Les Nombres 5:24 Passages liés

HALAKHAH: “Just as the water checks her out,” etc. We stated “they came, they came”. Some Tannaïm stated “they will come, they will come”. He who said “they came, they came” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “they will come, they will come” is Rebbi Ismael. We stated “she became impure, she became impure”, some Tannaïm stated “and she became impure, and she became impure”. He who said “she became impure, she became impure” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “and she became impure, and she became impure” is Rebbi Ismael⁶R. Ismael holds that דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה בִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם “the Torah speaks in everyday language” (Yebamot 8:1, Note 72; Nedarim 1:1; Šabbat 19:2; Babli Berakhot 31b and 18 other places). This means that any verse containing no linguistic feature noted as an exception in Gesenius-Kautzsch must be interpreted following the hermeneutical rules detailed in the introduction to Sifra. R. Ismael’s argument here is a straightforward application of his rule 3: בנין אב מכתוב אחד “meaning established by one verse”. Since both וּבָאוּ (vv. 22,27) and וְנִטְמָאָה (v. 29) [correctly in Midrash of the 32 Rules: וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה (vv. 13,14)] are well defined by the first occurrence, the second occurrence has the parallel meaning but refers to a different subject. That this second subject is the suspected adulterer is never indicated in the verse but since he is the only other person possibly being impure in this situation, the transfer of the meanings to him makes sense.
R. Aqiba negates absolutely that “the Torah speaks in everyday language”. For him, any vaw prefixed to a word has a hidden meaning. [Since his co-student Aquila translated the Torah in this sense “before Rebbis Eliezer and Joshua” (Megillah 1:11 fol. 71c, Babli 3a), one may attribute this transformation of the Pentateuch into a book of codes to the tradition of their common teacher Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai.] R. Aqiba is not deterred by the fact that in וּבָאוּ the vav is both conjunctive and conversive; any vav that is translated even in the LXX by καὶ must indicate a duplication of meaning. If the duplication of subjects were not intended, then Scripture would have found a way to use only באו (or imperfect יבואו) without the vav.
The Babli, 28a, takes notice only of the teachings of R. Aqiba..

“The spell acting”. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, what is the count of¹¹Tosaphot (27b, s. v. כשם) read correctly מנין. The reference is to the (Alexandrinian) custom of using letters as numerals. The count of ה̇מ̇א̇ר̇ר̇י̇ם̇ is 5+40+1+200+200+10+40 = 496 = 2·248. “the spell acting”? It corresponds to the 248 parts of her body and the 248 parts of his body¹²Mishnah Ahitot 1:8. A part is either a bone or a vital organ, such as the genitals. No talmudic source, in contrast to medieval rabbinic texts, makes a difference between the Number of parts of the male and those of the female.
The implication of the sermon is that the bodies of adulterer and adulteress together bring on the evil spell..

Bar Qappara understood everything from here: May the Eternal bless you and preserve you, from here that one starts with three. May the Eternal illuminate His Presence for you and be gracious to you, from here that one continues with five. May the Eternal turn His Presence to you and give you peace, from here that one finishes with seven¹¹²From the verses of the priestly blessings, Num. 6:24–26, which have 3, 5, and 7 words respectively, one may infer that proceeding by 3,5,7 will give a blessed result. In the Babli, 10b, this argument is attributed to early Amoraïm; in Megillah23a it is applied to the number of people called to read from the Torah..