not blameless may be afraid to have his wife examined by the priest and the bitter waters as his own shortcomings would be exposed both in the eyes of G'd and that of his peers. As a result, he might prefer not to publicise his suspicions of his wife. On the other hand, even if this husband feels certain that his own conduct was always completely blameless he may not wish to expose marital friction between himself and his wife in public. For these various reasons he might balk at the duty the Torah imposes upon him here. The Torah therefore uses a "carrot and stick" approach" i.e. with soft urgings and with tough talk so that he would comply with the legislation in our paragraph.

כי תשטה — Our Rabbis have taught (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 5): “Adulterers do never sin until a spirit of madness enters into them”, as it written, of her כי תשטה “if she becomes mad” (taking תִשְׂטֶה in the sense of תִשְׂטֶה, i.e. to become a שׁוֹטֶה, and so, too, of him Scripture writes, (Proverbs 6:32) “Whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding”. — But the plain sense of the verse is that כי תשטה means: if she deviates from the path of modesty and thereby becomes suspect in his eyes. The word is similar to, (Proverbs 4:15) “turn away (שְׂטֵה) from it, and pass by”; (Proverbs 7:25) “Let not your heart turn (יַשְׂטְ) to her ways”.

Turns aside from the ways of modesty. Rashi specifically said “from the ways of modesty” and not “from the ways of the Torah,” because if it was from the ways of the Torah this would imply that she certainly was promiscuous, and if it was certain that she was promiscuous then we do not give her [the waters] to drink. Therefore he stated “from the ways of modesty,” meaning that she was seen embracing or kissing another man and there was a suspicion that she had been promiscuous.

ומעלה בו מעל AND SHE ACTS UNFAITHFULLY AGAINST HIM — Wherein consists this infidelity? ושכב איש אתה THAT A MAN LIETH WITH HER.

What is the treachery. Rashi is answering the question: The words “acts treacherously toward him. And a man has lain [with her]” imply that there are two matters. Thus Rashi explains “What is the treachery? [A man] lay…,” as if it had written that a man lay with her. However this does not mean that a man really lay with her, because if this were so we not give her the waters to drink. Consequently the sequence of events in the passage is as follows: When she goes astray and turns away from the ways of modesty, and a spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of his wife; If afterwards she is concealed long enough to have been defiled, then whether she acted treacherously towards him, for a man to lay with her conjugally and it was hidden from him, or whether a man did not lay with her and she was not defiled, rather he was only jealous of her even though she did not act, then the man shall bring his wife … (Re’m).

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”.

ועבר עליו AND [THE SPIRIT OF JEALOUSY] COME UPON HIM — i.e., had come upon him before her seclusion with the man.

ועבר עליו רוח קנאה, a pure spirit, his wanting to reprimand her after he was aware that she had behaved unchastely.

Before. This implies that the verses are not in order as explained above (on v. 12).

V. 14. ועבר עליו רוח קנאה. Wir haben bereits Schmot S. 203 die Verwandtschaft von קנא mit קנה, etwas zu eigen haben, bemerkt, und erläutert, wie daher g ַקנֵא sein Eigentumsrecht geltend machen, etwas als sein berechtigtes Eigentum fordern, bedeute, daher קנא ב־: an dem andern etwas als sein Eigentum, als eigentlich ihm gebührend, beanspruchen: jemanden um etwas beneiden. קנֵא את אשתו heißt daher: seine Ansprüche auf seine Frau geltend machen, sie als ihm eigen fordern, sie an die Rechte erinnern, die er als Ehemann an ihrer Person habe und sie vor deren Verletzung warnen. So Sota 3 a: אין קנוי אלא לשון התראה und (daselbst 5 b): כיצר רוח קנאה .מקנא לה אומר לה בפני שנים אל תסתרי עם פלוני ist somit das Gefühl, dass er in seinem Gattenrechte durch seine Frau verletzt zu sein oder zu werden fürchtet. Es ist der Verdacht der Untreue. Von diesem רוח קנאה heißt es: ועבר עליו, er ist "von außen" über ihn gekommen, d. h. er ist nicht bloß Innerliches, keine bloße krankhafte Einbildung. Die äußeren Umstände, d. i. das, wie V. 12 vorausgeschickt, von der geziemenden Züchtigkeit jedenfalls abweichende Benehmen seiner Frau, haben ihm diesen Verdacht aufgedrungen, וקנא את אשתו, und er hat seine Frau vor Verletzung ihrer ehelichen Pflichten gewarnt. Mit diesem ועבר עליו וגו׳ ist eine neue Eventualität eingeleitet und zwar liegt das Neue nicht in diesem ועבר עליו וגו׳ וקנא וגו׳. Vielmehr lehrt die Halacha (Sota 3 a), dass auch dem im vorigen Verse besprochenen Falle, der durch die Aussage eines Zeugen zur Entscheidung kommt, קנוי d. i. die vor zweien Zeugen vorzunehmende Warnung der Frau vorangegangen sein müsse. Denn eben diese Warnung und die gleichwohl darauf geschehene קנוי וסתירה ,סתירה zusammen, bilden die indizierenden Momente, רגלים לדבר, die der darauf folgenden טומאה-Aussage eines Zeugen die erforderliche Glaubwürdigkeit verleihen. Das neue, in diesem (V. 14) zur Besprechung kommende Moment bildet vielmehr die Abwesenheit alles und jeden Zeugen der טומאה, wodurch nach vorgängiger קנוי und סתירה es völlig zweifelhaft bleibt, ob נטמאה oder לא נטמאה. Dieser Zweifel ist eben hier in diesem Verse durch die volle Nebeneinanderstellung der beiden möglichen Eventualitäten ausgedrückt: die Frau hat durch ungeziemendes Betragen seinen Verdacht erregt, er hat sie vor סתירה gewarnt, sie hat die Warnung nicht beachtet, ונסתרה und auch ונטמאה; oder die Frau hat durch ungeziemendes Betragen seinen Verdacht erregt, er hat sie vor סתירה gewarnt, sie hat die Warnung nicht beachtet ונסתרה, aber gleichwohl לא נטמאה. Die beiden Sätze V. 13 und 14 ergänzen sich gegenseitig. Das וסתרה des V. 13 setzt die in V. 14 besprochene Warnung, קנוי, voraus, weil nur eine durch zwei Zeugen konstatierte Warnung und ebenso durch zwei Zeugen konstatierte Übertretung derselben hinlängliche Indizien, רגלים לדבר, bilden, um einem עד der טומאה entscheidende Glaubwürdigkeit einzuräumen. Und ebenso ist die in V. 14 besprochene Warnung, קנוי, durch die in V. 13 enthaltene Übertretung derselben, סתירה, zu ergänzen, da eine bloße Warnung ohne konstatierte Übertretung derselben nicht zu einem solchen Zweifel an der fortdauernden טהרה der Frau berechtigt, dass die Fortdauer der Ehe nur von einer göttlichen Entscheidung abhängig gemacht werden müsse.

