פֿאַרבונדענע פּסוקים אויף במדבר 5:15

HALAKHAH: “A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law,” etc. Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen¹⁰Lev. 5:15. A man can bring his wife only if he is living with her..” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy¹¹If “his wife” in this paragraph means only the definitively married one, the entire procedure should be impossible for the preliminarily married woman.! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,¹²Lev. 5:14; if the meaning of “his wife” were constant in this verse, the second clause should have read “and he declared his jealousy to her.” The woman who is a wife but not a wife in the first sense is the preliminarily married one. Therefore, the second mention of “wife” adds the preliminarily married one as object of jealousy.” even if she is only partially his wife.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: ³⁹This sentence is also quoted in Halakhah 3:1. The argument refers to Lev. 2:14, where “a flour offering of first fruits” is mentioned which is identified as the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14), traditionally brought from barley (since early in spring there is no wheat ready). The argument attempts to show that the offering mentioned in Lev. 2:14 must be the ‘omer offering of barley. The argument of R. Ismael is quoted only here because it cannot be sustained. The basis of the argument is the position that a word used in the legal parts of the Torah can only have one meaning. Since the construct form “flour offering of” used for the ritual of the suspected wife (Num. 5:15,16,18) refers to barley, it is concluded that the “flour offering of first fruits” also must refer to barley. The problem is that the construct state is also used in Lev. 2:7, 6:14,16; Num. 4:16, 28:8 clearly referring to wheat offerings.“Flour offering of, flour offering of.” Since “flour offering of” said there is of barley, here also it is of barley. ⁴⁰A slightly garbled version of a text dealing with the same problem, preserved in Sifra Wayyiqra Paršata 13(4). The reading Liezer for the first Tanna mentioned here, as against Lazar as suggested by the text, follows the reading of Sifra. Since this Tanna is mentioned before R. Aqiba, a reading of Lazar would refer to R. Eleazar ben ‘Arakh. Rebbi Eliezer said, it says here “milky white⁴¹Lev. 2:14, a word used in the description of the offering of first fruits. For the translation of אביב as “milky white”, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1991, pp. 192–194.” and it says in Egypt “milky white⁴²Ex. 9:31, referring to barley.”. Since “milky white” mentioned in Egypt refers to barley, here also it refers to barley. Rebbi Aqiba said, it was said to the public, bring first fruits on Passover and bring first fruits on Pentecost⁴³During or after the Holiday of Unleavened Bread (depending on the interpretation of the term “after the Sabbath”) the ‘Omer offering is required as “first harvest” (Lev. 23:9–14). Pentecost is described as “holiday of first fruits” (Num. 28:26).. ⁴⁴This text is slightly garbled. A more intelligible text is in Sifra (but one cannot exclude the possibility that the text in Sifra is Amoraic and has been edited to make it more intelligible) and the Babli, Menaḥot 68b:
רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. נֶאֱמַר לַצִּיבּוּר. הֲבֵא בִיכּוּרִים בַּפֶּסַח וַהֲבֵא בִיכּוּרִים בָּעֲצֶרֶת. כְּמָה מָצִינוּ שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ יְהֵא הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרָיו בָּעֲצֶרֶת. אַף מִמִּין שֶׁהַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ יְהֵא הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרָיו בַּפֶּסַח. מֵאֵי זֶה מִין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ. מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אַף הַצִּיבּוּר לֹא יָבִיא אֶלָּא מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אִם תֹּאמַר. מִן הַחִיטִּין. אֵין שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בִּיכּוּרִים.
Rebbi Aqiba says: It was said to the public, bring First Fruits on Passover and bring First Fruits on Pentecost. As we find that, from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering the public has to bring their First Fruits on Pentecost, also from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering the public brings their First Fruits on Passover. From which kind does the private person bring his obligatory offering? From barley! Also the public should bring only from barley. If you say, from wheat, the Two Breads are not First Fruits. If we find that from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering⁴⁵The only obligatory flour offerings of a private person are the purification offering of the poor (Lev. 5:11) and the offering for the suspected wife. The voluntary offerings of a private person are all high quality wheat. the public bring their first fruits on Pentecost. From which kind does the private person bring his obligatory offering? From barley! Also the public should bring only from barley. If you say from wheat, the Two Breads⁴⁶Two wheat breads made from sour dough to be presented to the altar but not burned, Lev. 23:17. These are called “First Fruits”. If the ‘Omer offering, whose nature is not specified in the verse, were to be brought from wheat, the Two Breads would not be baked from “First Fruits”. would not be first fruits.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This³⁵The Mishnah which forbids harvesting any of the five kinds of grain before the ‘omer. The statement of R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa is in Sifra Wayiqra Paršata 13(5). The problem is Lev. 2:14–16, speaking of the cereal offering of first fruits. The verse cannot speak of individual first fruits (Deut. 26:1–11) since no cereal offering is connected with these. For any other cereal offering, the flour is specified. It is always wheat except for the ‘omer sheaf (Lev. 23:9–14) and the offering for the wife suspected of infidelity (Num. 5:15). Lev. 2:14 does not specify the kind of cereal for the offering. The cereal offering of first fruits is identified as the ‘omer offering; this determines the flour as barley flour. is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife³⁶In Sifra, the second argument also refers to the ‘omer. is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse³⁷The nature of the grain cut for the ‘omer is not specified in Lev. 23:9–14. But since the “new grain” for the cereal offering of the 50^th day is specified as fine wheat flour, the earlier offering cannot possibly be wheat.; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”