Halakhah sur Les Nombres 5:33

The Sefer Hachinuch (425) writes that if someone has the opportunity to kill a member of the seven Canaanite nations without endangering himself, failing to do so violates the mitzvah to destroy them (Devarim 7:10). The Minchat Chinuch (a commentary on the Sefer Hachinuch) finds the Sefer Hachinuch's ruling puzzling. Why should this mitzvah only apply when there is no danger involved? Although most mitzvot do not require that we sacrifice our lives to fulfill them, here the Torah requires us to do battle with the seven nations. It is understood, the Minchat Chinuch points out, that the Torah's laws do not assume that a miracle will occur (as explained by the Ramban's comments to Bemidbar 5:20 and 13:2). Since the normal course of the world is that people die in battle, we see that the Torah commands us to fight with the seven nations even at risk to ourselves.²Although the Minchat Chinuch concludes with an expression of some doubt, a number of Acharonim do embrace his argument, including Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (Meromei Sadeh, Eruvin 45a and Kiddushin 43a) and Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (Parshat Beshalach, p. 32; cited by Rav J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Probems 3:296-297).

LAWS CONCERNING A WOMAN SUSPECTED (BY HER HUSBAND) OF INFIDELITY.
These comprise three precepts, of which one is an affirmative precept, while two are negative precepts. They are, in detail, as follows: 1) to do unto the woman suspected of infidelity according to "the law of jealousy" set forth in the Torah (Num. 5:11-31); 2) not to put oil on her offering; 3) not to put frankincense on it.

Rav Shlomo Zalman (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:91:24) maintains that we withhold these extreme life-saving measures if so requested by the gosseis. He adds that although this is permissible, it is preferable to explain to the patient that Torah philosophy advocates living as long as possible even if one experiences pain, as is indicated by the Mishnah in the context of a sotah³The Torah states that a sotah (woman suspected of adultery, see Bemidbar 5:11-31) who is found guilty will die a hideous death. However, if she has “merit,” Hashem will grant her a few extra years of life, during which she will slowly deteriorate and experience difficult illness. This indicates that it is preferable to die a slow and painful death rather than die immediately, as the Mishnah teaches that the extra years of life involving great suffering result from merit. (Sotah 3:4; also see Rambam Hilchot Sotah 3:20) and the Mishnah (Avot 4:22) that states, “One hour of teshuvah and good deeds in this world is better than all of the world to come.”⁴See, however, Ketubot 33b, Sotah 46b, Rashi’s comments to Shemot 15:5 s.v. Kemo Even, Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 2:174:3, and Rav Hershel Schachter’s B’ikvei Hatzon 34 for situations in which it seems it is preferable to die immediately rather than suffer a prolonged, painful death.

