Commentary on Numbers, Book · Chapter 5

Commentary on Numbers · Book · Chapter 5

p. 64CHAP. V.

Chapter V Verſe 1 Ver. 1. AND the LORD ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying.] It is not ſaid when this was ſpoken which here follows: but it's likely immediately after the foregoing Commandments, upon which it hath ſome dependance.

Verſe 2 Ver. 2. Command the Children of Iſrael, that they put out of the Camp every Leper, and every one that hath an Iſſue, and whoſoever is defiled by the dead.] There were three Camps (as Maimonides, and a great many other mentioned by Mr. Selden, obſerves, L. II. de Synedr. cap. I. n. 5.) the Camp of the SCHECHINAH, or of the LORD, viz. the Sanctuary, with its Courts: which are called the Tents of the LORD, 1 Chron. XXXI. 2. And next the Camp of the Levites, who with Aaron and his Sons, made a Camp about the p. 65Tabernacle, (Chapter III. of this Book) and then the Camp of Iſrael, Chapter II. which incompaſſed them all. Anſwerable to theſe, when the Temple was built, they reckoned the Temple it ſelf from the Eaſt-Gate, to be the Camp of the LORD: and the Camp of the Levites, to be from the entrance of the Mount of the Houſe of the LORD, to that Eaſt-Gate of the Temple. And the Camp of Iſrael they thought extended from the Entrance of Jeruſalem, to the Mount of the Houſe of the LORD. Now Lepers were ſo unclean, that they were not admitted into any of theſe three Camps, but ſhut out of them all. See XIII Lev. 46. But he that had an Iſſue (XV Lev. 2.) was only ſhut out of the two firſt Camps, the Camp of the LORD, and the Camp of the Levites; but he might be in the Camp of Iſrael. And he that was defiled by the dead, (XXI Lev. 1.) was only excluded from the firſt, the Sanctuary, but not from the other two. See Druſius alſo upon IV. 25.

Ver. 3. Both Male and Female ſhall ye put out.] For Verſe 3 Women had Iſſues (for inſtance) as well as Men, XV Lev. 2, and 19, &c.

That they defile not their Camps.] The Camp of Iſrael conſiſted of four Camps, (and therefore he ſpeaks in the Plural Number) that of Judah; that of Reuben; that of Ephraim; and that of Dan, II Numb. 3, 10, 18, 25. Which would have been ſo defiled, if they had ſuffered theſe unclean Perſons to ſtay among them; that none would have been fit to go to the Sanctuary.

In the midst of which I dwell.] By his ſpecial Preſence in the Sanctuary; which was incompaſſed by theſe Camps: out of reverence to which, ſuch unclean Perſons were to be kept at a greater diſtance than other Men and Women.

p. 66Ver. 4. And the Children of Iſrael did ſo, and put them without the Camp, &c.] There was an order for this before; particularly for putting out the Lepers, Verſe 4(XIII Lev. 46.) which could not be put in Execution, till the Camp was formed; as now it was.

Verſe 5 Ver. 5. And the LORD ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying.] It is uncertain when this was ſpoken; but I ſee no reaſon why we ſhould not think, it was at the ſame time with the other things here mentioned.

Verſe 6 Ver. 6. When a Man or Woman ſhall commit any ſin that Men commit.] In the Hebrew the words are plainly theſe, ſhall commit any ſin of Man: that is, againſt his Neighbour. As in III Joel 19. Violence of the Children of Judah, is truly tranſlated Violence against the Children of Judah. For it is apparent from the next Verſes 7, 8. that Moſes here ſpeaks of Offences againſt their Neighbours.

To do a Treſpaſs against the LORD.] Such Offences againſt their Neighbours, as were alſo great Offences againſt God. For the Chaldee underſtands theſe words of Frauds and Cheats put upon Men, by a falſe Oath. And there is a good warrant for this Interpretation from VI Lev. 2, 3. where Moſes gives the ſame command: which ſeems here to be repeated, only becauſe he had ſomething to add unto it, v. 8.

And that perſon be guilty.] Or rather, be ſenſible of his guilt. See VI Lev. 4.

Verſe 7 Ver. 7. Then they ſhall confeſs the ſin that they have done.] Or rather, If they ſhall confeſs, &c. For ſo the Particle Vau ſometimes ſignifies: particularly XII. 14. where we (as well as the LXX.) tranſlate it, If her Father had ſpit in her face. See what I have noted upon VI Lev. 4.

p. 67And he ſhall recompenſe, &c.] Rather, Then he ſhall recompenſe the Injury he did to his Neighbour, in the manner here directed: which hath been explained VI Lev. 5. See there.

Ver. 8. But if a Man have no Kinſman to recompenſe Verſe 8 the Treſpaſs unto.] By this it is apparent, that if a Man to whom an Injury had been done, was dead, he that committed it, was bound to make Satisfaction to his Heir, whoſoever he was, by reſtoring the Principal, and adding a fifth part to it. Now the Iſraelites never wanting ſome of their Kindred to ſucceed to their Inheritances, the Hebrew Doctors expound this of the Proſelytes of Righteouſneſs: who might poſſibly dye without any heir; becauſe they had no Kindred but ſuch as were born after their Regeneration. In which Caſe the Goods that had been illegally taken from ſuch a Proſelyte by a Jew, did not become his own, unleſs he paid the Price of them, with ſuch an addition as is here required, &c. See Selden L. VI. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 4. p. 684, 685. Edit. Lond.

Let the Treſpaſs be recompenſed unto the LORD.] By bringing to him the Principal, and the fifth part.

