Commento su Numeri 5:15

קמח implies that it shall not be of fine sifted flour.

HE SHALL POUR NO OIL UPON IT — “so that her offering shall not be enriched, for oil is called light, whereas she acted in darkness. NOR SHALL HE PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON, for the matriarchs are compared to frankincense, as it is said, to the hill of frankincense⁷¹Song of Songs 4:6. [an allegorical expression explained by the Midrash as an allusion to the matriarchs], but this woman turned aside from their [virtuous] ways. FOR IT IS A MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSIES. This flour arouses against her two jealousies — the jealousy of G-d, and the jealousy of her husband.” Thus far is Rashi’s language on the basis of the words of our Rabbis.⁷²Tanchuma Naso 3; Sifre Naso 8.
But in the opinion of all the commentators⁷³Found in Ibn Ezra. [the meaning of the expression] for it is a meal-offering of jealousies is to say that because this meal-offering [of the sotah]⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. is an offering which may bring her punishment [if the charge against her is true], therefore it is of a lesser quality [than all other meal-offerings and is to be brought of] barley without oil and frankincense, for a meal-offering of which the memorial-part is brought to be acceptable before the Eternal, comes of fine wheat-flour with oil and frankincense. But in my opinion the expression for it is a meal-offering of jealousies refers to the beginning of the verse, stating that the husband shall bring the offering for his wife, that is to say, instead of her, for it is a meal-offering of jealousies bringing her iniquity to remembrance. Thus it is not fitting that she should bring it of her own property, but it is he who is to bring the meal-offering to G-d so that He should take note of his suspicions of her, and punish her on his [the husband’s] behalf. And the reason [why this meal-offering comes from] se’orim (barley)⁷⁴The word se’orim (barley) is suggestive of the word sa’ar (storm), as is indicated in the next verse quoted by Ramban. is so that ‘sa’arath’ (a storm of) the Eternal is gone forth in fury, yea, a whirling storm; it shall whirl upon the head of wickedness,⁷⁵Jeremiah 23:19. like the cake of barley bread⁷⁶Judges 7:13. Gideon indeed inflicted later a great defeat upon the Midianite host (ibid., 22-28). mentioned in the story of Gideon, which [one of the Midianites who saw it in a dream] interpreted as referring to a storm (sa’ar) and great confusion [which would break forth upon the camp of the Midianites]. Similarly, the earthen vessel⁷⁷Verse 17. [in which the holy water is put] is a hint that she shall be broken like a potter’s vessel,⁷⁸See Jeremiah 19:11. and likewise the dust [which must be taken from the floor of the Tabernacle and put into the water⁷⁷Verse 17. indicates] that she is dust, and into dust shall she return⁷⁹See Genesis 3:19. [if she is guilty of adultery]. The meaning of the word hu [ki minchath kna’oth ‘hu’ — using the masculine form of “it” in the phrase “it is a meal-offering of jealousies,” when it should have used hi, the feminine form, since the word minchah (meal-offering) is feminine] is because it refers back to the word kemach (flour) [which is mentioned above in the same verse, and the word kemach is masculine]. But this [unusual usage of the masculine here] has a mystical explanation, for further on when the meal-offering is in the hands of the woman⁸⁰Verse 18. Scripture uses the word hi [minchath kna’oth hi — literally: “‘she’ is a meal-offering of jealousies”]. And now fin this verse] Scripture mentions the memorial first, stating that “she” brings iniquity to remembrance.⁸¹The verse here reads: ki minchath kna’oth hu minchath zikaron mazkereth avon [literally: “for a meal-offering of jealousies ‘he’ is, a meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance”], and the meaning thereof is that in this meal-offering there is both judgment and mercy: judgment, if she is guilty, and mercy if innocent. The word hu in this verse thus refers both to kemach and zikaron, which allude to these two attributes. Hence also the word hu is mentioned before zikaron (“memorial”), for “the memorial which brings iniquity to remembrance” surely alludes to the attribute of judgment, and the word hu which is mentioned before “the memorial” therefore alludes to mercy. Further on in Verse 18, however, the text reads: eith minchath hazikaron minchath kna’oth hi. There the word hi (“she”) appears at the end of the whole expression, after hazikaron (“the memorial”), when the meal-offering is in her hands [as the verse states] it is only “judgment” which brings the iniquity to remembrance. See further my Hebrew commentary p. 213.

