민수기 5:14 관련 구절

HALAKHAH: “A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law,” etc. Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen¹⁰Lev. 5:15. A man can bring his wife only if he is living with her..” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy¹¹If “his wife” in this paragraph means only the definitively married one, the entire procedure should be impossible for the preliminarily married woman.! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,¹²Lev. 5:14; if the meaning of “his wife” were constant in this verse, the second clause should have read “and he declared his jealousy to her.” The woman who is a wife but not a wife in the first sense is the preliminarily married one. Therefore, the second mention of “wife” adds the preliminarily married one as object of jealousy.” even if she is only partially his wife.

HALAKHAH: “Just as the water checks her out,” etc. We stated “they came, they came”. Some Tannaïm stated “they will come, they will come”. He who said “they came, they came” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “they will come, they will come” is Rebbi Ismael. We stated “she became impure, she became impure”, some Tannaïm stated “and she became impure, and she became impure”. He who said “she became impure, she became impure” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “and she became impure, and she became impure” is Rebbi Ismael⁶R. Ismael holds that דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה בִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם “the Torah speaks in everyday language” (Yebamot 8:1, Note 72; Nedarim 1:1; Šabbat 19:2; Babli Berakhot 31b and 18 other places). This means that any verse containing no linguistic feature noted as an exception in Gesenius-Kautzsch must be interpreted following the hermeneutical rules detailed in the introduction to Sifra. R. Ismael’s argument here is a straightforward application of his rule 3: בנין אב מכתוב אחד “meaning established by one verse”. Since both וּבָאוּ (vv. 22,27) and וְנִטְמָאָה (v. 29) [correctly in Midrash of the 32 Rules: וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה (vv. 13,14)] are well defined by the first occurrence, the second occurrence has the parallel meaning but refers to a different subject. That this second subject is the suspected adulterer is never indicated in the verse but since he is the only other person possibly being impure in this situation, the transfer of the meanings to him makes sense.
R. Aqiba negates absolutely that “the Torah speaks in everyday language”. For him, any vaw prefixed to a word has a hidden meaning. [Since his co-student Aquila translated the Torah in this sense “before Rebbis Eliezer and Joshua” (Megillah 1:11 fol. 71c, Babli 3a), one may attribute this transformation of the Pentateuch into a book of codes to the tradition of their common teacher Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai.] R. Aqiba is not deterred by the fact that in וּבָאוּ the vav is both conjunctive and conversive; any vav that is translated even in the LXX by καὶ must indicate a duplication of meaning. If the duplication of subjects were not intended, then Scripture would have found a way to use only באו (or imperfect יבואו) without the vav.
The Babli, 28a, takes notice only of the teachings of R. Aqiba..

Rebbi Jehudah asked: As you say, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,¹²Lev. 5:14; if the meaning of “his wife” were constant in this verse, the second clause should have read “and he declared his jealousy to her.” The woman who is a wife but not a wife in the first sense is the preliminarily married one. Therefore, the second mention of “wife” adds the preliminarily married one as object of jealousy.” even if she is only partially his wife, similarly, “under your husband,” even if he is only partially your husband¹⁷R. Jehudah notes that “under your husband” is repeated (vv. 19,20). Therefore, if the repetition of “his wife” (cf. Note 12) also includes a partial wife ( preliminarily married or one who waits for her brother-in-law), the repetition here should also give the partial husband the right to bring his partial wife to the Temple. There is no answer given; R. Jehudah’s argument is contradicted by the verse he himself quotes, cf. Chapter 1, Notes 154–156.. How is that? If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he wed her¹⁸“He took her in”, i. e., he brought her to his house in the final wedding ceremony to live with him., and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy¹⁹The final wedding activates the prior declaration of jealousy. The Babli agrees, 25a.. If he²⁰The brother-in-law. declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he²⁰The brother-in-law. wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy¹⁹The final wedding activates the prior declaration of jealousy. The Babli agrees, 25a.. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah²¹As stated in Mishnah 3:6, the ceremony is ineffective for a woman whose husband had slept with her while she was forbidden to him. Since it is his action that (a) keeps his wife permanently forbidden to him and, (b) prevents his wife from proving her innocence, he as the guilty party is forced to divorce her and to pay the full amount of the ketubah.; otherwise²²If the husband did not sleep with his wife after she became forbidden to him, he has the choice to divorce her because of her fault, without paying any of his own money. she has to leave without ketubah. [If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise without ketubah.]²³From the Rome ms., probably omitted by the scribe of the Leiden ms. because of the parallel text. If her husband declared his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who married her, then she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of [the first husband’s] declaration of jealousy²⁴Since by biblical standards the brother-in-law’s marriage is an automatic consequence of the first husband’s death.. If her husband did not declare his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who declared his jealousy but did not manage to take her in before he died and she became destined for his brother, the latter cannot make her drink since she became destined for him only because of the first brother²⁵Since the second brother never became her husband, his declaration is irrelevant to the third brother.. But if her brother-in-law declared his jealousy, took her in, and died, then she became destined for a brother-in-law who took her in, when she went to a secluded place he makes her drink on the basis of his²⁰The brother-in-law. declaration of jealousy.