민수기 5:13 탈무드 참조: Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Taanit & Sotah

MISHNAH: Just as the water checks her out so it checks him¹The wife’s paramour. It is moreover stated in Halakhah 9:9 (Babli 28a) that the procedure becomes inactive if the husband had ever misbehaved sexually. out, as it is said, “it will come, it will come”. Just as she is forbidden to the husband so she is forbidden to her paramour as it is said, “she was impure, she was impure,” the words of Rebbi Aqiba²This will be explained in the Halakhah.. Rebbi Joshua said, that was the inference of Zachariah the butcher’s son³An early Tanna, student of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai.. Rebbi said, the two times it said, “she became impure, she became impure,” once for the husband and once for the paramour⁴In Num. 5:13,14 it is stated twice “she became impure”, meaning “she became forbidden”; cf. Chapter 4, Note 75, and the Introduction..

What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua²⁹In the Babli, 2b, the argument attributed to R. Joshua refers to Num. 5:13: “There is no witness against her”, meaning that a single witness to her adultery will make the Temple ceremony superfluous and will make her lose the ketubah money otherwise due to her in a divorce, but will not be valid either to prove a declaration of jealousy or a secluded rendez-vous.? ““For he found in her a word of nakedness.¹⁶Deut. 24:1.” “Word”, that is the declaration of jealousy. “For he found”; “finding” has to be validated by witnesses²²Everywhere the Torah uses the expression כִּי מָצָא, כִּי יִמָּצֵא “if it happened” the implication is that the case must be heard before a duly constituted court.. (“But he can take her to drinkby the testimony of one witness or his own testimony,” “she was untrue to him in untruthfulness”.)³⁰The sentence in parentheses has been copied in error from the arguments of R. Eliezer. How does Rebbi Joshua explain “nakedness”? [A prohibition of] nakedness that came because of a word³¹Because of his word, the declaration of jealousy, she becomes forbidden to him even though there is no witness to her adultery..

HALAKHAH: “If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure’,” etc. “And there is no witness against her²¹Num. 5:13.”; not only a witness [of good standing], from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “and there is no witness against her”, any one²²This follows R. Aqiba, who interprets every “and” as an addition [more explicitly Num. rabba 9(6)].. And following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael said²³In the Babli, 31b and Sanhedrin30a, and Sifry Num. 7, this is quoted as everybody’s opinion., at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness”, in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says two witnesses²⁴This seems to be the opinion of the Tanna of Sifry Num. 7. The Babli, 31b, explains the problem away by reading the verse “and two witnesses are not against her,” meaning that one is. If one does not need two witnesses, one does not need quality witnesses..