והביא האיש את אשתו, we do not say that seeing that her husband had sat by silently while his wife had behaved unchastely, accusing her in his heart without saying a word, that this is proof of the husband’s bad attitude and we should therefore ignore his jealousy seeing he had allowed matters to get to the point where she had slept with another man; neither do we ignore his jealousy if she had not given him cause as something not worth paying attention to. We still subject her to the destruction (erasing) of the name of G’d (in the procedure the Torah will presently describe) in order to reveal the truth.

והביא האיש את אשתו אל הכהן, and this man has to bring his wife to the priest, etc. There are several questions we need to answer in the course of this whole paragraph. What does the Torah mean by calling the offering of the Sotah מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון, "a meal-offering of memorial reminder of iniquity?" What did the Torah accomplish with the word זכרון? Why would the offering of a meal-offering consisting of barley as opposed to wheat be designed to be especially memorable, seeing that the Omer, an offering consisting of barley, is offered every year on the second day of Passover? We must also try to understand why the Torah refers to these bitter waters as "holy waters?" What precisely do the waters accomplish and why are they called "holy?" We are told in Sotah 15 that the term "holy" in this instance referred to the fact that the waters were sanctified in the copper basin, כיור. While this is all fine and good, why did they have to be drawn from that basin at all? Moreover, what precisely is the nature of the ספר, the book, in which the priest records the curses which he blots out by dissolving them in the bitter waters (verse 23)? Why does the Sotah have to drink the remains of that book? We can understand that Moses made the Israelites drink the water containing the residue of the golden calf as the kind of pennance described in Jeremiah 2,19, but this situation is hardly parallel. Also, why was it important to have ready loose earth from the Temple floor which had to be added to this water, and such earth could not be freshly dug (verse 17)? Our sages in Sotah 15 also quote a halachah according to which the earth had to be poured into the vessel after it was filled with water and had to float on the water. If the vessel had first been filled with earth the whole procedure was פסול, defective and useless. Why should such a minor detail disqualify the whole procedure and the name of G'd having been written in vain? I find it noteworthy that the Torah did not use the term חוקה in connection with this subject; had the Torah done so it would have prevented us from raising all these questions. I find it strange that the Torah calls the water in question מי המרים, why are they called "bitter?" Sifri claims that these waters were not bitter originally but turned bitter at the time they were used to perform the function described in our paragraph Another explanation is that they were called "bitter" because of the effect they had on the life of a Sotah who was guilty of what her husband suspected and was brazen enough to drink these waters instead of confessing her guilt. On folio 20 of the tractate Sotah the father of the famous teacher Samuel claims that some bitter material had to be added to the water in question. The reason was that since the waters were already called "bitter waters" something really bitter had to be added. This seems quite astounding. Why did the Torah fail to mention this detail?

לא יצוק עליו שמן, “he shall not pour oil over it.” This is to prevent this offering from becoming something “enhanced” as luxury. Nachmanides adds that this is in line with the opinion of the commentators who consider this offering in the nature of a penalty, [although the woman’s status has not yet been determined. Ed.] Proof, according to these commentators, is the fact that the kind of cereal, i.e. barley, basically animal fodder, which is stipulated here is to remind us of the low rank in terms of their spiritual level, of the person offering this meal offering. [Note that although the husband tenders this offering, the Torah describes it as “her offering.” Ed.] By not having oil added to make it tasty, and being prepared from inferior type of cereal, the Torah makes the point that it is not too welcome, according to these commentators. Nachmanides, adds however, that in his own opinion, the expression מנחת קנאות, “a meal-offering of jealousies” refers to the beginning of the verse to remind us that the woman at this stage is presumed guilty, and it would not be appropriate for a guilty person such as she to possess the effrontery to approach G’d with a meal offering from her own funds. The husband offers the meal offering as kind of a mute appeal to Hashem to show that he had not falsely accused his wife, and was entitled to have been jealous of her as a result of her behaviour. The reason why this meal-offering consists basically of barley, i.e שעורים is a play on words, the conduct of that woman regardless of whether she actually committed infidelity, being one that is “hair-raising,” in the sense of שערת השם, provoking G’d’s anger. Seeing that the letter ש with the dot on the left side sounds like the letter ס, her conduct sets of a “storm,” סער of outrage in heaven. The author quotes Jeremiah 23,19 וסער מתחולל על ראש רשעים יחול, “a whirling storm shall whirl down upon the heads of the wicked,” to make his point. He also quotes Judges 7,13 where the צליל שעורים, the loaf of barley bread, in the dream of the Midianite soldier foreshadowed the defeat of his people at the hands of the Israelites. [Additional quotes are provided on the subject. Ed.]

But not of fine flour. Re’m writes that Rashi is informing us of the reason why the Torah excludes fine flour and wheat. For one cannot explain he means to inform us that the words “flour” and “barley” in the verse are there to exclude fine flour and wheat, given that this is obvious. It is something that any schoolchild knows.

V. 15. והביא האיש. Wie im Vorangehenden bemerkt, ist sofort nach konstatierten קנוי und סתירה der Zweifel über die wirklich erfolgte טומאה vorwaltend und die Frau אסורה לבעלה, wenn nicht die hier nun folgende Unterstellung des Zweifels unter göttliches Urteil für den Fortbestand der Ehe entscheidet. Es hängt aber diese Unterstellung unter göttliche Entscheidung völlig von dem beiderseitig freien Willen des Mannes und der Frau ab. Es kann der Mann lieber die Ehe lösen, als die Frau dieser Prüfung unterstellen. Es kann auch die Frau ohne Zugeständnis ihrer Schuld lieber aus der Ehe treten, als sich dieser Prüfung unterziehen. Weder der Mann noch die Frau können dazu gezwungen werden (Sota 6 a). Auch wenn der Mann inzwischen gestorben, wo somit der nächste Zweck, der eventuelle Fortbestand der Ehe weggefallen, wird die Prüfung nicht vorgenommen (Ketubot 81 a) — Die ganze hier vorgeschriebene Behandlung der Frau von zweifelhafter Treue steht übrigens lediglich dem höchsten Gerichtshofe, ב׳׳ד הגדול בירושלים zu (Sota 7 b), dorthin hat somit der Mann die Frau zu führen.

מזכרת עון, “as a reminder of an iniquity committed.” Other types of meal offerings are described as לכפר עון, “to atone for an iniquity committed.” We know of a מנחת חוטא “meal offering of a sinner;” מנחת נדבה “a voluntary meal offering;” these meal offerings are accompanied by oil and לבונה, frankincense, in order for that offering resulting in a pleasant fragrance, ריח ניחוח, in order to remind the Lord of the merits of the donor. Seeing that the mandatory offering discussed here is not intended to remind G–d of the donor’s merits but her husband brings his wife to the priest as an accuser, the offering only serves as a reminder of his sin. [It is not clear yet at this point if the wife was guilty of serious misconduct. Ed.] (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah, folio 15)

והביא את קרבנה, “he will offer her sacrifice;” it is impossible to assume that this offering will bring heratonement, as we have a principle that offerings by confirmed sinners are an abomination. (Proverbs 21,27) What happens here is that the person who had observed the adulterous action originally, without reacting to it and bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities, brings an offering, in order to atone for his sin of omission. By having failed to do so, he was now the cause of the Holy Name of the Lord becoming dissolved in the waters that the woman denying the accusation is made to drink.

It must be שערים BARLEY, and not wheat; because she committed a bestial act, therefore shall her offering consist of that which is food for beasts (Sifrei Bamidbar 8; Sotah 14a).

Identified as light. Meaning that oil is termed יצהר, as the verse writes “Your grain, your wine, יצהרך (your oil)” (Devarim 7:13). This is the same as the terms צוהר (skylight) and צהרים (noon) which refer to light.

We may be able to explain the whole subject of the Sotah in light of what we explained in Parshat Bereshit on the inner structure of the Torah in connection with Genesis 2,1 on the line ויכלו השמים והארץ. We explained there that it is axiomatic that every creature harbours a desire to be re-united with the living G'd, its Creator. This feeling ,- in varying degree-is also present in all things G'd created which possess a spiritual element, something we called a two-tiered intelligence, be it pronounced or almost dormant. G'd equipped each of His creations with sufficient intelligence to ensure its continued existence and to enable it to praise its Creator. This is the true meaning of Proverbs 16,9 that whatever G'd created He made for a purpose that suited Him, (or "for its own good"). We also find that the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 5,4 explain the reason the waters are always perceived as "weeping" is that when G'd separated the upper waters from the lower waters this caused them to weep over their separation, some being confined to an area beneath the earth. The waters which wound up beneath the earth weep and groan seeing that they did not merit to come close to G'd as do the waters in the upper half of the world, something all creatures desire as part of their nature.

