“And a man had lain with her carnally, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was secluded and she was defiled, and there is no witness against her, and she was not coerced” (Numbers 5:13). “And a man had lain with her” – to the exclusion of a minor, who is not a man. “With her” – but not with her sister, saying that her lying in her harlotry renders her forbidden to her husband, but if her husband had lain with her sister, she is not forbidden to her husband, as she is not rendered forbidden to her husband by him lying with her sister, although logically, she should have been rendered forbidden.
If in a place where he consorted with one forbidden due to a more minor prohibition, this being a married woman, who is forbidden due to a more minor prohibition, as the one who renders her forbidden does not render her forbidden for all his days, as she is rendered permitted by means of a bill of divorce, the one who rendered her forbidden is prohibited,118The husband rendered his wife forbidden to everybody when he married her.
If she commits adultery, she is prohibited to the husband, and he is prohibited to her. as his wife is forbidden to him after she committed an act of harlotry;119Namely, a married woman is forbidden to everybody because of her relationship to her husband. That prohibition can come to an end by means of a bill of divorce even though the husband is alive. Nevertheless, if she consorted with another man she is forbidden to her husband, who caused her to be forbidden to everybody when he married her. in a place where he consorted with one forbidden due to a major prohibition, e.g., one who consorted with his wife’s sister or his mother-in-law, who are forbidden due to a major prohibition, as the one who renders her forbidden renders her forbidden for the entire duration of the prohibition, this being his wife, who renders her mother and her sister forbidden to her husband, is it not logical that the one who rendered them forbidden, this being his wife, would be prohibited, that she should be rendered forbidden by his lying with her mother or her daughter?120Namely, a man and his wife's sister are forbidden to each other because of his relationship to his wife, as are a man and his wife’s mother for the same reason, and these prohibitions remain even if he divorces his wife.
Therefore we might have thought that if the husband consorted with his wife's sister or mother, he becomes forbidden to his wife, who causes her mother and sister to be forbidden to him. The verse states: “With her” – lying with her renders her forbidden, but lying with her sister or his mother-in-law does not render her forbidden. “And it was hidden from the eyes of her husband” – to the exclusion of a blind man.
“And she was secluded and she was defiled, [and there is no witness against her]” – is it that there are no witnesses to the defilement, but there are witnesses to the seclusion, or there are no witnesses to either the defilement or the seclusion? If I say so, she would be permitted to her husband. Consequently, you cannot say in accordance with the latter formulation, but rather according to the former formulation: There are no witnesses to the defilement, but there are witnesses to the seclusion.
“And there is no witness against her” – the verse is speaking of two witnesses. Do you say that the verse is speaking of two witnesses, or, perhaps, it is speaking only of one witness? The verse states: “One witness [ed eḥad] shall not stand against a man…” (Deuteronomy 19:15). The verse need not have stated “one [eḥad].”121Since the word ed is in the singular.
Rather, it is a paradigm: Every place that ed is stated, it is referring to two, unless the verse specifies one [eḥad]. “And she was not coerced” – to the exclusion of a woman who was raped, who is permitted to her husband; is it perhaps both to an Israelite and a priest? If you say regarding creeping creatures,122Impurity engendered by dead creatures. which are minor, [that] they rendered circumstances beyond one’s control like volition regarding the priesthood,123Regardless of the circumstances of the contact between the dead creature and the priest, he is impure, and he may not partake of teruma and may not enter the Temple. [in] the major case of sota it is only logical that it renders circumstances beyond one’s control like volition regarding the priesthood.124The term used in the verse to describe defilement is nitma’a, which literally means "became impure."