Every commandment of the Law, both positive and negative, if a man transgresses one of them through error or deliberately, if he repents and returns from his sins he is enjoined to confess before God, may His name be exalted, as it is written, “When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to commit a trespass … then they shall confess their sin” (Num. 5:6). This is a verbal confession and it involves a positive commandment. In what manner does one confess? He says, “I pray, O Lord, I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have transgressed before Thee, such and such have I done, and behold I am sorry, I am ashamed of my actions and I will never return to this thing.”¹Maimonides, Hilkhoth Teshuvah, 1:1. This is the essence of the confession. And he who adds to his confession and elaborates in the matter is all the more praiseworthy.²Yoma, 84b. And so sinners and the guilty at the time that they bring sacrifices for their sins and for their errors are not forgiven until they do penance and make a verbal confession, as it is written, “And he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned” (Lev. 5:5). And so all those under sentence of death by the court and those subject to lashes, their death and flagellation does not obtain forgiveness for them unless they do penance and confess.³Sanhedrin 43b. And so he who wounds his neighbor or does damage to his neighbor even though he has paid him that which was due him is not atoned for until he confesses and returns from ever doing this again, as it is written, “Any sin that men commit” (Num. 5:6).⁴Yalkut Shimoni, ed. Horeb, Numbers, par. 701, p. 444. The goat that is to be sent away⁵Lit “The goat to be sent away.” The scapegoat used for the Yom Kippur ritual sent into the wilderness carrying the sins of the people. (See Leviticus 16:8.) atones for all transgressions in the Torah, light ones and more serious ones, both if the person transgressed in error and if he transgressed deliberately, both if it was made known to him or not made known to him, all is expiated for by the goat that is sent away and this all applies only when he does penance. But if he has not done penance the goat does not atone except for the light ones.⁶J. T. Shebuoth 1:6. And which are the light ones and which are the more serious ones? The more serious ones are those for which one is guilty of the death penalty or of excision (from Israel). A needless oath and a false oath, even though excision is not applicable, are considered among the more serious ones. And all other positive commandments and negative commandments which do not involve excision are regarded as light ones. And in our day when the Holy Temple no longer exists and we have no atonement through the altar there is nothing left but penance. Penance atones for all transgressions. Even if a man has been wicked all his days and has done penance at the end, his wickedness is not counted, as it is written, “And as for the wickedness of the wicked he shall not stumble thereby in the day thereby he turneth from his wickedness” (Ezek. 33:12).⁷Kiddushin 40b. And the gravity of the Day of Atonement atones for penitents, as it is written, “For on this day shall atonement be made for you” (Lev. 16:30).⁸Yoma 85b. Even though repentance atones and the gravity of the Day of Atonement atones, there are transgressions which obtain forgiveness only after a time.⁹Ibid., 86a. How so? A man has transgressed a positive commandment not involving excision and has done penance he does not go away from there until he is forgiven. Concerning these (such transgressors) it is said, “Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings” (Jer. 3:22). If a man has transgressed a negative commandment which does not involve excision and capital punishment and has repented, the repentance suspends judgement and the Day of Atonement atones. Concerning this it is said, “For on this day shall atonement be made” (Lev. 16:30). If he has transgressed in a matter involving excision and capital punishment and has done penance, penance and the Day of Atonement suspend judgement and the tribulations that visit him conclude the expiation, and he never does obtain full forgiveness until tribulation comes upon him. Concerning them (such transgressors) Scripture says, “Then will I visit their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with strokes” (Ps. 89:33). When does this apply? Only when he did not profane the Name when he transgressed, for example, he committed the transgression in secret (is expiation possible), but profaning the Name publicly, even though he has done penance and the Day of Atonement has arrived and he stands yet within his penance and tribulation has visited him, not even all of these are able to cleanse his wrong so as to obtain (for him) full forgiveness, except that he die. Repentance, the Day of Atonement and tribulations, these three only suspend judgement but death cleanses and atones, as it is said, “And the Lord of hosts revealed Himself in mine ears” (Isa. 22:14).
What is complete penance? (It is illustrated by) one to whom a transgression has presented itself which he has already transgressed and he has the opportunity to do it again but has withdrawn and has not done it because of the penance and not because of fear or weakness. How so? Behold one who has cohabited illicitly with a woman and later has been left alone again with her and has had the opportunity to do it again, and he has been still steadfast in his love for her and has been able to do it, but has subdued his passion and has not transgressed, he is a complete penitent. Concerning this one Solomon said, “Remember then thy Creator in the days of thy youth” (Eccl. 12:1).¹⁰Abodah Zarah 19a. And if he has not returned except in his old age and at the time when it is no longer possible because of his failing strength, to do that which he was able to do in his youth, even though this is not the best penance it avails, and he is regarded as a penitent. And even though he has transgressed all his life and at the end, at the time of his death, he has repented and he has died penitent, all of his transgressions are forgiven him,¹¹Kiddushin 40b. as it is said, “Before the sun and the light … are darkened” (Eccl. 12:2), which is the day of death, from which we can deduce that if he remembers his Creator before death he is forgiven. And what is this repentance? That the sinner forsake his sin and remove evil thoughts from his heart, and resolve in his heart to do it (the evil) no more, as it is said, “Let the wicked forsake his way” (Isa. 55:7). Let him repent and regret his previous sins, as it is written, “Surely after that I was turned I repented” (Jer. 31:18); and let him say, “I give testimony concerning myself before Him Who knows all hidden things, that I will not return to this sin ever; as it is written, “Neither will we call anymore the work of our hands our gods” (Hos. 14:4).¹²The Zohar, ed. Soncino, V, 334, 335. And in keeping with the paths of repentance it would have been proper for him to cry continuously before God with weeping and supplications, do charity according to his ability, further himself greatly from the things wherein he sinned, change his name, that is to imply, that “I am another and not that man who did those evil things,” and he changes his actions for the good to rear himself in the upright path. He imposes exile upon himself because exile atones for transgression, it subdues him and causes him to become humble and meek. And it is most praiseworthy for the penitent to confess publicly and let his sin be known and reveal his sin that is between him and his neighbor to others, saying to them, “I have sinned against so and so and such and such have I done to him and this day I return and do penance.” And the proud who do not make known but conceal their sins, their repentance is not complete, as it is written, “He that covereth his transgression shall not prosper; but who so confesseth and forsaketh shall obtain mercy” (Prov. 28:13). In what case (who so confesseth … shall obtain mercy)? Only (in cases) concerning transgressions between man and man, but involving those between man and his Master, he does not need to publicize them. It is insolence on his part if he has revealed it to another; instead he returns to his Creator, blessed be He, and enumerates his sins before Him but confesses them before the congregation inexplicitly, (saying) “I have sinned.” It is best that he not reveal his transgressions, “Happy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is pardoned” (Ps. 32:1).¹³Rashi, Yoma 21a.