“she had not been defiled;” the word והיא is spelled with the letter י.

רוח קנאה וקנא [AND] THE SPIRIT OF JEALOUSY [COME UPON HIM] וקנא — Our Rabbis said that it is an expression denoting warning — that he warns her: do not be aside privily with that man (Sotah 3a.)

וקנא את אשתו, he warned her and told her not to seclude herself with the man who was suspected as her lover. Or,

It is not known. Meaning that he neither know she was defiled nor know that she was not defiled as implied by the straightforward understanding of the words “and she was defiled … and she was not defiled”. Because the Torah writes “but it was hidden from her husband’s eyes” and the Rabbis learn that that if he saw that she was defiled then the waters do not examine her.

Das Gesetz stellt sich in der Kürze also heraus: wenn konstatierte Warnung und ebenso konstatierte Übertretung derselben, קנוי וסתירה על פי ב׳ עדים, vorliegen, so genügt ein עד הטומאה, um sie אסורה לבעל zu machen, oder, wenn gar kein Zeuge der טומאה da ist, die Fortdauer der Ehe so lange zu untersagen, als nicht auf die im folgenden vorgeschriebene Unterstellung unter göttliche Entscheidung diese die fortdauernde Reinheit der Frau erklärt hat.

והוא נטמאה או עבר עליו וגו׳ AND SHE BE DEFILED, OR IF [THE SPIRIT OF JEALOUSY] COME UPON HIM [AND SHE WAS NOT DEFILED] — that is to say, he warned her but she disregarded his warning, and it is uncertain whether she has been defiled or not (Sifrei Bamidbar 8).

עבר עליו רוח קנאה, a foolish fit of jealousy, not based on any cause for suspecting her,

In unserem Verse ist also der Satz gegeben, dass, so lange es in Folge der geschehenen סתירה zweifelhaft ist, ob נטמאה oder לא נטמאה, die Frau אסורה לבעלה ist. Sota 28 a u. b wird die hier für die konkrete sittliche טומאה ausgesprochene Folgenschwere selbst des Zweifels, ספק, auf den Zweifel symbolischer טומאה übertragen und die für הל׳ טומאה folgereiche Halacha gelehrt, dass דבר שיש בו דעת לישאל ברשות הרבים ספקו טהור ושאין בו דעת לישראל בין ברשות היחיד בין ברשות הרבים ספקו טהור. Wir haben diese von סוטה entnommene Halacha bereits zu Wajikra 7, 19 — 21 ausführlich erläutert, und bemerken hier nur noch, dass diese Gleichbehandlung dieser beiden טומאות, der geschlechtlich sittlichen, und der symbolischen, ein bedeutsamer Fingerzeig der begrifflichen Identität beider sein dürfte und dem Gedanken Nachdruck verleiht, dass, wie die Anwendung der Begriffe טומאה und טהרה für die Anforderung der Ehe an die sittliche Reinheit das Institut der Ehe als ein מקדש, als ein Heiligtum darstellt, also auch die Übertragung der Beurteilungsweise dieser sittlichen Reinheit auf הל׳ טומאה diese als symbolische Vergegenwärtigung der auf der Basis der sittlichen Freiheit sich erbauenden sittlichen Reinheit begreifen lasse.

