Sotah

The Sotah trial in Parshat Naso is, like much of Torah, more nuanced than it seems. With the aid of some commentaries, the Mishnah, Talmud, and other sources, the Sotah trial will be discussed. It is my contention that the trial is not the anti-female trial by ordeal some would have us believe. The Sotah trial can repair a marriage and re-establish trust if the woman is innocent, or end the marriage without loss of life if she confesses, a likely event if she is guilty.

The placement of Sotah in the Parsha is, as always, important. It falls right after a passage that commands a man or woman who has sinned to confess their sin and make restitution to the injured party. If that is impossible, the restitution goes to the priest. This is to be followed by an offering to HaShem. The placement of Sotah directly after this seems to indicate that if the woman has sinned, she should confess rather than undergo the trial. The result of a confession, when there was no witnesses to her misdeed, would result in her divorcing her husband. She could not be put to death only on her own confession.

The trial is initiated when a man becomes jealous, believes his wife may have lain with another, though there are no witnesses to such, and brings her before the priest.

Numbers 5:12-15 "The L-RD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: If any man’s wife has gone astray and broken faith with him in that a man has had carnal relations with her unbeknown to her husband, and she keeps secret the fact that she has defiled herself without being forced, and there is no witness against her -- but a fit of jealousy comes over him and he is wrought up about the wife who has defiled herself; or if a fit of jealousy comes over one and he is wrought up about his wife although she has not defiled herself -- the man shall bring his wife to the priest. ...."¹

At this point, it is unknown whether the woman is guilty or innocent. It is only known that her husband suspects her of having an adulterous relationship. It may be that she is innocent and his jealousy is unfounded with respect to adultery, though she did talk to another man. Rather than have the husband act rashly on his own, Torah mandates a trip to the Temple or sanctuary (mishikan), no matter where the couple may live. It is hoped that if the wife is guilty, she will confess rather than undergo the trial. The commentators emphasis what she undergoes in Jerusalem, but a confession could also come during the trip to Jerusalem, provided she is not afraid for her life.

The translation of the phrase "unbeknown to her husband" is problematic. The Hebrew word JPS translates as unbeknown is éðéòî. It literally means from [his] eyes. This is important due mainly to the interpretation Rashi, who says this means a blind husband could not bring his wife for the Sotah trial.² Additionally, the JPS translation ignores, it seems to me, the nuances of the word äøúñðå, whose root ø-ú- ñ can mean not only secret, but kept undetected, concealed, kept hidden. Rashi translates this as "she became secluded".³ According to the Mishnah, the husband had to have warned the wife in front of two witnesses not to talk with a certain man. If she only spoke with this man, she is permitted to her husband. However, if the secludes herself alone with him for a long enough time for adultery to have been committed, though there be no witnesses to the actual act, her husband may then take her to the Temple for the Sotah trial.⁴

In Jerusalem, Numbers 5:15 instructs that "the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. No oil shall be poured upon it and no frankincense shall be laid on it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing." Offerings were normally made of fine flour. Why barley flour here and no frankincense? And what wrongdoing is referred to, the trial has not yet taken place?

Nachmanides commentary says that all commentators say that "this meal offering [of the sotah] is an offering which may bring her punishment [if the charge against her is true], therefore it is of a lesser quality [than all other meal offerings and is to be brought of barley] without oil or frankincense, for a meal-offering of which the memorial part is brought to be acceptable before the Eternal, comes of fine wheat-flour with oil and frankincense." ⁵

Ramban himself has another opinion. He says that the husband brings it instead of the wife to remember her wrong doing. He adds that "it is he who should bring the meal-offering to G-d so that He should take not of his suspicions of her, and punish her on his [the husband's] behalf."⁶ I have a problem with this, as it is not yet known if the woman is guilty of adultery or not. Certainly we have witness to her secluding herself with this man, or the trial would not be taking place. Perhaps the seclusion in and of itself, being a violation of the laws of yichud, is enough, especially since the law requires a warning, even if the Written Torah does not spell that out.

