משנה: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ כָּךְ הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבָאוּ וּבָאוּ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נִטְמְאָה נִטְמְאָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כָּךְ הָיָה דוֹרֵשׁ זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה אִם נִטְמָאָה נִטְמָאָה אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל. MISHNAH: Just as the water checks her out so it checks him1The wife’s paramour. It is moreover stated in Halakhah 9:9 (Babli 28a) that the procedure becomes inactive if the husband had ever misbehaved sexually. out, as it is said, “it will come, it will come”. Just as she is forbidden to the husband so she is forbidden to her paramour as it is said, “she was impure, she was impure,” the words of Rebbi Aqiba2This will be explained in the Halakhah.. Rebbi Joshua said, that was the inference of Zachariah the butcher’s son3An early Tanna, student of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai.. Rebbi said, the two times it said, “she became impure, she became impure,” once for the husband and once for the paramour4In Num. 5:13,14 it is stated twice “she became impure”, meaning “she became forbidden”; cf. Chapter 4, Note 75, and the Introduction..
הלכה: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ כול׳. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן בָּאוּ בָּאוּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי וּבָאוּ וּבָאוּ. מָאן דָּמַר בָּאוּ בָּאוּ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וּמָאן דָּמַר וּבָאוּ וּבָאוּ. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן נִטְמְאָה נִטְמְאָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי וְנִטְמָאָה וְנִטְמָאָה. מָאן דָּמַר נִטְמְאָה נִטְמְאָה. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וּמָאן דָּמַר וְנִטְמְאָה וְנִטְמְאָה. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. HALAKHAH: “Just as the water checks her out,” etc. We stated “they came, they came”. Some Tannaïm stated “they will come, they will come”. He who said “they came, they came” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “they will come, they will come” is Rebbi Ismael. We stated “she became impure, she became impure”, some Tannaïm stated “and she became impure, and she became impure”. He who said “she became impure, she became impure” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “and she became impure, and she became impure” is Rebbi Ismael6R. Ismael holds that דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה בִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם “the Torah speaks in everyday language” (Yebamot 8:1, Note 72; Nedarim 1:1; Šabbat 19:2; Babli Berakhot 31b and 18 other places). This means that any verse containing no linguistic feature noted as an exception in Gesenius-Kautzsch must be interpreted following the hermeneutical rules detailed in the introduction to Sifra. R. Ismael’s argument here is a straightforward application of his rule 3: בנין אב מכתוב אחד “meaning established by one verse”. Since both וּבָאוּ (vv. 22,27) and וְנִטְמָאָה (v. 29) [correctly in Midrash of the 32 Rules: וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה (vv. 13,14)] are well defined by the first occurrence, the second occurrence has the parallel meaning but refers to a different subject. That this second subject is the suspected adulterer is never indicated in the verse but since he is the only other person possibly being impure in this situation, the transfer of the meanings to him makes sense.
R. Aqiba negates absolutely that “the Torah speaks in everyday language”. For him, any vaw prefixed to a word has a hidden meaning. [Since his co-student Aquila translated the Torah in this sense “before Rebbis Eliezer and Joshua” (Megillah 1:11 fol. 71c, Babli 3a), one may attribute this transformation of the Pentateuch into a book of codes to the tradition of their common teacher Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai.] R. Aqiba is not deterred by the fact that in וּבָאוּ the vav is both conjunctive and conversive; any vav that is translated even in the LXX by καὶ must indicate a duplication of meaning. If the duplication of subjects were not intended, then Scripture would have found a way to use only באו (or imperfect יבואו) without the vav.
The Babli, 28a, takes notice only of the teachings of R. Aqiba..
