Rujukan Talmud untuk Bilangan 5:31: Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

MISHNAH: The following are prohibited from eating heave¹⁴²A Cohen’s wife (or the Cohen’s daughter who is the childless widow of a Non-Cohen) who is desecrated by adultery; cf. also Note 123.: One who says, I am impure for you¹⁴³I. e., she says that she slept with another man; there is no difference in this respect whether she committed adultery or was raped., and where witnesses proved that she is impure¹⁴⁴Witnesses to the act of adultery., and one who refuses to drink¹⁴⁵She maintains her innocence, even though two witnesses attested that she met the man against whom she was warned in a secluded place, but refuses to submit to the ordeal. She remains permanently forbidden to her husband and is permanently excluded from eating consecrated food., and one whose husband refuses to let her drink¹⁴⁶Two witnesses attested that she met the man against whom she was warned in a secluded place; therefore, she is disabled from eating heave. She can regain her priestly status only by being cleansed by the ordeal. Since it is written (Num. 5:15): “This husband has to bring his wife,” without him appearing before the court of the Temple there can be no ordeal and no rehabilitation., and one whose husband slept with her on the trip¹⁴⁷Num. 5:31 is read as meaning: If the husband is blameless, then this woman has to bear her sin. It follows that if the husband is not blameless [in sexual matters of any kind], the ordeal becomes inactive. Since the Soṭah is forbidden to her husband, if he sleeps with her before she is cleansed by the ordeal he is not blameless and the innocence of his wife can never be proven.. What does he have to do: He brings her to the court at his place and they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip. Rebbi Jehudah says, her husband is believed about her.

“And if the woman was not impure but was pure,¹⁶⁰Num. 5:28.” this refers to the one who is pure, not that there came witnesses declaring her impure¹⁶¹“And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).
The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed”. “If the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not one whose merit suspended [punishment] for her¹⁶²The latter will not experience any change in her fertility status.. This follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who said that merit suspends and it is recognizable¹⁶³There seems to be no reason for Rav Hamnuna’s position.? Rebbi Isaac said, here we deal with one who drank and the water did not test her. It comes to tell you that the water will not test a woman who is forbidden to her house^161,“And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).
The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed”¹⁶⁴There is no inference possible on Rav Hamnuna's statement.. Rebbi Yudan said, this follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. Why was it not recognized? Because merit suspended for her. “The man will be free of sin¹⁶⁵Num. 5:31.,” he should not worry that maybe merit suspended for her¹⁶⁶The husband who brought his wife to the Temple where the water had no influence on her is free to sleep with her and is told not to worry that she still might be forbidden to him.. Should I think that she also should not worry? The verse said, “but that woman shall carry her sin¹⁶⁵Num. 5:31.”. [This interpretation] follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody agrees that he may not stipulate with her about before she was preliminarily married or about after she was divorced,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, it is obvious that a man may forgive about his jealousy²⁰⁵In the Babli, 25a, this husband may annul his declaration of jealousy only if the wife did not meet her paramour at a secluded place. In the Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 8:6 (fol. 26b, line 33), he may retract his declaration any time before the scroll is erased. In the paragraph here, the argument is as in the Babli.. If he divorced her it is as if he had forgiven. How is that? If he had declared his jealousy, divorced her, took her back, and then she was at a secluded place. If you say, if he divorced her it is as if he had forgiven, he has to declare his jealousy a second time. But if you say, if he divorced her it is as if he had not forgiven, he does not have to declare his jealousy a second time. But if he had declared his jealousy, she was at a secluded place and he knew it²⁰⁶From that moment on, she is forbidden to him. If he divorces her instead of taking her to the Temple, there is a question whether the divorce annuls the prohibition or not. If the divorce annuls the prohibition, he may take her back and the water will check her out in the future. If the divorce does not annul the prohibition, it is sinful for him to take her back without having her checked out and therefore the entire procedure is invalid since the water acts only if the husband himself is totally free from any sexual misbehavior (Num. 5:31)., then he divorced her, took her back, and then she was at a secluded place, if she drank and the water did nothing to her, she is pure. Or maybe that since the water does not check out a woman forbidden to her husband, she might be impure.