וְהִתְוַדּ֤וּ אֶת־עֲוֺנָם֙ וְאֶת־עֲוֺ֣ן אֲבֹתָ֔ם בְּמַעֲלָ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֣ר מָֽעֲלוּ־בִ֑י וְאַ֕ף אֲשֶׁר־הָֽלְכ֥וּ עִמִּ֖י בְּקֶֽרִי׃
그들이 자기 죄와 그 열조의 죄와 및 그들이 나를 거스린 허물을 자복하고 또 자기들이 나를 대항하였으므로
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “For he found in her a word of nakedness.16”Deut. 24:1.. “Nakedness”, that is the rendez-vous17“Meeting in secret” with another man.. “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “Word, word”; just as “word” mentioned there requires two witnesses18Deut. 19:15: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a word (fact, circumstance) be confirmed.” The argument is based on the second hermeneutical rule (Sifra Introduction) that the meaning of words is unchanged from one occurrence to the other.
In the Babli, Giṭṭin 90a, this is quoted as the argument of the House of Shammai., so “word” mentioned here requires two witnesses. “But he can take her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness19Num. 5:12. The root מעל denotes the sin of embezzlement or fraud (Lev. 5:15, Num. 5:6; cf. Arabic مغالة) or general mischief (Lev. 26:40, Ez. 18:24, Ezr. 9:4; cf. Arabic معالة).”, about the conditions spelled out to her through the mouth of others20In this interpretation, מעל refers to fraud as breach of contract; it does not imply unfaithfulness of the wife, as explained in Num. 5:14. Therefore, the breach of contract is that the wife went to a rendez-vous with the man forbidden to her by the declaration of jealousy in front of two witnesses. The clause (Num. 5:12) that she breached her contract with him is read to mean that he is empowered to prosecute this breach before the Temple priests..
In the Babli, Giṭṭin 90a, this is quoted as the argument of the House of Shammai., so “word” mentioned here requires two witnesses. “But he can take her to drink by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness19Num. 5:12. The root מעל denotes the sin of embezzlement or fraud (Lev. 5:15, Num. 5:6; cf. Arabic مغالة) or general mischief (Lev. 26:40, Ez. 18:24, Ezr. 9:4; cf. Arabic معالة).”, about the conditions spelled out to her through the mouth of others20In this interpretation, מעל refers to fraud as breach of contract; it does not imply unfaithfulness of the wife, as explained in Num. 5:14. Therefore, the breach of contract is that the wife went to a rendez-vous with the man forbidden to her by the declaration of jealousy in front of two witnesses. The clause (Num. 5:12) that she breached her contract with him is read to mean that he is empowered to prosecute this breach before the Temple priests..