“The man shall bring his wife to the priest, and he shall bring her offering on her behalf, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour; he shall not pour oil upon it, and he shall not place frankincense upon it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of remembrance, a reminder of iniquity” (Numbers 5:15). “The man shall bring his wife” – the man causes her to drink, but the court does not cause her to drink.
“The man shall bring…” – by Torah law, the man brings his wife to the priest. However, they said: How does he act in her regard? He takes her to the court in that area, and they provide him with two scholars so that he will not consort with her on the way. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted in her regard on the basis of an a fortiori inference: If the menstruant, for whom one incurs liability for karet, he is trusted in her regard, this one for whom one does not incur liability for karet, all the more so that he would be trusted in her regard.
They said to him: No. If you said it regarding the menstruant, who is permitted after her prohibited state, would you say it regarding this one, who is not permitted after her prohibited state? And it says: “Stolen waters are sweet, and clandestine bread is pleasing” (Proverbs 9:17). All the more so, since one does not incur liability for karet for consorting with her, her husband would not be trusted in her regard.
Israel are suspect regarding sotot, but are not suspect regarding menstruants. Rabbi Yehuda said to them: It is a Torah edict: “The man shall bring his wife to the priest.” They said to him: Provided it is with witnesses. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav Yosef sent three scholars after the woman.
He said: If one of them would turn away for his own purposes, she will remain alone with the two. But is it not taught: They provide him with two Torah scholars…? Rabbi Avin said: And with her husband there are three. He too rented a house for her and would provide her with sustenance, and would only be alone with her before her children.
He read this verse in his regard: “I have grown weary in my sighing, and I have not found rest” (Jeremiah 45:3). “And he shall bring her offering on her behalf”; the Rabbis say: An offering that qualifies her for him, e.g., a zava or a birthing mother,135A zava and birthing mother are forbidden to the husband for a certain amount of time. he brings the offering from his own and does not deduct it from her marriage contract.
But an offering that does not qualify her for him, e.g., if she cut the naziriteship on her head136This refers to the sacrifices that a nazirite brings upon completion of the period of naziriteship. or desecrated Shabbat, he brings the offering from his own and deducts it from her marriage contract. “One-tenth of an ephah” – that is one of ten of an ephah; “flour” – but not fine flour; “barley” – but not wheat.
Rabban Gamliel said: Scribes, allow me, and I will explain it as a type of decorative clasp:137This means that he will provide an elegant explanation, with all the details accounted for. It appears, just as her actions are the actions of an animal, so her offering is the food of an animal. “He shall not pour oil upon it” – but he may pour it on its remnants.138What is not burned on the altar is eaten by the priests.
“And he shall not place frankincense upon it” – this tells that one who placed oil and frankincense upon it violates two prohibitions. What is the reason? It tells the reason for the matter: “For it is a meal offering of jealousy.” “A meal offering of remembrance” – I hear from this merit and guilt.
The verse states: “A reminder of iniquity” – all the remembrances in the Torah are favorable, but this one is for punishment; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: This too is favorable. As it is stated: “And if the woman was not defiled, [and she is pure, she will be absolved and will conceive offspring]” (Numbers 5:28). I have derived only “a remembrance of iniquity”; a favorable remembrance, from where is it derived?
The verse states: “A meal offering of remembrance” – in every sense. Rabbi Yishmael says: “A meal offering of remembrance” is a generalization. “A reminder of iniquity” is a detail. A generalization followed by a detail, the generalization refers only to what is in the detail.
If you say so, will the attribute of justice not be distorted? For the litigant could dispute it: Which attribute is greater, the attribute of favor or the attribute of punishment? You must say: It is the attribute of favor. If for the lesser attribute of punishment it serves as a reminder of iniquity, for the greater attribute of favor, it is only logical that it would serve as a reminder of favor.
This is a Torah principle: Any generalization and detail through which the path of logic is distorted, let this and that coexist and let not the path of logic be distorted. How can this and that coexist and the path of logic not be distorted? If she was defiled, the punishment affects her immediately. If she has merit in her favor, her merit will defer it for three months, the point at which the fetus is noticeable; this is the statement of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanan.
Elazar ben Yitzḥak of Kefar Darom said: Nine months. “She will be absolved and will conceive" (Numbers 5:28) – just like the seed [pregnancy] is nine months, merit defers for nine months. Rabbi Yishmael said: Twelve months. Even though there is no proof of the matter, there is an allusion to the matter: “Therefore, king, [let my counsel be acceptable to you, and redeem your sins with charity and your iniquities with favor to the poor; then there will be an extension of your tranquility].
All this came [upon King Nebuchadnezzar] at the end of twelve months…” (Daniel 4:24–26). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Merit does not cause it to be deferred for her as far as the bitter water is concerned. Were you to say that merit causes it to be deferred as far as the bitter water is concerned, you undermine the water for all the women who drink, and you besmirch all the pure women who drank, as [people] will say that [the women] were defiled, but their merit caused it to be deferred.
Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: I will reconcile: If she was pure, she will ultimately die in a way typical of people. If she was defiled, she will ultimately die through “her belly will distend, and her thigh will fall” (Numbers 5:27). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: Who will inform all the bystanders that this one will ultimately die through “her belly will distend, and her thigh will fall”? Rather, when she would drink her face would turn sallow, her eyes would bulge, and her tendons like twigs would turn sallow, and they would say, hurry and take her out so she will not impurify the Temple Courtyard.