Even unto the Priest.] Whom God deputed to receive it, as his Miniſter. And it was (as the Jews rightly expound it) equally diſtributed among all the Prieſts, who were then waiting in their Courſe. Which is a new addition to the Law in VI Lev. and the reaſon, it is likely, why that Law is here repeated.

Beſides the Ram of the Atonement, &c.] Mentioned VI Lev. 6, 7. where ſee what I have noted.

p. 68Ver. 9. And every offering of all the holy things of the Children of Iſrael.] Upon the occaſion of the foregoing Laws concerning a Recompenſe to be made Verſe 9 to the Prieſt, where a Man that had been wrong'd was dead, and no Heir to him could be found; he explains ſome other Laws wherein the Prieſts were concerned: who were to have all the Heave-offerings, as the word Trumoth (here uſed) ſignifies, XVIII. 8.

Which they bring unto the Priest.] To be offered unto God.

Shall be his.] Who offers it. For there being many Prieſts who waited in their Courſes, at the Tabernacle; all of which could not officiate at the ſame time, but ſome at one time, ſome at another; this Law determines that the particular Prieſt, who performed the Office of Sacrificing, ſhould have to himſelf, that part of the holy Things which fell to the Prieſts ſhare; and it ſhould not be divided among them all. Thus L'Empereur (upon Bava kama, c. 9. ſect. 12.) expounds theſe words better than any I have met withal.

Verſe 10 Ver. 10. And every mans hallowed thing ſhall be his.] As the former Verſe ſpeaks of the holy Things of the Children of Iſrael in general, ſo this of what any particular Perſon offered: which ſtill with greater reaſon was to belong to the Prieſt that offered it. For the Labourer is worthy of his hire: and therefore he that did the work of Sacrificing, had the Reward of it. R. Solomon applying this to Tithes, hath a gloſs upon theſe words, which though not pertinent, is very remarkable: He that doth not duly pay his Tithe, in the end his Land ſhall yield him but a tithe of what it was wont to yield. And ſo R. Bechai upon XIV Deut. expounds theſe words, when a Man divideth not as p. 69he ought, he ſhall have nothing but the holy things; that is, the Tithe, of what he uſed to have, according to V Iſa. 10.

Whatſoever any Man giveth the Prieſt, it ſhall be his.] Theſe words are only a fuller Explication of this Law, (as the ſame L'Empereur obſerves) that the reſt of the Prieſts might not take away thoſe Holy things from him, that offered them, under pretence that they belonged to the whole Sacerdotal Order. For though they were delivered unto him, yet it was, they might ſay, that they ſhould be divided among the whole Claſſes then in attendance. So ſome things were, v. 8. and therefore this Law is added to prevent their extending what was done in ſome Caſes unto all.

Ver. 11. And the LORD ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying.] Verſe 11 There is ſo little Connection between this, and the foregoing Laws, that it is not eaſie to give a reaſon why it is here placed. All that I can ſay is, that Moſes having ſpoken concerning Frauds, from the Suſpicion of which Men were to purge themſelves by an Oath, (v. 6.) he here takes occaſion to mention the greateſt Caſe that could happen of this nature: Which was, when a Woman was ſuſpected of Adultery. Concerning which God gave him the following Order.

Ver. 12. Speak unto the Children of Iſrael, and ſay Verſe 12 unto them, if any Man's Wife go aſide.] Being private, for ſome time, with another Man; whoſe Company her Husband had charged her not to keep alone; and therefore is ſuſpected by him to be an Adultereſs. For it is certain that by a Wife that goeth aſide, (whom the Hebrews from hence call Sota) is not meant one that hath certainly committed Adultery; p. 70but is, with ſome reaſon, ſuſpected of that Crime. And therefore it is a Rule among the Jews, the bitter Waters never are uſed, but in a dubious Caſe.

And commit a Treſpaſs againſt him.] And thereby hath very much offended him.

Verſe 13 Ver. 13. And a Man lie with her carnally.] As her Husband hath cauſe to ſuſpect; he having (as I ſaid before) admoniſhed her not to be with ſuch a Man in private: That is, to give him no cauſe of jealouſie. So Abarbinel rightly expounds a Man's lying with her carnally, of her Husband's Opinion and Suſpicion: And the next Verſe juſtifies this Expoſition.

And if it be hid from the Eyes of her Husband.] There being no clear evidence, but only Conjectures, that ſhe is actually defiled.

And be kept cloſe.] The matter having been carried very ſecretly: Or, as it may be interpreted, but ſhe was ſhut up cloſe with him.

And ſhe be defiled.] In her Husband's Opinion.

And there be no witneſs againſt her.] For if there had, ſhe muſt have been put to Death, XX Levit. 10.

Neither ſhe be taken with the manner.] She not being apprehended, in the very Act.

Verſe 14 Ver. 14. And the Spirit of Jealouſie come upon him.] He be poſſeſſed with a ſtrong Conceit, of which he cannot rid himſelf, that ſhe hath been unfaithful to him. For ſo a Spirit of ſlumber (and the like) is uſed in Scripture; for ſuch a ſluggiſh Temper, as a Man cannot ſhake off.

p. 71And he be jealous of his Wife, and ſhe be defiled.] Whether it be really ſo.

And he be jealous, and ſhe be not defiled.] Or whether it be only his Suſpicion.

