Talmud sobre Números 5:35

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..

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..

MISHNAH: A preliminarily married woman¹Cf. Demai 4, Note 19. or one who waits for her brother-in-law²Her husband died childless; she waits to be married by her brother-in-law. In the meantime, the brother-in-law declared his jealousy and brought witnesses that she had an illicit rendezvous. While a woman waiting for her brother-in-law is unable to marry outside the family without ḥalîṣah, her infidelity in her widowhood is not criminal adultery (cf. Yebamot, Chapter 2, Note 6). Nevertheless, if a brother-in-law “bespoke” her, she is as if preliminarily married to him and if she violates his demand that she not be with a suspected paramour, he cannot marry her unless she is cleared by the Soṭah ritual. Since this is impossible and she has brought the situation on herself by her action, she has to receive ḥalîṣah, be divorced, and cannot claim her ketubah money. neither drinks nor collects her ketubah, since it is said³Num. 5:29. “Under her husband” is only a wife living with her husband. In Sifry Num. 20 (differently in Babli 24a, attributed to the same authors) there is a discussion on which woman is considered living with her husband.: “.. who will deviate from under her husband,” which excludes a preliminarily married woman and one who waits for her brother-in-law.
A widow [married to] a High Priest⁴Lev. 21:14., a divorcee⁵Lev. 21:7. or one who received ḥalîṣah⁶She is a divorcee by rabbinic standards; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 2:4. to a common priest, a female bastard⁷Cf. Yebamot Chapter 1, Note 176. or a Gibeoness⁸Cf. Yebamot Chapter 2, Note 72. to an Israel, or an Israel woman married to a bastard or a Gibeonite, neither drinks nor collects her ketubah⁹The Halakhah leaves open the possibility that this latter rule may be a rabbinic decree..

If [after betrothal the woman] was raped, she is permitted to him,⁵Cf. Deut. 22, 23-27. but should she have been a willing party she is forbidden to him. If she is the wife of a kohen, she is forbidden to him whether [it happened] under force or with her consent. [For it is stated, And she be not seized⁶Num. 5, 13, E.V. neither she be taken in the act. The phrase is interpreted by the Rabbis in the sense that she did not act under compulsion but willingly, referring to a married woman who was defiled secretly without witnesses to testify against her.—[only then] is she forbidden; if, however, she was seized⁷i.e. violated by force. she is permitted. There is another class of woman who is forbidden [to her husband] even though she had been seized; and who is that? The wife of a kohen.⁸Cf. Yeb. 56b (Sonc. ed., p. 378), Keth. 51b (Sonc. ed., p. 298). R. Ishmael⁹According to R. Ishmael there is no distinction between the wife of a kohen and a lay-Israelite in the case of rape. said: And she be not seized she is forbidden; consequently if she had been seized she is permitted. There is another class of woman who is permitted [to her husband] even if she had not been seized; and who is that? A woman whose betrothal was mistaken.¹⁰If, e.g., a condition were attached to the betrothal that remained unfulfilled. In such a case the woman may leave her husband without a geṭ, and in any subsequent intercourse, whether forced or willing, her status is that of an unmarried woman who had never been previously married. The passage within brackets is added by GRA and is necessary, otherwise R. Ishmael would be contradicting himself. Cf. Yeb. 100b (Sonc. ed., p. 692), Keth. loc. cit.]
If a divorcee who became betrothed was seduced, whether under force or of her free will, she is forbidden to return to her former husband.¹¹If her second husband subsequently died or divorced her. She is, however, permitted to remarry her former husband after betrothal alone, where no marriage with the second man took place and he died. This is the opinion of R. Jose b. Ḳippar in the name of R. Eleazar b. Shammua‘. This is the reasoning by which R. Jose b. Ḳippar expounded his view:¹²This is the reading of GRA as against V and H, who name R. Ishmael as the authority. [It is written,] Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled.¹³Deut. 24, 4. In what circumstances did she become defiled?¹⁴If she was legally married to the second husband the term defiled is inapplicable. It can only be explained by what the Sages have said: If a woman [after betrothal] was forcibly seduced, she is permitted to [her husband]; if she was a willing party she is forbidden to him; but in this case,¹⁵Of the divorcee who became betrothed and was then seduced. This is the reading of GRA. V and H have ‘the wife of a kohen’. whether under compulsion or of her free will she is forbidden to return to her former husband.¹⁶So GRA. V and H ‘to him’.

HALAKHAH: “If a man declares his jealousy to his wife,” etc. It is written⁵Num. 5:14.: “A spirit of jealousy overcame him and he declared his jealousy to his wife;” this implies that he should not declare his jealousy jokingly, or in the middle of a conversation, or lightly, or in a friendly manner⁶The witnesses to the declaration of jealousy must be able to testify that the wife could not possibly have had the impression that the husband was less than absolutely serious. but in a way that inspires fear. If he transgressed and declared his jealousy in one of the aforementioned ways: was this said as an obligation or as a necessity? If you say as an obligation, his declaration of jealousy is valid⁷While he did not do what he was supposed to do, his dereliction would not invalidate his declaration.. If you say as a necessity, his declaration of jealousy is invalid. This is resolved referring to the statement⁸Accepted also in the Babli, Menaḥot 19a. Any procedure that is described as תּוֹרָה or חֻקָּה in the Torah must be executed to the letter or it is invalid; quoted also in Soṭah 2:3 (18a), Pesaḥim 7:2 (34b).
It follows that for the Yerushalmi, any declaration of jealousy that is not executed in a spirit of gravity is invalid.: Anywhere “law” or “teaching” is mentioned, it is an absolute necessity.

HALAKHAH: “He brought her flour offering,” etc. It is written⁴Num. 5:18. The verse requires that the offering be in the woman’s hands all the time the water is in the Cohen’s hand.: “In the Cohen’s hand shall be the spell-inducing bitter water.” Is that to tire her out? Rather to inspire her with fear.

HALAKHAH: “The following are recited,” etc. It is written⁸Num. 5:21. The argument being that this clause is redundant. The full verse reads: “The Cohen shall make the woman swear by a curse-oath, the Cohen shall tell the woman: …”.: “The Cohen shall tell the woman,” in any language she understands, the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said to him, if she does not understand, how could she answer “Amen, Amen”⁹In Sifry Num. 12, the objection is attributed to R. Ismael, R. Joshia’s teacher, not to R. Jonathan, R. Joshia’s student. R. Ismael’s interpretation is that the Cohen has to go into all details of the proceedings. The Babli, 32b, is the only source which accepts R. Joshia’s derivation. Then the Babli, without mentioning names, follows R. Ismael’s interpretation but treats it as purely rabbinic.? But that he should not talk to her through an interpreter.

HALAKHAH: “A woman living in her husband’s house,” etc. ⁷This paragraph is from Sotah 2:1, Notes 15–23 which is the original since the last sentence, which makes the argument intelligible, is missing here. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who are missing atonement⁸Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), the person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14: 1–32) and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, the woman after childbirth and one [healed from] skin disease, since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib⁹Who could have been afflicted with skin disease and, if female, with a discharge at her birth mimicking menstruation. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] skin disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? ¹⁰This text also is in Yebamot 1:2, Note 153. It implies that a woman giving birth is an adult and no longer in her father’s power. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter¹¹Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him.. Since he married her off¹²Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him., she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since ¹³This statement also is in Sotah 1:2, Note 91. In the language of the Babli, Yebamot33b, “the seduction of an under-age girl is rape.” Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yosa¹⁴With the text in Sotah read: Yasa. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written¹⁵Num. 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the sotah ordeal. The Babli concurs, Sotah27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: The woman shall say: Amen, amen. Rebbi Abun said, since it is written¹⁶Deut. 14:26. A man’s house usually means his wife. The missing final sentence explains that since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abun disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel.: You shall enjoy together with your house.

HALAKHAH: “He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written⁶Num. 5:25: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand, weave it before the Eternal and present it to the altar.”: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand.” Does he perform the weave? Does not she perform the weave⁷The verse requires that the Cohen perform the weave. But in the case of an animal sacrifice it is required (Lev. 7:30) that the individual bringing the sacrifice be the actor: “His hands shall bring the Eternal’s gift, the fat on the breast he has to bring, to weave it before the Eternal.” In the Babli, 19a, the parallel expressions his hands, the woman’s hand are taken as proof that the woman has to take part in weaving her gift just as a man has to take part in the weaving of his. The formulation of the Yerushalmi may be interpreted as a question: Since the Mishnah requires the woman to participate and the verse requires the Cohen to perform the weave, how can the Mishnah be justified?? But from here [one understands that] he takes it from a profane vessel and puts it into a Temple vessel. ⁸The rest of the paragraph is also in Qiddušin 1:8 (fol. 61c).“The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the Cohen put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable⁹In the Babli, this would be written כעור. Is the bodily contact between the Cohen and an otherwise married woman not immoral? It is not directly forbidden since the woman has to be pure to enter the Temple but this makes the situation only worse.? He brings a kerchief¹⁰Between his and her hands, not to touch the woman.. Does that not separate¹¹It is a general principle that the Temple service has to be by the priest directly. Since the verse requires the priests to serve in the Temple, they may not wear shoes (even in winter) since then the shoes would be in the Temple, not the Cohen directly. If the Cohen has to perform the weave, his hands cannot be separated from the Temple vessel. If, as indicated in the previous Note, the participation of the woman is implicitly required by the verse, her hands do not count as separation.? He brings an elderly Cohen¹²Presumably he is past all sexual feelings.. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour¹³The fear of the Temple will banish all bad thoughts. The commentaries read the sentence to mean that in the short time needed for the weave, bad thoughts cannot develop. This is obviously false.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated¹⁴In Qiddušin: R. Ḥiyya stated, it happens (that the Cohen has sinful thoughts). Maybe he implies that since the weaving can be done by two priests for the handless woman, it can be done by two priests for all women. There is no parallel to this baraita in any other known source.: If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.

