Talmud sur Les Nombres 5:15

“Her flour-offering.” Does that mean that it is sanctified in her name⁵A flour-offering in order to be valid must be offered by a Cohen in a Temple vessel on behalf of its owner (Mishnah Menaḥot 1:1). The Mishnah notes that “he (the husband) brings her (the wife’s) flour-offering.” Does this mean that the offering is to be offered only on her behalf?? Just as it is sanctified in her name, so it is sanctified in his name⁶It must be brought in both their names.. Rebbi Hiyya stated and disagreed⁷He does not disagree here at all; he supports the previous opinion. The text is from Halakhah 3:7 (fol. 19b line 37) where R. Ḥiyya disagrees. Cf. Tosephta 2:6.: “It⁸If a Cohen suspects his wife of adultery, the flour-offering cannot be burnt as a Cohen’s offering (Lev. 6:16) and cannot be eaten as the wife’s offering (Lev. 6:9). cannot be brought completely because of the participation by the wife. It cannot be eaten because of the participation by the husband.” He said to him, the handful⁹Of any flour-offering, a handful of the flour (with the incense) has to be burned on the altar and, normally, the rest is eaten by the Cohanim within the Temple enclosure (Lev. 6:7–11). is brought separately and the remainder is brought separately¹⁰This is a matter of dispute; R. Ḥiyya disagrees with the opinion that the remainders which cannot be eaten by the Cohanim have to be dispersed on the ashes but holds that they have to be burned as a kind of fuel (Halakhah 3:7, Babli 23a).. And you say, “her flour offering”? But the expression used by the verse is used by the Mishnah: “He shall bring her flour-offering for her.¹¹Num. 5:15.”

There, it was stated²⁴Mishnah Menaḥot7:1. The list contains the offerings of the ‘Omer and the suspected wife. Such a list is necessary since the flour offerings accompanying an animal sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16), as well as the private offerings of a Cohen, are burned completely.: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel]²⁵This is the correct name. Possibly the name was written ר״ש in a common source of the mss. and was interpreted wrongly by some intermediate scribe. bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten²⁶The paragraph of the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14) prescribes weaving but is silent about anything done after the weaving. It might be concluded that the general rules of the flour offering specified in Lev. 6:7–11 do apply. These include that a Cohen has to present the offering to the altar, that he take a handful to the altar to be burned, and that the remainder be eaten under the rules of most holy sacrifices. However, those rules presuppose that pieces of incense are put on top of the offering; this does not apply to the ‘Omer offering. Therefore, the details of the treatment of the ‘Omer offering seem to be undefined.? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say²⁷Cf. Chapter 2, Note 39. in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”., offering of²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text..” Since “offering of” mentioned there²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text. is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³⁰This is not prescribed in the biblical text but since a handful must be taken to the altar it is accepted that this offering follows the rules of all offerings of which a handful is burned on the altar; cf. Note 26., so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba)³¹This attribution is certainly incorrect. Probably one should read “R. Jacob”; one Amora of this name was known as one of the colleagues of R. Jeremiah. said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He³²Rebbi Jeremiah said to R. Abba bar Mamal. said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³³For that offering also, the handful for the altar is mentioned but nothing else.? Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁴R. Jeremiah’s teacher; he called the specialist for baraitot in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said³⁶The list of private flour offerings from wheat flour is in Lev.2:1–10 and there it is emphasized that the remainders have to be eaten by the sons of Aaron.. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour³⁷The purification offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11–13) is from wheat flour and has to be eaten by the Cohen., it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose³⁸The argument of the preceding baraitot, which in the Babli (Menaḥot72b) is a pseudo-tannaïtic statement by Ḥizqiah, is irrelevant since the verse teaches important new information for all flour offerings that are eaten (also noted in the Babli).. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished³⁹He has a bodily defect which disables him from serving in the Temple (Lev. 21:17–19).. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished⁴⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 10(9); Babli Menaḥot 72b. In Zebaḥim 102a it is stated more in detail that the right of a blemished Cohen to eat of the holy food is established in Lev. 21 but his right to take part in the distribution of food in the Temple is derived from Lev. 6:11 [from Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(5)]. One really needs Lev. 7:10 only to show that a minor cannot claim a part in the distribution (cf. Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet, Zebaḥim 102a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance⁴¹Lev. 2:9: “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar., remembrance⁴²Num. 5:26: "The Cohen has to lift a fistful for its remembrance," speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife.”. “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that⁴³While in the preceding paragraph the following verse was from the rules of the suspected wife, here the verse is taken from the general rules of a flour offering, Lev.2:10 to imply that every flour offering of which only a fistful is burned on the altar is eaten by the Cohanim.: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