Ver. 15. Then ſhall the Man bring his Wife unto the Verſe 15 Prieſt.] To the Magiſtrates of the place where they lived (ſaith the Miſchna, Cap. 1. Sect. 3. of Sota) together with his Witneſſes both of the Praemonition he had given her, and of the Privacy ſhe had had with another Man after his Praemonition, ſo long that there might be time enough for him to defile her: Otherwiſe this Action did not lie againſt her, as Mr. Selden obſerves, L. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. XIII. But having theſe Witneſſes ready, he was to ſpeak to the Prieſt when he brought his Wife before him, after this manner; Having a Jealouſie of this my Wife, I admoniſhed her not to keep company with ſuch an one; with whom ſhe afterward was in ſecret: and theſe are the Witneſſes of it. She ſaith ſhe is innocent, but I deſire the Water may be given her, that the Truth may be tried. See Selden, in the place before-named, Cap. XV. and Wagenſeil upon Sota, Cap. I. Sect. 3. Not. 2.

And he ſhall bring her Oblation for her.] That is, the Husband ſhall bring her Oblation, (not the Prieſt, as ſome underſtand the words of the Miſchna about this matter:) Which Chaskuin fancies was offered, as his Oblation, not the Woman's; to expiate his Fault in not reproving her ſufficiently, when he firſt obſerved her immodeſt Behaviour: For it could not be a Sacrifice for her Expiation, (ſaith he) becauſe the Sacrifice of the Wicked is an Abomination. But this is againſt the very words of Moſes in this place; which ſay, he ſhall bring her Oblation for p. 72her. And ſo Abarbinel expounds it, the Scripture intimates that this Sacrifice was brought by the Husband for the ſake of his Wife; for he had done nothing that needed a Sacrifice. Nor is Chaskuni his reaſon of any moment; for there is nothing ſaid to make us look upon this, as an expiatory Sacrifice; but the true Intention of it was (as Wagenſeil well obſerves, Annot. in Miſchna Sota, Cap. II. p. 349.) to ſupplicate the Divine Majeſty, that he would be pleaſed to clear the Woman's Innocence if ſhe were cauſeleſly ſuſpected; or otherwiſe diſcover, and puniſh her Guilt.

By this it appears, that if the Proceſs was began in ſome Court below, (as the Jews affirm) the Cauſe was removed to Jeruſalem, (where only they could ſacrifice, when the Ark of God's Preſence was ſetled there) and brought before the great Sanhedrin. Who putting her Husband out of the Court, (as they ſay in the next Section of the fore-named Miſchna) and having the Woman alone by her ſelf, endeavoured firſt by ſtriking a Terror into her, and then by giving her good words, to perſwade her to tell the Truth: Saying, Dear Daughter, perhaps thou waſt over-taken by drinking too Much Wine, or waſt in a frolick Humour, or carried away by the Heat of Youth, or by the Example of evil Neighbours: Come, confeſs the Truth, for the ſake of his great Name, which is deſcribed in the moſt ſacred Ceremony: and do not let it be blotted out, (v. 23.) with the bitter Water. If after this, ſhe confeſſed the Fact, ſaying, I am defiled; then ſhe was to tear the Inſtrument of her Dowry in pieces, and go whether ſhe pleaſed. For ſuch an Adultereſs was not put to Death, but only loſt her Dowry, without any other Puniſhment. If ſhe ſaid, I am pure; then ſhe was brought to the Door of the Tabernacle; p. 73and they did as follows. So the Miſchna, cap. 1. ſect. 5. and ſee Wagenſeil's Annotations on Sota. And now, that they have not this way of Trial among them, if a Man's Wife give him ſuſpicion, by keeping a Man's Company in ſecret, which he forbad her; he may not uſe her any more as his Wife, and ſhe loſes her Dowry, as Buxtorfius obſerves in his Book De Sponſal. & Divort. Pars I. Sect. 92.

The tenth part of an Ephah of Barly-meal.] The common Offering of this ſort, was of fine Wheat-flour: only this, and the Sheaf, or handful mentioned XXIII Lev. 10. were of Barly. But that was of fine Flour ſifted from the Bran; this of courſe Flour, that had nothing taken out of it: as the Miſchna ſaith in Sota, cap. 2. Where the reaſon given for this Barly-offering is, becauſe ſhe was ſuppoſed to have committed the Act of a Beaſt, (which is not confined to one) therefore ſhe was to Sacrifice the Food of a Beaſt: for ſo Barly was in Judaea. Many ſuch pretty, rather than ſolid Reaſons, are collected out of their Authors by Simeon de Muis in his Varia Sacra upon this place. The ſimpleſt Reaſon ſeems to be, that a viler ſort of Sacrifice, was moſt ſutable to her vile Condition: for which reaſon alſo there was no Oyl nor Frankincenſe permitted to be offered with it, as it here follows.

He ſhall pour no Oyl upon it, nor put Frankincenſe thereon.] This Sacrifice was different from all other of this kind, (See Lev. 11.) For though that mentioned V Lev. 11. was to have no Oyl nor Frankincenſe with it; yet it was of fine Flour, and not Barly. And though the Sheaf mentioned XXIII Lev. 10. was of Barly, yet it was ſifted: and beſides, Oyl and Frankincenſe were uſed with it; which p. 74are here forbidden. The reaſons of which are given by the Jews, according to their various Fancies. And ſome of them are ingenious enough; as that a good Name being compared to Oyl, (VII Eccleſ. 1.) it is here omitted, becauſe the Woman had loſt her Reputation. Maimonides is a little more judicious: for looking upon Oyl and Frankincenſe as added unto Sacrifices for the Honour and Dignity of them, he thinks God would have this Splendor (as his word is) to be wanting to ſuch a Woman's Sacrifice; becauſe of the baſeneſs of her behaviour, which was the occaſion of it. As if ſhe had been told (to ſtir her up to repentance) becauſe of the filthineſs of thy actions, thy Oblation is more imperfect than others, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46. But none, I think, hath given a better account of this, than St. Chryſoſtom, Orat. V. ad v. Judaeos, becauſe the Woman was loaded with Sorrow, and heavy Accuſations, and evil Suſpicions, foreign, the form of the Sacrifice imitated the Domeſtick Calamity: for every one knows that Oyl and Frankincenſe, was ſigns of Joy and Gladneſs; and therefore not uſed upon ſo ſad an Occaſion as this was.

