Бамидбар 5:14 Ссылки в Талмуде: Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot & Avot DeRabbi Natan

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..

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.

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..