Le Lévitique 5:15 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot, Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim & Jerusalem Talmud Demai

MISHNAH: An oath about a deposit applies to men and women, unrelated persons and relatives, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth¹In this respect the oath about money matters is equal to the rules of a blurted oath (Mishnah 3:11–12), not to the oath of testimony. All restrictions about women, relatives, and disqualified persons, refer only to witnesses and judges, not to parties in adversary proceedings.. From the mouth of another he is liable only if he denies in court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by his own mouth or the mouth of others, from the moment that he denies, he is liable. He is liable for intent about the oath, or error about it with intent about the deposit, but he is not liable for error about the latter²The sacrifice prescribed in Lev. 5:25 (in addition to restitution of 125% of the amount embezzled) is due if the false oath was intentional, or if the oath was in error but the embezzling was intentional; it is not due if the oath was factually false because the maker of the oath did not realize that he had the deposit, or forgot about it. The Babli (but not Maimonides) reads the last word as שִׁגְגָתָהּ referring to the oath; he is not liable if he was ignorant of the fact that false oaths are forbidden and that they trigger liability for a sacrifice.. What is he liable for in case of intentional violation? A reparation offering in the value of two Šeqalim³Lev. 5:25 prescribes a reparation offering “in its value”; the value defined in 5:15 as “Šeqalim”. An indeterminate plural always means 2 (Chapter 4, Note 8). The biblical Šeqel is the traditional “King’s weight” of about 12g silver, about equal to the tetradrachma of the early Principate, and double the rabbinic Šeqel of two zuz (cf. Qiddušin 1:1, Note 122.) Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 13(14)..

HALAKHAH: “A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law,” etc. Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen¹⁰Lev. 5:15. A man can bring his wife only if he is living with her..” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy¹¹If “his wife” in this paragraph means only the definitively married one, the entire procedure should be impossible for the preliminarily married woman.! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,¹²Lev. 5:14; if the meaning of “his wife” were constant in this verse, the second clause should have read “and he declared his jealousy to her.” The woman who is a wife but not a wife in the first sense is the preliminarily married one. Therefore, the second mention of “wife” adds the preliminarily married one as object of jealousy.” even if she is only partially his wife.

What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “For he found in her a word of nakedness.^16”Deut. 24:1.. “Nakedness”, that is the rendez-vous¹⁷“Meeting in secret” with another man.. “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “Word, word”; just as “word” mentioned there requires two witnesses¹⁸Deut. 19:15: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a word (fact, circumstance) be confirmed.” The argument is based on the second hermeneutical rule (Sifra Introduction) that the meaning of words is unchanged from one occurrence to the other.
In the Babli, Giṭṭin 90a, this is quoted as the argument of the House of Shammai., so “word” mentioned here requires two witnesses. “But he can take her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness¹⁹Num. 5:12. The root מעל denotes the sin of embezzlement or fraud (Lev. 5:15, Num. 5:6; cf. Arabic مغالة) or general mischief (Lev. 26:40, Ez. 18:24, Ezr. 9:4; cf. Arabic معالة).”, about the conditions spelled out to her through the mouth of others²⁰In this interpretation, מעל refers to fraud as breach of contract; it does not imply unfaithfulness of the wife, as explained in Num. 5:14. Therefore, the breach of contract is that the wife went to a rendez-vous with the man forbidden to her by the declaration of jealousy in front of two witnesses. The clause (Num. 5:12) that she breached her contract with him is read to mean that he is empowered to prosecute this breach before the Temple priests..