For it is an Offering of Jealouſie.] Theſe, and the following words, give the reaſon why Oyl and Frankincenſe were to be omitted; becauſe it was an Offering for one ſuſpected of Adultery. And in ſuch Caſes, God had before ordained, there ſhould be no Oyl nor Frankincenſe uſed, V Lev. 11. Delicacies being improper in Offerings for Sin.

An Offering of Memorial, bringing Iniquity to remembrance.] For ſhe appeared before God as a Sinner: and if ſhe were not guilty, yet ſhe was loaded with an Accuſation, and a juſt Suſpicion of Guilt; to p. 75which, if ſhe had given any occaſion, this Sacrifice reminded her of it, and awakened her Conſcience to reflect upon it.

Ver. 16. And the Priest.] It is the Opinion of Verſe 16 P. Cunaeus (Lib. I. de Rep. Hebr. cap. 12.) that the Prieſt here mentioned, was to be a Member of the Great Sanhedrin; to whom the Judgment of the matter belonged. But another very learned Perſon thinks with more reaſon, the Prieſt, whoſe Lot it was to attend at that time in his Courſe, is here meant. See Miſchna cap. 1. Sotae, Sect. 5. Annot. 8. Wagenſeil.

Shall bring her near.] Rather bring it (that is, her Offering) near to the Altar at the Door of the Tabernacle.

And ſet her.] Rather ſet the Offering: for ſhe is ordered to be ſet before the LORD afterwards, v. 18.

Before the LORD.] At the Altar, which was at the Door of the Tabernacle. See I Lev. 3. At the Eaſt-gate of the Temple, ſaith the Miſchna, which was called the Gate of Nicanor: for there, Women alſo after Child-bed were purified; and the Lepers cleanſed.

Ver. 17. And the Priest ſhall take holy Water.] From Verſe 17 the Laver: For no Water was holy, but that which was made ſo by the Laver; as the Jews ſay in Jalkut. Therefore Onkelos inſtead of holy Water, hath Water from the Laver.

In an Earthen Veſſel.] Which had never been employed to any other uſe, (as the Miſchna ſaith) and contained about a Pint of our Meaſure. This I take to have been appointed, as a further Expreſſion of the Vileneſs of her Condition: for the reaſons which the Jewiſh Doctors give of it are not to be regarded. The p. 76beſt that I have obſerved is, to declare that ſhe ſhould be broken in pieces, like that Earthen Veſſel, if ſhe was guilty of that which ſhe denied.

And of the duſt.] Another Token of her Vileneſs; this being the Serpent's Food.

That is in the Floor of the Tabernacle, &c.] To make her afraid of the Judgment of God. For if there were no duſt in the Tabernacle, they were to fetch it from ſome other place, (as Maimonides relates their practice, Hilcoth Sota, cap. 4.) and lay it upon the Floor of the Tabernacle; and then take it and put it into the Water.

And put it into the Water.] Sprinkle a little of it upon the Water, (that it might be more eaſily drunk) but ſo much, that it might be plainly ſeen. For there were three things, the Jews ſay, of which a leſs quantity was not admitted, than might be ſeen, viz. this Duſt; and the Aſhes of the red Heifer, XIX. 17. and the Spittle in the Face of him that would not marry his Brother's Wife, XXV Deut. 9. But if the Prieſt put the Duſt into the Veſſel firſt, and then poured the Water upon it, he did not do amiſs: as the Jews ſay in the ancient Book Siphri. See Wagenſeil upon Miſchna Sotae, cap. 2. ſect. 2. Annot. 11, 12.

It hath been obſerved by ſome, that ſuch ways of Trial were in uſe among the Gentiles; which if they could be proved to have been as ancient as Moſes his days; it would make it probable, that this was ordered by God, to divert the Jews from following the Superſtitions of other Nations to make this Diſcovery, and bring them to appear before him at his Tabernacle, and there uſe ſuch Rites as were of his appointment: See our Learned Dr. Spencer, L. III. Diſſert I. cap. 2. p. 539, &c.

p. 77Ver. 18. And the Priest ſhall ſet the Woman before the LORD.] At the Door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation: where a great many Women, who were called together on purpoſe, ſtood about her; that Verſe 81 they might be taught not to do after her Leudneſs, (as the Prophet Ezekiel ſpeaks, XXIII. 48.) As many others alſo, as would, might be preſent; except only her Maids and Domeſtick Servants; who were put out, leſt they ſhould diſturb her mind too much, as Mr. Selden interprets the words of the Miſchna, about this matter, (Lib. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. cap. 15.) Which another very learned Man (J. Wagenſeil) interprets the quite contrary way, leſt her Mind ſhould place any hope in them, cap. 1. ſect. 6. Annot. 8. on Sota.

And uncover the Woman's head.] He was to ſtrip her of all her Head-attire (as the manner was, if we may believe Philo, in all Judicial Proceedings) to looſe her Hair, and tear her Garments down to her Breaſt: which he bound about her (as the Jews ſay) with an Egyptian Cord. And if ſhe had any Gold or Jewels, or other Ornaments about her, they were all taken from her; and ſhe was clothed with a black Garment. All which were plain Tokens of her lamentable Condition.

And put the Offering of Memorial in her hands.] After he had put it into a Frying-pan, under which he held his own hand, (II Lev. 7.) and at the ſame time held in his other hand the bitter Water; which he ſhewed her.