והיא לא נטמאה, and she had not become defiled at all; nonetheless she disregarded her husband’s warning and secluded herself with another man. In spite of this, והביא האיש את אשתו, we do not say that seeing that her husband had sat by silently while his wife had behaved unchastely, accusing her in his heart without saying a word, that this is proof of the husband’s bad attitude and we should therefore ignore his jealousy seeing he had allowed matters to get to the point where she had slept with another man; neither do we ignore his jealousy if she had not given him cause as something not worth paying attention to. We still subject her to the destruction (erasing) of the name of G’d (in the procedure the Torah will presently describe) in order to reveal the truth.

קמח implies that it shall not be of fine sifted flour.

HE SHALL POUR NO OIL UPON IT — “so that her offering shall not be enriched, for oil is called light, whereas she acted in darkness. NOR SHALL HE PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON, for the matriarchs are compared to frankincense, as it is said, to the hill of frankincense⁷¹Song of Songs 4:6. [an allegorical expression explained by the Midrash as an allusion to the matriarchs], but this woman turned aside from their [virtuous] ways. FOR IT IS A MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSIES. This flour arouses against her two jealousies — the jealousy of G-d, and the jealousy of her husband.” Thus far is Rashi’s language on the basis of the words of our Rabbis.⁷²Tanchuma Naso 3; Sifre Naso 8.
But in the opinion of all the commentators⁷³Found in Ibn Ezra. [the meaning of the expression] for it is a meal-offering of jealousies is to say that because this meal-offering [of the sotah]⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. is an offering which may bring her punishment [if the charge against her is true], therefore it is of a lesser quality [than all other meal-offerings and is to be brought of] barley without oil and frankincense, for a meal-offering of which the memorial-part is brought to be acceptable before the Eternal, comes of fine wheat-flour with oil and frankincense. But in my opinion the expression for it is a meal-offering of jealousies refers to the beginning of the verse, stating that the husband shall bring the offering for his wife, that is to say, instead of her, for it is a meal-offering of jealousies bringing her iniquity to remembrance. Thus it is not fitting that she should bring it of her own property, but it is he who is to bring the meal-offering to G-d so that He should take note of his suspicions of her, and punish her on his [the husband’s] behalf. And the reason [why this meal-offering comes from] se’orim (barley)⁷⁴The word se’orim (barley) is suggestive of the word sa’ar (storm), as is indicated in the next verse quoted by Ramban. is so that ‘sa’arath’ (a storm of) the Eternal is gone forth in fury, yea, a whirling storm; it shall whirl upon the head of wickedness,⁷⁵Jeremiah 23:19. like the cake of barley bread⁷⁶Judges 7:13. Gideon indeed inflicted later a great defeat upon the Midianite host (ibid., 22-28). mentioned in the story of Gideon, which [one of the Midianites who saw it in a dream] interpreted as referring to a storm (sa’ar) and great confusion [which would break forth upon the camp of the Midianites]. Similarly, the earthen vessel⁷⁷Verse 17. [in which the holy water is put] is a hint that she shall be broken like a potter’s vessel,⁷⁸See Jeremiah 19:11. and likewise the dust [which must be taken from the floor of the Tabernacle and put into the water⁷⁷Verse 17. indicates] that she is dust, and into dust shall she return⁷⁹See Genesis 3:19. [if she is guilty of adultery]. The meaning of the word hu [ki minchath kna’oth ‘hu’ — using the masculine form of “it” in the phrase “it is a meal-offering of jealousies,” when it should have used hi, the feminine form, since the word minchah (meal-offering) is feminine] is because it refers back to the word kemach (flour) [which is mentioned above in the same verse, and the word kemach is masculine]. But this [unusual usage of the masculine here] has a mystical explanation, for further on when the meal-offering is in the hands of the woman⁸⁰Verse 18. Scripture uses the word hi [minchath kna’oth hi — literally: “‘she’ is a meal-offering of jealousies”]. And now fin this verse] Scripture mentions the memorial first, stating that “she” brings iniquity to remembrance.⁸¹The verse here reads: ki minchath kna’oth hu minchath zikaron mazkereth avon [literally: “for a meal-offering of jealousies ‘he’ is, a meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance”], and the meaning thereof is that in this meal-offering there is both judgment and mercy: judgment, if she is guilty, and mercy if innocent. The word hu in this verse thus refers both to kemach and zikaron, which allude to these two attributes. Hence also the word hu is mentioned before zikaron (“memorial”), for “the memorial which brings iniquity to remembrance” surely alludes to the attribute of judgment, and the word hu which is mentioned before “the memorial” therefore alludes to mercy. Further on in Verse 18, however, the text reads: eith minchath hazikaron minchath kna’oth hi. There the word hi (“she”) appears at the end of the whole expression, after hazikaron (“the memorial”), when the meal-offering is in her hands [as the verse states] it is only “judgment” which brings the iniquity to remembrance. See further my Hebrew commentary p. 213.

