## Ramban on Numbers Chapter 5

###### Ramban on Numbers 5:2:1
[Ramban on Numbers 5:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/5:2:1)

**וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה** – אַחַר שֶׁהֵקִים אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, צִוָּה בְּשִׁלּוּחַ הַטְּמֵאִים מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמַּחֲנֶה קָדוֹשׁ וְרָאוּי שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה בּוֹ שְׁכִינָה, וְהִיא מִצְוָה נוֹהֶגֶת מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת. וּבַעֲבוּר שֶׁמָּנָה יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבוֹתָם, וְהִבְדִּיל מֵהֶם עֵרֶב רַב אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכָם, הִשְׁלִים בַּאֲשַׁם הַגְּזֵלוֹת דִּין הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הַגֵּר:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND THEY SHALL SEND AWAY FROM THE CAMP EVERY LEPER etc. After he [Moses] had erected the Tabernacle, He commanded that the impure should be sent away from the camp in order that the camp should be holy and fit for the Divine Presence to reside therein, this being a commandment which was applicable immediately and in [all subsequent] generations.³², Vol. I, pp. 39-40. And because He counted Israel *after their families, by the house of their fathers*,³³ and separated from them the mixed multitude³⁴ which was among them, He concluded with [the law of] the guilt-offering for robberies³⁵ [which has to be brought] by one who robs a proselyte.³⁶

footnotes:
³² See ibid.
³³ Above, 1:2, etc.
³⁴ Exodus 12:38. See Ramban above, 1:18.
³⁵ Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57.
³⁶ Further, Verse 8.


###### Ramban on Numbers 5:6:1
[Ramban on Numbers 5:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/5:6:1)

וְטַעַם **מִכָּל חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם** – כְּמוֹ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה הָאָדָם מִכָּל חַטֹּאת. **לַחֲטֹא בָהֵנָּה**, מִכָּל מַה שֶׁיֶּחֱטָא אִישׁ בְּאִישׁ וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ. וְאָמַר ״לִמְעֹל מַעַל בַּה'״ - שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע בִּשְׁמוֹ לַשֶּׁקֶר וְיֶאְשַׁם לְפָנָיו. וּלְפִי שֶׁכְּבָר הֻזְכַּר הַחֵטְא הַזֶּה (ויקרא ה', כ'-כ״ו) וְלֹא בָּא לְחַדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר, דִּבֵּר בּוֹ בְּלָשׁוֹן קְצָרָה. וְאָמַר בְּכָאן ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה״ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָאִשָּׁה לִגְזֹל, וְאוּלַי לֹא יְחַיֵּב אוֹתָהּ הַכָּתוּב בְּחֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם כָּאִישׁ. וְהִזְכִּיר ״וְכָל תְּרוּמָה לְכָל קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ (במדבר ה':ט'), לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם נָתְנוּ הַתְּרוּמָה לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהַגּוֹזֵל אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ נִדּוֹן בְּדִין אֲשַׁם גְּזֵלוֹת, וּלְכָךְ הִזְכִּירָם בְּכָאן. אוֹ שֶׁבָּא לְהַשְׁלִים תּוֹרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים בַּתְּרוּמָה, כִּי עֲדַיִן לֹא הִזְכִּירָהּ רַק בְּרֶמֶז ״מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר״ (שמות כ״ב:כ״ח), וְכֵן ״הֵם יֹאכְלוּ בְלַחְמוֹ״ (ויקרא כ״ב:י״א), אֲבָל לֹא בֵּאֵר דִּין הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁתִּנָּתֵן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלָל. וְהִזְכִּיר הַמַּעֲשֵׂר בְּסוֹף תּוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לַה', וְעַכְשָׁיו בָּא לְצַוּוֹת בַּתְּרוּמָה וּבַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לַכֹּהֲנִים בְּמַתְּנַת הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁיִּתְּנוּ אוֹתָהּ לָהֶם לִרְצוֹנָם, לוֹמַר שֶׁטּוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים הִיא. וְלֹא נִזְכְּרָה מִנְחַת הַסּוֹטָה עִם שְׁאָר הַמְּנָחוֹת בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהִיא מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת וְאֵינָהּ לְכַפָּרָה, וְהִשְׁלִים בְּכָאן אֶת דִּינָהּ. וְעוֹד, בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁיִּחֵס אֶת הָעָם לְבֵית אֲבוֹתָם, נָתַן לָהֶם דָּת וָדִין לָדַעַת הַמַּמְזֵרִים שֶׁאֵינָם בְּנֵי בַעֲלֵי אִמּוֹתָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא חֲשָׁד בְּלֵב הָאִישׁ עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְכֵן הִשְׁלִים בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת דִּין הַנָּזִיר, כִּי אַחֲרֵי שֶׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְנִבְדְּלוּ מֵהֶם הַטְּמֵאִים, לָקַח מִבַּחוּרֵיהֶם לִנְזִירִים אֲשֶׁר צָבְאוּ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי ה' לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ בִּשְׁמוֹ. וְעוֹד, כִּי הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּדֹּר בִּנְזִירוּת הֵפֶךְ הַסּוֹטָה, וּלְפִיכָךְ אָמַר בַּפָּרָשָׁה ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַפְלִיא״ (במדבר ו':ב'). וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ עוֹד (סוטה ב'): ״לָמָּה נִסְמְכָה פָּרָשַׁת נְזִירוּת לְפָרָשַׁת סוֹטָה? שֶׁכָּל הָרוֹאֶה סוֹטָה בְּקִלְקוּלָהּ יַזִּיר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן״. וְהַטַּעַם, כִּי ״זְנוּת וְיַיִן וְתִירוֹשׁ יִקַּח לֵב״ (הושע ד':י״א). וְגִדּוּל הַשֵּׂעָר הֵפֶךְ הַבַּחוּרִים הַמְסַלְסְלִים שְׂעַר רֹאשָׁם לְהִתְנָאוֹת, וְהַגִּדּוּל יוֹלִיד דְּאָגָה בְּלֵב אִישׁ, וּלְפִיכָךְ הוּא קָדוֹשׁ וְצָרִיךְ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּר מִן הַטֻּמְאָה, כִּי הוּא כְּכֹהֵן הַמְשָׁרֵת לֵאלֹהָיו:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