Which is the Jealouſie-offering.] Offered purely upon the account of her Husbands Jealouſie; as he told her.

p. 78And the Priest ſhall have in his hand the bitter Water.] So called, becauſe they put Wormwood, or ſome ſuch thing into it, to give it a bitter taſte, as Maimonides and the ancient Rabbins fancy. But the later Doctors ſay, Nothing was mixt with this Water, but Duſt; and yet it became bitter in the mouth. So Nachman and others. But the moſt probable account of all others is, that this Water was called bitter, from its direful Effects upon the Body of the Woman, if ſhe was guilty. To which Expoſition Jacob Abendana inclines: See Wagenſeil upon the Miſchna Sotae, cap. 3. ſect. 5. Annot. 1.

Which cauſeth the Curſe.] Or rather, Which was given her with Curſes, and dreadful Imprecations: blotted out with the bitter Water, (v. 21, 23.) as R. Bechai expounds it.

Verſe 19 Ver. 19. And the Priest ſhall charge her by an Oath.] Adjure her to tell Truth, in the manner following.

And ſay unto the Woman, if no Man hath lien with thee, &c.] If thou art Innocent of that whereof thou art ſuſpected.

Be thou free from the bitter Water, &c.] It ſhall have no ill effect upon thee.

Verſe 20 Ver. 20. But if thou hast gone aſide, &c.] Art guilty of Adultery.

Verſe 21 Ver. 21. Then the Priest ſhall charge the Woman with an Oath of Curſing.] This is no new Adjuration; but only another part of that which began v. 19. and is continued in this and the foregoing. So that theſe three Verſes contain the intire form of Adjuration: which the Prieſt was to pronounce in a Language which the Woman underſtood, as the Jewiſh Doctors obſerve; otherwiſe, how could the Woman anſwer Amen, as R. Iſmael ſaith in Siphre? exactly according p. 79to the Apoſtle's Doctrine, 1 Corinth. XIV. 16. And the Prieſt was to ſignifie to her, that this proceeding was meerly to ſatisfie her Husband's Jealouſie, by diſcovering the Truth. Thus this whole matter is related, by the Author of Ez Hechajim, (an incomparable MS. as Wagenſeil calls it, who hath it in his poſſeſſion) The Priest pronounces this Curſe in a Language which ſhe underſtands; and ſignifies to her in the Vulgar Tongue, that theſe things are done purely becauſe her Husband is jealous of her, ſhe having been ſecretly with one whoſe Company he forbad her to keep: and then ſaith in a Tongue familiar to her, IF NO OTHER MAN HAVE LAYN WITH THEE BUT THY HUSBAND, &c. BE THOU FREE FROM THESE BITTER WATERS, &c. BUT IF THOU HAST BEEN FALSE TO HIM, &c. THE LORD MAKE THEE A CURSE, &c. Unto which the Woman was to anſwer, AMEN, AMEN. By which words ſhe not only conſented to what the Prieſt ſaid, but made the ſame Imprecation upon her ſelf.

The LORD make thee a Curſe.] So that when Men would imprecate any evil to another, they ſhould ſay, Let that befal thee which befel ſuch a Woman: as Raſi expounds it.

And an Oath among thy People.] A form of Execration, as the aforeſaid MS. expounds it: or, as Raſi will have it, when Men called God to Witneſs, they ſhould ſay, If I ſwear falſly, let God puniſh me as he did ſuch a Woman. Theſe Execrations were tacitly ſuppoſed in the Oaths among the Pagans, as our great Selden ſhews at large Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 11. pag. 461, &c. where he obſerves out of Porphyry, that the ancient Indians had their foreign, Lake of Probation, or Trial: And in his Marmora Arundeliana, p. 80p. 28. there is this form of Imprecation in the League between the City of Smyrna and Magneſia, foreign. Let it be well with me, if I ſwear truly: but if falſly, let deſtruction be both to my ſelf and to my Poſterity. And at this day there is a Cuſtom in the Kingdom of Siam, to determine dubious Caſes, by giving a Lump of Rice impregnated (as my Author ſpeaks) with Curſes, to a Man to eat. Which if he can ſwallow without vomiting he carries the Cauſe; and his Friends carry him home in great Triumph, &c. So Jodocus Schoutenius (who was Director of the East-India Company there 1636.)

When the LORD doth make thy Thigh to rot, and thy Belly to ſwell.] When they ſee the dreadful effect of this Water, in the rotting of thy Thigh, after thy Belly is ſwelled. For the ſwelling of the Belly, it appears by the next Verſe, preceded the rotting of the Thigh.

Such Imprecations were in uſe in Homer's time, it appears by Agamemnon's Prayer; wherein he calls Jupiter, and all the reſt of the Gods, to bear Witneſs of his Sincerity: wiſhing them to ſend a Multitude of Pains and Griefs upon him, if he forſwore himſelf: Iliad. XIX. v. 264, 265.

—foreign

foreign.

Verſe 22 Ver. 22. And this Water that cauſeth the Curſe.] Or, For this Water, &c.

Shall go into thy Bowels, &c.] If thou art guilty it ſhall produce the following Effects.

p. 81To make thy belly to ſwell.] By the Belly the Jews underſtand the Womb, and the Bowels, which ſwelled till they burſt.

And thy Thigh to rot.] By her Thigh is meant the Secret Parts of her Body, as Chaskuni obſerves on this place. And both Bochartus and Heinſius have given many Inſtances of the uſe of the word in this ſenſe. The former in his Hierozoic. P. II. L. V. cap. 15. and the latter in his Ariſtarch. Sac. cap. 1. And thus we read in the Paſſion of SS. Perpetuana & Faelic. that when Perpetuana was thrown to the Beaſts, and lay on the Ground, ſhe drew back her Coat, which was torn from her ſide, ad velamentum femoris, to cover her Thigh from being ſeen, pudoris magis memor quam doloris, having a greater ſenſe of Modeſty than of Pain, pag. 32. Edit. Oxon.

