Sotah 55

דאי אית ביה עון בדקי ליה מיא כי אית ביה עון בדידיה מי בדקי לה מיא לדידה והא תניא (במדבר ה, לא) ונקה האיש מעון והאשה ההיא תשא את עונה בזמן שהאיש מנוקה מעון המים בודקין את אשתו אין האיש מנוקה מעון אין המים בודקין את אשתו

that if there be sin in him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By having cohabited with her after she had secluded herself with the other man. ');">¹</span>

ואלא לבועל ליתני כדקתני סיפא כשם שאסורה לבעל כך אסורה לבועל

the water proves him, [it may be asked] should there be sin in him on his own account does the water prove her for her own sin, and behold it has been taught: And the man shall be free from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nun. V, 31. ');">²</span>

לעולם לבועל ורישא איידי דתנא אותה תני אותו סיפא איידי דתנא בעל תנא בועל

i.e., so long as the husband is free from iniquity the water proves his wife, but if the husband is not free from iniquity the Water does not prove his wife! — Should [the Mishnah, on the other hand, refer] to the paramour, it should have used the same phraseology as in the continuation, viz., 'Just as she is prohibited to the husband so is she prohibited to the paramour'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And state, 'so the water proves the paramour'. ');">³</span>

שנאמר ובאו ובאו איבעיא להו באו ובאו קאמר או ובאו ובאו קאמר

— It certainly refers to the paramour; but in the first clause since it uses the word 'HER' it uses the word HIM and in the continuation since it used the word 'HUSBAND' it used the word 'PARAMOUR.'

ת"ש כשם שאסורה לבעל כך אסורה לבועל שנאמר נטמאה ונטמאה

AS IT IS SAID 'AND SHALL ENTER' TWICE. The question was asked: Does [the teacher in the Mishnah] mean 'shall enter and shall enter' or 'and shall enter and shall enter'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., is the inference drawn from the redundant and or from the repetition of the word? ');">⁴</span>

ועדיין תיבעי נטמאה נטמאה קאמר או נטמאה ונטמאה קאמר

— Come and hear: JUST AS SHE IS PROHIBITED TO THE HUSBAND SO IS SHE PROHIBITED TO THE PARAMOUR; AS IT IS SAID, DEFILED … AND IS DEFILED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly in the first clause the deduction is drawn from the redundant and. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ש מדקתני סיפא רבי אומר שני פעמים האמורין בפרשה ונטמאה ונטמאה אחד לבעל ואחד לבועל מכלל דרבי עקיבא ווי קדריש

But it is still questionable whether [the teacher in the Mishnah] draws the conclusion from the repetition of 'defiled' or from the conjunction in 'defiled&nbsp;… and is defiled'! — Come and hear: Since he states in the continuation, RABBI SAYS: THE WORD DEFILED OCCURS TWICE IN THE SCRIPTURAL PORTION, ONE REFERRING TO THE HUSBAND AND THE OTHER TO THE PARAMOUR, it follows that it is R. Akiba who expounds the conjunction 'and'. Consequently for R. Akiba there are six texts [containing the phrase 'and shall enter']<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In verses 22. 24 and 27, the conjunction 'and' duplicating each. ');">⁶</span>

הלכך לרבי עקיבא שיתא קראי כתיבי

— one for the command regarding her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' verse 24, where God decreed that the water should have the effect of proving her. ');">⁷</span>

חד לצואה דידה וחד לצואה דידיה

and one for the command regarding him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The paramour. ');">⁸</span>

חד לעשייה דידה וחד לעשייה דידיה

one for the action regarding her and one for the action regarding him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' verse 27, where the assurance is given that the water would take effect. ');">⁹</span>

חד לידיעה דידה וחד לידיעה דידיה

one for the notification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the priest, in verse 22. ');">¹⁰</span>

ורבי תלתא קראי כתיבי חד לצואה וחד לעשייה וחד לידיעה

regarding her and one for the notification regarding him. For Rabbi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who draws no conclusion from 'and'. ');">¹¹</span>

ורבי כשם שהמים בודקין אותה כך בודקין אותו מנא ליה

on the other hand, there are three texts — one for the command, one for the action and one for the notification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards the woman only in each instance. ');">¹²</span>

נפקא ליה מדתני' (במדבר ה, כב) לצבות בטן ולנפיל ירך בטנו ויריכו של בועל אתה אומר בטנו ויריכו של בועל או אינו אלא בטנה ויריכה של נבעלת כשהוא אומר וצבתה בטנה ונפלה יריכה הרי בטנה ויריכה של נבעלת אמור ומה אני מקיים לצבות בטן ולנפיל ירך בטנו ויריכו של בועל