WHEN A MAN OR WOMAN SHALL DO ANY OF THE SINS OF MAN. [The sense of the verse] is as follows: “If a man does any of the sins by which one can transgress, of any sin which man commits against another man, *and he deals falsely with his neighbor*³⁷ [—*that soul shall be guilty*].” He states [here] *to commit a trespass against the Eternal*, which means that he swears by His Name falsely and is thus guilty before Him [as well]. Now because this sin has already been mentioned,³⁵ and here it only comes to introduce the new point concerning robbing a proselyte,³⁶ He deals with it briefly. He stated here *a man or woman* because since it is not usual for a woman to rob, [we might think that] perhaps Scripture does not make her liable to pay the additional fifth³⁷ or to bring a guilt-offering [when she confesses the sin]³⁸, Verse 25. like a man, [therefore He stated here *a man or woman*, teaching that her liability is in all respects the same as that of a man]. He mentioned [here], *And every heave-offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they present unto the priest, shall be his*,³⁹ meaning to say that once they have given the heave-offering to the priest it becomes his [personal property], and he who robs it from him is to be dealt with in accordance with the law of the guilt-offering for robberies.³⁵ That is the reason why He mentioned it here. Or it may be that [this verse] comes to complete the laws of the priests regarding the heave-offering, since till now He only mentioned them by way of allusion, [stating] *Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fulness of thy harvest, and of the outflow of thy presses*,⁴⁰, (Vol. II, pp. 398-400). and so also, *they may eat of his bread*,⁴¹ but He did not explain the law of the heave-offering at all, that it is to be given to the priest; and as for the tithe, He [only] mentioned at the end of Torath Kohanim [i.e., the Book of Leviticus] that *it is holy unto the Eternal*.⁴², 27:30. Now, therefore, He came to command that the heave-offering and the holy gifts should belong to the priests by the grant of the owners, who may give them to them as they please, meaning to say that the benefit of satisfaction [of choosing to whom to give it] belongs to the owner [and the priest may not come and take it by force, since the owner may have the pleasure of giving it to any priest he chooses].
The meal-offering of the *sotah*⁴³ is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called *a meal-offering of jealousy*. is not mentioned together with the other meal-offerings in Torath Kohanim [i.e., Leviticus Chapter 2] because it is *a meal-offering of jealousy*⁴³ is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called *a meal-offering of jealousy*. and does not come for atonement, therefore He completed the law thereof here [in the Book of Numbers]. Besides, since He traced the genealogy of the people by their fathers’ houses, He now gave them a law and judgment to ascertain who are the *mamzerim*⁴⁴, according to the final decision of the law, refers to a child born of a union which is prohibited, with the penalty of excision. It thus covers a child of any incestuous or adulterous relationship. who are not the children of their mothers’ husbands, when there arises a suspicion in a man’s heart concerning his wife.
Similarly He completed here [the laws of] the offerings with the law of the Nazirite, for [only] after the Tabernacle was put up and the impure people separated from the camp, He took *of* their *young men for Nazirites*,⁴⁵ *who crowded at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting*,⁴⁶ *to stand before the Eternal to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name*.⁴⁷ Furthermore, a woman who makes the Nazirite vow is the opposite of the *sotah*,⁴³ is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called *a meal-offering of jealousy*. [and for this reason the law of the Nazirite follows that of the *sotah*]. Therefore He stated in the section [of the Nazirite], *when either man ‘or woman’ utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite*.⁴⁸? It is to hint that this woman who takes upon herself the Nazirite vow, is the opposite of the *sotah* whose law has just been stated in the preceding section. Our Rabbis have furthermore said:⁴⁹ “Why is the section dealing with the Nazirite placed next to the section dealing with the *sotah?*⁴³ is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called *a meal-offering of jealousy*. [It is to tell us] that whoever sees a *sotah* in her disgrace should abstain [by means of a vow] from wine,” the reason being that *harlotry, wine, and new wine, take away the heart*.⁵⁰ And [the commandment that] the Nazirite should let his hair grow loose is because this is the opposite of [the habit of] young men who curl their hair in order to beautify themselves, for allowing the hair to grow loose *causes anxiety in man’s heart*,⁵¹ and therefore the Nazirite is holy⁵² and must guard himself from impurity,⁵³, Verse 7. for he is like the priest who ministers before his G-d [who likewise must be pure for service at the Sanctuary].