The Miſchna here obſerves, not impertinently, with what meaſure Men mete, it ſhall be meaſured to them again: for in the very part that offended, ſhe ſuffered for her Crime. I noted before v. 17. that there were ſuch ways of Trial anciently among the Gentiles; but I am apt to think they were all later than the times of Moſes; who did not ordain theſe Rites to keep the Jews from following their Cuſtoms; but they rather imitated what was practiſed among the Jews. Particularly Bochartus obſerves out of Philoſtratus, there were Waters in Cappadocia, ſacred to Jupiter: which were very ſweet and pleaſant to thoſe who were innocent and ſwore truly; but quite contrary to thoſe who were perjured. Whoſe Eyes, Hands, and Feet were preſently ſeiz'd, and infected with Blotches and filthy Ulcers, foreign, which is the very Diſeaſe here mentioned, if we believe Joſephus, who ſaith the Woman's Belly ſwelled by the Dropſie till p. 82at laſt it burſt. And Philoſtratus adds, that the whole Body of ſuch People grew Conſumptive; nor could they ſtir from thoſe Waters, but there they lay deploring their Miſery. See Bochart. L. I. Canaan, cap. 28. p. 589, 590. Which agrees ſo perfectly with what the Jews ſay of this bitter Water, that it is moſt likely this Story of the Cappadocian Water, was derived from thence. For they ſay, not only the Belly of the Woman ſwelled, and her Thigh rotted; but every Member of her Body felt the Effects of this deadly Poyſon: which ſpread to the very Hairs of her Head; as they tell us in Ratboth, quoted by Wagenſeil upon the Miſchna, which ſaith the ſame, cap. 1. Sotae, ſect. 7. And therefore Huetius juſtly thinks the Fable of the Stygian Lake, and ſeveral other Rites of finding out the truth of ſecret Crimes, were invented by the Greeks from this Example, Demonſt. Evang. Propoſ. IV. cap. 11. n. 2. Many Authors have collected ſeveral ſorts of Trials of this kind: and lately Guil. Saldenus in his Otia Theologica, Exercit. V. n. 24, 25. But above all ſee Huetius his Quaestiones Alnetunae, L. II. cap. 12. n. 22. where he gives a large account how far this Rite, of trying Womens Chaſtity by drinking this Water, was ſpread among the moſt barbarous Nations.

And the Woman ſhall ſay, Amen, Amen.] The word Amen is doubled, to expreſs her full conſent, and her earneſt deſire, that God would deal with her according to her deſerving. The Miſchna will have the firſt Amen refer to thoſe words, The LORD make thee a Curſe; and the ſecond to the next words, and an Oath among thy People: So that ſhe prayed God, both might come upon her, if ſhe were guilty. We may as well ſay, that one of theſe Amens, relates to the firſt part of the p. 83Adjuration, v. 19. and the other to the ſecond part, v. 21. Or, as Abarbinel doth, that there being a double Curſe, one that her Belly ſhould ſwell, and another that her Thigh ſhould rot; ſhe ſaid a double Amen: praying both might befal her, if ſhe were guilty. And as the Talmudiſts underſtand it, they were an Imprecation upon her ſelf. For ſo they ſay in Schevnot; Whoſoever ſaith Amen to an Oath (or Curſe) ſeems to pronounce the Oath or Curſe, with his own Mouth. See Wagenſeil upon Miſchna Sotae, cap. 2. ſect. 5. Annot. 3. Where he produces a great deal more out of the Scripture it ſelf, in confutation of the Opinion of our Learned Fuller, who in his Miſcellanies affirms, That Amen is only an Aſſeveration; but never a Form of Swearing.

Ver. 23. And the Priest ſhall write theſe Curſes.] Verſe 23 Several Opinions are related in the Miſchna, concerning the words that were to be written. Which ſome would have to begin at v. 19. If no Man have lien with thee, &c. and to continue to this Verſe. But others think they began at thoſe words, v. 21. The LORD make thee a Curſe and an Oath, &c. and that the laſt words were omitted, The Woman ſhall ſay Amen, Amen. Which of theſe Opinions is the true, neither the Gemara, nor Maimonides have determined.

In a Book.] Every Scroll of Parchment, wherein any thing was written, the Jews call Sepher, a Book. In which, it hath been commonly ſaid, the Name of the Woman was written, together with the Curſe: but there is nothing, either in the Scripture, or in Antiquity, to countenance this.

And he ſhall blot them out with the bitter Water.] Or rather, Into the bitter Water: That is, he was to ſcrape out the words he had written into the Water; and ſo p. 84make the Woman drink it. Or, as the Jews explain it, waſh the words he had written, with the bitter Water, till they were quite blotted out. See Wagenſeil in Miſchna Sotae, cap. 3. ſect. 3. Who obſerves a great many Curioſities which the Jews have about the Parchment and the Ink, upon and with which theſe Curſes were written: and that they were not valid, if they were written by a Lay-man; or by a Prieſt that was not of Age; or if they were written before ſhe was adjured; or if he blotted out one word before the reſt were written, &c. See there cap. 2. ſect. 4. Hottinger forgot himſelf when he ſaid, The Scroll it ſelf was thrown into the Water, (Theſaur. Philolog. L. II. cap. 2.) for no ſuch thing appears.

