Naso: The meaning of "And She Was Not Seized"

What is meant by the phrase וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה?

In parshat Naso, about the Sotah, we read {Bemidbar 5:13}

יג וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ, שִׁכְבַת-זֶרַע, וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ, וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה; וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה.

13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act;

It can mean one of several things, and there are fine distinctions between them. My inclination is towards the JPS translation above, "neither she be taken in the act," which is akin to King James' "neither she be taken with the manner." The idea, to my mind, is that וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה means that she was not caught, perhaps by the husband, in flagrante delicto, in the course of the act. Thus he does not know for certain, and yet suspects and is jealous of his wife. This is then an alternative to וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, as opposed to what the witnesses in the previous phrase witnessed.

As I understand Ibn Ezra, he also thinks וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה refers to being caught in the act, but he connects it to male or female witnesses. Thus:

וְנִסְתְּרָה -- שלא גילתה היא הדבר
ואפילו עֵד אחד אֵין בָּהּ
וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה -- בעדים אנשים או על ידי נשים עד שתהיה חשודה

Thus, these are three ways this could have come to light -- admission, a single witness, or multiple witnesses catching her in the act. But none of these are true, and so it is just a ruach kin`ah. He does not make entirely clear, IMHO, the difference between the latter two cases. But I think that his focus on ed echad means that there was a witness, but it would not stand up in court because of it being a single witness, while in the last case, there are multiple witnesses.

One could draw a distinction according to those who think that וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה means that the act was committed secretly, rather than וְנִסְתְּרָה meaning that she secluded herself with him. Indeed, following Ibn Ezra's understanding of וְנִסְתְּרָה as not meaning seclusion, one could (though he does not) say that the עד would witness some suspicious activity, such as seclusion, while the וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה would refer to her being actually caught in the act.

Rashi cites the Sifrei that it means she was not raped, citing a pasuk in Devarim which the root refers to rape.

and there is no witness against her to the defilement, but there were witnesses to the seclusion. — [Sotah 2b]
seized Heb. נִתְפָּשָׂה, raped, as in“seized her (וּתְפָשָׂהּ) and lay with her” (Deut. 22:28). - [Sifrei Naso 1:42]

This can indeed make sense as peshat, making it clear that even if she was "defiled," she is not a sotah if the act was against her will.

Shadal sides with Ibn Ezra that this means that she seen by someone while engaging in the act:

והיא לא נתפשה: לדעתי אין הכוונה שלא נאנסה, אלא שלא היה מי שימצאה ויראה אותה בעשותה הנבלה, וכן דעת הראב"ע.

I am not sure if he draws any distinction between this and וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ.

The Vulgate appears to take both phrases as working together:

dormierit cum altero viro et hoc maritus deprehendere non quiverit sed latet adulterium et testibus argui non potest quia non est inventa in stupro
Shall have slept with another man, and her husband cannot discover it, but the adultery is secret, and cannot be proved by witnesses, because she was not found in the adultery.

In which case any witnesses would be to the actual act of adultery.

Turning now to the Karaite scholar Aharon ben Yosef, I can say "baruch shekivanti." Heh. It appears I can think like a Karaite. :) He, too, distinguishes between veEd ein bah and behi lo nitpasa. The former he takes as "edut," testimony, and also admits to the meaning of "single witness." This witness or testimony would cause her to be suspected. But there is no such testimony, or witness. (As a Karaite, he does not hold that there is a witnessed act of seclusion involved.) And then he explains vehi lo nitpasa as referring to her being caught in the act by her husband, or by others (witnesses). Thus, he wishes to distinguish it from the previous phrase of veEd ain bah.