והביא האיש את אשתו, we do not say that seeing that her husband had sat by silently while his wife had behaved unchastely, accusing her in his heart without saying a word, that this is proof of the husband’s bad attitude and we should therefore ignore his jealousy seeing he had allowed matters to get to the point where she had slept with another man; neither do we ignore his jealousy if she had not given him cause as something not worth paying attention to. We still subject her to the destruction (erasing) of the name of G’d (in the procedure the Torah will presently describe) in order to reveal the truth.

והביא האיש את אשתו אל הכהן, and this man has to bring his wife to the priest, etc. There are several questions we need to answer in the course of this whole paragraph. What does the Torah mean by calling the offering of the Sotah מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון, "a meal-offering of memorial reminder of iniquity?" What did the Torah accomplish with the word זכרון? Why would the offering of a meal-offering consisting of barley as opposed to wheat be designed to be especially memorable, seeing that the Omer, an offering consisting of barley, is offered every year on the second day of Passover? We must also try to understand why the Torah refers to these bitter waters as "holy waters?" What precisely do the waters accomplish and why are they called "holy?" We are told in Sotah 15 that the term "holy" in this instance referred to the fact that the waters were sanctified in the copper basin, כיור. While this is all fine and good, why did they have to be drawn from that basin at all? Moreover, what precisely is the nature of the ספר, the book, in which the priest records the curses which he blots out by dissolving them in the bitter waters (verse 23)? Why does the Sotah have to drink the remains of that book? We can understand that Moses made the Israelites drink the water containing the residue of the golden calf as the kind of pennance described in Jeremiah 2,19, but this situation is hardly parallel. Also, why was it important to have ready loose earth from the Temple floor which had to be added to this water, and such earth could not be freshly dug (verse 17)? Our sages in Sotah 15 also quote a halachah according to which the earth had to be poured into the vessel after it was filled with water and had to float on the water. If the vessel had first been filled with earth the whole procedure was פסול, defective and useless. Why should such a minor detail disqualify the whole procedure and the name of G'd having been written in vain? I find it noteworthy that the Torah did not use the term חוקה in connection with this subject; had the Torah done so it would have prevented us from raising all these questions. I find it strange that the Torah calls the water in question מי המרים, why are they called "bitter?" Sifri claims that these waters were not bitter originally but turned bitter at the time they were used to perform the function described in our paragraph Another explanation is that they were called "bitter" because of the effect they had on the life of a Sotah who was guilty of what her husband suspected and was brazen enough to drink these waters instead of confessing her guilt. On folio 20 of the tractate Sotah the father of the famous teacher Samuel claims that some bitter material had to be added to the water in question. The reason was that since the waters were already called "bitter waters" something really bitter had to be added. This seems quite astounding. Why did the Torah fail to mention this detail?

לא יצוק עליו שמן, “he shall not pour oil over it.” This is to prevent this offering from becoming something “enhanced” as luxury. Nachmanides adds that this is in line with the opinion of the commentators who consider this offering in the nature of a penalty, [although the woman’s status has not yet been determined. Ed.] Proof, according to these commentators, is the fact that the kind of cereal, i.e. barley, basically animal fodder, which is stipulated here is to remind us of the low rank in terms of their spiritual level, of the person offering this meal offering. [Note that although the husband tenders this offering, the Torah describes it as “her offering.” Ed.] By not having oil added to make it tasty, and being prepared from inferior type of cereal, the Torah makes the point that it is not too welcome, according to these commentators. Nachmanides, adds however, that in his own opinion, the expression מנחת קנאות, “a meal-offering of jealousies” refers to the beginning of the verse to remind us that the woman at this stage is presumed guilty, and it would not be appropriate for a guilty person such as she to possess the effrontery to approach G’d with a meal offering from her own funds. The husband offers the meal offering as kind of a mute appeal to Hashem to show that he had not falsely accused his wife, and was entitled to have been jealous of her as a result of her behaviour. The reason why this meal-offering consists basically of barley, i.e שעורים is a play on words, the conduct of that woman regardless of whether she actually committed infidelity, being one that is “hair-raising,” in the sense of שערת השם, provoking G’d’s anger. Seeing that the letter ש with the dot on the left side sounds like the letter ס, her conduct sets of a “storm,” סער of outrage in heaven. The author quotes Jeremiah 23,19 וסער מתחולל על ראש רשעים יחול, “a whirling storm shall whirl down upon the heads of the wicked,” to make his point. He also quotes Judges 7,13 where the צליל שעורים, the loaf of barley bread, in the dream of the Midianite soldier foreshadowed the defeat of his people at the hands of the Israelites. [Additional quotes are provided on the subject. Ed.]

But not of fine flour. Re’m writes that Rashi is informing us of the reason why the Torah excludes fine flour and wheat. For one cannot explain he means to inform us that the words “flour” and “barley” in the verse are there to exclude fine flour and wheat, given that this is obvious. It is something that any schoolchild knows.