'והביא את קרבנה עלי. Alle Pflichtopfer der Frau bringt der Mann (Nedarim 35 b), und spricht sich darin die ganze Innigkeit der in der Ehe bestehenden Einheit der Personen vor Gott aus. Indem somit auch hier der Mann das Opfer der Frau bringt, stellt er seinen Wunsch der Fortdauer dieses Ehebandes Gottes Entscheidung anheim. — Es ist aber dieses Opfer עשירת האיפה קמח שערים, nicht סלת, nicht חטים, sondern קמח, ungesiebtes, somit die gröbste Sorte Mehl, und zwar שעורים, Gerste, die geringste unter den Getreidearten, in der Regel nur zum Futter dienend, מאכל בהמה. Es handelt sich hier um die einfache Existenz, um Sein und Nichtsein, und zwar da der Mann das Mincha der Frau bringt, um Sein oder Nichtsein in der Ehe. Legt ja jedes Mincha in den Mitteln der Nahrung eigentlich den künftigen Menschen, seine Daseinszukunft, Gott huldigend zu Füßen. Nach Sota 14 a ist in שעורים als מאכל בהמה auch dem Zweifel an ihrer sittlichen Menschenwürde Ausdruck verliehen, כשם שמעשי׳ מעשה בהמה כך קרבנה מאכל בהמה, eine Kennzeichnung, die sie ja in jedem Falle verdient, da sie ja jedenfalls, wenn ihre Schuld auch nicht zur vollendeten טומאה gediehen, den reinen Pfad sittlicher Weiblichkeit verlassen (Verse 12 u. 14). לא יצק עליו שמן ולא יתן עליו לבנה, nicht Zeichen des Wohlstandes und nicht Zeichen des Wohlbehagens hat es zu tragen, כי מנחת קנאות הוא מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון, denn der Ernst des Zweifels, dem dies Mincha zum Ausdruck dient und den es zur Entscheidung bringen soll, schließt שמן und לבנה aus. Die zwei Seiten des Zweifels, aus dem heraus dies Mincha gebracht wird, sind in der doppelten Bezeichnung מנחת קנאות und מנחת זכרון ausgedrückt. קנאות: der Mann vindiziert sein Weib, sie soll die Seine bleiben, wenn sie noch die Seine ist, das spricht schon die Tatsache aus, dass er sie zur Entscheidung vor Gott hinführt. Wollte er die Ehe lösen, er hätte dessen nicht bedurft, sie ist ihm אסור, er hat den היתר bei Gott zu suchen. Von anderer Seite ist es: מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון. Wir haben schon zu Wajikra 2, 2 entwickelt, wie der Begriff אזכרה ,זכר, einen wesentlichen Bestandteil der Minchabedeutung bildet. Es wird im Mincha die Existenz des Menschen und, mit שמן und לבנה verbunden, sein Wohlstand und seine Zufriedenheit als Augenmerk der göttlichen Fürsehung begriffen und Gottes segnendes Gedenken dieser Güter des Menschen angestrebt. Hier aber wird das מנחת זכרון zu einem מזכרת עון, es soll der Allwissende die Fortexistenzfrage der Frau in der Ehe nach seinem Bewusstsein von deren Schuld entscheiden und über die Schuldige, wenn schuldig, den Stab brechen. Dies ist die zweite Seite des Zweifels. Es handelt sich da nicht um Verleihung von Wohlstand und Glück: es ist die ernste Grundfrage der Fortdauer des Seins in der Ehe oder des Nichtseins göttlicher Entscheidung zu Füßen zu legen, darum: לא יצק עליו שמן ולא יתן עליו לבנה (vergl. Wajikra 5, 11). כי מנחת קנאות הוא ,הוא: das רש׳׳י) קמח).