“Her flour-offering.” Does that mean that it is sanctified in her name⁵A flour-offering in order to be valid must be offered by a Cohen in a Temple vessel on behalf of its owner (Mishnah Menaḥot 1:1). The Mishnah notes that “he (the husband) brings her (the wife’s) flour-offering.” Does this mean that the offering is to be offered only on her behalf?? Just as it is sanctified in her name, so it is sanctified in his name⁶It must be brought in both their names.. Rebbi Hiyya stated and disagreed⁷He does not disagree here at all; he supports the previous opinion. The text is from Halakhah 3:7 (fol. 19b line 37) where R. Ḥiyya disagrees. Cf. Tosephta 2:6.: “It⁸If a Cohen suspects his wife of adultery, the flour-offering cannot be burnt as a Cohen’s offering (Lev. 6:16) and cannot be eaten as the wife’s offering (Lev. 6:9). cannot be brought completely because of the participation by the wife. It cannot be eaten because of the participation by the husband.” He said to him, the handful⁹Of any flour-offering, a handful of the flour (with the incense) has to be burned on the altar and, normally, the rest is eaten by the Cohanim within the Temple enclosure (Lev. 6:7–11). is brought separately and the remainder is brought separately¹⁰This is a matter of dispute; R. Ḥiyya disagrees with the opinion that the remainders which cannot be eaten by the Cohanim have to be dispersed on the ashes but holds that they have to be burned as a kind of fuel (Halakhah 3:7, Babli 23a).. And you say, “her flour offering”? But the expression used by the verse is used by the Mishnah: “He shall bring her flour-offering for her.¹¹Num. 5:15.”

May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge¹⁴In case the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is a second question to be answered.? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing¹⁵Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), the person healed from scale disease (Lev. 14:1–32), and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib¹⁶Who could have been afflicted with scale disease and, if female, with a discharge at birth mimicking menstruation.. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? ¹⁷Text from Yebamot 1:2, Note 153. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter¹⁸Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him.. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power¹⁹Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him. If she is not married, she cannot be a suspected wife.. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply ²⁰This statement is from Chapter 1, Note 91. since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written²¹Num. 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved, cf. Chapter 1, Note 8. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the ordeal. The Babli concurs, 27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written²²Deut. 14:26. “A man’s house” always means his wife. For example, since the High Priest must purge his sins and those of his house on the day of Atonement (Lev. 16:17), an unmarried High Priest cannot officiate.: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge²³Since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abin disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel..

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..

There, it was stated²⁴Mishnah Menaḥot7:1. The list contains the offerings of the ‘Omer and the suspected wife. Such a list is necessary since the flour offerings accompanying an animal sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16), as well as the private offerings of a Cohen, are burned completely.: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel]²⁵This is the correct name. Possibly the name was written ר״ש in a common source of the mss. and was interpreted wrongly by some intermediate scribe. bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten²⁶The paragraph of the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14) prescribes weaving but is silent about anything done after the weaving. It might be concluded that the general rules of the flour offering specified in Lev. 6:7–11 do apply. These include that a Cohen has to present the offering to the altar, that he take a handful to the altar to be burned, and that the remainder be eaten under the rules of most holy sacrifices. However, those rules presuppose that pieces of incense are put on top of the offering; this does not apply to the ‘Omer offering. Therefore, the details of the treatment of the ‘Omer offering seem to be undefined.? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say²⁷Cf. Chapter 2, Note 39. in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”., offering of²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text..” Since “offering of” mentioned there²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text. is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³⁰This is not prescribed in the biblical text but since a handful must be taken to the altar it is accepted that this offering follows the rules of all offerings of which a handful is burned on the altar; cf. Note 26., so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba)³¹This attribution is certainly incorrect. Probably one should read “R. Jacob”; one Amora of this name was known as one of the colleagues of R. Jeremiah. said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He³²Rebbi Jeremiah said to R. Abba bar Mamal. said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³³For that offering also, the handful for the altar is mentioned but nothing else.? Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁴R. Jeremiah’s teacher; he called the specialist for baraitot in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said³⁶The list of private flour offerings from wheat flour is in Lev.2:1–10 and there it is emphasized that the remainders have to be eaten by the sons of Aaron.. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour³⁷The purification offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11–13) is from wheat flour and has to be eaten by the Cohen., it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose³⁸The argument of the preceding baraitot, which in the Babli (Menaḥot72b) is a pseudo-tannaïtic statement by Ḥizqiah, is irrelevant since the verse teaches important new information for all flour offerings that are eaten (also noted in the Babli).. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished³⁹He has a bodily defect which disables him from serving in the Temple (Lev. 21:17–19).. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished⁴⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 10(9); Babli Menaḥot 72b. In Zebaḥim 102a it is stated more in detail that the right of a blemished Cohen to eat of the holy food is established in Lev. 21 but his right to take part in the distribution of food in the Temple is derived from Lev. 6:11 [from Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(5)]. One really needs Lev. 7:10 only to show that a minor cannot claim a part in the distribution (cf. Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet, Zebaḥim 102a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance⁴¹Lev. 2:9: “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar., remembrance⁴²Num. 5:26: "The Cohen has to lift a fistful for its remembrance," speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife.”. “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that⁴³While in the preceding paragraph the following verse was from the rules of the suspected wife, here the verse is taken from the general rules of a flour offering, Lev.2:10 to imply that every flour offering of which only a fistful is burned on the altar is eaten by the Cohanim.: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

There²⁶Mishnah 4:4; a fuller text in Tosephta 5:4 and Babli 26a as the minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar; as an alternative explanation in Sifry Num. 19., we have stated: “A she-ram²⁷A woman lacking secondary female sex characteristics, cf. Yebamot, Chapter 1, Note 65., an old woman²⁸A post-menopausal woman., or a sterile one neither drinks nor collects her ketubah,” as it is said²⁹Num. 5:28.: “She will be declared innocent and bear seed,” [this refers to] one able to bear seed; it excludes one who is unable to bear seed. They objected, is there not the widow [married to] the High Priest, is she not able to bear seed³⁰Why is she excluded from drinking (Mishnah 2)?? There is a difference, since it is written³¹Lev. 21:15.: “He may not desecrate his seed among his people.³¹Lev. 21:15.” There³²Since any child of the widow will be desecrated, it is not counted as the High Priest’s child. Therefore, as far as he is concerned, his wife is unable to bear children., we have stated: “A bastard disables and enables to eat. How is this?” And here he says so? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, there, “she has no issue” of any kind, but here³³Mishnah Yebamot7:7. An Israel woman widowed from a Cohen may eat heave as long as any Jewish descendant of her husband’s is alive; a Cohen woman widowed from an Israel may not eat heave as long as any Jewish descendant of her husband’s is alive. one requires enabled seed, not disabled seed. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the water only serves to permit her to her house; but about this one one tells him to divorce once she went to a secluded place³⁴He rejects the earlier attempt to find a biblical source to the rejection of the widow and explains Lev. 21:15 as: “He is forbidden to desecrate his seed.” The rule excluding the High Priest’s widow is rabbinical. If the Temple court refuses to administer the water, the widow remains permanently forbidden to her husband, who therefore is forced to divorce her..

“Any child from either of the men is a bastard.” One understands that the child is a bastard from the second [husband]³¹This child is the result of adultery.. Is it a bastard from the first³²The marriage to the first is valid.? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba says if a man copulates with his wife whom he accuses of infidelity³³Num. 5:11–31. If the husband formally accuses his wife of infidelity, she is forbidden to him until she is cleared (Mishnah Soṭah 1:3). R. Aqiba holds that any child conceived in a union which is not unconditionally permitted is a bastard. the child is a bastard, if a man takes back his divorcee after she had remarried the child is a bastard. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable³⁴Even according to R. Aqiba, thechild of the first husband is not blemished since the wife did not act with criminal intent. The child of the second husband is a bastard by biblical standards; he or she is forbidden to marry an unblemished partner but permitted a bastard. The child of the first husband is a rabbinic bastard; he or she is forbidden to marry an unblemished partner by rabbinic decree and a bastard by biblical standards. This interpretation is explicitly stated in the Babli, 89b.; the status of her bill of divorce is the status of her bastardy. What is the difference between them? If the second one gave her a bill of divorce and then the first one copulated with her. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the child is a bastard following Rebbi Aqiba; in the opinion of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, according to everybody the child is acceptable.

“One repairs the roads,⁴Rural roads which might have been damaged during the rainy season, to prepare them for the pilgrims going to Jerusalem in the following month. and the streets⁵Municipal roads., and water pools⁶Since the term is not discussed in the Halakhah, it is difficult to know whether one refers to religious miqwaot or to water supply for the pilgrims. Both kinds of pools may contain dust deposited there by the rains of the winter months., and one looks after all public needs⁷Described in the Halakhah..” “⁵⁵Tosephta Mo`ed Qaṭan2:11. From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is from Mo`ed Qaṭan1:1 (80b 66), with no or little relevance here. The Mo`ed Qaṭan text of the ms. is indicated by ק; in addition there exist an Ashkenazic text of the Yerushalmi (A) edited by J. Sussman in Kobez al Yad12 (1994), pp. 62–63.
Most of the activities permitted in the baraita are for the benefit of individuals, not the public, most clearly delivering a new pair of shoes on the semi-holiday, mentioned last in the baraita. The only reason for its inclusion here is the identity of the expression “public needs”, applied both to public works in preparation for the holiday and permitted activities during the intermediate days of an extended holiday. The following are the public needs: One judges civil suits, and capital crimes, and cases of flogging, and one redeems valuations⁵⁶Fixed amounts dedicated to the Temple, Lev. 27:2–6., and bans⁵⁷Dedications reserved for the Cohanim, Num. 18:14., and dedications⁵⁸Dedications for the upkeep of the Temple, other than currency., one lets the suspected adulteress drink⁵⁹Num. 5:11–31., and burns the Cow⁶⁰Num. 19., and one breaks the neck of the calf whose neck was to be broken⁶¹For an unsolved murder case, Deut. 21:1–9., and one pierces the ear of a Hebrew slave⁶², and one purifies the sufferer from skin disease⁶³, and removes the shoe from the block but one may not return it.”

MISHNAH: He⁵²The officiating priest. brought a new⁵³The text of the Yerushalmi is also the text of most Mishnah mss. The word is missing in the Babli mss. earthenware bowl⁵⁴Greek φιάλη. and filled it with half a log⁵⁵0.27 1. Cf. Mishnah Kelim 17:11. of water from the laver; Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]⁵⁶A quarter log is the rabbinic minimum for any liquid used in any ceremony.. (Just as he⁵⁷Rebbi Jehudah; cf. Mishnah 3. shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.) He⁵²The officiating priest. entered the Temple building and turned right. There was a place there, one cubit square, where a handle was fastened to a marble plate. He lifted it, took dust from under it, and put it so that it was seen on the water, as it was said⁵⁸Num. 5:17.: “From the dust which will be on the ground of the Temple the Cohen shall take and put on the water.”

MISHNAH: He¹The officiating priest. gives her to drink and after that he presents her offering⁴⁴As the Babli (19b) points out, Mishnah 1 only described all the ritual acts to be performed for the flour offering but did not determine the time sequence.. Rebbi Simeon says, he sacrifices her offering and afterwards gives her to drink as it is said⁴⁵Num. 5:27.: “After that he shall give the water to the woman to drink.” If he gave her to drink and after that sacrificed her offering, it is valid⁴⁶Even for R. Simeon..

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..

HALAKHAH: “He gives her to drink and after that he sacrifices her offering,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall come into her⁴⁷Num. 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “After that he shall give to the woman to drink⁴⁵Num. 5:27..” How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “they shall come into her”? All of them, not part only⁴⁸She has to drink the rather small amount of water completely. How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “after that he shall give the water to the woman to drink”? Against her will, without her agreement⁴⁹Cf. Mishnah 3. In the Babli, 19b, this is the position of the rabbis.. Rebbi Simeon agrees with the rabbis that if he gave her to drink and after that presented her offering, it is valid. The rabbis agree with Rebbi Simeon that if he presented her offering and after that gave her to drink, it is valid⁵⁰This statement is not in the Babli. As Tosaphot (19a, s. v. ואחר) points out, the Babli does not object.. What is the difference between them? The commandment. The rabbis say that the flour offering checks her out⁵¹In the Babli, 20b, this is given as R. Simeon’s reason to require sacrificing the offering before the drink. but Rebbi Simeon says, the water is⁵²Reading אִין as הֵן, equivalent of Babylonian אִינּוּן “they are”. Instead of אין, the Rome ms. has היו. The past tense does not agree with the rest of the text; it should be rejected. Note that there also exists a Babylonian אִין, equal to הֵן “yes”. what checks her out. What is the reason of the Sages? “A flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity⁵³Num. 5:15..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “They shall come into her^47,Num. 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25.⁵⁴The same explanationas anonymous text in Sifry Num. 18; copied in Num. rabba 9(18)..” How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “they shall come into her”? This teaches that it shakes all her limbs⁵⁵Cf. Mishnah 4.. How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “a flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity”? This teaches that all iniquities she has committed are remembered at that time⁵⁶Before the Heavenly Court which decides about the water’s action..

HALAKHAH: “He gives her to drink and after that he sacrifices her offering,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall come into her⁴⁷Num. 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “After that he shall give to the woman to drink⁴⁵Num. 5:27..” How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “they shall come into her”? All of them, not part only⁴⁸She has to drink the rather small amount of water completely. How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “after that he shall give the water to the woman to drink”? Against her will, without her agreement⁴⁹Cf. Mishnah 3. In the Babli, 19b, this is the position of the rabbis.. Rebbi Simeon agrees with the rabbis that if he gave her to drink and after that presented her offering, it is valid. The rabbis agree with Rebbi Simeon that if he presented her offering and after that gave her to drink, it is valid⁵⁰This statement is not in the Babli. As Tosaphot (19a, s. v. ואחר) points out, the Babli does not object.. What is the difference between them? The commandment. The rabbis say that the flour offering checks her out⁵¹In the Babli, 20b, this is given as R. Simeon’s reason to require sacrificing the offering before the drink. but Rebbi Simeon says, the water is⁵²Reading אִין as הֵן, equivalent of Babylonian אִינּוּן “they are”. Instead of אין, the Rome ms. has היו. The past tense does not agree with the rest of the text; it should be rejected. Note that there also exists a Babylonian אִין, equal to הֵן “yes”. what checks her out. What is the reason of the Sages? “A flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity⁵³Num. 5:15..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “They shall come into her^47,Num. 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25.⁵⁴The same explanationas anonymous text in Sifry Num. 18; copied in Num. rabba 9(18)..” How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “they shall come into her”? This teaches that it shakes all her limbs⁵⁵Cf. Mishnah 4.. How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “a flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity”? This teaches that all iniquities she has committed are remembered at that time⁵⁶Before the Heavenly Court which decides about the water’s action..

HALAKHAH: “He gives her to drink and after that he sacrifices her offering,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall come into her⁴⁷Num. 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “After that he shall give to the woman to drink⁴⁵Num. 5:27..” How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “they shall come into her”? All of them, not part only⁴⁸She has to drink the rather small amount of water completely. How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “after that he shall give the water to the woman to drink”? Against her will, without her agreement⁴⁹Cf. Mishnah 3. In the Babli, 19b, this is the position of the rabbis.. Rebbi Simeon agrees with the rabbis that if he gave her to drink and after that presented her offering, it is valid. The rabbis agree with Rebbi Simeon that if he presented her offering and after that gave her to drink, it is valid⁵⁰This statement is not in the Babli. As Tosaphot (19a, s. v. ואחר) points out, the Babli does not object.. What is the difference between them? The commandment. The rabbis say that the flour offering checks her out⁵¹In the Babli, 20b, this is given as R. Simeon’s reason to require sacrificing the offering before the drink. but Rebbi Simeon says, the water is⁵²Reading אִין as הֵן, equivalent of Babylonian אִינּוּן “they are”. Instead of אין, the Rome ms. has היו. The past tense does not agree with the rest of the text; it should be rejected. Note that there also exists a Babylonian אִין, equal to הֵן “yes”. what checks her out. What is the reason of the Sages? “A flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity⁵³Num. 5:15..” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “They shall come into her^47,Num. 5:24: “The curse-water shall come into her as a bitter one.” This is written before the description of the presentation of the flour offering in v. 25.⁵⁴The same explanationas anonymous text in Sifry Num. 18; copied in Num. rabba 9(18)..” How do the rabbis explain Rebbi Simeon’s reason, “they shall come into her”? This teaches that it shakes all her limbs⁵⁵Cf. Mishnah 4.. How does Rebbi Simeon explain the rabbis’ reason, “a flour offering of remembrance remembering iniquity”? This teaches that all iniquities she has committed are remembered at that time⁵⁶Before the Heavenly Court which decides about the water’s action..

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden⁵⁵Distribution of tithes cannot become part of a financial package.; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.⁵⁶In the Tosephta (Demay 7:1) there is a positive prescription that between sharecropper and landlord of similar status, tithes must be evenly split. There is no prescription on how the tithes should be given to Levite or Cohen.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference⁵⁷For R. Aḥa, the landlord may not prescribe the distribution of the sharecropper’s tithes but he can ask the latter’s consent to distribute them in a certain manner.. Rebbi Yose⁵⁸R. Yose agrees with the objection that the two clauses are indistinguishable; he must find another reason why one is permitted and the other forbidden. said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill⁵⁹While a person cannot trade his heaves or tithes, he can use them to create goodwill and so reap an indirect monetary benefit, or even a direct benefit if the party involved is not a Cohen. While an Israel may not take money from a Cohen for his heaves, he may take from an Israel for the promise to give all future heaves to the latter’s grandson who is a Cohen. But since it is not possible to trade this kind of goodwill, it is not considered to be money in the Babli (Nedarim 64b–65a); hence, if the Cohen takes heave without consent of the owner, he cannot be sued for monetary damages (Maimonides Terumot 12:15). This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli and the only one in Sifry Naśo (6). (Starting here, the next four paragraphs are also found in Qiddušin 2:10.). Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill⁶⁰Rebbi Joḥanan does not allow any monetary advantage from giving heaves and tithes.. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes⁶¹No Cohen or Levy may take heave or tithe by force; only the owner can decide to whom to give [Sifry Naśo (6)]..

There⁹⁷Mishnah Keritut 2:4. “Incest” always includes adultery., we have stated: “In all matters of incest, He made him who touches⁹⁸The man whose genital touches the woman’s. This is a technical term, cf. Yebamot Chapter 6, Note 11. equal to him who completes and one is guilty for each single intercourse⁹⁹This refers to the rules concerning a slave girl (Lev. 19:20–22) who according to some opinions is partially manumitted (cf. Babli Keritut11a.). The Babli’s tradition eliminates the rules from practical importance by restricting them to a girl living with a Hebrew slave. Since the institution of Hebrew slaves was abolished with the Babylonian exile, never to be reinstituted, the frequent discussions of the rules are purely theoretical. However, in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 5(1), at least one opinion describes the slave girl engaged to a free man in the expectation of her manumission.
As a slave, the girl can not marry and therefore she is free to have guiltless sex with any man not a Jew (cf. Terumot Chapter 8, Note 347). Upon manumission, she becomes a free Jewish woman and able to contract a valid marriage with any Jew who is not a priest. She is permitted to live with a Hebrew slave (Ex. 21:4). Since her relationship with the slave is not a marriage, her affair with another man is not adultery. From the man’s side, the affair with the slave girl is the only sin which can be atoned for by a sacrifice if committed intentionally. A purification sacrifice is possible only for inadvertent sins; the relation with the semi-free girl can be atoned for by a reparation sacrifice. (An intentional sin can only be cleansed by God’s mercy in response to repentance.) For inadvertent sins, a purification sacrifice is due for each single transgression; one reparation sacrifice covers the entire affair.. He was more stringent with the slave girl since in her case He treated the intentional as unintentional.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamai in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen,” until he ejaculates¹⁰⁰Lev. 19:20: “If a man sleep with a woman by flow of semen …” The intercourse of a free man with the slave girl is not punishable unless there was an ejaculation.. Here is written “flow of semen”, and here is written “flow of semen.¹⁰¹In the case of the straying wife, Num. 5:13 reads: “A man slept with her with flow of semen.” Nevertheless, the wife becomes impure and forbidden to her husband already if her paramour’s penis touches her genitals. This seems to contradict our principle that equal expressions used in different circumstances must have equal meanings.” Here¹⁰²In the case of the slave girl., you say “flow of semen” until he ejaculates. And here¹⁰³In the case of the straying wife., you say so? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for it is written¹⁰⁴Num. 5:13.: “She was hidden and became impure.” From the moment she was hidden, the Torah calls her “impure”. But here¹⁰²In the case of the slave girl., “flow of semen,” until he ejaculates. For what reason is written¹⁰³In the case of the straying wife. “flow of semen”? For measures¹⁰⁵To measure how long the wife must be hidden together with her paramour to be impure and subject to the ordeal. In another connection this is quoted in the Babli, 2b., as it is stated¹⁰⁴Num. 5:13.: “She was hidden and became impure”; what is counted as hiding¹⁰⁶Babli 4a. The Babli discusses why all these expressions have to be used.? Time to become impure. What is the time for impurity? Time for intercourse. What is the time for intercourse? Time for ‘touching’⁹⁸The man whose genital touches the woman’s. This is a technical term, cf. Yebamot Chapter 6, Note 11..