footnotes:
³⁷ See Leviticus 5: 24. A fifth must be paid in addition to repaying the capital.
³⁵ Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57.
³⁶ Further, Verse 8.
³⁷ See Leviticus 5: 24. A fifth must be paid in addition to repaying the capital.
³⁸ Ibid.
³⁹ Verse 9.
³⁵ Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57.
⁴⁰ Exodus 22:28. See Ramban ibid.
⁴¹ Leviticus 22:11.
⁴² Ibid.
⁴³ A sotah
⁴³ A sotah
⁴⁴ The word mamzer
⁴⁵ Amos 2:11.
⁴⁶ Exodus 38:8.
⁴⁷ Deuteronomy 10:8.
⁴³ A sotah
⁴⁸ Further, 6:2. Since the law of vows applies equally to men and women, why did Scripture mention here or woman
⁴⁹ Sotah 2 a.
⁴³ A sotah
⁵⁰ Hosea 4:11.
⁵¹ Proverbs 12:25.
⁵² Further, 6:8.
⁵³ Ibid.


###### Ramban on Numbers 5:9:1
[Ramban on Numbers 5:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/5:9:1)

**וְכָל תְּרוּמָה לְכָל קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל** יֹאמַר כִּי תְרוּמָה אֲשֶׁר יַקְדִּישׁוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹתָהּ, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁיְּרִימוּהָ וְיַקְדִּישׁוּהָ, תִּהְיֶה לַכֹּהֵן. כִּי בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁאֵין לַתְּרוּמָה שִׁעוּר, אָמַר הַכָּתוּב כִּי כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַפְרִישׁוּ מִמֶּנָּה תִּהְיֶה לַכֹּהֵן כַּאֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ אוֹתָהּ הַבְּעָלִים לָתֵת אֵלָיו, לֹא שֶׁיִּטְּלֶנָּה הַכֹּהֵן בִּזְרוֹעַ. וְזֶהוּ פְּשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא. וְכָךְ אָמְרוּ בְּסִפְרֵי (נשא ל): רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאִם רָצָה לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל גָּרְנוֹ תְּרוּמָה רַשַּׁאי, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּשַׁיֵּר מִקְצָת. וְעוֹד שָׁנוּ שָׁם בְּסִפְרֵי: ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַכֹּהֵן״, אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: וְכִי תְרוּמָה מַקְרִיבִין לַכֹּהֵן? מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה״? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כג יט) ״רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ״ וְגוֹ', אֲבָל לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בָּהֶם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ - בָּא הַכָּתוּב וְלִמֵּד עַל הַבִּכּוּרִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נְתוּנִין לַכֹּהֵן. וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר ה׳:ט׳): וְכִי תְּרוּמָה מַקְרִיבִין לַכֹּהֵן? וַהֲלֹא הוּא עַצְמוֹ מְחַזֵּר עָלֶיהָ בְּבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת. וְאֵינוֹ מְחֻוָּר. אֲבָל פֵּרוּשָׁהּ עַל דַּעַת רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לֹא יָבֹא לְשׁוֹן הַקְרָבָה בַּתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בַּקְְּרֵבִים עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, לְפִיכָךְ דָּרַשׁ "אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ" בַּבִּכּוּרִים שֶׁהֵם טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה וְהַגָּשָׁה. יֹאמַר הַכָּתוּב כִּי כָל הַבִּכּוּרִים אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ הַבְּעָלִים לַשֵּׁם לַכֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב לוֹ יִהְיֶה. וּמַה שֶׁאָמַר, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "תָּבִיא בֵּית ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בָּהֶן, לוֹמַר שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא לָמַדְנוּ בַּבִּכּוּרִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מִמַּתְּנוֹת כְּהֻנָּה כְּלָל, וּבְכָאן הוּא שֶׁלִּמֵּד עֲלֵיהֶן תְּחִלָּה שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נְתוּנִין לַכֹּהֵן. אֲבָל אַחֲרֵי כֵן חָזַר וּשְׁנָאָהּ בְּפָרָשַׁת כְּהֻנָּה (במדבר י״ח:י״ג) ״בִּכּוּרֵי כָּל אֲשֶׁר בְּאַרְצָם לְךָ יִהְיֶה״, שֶׁשָּׁם חָזַר וְשָׁנָה גַּם כֵּן תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכְלֹל כָּל מַתְּנוֹת כְּהֻנָּה יַחַד וְיִכְרֹת בְּכֻלָּן בְּרִית מֶלַח (שם פסוק יט), וְעוֹד לִדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּתְחַדְּשׁוּ שָׁם בַּפָּרָשָׁה ״כָּל טָהוֹר בְּבֵיתְךָ יֹאכְלֶנּוּ״ (שם פסוק יג). וְלָמַדְנוּ עוֹד מִכָּאן שֶׁיְּהוּ הַבִּכּוּרִים לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּם וְאֵינָם לְכָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה כַּתְּרוּמָה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND EVERY HEAVE-OFFERING OF ALL THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, WHICH THEY BRING UNTO THE PRIEST, SHALL BE HIS. Scripture is saying that the heave-offering which the children of Israel hallow, that is to say, which they set aside [of the produce] and declare holy, shall be the priest’s, for since there is no specific measure [required by law of the Torah⁵⁴ when setting aside] the heave-offering, therefore Scripture said that however much they set aside of the produce [as the heave-offering] shall belong to the priest when the owners bring it and give it to him, but the priest may not take it by force. This is the plain meaning of the verse. And so the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:⁵⁵ 5. The “Sifre” is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Mechilta on Exodus, and the Sifra or Torath Kohanim on Leviticus. “Rabbi Akiba says: ‘Scripture comes [here] to teach you that if the owner wishes to declare his whole granary heave-offering, he may do so, provided that he leaves over a small amount’ [as ordinary food].”⁵⁶
We have furthermore been taught there in the Sifre:⁵⁵ 5. The “Sifre” is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Mechilta on Exodus, and the Sifra or Torath Kohanim on Leviticus. “*Which ‘yakrivu’* (*they bring*) *unto the priest*. Said Rabbi Yishmael: But do they bring the heave-offering to the priest? What then is the meaning of the expression, *which ‘yakrivu’* (*they bring*) *unto the priest, shall be his?* [It is as follows:] Since He stated, *The choicest first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the House of the Eternal thy G-d*,⁵⁷ but we have not been informed yet what shall be done with them, therefore Scripture states [here], *which ‘yakrivu’* (*they bring*) *unto the priest, shall be his* — Scripture comes and teaches you that the first-fruits are to be given to the priest.” Now Rashi [in citing here this text of the Sifre] explained [the question] “But do they bring the heave-offering to the priest?” in the following way: “Does not the priest have to go around the granaries asking for it?” But this is not clear.⁵⁸ (*they ‘bring’*) *unto the priest, shall be his*. The heave-offering, according to Rashi, is to be “brought” to the priest. In the opinion of Ramban, only the priest’s taking it by force is forbidden, while his going around for it, is not prohibited in this verse, [[illegible]]since the *yakrivu* as explained by Rabbi Yishmael in the Sifre is to be understood as denoting offering on the altar, and his question is as follows: “Were they [really] (*yakrivu*) ‘bringing’ the heave-offering on the altar? Certainly not. Therefore it must refer to the first-fruits.” In brief, Rashi’s interpretation of *yakrivu* as “bringing” the heave-offering to the priest is therefore “not clear” (as Ramban expresses it). But the [correct] explanation is that in the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael [in the above text of the Sifre] the root *hakravah* in the Torah [“bringing” — as in *yakrivu* mentioned here] refers only to things which are offered up on the altar. Therefore he interpreted the expression *‘asher yakrivu’* (*which they bring*) as referring to the first-fruits, which require waving and bringing to the altar, Scripture thus stating [here] that all first-fruits which the owners bring to G-d shall belong to the officiating priest. And when Rabbi Yishmael said [in the Sifre above], “Since it is stated, *The choicest first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the House of the Eternal thy G-d*,⁵⁷ but I do not know what is to be done with them,” he means to say that we have not yet been taught at all that the first-fruits are amongst the gifts of the priests, and it is here that He taught us for the first time that they are to be given to the priest. But afterwards He taught it again in the section dealing with [the gifts of] the priests: *The first ripe fruits of all that is in their Land, which they bring unto the Eternal, shall be thine*,⁵⁹ for there He also restated the [laws of the] heave-offering,⁶⁰, Verse 12. and hallowed objects,⁶¹, Verses 9, 17-19. in order to include together all gifts given to the priests, and to make *a covenant of salt*⁶², Verse 19. for all of them [indicating that just as salt never decays, so will His covenant with Aaron endure]. It also [repeats the laws] for the sake of some new things added in that section, such as, *every one that is clean in thy house may eat thereof*.⁶³, Verse 13. The verse is speaking about first-fruits. We furthermore learn from the verse here [i.e., from the expression *asher yakrivu* which, as explained above, refers to some act of service in the Sanctuary] that the first-fruits are to be given to the men of the *mishmar*⁶⁴. to offer it up [i.e., to the priests who are then on duty in the Sanctuary], and that [the owner] may not give them to any priest he wants to, as is the law of the heave-offering.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ But the Sages laid down a measure: a generous person should give one fortieth of his produce; an average man, one fiftieth, and an ungenerous person must give nonetheless a sixtieth part (Terumoth 4:3).
⁵⁵ Sifre Naso
⁵⁶ From this text in the Sifre it is also obvious that there is no prescribed measure for the heave-offering.
⁵⁵ Sifre Naso
⁵⁷ Exodus 23:19.
⁵⁸ From Rashi’s comment it is obvious that even if the priest does not take it by force, but goes around the granaries to obtain the heave-offering, it is also prohibited on the basis of the expression stating which ‘yakrivu’
⁵⁷ Exodus 23:19.
⁵⁹ Further, 18:13.
⁶⁰ Ibid.
⁶¹ Ibid.
⁶² Ibid.
⁶³ Ibid.
⁶⁴ See Note 92 in Seder Bamidbar