קמח שעורים, “of barley flour.” This is a type of flour in which also the husks are mixed in with the kernels. This reflects on the nature of the sin it is to atone for, as it resembles fodder for animals, and the guilty party acted like an animal in its indiscriminate conduct. לא יצוק עליו שמן ולא יתן עליו לבונה, “he shall pour no oil on it, nor is he to put frankincense thereon.” Those ingredients when added to other gift offerings are usually referred to as אזכרה, “remembrance,” as they are to remind the recipient of the offering, the Lord, of the person who has presented it. In this instance it would remind Him of the guilt of the donor of this offering, seeing it is known as a מנחת קנאות, “a meal offering of jealousy,” i.e. instead of pleasant fragrance it exudes only the spirit of jealousy.

לא יצק עליו שמן HE SHALL POUR NO OIL UPON IT, so that her offering shall not be embellished (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 5:11) — and also because oil is called light (it is named יצהר from the root צהר, to give light; see Tanchuma) whilst she acted in darkness (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 3; cf. Sotah 15a).

Furthermore, G'd has demonstrated to us that He desires to have a residence on earth including areas of the waters allocated to man. Due to Adam's sin the earth was cursed and the throne of G'd was removed to higher spheres which meant the simultaneous removal of the source of our blessings to regions farther away from our domain (compare Bereshit Rabbah 19). This situation continued until the revelation at Mount Sinai when G'd once more agreed to take up residence on earth. The signal for this was G'd giving instructions to the Israelites to build a Sanctuary for Him even before they had conquered the land of Canaan. This demonstrated how eager G'd was to have a residence on earth. Had it not been for the sin of the spies and the resultant delay of Israel's conquest of the land of Canaan by almost 40 years, completion of the Tabernacle and Israel's conquering the land of Canaan would have occurred almost simultaneously. When the Jewish people became guilty of abominations even after G'd had resided amongst them for many years, He again had to withdraw His presence and He returned to His former residence in Heaven. If it were not for the sins committed by the Jewish people G'd's residence would remain permanently on earth. When this will occur eventually, it will wipe out the weeping of the "lower" waters and the "shame" of the earth which suffered from G'd's curse. It will cause them to become joyous ushering in a period when these "lovers" will be reunited. If, for some reason, sin will again prevail on earth, G'd will again withdraw from earth causing the waters to express their feelings by weeping. We must remain aware that Israel's exemplary behaviour at Mount Sinai was in itself sufficient to cause G'd's presence to reside on earth and to fill the earth with the knowledge of G'd so that G'd's residing on earth would not be considered as G'd "lowering" Himself from a holier region. On the contrary, earth would be elevated to rank as equal in sanctity to Heaven.

מזכרת עון, it reminds G-d of the guilt of either of the two parties concerned, either the woman who had sinned or her husband who had suspected her unfairly.

ולא יתן עליו לבנה NOR SHALL HE PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON — Because the matriarchs are symbolically termed frankincense, as it is said, (Songs 4:6) “I will get me … to the hill of frankincense” (which is taken as an allusion to the matriarchs), whilst she deviated from their paths (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 3).

You will find that our sages said in Shemot Rabbah 41,7 that the meaning of true freedom, i.e. חרות, is freedom from the angel of death, i.e. the evil urge. The sin of the golden calf was responsible for the angel of death again asserting himself in our lives. Israel's subsequent repentance was not enough to banish the activities of the angel of death other than within certain parts of the confines of the encampment of the Jewish people. In the rest of the world the angel of death operated as it had prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. The era envisaged by the prophet in Zachariah 13 is one when death will have ceased on earth permanently. Earth will then be known as ארץ החיים, living earth, seeing that the angel of death will have been banned.

כי מנחת קנאות הוא, “for it is a meal offering originating from jealousy.” The word הוא, seeing that it is in the masculine mode, refers to the earlier noun קמח, which is a masculine noun. In verse 18, where the expression מנחת קנאות הוא occurs again, it refers to the offering which is from the noun מנחה, a feminine noun.

כי מנחת קנאת הוא FOR IT IS A MEAL OFFERING OF JEALOUSY — i.e., this קמח is a meal offering of jealousy; for the word קמח is masculine and is therefore referred to by the masc. form.