Verſe 24 Ver. 24. And he ſhall cauſe the Woman to drink, &c.] viz. After he had offered the Jealouſie-Offering upon the Altar, v. 26. And if ſhe refuſed to drink the Water, into which the Curſes were ſcraped, they forced her to it, with this preceding Admonition; My Daughter, if thou art confident of thine Innocence, do not fear to drink this Water; which will do thee no more hurt, than dry Poiſon laid upon the Fleſh of a living Creature, &c. If hereupon ſhe confeſſed that ſhe had been poluted, the Water was ſtraightway poured out, becauſe there was no holineſs in it, as Maimonides ſaith. For it is called holy, v. 17. not becauſe it was ſanctified to this uſe, but only becauſe it was taken out of the Laver, which was an holy Veſſel. See Selden L. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. cap. 15. who obſerves alſo, in the foregoing Chapter, that if after a Man had brought his Wife to this Trial, he chanced to die before this Adjuration; ſhe was freed from taking the Potion, but loſt her Dowry.

And the Water that cauſeth the Curſe.] Or, that is p. 85loaded with Curſes; which have been ſcraped into it.

Shall enter into her, and become bitter.] Produce thoſe direful Effects before-mentioned; if ſhe be guilty.

Ver. 25. Then the Prieſt ſhall take the Jealouſie-Offering Verſe 25 out of the Woman's hand.] Into which he had put it, before he adjured her, v. 18.

And ſhall wave the Offering before the LORD.] How this Waving was performed, hath been ſhown before, upon Leviticus. Raſi here expreſſes it in four words, he moved the Oblation, to and fro, up and down. Something like to which Pythagoras ſeems to intimate in that Symbol of his, foreign, Worſhip, turning round. Which Plutarch aſcribes to Numa; in whoſe Life, he ſays a great many obſervable things, concerning turning round in their Sacred Offices. Which was a Rite in uſe among the Gentiles; who when they ſaluted their Gods, ſtanding with their Heads uncovered, turned about their Bodies to the Right-hand. As Chriſtoph. Arnoldus obſerves out of Suetonius and others, in his Appendix to Wagenſeil's Annotations upon Sota, p. 1186.

And offer it upon the Altar.] At the South-Corner of it.

Ver. 26. And the Prieſt ſhall take an handful of the Verſe 26 Offering, even the Memorial thereof.] See upon the ſecond Chapter of Leviticus, v. 2.

And burn it upon the Altar.] The reſt of it the Prieſts were to eat; unleſs her Husband himſelf was a Prieſt: in which caſe, it was all thrown among the Aſhes. See Selden in the place above-named. Where he alſo obſerves, that if ſhe confeſſed the Fact, or her Husband would not have her drink, or either of them died before ſhe drunk, or a Witneſs of the Adultery appear'd, (which made the Waters uſeleſs) p. 86the whole Sacrifice was burnt, and not only a Memorial thereof. All which is in the Miſchna, Sect. III. and IV.

And afterward ſhall cauſe the Woman to drink of the Water.] The Sacrifice therefore was firſt offered; though the Miſchna ſay, that if the Prieſt gave her the Water to drink firſt, and then preſented the Offering, he did not do amiſs.

Verſe 27 Ver. 27. And when he hath made her to drink the Water.] By this it appears he might force her to drink; if ſhe would not do it by perſwaſion.

Then it ſhall come to paſs, that if ſhe be defiled, and have done Treſpaſs againſt her Husband, that the Water that cauſeth the Curſe ſhall enter into her, and become bitter, &c.] Theſe Effects here mentioned preſently followed: For ſhe grew pale, and her Eyes were ready to ſtart out of her Head, &c. ſo that they cryed out, Carry her forth, carry her forth; leſt ſhe defile the Court of the Temple, by dying there; as the Miſchna ſaith, Cap. III. Sect. 4. The Adulterer alſo, if we may believe the Jews, died the ſame day, and hour: Nay his Belly ſwelled, as hers did, and his ſecret Parts rotted, as the Author of Ez. Hechajim ſaith in Wagenſeil upon Sota, Cap. V. Sect. 1. Where he adds, that all this came to paſs, in caſe her Husband had never offended in the ſame kind: For if he had at any time defiled the Marriage-bed, then this Water had not theſe Effects upon his Wife, though ſhe had been faulty. Which the Gemara alſo affirms.

Verſe 28 Ver. 28. And if the Woman be not defiled, but be clean, then ſhe ſhall be free.] Receive no harm at all by drinking the Water.

p. 87And ſhall conceive Seed.] If ſhe was barren before, ſhe became fruitful after this trial; and alſo bare a Man-child, (if we may believe the Jews) and had eaſie labour. Her Beauty alſo increaſed; her Health was confirmed; and if ſhe had any Diſeaſe it was cured. They obſerve alſo, that if after ſhe was thus cleared, ſhe kept company again with the ſame Man whom her Husband ſuſpected, and by his renewed Admonition had required her not to be in private with him; this potion was not repeated; but ſhe was diſmiſſed from being his Wife, without any Dowry. But if ſhe kept company with any other Perſon privately, after Admonition to the contrary; this potion might be repeated, as often as ſhe offended with new Lovers. Thus that MS. Ez. Hechajim, ſo highly commended by Wagenſeil. Who alſo adds, that in caſe her Husband put her away after her Acquittal, and ſhe married another Man, who had the ſame ground of Jealouſie that her former Husband had, becauſe of her Familiarity with the ſame Perſon whom he had forbidden her to keep company withal; her new Husband might bring her to a new trial by this Water. And ſo might as many Husbands as ſhe ſhould marry one after another; if ſhe gave the like occaſion of Jealouſie.