(Kof) “Robbing an ordinary person is more severe than robbing the Most High, (i.e., taking consecrated property). As with [robbing an ordinary person, the Torah] has sin precede me’ilah (trespass), [whereas with robbing the Most High], it has me’ilah preceding sin.” With robbing an ordinary person, it is written (Lev. 5:21), “If any one sin, and commit a trespass, etc.” But with one who misuses consecrated items, it is written (Lev. 5:15), “If any one trespasses in misuse (timol ma’al) and sins unwittingly, etc.” And this is a statement of Rabbi Levi in the chapter [entitled] HaSfina (Bava Batra ).⁵⁸Only the first part of this appears in our standard text of the Talmud, but the meaning is the same. And it requires explanation – as [just] because it had sin precede me’ilah, [does that mean] it is more severe? As both [terms] appear in both. And it appears to me that it can be explained according to that which is written by Rabbi Yitschak Arama in Parashat Chukkat of Akeidat Yitschak, that even the most complete person sins in something, etc. Indeed, he is compelled by his nature, as the verse states (Ecclesiastes 7:20), “For there is no man who is righteous in the world [… who does not sin].” But when it is in the manner of either being from the light sins or after complete repentance, he will certainly not be punished; as the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 12b) “I am He before he sins, and I am He after he sins and repents.”⁵⁹The Talmud (the wording of which is slightly different than the quote) is referring to God’s attributes of mercy in Exod. 34:6). However we do not understand from this that no sinner is ever punished. As even though – in his not being God – he is compelled to sin, he is not compelled to wallow in sin and have it become habitual. See there. And [so] it is elucidated that man is not fitting to be punished for sinning, since he is compelled to it – and especially if it is from the lighter sins. Rather the main punishment comes in his wallowing in it and making it habitual, and not repenting. As anyone [can repent]; as it is written (Deut. 30:11), “it is not a wonder […] and not distant, etc.” – and the Sages, may their memory be blessed, say this is referring to repentance.⁶⁰The first known source for this is actually Ramban on this verse. And that is because while the [fulfillment of all the] actual commandments [is] a wonder for man and distant from him since he is a man and not divine, and is [so] compelled to sin – especially with the lighter sins – he is not compelled to wallow in them and make them habitual. And he needs to regret and repent, [as] the commandment of repentance is not a wonder and distant. And it is because of this that Rabbi Levi decides that stealing from an ordinary person is more severe than from the Most High. For with stealing from the Most High, [the Torah] had trespass precede sin; as since it is from the lighter sins, it is not called a sin for a man, given that “there is no man who is righteous in the world who only does good.” And the main sin [here] is because he wallows in it and does not immediately regret [it] after doing it. And that is why it has trespass before sin; as the sin is [afterwards] when he does not regret [it]. For this reason, it is written (Num. 5:7), “and they shall confess,”⁶¹In another section dealing with misusing sanctified property. such that they shall repent. But the trespass itself is not in the category of sin, since man is compelled to do such a light sin; which is not the case with robbing an ordinary person. [As] that is more severe, since a man can withstand [its temptation]. Even though he is not divine, he is not compelled to rob his fellow – [something that is] in the category of friendship and brotherhood. Hence with robbing an ordinary person, the trespass itself is the sin. And for this reason it had sin precede trespass.

And that is that He commanded us to send away the impure from the camp. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "that they remove from camp anyone with tsaraat or a discharge" (Numbers 5:2). And this camp is the camp of the Divine Presence, outside of which are the compartments of the courtyard - as we explained at the beginning of the Order, Tahorot, in the Commentary on the Mishnah. And it is written in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 1:1), "'That they remove from camp' - this is a prohibition for the impure not to enter the Temple while impure." And this command was already repeated with a different language, "If anyone among you has been rendered unclean by a nocturnal emission, he must leave the camp" (Deuteronomy 23:11) - meaning the camp of the Divine Presence. And the language of the Mekhilta is, "'Instruct the Israelites that they remove from camp' is a positive commandment. From where [do we know that] it is a negative commandment? 'And they shall not defile the camp' (Numbers 5:3)." And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 255:4), "'He must leave the camp' - that is a positive commandment." (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 3.)

