Les Nombres 5:19 Passages liés

HALAKHAH: “The following are recited,” etc. It is written⁸Num. 5:21. The argument being that this clause is redundant. The full verse reads: “The Cohen shall make the woman swear by a curse-oath, the Cohen shall tell the woman: …”.: “The Cohen shall tell the woman,” in any language she understands, the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said to him, if she does not understand, how could she answer “Amen, Amen”⁹In Sifry Num. 12, the objection is attributed to R. Ismael, R. Joshia’s teacher, not to R. Jonathan, R. Joshia’s student. R. Ismael’s interpretation is that the Cohen has to go into all details of the proceedings. The Babli, 32b, is the only source which accepts R. Joshia’s derivation. Then the Babli, without mentioning names, follows R. Ismael’s interpretation but treats it as purely rabbinic.? But that he should not talk to her through an interpreter.

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me,” etc. ⁵⁷Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 8(8–10). From where that this only refers to monetary claims? Rebbi Eliezer said, it uses here “or” and it uses “or” with a deposit⁵⁸In Lev. 5:1, “or” is used twice, in vv. 21–22 four times.. Since the “or” used with a deposit only refers to monetary claims, also the “or” used here only refers to monetary claims. The “or” of the homicide will disprove⁵⁹Num. 35:22–23, in the description of accidental homicide, “or” is used twice. since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath from “or” accompanied by an oath; the “or” of the homicide cannot disprove since they are not accompanied by an oath. The “or” of the deviant woman will disprove⁶⁰Num. 5:14, the presumption of innocence of the deviant woman is introduced by “or”. The imprecation is not the woman’s but the Cohen’s, v. 19. since they are accompanied by an oath and do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath not accompanied by a Cohen from similar “or”; the “or” of the deviant woman cannot disprove since they are accompanied by a Cohen. The “or” of blurting lips will disprove⁶¹Lev. 5:4, “or” is used twice. since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” where He made intent equal to error⁶²As explained in the preceding Chapters, blurted oaths create a liability for a sacrifice only if they were broken in a period of forgetting, i. e., unintention- ally. There is no mention of unintentional sin for liability in cases of oath about testimony or monetary damages. from similar “or”; the “or” of blurting lips cannot disprove since there He did not make intent equal to error. Rebbi Aqiba says, for some of these one is liable, for some one is not liable. For monetary claims one is liable; for non-monetary claims one is not liable⁶³He refers to Lev. 5:5: It shall be if he causes damage by some of these; some will require a sacrifice but not others. The decision what to include is left to the religious authorities guided by the hermeneutical principle of “equal cut”. Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(1).. Rebbi Simeon says, He made liable here and he made liable for a deposit. Since deposits only refer to monetary claims, so here also it only refers to monetary claims^41,All examples in Lev. 5:21–22 (a deposit, a loan, extortion and robbery, a find) refer to monetary claims about movables. Since there can be no sacrifice for an oath about deposits relating to real estate, one might argue that there can be no sacrifice for an oath about testimony involving real estate, asserted in Tosephta 4:1.⁶⁴Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(2)..

HALAKHAH: “If a man’s wife went overseas,”, etc. It is written: “If a man slept with her;¹³⁴Num. 5:13; written in the paragraph about the wife suspected of unfaithfulness, from where one infers that an adulterous wife is forbidden to her husband. It is implied here that an action of the husband has no influence on her status (but in the paragraph after the next it is pointed out that the husband’s action may forbid him to her). Sifry Num. 7 (an involved argument in the style of the paragraph after the next), a short parallel in the Babli, 95a.” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her. There, it also says “replacing your husband,” that excludes rape cases¹³⁵She is forbidden only if her paramour replaces the husband, i. e., if she sleeps with him voluntarily..