Hertz points out that Dillman believes the term at the end of this passage, "which recalls wrongdoing" or alternatively "bringing iniquity to remembrance," is a formal and technical way of saying she is accused. I Kings 18:18 and Ezekiel 21:28 are cited as support.⁷ I Kings 17:18 has a woman, whose child has stopped breathing, say "What is between me and you, O man of G-d, that you have come to me to call attention to my sins and cause my son to die!"⁸ Ezekiel 21:28 says "But it was for them a meaningless divination in their eyes, [even though they cast] seven times seven [divinations, and all pointed] to them; and this recalled [their] iniquities, that they might be captured."⁹

While in the context of the Sotah trial, Dillman's explanation seems reasonable, I don't think the 2 verses referred to support his contention very well. It seems to me that in the context of the first verse, it could be read as saying that Elijah brought the women's sins to G-d and thus G-d punished her. Of course, it could be said that even that is a form of accusation, though the women states her own sins in such a way as to lead this reader to believe they are a fact. The same with the verse from Ezekiel, it could be that their own actions accuse them, but here their sins are fact, G-d has already judged them. This is not the case with the Sotah with respect to adultery, she stands accused, not convicted. That having been said, I tend to agree with Dillman that this likely means accused in this context.

The text of the trial continues with Numbers 5:16-18:

The priest shall bring her forward and have her stand before the L-RD. The priest shall take sacral water in an earthen vessel and, taking some of the earth that is on the floor of the Tabernacle, the priest shall put it into the water. After he has made the woman stand before the L-RD, the priest shall bare the woman’s head and place upon her hands the meal offering of remembrance, which is a meal offering of jealousy. And in the priest’s hands shall be the water of bitterness that induces the spell.

The questions here, I think, are what is sacral water and what is water of bitterness? According to most, the sacral waters come from the laver that the priests used to wash their hands and feet in the Temple or before that the sanctuary. The laver in the sanctuary, according to Exodus 38:8, was made from the mirrors of the "legions who massed at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting".¹⁰

The tradition, from memory, says that these were the mirrors of the women and that they had used them to insure the survival of the Israelite people and family harmony in Egypt. The men would be exhausted from the slave labor they were subjected to in Egypt, and at mid-day, when the men had a rest period, the women would use the mirrors to apply make-up. The would bring food to their spouse and he would eat and gaze upon her. Her beauty lead to marital relations which lead to Jewish survival as well as family harmony. These mirrors made up the laver from which water, to be used to restore family harmony (if possible), was drawn. It is a nice story, though the text of Exodus and Numbers do not say what the mirrors were used for. For all we know, Tom Shafer (whom I study the Parsha with on Thursdays on IRC) may be correct about the mirrors in Exodus 38 and they may be a symbol of sacrificing vanity.

The water, it seems, is not initially bitter, though some commentators think this to be the case. I tend to agree with Nachmanides on this. He says

The correct interpretation appears to me to be in accordance with its plain meaning, for when the woman drinks the water, it will taste to her just like any other water, and only afterwards when it enters into her, will it arouse her if she had become defiled [i.e., committed adultery], and then she will immediately feel the bitterness in her mouth and inside her. The Scripture states, 'And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have acted unfaithfully against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter...¹¹

While the water itself may not taste bitter, though certainly dust and ink cannot be all that good in water, there is another possible way to look at the term "waters of bitterness". The act of seclusion is a bitter drink to the marriage, and that in itself could leave a bitter taste in her mouth. Whether she is guilty of adultery or innocent, her mistake in being secluded endangered her marriage and is a bitter thing.

Numbers 5 continues on with what might be called a conditional curse. This curse is only to take effect, miraculously according to the Rabbis, if she was guilty of adultery.

The priest shall adjure the woman, saying to her, 'If no man has lain with you, if you have not gone astray in defilement while married to your husband, be immune to harm from this water of bitterness that induces the spell. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and have defiled yourself, if a man other than your husband has had carnal relations with you -- here the priest shall administer the curse of adjuration to the woman, as the priest goes on to say to the woman -- may the L-RD make you a curse and an imprecation among your people, as the L-RD causes your thigh to sag and your belly to distend; may this water that induces the spell enter your body, causing the belly to distend and the thigh to sag.' And the woman shall say, 'Amen, amen!' The priest shall put these curses down in writing and rub it off into the water of bitterness. He is to make the woman drink the water of bitterness that induces the spell, so that the spell-inducing water may enter into her to bring on bitterness. (Numbers 5:19-24)

The women is to be immune from the effects of the curse and the water if she is innocent of adultery. If she is guilty, physical symptoms, interpreted variously as her not being able to have children (as in the JPS translation) to her stomach actually bursting and killing her (as in some traditional commentaries), are to appear. I can imagine a woman who was guilty preferring to confess and thus get divorced rather than have this curse upon her. Of course, the result, unlike the trials by ordeal of the middle ages, relies upon a miracle from G-d.

