Commento su Deuteronomio 22:17

ופרשו השמלה AND THEY SHALL SPREAD THE CLOTH [BEFORE THE ELDERS OF THE CITY] — This is a figurative expression: they must make the matter as white (as clear) as a sheet (Sifrei Devarim 237:1; Ketubot 46a).

AND THEY SHALL SPREAD THE CLOTH. “This is a figurative expression meaning, the matter is as white [i.e., as clear] as a sheet.” This is Rashi’s language, which is the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael found in the Sifre¹⁹⁶Sifre, Ki Theitzei 237. and Mechilta.¹⁹⁷Mechilta, Nezikin 13. But there is no need for it. For this was the custom in former time in Israel:¹⁹⁸Ruth 4:7. they would bring the groom and bride into the bridal chamber and examine them, and the witnesses would guard them outside — these being termed shoshbinin (friends)¹⁹⁹Tosephta Kethuboth 1:4: “In Judea they used to appoint two shoshbinin (friends) as guards, one appointed by the groom’s family, and one by the bride’s.” by the Sages. When they separated, the witnesses would enter and take the cloth on which he laid with her and see the proof of her virginity. This [procedure] is known in the Talmud and in books of Agadah [homily], and they would call this cloth sudor.²⁰⁰Kethuboth 10a: “Bring me the sudor (cloth).” Therefore, Scripture states that her father and mother should spread the cloth which they took from the hands of the witnesses and say, These are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. Now surely there is still a need to clarify matters with respect to many items about which Scripture spoke briefly.²⁰¹Thus, e.g., the husband who accuses his wife committing adultery must first bring witnesses to corroborate his accusation. These witnesses are subject to searching inquiries by the court, and, in the case of a certain specified type of refutation, they are liable to the same punishment as they had planned to have perpetrated against her. Such matters are not mentioned here in Scripture as it discusses the subject briefly. But the intent of [the Sifre and Mechilta in] stating “This is a figurative expression,” is only in accordance with the opinion which holds that the law concerning a man who defames his wife applies even if he has had no sexual relations with her. [It is according to this opinion that the phrase and they shall spread the cloth cannot be literal, for if no cohabitation took place, there can be no evidence in the sheet. Hence, the phrase is figurative, meaning that they are to prove their complaint “as clear as a sheet.”] But the plain meaning of Scripture is in accordance with the Sage²⁰²Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (Kethuboth 46a). that this law applies only after he has had conjugal relations with her [and in that case the phrase and they shall spread the cloth is to be understood literally]. And thus the Rabbis said in the Gemara:²⁰²Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (Kethuboth 46a). “Rabbi Eleazar²⁰³In our Gemara (ibid.): “Eliezer.” ben Yaakov says, The term cloth is literal, and the law is in accordance with his words.” And such indeed is the sense of the section [of the Torah]. For Scripture stated first, Then the father of the maiden, and her mother, shall take and bring forth the tokens of the maiden’s virginity.²⁰⁴Verse 15. Thus the verse is speaking of both [the father and mother]. Afterwards it reverts to the father alone: And the maiden’s father shall say etc.²⁰⁵Verse 16. It then reverts and states, and ‘they’ shall spread the cloth — the two of them. Now, the reason [for these changes] is that [basically] the claim concerns only the father for [if the husband’s accusation is proven false,] the fine [of a hundred silver shekels, imposed upon the husband] belongs to the father.²⁰⁶Verse 19. Scripture, however, made the mother a partner in this affair because women occupy themselves with the subject of the sheet, for it is they who are knowledgeable and expert in blood, and it is proper for the mother to take hold and bring it [the cloth] to court. But the claim, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife²⁰⁵Verse 16. is that of the father, for the mother is not the adversary of her daughter’s husband. Or it may be that after the father presents his arguments in court, he takes hold of the cloth which his wife had brought under the corners of her garment and they both spread it before the court. Thus the mother is not mentioned in the section and did not appear in court at all except for the matter of “the cloth,” which is to be understood in its literal sense, as I have explained.

ופרשו השמלה, ”they will spread out the sheet, etc.” This verse needs to be understood as a simile, i.e. just as a sheet bears clear testimony to what went on while people slept on it, so the facts of the case are made crystal clear by the presentation of the accused girl’s parents. Nachmanides adds that this interpretation is appropriate according to the sages who claim that the slanderer will be found guilty even though he had not even had marital relations with his bride. According to the sage who holds that the slanderer cannot be convicted unless both parties agree that the marriage had been consummated, the verse has to be understood at its face value, i.e. that the שמלה our verse speaks of is the sheet on which the young couple consummated their marriage.

This is figurative, etc. Otherwise, what would happen if the cloth had been lost or laundered; or who knows whether it is hers or whether it is virginal blood?