משנה: וְלָמָּה הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אָמֵן אַָמֵן. אָמֵן עַל הָאָלָה. אָמֵן עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ זֶה. אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר. אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאתִי וְאִם נִטְמֵאתִי יָבוֹאוּ בִי. אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא שָׂטִיתִי אֲרוּסָה וּנְשׂוּאָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וּכְנוּסָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאתִי אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא אֶטַּמֵּא. MISHNAH: Why does she repeat153In the Bablylonian Mishnah: על מה היא אומרת “What does she imply by repeating”. The reference is to Numbers.5.22">Num. 5:22.: “Amen Amen”? Amen on the curse, Amen on the oath, Amen from this man, Amen from any other man. Amen that I was not defiled and if I was defiled it should hurt me154In the Babylonian Mishnah, this sentence comes after the following.. Amen that I did not deviate preliminarily married155Cf. Yevamot 1:1:15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.15">Yebamot, Chapter 1, Note 63; Peah 6:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.6.2.6">Peah Chapter 6, Note 46. and married, waiting for the levir and taken in156If the first husband had died childless and the levir brings her to the Temple as his wife. Only R. Aqiba considers sexual relations of the not-yet-married widow a crime. All other authorities will remove the mention of the widow “waiting to be married by the levir”.. Rebbi Meїr says, Amen that I was not defiled, Amen that I shall not be defiled.
הלכה: אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב לֹא עַל הַלּוּחַ כול׳. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִימְרָה. אָמֵן לְקַבָלָה. אָמֵן לִשְׁבוּעָה. אָמֵן יֵיאָֽמְנוּ הַדְּבָרִים. אָמֵן לְקַבָלָה. מִסּוֹטָה. אָמֵן לִשְׁבוּעָה. לְמַעַן הָקִים אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לַאֲבוֹתֶיךָ וגו׳. אָמֵן יֵיאָֽמְנוּ הַדְּבָרִים. וַיַּעַן בְּנָיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע [הַכֹּהֵן] אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר אָמֵן וגו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא. אֵין מִן הָדֵין אָמֵן שְׁבוּעָה. לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָהּ כְּלוּם. וְיֵידָא אָֽמְרָה דָא לְעָבְרְךָ בִּבְרִית יי֨ אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּבְאָלָתוֹ. וְאֵין אָלָה אֶלָּא שְׁבוּעָה. כְּמָה דְתֵימַר. וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁבוּעַת הָאָלָה. HALAKHAH: 158In the ms. and editio princeps: Halakhah 5.: “He does not write on a wooden plank,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra159In the Shevuot.36a">Babli, Šebuot 36a, this is a statement of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina, a younger contemporary of R. Yose ben Zimra. In Num. rabba 9(46) the reading is that of the Yerushalmi.: “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, “Amen” for an oath, “Amen”, may the words be confirmed. “Amen” [is said] for acceptance, from the suspected wife160Numbers.5.22">Num. 5:22.. “Amen” for an oath: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your forefathers”, etc161Jeremiah.11.5">Jer. 11:5: “To keep the oath I had sworn to your forefathers to give to them the Land flowing with milk and honey as today; I answered and said, Amen, o Eternal.”. “Amen”, may the words be confirmed1621K. 1:36.: “Benaiah ben Yehoyada (the priest) answered the king and said Amen”, etc. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, that does not prove that Amen means an oath, it implies nothing163The verse from Jeremiah only confirms what can be learned from the verse in Kings, that Amen is an affirmation.. But the following says: “that you pass by the covenant of your God and His curse164Deuteronomy.29.11">Deut. 29:11. The curse is Deuteronomy.28.15-68">Deut.28:15–68.,” because oath means curse, as you say165Numbers.5.21">Num. 5:21. In the Shevuot.35b">Babli, Šebuot35b, this is a tannaїtic statement. In Sifry Num. 14 the argument is: From the verse one infers that any oath implies a potential curse on the person taking the oath.: “The Cohen has to administer to the woman the oath of the curse.”
מְנַיִין לָֽמְדוּ לְגִילְגּוּל שְׁבוּעָה. מִסּוֹטָה. וְאָֽמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן. אָמֵן עִם אִישׁ זֶה. אָמֵן עִם אִישׁ אַחֵר. עַד כְּדוֹן דְּבָרִים שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא סָטִיתִי אֲרוּסָה וּנְשׂוּאָה שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וּכְנוּסָה. אֲרוּסָה וְשׁוֹמרֶת יָבָם רָאוּי הוּא לְהִישְּׁבַע. וְתֵימַר מְגַלְגְּלִין. וְהָכָא מְגַלְגְּלִין. 166This paragraph and the next are also in Kiddushin 1:5:2-14" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.5.2-14">Qiddušin 1:5 (fol. 60d). In the Babli, the parallel is Kiddushin.27b">Qiddušin 27b. From where did they learn rollover of oaths167If a person is required to swear, the opposing party can add to the contents of the oath any statement similar to the one which causes the oath to be forced. For example, if a person has a monetary claim on another person for which he has partial proof, enough to force the opposing party to swear, he can add to the text of the oath of disclaimer any other financial claim which he might have but for which the proofs in his hand are not sufficient to force the defendant to swear. This is the topic of Kiddushin 1:5:2-14" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.5.2-14">Qiddušin 1:5. It is seen in Sotah 2:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.6.1">Mishnah 7 that some connection of the additions to the original claim is required.? From the suspected wife: “The woman shall say, Amen, Amen”; Amen from this man, Amen from any other man. That refers to subjects he is able to make her swear about168While the husband must specify the name of the man he suspects of an affair with his wife in order to declare his jealousy and bring her to the Temple, he could have named any other man. Therefore, he can add the names of other men to the formula of the oath.. What about subjects he is not able to make her swear about? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “Amen that I was not deviant preliminarily married155Cf. Yevamot 1:1:15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.15">Yebamot, Chapter 1, Note 63; Peah 6:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.6.2.6">Peah Chapter 6, Note 46. and married, waiting for the levir and taken in156If the first husband had died childless and the levir brings her to the Temple as his wife. Only R. Aqiba considers sexual relations of the not-yet-married widow a crime. All other authorities will remove the mention of the widow “waiting to be married by the levir”..” Can he make her swear when she is preliminarily married or waiting for the levir169Sotah 4:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.4.1.1">Mishnah 4:1 states that there is no declaration of jealousy admitted in these two cases since the ceremony applies only to “a wife under her husband (Numbers.5.19">Num. 5:19)”. Nevertheless, the husband can force her to swear about her behavior when she was his wife but not under him.? Nevertheless one rolls over.
אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מַה זוֹ בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה אַף כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. זוֹ בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. הֲווֹ בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מָּאן דָּמַר. [מַה] זוֹ בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה אַף כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה נִיחָא. מָּאן דָּמַר. זוֹ בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. לְגִילְגּוּל אַתְּ לָמֵד. לְאָלָה וְלִשְׁבוּעָה אֵין אַתְּ לָמֵד. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מַה זוֹ בְּאָמֵן וְאָמֵן. אַף כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָמֵן וְאָמֵן. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. זוֹ בְּאָמֵן וְאָמֵן. וְאֵין כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָמֵן אָמֵן. הֲווֹ בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מָּאן דָּמַר. [מַזּוֹ] בְּאָמֵן אָמֵן אַף כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָמֵן אָמֵן. נִיחָא. מָאן דָּמַר. זוֹ בְּאָמֵן אָמֵן וְאֵין כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָמֵן וְאָמֵן. כְּלוּם לָֽמְדוּ גִילְגּוּל שְׁבוּעָה לֹא מִסּוֹטָה. לְגִילְגּוּל אַתְּ לָמֵד. לְאָמֵן וּלְאָמֵן אֵין אַתְּ לָמֵד. Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath172This is the ninth hermeneutical rule of R. Ismael: “Anything which was in a set and was singled out to teach, was not singled out for itself but to teach about the entire set.” The rules of oaths derived from the ceremony of the suspected wife must apply to all members of the set of oaths. The same argument in Sifry Num. 14, copied in Num. rabba 9(46).. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They173The members of the Academy of Tiberias. wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for curse and oath174If one negates the 9th hermeneutical rule, one also has to negate the possibility of rollover of oaths in general. It is reported in Sanhedrin 7:5" href="/Tosefta_Sanhedrin.7.5">Tosephta Sanhedrin 7:11 that Hillel, about 100 years before R. Ismael, accepted only seven rules (numbers 1–6, 13). The baraita may be genuine but it is not practice.? Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They173The members of the Academy of Tiberias. wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen174If one negates the 9th hermeneutical rule, one also has to negate the possibility of rollover of oaths in general. It is reported in Sanhedrin 7:5" href="/Tosefta_Sanhedrin.7.5">Tosephta Sanhedrin 7:11 that Hillel, about 100 years before R. Ismael, accepted only seven rules (numbers 1–6, 13). The baraita may be genuine but it is not practice.?
אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. מָאן תַּנָּא שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִוּבָה אָמַר. יֵשׁ מִמְזֵר בִּיבָמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אִילַי. מַה אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ מַמְזֵר גַּבֵּי קִינּוּי. הַתּוֹרָה אָֽמְרָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אֲפִילוּ מִקְצַת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. נִמְנוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וְכַמָּה זְקֵינִים. מְנַיִין שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בִּיבָמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לָהּ הֲװָיָה אֵצֶל אַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחֲלוֹץ לֵיךְ יַבְּמֵיךְ. אֵינֶהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְהָיָה רִבִּי יַנַּיי מְקַלֵּס לֵיהּ. הַזָּלִים זָהָב מִכִּיס. בְּנִי אַל יָלִיזוּ מֵעֵינֶיךָ. חֲכַם בְּנִי וְשַׂמַּח לִבִּי. תֵּן לְחָכָם וְיֶחְכַּם עוֹד. יִשְׁמַע חָכָם וְיוֹסֵף לֶקַח. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. בָּתַר כָּל־אִילֵּין פְּסוּקֵי קִילּוּסַייָא יָכִיל הוּא פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בִּיבָמָה. וִיתִיבִינֵהּ. מַה אִיכְפַּת לֵהּ מַמְזֵר גַּבֵּי [קִינּוּי]. הַתּוֹרָה אָֽמְרָה וְקִינֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אֲפִילוּ מִקְצַת אִשְׁתּוֹ. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁזִּינָת. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר מוּתֶּרֶת לְבֵיתָהּ. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. אֲסוּרָה לְבֵיתָהּ. רַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. בְּגִין דְּתַנִינָן. זֶה הַכְּלָל. כָּל־שֶׁתִּיבָּעֵל וְלֹא תְהֵא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ לֹא הָיָה מַתְנֶה עִמָּהּ. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law175Cf. Yevamot 1:1:21" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.21">Yebamot, Chapter 1, Note 30; Babli Y ebamot 92a. R. Aqiba declares as a bastard any child from a union not explicitly permitted.. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife176Since the widow of a childless man cannot possibly marry any man but her levir (unless she is released by the latter), and she can be married by the levir without any ceremony, she may be considered as engaged to be married by him.. 177This text is from Yevamot 1:1:2-26" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.2-26">Yebamot 1:1, explained there in Sotah 2:3:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.3.2">Notes 93–101. Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 Elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man, her levir shall come to her”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house178“Her house” is really her future house, that of her levir. This is the answer to the question asked if we follow R. Eleazar.
The opinion of R. Joshua ben Levi is in the Babli ascribed to Rav Hamnuna (Yevamot.81a">Yebamot 81a,Yevamot.92b">92b,Yevamot.95a">95a,Yevamot.96a">96a; Gittin.80b">Giṭṭin 80b; Sotah.18b">Soṭa 18b.) In the last source, the decision that practice does not follow Rav Hamnuna is explicitly attributed to Yerushalmi sources.. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir]180Since a man is forbidden to marry his deceased wife’s mother, even if the wife died while being only preliminarily married to him, it follows that the one waiting for her levir is unrelated to the levir for R. Eleazar. She is unable to be unfaithful to him and the question of R. Ilai cannot be asked., since we have stated: “This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.181Sotah 2:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.6.1">Mishnah 7. R. Abba bar Mamal is correct in the tradition of R. Eleazar. For him, only R. Aqiba could let the levir include a question about the time between the first husband’s death and his marriage.”
