- She went in secret with him, as one action. And she was defiled, as a separate action.
- She was in secret with him the amount of time it would take to be defiled.
- She was defiled in secret.
"But the adultery is secret" as a translation of וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה means that she engaged in adultery (venitmaah) but is was in secret (venistera) when this happened. No one, not the husband and not the witnesses, even knows about any seclusion or adultery.
Meanwhile, Chazal choose option (2), reading venistera as a separate action, and venitmaah not as an action but as a modifier of venistera. Thus, Rashi writes:
but she was secluded the amount [of time] it takes for one who is secluded [with a man] to be defiled by intercourse. - [Sifrei Naso 1:41, Sotah 2b, 4a]Thus, no defiling takes place in the verse. Indeed, that is presumably why Judaica Press, which likes to translate in accordance with Rashi, renders verse 13 as:
and a man lie with her carnally, but it was hidden from her husband's eyes, but she was secluded [with the suspected adulterer] and there was no witness against her, and she was not seized.What is missing from this translation is the act of defilement. This makes sense since the act in this verse is seclusion. If I were them, I would have translated "but she was secluded long enough to have been defiled."
Shadal says like Rashi, though not exactly. He chooses option (1) instead of option (2). Thus, he writes:
ונסתרה והיא נטמאה : אין הכוונה (כתרגום היירונימוס וארנהיים) נטמאה בסתר, כי מילת והיא מפסקת בין שני הפועלים, אך האמת כפי רש"י ורז"ל (סוטה ד' ע"א) והוא פירוש הקודם, כלומר ונעלם מעיני אישה, אבל הוא יודע שנסתרה, ואין לו ראיה שנטמאה, אך נכנס בלבו חשד. ושיעור הכתוב כך הוא: איש כי תשטה אישתו וכו', כלומר שנסתרה ובאמת נטמאה, ועבר עליו רוח קנאה וקנא את אישתו והיא באמת נטמאה, או בהפך עבר עליו רוח קנאה וקנא את אישתו והיא באמת לא נטמאה; אז כשיהיה הדבר מוטל בספק, יביא האיש את אישתו אל הכהן, והנה מליצת והיא נטמאה ענינה שווה בשני הפסוקים, ולא היתה צריכה להכתב בפסוק הראשון, ואולי נכתבה להפריד בין "ונסתרה" ובין "ועד אין בה" כי ודאי לסתירה יש עדים, אך אין עדים לטומאה; ובפסוק השני הוצרך לחזור ולכתוב והיא נטמאה, מפני שהיה צריך לסיים והיא לא נטמאה, ופירוש ראב"ע (שלא גילתה היא הדבר) ותרגום רמבמ"ן (שהיא העלימה והסתירה הדבר, אבל באמת נטמאה) אין בהם טעם (אייר תר"ך).ש
That is, one could choose option (3). But the word והיא divides between the two verbs.
I am not persuaded by this. After all, the vav hachibbur can function as a parenthetical remark, and can mean when. Thus, we can translate, "and she secluded herself when she was defiled, such that..."
But Shadal agrees with Chazal that venistera is a separate action. And so the husband knows about the seclusion, and has witnesses about the seclusion. But in fact she also committed adultery, something which the husband suspects but does not know with certainty, and something for which he has no witnesses.
Thus, the meaning is as follows, according to Shadal:
pasuk 12: אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי-תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל
through pasuk 13: וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ, שִׁכְבַת-זֶרַע, וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ, וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה; וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה
means that she secluded herself with the adulterer and actually committed adultery.
then pasuk 14:
וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ-קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהִוא נִטְמָאָה;
he suspects his wife and she in fact committed adultery
אוֹ-עָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ-קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה
or another case, where she did not commit adultery {but presumably did the seclusion}, but he still is jealous.
Since there is doubt {due to the seclusion and lack of witnesses}.
Thus, the meaning of וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה is the same in both pesukim -- that she actually committed adultery. Shadal suggests that this extraneous וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה was put in to separate the seclusion from the lack of witnesses, to clarify that the lack of witnesses is only on the adultery but not on the seclusion. Meanwhile, in the second verse, it is repeated in order to create the contrast of וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה with וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה.
Meanwhile, he rejects Ibn Ezra's explanation of וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה, that she kept secret that she committed adultery, as well as that of Mendelssohn, that she committed adultery, but hid the matter.
I can see the merit of Rashi's explanation, in that it extends the doubt in the first pasuk until the two possibilities (adultery or no adultery) are presented in the second pasuk. And I see the merit in Jerome's explanation, in that this way the entire theme of that pasuk is lack of proof to an underlying act of adultery (she was not caught in the act, there were no witnesses, and they did it in private).
Chazal's (and Shadal's) explanation that there was this separate act of seclusion, which must have been seen by witnesses, is certainly in practice more protective of the woman. We see in the next verse that the husband's jealousy and suspicions may be founded or may be unfounded. And so he cannot simply drag her to the Temple and humiliate her in public with this ceremony if there was not some basis for his suspicions. Here, after being informed that he was jealous of her as regards this man, she secluded herself with the man. So she took some concrete action that makes the accusations at least plausible. And there need be witnesses that this seclusion happened. But the basis cannot merely be the suspicions of the jealous husband.
I am not persuaded by this. After all, the vav hachibbur can function as a parenthetical remark, and can mean when. Thus, we can translate, "and she secluded herself when she was defiled, such that..."
But Shadal agrees with Chazal that venistera is a separate action. And so the husband knows about the seclusion, and has witnesses about the seclusion. But in fact she also committed adultery, something which the husband suspects but does not know with certainty, and something for which he has no witnesses.
Thus, the meaning is as follows, according to Shadal:
pasuk 12: אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי-תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל
through pasuk 13: וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ, שִׁכְבַת-זֶרַע, וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ, וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה; וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה
means that she secluded herself with the adulterer and actually committed adultery.
then pasuk 14:
וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ-קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהִוא נִטְמָאָה;
he suspects his wife and she in fact committed adultery
אוֹ-עָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ-קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה
or another case, where she did not commit adultery {but presumably did the seclusion}, but he still is jealous.
Since there is doubt {due to the seclusion and lack of witnesses}.
Thus, the meaning of וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה is the same in both pesukim -- that she actually committed adultery. Shadal suggests that this extraneous וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה was put in to separate the seclusion from the lack of witnesses, to clarify that the lack of witnesses is only on the adultery but not on the seclusion. Meanwhile, in the second verse, it is repeated in order to create the contrast of וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה with וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה.
Meanwhile, he rejects Ibn Ezra's explanation of וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה, that she kept secret that she committed adultery, as well as that of Mendelssohn, that she committed adultery, but hid the matter.
I can see the merit of Rashi's explanation, in that it extends the doubt in the first pasuk until the two possibilities (adultery or no adultery) are presented in the second pasuk. And I see the merit in Jerome's explanation, in that this way the entire theme of that pasuk is lack of proof to an underlying act of adultery (she was not caught in the act, there were no witnesses, and they did it in private).
Chazal's (and Shadal's) explanation that there was this separate act of seclusion, which must have been seen by witnesses, is certainly in practice more protective of the woman. We see in the next verse that the husband's jealousy and suspicions may be founded or may be unfounded. And so he cannot simply drag her to the Temple and humiliate her in public with this ceremony if there was not some basis for his suspicions. Here, after being informed that he was jealous of her as regards this man, she secluded herself with the man. So she took some concrete action that makes the accusations at least plausible. And there need be witnesses that this seclusion happened. But the basis cannot merely be the suspicions of the jealous husband.
No comments:
Post a Comment