Certainly this is not a fun trial for any woman, but it is also not a classic trial by ordeal either. According to Encarta '95, there were commonly 3 kinds of ordeals, ones of water, fire, and battle. Battle only applying to men, I will take a brief look at the trials of water and fire.

Fire ordeal was allowed only to persons of high rank. The accused had to carry a piece of red-hot iron in the hand some distance or walk barefoot and blindfolded across red-hot plowshares. The hand or foot was bound up and inspected three days afterward. If the accused had escaped unhurt, the person was pronounced innocent; if hurt, the person was guilty. Water ordeal was the usual mode or trial allowed to members of the lower classes and was of two kinds, the ordeal of boiling water and of cold water. The ordeal of boiling water, according to the laws of Athelstan, the first king of England, consisted of lifting a stone out of boiling water, where the hand had to be inserted as deep as the wrist; the triple ordeal deepened the water to the elbow. The person allowed the ordeal of cold water, the usual mode of trial for witchcraft, was flung into a pool. If the accused floated he or she was guilty; if the accused sank he or she was acquitted. In the wager of battle the defeated party was allowed to live as a 'recreant,' that is, on retracting the perjury that had been sworn.¹²

What is the difference between the drinking of the water of bitterness wherein the priest, in verse 23, puts the actual curse, and what is though of when we hear the term trial by ordeal? It seems to me that the classic trials by ordeal mentioned in the quote from Encarta all have very real physical danger, in fact, it seems to me that one is more apt to fail these tests just on basic biology. For example, most women, most people in fact, float. A woman accused of being a witch who was subjected to that trial was highly likely to be found guilty because of this little fact of biology. If she sank, and thus the trial deemed her innocent, likely she would drown. It was a no win situation. Here, with the Sotah trial, her guilty conscience and belief in the efficacy of the trial itself, if she did commit adultery, is likely to lead her to confess before the curse is ever put into the water.

Halachah prohibits us from erasing the Name of G-d, yet verse 20 states "The priest shall put these curses down in writing and rub it off into the water of bitterness". The curses contain the Name of G-d, and yet here the priest is, "rubbing it off into the water", erasing it. Why is he allowed to do this? Midrash Rabbah on this verse states the reason.

R. Zechariah, the son-in-law of R. Levi, related the following incident: R. Meir used to hold regular discourses in the Synagogue every Sabbath eve. A certain woman was present who made it a habit to listen to him. On one occasion he discoursed to a late hour. She went away and when about to enter her home she found the lights out. Her husband asked her: 'Where have you been?' She told him: 'I have been listening to the discourse.' Said he to her: 'This woman [sc. you] will not enter the house unless she goes and spits in the face of the preacher.' R. Meir saw it all by means of the Holy Spirit. He pretended therefore to be suffering from pain in the eyes, and announced: 'If there is any woman skilled in whispering charms for the eyes, let her come and whisper.' Her neighbours said to her: 'Behold your opportunity of going back home! Pretend you are a charmer and spit into his eyes.' When she came to him he said to her: ‘Are you skilled in whispering charms for the eyes? ' Being overawed by his presence she answered in the negative. He said to her: ' Nevertheless, spit into this one seven times and it will get better.’ After she had spat he said to her: ' Go and tell your husband: " You bade me do it only once; see, I have spat seven times!" ' His disciples said to him: ' Master! are the words of the Torah to be treated with such contempt as this? Had you told us, would we not have sent and fetched the man and given him a flogging on the bench and forced him to become reconciled with his wife? ' Said he to them: 'The dignity of Meir ought not to be greater than that of his Divine Master. If in the case of the Holy Name, inscribed in sanctity, Scripture orders that it is to be blotted out in water, in order to bring about peace between a man and his wife, shall not the dignity of Meir be of still less account?'¹³

This wonderful Midrash shows that the Rabbis of the time of the Talmud clearly believed the Sotah trial not to be anti-woman or a trial by ordeal, but a way of restoring marrital harmony.