V. 15. והביא האיש. Wie im Vorangehenden bemerkt, ist sofort nach konstatierten קנוי und סתירה der Zweifel über die wirklich erfolgte טומאה vorwaltend und die Frau אסורה לבעלה, wenn nicht die hier nun folgende Unterstellung des Zweifels unter göttliches Urteil für den Fortbestand der Ehe entscheidet. Es hängt aber diese Unterstellung unter göttliche Entscheidung völlig von dem beiderseitig freien Willen des Mannes und der Frau ab. Es kann der Mann lieber die Ehe lösen, als die Frau dieser Prüfung unterstellen. Es kann auch die Frau ohne Zugeständnis ihrer Schuld lieber aus der Ehe treten, als sich dieser Prüfung unterziehen. Weder der Mann noch die Frau können dazu gezwungen werden (Sota 6 a). Auch wenn der Mann inzwischen gestorben, wo somit der nächste Zweck, der eventuelle Fortbestand der Ehe weggefallen, wird die Prüfung nicht vorgenommen (Ketubot 81 a) — Die ganze hier vorgeschriebene Behandlung der Frau von zweifelhafter Treue steht übrigens lediglich dem höchsten Gerichtshofe, ב׳׳ד הגדול בירושלים zu (Sota 7 b), dorthin hat somit der Mann die Frau zu führen.

מזכרת עון, “as a reminder of an iniquity committed.” Other types of meal offerings are described as לכפר עון, “to atone for an iniquity committed.” We know of a מנחת חוטא “meal offering of a sinner;” מנחת נדבה “a voluntary meal offering;” these meal offerings are accompanied by oil and לבונה, frankincense, in order for that offering resulting in a pleasant fragrance, ריח ניחוח, in order to remind the Lord of the merits of the donor. Seeing that the mandatory offering discussed here is not intended to remind G–d of the donor’s merits but her husband brings his wife to the priest as an accuser, the offering only serves as a reminder of his sin. [It is not clear yet at this point if the wife was guilty of serious misconduct. Ed.] (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah, folio 15)

והביא את קרבנה, “he will offer her sacrifice;” it is impossible to assume that this offering will bring heratonement, as we have a principle that offerings by confirmed sinners are an abomination. (Proverbs 21,27) What happens here is that the person who had observed the adulterous action originally, without reacting to it and bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities, brings an offering, in order to atone for his sin of omission. By having failed to do so, he was now the cause of the Holy Name of the Lord becoming dissolved in the waters that the woman denying the accusation is made to drink.

It must be שערים BARLEY, and not wheat; because she committed a bestial act, therefore shall her offering consist of that which is food for beasts (Sifrei Bamidbar 8; Sotah 14a).

Identified as light. Meaning that oil is termed יצהר, as the verse writes “Your grain, your wine, יצהרך (your oil)” (Devarim 7:13). This is the same as the terms צוהר (skylight) and צהרים (noon) which refer to light.

We may be able to explain the whole subject of the Sotah in light of what we explained in Parshat Bereshit on the inner structure of the Torah in connection with Genesis 2,1 on the line ויכלו השמים והארץ. We explained there that it is axiomatic that every creature harbours a desire to be re-united with the living G'd, its Creator. This feeling ,- in varying degree-is also present in all things G'd created which possess a spiritual element, something we called a two-tiered intelligence, be it pronounced or almost dormant. G'd equipped each of His creations with sufficient intelligence to ensure its continued existence and to enable it to praise its Creator. This is the true meaning of Proverbs 16,9 that whatever G'd created He made for a purpose that suited Him, (or "for its own good"). We also find that the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 5,4 explain the reason the waters are always perceived as "weeping" is that when G'd separated the upper waters from the lower waters this caused them to weep over their separation, some being confined to an area beneath the earth. The waters which wound up beneath the earth weep and groan seeing that they did not merit to come close to G'd as do the waters in the upper half of the world, something all creatures desire as part of their nature.