The apparent incongruity in Rabad's position is explained by the late Rabbi Kook in his Mishpat Kohen, no. 96. Throughout the period in which the Temple stood, the Temple site was possessed of two distinct forms of sanctity: sanctity by virtue of the fact that it was the "encampment" of the Shekhinah, and a second sanctity associated with the "walls" of the Temple structure. Rabbi Bezalel Zolti, Torah She-be-'al Peh (5728), X, draws essentially the same distinction and asserts that historically these two different sanctifications occurred at two distinct times: the Temple structure was sanctified by King Solomon, whereas the site was sanctified as the "encampment" of the Shekhinah by King David many years before the Temple was actually built. Punishment of karet is prescribed for defilement of the Temple itself, i.e., the physical structure, as indicated in Numbers 19:20, "That person shall be cut off from the midst of the community for he has defiled the Temple of God." The second prohibition, carrying with it a lesser punishment, reads "And they shall not defile their encampment in the midst whereof I dwell" (Num. 5:3). The latter reference makes no mention of the sanctity of the "walls" but refers to the sanctity of the "encampment." Rabad's position, then, is that the sanctity of the "walls" lapsed with the destruction of the Temple, whereas the sanctity of the "encampment" continues and is in no way abrogated by the destruction of the Temple walls. Consequently, even according to Rabad, the prohibition "They shall not defile their encampment," forbidding a person who has become ritually impure to enter the Temple Mount, remains in force even in our day.

And these are all the types of meal-offerings that they would offer at the time of the [Temple] that come on their own - meaning to say that they do not come as meal-offerings of libations, meaning in the context of another sacrifice: There are three meal-offerings that come for the sake of the entire community and they are (Menachot 68b) the omer of Pesach, the two breads of [Shavouot] and the bread of display of each Shabbat - and the three of them are called, 'mincha.' And there are nine of the individual and these are them: 1) The meal-offering of a sinner - and that is the meal-offering that a poor person offers when he is liable for a sin-offering, but his hand does not reach [a more expensive sacrifice]; 2) the meal-offering of the sotah, which is the meal-offering of jealousy that is written in Parshat Nasso (Numbers 5:15); 3) the meal-offering that every priest offers when he enters the service that he offers in his hand, and this is called the meal-offering of inauguration; 4) the meal-offering that the high priest offers every day, and it is called the griddled meal-offering; 5) the meal-offering of fine flour, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 6) the meal-offering of the griddle, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 7) the meal-offering of the pan, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 8) the oven-baked meal-offering that is loaves, and it comes as an oath or a vow; 9) the oven-baked meal-offering that comes soaked in oil, and it comes as an oath or a vow. From these meal-offerings, some of them are fine wheat flour and some are barley; some of them are eaten by the priests except for the handful and some are all burnt. And one of them is chamets and that is the two breads of the day of Shavouot, as they are also called 'mincha,' but they are not offered on top of the altar. And it was not stated in the Torah about the two breads, when it more generally forbade, "Any meal-offering that you offer to the Lord, you shall not make chamets" (Leviticus 2:11). [Rather,] it specified these and excluded them from the rule. And about them is it stated there (Leviticus 2:12), "A first sacrifice shall you bring them to the Lord" - meaning to say, with these I did not prohibit chamets to you. And nonetheless, they would not go up on the altar, since there was chamets in them, and as it is stated about them, "upon the altar they shall not be brought up as a pleasing smell." And all of the rest was matsa. And the order of their bringing was thus (Sotah 14b): A man brings fine flour from his house in a vessel of silver or gold or of [another] metal and carries it to the priest; and the priest carries it to the altar, [he] skims a handful from it with the tips of his fingers and incinerates the handful; and the rest is eaten by the priests. This is the order of those eaten. And the order of those burned; the processes done with meal-offerings by non-priests and those done [only] by priests; and the rest of its details are elucidated in the tractate that is built upon this, and that it Tractate Menachot.

That is that He commanded us that the sapling of the fourth year be completely holy. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "all its fruit shall be holy for jubilation before the Lord" (Leviticus 19:24). And its law is that one brings it up to Jerusalem and its owners eat it there, exactly like the second tithe. And the priests do not have any [portion] in it, as it is stated (Numbers 5:10), "And every man will have his consecrated things." Scripture drew all of the consecrated things and gave them to the priest. The only [ones] left over from them were the thanks-offering, the peace-offerings, the Pesach-offering, the animal tithe, the second tithe and the fourth year sapling - which are the owners'. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the last chapter of Maaser Sheni. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 9.)