The text continues with verses 25 - 30, telling that the priest is to take some of the meal offering and burn it and also how the curse will work. It seems that verses 27-30 are a repeat of the actual curse itself and the introduction, but this is Torah, so why repeat what was already said? What is different or why is this here?

Rashi answers that the phrase "once he has made her drink the water" (the start of verse 27), is there to instruct us that if the scroll has already been erased into the water, the woman is forced to drink the water, except if she admits to being guilty, saying "I am defiled".¹⁴ That makes sense in that the priests have done their best to make sure she had every opportunity to confess before the scroll, containing G-d's Name, was erased. It is hoped, I think, that G-d's Name will only need to be erased to restore family harmony, that all who are guilty will confess first.

While it is still not clear why the results of the curse if she is guilty are repeated, it seems to me that verse 28 "But if the woman has not defiled herself and is pure, she shall be unharmed and able to retain seed." serves to add information. It is this statement that adds support to the argument that the curse will cause her not to bear children instead of causing her death. Additionally, this seems to contain a blessing. The woman may or may not have been able to bear children before this trial. If she is guilty, she certainly will not bear children, no matter which way the curse is interpreted. If, however, she is innocent she will be able to conceive and carry a baby to term even if she was barren before the trial.

Far from being an anti-women trial by ordeal, the Sotah trial, as Hertz says, "was intended to remove the very suspicion of marital unfaithfulness in the midst of Israel."¹⁵ Just as the Noachide laws are all aimed at behaviors that destroy the family and thus society, so to is the aim of this law. The very Name of G-d, which we are prohibited from erasing, may be erased to restore harmony to the family and thus keep society functioning. Today, the only option for a man who suspects his wife is divorce, the ending of a family. The Sotah trail could keep a family together by restoring confidence and trust, despite the woman's improperly meeting a man alone.

¹All quotes of the Sotah trial taken from Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, (Philadelphia, Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society) 1985

²Rabbi Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg, The Torah: With Rashi's Commentary, Sapirstein Edition ed. (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1997) 47.

³Rabbi Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg, The Torah: With Rashi's Commentary, Sapirstein Edition ed. (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1997) 47.

⁴Jacob Neusner, trans, "Sotah 1:2," The Mishneh: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988) 447.

⁵Nachmanides, Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah, Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel (New York: Shilo Publishing House, Inc., 1975) 49-50.

⁶Nachmanides, Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah, Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel (New York: Shilo Publishing House, Inc., 1975) 50.

⁷Dr. J.H. Hertz, Ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (London: Soncino Press, 1960) 590

⁸Rabbi Nosson Scherman, ed, Tanach (New York: Mesorah Publishing, ltd, 1996) 855.

⁹Rabbi Nosson Scherman, ed, Tanach (New York: Mesorah Publishing, ltd, 1996) 1255.

¹⁰Rabbi Nosson Scherman, ed, Tanach (New York: Mesorah Publishing, ltd, 1996) 233.

¹¹Nachmanides, Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah, Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel (New York: Shilo Publishing House, Inc., 1975) 52.

¹²"Ordeal," Microsoft Encarta. 1994 Microsoft Corporation 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation

¹³"Midrash Rabbah - Numbers," Davka Judaic Classics Library, Soncino Press, Ltd (New York: Davka Corp, 1996).

¹⁴Rabbi Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg, The Torah: With Rashi's Commentary, Sapirstein Edition ed. (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1997) 56.

¹⁵Dr. J.H. Hertz, Ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (London: Soncino Press, 1960) 589.

Rabbi Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg, The Torah: With Rashi's Commentary, Sapirstein Edition ed. (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1997)

Dr. J.H. Hertz, Ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (London: Soncino Press, 1960)

"Midrash Rabbah - Numbers," Davka Judaic Classics Library, Soncino Press, Ltd (New York: Davka Corp, 1996)

Nachmanides, Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah, Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel (New York: Shilo Publishing House, Inc., 1975)

Jacob Neusner, trans, "Sotah 1:2," The Mishneh: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988)

"Ordeal," Microsoft Encarta. 1994 Microsoft Corporation 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation.

Rabbi Nosson Scherman, ed, Tanach (New York: Mesorah Publishing, ltd, 1996)

Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, (Philadelphia, Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society) 1985

[ My All Things Jewish page ] [ My Papers and Posts ]

This page was made by Gretchen S., © copyright 1998-2004