HALAKHAH: “He gives her to drink and after that he sacrifices her offering,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall come into her⁴⁷Num. 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “After that he shall give to the woman to drink⁴⁵Num. 5:27..” How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “they shall come into her”? All of them, not part only⁴⁸She has to drink the rather small amount of water completely. How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “after that he shall give the water to the woman to drink”? Against her will, without her agreement⁴⁹Cf. Mishnah 3. In the Babli, 19b, this is the position of the rabbis.. Rebbi Simeon agrees with the rabbis that if he gave her to drink and after that presented her offering, it is valid. The rabbis agree with Rebbi Simeon that if he presented her offering and after that gave her to drink, it is valid⁵⁰This statement is not in the Babli. As Tosaphot (19a, s. v. ואחר) points out, the Babli does not object.. What is the difference between them? The commandment. The rabbis say that the flour offering checks her out⁵¹In the Babli, 20b, this is given as R. Simeon’s reason to require sacrificing the offering before the drink. but Rebbi Simeon says, the water is⁵²Reading אִין as הֵן, equivalent of Babylonian אִינּוּן “they are”. Instead of אין, the Rome ms. has היו. The past tense does not agree with the rest of the text; it should be rejected. Note that there also exists a Babylonian אִין, equal to הֵן “yes”. what checks her out. What is the reason of the Sages? “A flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity⁵³Num. 5:15..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “They shall come into her^47,Num. 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25.⁵⁴The same explanationas anonymous text in Sifry Num. 18; copied in Num. rabba 9(18)..” How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “they shall come into her”? This teaches that it shakes all her limbs⁵⁵Cf. Mishnah 4.. How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “a flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity”? This teaches that all iniquities she has committed are remembered at that time⁵⁶Before the Heavenly Court which decides about the water’s action..

It was stated¹⁶⁷Sifry Num. 8, Num. Rabba 9(38); a more elaborate text in Babli 7a, Tosephta 1:1.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, her husband is believed about her by an argument de minore ad majus. Since he is believed about her when she is menstruating¹⁶⁸The menstruating woman is forbidden to her husband on penalty of extirpation (Lev. 20:18). Nobody requires chaperones during the time the wife is forbidden to her husband., when he would be subject to extirpation because of her, but for this one¹⁶⁹A wife suspected of adultery (and even a proven adulteress) is forbidden to her husband but no penalties are specified. he is not subject to extirpation because of her, is it not logical that he should be believed about her? They said to him, no. If you mention the menstruating, she will be permitted after being forbidden, what can you say about this one who may not be permitted after being forbidden¹⁷⁰If she is found guilty, she will be permanently forbidden and he will be forced to divorce her.? And it says, “stolen waters are sweet”¹⁷¹Prov. 9:17. She is more attractive forbidden than permitted.. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, it is a decree of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the priest”¹⁷⁸Num. 5:15., etc. They said to him, only with witnesses¹⁷⁹General statements in verses are never interpreted to override the general principles of administration of justice. Since relatives cannot testify for or against a person, the husband cannot testify for himself, just as he cannot testify against his bride whom he accuses of prenuptial adultery (Deut. 22:14)..

⁸⁵This paragraph is copied verbally from Halakhah 1, Notes 10–12, but the meaning is different. Why can he not make her drink⁸⁶Why does the majority not empower the freed or healed husband to make his wife drink?? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen⁸⁷Num. 5:15..” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy⁸⁸The court as guardian of the incapacitated man should not be able to do what he himself could not do at the moment.! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,⁸⁹Num. 5:14; the court is empowered even if the man is temporarily disabled from acting as a husband.” even if she is only partially his wife.

There, we have stated¹⁹²Mishnah Idiut 5:6: “He (Aqabia ben Mehallalel) said: One does not make the proselyte or the freedwoman drink, but the Sages say, one makes her drink.”: “One does not make the proselyte drink, etc. But the Sages say, one makes her drink.” Where do we hold? If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written¹⁹³Num. 5:12. The text is addressed to all Jewish men.: “The sons of Israel” (not proselytes)¹⁹⁴This text is an intrusion from the later statement but is also found in Num. rabba 9(34). The text quoted by R. Abraham ben David of Posquières (Ravad) in his commentary to Idiut has the order inverted and then the clause makes sense: אִם בְּגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כְּבָר כְּתִיב. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לֹא גֵרִים. אִם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִיּוֹרֶת. כְּבָר כְּתִיב וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן. “If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: ‘The sons of Israel’, not proselytes. If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: ‘The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.’ ” Ravad declares his text to be difficult; the Babli, 26a, explicitly rejects the inference from “the sons of Israel”.. If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written¹⁹⁵Num. 5:15. Any Jewish man is included, even if he is not the son of an Israel.: “The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.” But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba¹⁹⁶This is clearly in error; it must be Aqabia, not Aqiba; correctly in the text quoted by Ravad and in Num. rabba. Aqabia had no rabbinic title.? “The children of Israel”, not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them¹⁹⁷Num. 5:12; the text is addressed to everybody who has to hear the commandments, including the proselytes; argument approved in the Babli, 26a.”, to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her”. His¹⁹⁸In Ravad’s text: Another man’s lying … lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.