Ver. 29. This is the Law of Jealouſies.] Whereby Verſe 29 God declared himſelf to be privy to the moſt ſecret Sins; and to be both the Preſerver of Conjugal Faith and Chaſtity, and the Protector of Innocence: And provided that Man and Wife ſhould live happily together; by keeping Men from cruel and furious Proceedings againſt their Wives, when they entertained a Jealouſie of them (willing them to commend the Caſe to God) and by containing Wives in their Duty p. 88out of dread of this Puniſhment. Which was ſo terrible (as Maimonides well obſerves) even to innocent Women, that they would have given all they had to avoid it; nay wiſh'd rather to die than undergo ſuch a publick Infamy, of having their Head uncovered, their Hair cut off, (as he repreſents it) their Garment torn to their Breaſts; and ſo to ſtand in the Sanctuary, before a great multitude of Men and Women, and the whole Sanhedrin. More Nevochim, P. III. Cap. XLIX.

When a Wife goes aſide.] If the Man went aſide from her, ſhe had not the ſame Action againſt him; becauſe the Family was not ſo much injured by his going aſide, as by hers; which brought a ſpurious Brood to inherit his Eſtate.

To another inſtead of her Husband.] Hence the Talmudiſts conclude ſuch an Action did not lie againſt a Woman who was only eſpouſed; or that waited for her former Husband's Brother to take her to Wife; if they gave Suſpicion of being defiled. So the Miſchna, Cap. IV. Sect. I.

And is defiled.] By that other Man, with whom ſhe went aſide.

Verſe 30 Ver. 30. Or when the Spirit of Jealouſie cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his Wife.] It appears by the firſt words of this Law, v. 13, 14. that whether ſhe was really defiled, or there was only a vehement Suſpicion of it; which bred a Jealouſie in him: the Husband had liberty to bring her to this trial, for his own Satisfaction. Which Law was rather permiſſive, than preceptive.

And ſhall ſet the Woman before the LORD.] That he might ſhow, whether there was cauſe for her Husband's Jealouſie, or not. See v. 18.

p. 89And the Priest ſhall execute upon her all this Law.] Though the Man was not bound to bring her to this Trial, but rather the contrary; if he could otherwiſe get rid of his Jealouſie: yet the Prieſt was bound to proceed againſt her, according to the foregoing Rules; when ſhe was ſet before the LORD to be tried. And he might ſet her before him on any day, that was not a Feſtival, and in any hour of the day: but not in the night; nor might he give the Drink to two ſuſpected Women at one and the ſame time.

Ver. 3. Then ſhall the Man be guiltleſs from iniquity, Verſe 31 and the Woman ſhall bear her iniquity.] By Iniquity, here is to be underſtood the Puniſhment due to Iniquity. For the Wife, or her Parents, if ſhe appeared to be innocent, could have no action againſt the Husband, upon the Account of this Accuſation: And if ſhe was guilty, ſhe was juſtly puniſhed for her Crime; and her Husband had no reaſon to ſay, (as the Jews ſpeak in Peſikta) Wo is me, that I have killed a Daughter of Iſrael, &c. for he is here pronounced innocent in that matter, by the Eternal God. Who doth not exerciſe a Tyranny (as they there go on) over his Creatures, nor gives them Precepts, that he may make them weary of their Lives, or deſtroy them. No, his Precepts are right; the whole Law is Divine: and God doth not bring any Man into Judgment, but for the Violation of that which was expreſly commanded, and which he might have been able to fulfil.

But the Particle Vau in the beginning of this Verſe, ſignifies ſometimes as much as if, as I obſerved upon v. 7. And ſo the Jews here commonly underſtand it, If the Man be guiltleſs from iniquity. For thus the Rule is expreſſed in the Gemara upon the fifth Chapter p. 90of SOTA: When the Husband is free from Iniquity, (i. e. from Adultery) then the Water tries his Wife: but if he be not free, (i. e. be himſelf alſo guilty of Adultery) then the Water hath no power to try her: that is, produces none of the Effects before-mentioned. And ſo the Author of Etz Hachajim in Wagenſeil upon Sota, p. 595. concludes from theſe very words, That the bitter Water then only had power, when the Man was free from the Sin of which he ſuſpected his Wife. And gives this as the reaſon, why in the latter end of the Second Temple, this way of Trial ceaſed, and was quite taken away by the Sanhedrim: becauſe the Number of Adulterers was then ſo great, that the Water had no effect; according to thoſe words of the Prophet Hoſea, IV. 14. I will not puniſh your Daughters when they commit Whoredom, nor your Spouſes when they commit Adultery, &c. For that is another Rule of theirs, When Adulterers were multiplied, the bitter Waters ceaſed; i. e. there was no Trial by them. See Selden, L. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. cap. 15. p. 408. Yet the Jews ſeem to have continued in after Ages, ſince their Temple was deſtroyed, ſome form of dreadful Imprecations, in their Synagogues; for the diſcovery of Truth in doubtful Caſes. For St. Chryſoſtom ſaith he himſelf ſaw a very modeſt, good Chriſtian Woman, brought by a ſenſleſs Fellow (who alſo had the Name of a Chriſtian) into a Jewiſh Aſſembly: whom he would have compelled to take their Oath, foreign, concerning ſome things wherein he deſired Satisfaction. From which the Woman being reſcued, by St. Chryſoſtom's Aſſiſtance, when he examined the Man about it; How he came to forſake the Church, and reſort to their Sanhedrim; his Anſwer was, That he had p. 91been told by many, foreign, that there were more horrible Adjurations among them, then among Chriſtians, Homil. I. adv. Judaeos. Which, no doubt, aroſe from the direful Effects of this Adjuration here preſcribed, if the Woman was guilty of what ſhe was ſuſpected.