מַה תַּנָּא הָדָא מַתְנִיתָא. לֹא רַבָּנִן וְלֹא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. מָאן דָּמַר. מוּתֶּרֶת לְבֵיתָהּ. דְּרַבָּנִן דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֲסוּרָה לְבֵיתָהּ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּלֹא כְרַבָּנִן. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. שׁוֹמרֶת יָבָם שֶׁזִּינָת מוּתֶּרֶת לְבֵיתָהּ. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. וְנֶעֱלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ. וְלֹא מֵעֵינֵי יְבָמָהּ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְכֹהֶנֶת הָֽייְתָה וְהִתִּירוּהָ לְבֵיתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף לֹא מַכּוֹת אֵין בָּהּ. How could one state this Mishnah182Sotah 2:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.6.1">Mishnah 7, just quoted. In the tradition of the Babli and of the independent Mishnah mss., Sotah 2:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.6.1">Mishnah 7 is part of Sotah 2:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.5.1">Mishnah 6. Then one has a real problem, since in our interpretation Sotah 2:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.5.1">Mishnah 6 is R. Aqiba’s and Sotah 2:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.6.1">Mishnah 7 the rabbi’s.? Not the rabbis nor Rebbi Aqiba! But it is as follows. He who says that she is permitted to her house [follows] the rabbis against Rebbi Aqiba183Then Sotah 2:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.6.1">Mishnah 7 has to be separated from Sotah 2:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.5.1">Mishnah 6 as in the Yerushalmi text.. He who says that she is forbidden to her house [follows] Rebbi Aqiba against the rabbis184There is no problem; Sotah 2:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.6.1">Mishnah 7 is part of Sotah 2:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.5.1">Mishnah 6.. Rebbi Yannai said, a woman waiting for her levir who whored is permitted to her house185R. Yannai is the one who in the preceding paragraph had stated that a woman waiting for her levir is unable to contract a marriage outside the family. He will also hold that contracting such a marriage is a criminal act since that is formulated as a prohibition in Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. As R. Yose bar Abun notes here, the prohibition covers only marriage, not extramarital relations.. One had stated this: “It was hidden from her husband’s eyes186Numbers.5.13">Num. 5:13. This baraita is not found in any other source. In a later paragraph, the expression quoted is interpreted to mean that a blind man cannot declare his jealousy and in Sifry Num. 7 that if the husband ever had looked the other way he never again could invoke the procedure of the suspected wife.,” not from her levir’s eyes. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It happened, she was the wife of a Cohen, and they permitted her to her house. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, no whipping is involved.
לא שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ. Not that Rebbi Meïr was saying that the water checks her outside of its time187This refers to the statement in the Mishnah that the husband may stipulate that the wife swear not to be unfaithful in the future. Sotah 18a" href="/Tosafot_on_Sotah.18a">Tosaphot (18a) has a fuller version: לא שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ מֵעַכְשָׁיו אֶלָּא הַמַּיִם פְּקוּדִים בָּהּ לִכְשֶׁתִּטַּמֵּא הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ. “Not that Rebbi Meïr was saying that the water checks her now but that the water is deposited in her body and if she would be defiled the water would check her retroactively.” This is very close to the text of a baraita in the Sotah.18b">Babli (18b) and is suspect against the testimony of both mss.
The usual meaning of למפרע is “retroactively (in time); in inverse order (of an arrangement)”. Since, as noted by J. Levy in his Dictionary in the name of H. L. Fleischer, מפרע seems to be an Arabism and Arabic פרע means both ascending and descending, the translation of מפרע chosen here is “not in time (possibly earlier, possibly later).” Then the longer text would be unnecessary and the meaning is clear: The water will have no effect any time a sin was not committed. In the Tosephta (2:2), the reading is: That even after 20 years the water may reawake and check her out.
תּוֹרַת הַקְּנָאוֹת. תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָמִים זוֹ. אֵין הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. הֵעִיד נֶחֶמְיָה אִישׁ שִׁיחִין אֶת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֲנִי אֲפָרֵשׁ. מֵאִישׁ אֶחָד אֵין הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה. מִשְּׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בֵּין מֵאִישׁ אֶחָד בֵּין מִשְּׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים שׁוֹתָה וְשׁוֹנָה. כּוֹרְכְּמִית תּוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁשָּׁתָת וְשֵׁנָּת וְשִׁילְּשָׁה לִפְנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן מֵאִישׁ אֶחָד. “The teaching about jealousies188Numbers.5.29">Num. 5:29. The text seems to be a composition of two different texts. In Sifry zuṭa [also similarly in Num. rabba 5(51)] one reads: “‘This is the teaching about jealousies’; the jealous husband may express his jealousy in Shiloh and in the Eternal House (cf. Sotah 2:2:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.2.10">Note 120). I could think, also at a local altar? The verse says: This.” The argument is obsolete since it is generally accepted doctrine that after the building of the Temple no local altar was permitted. The question arose since v. 15 requires the husband to bring his wife to the Cohen, perhaps not necessarily to the Tabernacle. But since the dust has to be taken from the floor of the Sanctuary, an altar without Sanctuary is excluded. The special emphasis of this indicates that no substitute for the Tabernacle is acceptable.”