###### Ramban on Numbers 5:10:1
[Ramban on Numbers 5:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/5:10:1)

**וְאִישׁ אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ** – הַנָּכוֹן בַּכָּתוּב הַזֶּה שֶׁיֹּאמַר שֶׁכָּל קָדְשֵׁי הָאָדָם יִהְיוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, לוֹמַר שֶׁכָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא יְצַוֶּה בָּהֶם לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לַכֹּהֵן יִהְיוּ לַבְּעָלִים, וְהֵם מֻתָּרִים בָּהֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ קֹדֶשׁ. וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיו - לוֹ יִהְיֶה, כִּי גַּם הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה הַכָּתוּב לְתִתָּם לַכֹּהֵן יֵשׁ לַבְּעָלִים זְכוּת בָּהֶן, שֶׁהֵם לַכֹּהֵן הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִתְּנֵם לוֹ הָאִישׁ כְּמָמוֹנוֹ. וְהִנֵּה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְנֶטַע רְבָעִי שֶׁאָמַר בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב שֶׁיִּהְיוּ קֹדֶשׁ לַה' (ויקרא כז ל, שם יט כד) הֵם לָאִישׁ כְּמָמוֹנוֹ, וְכֵן מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה (שם כז לב). אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה בָּהֶם בְּפָרָשַׁת וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח (להלן יח) שֶׁיִּתְּנוּ הֵם לַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִנָּתְנוּ לוֹ מִיַּד הַבְּעָלִים, לֹא שֶׁיּוּכְלוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים לִגְזֹל אוֹתָם מֵהֶם. וּמֵאֵלֵינוּ נִלְמַד שֶׁטּוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְזֶה הַנָּכוֹן בִּפְשׁוּטוֹ, וְהוּא דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אוּנְקְלוֹס (תרגום אונקלוס על במדבר ה׳:י׳). וּכְדֶרֶךְ זֶה נִדְרַשׁ בְּסִפְרֵי (נשא לא), אָמְרוּ: כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים הָיוּ בִּכְלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְאִישׁ אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו״ וְגוֹ', מָשַׁךְ הַכָּתוּב כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים וּנְתָנָם לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְלֹא שִׁיֵּר מֵהֶם אֶלָּא תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים וּפֶסַח וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְנֶטַע רְבָעִי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לַבְּעָלִים. הִזְכִּירוּ אַף תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים וּפֶסַח מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאַף הֵם לַבְּעָלִים, אֲבָל לֹא הֻצְרַךְ הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה בָּהֶם כְּלָל:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND EVERY MAN’S HALLOWED THINGS SHALL BE HIS; WHATSOEVER ANY MAN GIVETH THE PRIEST, IT SHALL BE HIS. The correct interpretation of this verse is that Scripture is saying that *all* hallowed things of a man shall be his, meaning to say that all hallowed things about which He has not commanded that they be given to the priest, [such as the Second Tithe, fourth-year produce of trees and the tithe of the cattle] shall be the owners’ [entirely], and they may have the benefit of eating their meat, even though they are called “holy.” But *whatsoever any man giveth the priest* as I have commanded him, *it shall be his* [partially], for even in the hallowed things about which Scripture commanded that they be given to the priest, the owners have a certain right, for although they belong to the priest to whom the owner gives them, as his personal property [but the owners have the right in these hallowed things to choose to whom to give them]. Thus the Second Tithe and the fourth-year produce of trees about which Scripture stated that they be *holy to the Eternal*⁶⁵ belong to the owner as his personal property, and likewise the tithe of cattle.⁶⁶, 27:32. The tithe of cattle likewise did not have to be given to the priest, but belonged wholly to the owner, after the blood and fat of the animal were offered upon the altar (see “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 90-91). But as for all other hallowed things concerning which He commanded in the section of *Vayikach Korach*⁶⁷, 18:8-32). that they should give them to the priest, they are to be given to him directly by the owners, and the priests cannot take them from them by force. From this we may deduce ourselves that the right of choosing to whom to give them [with the consequent satisfaction of so doing] is that of the owners. This is the correct interpretation in accordance with the plain meaning of the verse. It is also the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “and every man’s hallowed ‘tithe’ shall be his,” thus in dicating that he understood the verse as referring to a tithe which is the owner’s, for instance the Second Tithe].⁶⁸ It is interpreted in a similar manner in the Sifre, where the Rabbis have said:⁶⁹ 6. “All hallowed things are included in the general verse stating, *And every man’s hallowed things shall be his*. Scripture took away all hallowed things and gave them to the priests, leaving only the thanks-offering, the peace-offering, and the Passover-offering, because they too belong to the owners” [and they are permitted to eat them]. However, this verse is not necessary at all for these matters [i.e., to teach us that the thanks-offering, peace-offering, and Passover-offering belong to their owners, since in each of these cases Scripture clearly states that the meat is eaten by the owners, hence the verse before us must refer, as indicated above, to the Second Tithe, and fourth-year produce of trees].⁷⁰

footnotes:
⁶⁵ Leviticus 27:30 (speaking of the Second Tithe): 19:24 (in reference to fourth-year produce of trees). Both of these “holy” things do not have to be given to the priest, but are to be eaten by the owner in Jerusalem.
⁶⁶ Ibid.
⁶⁷ Further, 16:1. The reference here is to the section on the gifts given to the priests (ibid.
⁶⁸ Onkelos’ expression “hallowed tithe” may also refer to the First Tithe [given to the Levites] or the Poorman’s Tithe (see my Hebrew commentary, p. 212), in which case Ramban understands that Onkelos supports the explanation he mentioned: namely, that these tithes, although given away by the owner, are still partially “his” inasmuch as the choice to whom to give them and satisfaction of so chosing, is his.
⁶⁹ Sifre Naso
⁷⁰ The Sifre, however, mentioned “the thanks-offering etc.” incidentally because it discusses all the hallowed things which belong to the owners.