'והביא את קרבנה עלי. Alle Pflichtopfer der Frau bringt der Mann (Nedarim 35 b), und spricht sich darin die ganze Innigkeit der in der Ehe bestehenden Einheit der Personen vor Gott aus. Indem somit auch hier der Mann das Opfer der Frau bringt, stellt er seinen Wunsch der Fortdauer dieses Ehebandes Gottes Entscheidung anheim. — Es ist aber dieses Opfer עשירת האיפה קמח שערים, nicht סלת, nicht חטים, sondern קמח, ungesiebtes, somit die gröbste Sorte Mehl, und zwar שעורים, Gerste, die geringste unter den Getreidearten, in der Regel nur zum Futter dienend, מאכל בהמה. Es handelt sich hier um die einfache Existenz, um Sein und Nichtsein, und zwar da der Mann das Mincha der Frau bringt, um Sein oder Nichtsein in der Ehe. Legt ja jedes Mincha in den Mitteln der Nahrung eigentlich den künftigen Menschen, seine Daseinszukunft, Gott huldigend zu Füßen. Nach Sota 14 a ist in שעורים als מאכל בהמה auch dem Zweifel an ihrer sittlichen Menschenwürde Ausdruck verliehen, כשם שמעשי׳ מעשה בהמה כך קרבנה מאכל בהמה, eine Kennzeichnung, die sie ja in jedem Falle verdient, da sie ja jedenfalls, wenn ihre Schuld auch nicht zur vollendeten טומאה gediehen, den reinen Pfad sittlicher Weiblichkeit verlassen (Verse 12 u. 14). לא יצק עליו שמן ולא יתן עליו לבנה, nicht Zeichen des Wohlstandes und nicht Zeichen des Wohlbehagens hat es zu tragen, כי מנחת קנאות הוא מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון, denn der Ernst des Zweifels, dem dies Mincha zum Ausdruck dient und den es zur Entscheidung bringen soll, schließt שמן und לבנה aus. Die zwei Seiten des Zweifels, aus dem heraus dies Mincha gebracht wird, sind in der doppelten Bezeichnung מנחת קנאות und מנחת זכרון ausgedrückt. קנאות: der Mann vindiziert sein Weib, sie soll die Seine bleiben, wenn sie noch die Seine ist, das spricht schon die Tatsache aus, dass er sie zur Entscheidung vor Gott hinführt. Wollte er die Ehe lösen, er hätte dessen nicht bedurft, sie ist ihm אסור, er hat den היתר bei Gott zu suchen. Von anderer Seite ist es: מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון. Wir haben schon zu Wajikra 2, 2 entwickelt, wie der Begriff אזכרה ,זכר, einen wesentlichen Bestandteil der Minchabedeutung bildet. Es wird im Mincha die Existenz des Menschen und, mit שמן und לבנה verbunden, sein Wohlstand und seine Zufriedenheit als Augenmerk der göttlichen Fürsehung begriffen und Gottes segnendes Gedenken dieser Güter des Menschen angestrebt. Hier aber wird das מנחת זכרון zu einem מזכרת עון, es soll der Allwissende die Fortexistenzfrage der Frau in der Ehe nach seinem Bewusstsein von deren Schuld entscheiden und über die Schuldige, wenn schuldig, den Stab brechen. Dies ist die zweite Seite des Zweifels. Es handelt sich da nicht um Verleihung von Wohlstand und Glück: es ist die ernste Grundfrage der Fortdauer des Seins in der Ehe oder des Nichtseins göttlicher Entscheidung zu Füßen zu legen, darum: לא יצק עליו שמן ולא יתן עליו לבנה (vergl. Wajikra 5, 11). כי מנחת קנאות הוא ,הוא: das רש׳׳י) קמח).

קמח שעורים, “of barley flour.” This is a type of flour in which also the husks are mixed in with the kernels. This reflects on the nature of the sin it is to atone for, as it resembles fodder for animals, and the guilty party acted like an animal in its indiscriminate conduct. לא יצוק עליו שמן ולא יתן עליו לבונה, “he shall pour no oil on it, nor is he to put frankincense thereon.” Those ingredients when added to other gift offerings are usually referred to as אזכרה, “remembrance,” as they are to remind the recipient of the offering, the Lord, of the person who has presented it. In this instance it would remind Him of the guilt of the donor of this offering, seeing it is known as a מנחת קנאות, “a meal offering of jealousy,” i.e. instead of pleasant fragrance it exudes only the spirit of jealousy.

לא יצק עליו שמן HE SHALL POUR NO OIL UPON IT, so that her offering shall not be embellished (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 5:11) — and also because oil is called light (it is named יצהר from the root צהר, to give light; see Tanchuma) whilst she acted in darkness (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 3; cf. Sotah 15a).

Furthermore, G'd has demonstrated to us that He desires to have a residence on earth including areas of the waters allocated to man. Due to Adam's sin the earth was cursed and the throne of G'd was removed to higher spheres which meant the simultaneous removal of the source of our blessings to regions farther away from our domain (compare Bereshit Rabbah 19). This situation continued until the revelation at Mount Sinai when G'd once more agreed to take up residence on earth. The signal for this was G'd giving instructions to the Israelites to build a Sanctuary for Him even before they had conquered the land of Canaan. This demonstrated how eager G'd was to have a residence on earth. Had it not been for the sin of the spies and the resultant delay of Israel's conquest of the land of Canaan by almost 40 years, completion of the Tabernacle and Israel's conquering the land of Canaan would have occurred almost simultaneously. When the Jewish people became guilty of abominations even after G'd had resided amongst them for many years, He again had to withdraw His presence and He returned to His former residence in Heaven. If it were not for the sins committed by the Jewish people G'd's residence would remain permanently on earth. When this will occur eventually, it will wipe out the weeping of the "lower" waters and the "shame" of the earth which suffered from G'd's curse. It will cause them to become joyous ushering in a period when these "lovers" will be reunited. If, for some reason, sin will again prevail on earth, G'd will again withdraw from earth causing the waters to express their feelings by weeping. We must remain aware that Israel's exemplary behaviour at Mount Sinai was in itself sufficient to cause G'd's presence to reside on earth and to fill the earth with the knowledge of G'd so that G'd's residing on earth would not be considered as G'd "lowering" Himself from a holier region. On the contrary, earth would be elevated to rank as equal in sanctity to Heaven.

מזכרת עון, it reminds G-d of the guilt of either of the two parties concerned, either the woman who had sinned or her husband who had suspected her unfairly.

ולא יתן עליו לבנה NOR SHALL HE PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON — Because the matriarchs are symbolically termed frankincense, as it is said, (Songs 4:6) “I will get me … to the hill of frankincense” (which is taken as an allusion to the matriarchs), whilst she deviated from their paths (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 3).