In order to understand the subject of Sotah we must keep all the foregoing in mind. The objective of the whole Sotah legislation is for the husband (priest) to examine his wife in a place where G'd resides. I have already explained elsewhere that this place is called ארץ העליונה, the "higher" earth, on account of G'd having His residence there. It is not included in the part of the earth which had been subjected to G'd's curse as a result of man's sin. Also any of the waters in that area are not subject to "tears," i.e. have not been afflicted by said curse. This is why G'd commanded that "holy waters" be taken for this procedure. Waters which are found in the sacred precincts of the Temple are sacred by definition. This does not contradict the halachah that these waters be taken from the copper basin which serves the priests to wash their hands and feet.

מנחת קנאת A MEAL OFFERING OF JEALOUSY — The plural קנאות is used because it arouses against her two outbreaks of jealousy — the jealousy of the Omnipresent and the jealousy of her husband (Tosefta Sotah 2; Sifrei Bamidbar 8; cf. Rashi’s second comment on איש איש v. 12).

The Torah also commanded the priest to use earth from the floor of the Holy Temple precisely because it is the closest to G'd's residence. The reason that this earth should not now be dug up is also because if it were already at hand it is closer to the site where G'd resides. The closer the earth is to the place where the Shechinah resides, the more its awareness of its proximity to its Creator. Earth from outside the precincts of the Temple would not be as aware of the nearness of G'd. The earth is better able to fulfil what the Creator demands of it once it has "tasted" the proximity of the Lawgiver.

The reason that G'd commanded for the earth to be added to the water and not vice versa is based on the waters having been created before the earth during the process of creation. When our sages decided that if the earth had been in the vessel before the water the whole procedure is null and void, they did not nullify the procedure in the event that both water and earth had been poured into the vessel simultaneously. The reason is that such a procedure still resembles the order of creation when water and solid particles were thoroughly mixed up before G'd created the light. We do not find that earth is ever at the bottom of the source of springwater (מים חיים), however. Rabbi Shimon (Sotah 16) held that it does not matter whether the earth had been placed in the vesel first as long as the water is holy water. He obviously felt that this suffices for both the waters and the earth to be imbued with the appropriate awareness for both elements to perform the task G'd allocated to them as part of the whole procedure.

The Torah commanded to write the portion of the Sotah including the holy name of G'd where it appears in it and to allow the bitter waters to erase these holy names of G'd due to the nature of the water and the earth it contains. The residue of the names of G'd provided the water with the power to produce the desired effect in the woman who drank this water.

The Torah also commanded for the meal-offering of the woman in question to consist primarily of barley, i.e. a reminder of the offering Cain had brought, who had offered something of inferior value. This inferior offering was also an indirect result of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. This it what the Torah means when it speaks of מזכרת עון, "a reminder of sin," i.e. the original sin. It was this original sin which had led to the weeping of the waters and the curse which rests on Earth. When the Sotah drinks this mixture of water, earth and the residue of the holy name of G'd which dissolved in that water, the name of the meal-offering as "reminder of sin" is most appropriate if she has indeed been guilty of marital infidelity. It will recall also earlier sins. When the waters become aware of this they will turn bitter reflecting on their own sorry fate, as we described earlier. These waters will then take their revenge on this woman who has caused them all these tears and they will ruin the woman's intestines. All of this will be accomplished by the power of the holy name of G'd which has been dissolved in these waters. Whoever is familiar with the sin of Eve who had been contaminated by sexual intercourse with the original serpent, and who had thus been disloyal to her husband, will realise that the sin the Sotah is guilty of is indeed the original sin committed by man, i.e. woman. This sin had caused the original light G'd had bestowed on this world to withdraw to the celestial regions. The action of these waters (as well as the earth although the earth has not been mentioned by the Torah as also causing the death of the woman) may be viewed as an attempt to forestall an attack on them. We have a principle that when someone is about to kill you you are to forestall him and kill the attacker first. The kind of sin committed by a Sotah is one which drives G'd from our midst, and it is therefore logical that the water and the earth would react in the manner described by the Torah.

That is that He commanded us with the process of the meal-offering sacrifices, according to the description that is mentioned for each and every type. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "When a person offers a sacrifice of a meal-offering to the Lord [...]. And if your meal-offering is on a griddle [...]. And if your meal-offering is in a deep pan" (Leviticus 2:1, 5, 7). And He said with the completion of the process, "And that is the law of the meal-offering" (Leviticus 6:7). And the regulations of this commandment and most of its content is explained in Tractate Menachot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 13.)