. This is a teaching of the Temple. 189In the Sotah.18b">Babli, 18b, the text of this baraita reads: “‘This is the teaching about jealousies’, which teaches that a woman drinks and repeats {from the several jealousies}. Rebbi Jehudah says this {a singular}, a woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats and we accepted his testimony from two husbands but not from one husband. But the Sages say that a woman does not drink and repeat whether from one husband or from two husbands.” The Babli has a complicated explanation to harmonize the anonymous first source (which has to represent the opinion of the majority, the Sages) with the contradictory statement at the end. The text of Num. rabba 5(51), is clearly an explanation of the position of the Babli. A woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain. From one husband a woman does not drink and repeat, from two husbands a woman drinks and repeats. But the Sages say she drinks and repeats190In the Rome ms: “A woman does not drink and repeat.” This text, which eliminates the disagreement with the Babli, is in contradiction to the following. whether from one husband or from two husbands. Korkemit shall prove it, who drank and repeated and did it a third time from one husband before Shemaia and Abtalyon191In Eduyot 5:6" href="/Mishnah_Eduyot.5.6">Mishnah Idiut 5:6 she is called Karkemit the libertine (the freedwoman). It is unclear whether at the end there is a difference between the two Talmudim since it is not stated whether Korkemit was repeatedly accused of relations with the same man..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אֵין מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וכול׳. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. מַשְׁקִין. מַה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִיּוֹרֶת. כְּבָר כְּתִיב. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לֹא גֵרִים. אִם בְּגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כְּבָר כְּתִיב וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין. בְּגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִיּוֹרֶת. וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לֹא גֵרִים. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם. לְרַבּוֹת כָּל־הַכָּתוּב בַּפָּרָשָׁה. וּמַה כָּתוּב בַּפָּרָשָׁה. וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אוֹתָהּ. שְׁכִיבָתָהּ אוֹסְרָתָהּ. בַּעֲלָהּ מְקַנֵּא וּמַשְׁקֶה. There, we have stated192Eduyot 5:6" href="/Mishnah_Eduyot.5.6">Mishnah Idiut 5:6: “He (Aqabia ben Mehallalel) said: One does not make the proselyte or the freedwoman drink, but the Sages say, one makes her drink.”: “One does not make the proselyte drink, etc. But the Sages say, one makes her drink.” Where do we hold? If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written193Numbers.5.12">Num. 5:12. The text is addressed to all Jewish men.: “The sons of Israel” (not proselytes)194This text is an intrusion from the later statement but is also found in Num. rabba 9(34). The text quoted by R. Abraham ben David of Posquières (Ravad) in his commentary to Idiut has the order inverted and then the clause makes sense: אִם בְּגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כְּבָר כְּתִיב. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לֹא גֵרִים. אִם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִיּוֹרֶת. כְּבָר כְּתִיב וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן. “If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: ‘The sons of Israel’, not proselytes. If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: ‘The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.’ ” Ravad declares his text to be difficult; the Sotah.26a">Babli, 26a, explicitly rejects the inference from “the sons of Israel”.. If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written195Numbers.5.15">Num. 5:15. Any Jewish man is included, even if he is not the son of an Israel.: “The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.” But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba196This is clearly in error; it must be Aqabia, not Aqiba; correctly in the text quoted by Ravad and in Num. rabba. Aqabia had no rabbinic title.? “The children of Israel”, not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them197Numbers.5.12">Num. 5:12; the text is addressed to everybody who has to hear the commandments, including the proselytes; argument approved in the Sotah.26a">Babli, 26a.”, to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her”. His198In Ravad’s text: Another man’s lying … lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.
וְנֶעֱלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ. פְּרָט לְסוּמֵא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עֵינַיִם. הוּא סוּמֵא הִיא סוּמָה. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן. פּוֹטְרוֹ מִכָּל־מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. “It was hidden from her husband’s eyes199Numbers.5.13">Num. 5:13.”, that excludes the blind man who has no eyes200Tanḥuma Naśo 7, Tanḥuma Buber Naśo 11 (Note 62); Sifry Num. 7, Sifry zuṭa Naśo; Num. rabba 9(36); Sotah.27a">Babli 27a (the only other source which also includes the blind wife).. It is the same for the blind man and the blind woman. This baraita follows Rebbi Jehudah who frees him from all obligations in the Torah201Quoted also in Kiddushin.31a">Babli Qiddušin31a. Since some of the great Babylonian authorities were blind (Rav Sheshet and Rav Yoseph), practice does not follow R. Jehudah. (Nevertheless, Maimonides disqualifies the blind man from the ceremony of the suspected wife)..