“Bring ye the whole tithe into the storehouse etc.… And try Me now herewith” (Mal. 3:10). So important is tithing, that here the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Try Me,” unlike all other instances where it is forbidden to test Him, for it is written “Ye shall not try the Lord your God” (Deut. 6:16).¹Taanith 9a. That tithe alluded to is the poor man’s tithe, to give to the poor a tithe from everything wherein a person profits, whether from interest or his own hire or from anything which comes to a person profitably. If he found or they returned to him goods stolen from him,²Valuables that he had given up for lost. he must tithe, as it is written in Scripture.³The words “whole tithe” is taken to imply all sorts of revenue accruing from all sources, foreseen and unforeseen. (Perush.) For Israel had not yet been among the nations of the world lending at interest.⁴The Bible does not mention income from interest since it was then not prevalent. Woe unto them that withhold their tithes, for ultimately nothing will remain in their hands but the poor man’s tithe, as it is written, “And everyman’s hallowed things shall be his” (Num. 5:10).⁵Berakoth 63a.

That is that He commanded us about the law of the sotah (suspected adulteress). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "if a man’s wife has gone astray" (Numbers 5:12). And the regulations of this commandment - how she is made to drink, how she offers her sacrifice and her [other] stipulations besides this - have all already been explained in Tractate Sotah. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Woman Suspected of Infidelity 3)

The commandment of the fourth year plant: That the fourth year plant be completely holy - the explanation [of which] is that all fruits that come out of the tree in the fourth year from its planting are holy; meaning to say, that they are eaten by the owners in Jerusalem, like the second tithe, and that is their holiness - as it is stated (Leviticus 19:23-24), "and you shall plant any food tree[...] And in the fourth year all of its fruit shall be holy, for praising to the Lord." And the explanation comes about it that it is for the owners - and the explanation of praising is that the owners should eat it in Jerusalem, and that is rejoicing. And the Sages called it the fourth year plant, in every place. And in Sifrei Bamidbar 6:1, it expounds that the fourth year plant is for the owners, from that which is written (Numbers 5:10), "And a man's consecrated things shall be his." As they said there, "'A man's consecrated things, etc.' - it pulled back all of the consecrated things and gave them to the priests; and there is nothing remaining for them except for the thanksgiving-offering, the peace offering, the Pesach offering, the animal tithe, the second tithe and the fourth year plant, which are for the owners.

And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And even though rest on the festival is from the positive commandments determined by time - since there is also the prohibition of a negative commandment in the doing of work, women are liable for it from the principle that is in our hands (Kiddushin 35a): "'A man or a woman, if they do from any of the sins of a person' (Numbers 5:6) - the verse equated a man and a woman for all of the punishments in the Torah." And one who transgresses it and did work on this day has violated a positive commandment, besides that he violated a negative commandment, as we shall write in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 323) with God's help.

The commandment to send the impure out of the camp of the Divine Presence: To send away the impure from the camp of the Divine Presence, as it is stated (Numbers 5:2), "Command the Children of Israel, and they shall send from the camp anyone with an eruption or a discharge and anyone impure of a soul." And until where was the boundary of the camp of the Divine Presence was known to them in the wilderness. And so [too,] in the [future] generations, the Temple and the whole yard which is in front of it is called the camp of the Divine Presence (Zevachim 116b), and it is included in this commandment. And they said in Sifrei Bamidbar 1 that "and they shall send from the camp" is a warning (negative commandment) to the impure not to enter the Temple. And they said in Pesachim 68a, [that] "He shall exit to outside the camp" (Deuteronomy 23:11) is a positive commandment. And this commandment is [indeed] repeated in another place, "If there be among you a man who will not be pure of a nocturnal emission, he shall exit to outside the camp." And its explanation (Pesachim 68a) is [that it means] outside the camp of the Divine Presence. And, likewise, this itself is repeated, as it went back and stated (Numbers 5:3), "and send them out of the camp." And I have already written (Sefer HaChinukh 228) that the repetition of prohibitions within a [single] commandment indicates a little bit of the stringency of the commandment; as God wanted for the benefit of His creatures to warn them and go back and warn them about it. [It is like] the way of people that they warn each other many times about all things that have a great need. And if we have nonetheless found [important] bodies of the Torah stated by clues, everything is for a correct reason.

The commandment to send the impure out of the camp of the Divine Presence: To send away the impure from the camp of the Divine Presence, as it is stated (Numbers 5:2), "Command the Children of Israel, and they shall send from the camp anyone with an eruption or a discharge and anyone impure of a soul." And until where was the boundary of the camp of the Divine Presence was known to them in the wilderness. And so [too,] in the [future] generations, the Temple and the whole yard which is in front of it is called the camp of the Divine Presence (Zevachim 116b), and it is included in this commandment. And they said in Sifrei Bamidbar 1 that "and they shall send from the camp" is a warning (negative commandment) to the impure not to enter the Temple. And they said in Pesachim 68a, [that] "He shall exit to outside the camp" (Deuteronomy 23:11) is a positive commandment. And this commandment is [indeed] repeated in another place, "If there be among you a man who will not be pure of a nocturnal emission, he shall exit to outside the camp." And its explanation (Pesachim 68a) is [that it means] outside the camp of the Divine Presence. And, likewise, this itself is repeated, as it went back and stated (Numbers 5:3), "and send them out of the camp." And I have already written (Sefer HaChinukh 228) that the repetition of prohibitions within a [single] commandment indicates a little bit of the stringency of the commandment; as God wanted for the benefit of His creatures to warn them and go back and warn them about it. [It is like] the way of people that they warn each other many times about all things that have a great need. And if we have nonetheless found [important] bodies of the Torah stated by clues, everything is for a correct reason.

