Sifrei Bamidbar 7

¹(Bamidbar 5:12) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man, a man, if his wife go astray, and she be faithless to him": What is the intent of this section? From (Devarim 24:1) "If a man take a woman and he cohabit with her, etc.", we hear only that if he had two witnesses (to her adultery) and she had not been forewarned, that she leaves him by divorce. But if she were adulterous in the presence of only one witness or it is in doubt whether she had or had not been adulterous after having been secreted (with the one she had been forewarned against), we did not hear what is to be done with her. It is, therefore, written "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: "A man, a man, if his wife go astray, etc.", that (in the above instance) she must drink the bitter waters. This is the intent of this section. "A man, a man": to include the wife of a deaf mute, an imbecile, one who has gone abroad or been incarcerated, or a dullard — that beth-din forewarns her (if she is deporting herself immodestly) to the end of invalidating her kethubah (her marriage contract). I might think, even to the end of making her drink (the bitter waters); it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Ibid. 11) "Then the man shall bring his wife." R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: also to the end of making her drink when her husband is released from incarceration. Variantly: "A man, a man": to include a woman awaiting levirate marriage (yibum). "if his wife go astray": Scripture speaks of those who are fit to be "wives" — to exclude a widow married to a high-priest, a divorcée or a chalutzah (one who has performed the chaliztah ceremony to break a levirate connection), who are married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a Nethinah (a descendent of the Geveonites) married to an Israelite, and a daughter of an Israelite married to a Nathin or a mamzer. And, according to Akavya b. Mehallalel, (to exclude) a woman who is a proselyte or a freed slave. They (the sages) said to him (Akavya): But there was a freed slave, Charkemis, in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon had her drink (the bitter waters)! He replied: They dissimulated their doing so — whereupon they excommunicated him and he died in his state of excommunication, and beth-din stoned his coffin. ("if his wife go astray,) and she is guilty of ma'al against him": ("ma'al") In the area of illicit relations or in the area of monetary (fraudulence)? (Ibid. 5:13) "And a man lie with her a lying of seed" indicates that ma'al here is in the area of illicit relations, and not in that of monetary (fraudulence). "and she is guilty of ma'al against him": "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification ('bema'alo ma'al') against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu, king of Judah, (II Chronicles 26:18) "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta)," and (Vayikra 5:21) "and he (the denier) ma'ala ma'al against the L-rd" — whence we see that "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." ²"And a man lie with her a lying of seed": a man, and not a minor. "And a man lie with her": and not with her sister. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in a place where the forbidder [(i.e., her husband, who forbids her to all men)] does not forbid her all of his days, (for he can divorce her) — she forbids her forbidder (her husband) from living with her (if she secretes herself), then in a place where the forbidder (his wife) forbids her (sister to him) all of his days — how much more so should she forbid (to herself) her forbidder (if he cohabits with her sister)! It is, therefore, written ("and a man lie) with her," and not with her sister. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: "with her": and not (if he lay with) with his mother-in-law; "with her": and not with one of the illicit relations. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If one commits a (relatively) "light" act of forbidding, in that he does not forbid her all of his days — she forbids her forbidder, then if one commits a grave act of forbidding, in that he forbids her all of his days, how much more so should she forbid (to herself) her forbidder! It is, therefore, written "with her," and not with his mother-in-law; "with her," and not with one of the illicit relations. ³(Ibid. 5:13) "and it be hidden from the eyes of her husband": but not if her husband see and make himself "unseeing." If her husband knows, he is not permitted to scheme and make her drink." "and she had secreted herself and she be defiled": (Does this mean that) there were no witnesses to defiling, but there were witnesses for secreting, or that there were no witnesses to both defiling and secreting? If you say this (the latter), she is permitted to her husband. The former, then, is the case and not the latter. There are no witnesses to defiling, but there are witnesses to secreting. "and she had secreted herself": We have not been apprised of the (minimum) time of secreting; it is, therefore, written "and she had secreted herself and she be defiled": the (minimum) time for defilement — for intercourse; for he'arah (the initial stage) — for circling a palm tree. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Eliezer says: the (minimum) time for pouring a cup. R. Yehoshua says: for drinking it. Ben Azzai says: for frying an egg. R. Akiva says: for swallowing it. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: for swallowing three eggs, one after the other. "and there be no witness in her": Is Scripture speaking of two witnesses or of one? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:15) "There shall not arise one witness against a man for every transgression and for every sin." Why (emphasize) one? To serve as a prototype (binyan av), viz.: Wherever "witness" (alone) is mentioned, two are understood, unless Scripture specifies "one." "and she were not seized": to exclude one who was forced. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of "light" tumah (e.g., a widow (cohabiting) with a high-priest, where there is only a lav (transgression of a negative commandment), forced is equated with consenting, how much more so, in an instance of grave tumah, such as ours, where the penalty is death, forced should be equated with consenting; it is, therefore, written "and she were not seized." Or, I might think (that this halachah obtains both) with (the wife of) an Israelite or of a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "and she (the wife of an Israelite) were not seized" — to exclude (from being forbidden to her husband) the wife of a Cohein, (who is forbidden to him even if she were forced.) (Ibid. 14) "And there pass over him a spirit of rancor and he warn his wife": optional (i.e., "he may warm his wife.") These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: mandatory (i.e., "he must warn his wife.") R. Akiva says: Why is "venitma'ah" ("and she be tamei") written three times, (5:14, 5:27, 5:29)? tumah vis-à-vis her husband, and vis-à-vis her cohabitor, and vis-à-vis (her eating) terumah (if she is the daughter of a Cohein). R. Yishmael says: If a divorcée, the "lighter," (in that she may return to her divorcer), is unfit (for marriage) to the priesthood, how much more so sotah, the "graver," (who may not return to her husband; and no verse is needed for this.) (Ibid. 5:14) "and she were defiled … and she were not defiled": What is the intent of this? If she were (positively) defiled, why does she drink? And if she were (positively) not defiled, why does he make her drink? Scripture hereby (by this ambiguity) comes to teach us that she drinks only in a case of doubt (as to whether or not) she were defiled. And from here you rule (accordingly) in the instance of (the tumah of sheretz) [a creeping thing], viz.: If in an instance (that of sotah), where unwittingness is not equated with wittingness (to make her tamei) or forcing to consent, doubt is equated with certainty (to forbid her to her husband until she drinks and resolves the doubt), then in an instance where unwittingness (of contact) is equated with wittingness, and forcing with consent, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty! And just as here (for tumah to obtain, the locus of the act is) a private domain, there, too, it must be a private domain. Just as here we are dealing with a subject (the woman) which has the intelligence to be questioned, there, too, (for tumah to obtain), we must be dealing with a subject (e.g., the carrier of the sheretz) which has the intelligence to be questioned — whence they ruled: In a case of doubt involving a subject which has the intelligence to be questioned — in the private domain, the ruling is tamei; in the public domain, the ruling is tahor (clean). (In a case of doubt involving a subject) which lacks the intelligence to be questioned, both in the public and in the private domain, the ruling is tahor.