###### Ramban on Numbers 5:15:1
[Ramban on Numbers 5:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/5:15:1)

**לֹא יִצֹק עָלָיו שֶׁמֶן** שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קָרְבָּנָהּ מְהֻדָּר, שֶׁהַשֶּׁמֶן קָרוּי אוֹר וְהִיא עָשְׂתָה בַּחֹשֶׁךְ, **וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלָיו לְבוֹנָה**, שֶׁהָאִמָּהוֹת קְרוּיוֹת לְבוֹנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שיר השירים ד ו) ״אֶל גִּבְעַת הַלְּבוֹנָה״, וְזוֹ פֵּרְשָׁה מִדַּרְכֵיהֶן (תנחומא נשא ג). **כִּי מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת הוּא** הַקֶּמַח הַזֶּה מְעוֹרֶרֶת בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי קְנָאוֹת: קִנְאַת הַמָּקוֹם וְקִנְאַת הַבַּעַל (ספרי נשא נ), לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר ה׳:ט״ו) מִדִּבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ. וְעַל דַּעַת כָּל הַמְפָרְשִׁים **כִּי מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת הוּא** – לוֹמַר בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁזֹּאת הַמִּנְחָה מִנְחַת עֹנֶשׁ, הִיא גְּרוּעָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂעוֹרִים בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, כִּי הַמִּנְחָה אֲשֶׁר אַזְכָּרָתָהּ לְרָצוֹן לַה' בָּאָה סֹלֶת חִטִּים בְּשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה. וּלְפִי דַעְתִּי טַעַם **כִּי מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת הוּא** יַחְזֹר אֶל רֹאשׁ הַפָּסוּק, יֹאמַר שֶׁיָּבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת הַקָּרְבָּן עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ, כְּלוֹמַר בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, כִּי מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת הִיא לְהַזְכִּיר עֲוֹנָהּ, וְאֵינֶנּוּ רָאוּי שֶׁתְּבִיאֶנּוּ הִיא מִשֶּׁלָּהּ, אֲבָל הוּא יַקְרִיב מִנְחָה לַשֵּׁם שֶׁיְּקַנֵּא אֶת קִנְאָתוֹ וְיִנְקֹם אֶת נִקְמָתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה. וְטַעַם הַשְּׂעוֹרִים שֶׁתִּהְיֶה סַעֲרַת חֲמַת ה', חֵמָה יוֹצְאָה סַעַר מִתְחוֹלֵל עַל רֹאשׁ הָרְשָׁעָה יָחוּל, וּכְעִנְיַן צְלִיל שְׂעוֹרִים הָאָמוּר בְּגִדְעוֹן (שופטים ז יג) שֶׁפָּתְרוּ אוֹתוֹ לְסַעַר וּמְהוּמָה רַבָּה. וְכֵן בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס סִימָן שֶׁתִּשָּׁבֵר כִּכְלִי יוֹצֵר, וְכֵן הֶעָפָר כִּי עָפָר הִיא וְאֶל עָפָר תָּשׁוּב. וְטַעַם **הוּא** עַל הַקֶּמַח, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ סוֹד, כִּי לְמַטָּה (במדבר ה׳:י״ח) בִּהְיוֹתוֹ בְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר "הִיא", וְעַתָּה הִזְכִּיר הַזִּכָּרוֹן תְּחִלָּה וְאָמַר כִּי הִיא מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
HE SHALL POUR NO OIL UPON IT — “so that her offering shall not be enriched, for oil is called light, whereas she acted in darkness. NOR SHALL HE PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON, for the matriarchs are compared to frankincense, as it is said, *to the hill of frankincense*⁷¹ [an allegorical expression explained by the Midrash as an allusion to the matriarchs], but this woman turned aside from their [virtuous] ways (Midrash Tanhuma Nasso 3). FOR IT IS A MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSIES. This flour arouses against her two jealousies — the jealousy of G-d, and the jealousy of her husband.” Thus far is Rashi’s language on the basis of the words of our Rabbis.⁷² 3; Sifre *Naso* 8.
But in the opinion of all the commentators⁷³ [the meaning of the expression] *for it is a meal-offering of jealousies* is to say that because this meal-offering [of the *sotah*]⁴³ is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called *a meal-offering of jealousy*. is an offering which may bring her punishment [if the charge against her is true], therefore it is of a lesser quality [than all other meal-offerings and is to be brought of] barley without oil and frankincense. On the other hand, a meal-offering of which the memorial-part is brought to be acceptable before the Eternal, is to be brought from fine wheat-flour with oil and frankincense. But in my opinion the expression *for it is a meal-offering of jealousies* refers to the beginning of the verse, stating that the husband shall bring the offering for his wife, that is to say, instead of her, *for it is a meal-offering of jealousies* bringing her iniquity to remembrance. Thus it is not fitting that she should bring it of her own property, but it is he who is to bring the meal-offering to G-d so that He should take note of his suspicions of her, and punish her on his [the husband’s] behalf. And the reason [why this meal-offering comes from] *se’orim* (barley)⁷⁴ (barley) is suggestive of the word *sa’ar* (storm), as is indicated in the next verse quoted by Ramban. is so that *‘sa’arath’* (*a storm of*) *the Eternal is gone forth in fury, yea, a whirling storm; it shall whirl upon the head of wickedness*,⁷⁵ like *the cake of barley bread*⁷⁶, 22-28). mentioned in the story of Gideon, which [one of the Midianites who saw it in a dream] interpreted as referring to a storm (*sa’ar*) and great confusion [which would break forth upon the camp of the Midianites]. Similarly, *the earthen vessel*⁷⁷ [in which the holy water is put] is a hint that she shall be broken like a potter’s vessel,⁷⁸ and likewise the dust [which must be taken from the floor of the Tabernacle and put into the water⁷⁷ indicates] that she is dust, and into dust shall she return⁷⁹ [if she is guilty of adultery]. The meaning of the word *hu* [*ki minchath kna’oth ‘hu’* — using the masculine form of “it” in the phrase “it is a meal-offering of jealousies,” when it should have used *hi*, the feminine form, since the word *minchah* (meal-offering) is feminine] is because it refers back to the word *kemach* (flour) [which is mentioned above in the same verse, and the word *kemach* is masculine]. But this [unusual usage of the masculine here] has a mystical explanation, for further on when the meal-offering is in the hands of the woman⁸⁰ Scripture uses the word *hi* [*minchath kna’oth hi* — literally: “‘she’ is a meal-offering of jealousies”]. And now [in this verse] Scripture mentions the memorial first, stating that “she” *brings iniquity to remembrance*.⁸¹ [literally: “for a meal-offering of jealousies ‘he’ is, a meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance”], and the meaning thereof is that in this meal-offering there is both judgment and mercy: judgment, if she is guilty, and mercy if innocent. The word *hu* in this verse thus refers both to *kemach* and *zikaron*, which allude to these two attributes. Hence also the word *hu* is mentioned before *zikaron* (“memorial”), for “the memorial which brings iniquity to remembrance” surely alludes to the attribute of judgment, and the word *hu* which is mentioned *before* “the memorial” therefore alludes to mercy. Further on in Verse 18, however, the text reads: *eith minchath hazikaron minchath kna’oth hi*. There the word *hi* (“she”) appears at the *end* of the whole expression, after *hazikaron* (“the memorial”), when the meal-offering is in her hands [as the verse states] it is only “judgment” which brings the iniquity to remembrance. See further my Hebrew commentary p. 213.

