Midras Ulangan 5:27: Sifrei Bamidbar, Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sifra & Midrash Tanchuma

(Ibid. 5:13) "and it be hidden from the eyes of her husband": but not if her husband see and make himself "unseeing." If her husband knows, he is not permitted to scheme and make her drink." "and she had secreted herself and she be defiled": (Does this mean that) there were no witnesses to defiling, but there were witnesses for secreting, or that there were no witnesses to both defiling and secreting? If you say this (the latter), she is permitted to her husband. The former, then, is the case and not the latter. There are no witnesses to defiling, but there are witnesses to secreting. "and she had secreted herself": We have not been apprised of the (minimum) time of secreting; it is, therefore, written "and she had secreted herself and she be defiled": the (minimum) time for defilement — for intercourse; for he'arah (the initial stage) — for circling a palm tree. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Eliezer says: the (minimum) time for pouring a cup. R. Yehoshua says: for drinking it. Ben Azzai says: for frying an egg. R. Akiva says: for swallowing it. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: for swallowing three eggs, one after the other. "and there be no witness in her": Is Scripture speaking of two witnesses or of one? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:15) "There shall not arise one witness against a man for every transgression and for every sin." Why (emphasize) one? To serve as a prototype (binyan av), viz.: Wherever "witness" (alone) is mentioned, two are understood, unless Scripture specifies "one." "and she were not seized": to exclude one who was forced. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of "light" tumah (e.g., a widow (cohabiting) with a high-priest, where there is only a lav (transgression of a negative commandment), forced is equated with consenting, how much more so, in an instance of grave tumah, such as ours, where the penalty is death, forced should be equated with consenting; it is, therefore, written "and she were not seized." Or, I might think (that this halachah obtains both) with (the wife of) an Israelite or of a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "and she (the wife of an Israelite) were not seized" — to exclude (from being forbidden to her husband) the wife of a Cohein, (who is forbidden to him even if she were forced.) (Ibid. 14) "And there pass over him a spirit of rancor and he warn his wife": optional (i.e., "he may warm his wife.") These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: mandatory (i.e., "he must warn his wife.") R. Akiva says: Why is "venitma'ah" ("and she be tamei") written three times, (5:14, 5:27, 5:29)? tumah vis-à-vis her husband, and vis-à-vis her cohabitor, and vis-à-vis (her eating) terumah (if she is the daughter of a Cohein). R. Yishmael says: If a divorcée, the "lighter," (in that she may return to her divorcer), is unfit (for marriage) to the priesthood, how much more so sotah, the "graver," (who may not return to her husband; and no verse is needed for this.) (Ibid. 5:14) "and she were defiled … and she were not defiled": What is the intent of this? If she were (positively) defiled, why does she drink? And if she were (positively) not defiled, why does he make her drink? Scripture hereby (by this ambiguity) comes to teach us that she drinks only in a case of doubt (as to whether or not) she were defiled. And from here you rule (accordingly) in the instance of (the tumah of sheretz) [a creeping thing], viz.: If in an instance (that of sotah), where unwittingness is not equated with wittingness (to make her tamei) or forcing to consent, doubt is equated with certainty (to forbid her to her husband until she drinks and resolves the doubt), then in an instance where unwittingness (of contact) is equated with wittingness, and forcing with consent, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty! And just as here (for tumah to obtain, the locus of the act is) a private domain, there, too, it must be a private domain. Just as here we are dealing with a subject (the woman) which has the intelligence to be questioned, there, too, (for tumah to obtain), we must be dealing with a subject (e.g., the carrier of the sheretz) which has the intelligence to be questioned — whence they ruled: In a case of doubt involving a subject which has the intelligence to be questioned — in the private domain, the ruling is tamei; in the public domain, the ruling is tahor (clean). (In a case of doubt involving a subject) which lacks the intelligence to be questioned, both in the public and in the private domain, the ruling is tahor.

