Just as the waters test her so do they also test him, for it is said twice "and they [the waters] shall enter". Just as she is prohibited to her husband so is she prohibited to her lover, for it is said twice "she is defiled". This is the view of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehoshu'a said that this was [also] the exegesis of Zekharyah ben-haKatzav. Rabbi says that twice in this text [occurs the root 'defile'], 'if she is defiled' and 'she is defiled': once for the husband and once for the lover.
1:
The first mishnah of this chapter is concerned with the reciprocity that a sense of equity requires should be perceived between the fate of a guilty woman and that of the man who assisted her in her infidelity. As we have seen [
3:4] the consequences for a guilty woman who drinks the 'cursing waters' were expected to be dire (though excuses were found as to why this was not always seen to be the case). Our present mishnah teaches that whatever fate overtakes the guilty woman, that same fate will overtake her lover.
2:
This teaching is derived from an exegesis of the text of the Torah. The Torah is not exhaustive in its legislation, and, of course, it cannot be. A finite document cannot contain explicitly all the possible ramifications of any law. However, the sages did hold that all such ramifications could be detected as being implicit in the Torah. They also held that what is implicit can be made explicit by exegesis of the text. This means that a careful scrutiny of the minutiae of the text will reveal deeper and wider meanings. All sages held that the text of the Torah was of divine origin, they also held that legitimate exegesis must follow an agreed discipline; they did not always agree as to the details of that discipline.
3:
Our present mishnah uses an exegesis which notes that certain words recur in the biblical text and that their recurrence cannot simply be fortuitous. The phrase 'and the waters shall enter her' occurs twice: once in verse 22 (or 24!) and a second time in verse 27 of Numbers 5. This repetition of the exact same phrase is held to indicate that when the waters enter the body of the woman and discover that she has been unfaithful to her husband they also symbolically enter into her lover, the man with whom she had performed her infidelity; whatever mischief the waters will do to her so too will they do to him.
4:
We have seen on several occasions that a woman who is found guilty of marital infidelity must be divorced by her husband. This same sense of equity urged the sages to prevent a woman who had been unfaithful to her husband from falling out of his arms into the arms of her paramour. Therefore a second exegesis is needed. Just as the woman becomes prohibited to her husband so must she become prohibited to her lover, and no court should permit them to maintain a legitimate alliance. Rabbi Akiva was one of the first of the sages to develop an exegetical system. One of his modes of exegesis was to note where the Torah seemingly uses words and particles of inclusion and exclusion. The particle 'and' is an obvious term of inclusion: according to the system of Rabbi Akiva if the particle 'and' recurs in a seemingly unnecessary manner in the same context it must indicate some implicit inclusion. He notes that in Numbers 5:27 there is a phrase 'she has become defiled' – i.e. she has been unfaithful. In verse 29 the phrase is 'and she has become defiled [unfaithful]'. The particle 'and' must indicate the inclusion of her lover: just as the woman becomes prohibited to her husband so must she become prohibited to her lover.
5:
Rabbi – Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin and ultimate editor of the Mishnah – comes to the same conclusion, but uses a different exegesis. He holds that the interpretation of the particle 'and' is not necessary: the fact that the word 'defiled' [unfaithful] occurs both in verse 27 and in verse 29 is sufficient repetition to justify the exegesis.
6:
Our present chapter contains four more mishnayot. Each of them begins with the phrase "on that very day". We encountered this phrase when we studied Tractate Yadayyim. In chapter 3 of that tractate too there was a series of mishnayot which contained halakhot which were all decided "on that very day". We originally learned to which day the phrase alludes when we studied Tractate Berakhot. For the sake of convenience of recapitulated the story when we studied Tractate Yadayyim. I shall not do so again, since Tractate Yadayyim is available in our web archives. So, before we continue to the second mishnah of our present chapter, please review the story of what happened "on that very day". Please click here to access the 3rd chapter of Tractate Yadayyim, and at the top select mishnah 5. Within the explanations of mishnah 5 go to paragraphs 12 and 13.
7:>br>
On the day that Rabban Gamli'el was ousted from the presidency of the Sanhedrin and Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah was appointed in his place a series of votes were taken. It would seem that this was in order to pass items by majority vote that had previously been blocked by Rabban Gamli'el. In the last mishnah of Yadayyim chapter 3 we saw how the opportunity was taken to include The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes into the canon of the Holy Writings. The first four mishnayot of Yadayyim chapter 4 contains more items which were hastily legislated "on that very day". The Gemara [Berakhot 28a] tells us that the whole of Tractate Eduyyot was passed "on that very day", and that "wherever we say 'that very day' it means the day on which Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah presided, and no disputed halakhah was left undecided in the Bet Midrash". Yet another series of items that were legislated on that very dramatic day are now presented in the following mishnayot.