footnotes:
⁷¹ Song of Songs 4:6.
⁷² Tanchuma Naso
⁷³ Found in Ibn Ezra.
⁴³ A sotah
⁷⁴ The word se’orim
⁷⁵ Jeremiah 23:19.
⁷⁶ Judges 7:13. Gideon indeed inflicted later a great defeat upon the Midianite host (ibid.
⁷⁷ Verse 17.
⁷⁸ See Jeremiah 19:11.
⁷⁷ Verse 17.
⁷⁹ See Genesis 3:19.
⁸⁰ Verse 18.
⁸¹ The verse here reads: ki minchath kna’oth hu minchath zikaron mazkereth avon


###### Ramban on Numbers 5:18:1
[Ramban on Numbers 5:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/5:18:1)

**וּבְיַד הַכֹּהֵן יִהְיוּ מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרְרִים** – אָמְרוּ הַמְפָרְשִׁים כִּי הַכָּתוּב קוֹרֵא אוֹתָם עַל שֵׁם סוֹפָהּ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בָּהֶם מָרָה, כִּי יָמֵר לָהּ הַשֵּׁם מְאֹד וִיאָרְרוּ אוֹתָהּ. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בְּסִפְרֵי (נשא נז): נִקְרְאוּ מָרִים עַל שֵׁם סוֹפָם שֶׁמְּמָרְרִים אֶת הַגּוּף וּמְעַרְעֲרִין אֶת הֶעָוֹן. אֲבָל בַּגְּמָרָא (סוטה כ) אָמְרוּ שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן נוֹתֵן בַּמַּיִם דָּבָר מַר וְהוּא לְעוֹרֵר אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁאָמַר "וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים לְמָרִים", הָיָה רָאוּי שֶׁיֹּאמַר וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים לִמְאָרְרִים. וּבְסִפְרֵי (נשא סח) עוֹד: ״וּמָחָה אֶל מֵי הַמָּרִים״ (במדבר ה׳:כ״ג) - מַגִּיד שֶׁהַכְּתָב עוֹשֶׂה אֶת הַמַּיִם מָרִים. וְהַנָּכוֹן בְּעֵינַי כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ, כִּי הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁתוֹתָהּ אֶת הַמַּיִם יִמְתְּקוּ לָהּ כִּשְׁאָר הַמַּיִם, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן בְּבוֹאָם בְּקִרְבָּהּ אִם נִטְמְאָה יְעוֹרְרוּ אוֹתָהּ וְתַרְגִּישׁ מִיָּד הַמְּרִירוּת בְּפִיהָ וּבְקִרְבָּהּ. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמַר (במדבר ה׳:כ״ז): ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ אֶת הַמַּיִם וְהָיְתָה אִם נִטְמְאָה וַתִּמְעֹל מַעַל בְּאִישָׁהּ וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים לְמָרִים״, כִּי אַחֲרֵי הַשְּׁתִיָּה בְּבֹאָם בְּבִטְנָהּ מִיָּד יָשׁוּבוּ לְמָרִים בְּפִיהָ וּבְקִרְבָּהּ, כְּמִנְהַג הַדְּבָרִים הַמְעוֹרְרִים וְהַמְּקִיאִים שֶׁיְּמָרְרוּ הַשּׁוֹתִים אוֹתָם מְאֹד. וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן תִּצְבֶּה בִטְנָהּ וְתִפֹּל יְרֵכָהּ. וְנִקְרְאוּ **מְאָרְרִים** בַּעֲבוּר הָאָלוֹת הַנִּמְחִים בָּהֶם שֶׁמְּקַלְּלִים אוֹתָהּ. וְאָמְרוּ הַמְפָרְשִׁים כִּי מִלַּת **מֵי** כְּמוֹ מַיִם הַמָּרִים, וּבָא סָמוּךְ בִּמְקוֹם מֻכְרָת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבָּא הֶפְכּוֹ "מַיִם בִּרְכָּיִם"(יחזקאל מז ד). וְר״א אָמַר (אבן עזרא על במדבר ה׳:י״ח) כִּי **מֵי** סָמוּךְ, וּמִלַּת **הַמָּרִים** תֹּאַר הַשֵּׁם, וְאִם כֵּן סוֹדוֹ יָדוּעַ. וְאֵינוֹ נָכוֹן לִי בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁאָמַר ״וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים לְמָרִים״:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE IN HIS HAND ‘MEI HAMARIM’ (THE WATER OF BITTERNESS) THAT CAUSETH THE CURSE. The commentators⁸² have written that Scripture describes it [i.e., *the water of bitterness*] in terms of its final effect, for there will be a bitterness in it, and *G-d* will *deal very bitterly with her*,⁸³ and it will effect a curse upon her. So also have our Rabbis said in the Sifre:⁸⁴ 11. “the water is called *water of bitterness* because of its final effect, for it effects a curse⁸⁵ on the body and brings to light the sin.” But in the Gemara [of Tractate Sotah] the Sages have said⁸⁶ that the priest put a bitter substance in the water, in order to arouse her. If so, the verse stating, *and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter*⁸⁷ should rather have said: “and the bitter water shall enter into her to cause the curse,” [since the bitter substance was already present in the water before she drank it]. And in the Sifre it is further stated:⁸⁸ 16. “*And he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness*.⁸⁹ The verse teaches you that it is the writing [on the scroll of the *sotah* which was blotted out into the water] which makes the water bitter.”
The correct interpretation appears to me to be in accordance with its plain meaning, for when the woman drinks the water, it will taste to her just like any other water, and only afterwards when it enters into her, will it arouse her if she had become defiled [i.e., committed adultery], and then she will immediately feel the bitterness in her mouth and inside her. Therefore Scripture states, *And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have acted unfaithfully against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter*,⁹⁰ in our verse because of its final effect, for if she is guilty, the curses that have been erased into the water will cause a bitter taste and the fatal effects described further on. for it is after drinking, when the water enters her belly, that it immediately becomes bitter in her mouth and inside her, as happens with all substances which make one nauseous and cause vomiting, that they seem very bitter to those that drink them. After that *her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away*.⁹⁰ in our verse because of its final effect, for if she is guilty, the curses that have been erased into the water will cause a bitter taste and the fatal effects described further on. The water is called [in the verse before us] *m’orerim* [from the root *arur* — “cursed”] because of the curses [written on the scroll] which have been erased into the water, and which cause her to suffer their effects.
Now the commentators⁹¹ is a reference to the final effect of the water, the word *mei* cannot be in construct [‘the water of’ bitterness — for it is not yet bitter]; thus the word *mei* here merely means “water” — “the bitter water,” and is so called because of its final effect. However, as Ramban continues, according to the Rabbis who said that the bitter substance was mixed with the water, the word *mei* may indeed be understood as being in construct — “the water ‘of’ bitterness,” since the water was already bitter. have said that the word *mei* [*‘mei’ hamarim*] is like *mayim hamarim* [“the bitter water”], the word *mei* [literally: “the water of”] being stated here in a construct form in place of the absolute form, just as we find [an opposite verse]: *mayim birkayim*⁹² [literally: “the water the ankles,” where the word *mayim* occurs in the absolute form, but is really to be understood in the construct: *mei birkayim* — “the water ‘of’ the ankles,” i.e., water which reached as high as the ankles]. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “the word *mei* is [indeed] construct [meaning: *the water ‘of’*], but the word *hamarim* is an adjectival noun [meaning: ‘the bitter substances’ — thus *mei hamarim* means ‘the water of bitter substances’], and if so, the secret thereof is known.”⁹³ — “the water of bitter substances.” But [Ibn Ezra’s interpretation] does not appear to me to be correct, because the verse states, *and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter*.⁹⁰