You will find that our sages said in Shemot Rabbah 41,7 that the meaning of true freedom, i.e. חרות, is freedom from the angel of death, i.e. the evil urge. The sin of the golden calf was responsible for the angel of death again asserting himself in our lives. Israel's subsequent repentance was not enough to banish the activities of the angel of death other than within certain parts of the confines of the encampment of the Jewish people. In the rest of the world the angel of death operated as it had prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. The era envisaged by the prophet in Zachariah 13 is one when death will have ceased on earth permanently. Earth will then be known as ארץ החיים, living earth, seeing that the angel of death will have been banned.

כי מנחת קנאות הוא, “for it is a meal offering originating from jealousy.” The word הוא, seeing that it is in the masculine mode, refers to the earlier noun קמח, which is a masculine noun. In verse 18, where the expression מנחת קנאות הוא occurs again, it refers to the offering which is from the noun מנחה, a feminine noun.

כי מנחת קנאת הוא FOR IT IS A MEAL OFFERING OF JEALOUSY — i.e., this קמח is a meal offering of jealousy; for the word קמח is masculine and is therefore referred to by the masc. form.

In order to understand the subject of Sotah we must keep all the foregoing in mind. The objective of the whole Sotah legislation is for the husband (priest) to examine his wife in a place where G'd resides. I have already explained elsewhere that this place is called ארץ העליונה, the "higher" earth, on account of G'd having His residence there. It is not included in the part of the earth which had been subjected to G'd's curse as a result of man's sin. Also any of the waters in that area are not subject to "tears," i.e. have not been afflicted by said curse. This is why G'd commanded that "holy waters" be taken for this procedure. Waters which are found in the sacred precincts of the Temple are sacred by definition. This does not contradict the halachah that these waters be taken from the copper basin which serves the priests to wash their hands and feet.

מנחת קנאת A MEAL OFFERING OF JEALOUSY — The plural קנאות is used because it arouses against her two outbreaks of jealousy — the jealousy of the Omnipresent and the jealousy of her husband (Tosefta Sotah 2; Sifrei Bamidbar 8; cf. Rashi’s second comment on איש איש v. 12).

The Torah also commanded the priest to use earth from the floor of the Holy Temple precisely because it is the closest to G'd's residence. The reason that this earth should not now be dug up is also because if it were already at hand it is closer to the site where G'd resides. The closer the earth is to the place where the Shechinah resides, the more its awareness of its proximity to its Creator. Earth from outside the precincts of the Temple would not be as aware of the nearness of G'd. The earth is better able to fulfil what the Creator demands of it once it has "tasted" the proximity of the Lawgiver.

The reason that G'd commanded for the earth to be added to the water and not vice versa is based on the waters having been created before the earth during the process of creation. When our sages decided that if the earth had been in the vessel before the water the whole procedure is null and void, they did not nullify the procedure in the event that both water and earth had been poured into the vessel simultaneously. The reason is that such a procedure still resembles the order of creation when water and solid particles were thoroughly mixed up before G'd created the light. We do not find that earth is ever at the bottom of the source of springwater (מים חיים), however. Rabbi Shimon (Sotah 16) held that it does not matter whether the earth had been placed in the vesel first as long as the water is holy water. He obviously felt that this suffices for both the waters and the earth to be imbued with the appropriate awareness for both elements to perform the task G'd allocated to them as part of the whole procedure.

The Torah commanded to write the portion of the Sotah including the holy name of G'd where it appears in it and to allow the bitter waters to erase these holy names of G'd due to the nature of the water and the earth it contains. The residue of the names of G'd provided the water with the power to produce the desired effect in the woman who drank this water.

The Torah also commanded for the meal-offering of the woman in question to consist primarily of barley, i.e. a reminder of the offering Cain had brought, who had offered something of inferior value. This inferior offering was also an indirect result of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. This it what the Torah means when it speaks of מזכרת עון, "a reminder of sin," i.e. the original sin. It was this original sin which had led to the weeping of the waters and the curse which rests on Earth. When the Sotah drinks this mixture of water, earth and the residue of the holy name of G'd which dissolved in that water, the name of the meal-offering as "reminder of sin" is most appropriate if she has indeed been guilty of marital infidelity. It will recall also earlier sins. When the waters become aware of this they will turn bitter reflecting on their own sorry fate, as we described earlier. These waters will then take their revenge on this woman who has caused them all these tears and they will ruin the woman's intestines. All of this will be accomplished by the power of the holy name of G'd which has been dissolved in these waters. Whoever is familiar with the sin of Eve who had been contaminated by sexual intercourse with the original serpent, and who had thus been disloyal to her husband, will realise that the sin the Sotah is guilty of is indeed the original sin committed by man, i.e. woman. This sin had caused the original light G'd had bestowed on this world to withdraw to the celestial regions. The action of these waters (as well as the earth although the earth has not been mentioned by the Torah as also causing the death of the woman) may be viewed as an attempt to forestall an attack on them. We have a principle that when someone is about to kill you you are to forestall him and kill the attacker first. The kind of sin committed by a Sotah is one which drives G'd from our midst, and it is therefore logical that the water and the earth would react in the manner described by the Torah.

