(יג) וְשָׁכַ֨ב אִ֣ישׁ אֹתָהּ֮ שִׁכְבַת־זֶ֒רַע֒ וְנֶעְלַם֙ מֵעֵינֵ֣י אִישָׁ֔הּ וְנִסְתְּרָ֖ה וְהִ֣יא נִטְמָ֑אָה וְעֵד֙ אֵ֣ין בָּ֔הּ וְהִ֖וא לֹ֥א נִתְפָּֽשָׂה׃
(13) in that another man has had carnal relations with her unbeknown to her husband, and she keeps secret the fact that she has defiled herself without being forced, and there is no witness against her,
(ד) לֹא־יוּכַ֣ל בַּעְלָ֣הּ הָרִאשׁ֣וֹן אֲשֶֽׁר־שִׁ֠לְּחָ֠הּ לָשׁ֨וּב לְקַחְתָּ֜הּ לִהְי֧וֹת ל֣וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֗ה אַחֲרֵי֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֻטַּמָּ֔אָה כִּֽי־תוֹעֵבָ֥ה הִ֖וא לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה וְלֹ֤א תַחֲטִיא֙ אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָֽה׃ {ס}
(4) Then the first husband who divorced her shall not take her [into his household] to become his wife again, since she has been defiled —for that would be abhorrent to יהוה. You must not bring sin upon the land that your God יהוה is giving you as a heritage.
מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אַחֲרֵי [אֲשֶׁר] הֻטַּמָּאָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת סוֹטָה שֶׁנִּסְתְּרָה. וּמַאי ״נִסְתְּרָה״ — נִבְעֲלָה...
נִבְעֲלָה, טוּמְאָה בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ, ״וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה״?
לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ בְּלָאו.
And the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one, i.e., whether she had been fully married or merely betrothed to another, she is forbidden to her first husband. Rather, how do I establish the phrase: “After she was defiled”? This verse does not refer at all to the case of a woman who married another man lawfully, as she is not called “defiled.” Rather, it comes to include a sota who secluded herself with another man, as she is forbidden to her husband due to the concern that she might have committed adultery. This baraita shows that a sota is termed “defiled,” despite the fact that hers is an uncertain case. The Gemara rejects this argument: And what does: Secluded herself, mean in this context? It means that she had actually engaged in relations. And why does the baraita call this: Secluded herself, instead of the more straightforward: Engaged in sexual relations? The baraita employed a euphemistic expression, but it actually means that she engaged in intercourse. The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a woman who had engaged in relations, the term defilement is already explicitly written with regard to her, in the chapter that deals with a sota. Why is it necessary to derive that she is defiled from a different source, as in the context of a sota herself the verse states: “She being defiled secretly” (Numbers 5:13)?
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נִטְמָאָה וְנִטְמָאָה.
“And the priest shall stand the woman before the Lord…and place the meal-offering of memorial in her hands” (Numbers 5:18), indicating that if she is unable to stand up straight or if she does not have hands with which to accept the offering, then she does not drink; so too, if the husband were lame or without hands, he would not cause his wife to drink. Mar Bar Rav Ashi says: Just as a mute woman would not drink, as it is written: “And the woman shall say: Amen, Amen” (Numbers 5:22), indicating that she must be able to speak; so too, if the husband were mute, he would not cause his wife to drink. MISHNA: Just as the water evaluates her fidelity, so too, the water evaluates his, i.e., her alleged paramour’s, involvement in the sin, as it is stated: “And the water that causes the curse shall enter into her” (Numbers 5:24), and it is stated again: “And the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter” (Numbers 5:27). It is derived from the double mention of the phrase “and…shall enter” that both the woman and her paramour are evaluated by the water. Furthermore, prior to her drinking the water, just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too is she forbidden to her paramour, because in contrast to the verse stating: “Is defiled [nitma’a]” (Numbers 5:14), a superfluous conjoining prefix vav is added to a later verse, rendering the phrase: “And is defiled [venitma’a]” (Numbers 5:29). The addition indicates another prohibition, that of the woman to her paramour. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehoshua said: That was how Zekharya ben HaKatzav would interpret it, i.e., he also derived from the superfluous vav that the woman is forbidden to her paramour. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says an alternate source: The two times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage, namely: “And he warns his wife, and she is defiled” (Numbers 5:14), and the later verse: “When a wife, being under her husband, goes astray and is defiled” (Numbers 5:29), indicate that her defilement results in two prohibitions. One is that she is forbidden to her husband and one is that she is forbidden to her paramour. § On that same day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed head of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verse: “And every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it” (Leviticus 11:33), as follows: The verse does not state: Is impure [tamei], but rather: “Shall be impure,” in order to indicate that not only does the vessel itself become ritually impure, but it can now render other items ritually impure. This teaches with regard to a loaf that has second-degree ritual impurity status due to its being placed inside an earthenware vessel that had first-degree impurity, that it can render other food with which it comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity status. After hearing Rabbi Akiva’s statement, Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, so that you could live and see this? As you would say: In the future, another generation is destined to deem pure a loaf that contracted third-degree impurity, as there is no explicit verse from the Torah stating that it is impure. But now Rabbi Akiva, your disciple, brings a verse from the Torah indicating that it is impure, as it is stated: “Whatever is in it shall be impure.” Furthermore, on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verses with regard to the Levite cities as follows: One verse states: “And you shall measure outside the city for the east side two thousand cubits…this shall be for them the open land outside the cities” (Numbers 35:5), and another verse states: “And the open land around the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward one thousand cubits round about” (Numbers 35:4). It is impossible to say that the area around the cities given to the Levites was only one thousand cubits, as it is already stated: “Two thousand cubits.” And it is impossible to say that two thousand cubits were left for them, as it is already stated: “One thousand cubits.” How can these texts be reconciled? One thousand cubits are to be set aside as a tract of open land surrounding the city, and the two thousand cubits are mentioned not in order to be given to the Levites, but to indicate the boundary of the Shabbat limit, beyond which it is forbidden to travel on Shabbat. This verse thereby serves as the source for the two-thousand-cubit Shabbat limit. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says otherwise: One thousand cubits were given to the Levites as an open tract of land, that could not be planted or built upon, and two thousand cubits of additional land were given to the Levites for planting fields and vineyards. Additionally, on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verse: “Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and said, saying” (Exodus 15:1), as follows: As there is no need for the verse to state the word “saying,” because it states the word “said” immediately prior to it, why must the verse state the word “saying”? It teaches that the Jewish people would repeat in song after Moses every single statement he said, as is done when reciting hallel. After Moses would recite a verse, they would say as a refrain: “I will sing to the Lord, for He is highly exalted” (Exodus 15:1). It is for this reason that the word “saying” is stated, in addition to the word “said.” Rabbi Neḥemya says: The people sang the song together with Moses as is done when reciting Shema, which is recited in unison after the prayer leader begins, and not as is done when reciting hallel. On that same day Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus taught: Job served the Holy One, Blessed be He, only out of love, as it is stated: “Though He will slay me, still I will trust in Him” (Job 13:15). And still, the matter is even, i.e., the verse is ambiguous, as there are two possible interpretations of the verse. Was Job saying: I will await Him, expressing his yearning for God; or should the verse be interpreted as saying I will not await Him. As the word “lo” can mean either “to him” or “not,” it is unclear which meaning is intended here. This dilemma is resolved elsewhere, where the verse states a clearer indication of Job’s intent: “Till I die I will not put away my integrity from me” (Job 27:5). This teaches that he acted out of love. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, so that you could live and see this? As you taught all your life that Job worshipped the Omnipresent only out of fear, as it is stated: “And that man was wholehearted and upright, and God-fearing, and shunned evil” (Job 1:1); but now Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus, the disciple of your disciple, has taught that Job acted out of love. GEMARA: It is stated in the mishna that just as the water evaluates whether the woman was unfaithful, so too, the water evaluates whether he committed this sin. The Gemara asks: To whom does this refer? If we say that it is referring to the husband, what did the husband do that he should be evaluated? And if you would say
אסורה לבעלה ולבועלה, בנימין רוזנברג:
איסור לבעלה אינו דין חיצוני שהתורה מחילה כתוצאה של מעשה הזנות, אלא שמעשה הזנות יוצר מציאות ממשית הפוגמת האישות שבין הבעל לאשתו, מציאות זו קרויה בפי התורה - טומאה.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: צָרַת סוֹטָה אֲסוּרָה. טוּמְאָה כְּתִיב בָּהּ, כָּעֲרָיוֹת.
The Gemara further analyzes the list of women exempt from levirate marriage. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The rival wife of a sota is forbidden. In this context, sota refers to an unfaithful wife. If the husband died, the unfaithful wife and her rival wife are exempt from both ḥalitza and levirate marriage. What is the reason for this? The term defilement is written in that passage dealing with an unfaithful wife: “She being defiled secretly” (Numbers 5:13), just as defilement is written with regard to those with whom relations are forbidden in the verse: “Defile not yourselves in any of these things, for in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out from before you” (Leviticus 18:24). This teaches that the halakha of an unfaithful wife is like that of a woman with whom relations are forbidden; both she and her rival wife are exempt from levirate marriage and ḥalitza.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״, אֲסוּרָה. הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת, וְאֵיזוֹ — זוֹ כֹּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָהּ בְּאוֹנֶס וְסוֹפָהּ בְּרָצוֹן.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: The verse states with regard to a sota: “And a man lies with her…and she was not taken” (Numbers 5:13). This is referring to a woman who had intercourse but was not taken forcefully, i.e., raped, and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. It may be inferred from this that if she was taken forcefully, she is permitted to him. And the word “she” teaches that you have a case of another woman, where even though she was not taken forcefully she is permitted. And which case is this? This is any case that starts as rape and ends willingly. Although at the conclusion of the act she was not taken forcefully, she is nevertheless permitted to her husband, as stated by Rava.
התם אונס הוא פירוש דאע"ג דדוד ברצון בא עליה כיון שהיתה אנוסה לא מתסרא לבעלה לא מיתסרא לבועל דאיסורא דבועל באיסורא דבעל תלוי וא"ת הא לעיל אמרי' משום דלא הוה ביה קינוי וסתירה הוא דלא מתסר וי"ל דלעיל ה"ק דאלו הוה תמן קינוי וסתירה לא היו נאמנים לומר שהיה באונס ולא נאסרה:
כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ קִנּוּי וּסְתִירָה וְלֹא שָׁתְתָה מֵי הַמָּרִים בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה בַּעְלָהּ לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָצְתָה הִיא וּבֵין שֶׁבָּא לָהּ עֵד טֻמְאָה אוֹ הוֹדֵית אוֹ הָיְתָה מֵאֵלּוּ הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיוֹת לִשְׁתּוֹת אוֹ שֶׁקִּנְּאוּ לָהּ בֵּית דִּין. הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶסְרָה עַל בַּעְלָהּ מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה עַל זֶה שֶׁנִּתְיַחֲדָה עִמּוֹ לְעוֹלָם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה עַל בַּעְלָהּ. וְאִם עָבַר וּנְשָׂאָהּ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִתַּחְתָּיו בְּגֵט אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ לָהּ כַּמָּה בָּנִים מִמֶּנּוּ. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל: