Бамидбар 5:13 Связанные отрывки

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

¹²⁸Text from Yebamot 10:1, Notes 49–67. Just as the woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. I might think that just as the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she should be forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Let us hear from the following: “A woman’s husband went overseas; they came and told her that her husband had died, and she had a levir here; he married her in levirate and died. Then her husband returned. She is forbidden to him but her co-widow is permitted to him; she is forbidden to him but his brother’s wife is permitted to him.” Is his brother’s wife not like the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity? That means that the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is permitted to her paramour’s brother. Rebbi Judan said, this follows the rabbis there, as Rebbi Hila said, one states there, for incestuous relationships no divorce is needed except for a married woman; Rebbi Aqiba says also from his wife’s sister. But following the rabbis here? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: everybody agrees that his brother’s wife needs a bill of divorce from him because of the rule of a married wife. She is forbidden by the incest rules, and an incest-prohibited woman frees her co-wife. Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is accepted even according to the rabbis here. They fined her but not her heirs. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, according to the rabbis there, she should be permitted to him⁶³Since one pubic hair does not make the person an adult, there is no witness who testifies to the person being an adult.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity is forbidden, the co-wife of a divorcee is permitted. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All co-wives are permitted except the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity. Samuel said, the divorcee herself is permitted to her house. Does he disagree? Since they were discussing co-wives they did not mention divorcees. Why is the co-wife of a woman accused of infidelity forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they touched this case because it looks like adultery. Rav said, because impurity is written there parallel to incest prohibitions.

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.