V. 16. לפני ד׳ .והקריב אותה הכהן וגו׳: in dem östlichen Eingang zum Nikanortor, והוא הפתח שבו דרך כניסה ויציאה לכל באי עזרה (Sota 8 a und Raschi daselbst). עמד לפני־ ,העמיד לפני heißt: vor jemandem zu dessen Verfügung stehen, vor jemandem zu dessen Verfügung stellen. Vergleiche oben Kapitel 3, 6 und 27, 19, sowie Kön. I. 17.1 und 18, 15 u. f. So auch hier: sie wird vor Gott zu seiner Entscheidung hingestellt.

והעמידה, “he shall position her;” this means that she will be placed in a position from which she cannot escape. Compare Joshua 10,13: ויעמד השמש בחצי השמים, “the sun stood still when it was at its zenith.”

'והעמידה לפני ה, “he sets her before the Lord.” He said to her: ‘wait here for me until I enter the Temple and return in order to take some earth from there.’ She was not allowed to enter the Temple (in order to save the priest time and effort. Ed.]

מים קדשים HOLY WATER — i.e., water that has become holy through being in the laver. — The water was taken from the laver because that was made of the copper mirrors of the women who had gathered (Exodus 38:8) [at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting] and this woman deviated from their chaste ways. Because they had cherished their husbands’ love in Egypt (cf. Rashi on Exodus 38:8), while this woman depravedly gave herself over to another, she was to be examined through it (Bamidbar Rabbah 9 :14).

מים קדושים, the waters from the basin in front of the sanctuary.

ולקח הכהן מים קדושים בכלי חרש ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן, “the Priest is to take sacred water in an earthenware vessel, and he shall take from the earth that is at the floor of the Tabernacle, etc.” Why does he have to take water? Because water symbolises the Heaven (the “upper waters”) and from the floor of the Tabernacle, as this symbolises dust, Earth. We have been taught in Sotah 17 that Rava, commenting on the requirement of dust in connection with the procedure involving the Sotah, the woman suspected of marital infidelity, claims that in the event the woman is found innocent (as she claims) she will bear a son similar to Avraham who said of himself: “I am dust and ashes” (Genesis 18,27). If the woman in question was guilty, however, her fate, i.e. death, will be that she returns to “dust.” Thus far the Talmud.

V. 17. מים קדושים: von dem im כיור zum קדוש ידים ורגלים der Priester geheiligten Wasser (Schmot 30, 18 — 21). אשר יהי׳ בקרקע המשכן, ist keine solche Erde dort, so muss deren ins Heiligtum, in den היכל gebracht und dort zuvor auf den Boden geschüttet werden (Sota 15 b). קרקע: von רקע wie כרכוב von רקע ברגלך ,רקע .רכב (Ezech. 6, 11) רקעך ברגל (daselbst 25, 6), mit den Füßen fest auftreten, stampfen, davon erst die Bedeutung: glatt drücken, hämmern, und dadurch dehnen. קרקע also ganz eigentlich der vom Menschen betretene Boden, Fußboden. So wiederholt von dem Fußboden des Tempels Kön. I, 6. Jedoch auch allgemein, so: קרקע הים (Amos 9, 3). Im היכל des Tempels hob der Priester eine dazu bestimmte Marmorplatte aus dem Fußboden und nahm von der darunter befindlichen Erde (Sota 15 b). — ונתן אל המים nicht: במים, sondern כדי שיראה על המים :אל המים, es wird nicht wie אפר פרה in מים חיים Kap. 19, 17) in das Wasser durch Einrühren gemischt, sondern es bleibt auf) dem Wasser sichtbar, אל המים כדי שיראה על המים ,הקדים עפר למים פסול (Sota 15 b und 16 b).

ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן, “and from the soil on the floor of the Tabernacle, etc.” we have learned in a Mishnah in tractate Sotah folio 15, that the priest when entering the Sanctuary would turn to his right, and that close by there was a spot one cubit by one cubit, to which a slab of marble would be permanently attached by means of rings, from which the priest by lifting that slab would take the earth to be mixed with the water that this woman would be made to drink from.

בכלי חרש IN AN EARTHEN VESSEL — She gave the adulterer excellent wine to drink in valuable goblets, therefore she shall drink the bitter water in a common earthenware cup. (Sotah 9a.)

Dort, beim מי חטאת, wird dem durch Leichenberührung טמא gewordenen durch הזית מי חטאת zum Bewusstsein gebracht, dass: obgleich אפר, obgleich einst seinem Leibe nach der Asche der Verwesung verfallend, sein Grundwesen doch מים חיים, doch ein unsterblicher Tropfen aus dem Quell des ewigen Lebens sei (siehe Kap. 19, 17). Hier bei סוטה wird der der sittlichen טומאה Verdächtigen die Wahrheit entgegengebracht, dass obgleich עפר, obgleich ihr irdischer Leib seiner Natur und Bestimmung zufolge, wie die מים mütterliche Fruchterde mit physischen Mutterkräften und Trieben begabt, dennoch קדושים,

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy