וישלחו מן המחנה, “that they shall put outside the encampment, etc.” we have heard the commandment; where do we find the penalty for disregarding this commandment? Answer: this is to be found in Numbers 19,20: ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא וגו' ״, “and anyone who has become ritually defiled and does not purify himself, etc.”

כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש, “anyone who has a leprous like eczema, or a semen related issue, or has been contaminated through contact with a dead body, etc.;” there are three different categories of ritual defilement and we have three verses dealing with them. The common denominator of these three categories of ritual defilement is that the process of purification takes seven days. They also require that the person afflicted with any of these defilements be banned from one or possibly all three camps of the Israelites. This is in contrast with a ritual defilement caused by seminal emission not caused by a disease, which can be purified by immersion in a ritual bath on the same day, so that by nightfall the afflicted person is ritually clean again.

מזכר עד נקבה תשלחו, “be such a person male or female he or she must be removed from the camps forbidden for their category of defilement.” The verse teaches that in respect of ritual defilement the Torah does not make a distinction between minors and adults, males or females.

ולא יטמאו את מחניהם, “in order that their presence while in such a state does not confer ritual impurity on the entire camp.” They must also undergo a purification process for having committed robbery, or possibly indulged in forbidden sexual relations. Also a Nazarite who is in doubt about having violated the terms of his vow must undergo purification.

ויעשו כן בני ישראל, וישלחו, “the Children of Israel did so, and they put outside, etc.” from the manner in which this is reported it is clear that this commandment was meant to be fulfilled without any delay

.כן עשו בני ישראל, “the Israelites did so;” the apparent repetition indicates that the people affected by this did not object or argue about their status.

כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם, “if they will commit any sin that people are in the habit of committing;” this paragraph concerns theft committed against the estate of a convert; the Rabbis derive this from the words 'מעל בה, “a trespass against the Lord;” seeing that the convert left behind no heirs, the thief or robber considered what he did as finder’s keeper. The Torah teaches that this is not so, but that the Lord is the One Who considers Himself as having been sinned against. A similar paragraph in Leviticus 5,21 has the words: וכחש בעמיתו, “and he denies having trespassed against his colleague,” as speaking of a natural born Jew. The reason why this paragraph follows that of the various types of ritual defilements described in the previous paragraph is to remind us that this very defilement and the subsequent ostracism for at least seven days was a punishment for one of the trespasses detailed in this paragraph. (Ibn Ezra)

.ואשמה הנפש ההיא, והתודו, ”and that soul shall be guilty, and confess;” Rabbi Natan claims that this is a line that can be used universally for all such trespasses, that the first step in rehabilitation of the sinner must be his confession of having committed this trespass. (Sifri)

וחמישתו יוסיף עליו, “and he is to add a fifth of it” (the value of the stolen property); if his confession is not the result of witnesses having accused him of his guilt, but it is simply an expression of his remorse, then he pays only this extra 25%, but if witnesses testified about the theft he is required to add a second 25% as a penalty. We have already explained in our commentary on Leviticus 5,16 precisely what is meant by this.

ונתן לאשר אשם לו, “he will give to the person against whom he trespassed etc.” this verse teaches that if someone had owed a certain person, Reuven, say 100 dollars, and he came to the court with the intent to pay Reuven that amount, but did not arrive until another creditor of Reuven had lodged a claim regarding an independent amount owed him by Reuven, the court will accept payment from the debtor and transfer it to the creditor, as the Torah specifically writes: “he will give it to the one against whom he had sinned by not paying it sooner.” (Sifri)[Malbim adds certain qualifications to the example quoted by Sifri. Ed]

המושב לה, “it shall be viewed as returned to the Lord,” through being given to a priest who is the representative of G-d on earth.

לה' לכהן, G-d is considered the Father of all converts and as such entitled to inherit him. It (the outstanding debt) will therefore be paid to G-d’s “heir” on earth, the priest.

ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיה, “and every man’s hallowed things shall be his;” this somewhat enigmatic phrase, teaches that if a priest has sanctified some of his animals as sacrifices, he need not hand them over to the group of priests on duty at the time, but can proceed to offer such animals personally, although this particular time is not one during which he is on duty. (Sifri)

איש אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה, “whatsoever any man gives (prematurely) to a priest shall be (remain) his, the donor’s.” This verse or phrase, is understood to mean that if a father of a firstborn son had given a priest the money for his son’s redemption before said son was thirty days old, and in the interval that son had died before reaching the age of thirty days, (when it had become due) the priest is to return the money he has received to the deceased son’s father. (Sifri)

כי תשטה אשתו, “any man whose wife goes astray;” the reason the following paragraph appears at this junction is that both paragraphs discuss the kind of trespass called מעילה by the Torah. (Compare verse 6)

ונסתרה והיא נטמאה, “and the fact that she had become defiled by having sexual relations with a man not her husband was concealed from him;” according to our Rabbis, this verse teaches that when there is a doubt about whether an object reposing in private property is ritually clean, the doubt is treated as if certainty of it being ritually unclean as doubt of this nature is by definition only possible in a privately owned property that the public has no access to. The Torah here describes the doubt about the woman’s actions as if fact, and she lost her previous status of being assumed to be ritually pure.

והיא נטמאה “and she had become ritually defiled;” through the semen of the man she had carnal relations with;” the word והיא here is spelled with letter י. [The Torah emphasized her impurity, ignoring her partner’s. Ed.]

ועד אין בה, “and there is no witness who could accuse her of infidelity;” the reason why there is no witness is because she had not been raped. (according to Rabbi Saadyah gaon, as well as Rash’bam) (This could have served as a defense.) Because there is a doubt about her conduct, she has to undergo an examination.

ועד אין בה, Rashi comments on this phrase that we must contrast it with what the law would be if there had been a witness testifying against her. Even the testimony of a single witness would be enough not to let her drink the potentially disastrous waters. The line also means that whereas we do not have a witness that she had carnal relations with a man not her husband, we do have witnesses that she had hidden herself, so that she could have committed that sin easily. The grammatical construction here is similar to Leviticus 24,14: ורגמו אותו, “they will (all) stone him;” the extra word אותו instead of the pronoun ending, i.e. ורגמוהו, teaches that he will be stoned naked, his clothing will not be stoned. Here, the word אותה means the reverse, i.e. while she was clothed. (Talmud Sanhedrin, folio 45). There are numerous examples of such constructions in the Torah and the reason why extra letters were used to teach us certain halachot, legal rulings. The word אפילו, “even,” in Rashi’s commentary here, is clearly a printer’s error. The Talmud in tractate Sota, folio 3 has Rabbi Yishmael raise the question why in the case of this woman suspected of marital infidelity, the Torah chose to accept the testimony of a single witness at all? In answer it is suggested that there is some logic for such a procedure. This was a case where the husband had legitimate reason to suspect his wife of immoral conduct, and he had warned her not be alone with the person whom he suspects her of being too friendly with. His suspicions had been aroused because she had already once contravened his warnings and had been known to have been alone with the man in question after that warning. Moreover we have a statement in the Talmud tractate Ketuvot folio 9, according to which: a woman (wife) is not forbidden for a husband to continue to have marital relations with on the basis of the testimony of a single witness, until we have two valid witnesses that can accuse her of having been unfaithful to her husband, and her husband had already been jealous of her and she had subsequently secluded herself with the man against whom her husband had warned her not to seclude herself. In commenting on this statement in the Talmud, Rashi writes that the Talmud cites an example when there was no witness at all that accused her of having had carnal relations, but that there had been witnesses to the husband expressing his jealousy, and her secreting herself with the man in question nonetheless. If however, there was one witness accusing her of additional seclusion, after all this, such a witness is sufficient. He bases himself on the word: בה, ”against her,” in our verse. In Rashi’s opinion that word refers to testimony of carnal union, [although there had not been two witnesses. Ed.] We read the line as if it had said; “there were no two witnesses against her but only one.” In other words, the extent of the value of this one witness is for the accused woman not to have to drink the bitter waters in order to prove her innocence and the consequences if she had lied.

והיא לא נתפשה, “she had not been caught in the act.” [alternate meaning of the word נתפשה.]

“she had not been defiled;” the word והיא is spelled with the letter י.

והביא את קרבנה, “he will offer her sacrifice;” it is impossible to assume that this offering will bring her atonement, as we have a principle that offerings by confirmed sinners are an abomination. (Proverbs 21,27) What happens here is that the person who had observed the adulterous action originally, without reacting to it and bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities, brings an offering, in order to atone for his sin of omission. By having failed to do so, he was now the cause of the Holy Name of the Lord becoming dissolved in the waters that the woman denying the accusation is made to drink.

קמח שעורים, “of barley flour.” This is a type of flour in which also the husks are mixed in with the kernels. This reflects on the nature of the sin it is to atone for, as it resembles fodder for animals, and the guilty party acted like an animal in its indiscriminate conduct. לא יצוק עליו שמן ולא יתן עליו לבונה, “he shall pour no oil on it, nor is he to put frankincense thereon.” Those ingredients when added to other gift offerings are usually referred to as אזכרה, “remembrance,” as they are to remind the recipient of the offering, the Lord, of the person who has presented it. In this instance it would remind Him of the guilt of the donor of this offering, seeing it is known as a מנחת קנאות, “a meal offering of jealousy,” i.e. instead of pleasant fragrance it exudes only the spirit of jealousy.

מזכרת עון, it reminds G-d of the guilt of either of the two parties concerned, either the woman who had sinned or her husband who had suspected her unfairly.

כי מנחת קנאות הוא, “for it is a meal offering originating from jealousy.” The word הוא, seeing that it is in the masculine mode, refers to the earlier noun קמח, which is a masculine noun. In verse 18, where the expression מנחת קנאות הוא occurs again, it refers to the offering which is from the noun מנחה, a feminine noun.

והעמידה, “he shall position her;” this means that she will be placed in a position from which she cannot escape. Compare Joshua 10,13: ויעמד השמש בחצי השמים, “the sun stood still when it was at its zenith.”

והעמידה לפני ה, “he sets her before the Lord.” He said to her: ‘wait here for me until I enter the Temple and return in order to take some earth from there.’ She was not allowed to enter the Temple (in order to save the priest time and effort. Ed.]

ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן, “and from the soil on the floor of the Tabernacle, etc.” we have learned in a Mishnah in tractate Sotah folio 15, that the priest when entering the Sanctuary would turn to his right, and that close by there was a spot one cubit by one cubit, to which a slab of marble would be permanently attached by means of rings, from which the priest by lifting that slab would take the earth to be mixed with the water that this woman would be made to drink from.

ממי המרים, “from this water of bitterness;” according to our sages, the priest had added herbs that would make the water taste bitter.

ואת כי שטית, “but since you have strayed, etc.” the priest did not say to her: “if you have strayed,” but he said to her that there was no question that she had strayed, the question was only to what extent she had strayed. She definitely deserved to have been shamed. Having caused her husband to suspect her, and having subsequently secreted herself with a man that her husband had specifically told her not to do, was disgraceful behaviour, even if no intimacy had occurred.

וכי נטמאת, “the priest left the end of the sentence unsaid, i.e. “you will be punished through drinking these waters.” And in the event you have become ritually defiled;” he also implied that if she had not had carnal relations with someone other than her husband the waters would not harm her.

מבלעדי אישך, the wording means that only if she had engaged in carnal relations with another man after her husband had been her husband in the full sense of the word, not during the period when she was merely betrothed, would she be forced to drink these waters if she wanted to clear her name. (B’chor shor)

והשביע הכהן את האשה, “then the priest shall cause the woman to accept a curse as a form of an oath;” this took the form of the woman confirming the curses uttered by the priest with answering: “Amen.”

ירכך, “your thigh;” this is a synonym for “your womb.” Compare Genesis 24,2 where Avraham asks his servant to select a suitable wife for his son Yitzchok, by placing his hand under his thigh, i.e. תחת ירכי; then we have the expression: יוצאי ירך יעקב, “the descendants of Yaakov stemming from his thigh,” in Exodus 1,5. In the Talmud Megillah, folio 13, we hear that a woman’s jealousy is usually concerned with the offspring of other women, where the word for “offspring” used is the word .ירך

נופלת, “falling,” an expression describing the loss of something. Compare Job 12,3: לא נופל אנכי מכם, “I am no less than you.” Applied to our situation this means: “you are no longer capable of engaging in carnal relations as the waters will damage the organs designed for this. Your womb will be ruined.”

ואמרה האשה: אמן, “the woman will respond by saying: “Amen.” In other words, she will agree that this will happen to her and deservedly, if she lied and was guilty of the accusations. According to the Jerusalem Targum, the word “Amen” here includes the following: “I agree that if I have defiled myself, or even if I will defile myself in the future.”According to our sages in the Sifri, the word: “Amen” here, means that she agrees that if she was guilty of having carnal relations with the particular man under discussion, or even with any other man not under discussion (after her marriage) she agrees that she deserves the penalty announced to her by the priest (the Torah). They explain further that seeing that the oaths are expressed in the plural mode, although only one single example of what they applied to was mentioned, (carnal relations (verse 20) any earlier violations of the laws of chastity in marriage would also now result in her being punished for them. They use logic to derive this: if a woman who had strayed but had never been accused previously is now being punished, any earlier acts of robbery [marital infidelity is an act of robbing one’s husband of his legitimate and exclusive rights, Ed.] in which the accusation could not be made to result in her being penalized, would now also be taken into consideration by G-d and used against her.

וכתב, “he will write;” using ink dissoluble in water. This is clear from the word: ומחה, ”he will erase;”

את האלות האלה, “these curses;” the ones recorded on the scrolls mentioned here.

והשקה את האשה, “he shall make the woman drink;” the letter ה at the end of the word האשה, does not have a dot in it, as opposed to the same word in verse 27, where that dot is a pronoun.

ונפלה ירכה, “and her womb will fall;” it will no longer be able to fulfill the functions for which it had been designed. The punishment matches the crime.

ונקתה, “she will be cleared” (of the accusation).

ונזרעה זרע, “and will conceive seed.” Her womb will not have suffered damage, and in future marital relations with her husband she will conceive [and presumably give successful birth. Ed.] A different interpretation of the last two words in our verse. From this point on when her husband resumes marital relations with her he will do so with halachic permission.

ונקה האיש מעון, “and the man will be free from guilt,” the guilt of allowing his wife to indulge in infidelity while married to her without divorcing her.

את עונה, “her guilt.” The meaning of the word: עון here is the same as the same word in Samuel I 28,10: אם יקרך עון בדבר הזה, “if in this matter you would become guilty of something, etc.;” King Saul absolves the witch of Endor in advance of her complying with his request. Once the moral standards of the Jewish people had declined so that the incidence of infidelity, adultery, was no longer a rare event, the practice of subjecting women accused of such to Divine intervention in order drink the bitter waters to clear her name was discontinued. This discontinuation was based on when the prophet Hoseah, 4,14 wrote (quoting G-d) לא אפקוד על בנותיכם כי תזנינה, “I will not punish your daughters for engaging in adultery.” The Targum on this line translates the words לא אפקוד, as if the prophet had said: לא אבדוק, “I will not examine if the accusation is justified” by letting My Holy Name be dissolved in water.) (Compare Talmud Sotah, folio 47).