Rujukan Talmud untuk Bilangan 5:22: Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim, Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot & Sotah

HALAKHAH: “A woman living in her husband’s house,” etc. ⁷This paragraph is from Sotah 2:1, Notes 15–23 which is the original since the last sentence, which makes the argument intelligible, is missing here. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who are missing atonement⁸Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), the person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14: 1–32) and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, the woman after childbirth and one [healed from] skin disease, since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib⁹Who could have been afflicted with skin disease and, if female, with a discharge at her birth mimicking menstruation. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] skin disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? ¹⁰This text also is in Yebamot 1:2, Note 153. It implies that a woman giving birth is an adult and no longer in her father’s power. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter¹¹Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him.. Since he married her off¹²Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him., she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since ¹³This statement also is in Sotah 1:2, Note 91. In the language of the Babli, Yebamot33b, “the seduction of an under-age girl is rape.” Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yosa¹⁴With the text in Sotah read: Yasa. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written¹⁵Num. 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the sotah ordeal. The Babli concurs, Sotah27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: The woman shall say: Amen, amen. Rebbi Abun said, since it is written¹⁶Deut. 14:26. A man’s house usually means his wife. The missing final sentence explains that since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abun disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel.: You shall enjoy together with your house.

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge¹⁴In case the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is a second question to be answered.? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing¹⁵Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), the person healed from scale disease (Lev. 14:1–32), and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib¹⁶Who could have been afflicted with scale disease and, if female, with a discharge at birth mimicking menstruation.. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? ¹⁷Text from Yebamot 1:2, Note 153. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter¹⁸Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him.. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power¹⁹Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him. If she is not married, she cannot be a suspected wife.. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply ²⁰This statement is from Chapter 1, Note 91. since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written²¹Num. 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved, cf. Chapter 1, Note 8. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the ordeal. The Babli concurs, 27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written²²Deut. 14:26. “A man’s house” always means his wife. For example, since the High Priest must purge his sins and those of his house on the day of Atonement (Lev. 16:17), an unmarried High Priest cannot officiate.: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge²³Since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abin disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel..

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: May the oath of a deviant woman⁷⁸The suspected adulteress who is put under oath by the Cohen, Num. 5:22. be liable for a blurted oath? Where do we hold? If she is in error in sin and oath she is not deviant⁷⁹If she slept with a man thinking it was her husband and swears while in this belief, she is not forbidden to her husband and not deviant.. If she is intentional in sin and error there is no sacrifice⁸⁰There is no sacrifice for an intentional false oath.. Rav follows Rebbi Aqiba⁸¹This refers to Halakhah 3:1. R. Aqiba admits the possibility of sacrifices for inadvertent blurted oaths (Lev. 5:4) referring to past events as well as future ones but R. Ismael allows only future- directed blurted oaths. Rav (Chapter 3 Note 7) admits only past-directed blurted oaths; as just shown this is not possible in the case of the deviant woman.. If Rebbi Ismael⁸²R. Meïr explains the repetition “Amen, Amen” in Num. 5:22 that the first one is past directed, the second future directed. R. Ismael might agree that this is a special case where a biblical verse also requires the inclusion of references to past events. Then the question of R. Joḥanan might make sense since the possibility of an oath by a deviant woman depends on past events but the designation as blurted oath must depend on future happenings, not covered by the previous argument. would argue like Rebbi Meïr it would follow, since Rebbi Meïr said⁸³Mishnah Soṭah3:1.: “Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.” But you may question this⁸⁴Since practice would follow neither R. Ismael nor R. Meïr there seems to be no point for R. Joḥanan’s question..