“Water⁸⁷Num. 5:17: מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים.”, I could think it should look like water. The verse says, “dust”⁸⁸A translation (Arabism) of the word עָפָר “dust”; cf. Arabic ارض.. Or “dust”, I could think it should look like ink. The verse says, “water”. How is that? The looks of water and the looks of dust⁸⁹The dust should be a powder on the clear water.. The Sages estimated half a log of water from the wash basin. But did we not state⁹⁰In the Mishnah.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log]”. Rebbi Jehudah follows his particular way, as we have stated: “Just as he shortens the writing so he decreases the amount of water.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Abin stated before Rebbi Jonathan: “‘If you deviated from under your husband.’¹²⁷Num. 5:20. The baraita is not quoted elsewhere. The other sources point out that the raped wife is expressly excluded by v. 13: “And she was not kidnapped” (Sifry Num. 7). This excludes rape.” How do you understand this? He said to him: Just as she is “under your husband” by her consent, so also in this case by her consent.

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]¹⁰²A similar text in Tosephta Giṭṭin 2:7.. “He shall write for her.¹⁰³Deut. 24:1, speaking of a bill of divorce. The document has to be written for her, otherwise it is invalid (MishnahGiṭṭin 3:2, Sifry Deut. 269, quoted many times in both Talmudim).” “He shall execute for her.¹⁰⁴Num. 5:30. The Cohen has to conduct the ceremony of the suspected wife for that particular woman, otherwise it is invalid. The Babli (18a) refers this only to the scroll which is to be written for the woman, which has to be written and erased with that particular person in mind.” “Or manumission was not given to her.¹⁰⁵Lev. 19:20, speaking of a slave girl. The document of manumission has to be executed for the particular slave girl. This requirement is then extended in the Tosephta to the manumission of male slaves.” ¹⁰⁶Babli 16b; Tosephta 1:8; Sifry Num. 11, Sifry Zuṭa Naśo; Num.rabba 9(13). Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow¹⁰⁷Some ash has to be visible on the water used to purify from the impurity of the dead., the dust of the suspected wife¹⁰⁸As described in the Mishnah., and the spittle of the sister-in-law¹⁰⁹Deut. 25:9, in the ceremony of ḥalîṣah; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 12:6.. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease¹¹⁰Lev. 14:5; the healed patient has to be purified by being sprinkled with spring water mixed with the blood of a bird.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible¹¹¹Taking exactly one quarter log (135 dl, cf. Note 55) will prevent any problems.. As it was stated¹¹²Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 1(5); Babli 16b.: “In the blood¹¹³Lev. 14:6. The Cohen has to dip the hyssop and a living bird “in the blood of the slaughtered bird on the flowing water”. The “fresh water” is in a vessel but was taken from a spring. The blood of the slaughtered bird is on the fresh water in the vessel. The simple meaning of the verse, that the bird’s blood must form a layer on the fresh water, obviously cannot be meant.”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁴Following the opinion that the water has to be taken from the water basin in the Temple. Any water taken from there and sanctified in a temple vessel belongs to the service of that day; once the day has passed (which in the Temple is counted from dawn to dawn), its service cannot be made up (cf. Sukkah 4:7). But according to the opinion that the water may come from outside sources, the position of R. Joḥanan could be explained. However, R. Joḥanan holds everywhere that practice follows the anonymous Mishnah (Yebamot 4:11, Note 177; Babli Ḥulin 43a).. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁵R. Joḥanan will hold that water in the basin is for the altar in the water offering on Tabernacles (Sukkah 4:7). The problem is not discussed in the Babli; Maimonides (Soṭah 4:12) follows R. Joḥanan as the overriding authority..

“And from the dust.¹¹⁷Num. 5:17: “And from the dust which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary, the Cohen has to take and put on the water.” The parallel version in the Babli, 15b, [and Num. rabba 9(13)], is formulated differently.” One could think, from what lies in a chest. The verse says, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”. If “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think only that he has to dig with a pick-axe¹¹⁸This דקל is not Aramaic “date palm” but the equivalent of Mishnaic דקר “pick-axe” by a change of liquids., the verse says “which will be”. How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. ¹¹⁹R. Abin reformulates the preceding argument from a slightly different angle. His polemic is directed against a baraita preserved only in the Babli (15b, bottom; variant readings in the critical edition p. רלו) which requires the dust to be prepared outside, brought inside, and spread on the floor of the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think [the dust] qualified only if he digs with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. From anywhere. “The Sanctuary”, that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House¹²⁰The order given here is also in the Munich ms. of the Babli. The historic order would be: the Tabernacle, Shilo, Nob, Gibeon, and the Eternal House (the Temple which in rabbinic tradition cannot be replaced by a Sanctuary at any other place, Mishnah Zebaḥim 14:8.).

MISHNAH: It would have been logical: Since the first testimony,⁴³As the Halakhah explains, the first testimony is the testimony about the wife’s going to a secluded place, where R. Joshua requires two witnesses of good standing. The last testimony is that of adultery, where the preceding Mishnaiot accept even the proverbial “bird flying by”. The confirmation is the acceptance of the testimony by a competent court. which does not forbid her permanently, is not confirmed if not from two [witnesses], the last testimony,⁴³As the Halakhah explains, the first testimony is the testimony about the wife’s going to a secluded place, where R. Joshua requires two witnesses of good standing. The last testimony is that of adultery, where the preceding Mishnaiot accept even the proverbial “bird flying by”. The confirmation is the acceptance of the testimony by a competent court. which forbids her permanently, should reasonably only be confirmed by [witnesses]. The verse says: “There is no witness about her⁴⁴Num. 5:13.”, any kind of testimony about her.
⁴⁷This is the second half of Mishnah 3. There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony! Since the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, is confirmed from a single witness, the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, should logically be confirmed from a single witness. The verse says, “for he found out about her a matter of sexual misbehavior,⁴⁸Deut. 24:1. For the House of Shammai, this is the only reason admitted for a divorce (Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:10); for the House of Hillel, this is a reason why there must be a divorce.” and further, it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses a matter should be confirmed.⁴⁹Deut. 19:15. The verse proves that in any judicial proceedings, דבר means a proof by two witnesses. Since the husband cannot make his wife drink unless he presents his case to the Temple court, all judicial rules apply here. But a divorce because of the wife’s adultery can be given by the husband on his own (even though to deprive her of her ketubah after the divorce he needs the judgment of a court.)”

MISHNAH: Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? (Num. 5:19) “If no man has lain with you, …” (v. 20) “but if you deviated from under your husband,” etc. He does not write (v. 21) “the Cohen has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,” but he writes “may the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal will make your hips diminish and your belly inflate.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”
Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt¹²⁷He requires that verses 19–22 be written in their entirety.. Rebbi Jehudah said¹²⁸He holds that verses 19–20 indicate a preparatory speech by the Cohen, that the valid curses, designated as such, are only in v. 21 and part of v. 22. he does not write anything but (Num. 5:21): “May the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal makes your hips diminish and your belly swell.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines …” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”

MISHNAH: Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? (Num. 5:19) “If no man has lain with you, …” (v. 20) “but if you deviated from under your husband,” etc. He does not write (v. 21) “the Cohen has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,” but he writes “may the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal will make your hips diminish and your belly inflate.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”
Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt¹²⁷He requires that verses 19–22 be written in their entirety.. Rebbi Jehudah said¹²⁸He holds that verses 19–20 indicate a preparatory speech by the Cohen, that the valid curses, designated as such, are only in v. 21 and part of v. 22. he does not write anything but (Num. 5:21): “May the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal makes your hips diminish and your belly swell.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines …” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”

MISHNAH: Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? (Num. 5:19) “If no man has lain with you, …” (v. 20) “but if you deviated from under your husband,” etc. He does not write (v. 21) “the Cohen has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,” but he writes “may the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal will make your hips diminish and your belly inflate.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”
Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt¹²⁷He requires that verses 19–22 be written in their entirety.. Rebbi Jehudah said¹²⁸He holds that verses 19–20 indicate a preparatory speech by the Cohen, that the valid curses, designated as such, are only in v. 21 and part of v. 22. he does not write anything but (Num. 5:21): “May the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal makes your hips diminish and your belly swell.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines …” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”

MISHNAH: Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? (Num. 5:19) “If no man has lain with you, …” (v. 20) “but if you deviated from under your husband,” etc. He does not write (v. 21) “the Cohen has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,” but he writes “may the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal will make your hips diminish and your belly inflate.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”
Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt¹²⁷He requires that verses 19–22 be written in their entirety.. Rebbi Jehudah said¹²⁸He holds that verses 19–20 indicate a preparatory speech by the Cohen, that the valid curses, designated as such, are only in v. 21 and part of v. 22. he does not write anything but (Num. 5:21): “May the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal makes your hips diminish and your belly swell.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines …” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”

MISHNAH: The following are prohibited from eating heave¹⁴²A Cohen’s wife (or the Cohen’s daughter who is the childless widow of a Non-Cohen) who is desecrated by adultery; cf. also Note 123.: One who says, I am impure for you¹⁴³I. e., she says that she slept with another man; there is no difference in this respect whether she committed adultery or was raped., and where witnesses proved that she is impure¹⁴⁴Witnesses to the act of adultery., and one who refuses to drink¹⁴⁵She maintains her innocence, even though two witnesses attested that she met the man against whom she was warned in a secluded place, but refuses to submit to the ordeal. She remains permanently forbidden to her husband and is permanently excluded from eating consecrated food., and one whose husband refuses to let her drink¹⁴⁶Two witnesses attested that she met the man against whom she was warned in a secluded place; therefore, she is disabled from eating heave. She can regain her priestly status only by being cleansed by the ordeal. Since it is written (Num. 5:15): “This husband has to bring his wife,” without him appearing before the court of the Temple there can be no ordeal and no rehabilitation., and one whose husband slept with her on the trip¹⁴⁷Num. 5:31 is read as meaning: If the husband is blameless, then this woman has to bear her sin. It follows that if the husband is not blameless [in sexual matters of any kind], the ordeal becomes inactive. Since the Soṭah is forbidden to her husband, if he sleeps with her before she is cleansed by the ordeal he is not blameless and the innocence of his wife can never be proven.. What does he have to do: He brings her to the court at his place and they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip. Rebbi Jehudah says, her husband is believed about her.

⁴⁶From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text (with minor variants) is from Demay 6:3, explained there in Notes 59–76. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” Rebbi Joḥanan said “it shall not be his”. May he give them to whomever he likes?

It was stated¹⁶⁷Sifry Num. 8, Num. Rabba 9(38); a more elaborate text in Babli 7a, Tosephta 1:1.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, her husband is believed about her by an argument de minore ad majus. Since he is believed about her when she is menstruating¹⁶⁸The menstruating woman is forbidden to her husband on penalty of extirpation (Lev. 20:18). Nobody requires chaperones during the time the wife is forbidden to her husband., when he would be subject to extirpation because of her, but for this one¹⁶⁹A wife suspected of adultery (and even a proven adulteress) is forbidden to her husband but no penalties are specified. he is not subject to extirpation because of her, is it not logical that he should be believed about her? They said to him, no. If you mention the menstruating, she will be permitted after being forbidden, what can you say about this one who may not be permitted after being forbidden¹⁷⁰If she is found guilty, she will be permanently forbidden and he will be forced to divorce her.? And it says, “stolen waters are sweet”¹⁷¹Prov. 9:17. She is more attractive forbidden than permitted.. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, it is a decree of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the priest”¹⁷⁸Num. 5:15., etc. They said to him, only with witnesses¹⁷⁹General statements in verses are never interpreted to override the general principles of administration of justice. Since relatives cannot testify for or against a person, the husband cannot testify for himself, just as he cannot testify against his bride whom he accuses of prenuptial adultery (Deut. 22:14)..

MISHNAH: He does not write on a wooden plank, or on papyrus, or on διφθέρα¹⁵¹Greek “hide prepared for writing.” The traditional interpretation of the Mishnaic word is “rough parchment; incompletely tanned skin.”, only on a scroll, as it is said: “In a book¹⁴⁸Num. 5:23.”. He does not write with gum¹⁵²Latin commis, gummi; Greek κόμμι, τό “gum”. or vitriol nor with anything leaving a permanent impression except with ink; it is written “he shall wipe off”, writing that can be wiped off¹⁴⁶This is the commentary on Mishnah 5..

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me,” etc. ⁵⁷Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 8(8–10). From where that this only refers to monetary claims? Rebbi Eliezer said, it uses here “or” and it uses “or” with a deposit⁵⁸In Lev. 5:1, “or” is used twice, in vv. 21–22 four times.. Since the “or” used with a deposit only refers to monetary claims, also the “or” used here only refers to monetary claims. The “or” of the homicide will disprove⁵⁹Num. 35:22–23, in the description of accidental homicide, “or” is used twice. since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath from “or” accompanied by an oath; the “or” of the homicide cannot disprove since they are not accompanied by an oath. The “or” of the deviant woman will disprove⁶⁰Num. 5:14, the presumption of innocence of the deviant woman is introduced by “or”. The imprecation is not the woman’s but the Cohen’s, v. 19. since they are accompanied by an oath and do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath not accompanied by a Cohen from similar “or”; the “or” of the deviant woman cannot disprove since they are accompanied by a Cohen. The “or” of blurting lips will disprove⁶¹Lev. 5:4, “or” is used twice. since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” where He made intent equal to error⁶²As explained in the preceding Chapters, blurted oaths create a liability for a sacrifice only if they were broken in a period of forgetting, i. e., unintention- ally. There is no mention of unintentional sin for liability in cases of oath about testimony or monetary damages. from similar “or”; the “or” of blurting lips cannot disprove since there He did not make intent equal to error. Rebbi Aqiba says, for some of these one is liable, for some one is not liable. For monetary claims one is liable; for non-monetary claims one is not liable⁶³He refers to Lev. 5:5: It shall be if he causes damage by some of these; some will require a sacrifice but not others. The decision what to include is left to the religious authorities guided by the hermeneutical principle of “equal cut”. Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(1).. Rebbi Simeon says, He made liable here and he made liable for a deposit. Since deposits only refer to monetary claims, so here also it only refers to monetary claims^41,All examples in Lev. 5:21–22 (a deposit, a loan, extortion and robbery, a find) refer to monetary claims about movables. Since there can be no sacrifice for an oath about deposits relating to real estate, one might argue that there can be no sacrifice for an oath about testimony involving real estate, asserted in Tosephta 4:1.⁶⁴Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(2)..

HALAKHAH: “One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated¹²⁹Ketubot 1:9 (Notes 248–254); a slightly different version in the Tosephta 5:2, Babli Ketubot 14a.: “What is qualified dough¹³⁰As dough is kneaded from different ingredients, so a dough woman is descended from both more and less qualified sources; cf. Ketubot1:9 Note 251. [For “mixture of dough” used as simile for lineage, perhaps also cf. Swiss-German expression vom Teig“from the dough”, meaning “from (the best) families”. (E.G.)]? Anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.¹³¹Until he finds the source of the trouble.” Rav said, these¹³²The interpretation of the position of the Sages. are the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries¹³³All women in a family from whom one married into the priesthood are qualified unless her personal disqualification be known. In the Babli, 76b, Rav’s statement is stronger: A presumption of legitimacy applies to all families (unless anything derogatory be known).. Through whom does he check? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: He checks through his female relatives¹³⁴Testimony by females is close to be hearsay evidence, but sufficient to qualify a marriage. The language of the statement is derived from Mishnah Ketubot 1:9, dealing with a woman’s bodily defects.. To Rebbi Ḥama came an old man¹³⁵Interpretation of Pene Moshe.Qorban Ha‘eda reads: Rebbi saw an old man coming. Both interpretations are possible; in neither case is the text idiomatic Aramaic.; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he¹³⁶R. Ḥama. was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife¹³⁷Rav had married a noble woman and relative who gave him a hard time.. Rebbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.¹³⁸Num. 5:28.” If she was not impure, she is pure¹³⁹They reject the Mishnah and hold that anybody can marry any woman about whose family nothing derogatory is known.. Not like Pappos ben Jehudah who locks the door before his wife¹⁴⁰Cf. Soṭah 1:7, Note 260. He did not permit his wife to talk to any male except himself.. One said to him, did your forefathers act like this¹⁴¹Jews do not lock up their wives in a harem; Soṭah 1:7; Babli Giṭṭin 90a.? A Cohen came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers which are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you¹⁴²If there was a problem a few generations earlier, would you know? Note that the Cohen quotes the Mishnah in Hebrew, claiming the status of a learned person, but R. Joḥanan answers him in Aramaic, demoting him to the unlearned class since he followed the Mishnah.?

“If you deviated from under your husband and became defiled,⁸²Num. 5:20.” that excludes⁸³One would have expected “includes” since her husband has a penis if he is permitted to her (Note 68). Babli 26a, Sifry Num. 13 read: “Other than your husband”, that includes a eunuch’s wife. a castrate’s wife. “And a man ejaculated into you⁸²Num. 5:20.”, that includes a castrate. “Except for a minor and a non-man,” e. g., an ape.

There is written “book”, and here is written “book”¹⁴³The divorce document is called “a book of divorce” in Deut. 24:1. Mishnah Giṭṭin 2:3 states that one may write on anything, e. g. on a leaf which was plucked from its plant; according to some authorities the husband may even write the bill on the horns of a cow and deliver the cow to his wife. But for the document of the suspected wife one requires regular writing leather.. There, you say anything which is plucked. And here, you say so? He said to him, it is different here because it is written “in a book”¹⁴⁴Num. 5:23. This is more explicit in Mishnah 5, quoted in Sifry Num. 16; Num. rabba 5(47)..

¹⁴⁶This is the commentary on Mishnah 5.“And he writes”. I could think [one writes] with ink, or vermilion, or gum, or copper sulfate¹⁴⁷Greek χάλκανθον. Rashi (Erubin 13a) translates Romance adrement, Latin atramentum. Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxxiv.32) writes that the Greeks call chalcanthum what in Rome is called atramentum sutorium,“blacking for leather”., the verse says, “he shall wipe off”¹⁴⁸Num. 5:23.. If he has to erase, I could think [one writes] with drinks or fruit juice; the verse says, “he shall write”¹⁴⁹In the sense of a permanent writing.. How is that? Writing that can be wiped off. What is this? This is ink without vitriol. But did we not state: If he wiped off from a Torah scroll it is valid. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: Rebbi Meïr said, all the time we were studying with Rebbi Ismael, we put no vitriol in the ink¹⁵⁰The Babli (Erubin 13a) reports that R. Ismael required that a Torah scroll must be written so that it could serve as the suspected wife’s scroll..

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthias: It says, “but if the woman was not impure but was pure¹⁰⁰Num. 5:28..” Would we not know that if she was not impure she was pure? Why does the verse say, “but she was pure”¹⁰¹In Sifry Num. 19, the double expression is justified: R. Ismael holds that she only is permitted to her husband if the procedure had shown her innocence. An anonymous source notes that if she got a divorce after the procedure or her husband died, she was free to marry the man she was suspected of having an affair with; if she was divorced for adultery, the adulterer would be forbidden to her.
The Yerushalmi text is copied in Num. rabba 9(50).? Only that at the end the Omnipresent rewards her for the abuse, that if she was sterile she will become pregnant¹⁰²In the Babli, 36a, and Sifry Num. 19, the first clause, about the sterile becoming pregnant, is R. Aqiba’s; all the others are attributed to R. Ismael. In the Babli Berakhot 31b, the attributions are switched., [if she] was having difficult births she will have easy ones, [if she] had ugly children she will have good looking ones¹⁰³This clause is missing in the parallels. In Babylonian historical spelling, it would be כעורים., black ones she will have white ones, short ones she will have tall ones, females she will have males, single children she will have twins. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁰⁴This attribution to a second generation Amora is quite impossible in a tannaїtic text; in the Babli and Sifry Num. the argument is R. Ismael’s. It seems that the Yerushalmi refers to R. Simeon ben Ioḥai, quoted in the next sentence. said to him: If it were so then all women should be misbehaving in order to become pregnant! But does Rebbi Simeon not interpret “she will be found innocent and become pregnant with seed”? He does, legitimate seed, not illegitimate¹⁰⁵In Halakhah 4:1, a similar (anonymous) argument is quoted to show that a divorcee married to a priest cannot be subjected to the procedure of the suspected wife because even if she was innocent she could not have legitimate seed from the husband forbidden to her; her children from the priest are desecrated..

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

HALAKHAH: “If she said, I am impure, she breaks her ketubah and leaves,” etc. It is written: “The Cohen shall put the woman before the Eternal²¹⁵Num. 5:18.”, that is the Nikanor gate²¹⁶In ritual matters, the Nikanor gate is the entrance to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. In Sifry Num. 17, the statement is “before the Eternal”, which means in the East.. Everywhere it is said “before the Eternal”, that means the Nikanor gate. ²¹⁷An explanation why an ordeal must be performed in the Temple, based on Tosephta 1:4 (S. Lieberman in Tosefta kiFshutah Soṭa 1, line 19.) It is written: “If a man sin against a man.²¹⁸1S. 2:25. As R. David Fraenckel has noted, it seems that this verse is out of place and should be replaced by 1K. 8:31–32 which is quoted in Tosephta 1:4, combined with Num. 5:27,28 as support that the ordeal of the suspected wife is to be held in the Temple: “If a man sin against his neighbor and causes a curse to be put on him … and You will hear in Heaven and will judge Your servants to declare the criminal guilty to turn his way on him [her belly will extend and her genitals shrink] and to clear the just to reward him for his just behavior [if the woman was not impure but pure, she will be declared innocent and be blessed with seed.]”” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explains the verse about the paramour: That one feeds and sustains and you come to enjoy yourself. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi explains the verse about the woman: That one feeds and sustains and you turn your eyes to another.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁵⁸In the ms. and editio princeps: Halakhah 5.: “He does not write on a wooden plank,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra¹⁵⁹In the Babli, Šebuot 36a, this is a statement of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina, a younger contemporary of R. Yose ben Zimra. In Num. rabba 9(46) the reading is that of the Yerushalmi.: “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, “Amen” for an oath, “Amen”, may the words be confirmed. “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, from the suspected wife¹⁶⁰Num. 5:22.. “Amen” for an oath: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your forefathers”, etc¹⁶¹Jer. 11:5: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your forefathers to give to them the Land flowing with milk and honey as today; I answered and said, Amen, o Eternal.”. “Amen”, may the words be confirmed¹⁶²1K. 1:36.: “Benaiah ben Yehoyada (the priest) answered the king and said Amen”, etc. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, that does not prove that Amen means an oath, it implies nothing¹⁶³The verse from Jeremiah only confirms what can be learned from the verse in Kings, that Amen is an affirmation.. But the following says: “that you pass by the covenant of your God and His curse¹⁶⁴Deut. 29:11. The curse is Deut.28:15–68.,” because oath means curse, as you say¹⁶⁵Num. 5:21. In the Babli, Šebuot35b, this is a tannaїtic statement. In Sifry Num. 14 the argument is: From the verse one infers that any oath implies a potential curse on the person taking the oath.: “The Cohen has to administer to the woman the oath of the curse.”

HALAKHAH: ¹⁵⁸In the ms. and editio princeps: Halakhah 5.: “He does not write on a wooden plank,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra¹⁵⁹In the Babli, Šebuot 36a, this is a statement of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina, a younger contemporary of R. Yose ben Zimra. In Num. rabba 9(46) the reading is that of the Yerushalmi.: “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, “Amen” for an oath, “Amen”, may the words be confirmed. “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, from the suspected wife¹⁶⁰Num. 5:22.. “Amen” for an oath: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your forefathers”, etc¹⁶¹Jer. 11:5: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your forefathers to give to them the Land flowing with milk and honey as today; I answered and said, Amen, o Eternal.”. “Amen”, may the words be confirmed¹⁶²1K. 1:36.: “Benaiah ben Yehoyada (the priest) answered the king and said Amen”, etc. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, that does not prove that Amen means an oath, it implies nothing¹⁶³The verse from Jeremiah only confirms what can be learned from the verse in Kings, that Amen is an affirmation.. But the following says: “that you pass by the covenant of your God and His curse¹⁶⁴Deut. 29:11. The curse is Deut.28:15–68.,” because oath means curse, as you say¹⁶⁵Num. 5:21. In the Babli, Šebuot35b, this is a tannaїtic statement. In Sifry Num. 14 the argument is: From the verse one infers that any oath implies a potential curse on the person taking the oath.: “The Cohen has to administer to the woman the oath of the curse.”

⁸⁵This paragraph is copied verbally from Halakhah 1, Notes 10–12, but the meaning is different. Why can he not make her drink⁸⁶Why does the majority not empower the freed or healed husband to make his wife drink?? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen⁸⁷Num. 5:15..” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy⁸⁸The court as guardian of the incapacitated man should not be able to do what he himself could not do at the moment.! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,⁸⁹Num. 5:14; the court is empowered even if the man is temporarily disabled from acting as a husband.” even if she is only partially his wife.

⁸⁵This paragraph is copied verbally from Halakhah 1, Notes 10–12, but the meaning is different. Why can he not make her drink⁸⁶Why does the majority not empower the freed or healed husband to make his wife drink?? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen⁸⁷Num. 5:15..” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy⁸⁸The court as guardian of the incapacitated man should not be able to do what he himself could not do at the moment.! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,⁸⁹Num. 5:14; the court is empowered even if the man is temporarily disabled from acting as a husband.” even if she is only partially his wife.

“And if the woman was not impure but was pure,¹⁶⁰Num. 5:28.” this refers to the one who is pure, not that there came witnesses declaring her impure¹⁶¹“And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).
The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed”. “If the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not one whose merit suspended [punishment] for her¹⁶²The latter will not experience any change in her fertility status.. This follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who said that merit suspends and it is recognizable¹⁶³There seems to be no reason for Rav Hamnuna’s position.? Rebbi Isaac said, here we deal with one who drank and the water did not test her. It comes to tell you that the water will not test a woman who is forbidden to her house^161,“And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).
The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed”¹⁶⁴There is no inference possible on Rav Hamnuna's statement.. Rebbi Yudan said, this follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. Why was it not recognized? Because merit suspended for her. “The man will be free of sin¹⁶⁵Num. 5:31.,” he should not worry that maybe merit suspended for her¹⁶⁶The husband who brought his wife to the Temple where the water had no influence on her is free to sleep with her and is told not to worry that she still might be forbidden to him.. Should I think that she also should not worry? The verse said, “but that woman shall carry her sin¹⁶⁵Num. 5:31.”. [This interpretation] follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable.

“And if the woman was not impure but was pure,¹⁶⁰Num. 5:28.” this refers to the one who is pure, not that there came witnesses declaring her impure¹⁶¹“And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).
The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed”. “If the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not one whose merit suspended [punishment] for her¹⁶²The latter will not experience any change in her fertility status.. This follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who said that merit suspends and it is recognizable¹⁶³There seems to be no reason for Rav Hamnuna’s position.? Rebbi Isaac said, here we deal with one who drank and the water did not test her. It comes to tell you that the water will not test a woman who is forbidden to her house^161,“And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed and bear children.” If she is not impure, it should be clear that she is pure. It is explained that if she was not impure, i. e., if there are no proofs available against her sufficient for a conviction in court, then if she is pure the water will cleanse her and make her fertile. But if her case could be adjudicated in a human court, the Temple should not be used and the water will be just drinking water (cf. Babli 6a).
The Geniza text makes this slightly more clear by quoting: “And if the woman was not impure but was pure, then she will be cleansed”¹⁶⁴There is no inference possible on Rav Hamnuna's statement.. Rebbi Yudan said, this follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. Why was it not recognized? Because merit suspended for her. “The man will be free of sin¹⁶⁵Num. 5:31.,” he should not worry that maybe merit suspended for her¹⁶⁶The husband who brought his wife to the Temple where the water had no influence on her is free to sleep with her and is told not to worry that she still might be forbidden to him.. Should I think that she also should not worry? The verse said, “but that woman shall carry her sin¹⁶⁵Num. 5:31.”. [This interpretation] follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable.

The verse said, one recites and after that one shames²²²V. 17 indicates that as a first step, the Cohen prepares the curse-draught. After that (v. 18) he uncovers the woman’s hair. But in the Mishnah, the preparation of the draught is late (2:2). The recitation of the curses can start only after the draught is prepared.. But the Mishnah says, one shames and then one recites? Rebbi Hila said, because the verse says, “he makes stand, he makes her stand²²³Num. 5:18,16.”; did she ever sit²²⁴It is forbidden to sit down in the Temple precinct (for everybody except kings of the Davidic line).? But because of the first stand he uncovers her hair²²⁵The text vv. 17–20 is explanatory, not prescriptive. The uncovering of the hair is a consequence of her coming to the Temple. For a coherent parallel (non-rabbinic) reading of the text, cf. the paper by H. C. Brichto, mentioned in the Introduction..

The verse said, one recites and after that one shames²²²V. 17 indicates that as a first step, the Cohen prepares the curse-draught. After that (v. 18) he uncovers the woman’s hair. But in the Mishnah, the preparation of the draught is late (2:2). The recitation of the curses can start only after the draught is prepared.. But the Mishnah says, one shames and then one recites? Rebbi Hila said, because the verse says, “he makes stand, he makes her stand²²³Num. 5:18,16.”; did she ever sit²²⁴It is forbidden to sit down in the Temple precinct (for everybody except kings of the Davidic line).? But because of the first stand he uncovers her hair²²⁵The text vv. 17–20 is explanatory, not prescriptive. The uncovering of the hair is a consequence of her coming to the Temple. For a coherent parallel (non-rabbinic) reading of the text, cf. the paper by H. C. Brichto, mentioned in the Introduction..

How could one state this Mishnah¹⁸²Mishnah 7, just quoted. In the tradition of the Babli and of the independent Mishnah mss., Mishnah 7 is part of Mishnah 6. Then one has a real problem, since in our interpretation Mishnah 6 is R. Aqiba’s and Mishnah 7 the rabbi’s.? Not the rabbis nor Rebbi Aqiba! But it is as follows. He who says that she is permitted to her house [follows] the rabbis against Rebbi Aqiba¹⁸³Then Mishnah 7 has to be separated from Mishnah 6 as in the Yerushalmi text.. He who says that she is forbidden to her house [follows] Rebbi Aqiba against the rabbis¹⁸⁴There is no problem; Mishnah 7 is part of Mishnah 6.. Rebbi Yannai said, a woman waiting for her levir who whored is permitted to her house¹⁸⁵R. Yannai is the one who in the preceding paragraph had stated that a woman waiting for her levir is unable to contract a marriage outside the family. He will also hold that contracting such a marriage is a criminal act since that is formulated as a prohibition in Deut. 25:5. As R. Yose bar Abun notes here, the prohibition covers only marriage, not extramarital relations.. One had stated this: “It was hidden from her husband’s eyes¹⁸⁶Num. 5:13. This baraita is not found in any other source. In a later paragraph, the expression quoted is interpreted to mean that a blind man cannot declare his jealousy and in Sifry Num. 7 that if the husband ever had looked the other way he never again could invoke the procedure of the suspected wife.,” not from her levir’s eyes. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It happened, she was the wife of a Cohen, and they permitted her to her house. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, no whipping is involved.

“The teaching about jealousies¹⁸⁸Num. 5:29. The text seems to be a composition of two different texts. In Sifry zuṭa [also similarly in Num. rabba 5(51)] one reads: “‘This is the teaching about jealousies’; the jealous husband may express his jealousy in Shiloh and in the Eternal House (cf. Note 120). I could think, also at a local altar? The verse says: This.” The argument is obsolete since it is generally accepted doctrine that after the building of the Temple no local altar was permitted. The question arose since v. 15 requires the husband to bring his wife to the Cohen, perhaps not necessarily to the Tabernacle. But since the dust has to be taken from the floor of the Sanctuary, an altar without Sanctuary is excluded. The special emphasis of this indicates that no substitute for the Tabernacle is acceptable.”. This is a teaching of the Temple. ¹⁸⁹In the Babli, 18b, the text of this baraita reads: “‘This is the teaching about jealousies’, which teaches that a woman drinks and repeats {from the several jealousies}. Rebbi Jehudah says this {a singular}, a woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats and we accepted his testimony from two husbands but not from one husband. But the Sages say that a woman does not drink and repeat whether from one husband or from two husbands.” The Babli has a complicated explanation to harmonize the anonymous first source (which has to represent the opinion of the majority, the Sages) with the contradictory statement at the end. The text of Num. rabba 5(51), is clearly an explanation of the position of the Babli. A woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain. From one husband a woman does not drink and repeat, from two husbands a woman drinks and repeats. But the Sages say she drinks and repeats¹⁹⁰In the Rome ms: “A woman does not drink and repeat.” This text, which eliminates the disagreement with the Babli, is in contradiction to the following. whether from one husband or from two husbands. Korkemit shall prove it, who drank and repeated and did it a third time from one husband before Shemaia and Abtalyon¹⁹¹In Mishnah Idiut 5:6 she is called Karkemit the libertine (the freedwoman). It is unclear whether at the end there is a difference between the two Talmudim since it is not stated whether Korkemit was repeatedly accused of relations with the same man..

There, we have stated¹⁹²Mishnah Idiut 5:6: “He (Aqabia ben Mehallalel) said: One does not make the proselyte or the freedwoman drink, but the Sages say, one makes her drink.”: “One does not make the proselyte drink, etc. But the Sages say, one makes her drink.” Where do we hold? If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written¹⁹³Num. 5:12. The text is addressed to all Jewish men.: “The sons of Israel” (not proselytes)¹⁹⁴This text is an intrusion from the later statement but is also found in Num. rabba 9(34). The text quoted by R. Abraham ben David of Posquières (Ravad) in his commentary to Idiut has the order inverted and then the clause makes sense: אִם בְּגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כְּבָר כְּתִיב. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לֹא גֵרִים. אִם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִיּוֹרֶת. כְּבָר כְּתִיב וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן. “If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: ‘The sons of Israel’, not proselytes. If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: ‘The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.’ ” Ravad declares his text to be difficult; the Babli, 26a, explicitly rejects the inference from “the sons of Israel”.. If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written¹⁹⁵Num. 5:15. Any Jewish man is included, even if he is not the son of an Israel.: “The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.” But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba¹⁹⁶This is clearly in error; it must be Aqabia, not Aqiba; correctly in the text quoted by Ravad and in Num. rabba. Aqabia had no rabbinic title.? “The children of Israel”, not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them¹⁹⁷Num. 5:12; the text is addressed to everybody who has to hear the commandments, including the proselytes; argument approved in the Babli, 26a.”, to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her”. His¹⁹⁸In Ravad’s text: Another man’s lying … lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.

There, we have stated¹⁹²Mishnah Idiut 5:6: “He (Aqabia ben Mehallalel) said: One does not make the proselyte or the freedwoman drink, but the Sages say, one makes her drink.”: “One does not make the proselyte drink, etc. But the Sages say, one makes her drink.” Where do we hold? If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written¹⁹³Num. 5:12. The text is addressed to all Jewish men.: “The sons of Israel” (not proselytes)¹⁹⁴This text is an intrusion from the later statement but is also found in Num. rabba 9(34). The text quoted by R. Abraham ben David of Posquières (Ravad) in his commentary to Idiut has the order inverted and then the clause makes sense: אִם בְּגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כְּבָר כְּתִיב. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לֹא גֵרִים. אִם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִיּוֹרֶת. כְּבָר כְּתִיב וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן. “If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: ‘The sons of Israel’, not proselytes. If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: ‘The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.’ ” Ravad declares his text to be difficult; the Babli, 26a, explicitly rejects the inference from “the sons of Israel”.. If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written¹⁹⁵Num. 5:15. Any Jewish man is included, even if he is not the son of an Israel.: “The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.” But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba¹⁹⁶This is clearly in error; it must be Aqabia, not Aqiba; correctly in the text quoted by Ravad and in Num. rabba. Aqabia had no rabbinic title.? “The children of Israel”, not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them¹⁹⁷Num. 5:12; the text is addressed to everybody who has to hear the commandments, including the proselytes; argument approved in the Babli, 26a.”, to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her”. His¹⁹⁸In Ravad’s text: Another man’s lying … lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.

“It was hidden from her husband’s eyes¹⁹⁹Num. 5:13.”, that excludes the blind man who has no eyes²⁰⁰Tanḥuma Naśo 7, Tanḥuma Buber Naśo 11 (Note 62); Sifry Num. 7, Sifry zuṭa Naśo; Num. rabba 9(36); Babli 27a (the only other source which also includes the blind wife).. It is the same for the blind man and the blind woman. This baraita follows Rebbi Jehudah who frees him from all obligations in the Torah²⁰¹Quoted also in Babli Qiddušin31a. Since some of the great Babylonian authorities were blind (Rav Sheshet and Rav Yoseph), practice does not follow R. Jehudah. (Nevertheless, Maimonides disqualifies the blind man from the ceremony of the suspected wife)..

MISHNAH: The entire day is qualified for reading the Scroll, and to read the Hallel¹⁰⁵Ps. 113–118, to be recited on holidays. The recitation of Hallel after morning prayers is customary, not obligatory., and to blow the shofar¹⁰⁶On New Year’s Day. If a person is unable to go to the synagogue, he may hear the required sounds during the entire day., and to take the lulav, and for the musaf prayer¹⁰⁷The recitation of musaf after the Torah reading is customary, not obligatory., and for musaf sacrifices, for confessions with bulls¹⁰⁸The confessions of the anointed priest (Lev. 4:3) and the representatives of the people (Lev. 4:14), as well as the musaf sacrifices, may be performed at any time after the daily morning and before the evening sacrifices., and for the declaration of tithes¹¹⁰The farmer’s declaration, Deut. 26:13–15, as well as the declaration on the occasion of presentation of first fruits, Deut. 26:3–10. and for the confessions of the Day of Atonement¹¹¹The confession of the High Priest (Lev. 16:21)..
¹¹⁶A continuation of the sentence starting with: “the entire day is qualified.” For leaning on¹¹⁷Confession of the votary when bringing his sacrifice, while leaning on the head of the sacrificial animal; Lev. 1:4, 3:2,8,13,4:24,29,33., slaughter, weaving¹¹⁸An act required for certain sacrifices, mostly well-being sacrifices, Lev. 7:30. and presenting¹¹⁹Presenting flour sacrifices and first fruits to the altar., taking a handful¹²⁰Of the flour offering to be burned on the altar., burning on the altar, breaking the neck¹²¹Of a bird offered as elevation or purification sacrifice (Lev. 1:15,5:8)., receiving¹²²The sacrificial blood to be brought to the altar., sprinkling¹²³The blood on the horns of the altar., and to let the suspected adulteress drink¹²⁴Num. 5:11–31., and to break the neck of the calf¹²⁵In case of an unsolved murder, Deut. 21:1–9., and to purify the sufferer from skin disease¹²⁶Lev. 14:1–32..

MISHNAH: If she was clothed in white, he²²³Num. 5:18,16. covers her in black. If she wore gold jewelry, chains²³⁴Semitic plural of Latin catella., nose rings and finger rings, he removes them from her in order to make her ugly. After that²³⁵Obviously not after he removed her rings but immediately after he tore her garment (Mishnah 5). he brings an Egyption rope and binds it higher than her breasts. Anyone who wants to look may come and see, except for her male and female slaves because she feels superior to them. All women are permitted to see her²³⁶The Babli, 8b, changes that into an obligation of all women present in the Temple area to come and see. This is unknown to the Yerushalmi., as it was said: “²³²Ez. 23:48.”all women should be taught and not do as your whoring.”

MISHNAH: If she was clothed in white, he²²³Num. 5:18,16. covers her in black. If she wore gold jewelry, chains²³⁴Semitic plural of Latin catella., nose rings and finger rings, he removes them from her in order to make her ugly. After that²³⁵Obviously not after he removed her rings but immediately after he tore her garment (Mishnah 5). he brings an Egyption rope and binds it higher than her breasts. Anyone who wants to look may come and see, except for her male and female slaves because she feels superior to them. All women are permitted to see her²³⁶The Babli, 8b, changes that into an obligation of all women present in the Temple area to come and see. This is unknown to the Yerushalmi., as it was said: “²³²Ez. 23:48.”all women should be taught and not do as your whoring.”

HALAKHAH: “If a man’s wife went overseas,”, etc. It is written: “If a man slept with her;¹³⁴Num. 5:13; written in the paragraph about the wife suspected of unfaithfulness, from where one infers that an adulterous wife is forbidden to her husband. It is implied here that an action of the husband has no influence on her status (but in the paragraph after the next it is pointed out that the husband’s action may forbid him to her). Sifry Num. 7 (an involved argument in the style of the paragraph after the next), a short parallel in the Babli, 95a.” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her. There, it also says “replacing your husband,” that excludes rape cases¹³⁵She is forbidden only if her paramour replaces the husband, i. e., if she sleeps with him voluntarily..

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged¹⁶²Private altars and sacrifices outside the central sanctuary are forbidden, Lev. 17. In the absence of a central sanctuary, private altars are permitted, Mishnah Zevaḥim 14:4–8. If a central Sanctuary exists but is temporarily unavailable, the prohibition remains in place; Menaḥot95a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time¹⁶³Sacrifices must either be burned on the altar in the courtyard of the Sanctuary or eaten within sanctified enclosures. If all enclosures are removed, all leftovers of sacrifices are automatically disqualified. Babli Zevaḥim 60b as tannaitic statement.; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition¹⁶⁴Num. 5:1–4. A person suffering from gonorrhea is excluded from the dwelling of the Levites, a sufferer from skin disease also from the camp of the Israelites. Since they were marching in military order, the impure were excluded from the marching order. Babli Zevaḥim 60b as tannaitic statement.. Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease¹⁶⁵During travel times there is no inside and the impure cannot be sent outside.. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other.¹⁶⁶Since R. Joshua ben Levi is not mentioned in the present paragraph, the reference to him has to be to the preceding one. The reference to R. Joḥanan is incomprehensible; the quoted baraita does not refer to any previous statement but to the following of R. Jehudah. A baraita¹⁶⁷Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10), a baraita of R. Jehudah. Anywhere “permanent” is mentioned, it overrides restrictions. Since “permanent” is mentioned for the fire of that altar, Lev. 6:6, the priests have to tend the fire on the Sabbath even if all of them are impure. But “permanent” also is mentioned for the shew-bread (Lev. 24:8); this overrides the absence of the walls of the Sanctuary. By the same token, R. Joshua ben Levi has to hold that the altar fire has to be tended on the march; following R. Jehudah in the sequel. supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel¹⁶⁸Continuation of Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10) on Lev. 6:6.. What did they do [at travel time]¹⁶⁹Addition by the corrector; it should be deleted since by removing it the sentence and the next are again continuation of Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10).? They put a wine-cooler⁸⁷As an alloy with coarse metal; reddish gold probably was a copper alloy. over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said¹⁷⁰Num. 4:13., they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated¹⁷¹In all cognate languages דשן, دسم means “to be fat”. The use of דשן as “ashes” must mean “ashes from fatty material”. R. Jehudah will not extend the extended meaning of the noun to the corresponding verb..

MISHNAH: By the measure a person measures one measures him. She adorned herself for sin, therefore the Omnipresent²⁴¹The open water canal which crosses the Temple yard from North to South. made her ugly. She bared herself for sin, therefore the Omnipresent laid her bare. The genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly²⁴⁶Num. 5:21: “When the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly extend.” (In the event, v. 27, the order is reversed.) J. C. Brichto (loc. cit. Note 225) identifies the symptoms as pseudocyesis, spurious pregnancy., while the remainder of the body does not escape²⁴⁷Rabbinic tradition (Mishnah 3:4/5) holds that the guilty woman dies from the draught. This is not in the Biblical text..

One verse says: “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals,” another verse says “her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, and another verse says “when the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly swell.”²⁶⁶In Num. 5:22,27, the belly is mentioned before the genitals but in v. 21 the order is inverted. Does one verse weigh more than two verses? Rebbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional²⁶⁷Num. 5:22,27 is a description of what will or did happen; v. 21 is a curse formula conditional upon the woman having sinned.. Rebbi Abin said, you may even say in both cases for the act, in both cases as a condition. “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals” for the adulterer²⁶⁸The infinitives in the sentence are gender neutral. The ordeal indirectly also affects the presumed adulterer, Mishnah 6:1. In the Babli, 27a, this is a conclusion of Rebbi.. “Her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, for the woman. Reason decides, “the genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for [heavenly] punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is smitten and all limbs hurt, in the case of [heavenly] benefices, which are given out in abundance²⁶⁹Babli 11a; extensive discussion in Tosephta 4:1., [may we] not [expect] so much more!

One verse says: “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals,” another verse says “her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, and another verse says “when the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly swell.”²⁶⁶In Num. 5:22,27, the belly is mentioned before the genitals but in v. 21 the order is inverted. Does one verse weigh more than two verses? Rebbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional²⁶⁷Num. 5:22,27 is a description of what will or did happen; v. 21 is a curse formula conditional upon the woman having sinned.. Rebbi Abin said, you may even say in both cases for the act, in both cases as a condition. “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals” for the adulterer²⁶⁸The infinitives in the sentence are gender neutral. The ordeal indirectly also affects the presumed adulterer, Mishnah 6:1. In the Babli, 27a, this is a conclusion of Rebbi.. “Her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, for the woman. Reason decides, “the genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for [heavenly] punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is smitten and all limbs hurt, in the case of [heavenly] benefices, which are given out in abundance²⁶⁹Babli 11a; extensive discussion in Tosephta 4:1., [may we] not [expect] so much more!

MISHNAH: One who robbed from a proselyte¹¹¹Who failed to start a Jewish family. By becoming a Jew, he became a new person, no longer related to his previous Gentile family., swore to him, and [the proselyte] died, has to pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar as it is said¹¹²Num. 5:8: “If the man has no heirs to give the reparation to, the reparation shall be returned to the Eternal, to the priests, except for the atonement ram by which he can reach atonement.” While the sacrificial meat of the ram is eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard, they eat from the Eternal’s table and it never becomes their property.: “If the man has no heirs to give the reparation to, the reparation etc.” If he was bringing the money and the reparation offering when he¹¹³The robber. died, the money should be given to his sons¹¹⁴His death was atonement. Since he does not need atonement after death, the money does not need to be given to the priests; it becomes part of the estate. and the reparation offering¹¹⁵If it was dedicated as such by its owner, the dedication cannot be undone. shall graze until it becomes disqualified¹¹⁶As a sacrifice, either by developing a defect or outliving its third birthday (Mishnah Parah 1:3)., then be sold, and the amount be given for voluntary offerings¹¹⁷The account from which elevation offerings were paid if otherwise the altar would have been empty.. If he had given the money to the men of the watch¹¹⁸The priests were organized into 24 watches; each watch served from one Sabbath morning to the next. The watch on duty had the exclusive rights to all emoluments accruing to priests during their term of office. when he died, the heirs cannot ask it back from them since it is said¹¹⁹Num. 5:10.: “What a man give to a Cohen shall be the latter’s.”

MISHNAH: One who robbed from a proselyte¹¹¹Who failed to start a Jewish family. By becoming a Jew, he became a new person, no longer related to his previous Gentile family., swore to him, and [the proselyte] died, has to pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar as it is said¹¹²Num. 5:8: “If the man has no heirs to give the reparation to, the reparation shall be returned to the Eternal, to the priests, except for the atonement ram by which he can reach atonement.” While the sacrificial meat of the ram is eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard, they eat from the Eternal’s table and it never becomes their property.: “If the man has no heirs to give the reparation to, the reparation etc.” If he was bringing the money and the reparation offering when he¹¹³The robber. died, the money should be given to his sons¹¹⁴His death was atonement. Since he does not need atonement after death, the money does not need to be given to the priests; it becomes part of the estate. and the reparation offering¹¹⁵If it was dedicated as such by its owner, the dedication cannot be undone. shall graze until it becomes disqualified¹¹⁶As a sacrifice, either by developing a defect or outliving its third birthday (Mishnah Parah 1:3)., then be sold, and the amount be given for voluntary offerings¹¹⁷The account from which elevation offerings were paid if otherwise the altar would have been empty.. If he had given the money to the men of the watch¹¹⁸The priests were organized into 24 watches; each watch served from one Sabbath morning to the next. The watch on duty had the exclusive rights to all emoluments accruing to priests during their term of office. when he died, the heirs cannot ask it back from them since it is said¹¹⁹Num. 5:10.: “What a man give to a Cohen shall be the latter’s.”

HALAKHAH: ²⁴⁹This text is from Demay 6:3, explained there in Notes 59–76 and Nedarim 11:3, Note 46. It seems that the text in Demay is the original source. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

HALAKHAH: For it is written¹⁶⁷Hos. 4:14., “for they behave like donkeys with the prostitutes,” and it is written¹⁶⁸Num. 5:27.: “The woman will be a swearword among her people.” In times when her people are peaceful, not in times when her people are dissolute. “The man shall be free from sin.¹⁶⁹Num. 5:31. In the Genizah ms., the entire verse is copied, as required by the following homily: “The man shall be free from sin, then this woman will bear her iniquity.”” When does the woman carry her iniquity? If the man is free from sin¹⁷⁰A more extended treatment in the Babli, 47b; Num. rabba 9(53); Sifry Num. 21. An opposing opinion Sifry zuṭa Naśo31..

HALAKHAH: For it is written¹⁶⁷Hos. 4:14., “for they behave like donkeys with the prostitutes,” and it is written¹⁶⁸Num. 5:27.: “The woman will be a swearword among her people.” In times when her people are peaceful, not in times when her people are dissolute. “The man shall be free from sin.¹⁶⁹Num. 5:31. In the Genizah ms., the entire verse is copied, as required by the following homily: “The man shall be free from sin, then this woman will bear her iniquity.”” When does the woman carry her iniquity? If the man is free from sin¹⁷⁰A more extended treatment in the Babli, 47b; Num. rabba 9(53); Sifry Num. 21. An opposing opinion Sifry zuṭa Naśo31..

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots.
There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots.
There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).