But whence does Rabbi derive the teaching: JUST AS THE WATER PROVES HER SO THE WATER PROVES HIM? — He derives it from [the following teaching]: For it has been taught: And make the belly to swell and the thigh to fall away,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 22. The pronoun 'thy' in the E.V. does not occur in the Hebrew. Therefore the reference is taken to be the paramour. ');">¹³</span>

ואידך ההוא דמודע לה כהן דבטן ברישא והדר ירך שלא להוציא לעז על המים המרים

i.e., the belly and thigh of the paramour. You say it is the belly and thigh of the paramour; perhaps it is not so, but the belly and thigh of the adulteress! Since it is stated and her belly shall swell and her thigh shall fall away,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואידך א"כ לכתוב קרא בטנה ויריכה מאי בטן וירך ש"מ לבועל

here it is clearly the belly and thigh of the adulteress which are referred to; so how am I to explain 'and make the belly to swell and the thigh to fall away'? It refers to the belly and thigh of the paramour. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how does R. Akiba explain the phrase 'and make the belly etc.'? ');">¹⁵</span>

ואימא כולי להכי הוא דאתא אם כן לכתוב בטנו ויריכו מאי בטן וירך ש"מ תרתי

— It indicates that the priest informs her that [the water] affects the belly first and then the thigh so as not to discredit the water of bitterness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 9b. ');">¹⁶</span>

א"ר יהושע כך היה דורש זכריה כו'

And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does Rabbi meet this argument? ');">¹⁷</span>

ת"ר שלש פעמים האמורין בפרשה אם נטמאה נטמאה ונטמאה למה אחד לבעל ואחד לבועל ואחד לתרומה דברי רבי עקיבא

— If that were so, It should have been written 'her belly and her thigh'; what means 'belly and thigh' [without specification]? Conclude that the reference is to the paramour. But am I to suppose that [the phrase without specification] is intended only for this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To teach that it refers to the paramour. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבי ישמעאל קל וחומר ומה גרושה שמותרת לתרומה אסורה לכהונה זו שאסורה בתרומה אינו דין שאסורה לכהונה

— If that were so, it should have been written 'his belly and his thigh'; what means 'belly and thigh'? Draw two inferences therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it refers to the paramour and also that it indicates the order in which the effect of the water is felt. ');">¹⁹</span>

מה ת"ל והיא נטמאה והיא לא נטמאה אם נטמאה למה שותה אם לא נטמאה למה משקה מגיד לך הכתוב שהספק אסורה

R. JOSHUA SAID, THUS USED ZECHARIAH etc. Our Rabbis taught: Why is it mentioned three times in the Scriptural portion if she be defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 27. ');">²⁰</span>

מכאן אתה דן לשרץ ומה סוטה שלא עשה בה שוגג כמזיד ואונס כרצון עשה בה ספק כודאי שרץ שעשה בו שוגג כמזיד ואונס כרצון אינו דין שיעשה בו ספק

she be defiled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 14. ');">²¹</span> and she is defiled?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 29. ');">²²</span> One [to make her prohibited] to the husband, one to the paramour, and one for partaking of the heave-offering. This is the statement of R. Akiba. R. Ishmael said: It is an <i>a fortiori</i> conclusion; if a divorced woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., a priest's daughter who had been married to a non-priest, v. Lev. XXII, 13. ');">²³</span> who is allowed to partake of the heave-offering, is prohibited [to marry into] the priesthood, how much more must a woman who is prohibited from partaking of the heave-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because of suspected adultery. ');">²⁴</span> be prohibited [to marry into] the priesthood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This will be explained anon. ');">²⁵</span> For what purpose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exposition that follows is independent of the preceding. ');">²⁶</span> is it stated and she be defiled&nbsp;… and she be not defiled?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 14. ');">²⁷</span> If she be defiled, why should she drink; and if she be not defiled, why does he make her drink! Scripture informs you that in a doubtful case she is prohibited. From this you can draw an analogy [with respect to the defilement caused] by a creeping thing:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., when it is doubtful whether defilement has been caused. ');">²⁸</span> if in the case of a suspected woman, where the effect is not the same should the act be in error or in presumption, under compulsion or of free will,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the woman acted in error or under force, she does not undergo the ordeal. ');">²⁹</span> there is the consequence [of being prohibited] when there is a doubt as when there is certainty; how much more so must there be the consequence [of defilement] in a case of doubt as in a case of certainty with a creeping thing where the effect is the same whether [the contact was] in error or in presumption, or whether it was under compulsion or of free will!