footnotes:
⁸² Rashi and Ibn Ezra.
⁸³ See Ruth 1:20.
⁸⁴ Sifre Naso
⁸⁵ In our Sifre: “makes the body ‘bitter’ (sick).”
⁸⁶ Sotah 20 a.
⁸⁷ Further, Verse 27.
⁸⁸ Sifre Naso
⁸⁹ Verse 23.
⁹⁰ Verse 27. This shows that the water is called mei hamarim
⁹⁰ Verse 27. This shows that the water is called mei hamarim
⁹¹ The commentators quoted above. The point involved is as follows: Since the commentators explain that mei hamarim
⁹² Ezekiel 47:3.
⁹³ A reference by Ibn Ezra to the statement of the Sages that a bitter substance had to be mixed with the water, and hence the term mei hamarim
⁹⁰ Verse 27.


###### Ramban on Numbers 5:19:1
[Ramban on Numbers 5:19:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/5:19:1)

וְטַעַם **אִם לֹא שָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָךְ וְאִם לֹא שָׂטִית טֻמְאָה** – שְׁנֵי הַתְּנָאִים הָאֵלֶּה אֶחָד הֵם. יֹאמַר: אִם לֹא שָׁכַב אִישׁ אוֹתָךְ, שֶׁלֹּא שָׂטִית טֻמְאָה תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ - הִנָּקִי, כִּי בַעְלָהּ שָׁכַב אוֹתָהּ וְאִישׁ הוּא. וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה ״אִישׁ״ חֲסַר הַיְדִיעָה, יֹאמַר: אִם לֹא שָׁכַב הָאִישׁ אוֹתָךְ וְאִם לֹא שָׂטִית טֻמְאָה תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ כְּלָל, כִּי יַשְׁבִּיעֶנָּה עַל הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא עָלָיו בְּפֵרוּשׁ וְעַל הָאֲחֵרִים בִּכְלָל. וְכֵן אָמְרוּ (סוטה יח): אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ זֶה וְאָמֵן מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר.

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
IF NO ‘ISH’ (MAN) HAVE LAIN WITH THEE, AND IF THOU HAST NOT GONE ASIDE TO UNCLEANNESS. These two conditions constitute [in reality] one. Thus the verse is stating: “*If no man have lain with thee*, and thus *thou has not gone aside to uncleanness, be thou free from the water of bitterness; ”* [for you cannot say that these are two separate conditions], since her husband lay with her and he is “a man” [thus the priest could not say to her, *if no man have lain with thee;* therefore both conditions must be one, as explained]. It is possible that the word *ish* (man) lacks the definite article [making it *ha’ish* — “the man”], and Scripture is stating: “*If ‘the man’ has not lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness* at all,” and he makes her swear specifically concerning the particular man about whom he [her husband] had warned her, and in general terms about others. And so have the Rabbis said:⁹⁴ “*And the woman shall say: ‘Amen, Amen. ’*⁹⁵ [The double utterance of the word *‘Amen’* signifies:] ‘*Amen* [that I have not committed adultery] with this man, and *Amen* [that I have not committed adultery] with any other man.’”

footnotes:
⁹⁴ Sotah 18a.
⁹⁵ Verse 22.


