(Ibid. 5:13) "and it be hidden from the eyes of her husband": but not if her husband see and make himself "unseeing." If her husband knows, he is not permitted to scheme and make her drink." "and she had secreted herself and she be defiled": (Does this mean that) there were no witnesses to defiling, but there were witnesses for secreting, or that there were no witnesses to both defiling and secreting?
If you say this (the latter), she is permitted to her husband. The former, then, is the case and not the latter. There are no witnesses to defiling, but there are witnesses to secreting. "and she had secreted herself": We have not been apprised of the (minimum) time of secreting; it is, therefore, written "and she had secreted herself and she be defiled": the (minimum) time for defilement — for intercourse; for he'arah (the initial stage) — for circling a palm tree.
These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Eliezer says: the (minimum) time for pouring a cup. R. Yehoshua says: for drinking it. Ben Azzai says: for frying an egg.
R. Akiva says: for swallowing it. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: for swallowing three eggs, one after the other. "and there be no witness in her": Is Scripture speaking of two witnesses or of one? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:15) "There shall not arise one witness against a man for every transgression and for every sin." Why (emphasize) one?
To serve as a prototype (binyan av), viz.: Wherever "witness" (alone) is mentioned, two are understood, unless Scripture specifies "one." "and she were not seized": to exclude one who was forced. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of "light" tumah (e.g., a widow (cohabiting) with a high-priest, where there is only a lav (transgression of a negative commandment), forced is equated with consenting, how much more so, in an instance of grave tumah, such as ours, where the penalty is death, forced should be equated with consenting; it is, therefore, written "and she were not seized."
Or, I might think (that this halachah obtains both) with (the wife of) an Israelite or of a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "and she (the wife of an Israelite) were not seized" — to exclude (from being forbidden to her husband) the wife of a Cohein, (who is forbidden to him even if she were forced.) (Ibid. 14) "And there pass over him a spirit of rancor and he warn his wife": optional (i.e., "he may warm his wife.")
These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: mandatory (i.e., "he must warn his wife.") R. Akiva says: Why is "venitma'ah" ("and she be tamei") written three times, (5:14, 5:27, 5:29)? tumah vis-à-vis her husband, and vis-à-vis her cohabitor, and vis-à-vis (her eating) terumah (if she is the daughter of a Cohein). R. Yishmael says: If a divorcée, the "lighter," (in that she may return to her divorcer), is unfit (for marriage) to the priesthood, how much more so sotah, the "graver," (who may not return to her husband; and no verse is needed for this.) (Ibid. 5:14) "and she were defiled … and she were not defiled": What is the intent of this?
If she were (positively) defiled, why does she drink? And if she were (positively) not defiled, why does he make her drink? Scripture hereby (by this ambiguity) comes to teach us that she drinks only in a case of doubt (as to whether or not) she were defiled. And from here you rule (accordingly) in the instance of (the tumah of sheretz) [a creeping thing], viz.: If in an instance (that of sotah), where unwittingness is not equated with wittingness (to make her tamei) or forcing to consent, doubt is equated with certainty (to forbid her to her husband until she drinks and resolves the doubt), then in an instance where unwittingness (of contact) is equated with wittingness, and forcing with consent, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty!
And just as here (for tumah to obtain, the locus of the act is) a private domain, there, too, it must be a private domain. Just as here we are dealing with a subject (the woman) which has the intelligence to be questioned, there, too, (for tumah to obtain), we must be dealing with a subject (e.g., the carrier of the sheretz) which has the intelligence to be questioned — whence they ruled: In a case of doubt involving a subject which has the intelligence to be questioned — in the private domain, the ruling is tamei; in the public domain, the ruling is tahor (clean). (In a case of doubt involving a subject) which lacks the intelligence to be questioned, both in the public and in the private domain, the ruling is tahor.