That an impure person not enter the entire Temple: That any impure person is prevented from entering the entire Temple - the likeness of which in the [future] generations is all of the yard from Nikanor Gate and inwards, which is the beginning of the yard of the Israelites - as it is stated (Numbers 5:3), "and they will not render your camps impure" - meaning to say the camp of the Divine Presence. And the proof of this being among the negative commandments is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara (Makkot 14b), "One who enters the Temple while impure [is liable for excision], as both the punishment and the warning are written [in the Torah.] The punishment is written (Numbers 19:13) 'the Tabernacle of God he has defiled and he shall be cut off.' The warning is written (Numbers 5:3) 'and they will not render your camps impure.'" And they also said in the Mekhilta (Sifrei Zuta on Bamidbar 5:3), "'Command the Children of Israel, and they shall send from the camp' - [that is] a positive commandment. From where do we derive [the] negative commandment? Since it is written, 'and they will not render your camps impure.'" And they said in Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Section 1 1), "Since it is stated (Leviticus 15:31), 'And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness[...],' I might understand, whether from its midst or from its back," meaning to say that one who approaches the Temple from its back while he is impure would be liable for excision; "it is, therefore, written in respect to a yoledet (a woman after childbirth) (Leviticus 12:4), 'and into the sanctuary she shall not come,'" meaning to say the expression of coming is only about one who enters from the front. And there it is elucidated that the law of a yoledet and the other [cases of] impurity are the same regarding this.

The commandment of confession of sin: We are commanded to confess before God our sins that we have sinned, at such time that we feel remorse for them. And this is the content of confession: to say at the time of repentance, "Please, God, I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled [in] such and such," meaning to say that he mention the sin that he did explicitly with his mouth. He should [then] seek atonement for it and extend his words in this matter according to his fluency. And they, may their memory be blessed, said that even sins that require the bringing of a sin-offering still demand confession with the offering, and about this it states (Numbers 5:6), "Speak to the children of Israel [saying], a man or woman who commits from any of the sins of man and rebels against the Lord, that soul is guilty and they shall confess the sins that they did." [The Sages] said in the Mekhilta (Sifrei Zuta on Numbers 5:6), "Since it says 'confess the sin' (Leviticus 5:5) it means that the sin must be extant, that is that the sin-offering is alive and not slaughtered." This mean that the animal to be offered must still be alive. They also said there, "We see that one must confess if he renders impure the Temple and its holy things. From where do you know to include all other commandments?" That is that this verse in Parshat Vayikra only [discusses] one who renders impure the Temple and its holy things; from where do you know to include all other commandments? "As it is written, 'Speak to the children of Israel, etc. and they should confess.'" That is, that we expound the verse as if it is not written about a specific thing. "And from where do we know that its understanding [includes sins that are punishable by] death and excision? Since it is stated about the confession of Aharon in Acharei Mot (Leviticus 16:16 'for all their sins'." [The Sages], may their memory be blessed, expounded [on this verse] to include negative commandments; and 'that they did' which is written here to include positive commandments, meaning to say that if he does not do a positive commandment that he could have done, he is obligated to confess about it. And they further expounded there in the Mekhilta, "'From any of the sins of man' - from that which is between him and his fellow, theft, robbery and evil speech." And this confession truthfully requires that he return the '[theft] that is in his hands,' as if he does not do so it would be better not to confess about it. "'To rebel' includes all those sentenced to death who must [also] confess. I might have thought to include even those convicted by false witnesses"; that is, even though he knows that he did not sin, except that false testimony was testified against him, that he be obligated to confess about this. "Hence the verse teaches, 'soul [that] is guilty' - I only said when there is guilt there, but not when he knows that he did not sin, except false testimony was testified against him. Hence we understand that [for] all iniquities, large and small - even positive commandments - a man is obligated to confess about them.

