Талмуд к Бамидбар 5:14

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.

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)..