Talmud sur Les Nombres 5:13

MISHNAH: Just as the water checks her out so it checks him¹The wife’s paramour. It is moreover stated in Halakhah 9:9 (Babli 28a) that the procedure becomes inactive if the husband had ever misbehaved sexually. out, as it is said, “it will come, it will come”. Just as she is forbidden to the husband so she is forbidden to her paramour as it is said, “she was impure, she was impure,” the words of Rebbi Aqiba²This will be explained in the Halakhah.. Rebbi Joshua said, that was the inference of Zachariah the butcher’s son³An early Tanna, student of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai.. Rebbi said, the two times it said, “she became impure, she became impure,” once for the husband and once for the paramour⁴In Num. 5:13,14 it is stated twice “she became impure”, meaning “she became forbidden”; cf. Chapter 4, Note 75, and the Introduction..

If [after betrothal the woman] was raped, she is permitted to him,⁵Cf. Deut. 22, 23-27. but should she have been a willing party she is forbidden to him. If she is the wife of a kohen, she is forbidden to him whether [it happened] under force or with her consent. [For it is stated, And she be not seized⁶Num. 5, 13, E.V. neither she be taken in the act. The phrase is interpreted by the Rabbis in the sense that she did not act under compulsion but willingly, referring to a married woman who was defiled secretly without witnesses to testify against her.—[only then] is she forbidden; if, however, she was seized⁷i.e. violated by force. she is permitted. There is another class of woman who is forbidden [to her husband] even though she had been seized; and who is that? The wife of a kohen.⁸Cf. Yeb. 56b (Sonc. ed., p. 378), Keth. 51b (Sonc. ed., p. 298). R. Ishmael⁹According to R. Ishmael there is no distinction between the wife of a kohen and a lay-Israelite in the case of rape. said: And she be not seized she is forbidden; consequently if she had been seized she is permitted. There is another class of woman who is permitted [to her husband] even if she had not been seized; and who is that? A woman whose betrothal was mistaken.¹⁰If, e.g., a condition were attached to the betrothal that remained unfulfilled. In such a case the woman may leave her husband without a geṭ, and in any subsequent intercourse, whether forced or willing, her status is that of an unmarried woman who had never been previously married. The passage within brackets is added by GRA and is necessary, otherwise R. Ishmael would be contradicting himself. Cf. Yeb. 100b (Sonc. ed., p. 692), Keth. loc. cit.]
If a divorcee who became betrothed was seduced, whether under force or of her free will, she is forbidden to return to her former husband.¹¹If her second husband subsequently died or divorced her. She is, however, permitted to remarry her former husband after betrothal alone, where no marriage with the second man took place and he died. This is the opinion of R. Jose b. Ḳippar in the name of R. Eleazar b. Shammua‘. This is the reasoning by which R. Jose b. Ḳippar expounded his view:¹²This is the reading of GRA as against V and H, who name R. Ishmael as the authority. [It is written,] Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled.¹³Deut. 24, 4. In what circumstances did she become defiled?¹⁴If she was legally married to the second husband the term defiled is inapplicable. It can only be explained by what the Sages have said: If a woman [after betrothal] was forcibly seduced, she is permitted to [her husband]; if she was a willing party she is forbidden to him; but in this case,¹⁵Of the divorcee who became betrothed and was then seduced. This is the reading of GRA. V and H have ‘the wife of a kohen’. whether under compulsion or of her free will she is forbidden to return to her former husband.¹⁶So GRA. V and H ‘to him’.

HALAKHAH: “If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure’,” etc. “And there is no witness against her²¹Num. 5:13.”; not only a witness [of good standing], from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “and there is no witness against her”, any one²²This follows R. Aqiba, who interprets every “and” as an addition [more explicitly Num. rabba 9(6)].. And following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael said²³In the Babli, 31b and Sanhedrin30a, and Sifry Num. 7, this is quoted as everybody’s opinion., at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness”, in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says two witnesses²⁴This seems to be the opinion of the Tanna of Sifry Num. 7. The Babli, 31b, explains the problem away by reading the verse “and two witnesses are not against her,” meaning that one is. If one does not need two witnesses, one does not need quality witnesses..