The commandment of the suspected adulteress (sotah) for the husband to bring her to the priest and that he do to her according to the statute that is written: To bring the sotah woman to the priest, so that he do to her according to the statute that is written about her in the [relevant] section of the Torah. And the matter of the sotah is explained in Scripture - that she is a woman whose husband has become jealous about her. And they, may their memory be blessed, have already explained (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 5) what is [the meaning of] the expression, sotah, [that it is] meaning to say, she wandered from her husband - as most jealousy comes from the reason of the woman's licentiousness. And hence she is called a "sotah from her husband," since he is jealous about her. And the Scripture that teaches about this commandment is "If any man's wife stray, etc. And he shall bring his wife to the priest" (Numbers 5:12-15).

And there are women that do not drink even though they and their husbands want [it]. And they are fifteen women and these are them: a raped woman (see note), and one waiting to preform levirate marriage, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "underneath (tachat) her husband" - and these are not yet underneath a husband; a minor [who is] the wife of an adult, as it is written, "whereby a woman strays" - and this one is not yet a woman; an adult [who is] the wife of a minor, as it is written, "underneath her husband (literally, man)" - and this one is not yet a man; the wife of a man of unclear sex (androginos), as it is written, "her man" - and this one is not completely a man; the wife of a blind man, as it is written (Numbers 5:13), "and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband" - and this one has no eyes; a lame woman, as it is written (Numbers 5:18), "And the priest will make the woman stand" - and this one is not able to stand; one who does not have a palm of the hand, as it is written, "and he gives into her palms" - and this one does not have a palm; so [too] if her hand is crooked or paralyzed, such that she can only only take it with one hand alone, she does not drink, as it is written, "into her palms"; a mute, as it is written (Numbers 5:22), "and the woman says"; one who does not hear, as it is written (Numbers 5:19) "and he says to the woman"; so [too,] [if] he be lame or stump-armed or mute or deaf, and so [if] she is blind, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "a woman tachat her husband" (here, the word, tachat, is understood as, corresponding to) - until she be complete like he, and he like her. [These] and the rest of all its details, the order of the drinking of the sotah and which angles does the water test and which angles does it not test is all well elucidated in the Tractate that is built on it, and that is Tractate Sotah (see Tur, Even HaEzer 148).

And there are women that do not drink even though they and their husbands want [it]. And they are fifteen women and these are them: a raped woman (see note), and one waiting to preform levirate marriage, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "underneath (tachat) her husband" - and these are not yet underneath a husband; a minor [who is] the wife of an adult, as it is written, "whereby a woman strays" - and this one is not yet a woman; an adult [who is] the wife of a minor, as it is written, "underneath her husband (literally, man)" - and this one is not yet a man; the wife of a man of unclear sex (androginos), as it is written, "her man" - and this one is not completely a man; the wife of a blind man, as it is written (Numbers 5:13), "and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband" - and this one has no eyes; a lame woman, as it is written (Numbers 5:18), "And the priest will make the woman stand" - and this one is not able to stand; one who does not have a palm of the hand, as it is written, "and he gives into her palms" - and this one does not have a palm; so [too] if her hand is crooked or paralyzed, such that she can only only take it with one hand alone, she does not drink, as it is written, "into her palms"; a mute, as it is written (Numbers 5:22), "and the woman says"; one who does not hear, as it is written (Numbers 5:19) "and he says to the woman"; so [too,] [if] he be lame or stump-armed or mute or deaf, and so [if] she is blind, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "a woman tachat her husband" (here, the word, tachat, is understood as, corresponding to) - until she be complete like he, and he like her. [These] and the rest of all its details, the order of the drinking of the sotah and which angles does the water test and which angles does it not test is all well elucidated in the Tractate that is built on it, and that is Tractate Sotah (see Tur, Even HaEzer 148).

And there are women that do not drink even though they and their husbands want [it]. And they are fifteen women and these are them: a raped woman (see note), and one waiting to preform levirate marriage, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "underneath (tachat) her husband" - and these are not yet underneath a husband; a minor [who is] the wife of an adult, as it is written, "whereby a woman strays" - and this one is not yet a woman; an adult [who is] the wife of a minor, as it is written, "underneath her husband (literally, man)" - and this one is not yet a man; the wife of a man of unclear sex (androginos), as it is written, "her man" - and this one is not completely a man; the wife of a blind man, as it is written (Numbers 5:13), "and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband" - and this one has no eyes; a lame woman, as it is written (Numbers 5:18), "And the priest will make the woman stand" - and this one is not able to stand; one who does not have a palm of the hand, as it is written, "and he gives into her palms" - and this one does not have a palm; so [too] if her hand is crooked or paralyzed, such that she can only only take it with one hand alone, she does not drink, as it is written, "into her palms"; a mute, as it is written (Numbers 5:22), "and the woman says"; one who does not hear, as it is written (Numbers 5:19) "and he says to the woman"; so [too,] [if] he be lame or stump-armed or mute or deaf, and so [if] she is blind, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "a woman tachat her husband" (here, the word, tachat, is understood as, corresponding to) - until she be complete like he, and he like her. [These] and the rest of all its details, the order of the drinking of the sotah and which angles does the water test and which angles does it not test is all well elucidated in the Tractate that is built on it, and that is Tractate Sotah (see Tur, Even HaEzer 148).