(Fol. 86a) R. Ada b. Ahaba said: "Moses ascended [Mt. Sinai] early in the morning and descended early the [next] morning. He ascended early in the morning, as it is written (Ex. 34, 4.) And Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto Mt. Sinai; he descended early in the morning, as it is written (Ib. 19, 24.) Go, get thee down, and then shall thou come up, thou, and Aaron with thee. We compare the Yerida (descent) to the Aliya (ascent); just as the ascent was made early in the morning, so also was the descent made early in the morning." (Ib. b) Our Rabbis taught: "On the sixth day of the month [Sivan] the ten commandments were given to Israel. R. Jose said: 'On the seventh day of the month.'" "All agree," said Raba, "that on the first day of the month the Israelites arrived at the wilderness of Sinai, for it is written (Ex. 19, 1.) On this day they came into the wilderness of Sinai; and it is written there (Ib. 12, 2.) This month (Nisan) shall he unto you the chief of the months. [We draw an analogy from the word Haze (this) used in both places]; just as in the latter instance the word Haze (this) refers to the first of the month [as it plainly says], so does it also in the former instance refer to the first of the month; and furthermore all agree that the Torah was given to Israel on the Sabbath, for it is written here (Ex. 20, 8.) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. and it is written there (Ib. 13, 3.) And Moses said unto the people remember this day, etc. [We derive by drawing an analogy from the words zachor (remember) used in both places]; just as in the latter case, zachor (remember) alludes to the very day of their coming out of Egypt, so also does it allude in the former case to the very day of Sabbath. The Rabbis and R. Jose differ though as to what day was the first of that month. R. Jose is of the opinion that the first of that month was set on the first day of the week, and that on this day no commandments were given because the Israelites were tired from their long journey. On the second day of the week the Lord said to them (Ib. 19, 6.) And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests. (Fol. 87a) On the third day [of the week] He warned them to keep away from the mount; on the fourth, to keep apart from the wives [three days, until the Sabbath]. But the Rabbis are of the opinion that the first of that month was set on the second day of the week; that on this day no commandments were given them because the Israelites were tired from their journey. On the third day [of the week] the Lord said unto them (Ib. ib. ib.) And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests. On the fourth, He warned them to keep away from the mount. On the fifth, to keep apart from their wives [two days, until the Sabbath]." The following objection was raised: And sanctify them to-day and to-morrow (Ib. ib.). This contradicts the opinion of R. Jose [who says that three days were set aside for sanctification]. R. Jose might explain it that Moses added one day upon his own recognizance, as it is taught: "Three things did Moses do upon his own authority, and the Holy One, praised be He! sanctioned them: Moses added one day [of separation] upon his own authority; he separated himself from his wife, and he broke the Tablets." He added one day upon his own authority; what verse did he interpret [to induce him to add one day]? Today and to-morrow, were in the Lord's commandment. To-day must be equal (in duration) to to-morrow; just as to-morrow includes day and night, so also must to-day include the day and night; the night, however, having already passed, so another day (a third) must be added in order to make up for the lost night. Whence do we learn that the Holy One, praised be He! agreed with him? Because the Shechina did not appear [on Mt. Sinai] until the Sabbath morning. And he separated himself from his wife, what verse did he interpret [to guide him in his action]? He applied the order given to Israel [to separate themselves from their wives] to himself, through the measure of the rule drawn from minor to major, thus saying: "If Israel with whom the Shechina did not converse but once at a certain time, is commanded by the Torah to separate themselves from their wives, I, with whom the Shechina converses constantly without having an appointed hour, should most certainly then separate myself from my wife." And whence do we learn that the Holy One, praised he He! agreed with him? It is written (Deu. 5, 27.) Go, say to them, return ye unto your tents, and immediately following, it is written: But as for thee, remain thou here with me. According to others, the sanction of God is derived from (Num. 12, 8.) Mouth to mouth do I speak with him. He broke the Tablets. What verse did he interpret [to guide him in his action]? He said to himself: "If concerning the Passover sacrifice, which is only one of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, it is said in the Torah (Ex. 12, 43.) No stranger shall eat thereof, how much more then should this be applied to the entire Torah considering that all Israel were apostates?"' Whence do we learn that the Holy One, praised be He! sanctioned this act? It is said (Ib. 34. 1.) Which thou didst break, whereupon Resh Lakish said: "It means 'Thanks for having broken it.'" Come and learn! And they shall he ready for the third day (Ib. 19, 11). Is this not in contradiction to R. Jose's interpretation? [According to him, it should have been on the second day.] We have already explained that Moses added one day upon his own recognizance. Come and learn! We are taught: "The third (day) of the third month and on the third day of the week." Does this not contradict the opinion of the Rabbis? The Rabbis might say this Baraitha is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jose.

11) "And he shall sit outside his tent": as one who is under the ban. And he is forbidden to engage in marital relations, it being written "his tent," which is none other than his wife, as it is written (Devarim 5:27) "Return to your tents" (i.e., to your wives). "for seven days". And (this abstention from marital relations does) not (obtain) during the days of his confirmation (as a leper). These are the words of Rebbi. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: How much more so does it obtain for the days of his confirmation! R. Chiyya said: I asked before Rebbi: Did we not learn, master, that Yotham was conceived by Uzziyahu only during the days of his confirmation? He answered: I, too, said that.