תַּנֵּי בוא ובה. וְכָתוּב כֵּן. כַּיי דָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. גּוֹרְעִין לִדְרוֹשׁ מִתְּחִילָּתָהּ לְסוֹפָהּ. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וַאֲפִילוּ בְאֶמְצַע הַתֵּיבָה. וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן. וְיָצַקְתָּ שֶׁמֶן מִנְחָה. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כָּל־הַמְנָחוֹת לִיצִיקָה. It was stated7In order to prove that the adulterer is punished by the bitter water just as the adulteress is., בוא ובה8A copyist’s error makes this expression unintelligible. It must read ובא ובה. Than means that instead of וּבָאוּ בָהּ “they will come into her” (v. 27), the final vaw is transferred from the end of the first word to the beginning of the second to read וּבָא וּבָהּ “it will come, and into her”, implying that the water will come into somebody and into her, establishing that the presumed adulterer can also be checked out by the water. The technique of transferring letters is accepted not only by the Yerushalmi (also Nazir 5:1, 43d line 67; Horaiot 1:3, 46a, line 24) but possibly also in the Babli (Yoma 48a, Baba batra 111b, Zebaḥim 25a, Bekhorot 44b).
(Such an argument is quite impossible in a paleo-Hebrew text where the words are separated by a physical divider. The technique of moving letters from the end of one word to the beginning of the following, so much in fashion in modern criticism, presupposes that a change occured at a late time when there were no longer any paleo-Hebrew texts in use.). Is that written? It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end9It really should be “from end to beginning”.. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring10Lev. 1:6: “You have to break it into little pieces and pour oil over it; [because] it is a flour offering”, speaking of a pan-fried offering. For some flour offerings it is only specified that oil has to be included, or that oil has to be put on it. From this verse one concludes that “putting on” or “mixing” means “pouring oil over the flour”. The argument here proposes to read וְיָצַקְתָּ שֶׁמֶן מִנְחָ֑ה instead of וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁ֑מֶן מִנְחָה הִֽיא. This is based on the teaching of R. Aqiba who disregards masoretic accents in all cases (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, pp. 306–307) but in the Babli (cf. Note 8) is strongly opposed by Rava who objects to applying a surgeon’s knife to a verse (cf. the explanations of R. Ḥananel in ‘Arukh, s. v. גרע and Rashbam in Baba batra 111b, s. v. אלא.).
הַמְאָֽרְרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא. מִינְייָן הַמְאָֽרְרִים. כְּנֶגֶד מָאתַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה אֵיבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ. וּכְנֶגֶד מָאתַיִם אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה אֵיבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ. “The spell acting”. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, what is the count of11Tosaphot (27b, s. v. כשם) read correctly מנין. The reference is to the (Alexandrinian) custom of using letters as numerals. The count of ה̇מ̇א̇ר̇ר̇י̇ם̇ is 5+40+1+200+200+10+40 = 496 = 2·248. “the spell acting”? It corresponds to the 248 parts of her body and the 248 parts of his body12Mishnah Ahitot 1:8. A part is either a bone or a vital organ, such as the genitals. No talmudic source, in contrast to medieval rabbinic texts, makes a difference between the Number of parts of the male and those of the female.
The implication of the sermon is that the bodies of adulterer and adulteress together bring on the evil spell..
וְהָא תַנִּינָן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ כָּךְ הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל כָּךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבַּעַל כָּךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְאָחִיו שֶׁלַּבּוֹעֵל. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ עַל כְּל־בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה שֶׁהִיא מְקַבֶּלֶת אֶת בַּעֲלָהּ לְאַחַר הַבּוֹעֵל כָּךְ הֵן בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. הִיא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁדַּרְכָּהּ לֵיאָסֵר בֵּין לוֹ בֵין לְאַחֵר הִיא נִבְדֶּקֶת. אֲבָל הוּא לִכְשֶׁיַּשְׁתֶּה הוּא נִבְדַּק. בָּֽדְקוּ אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא בָֽדְקוּ אוֹתָהּ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. הַזְּכוּת תָּלָה לָהּ. נִיחָא כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַזְּכוּת תּוֹלָה וְאֵינָהּ נִיכֶּרֶת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַזְּכוּת תּוֹלָה וְנִיכֶּרֶת. הֲרֵי לֹא הוּכְּרָה. אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מַיִם מְגוּלִּין שָׁתָת וְנִצְּבֵית. הָכֵין לָא הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מִיבְדְּקוּנַיהּ אֶלָּא כְדוֹן. אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. עִם אֲחֵרוֹת נִסְתָּר. וְלֹא כֵן סַבְרִנָן מֵימַר. לִכְשֶׁיַּשְׁתֶּה הוּא נִבְדַּק. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה הוּא מֵזִיד וְהִיא שׁוֹגֶגֶת וּבָֽדְקוּ אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא בָֽדְקוּ אוֹתָהּ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. הַזְּכוּת תָּלָה לָהּ. נִיחָא כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַזְּכוּת תּוֹלָה וְאֵינָהּ נִיכֶּרֶת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַזְּכוּת תּוֹלָה וְנִיכֶּרֶת. הֲרֵי לֹא הוּכְּרָה. אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מַיִם מְגוּלִּין שָׁתָת וְנִצְּבֵית. הָכֵין לָא הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מִיבְדְּקוּנַיהּ אֶלָּא כְדוֹן. אֶלָּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. עִם אֲחֵרִים נִסְתְּרָה. מֵעַתָּה גֵירַשׁ יְהֵא מוּתָּר בָּהּ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה הוּא שׁוֹגֵג וְהִיא מֵזִידָה. וּבָֽדְקוּ אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא בָֽדְקוּ אוֹתוֹ. הוּא מֵזִיד וְהִיא שׁוֹגֶגֶת. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת לְבֵיתָהּ. גֵירַשׁ. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא מוּתָּר בָּהּ. אֶיפְשַׁר לוֹמַר מֵזִיד בָּהּ. וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. הוּא שׁוֹגֵג וְהִיא מֵזִידָה. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְבֵיתָהּ. גֵירַשׁ. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא מוּתָּר בָּהּ. אֶיפְשַׁר לוֹמַר יוֹצֵאת מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וְתֵאמַר הָכֵין. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁהַדָּבָר תָּלוּי בָהּ. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּתִיב וְאֶל אֵשֶׁת עֲמִיתְךָ לֹא יִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ לְזָרַע לְטָמְאָה בָהּ. בָּהּ הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. אִם הָֽיְתָה מֵזִידָה אֲסוּרָה. שׁוֹגֶגֶת מוּתֶּרֶת. Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? 16The next few sentences are copied from Chapter 1, Note 128. But see the Tosaphot text in which only one sentence from there (and Yebamot Chapter 10, Notes 49 ff.) appears. Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out17Cf. Mishnah 2:5 that the husband may stipulate that the water check her out not only for adultery with the named respondent but with any man whosoever.. But when he18The husband. makes [her] drink, he19The suspected adulterer. is checked out20The water is presumed to act at a distance, to make the adulterer’s belly swell and his waist disappear. (Cf. Note 14).. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her21Cf. Chapter 3, Halakhot 4,5.. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water22Water which was left standing uncovered and unattended may contain snake poison, cf. Terumot 8:5, in particular Notes 113 ff. and it23Meaning the adulterer’s. swelled. They should not have her15The scribe wrote מבדקונַיה. It seems that the ms. before him had מבדקוניה, “to check him out”, but the scribe recognized that the masculine was inappropriate and indicated that one should read מבדקונַהּ, “to check her out”. checked out in this way but correctly24Reading כדין “correctly” with Tosaphot, against a nondescript כדון “so” in the text. It would be against all rules if water which was left unattended in a vessel were used in the Temple.! But I could say that he was in secret with other women25The accused boy friend was an adulterer but not with that woman.. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out26The water acts at a distance only from a woman with whom he actually committed adultery; the explanation attempted in the previous sentence is impossible.? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her27If either it was a case similar to date rape or that the adulterer impersonated the husband.. [28Added from Tosaphot, missing in the mss. If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]29From Tosaphot text.. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly!24Reading כדין “correctly” with Tosaphot, against a nondescript כדון “so” in the text. It would be against all rules if water which was left unattended in a vessel were used in the Temple. But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he18The husband. divorced her, she would be permitted to him.19The suspected adulterer. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house18The husband.. If he18The husband. divorced her, would she be permitted to him19The suspected adulterer.? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he18The husband. divorced her, would she be permitted to him19The suspected adulterer.? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so30The Yerushalmi forbids the wife even to the unintentional adulterer; e. g., if she told him that she was single.? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written31Lev. 18:20.: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted32Everything depends on her status; since a rape victim is permitted to her husband, the divorced rape victim is permitted to the rapist but the woman who pretended to be single is forbidden to her boyfriend after her divorce..