And there are women that do not drink even though they and their husbands want [it]. And they are fifteen women and these are them: a raped woman (see note), and one waiting to preform levirate marriage, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "underneath (tachat) her husband" - and these are not yet underneath a husband; a minor [who is] the wife of an adult, as it is written, "whereby a woman strays" - and this one is not yet a woman; an adult [who is] the wife of a minor, as it is written, "underneath her husband (literally, man)" - and this one is not yet a man; the wife of a man of unclear sex (androginos), as it is written, "her man" - and this one is not completely a man; the wife of a blind man, as it is written (Numbers 5:13), "and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband" - and this one has no eyes; a lame woman, as it is written (Numbers 5:18), "And the priest will make the woman stand" - and this one is not able to stand; one who does not have a palm of the hand, as it is written, "and he gives into her palms" - and this one does not have a palm; so [too] if her hand is crooked or paralyzed, such that she can only only take it with one hand alone, she does not drink, as it is written, "into her palms"; a mute, as it is written (Numbers 5:22), "and the woman says"; one who does not hear, as it is written (Numbers 5:19) "and he says to the woman"; so [too,] [if] he be lame or stump-armed or mute or deaf, and so [if] she is blind, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "a woman tachat her husband" (here, the word, tachat, is understood as, corresponding to) - until she be complete like he, and he like her. [These] and the rest of all its details, the order of the drinking of the sotah and which angles does the water test and which angles does it not test is all well elucidated in the Tractate that is built on it, and that is Tractate Sotah (see Tur, Even HaEzer 148).

And there are women that do not drink even though they and their husbands want [it]. And they are fifteen women and these are them: a raped woman (see note), and one waiting to preform levirate marriage, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "underneath (tachat) her husband" - and these are not yet underneath a husband; a minor [who is] the wife of an adult, as it is written, "whereby a woman strays" - and this one is not yet a woman; an adult [who is] the wife of a minor, as it is written, "underneath her husband (literally, man)" - and this one is not yet a man; the wife of a man of unclear sex (androginos), as it is written, "her man" - and this one is not completely a man; the wife of a blind man, as it is written (Numbers 5:13), "and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband" - and this one has no eyes; a lame woman, as it is written (Numbers 5:18), "And the priest will make the woman stand" - and this one is not able to stand; one who does not have a palm of the hand, as it is written, "and he gives into her palms" - and this one does not have a palm; so [too] if her hand is crooked or paralyzed, such that she can only only take it with one hand alone, she does not drink, as it is written, "into her palms"; a mute, as it is written (Numbers 5:22), "and the woman says"; one who does not hear, as it is written (Numbers 5:19) "and he says to the woman"; so [too,] [if] he be lame or stump-armed or mute or deaf, and so [if] she is blind, as it is written (Numbers 5:29), "a woman tachat her husband" (here, the word, tachat, is understood as, corresponding to) - until she be complete like he, and he like her. [These] and the rest of all its details, the order of the drinking of the sotah and which angles does the water test and which angles does it not test is all well elucidated in the Tractate that is built on it, and that is Tractate Sotah (see Tur, Even HaEzer 148).

That we not put oil on the sotah sacrifice: That we not put oil on the sotah sacrifice, as it is stated (Numbers 5:15), "And he shall bring her sacrifice, etc. and he shall not pour oil upon it."

Not to place frankincense on the sotah sacrifice: Not to place frankincense on the sotah sacrifice, as it is stated (Numbers 5:15), "and he shall not put frankincense on it."

And this prohibition is practiced by males and females, but only at the time of the Temple (Mishneh Torah, Laws of First Fruits and other Gifts to Priests Outside the Sanctuary 2:5) - since the obligation to bring first-fruits is then. And the liability from Torah writ is specifically with the well-known fruits and the well-known places, as I have written in Kessef Talveh. And even though we said there that the obligation of the commandment of the bringing of first-fruits is only upon the males and not upon the females, a man and a woman are the same with the prohibition of eating them in every place. And [it is] like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 15a) more generally on the verse, "A man or woman, when they they do from all the sins of man" (Numbers 5:6), [that] "The verse made equal a woman to a man for all of the punishments of the Torah." And a priest that ate a kazayit from the first-fruits in the way that we said has violated a negative commandment and is liable for lashes. And so [too,] is an Israelite [violating a negative commandment if he] eats a kazayit from them in any way - meaning whether before they are placed in the yard or afterwards.