###### Ramban on Numbers 5:20:1
[Ramban on Numbers 5:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/5:20:1)

וְטַעַם **וְאַתְּ כִּי שָׂטִית** מְחֻבָּר עִם ״יִתֵּן ה' אוֹתָךְ״. יֹאמַר: וְאַתְּ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂטִית טֻמְאָה תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ, וְכַאֲשֶׁר נִטְמֵאת וַיִּתֵּן בָּךְ אִישׁ אֶת שְׁכָבְתּוֹ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי אִישֵׁךְ - יִתֵּן ה' אוֹתָךְ לְאָלָה וְלִשְׁבוּעָה. אֲבָל בַּעֲבוּר אֲרִיכוּת הַתְּנָאִים חָזַר לוֹמַר פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת ״וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה״, וּלְפָרֵשׁ שֶׁהִיא שְׁבוּעַת הָאָלָה. וְר״א פֵּרֵשׁ כִּי "וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ" הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּשֵּׁם וְהַשֵּׁנִי בָּאָלָה כַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא מְפֹרָשׁ. וְאֵינֶנּוּ נָכוֹן, כִּי בַשֵּׁם לֹא יַשְׁבִּיעַ בִּלְשׁוֹן ״אִם״. וְהִנֵּה אֵין בְּכָל מִשְׁפְּטֵי הַתּוֹרָה דָּבָר תָּלוּי בְּנֵס זוּלָתִי הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה, שֶׁהוּא פֶּלֶא וְנֵס קָבוּעַ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּהְיוֹתָם רֻבָּם עוֹשִׂים רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, כִּי חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ לְיַסֵּר הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא תַּעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִמַּת יֶתֶר הָעַמִּים, וּלְנַקּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַמַּמְזֵרוּת שֶׁיִּהְיוּ רְאוּיִים לְהַשְׁרוֹת שְׁכִינָה בְּתוֹכָם. וּלְפִיכָךְ פָּסַק הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּתְקַלְקְלוּ בַּעֲבֵרוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (סוטה מז): ״מִשֶּׁרָבוּ הַנּוֹאֲפִים פָּסְקוּ מֵי סוֹטָה״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (הושע ד יד): ״לֹא אֶפְקֹד עַל בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תִזְנֶינָה וְעַל כַּלּוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תְנָאַפְנָה, כִּי הֵם עִם הַזֹּנוֹת יְפָרֵדוּ וְעִם הַקְּדֵשׁוֹת יְזַבֵּחוּ, וְעַם לֹא יָבִין יִלָּבֵט״. וְאֵין הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר שֶׁתִּהְיֶינָה הַנָּשִׁים הַנּוֹאֲפוֹת פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הֶעָוֹן בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁבַּעֲלֵיהֶן נוֹאֲפִים, רַק שֶׁלֹּא יֵעָשֶׂה בָּהֶן הַנֵּס הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה שֶׁהוּא נַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם לִכְבוֹדָם וְלִהְיוֹתָם עַם קָדוֹשׁ, וְהֵם לֹא יָבִינוּ בַּטּוֹבָה הַזֹּאת וְלֹא יַחְפְּצוּ בָהּ. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמַר "וְעַם לֹא יָבִין יִלָּבֵט", כְּלוֹמַר יִלָּכֵד בְּסִכְלוּתוֹ. וְכֵן ״וֶאֱוִיל שְׂפָתַיִם יִלָּבֵט״ (משלי י ח), תִּרְגֵּם הַמְתַרְגֵּם הַיְרוּשַׁלְמִי: ״וְסָכְלָא בְּסִפְוָותֵיהּ מִתְאַחַד״. וְזֶה טַעַם מַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (סוטה מז): ״וְנִקָּה הָאִישׁ מֵעָוֹן״ - בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָאִישׁ מְנֻקֶּה מֵעָוֹן מַיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵין הָאִישׁ מְנֻקֶּה מֵעָוֹן אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְהַנִּקָּיוֹן הוּא שֶׁלֹּא בָּא עָלֶיהָ מִשֶּׁקִּנֵּא לָהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה. וְיֵשׁ מְפָרְשִׁים שֶׁאִם בָּעַל הַבַּעַל שׁוּם בְּעִילָה אֲסוּרָה כָּל יָמָיו אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ. וְהָעוֹלֶה מִן הַהֲלָכָה (שם) שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו נוֹאֲפִים וְלֹא כִהָה בָּם, לֹא הָיוּ בוֹדְקִין. וְהַכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא נֵס וְכָבוֹד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
BUT IF THOU HAST GONE ASIDE. This is connected with [the expression in the following verse], *the Eternal make thee*,⁹⁵ the verses stating: “*But if thou hast gone aside* to uncleanness, *being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband — the Eternal make thee a curse, and an oath among thy people. ”*⁹⁵ But due to the length of the conditions [mentioned in Verses 19-20] Scripture restates [in the following Verse 21] *and the priest shall cause the woman to swear* [although that has already been said at the beginning of Verse 19; and accordingly the phrase before us in Verse 20, *but if thou hast gone aside* etc. is connected with the expression *the Eternal make thee* in Verse 21], in order to explain that [*the Eternal make thee a curse* etc.] constitutes *the oath of cursing*.⁹⁵ And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the first expression of swearing [*and the priest shall cause her to swear*, in Verse 19] means [that she must swear] by G-d’s Name, and the second one [in Verse 21] implies by means of the curse, as is clearly explained there [in Verse 21: *and the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing*]. But it is not correct, for the priest would not have caused her to swear by the Name of G-d using an expression of “if” [as in Verse 19: *and the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: ‘If’ no man have lain with thee* etc.].⁹⁶
Now there is nothing amongst all the ordinances of the Torah which depends upon a miracle, except for this matter, which is a permanent wonder and miracle that will happen in Israel, when the majority of the people live in accordance with the Will of G-d; for He *was pleased for His righteousness’ sake*⁹⁷ to teach *the women that they do not do after the lewdness*⁹⁷ *of* the other nations, and to purify Israel from adulterous offspring, so that they are worthy that the Divine Presence dwell among them. Therefore this matter [i.e., the effect of the water on the *sotah*] stopped from the time that the people became debauched with [sexual] sins, as the Rabbis have said:⁹⁸ “When adulterers became frequent, the water of *sotah*⁴³ is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called *a meal-offering of jealousy*. ceased, for it is said, *I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for they themselves consort with lewd women, and they sacrifice with harlots, and the people that is without understanding is distraught*.⁹⁹ Now this verse does not mean to say that adulterous women will be free from [punishment for their] sin, because their husbands [likewise] commit adultery; it [is only saying] that this great miracle will not be done for them, for it occurs as a sign of honor for them *because of* their *being a holy people*,¹⁰⁰ but they do not understand this goodness, nor do they desire it. Therefore the verse states, *and the people that is without understanding is ‘yilaveit’* (*distraught*),⁹⁹ that is to say, trapped by its foolishness. Similarly, *but a prating fool ‘yilaveit, ’*¹⁰¹ which the Jerusalem Targum¹⁰² translated: “but the fool is caught by his lips.” This is the reason for what the Sages have said:⁹⁸ “*And the man shall be clear from iniquity*.¹⁰³ When the man is clear of iniquity, the water [of the *sotah*] tests his wife; but if the man is himself not free from iniquity, the water does not put his wife to the proof.” Now the “freedom from iniquity” of the husband means [in this context] that he had no sexual relations with her after he had warned her and she [nevertheless] had secret contact [with the suspected adulterer]. And there are scholars¹⁰⁴ 2:8. who explain that if the husband had ever in his lifetime had a forbidden sexual intercourse, the water [of the *sotah*] no longer tests his wife. And according to the final decision of the law, even if his sons or daughters committed adultery and he did not rebuke them the water did not put his wife to the test [even though he himself is clear from iniquity]. In short, this procedure was miraculous, as [a sign of] honor for Israel.

footnotes:
⁹⁵ Verse 21.
⁹⁵ Verse 21.
⁹⁵ Verse 21.
⁹⁶ For if she is innocent of the charge, then she will have invoked the name of G-d in vain.
⁹⁷ Isaiah 42:21; Ezekiel 23:48.
⁹⁷ Isaiah 42:21; Ezekiel 23:48.
⁹⁸ Sotah 47 a-b.
⁴³ A sotah
⁹⁹ Hosea 4:14.
¹⁰⁰ See Deuteronomy 26:19.
⁹⁹ Hosea 4:14.
¹⁰¹ Proverbs 10:8.
¹⁰² Reference here is to the Targum Yonathan ben Uziel.
⁹⁸ Sotah 47 a-b.
¹⁰³ Further, Verse 31.
¹⁰⁴ Mentioned in Rashi, Sotah 47b, and in Rambam, Hilchoth Sotah