The Sota's Husband
Introduction to Parashat
Hashavua
Yeshivat Har Etzion
The
Sota's
Husband
By
Rabbi Yaakov Beasley
In
the end of Parashat Naso, the Torah describes, for the third time, the
excitement of the completion and dedication of the Mishkan. We find that each narrative reflects the
unique context of the book in which it is detailed. Sefer Shemot describes the spiritual union of
Moshe and the Cloud of Glory; in its final chapter (40), the Jewish people
complete creating a space for God's presence, a process violated through the sin
of the Golden Calf. Sefer Vayikra, which details the laws of the
offerings and the duties of the kohanim (priests), centers its version
(Chapters 8-9) on the place of the daily service and focuses upon the Divine
fire on the Altar (and the people's reaction to it). In our parasha, the text (Chapter
7) emphasizes the opulence of the identical gifts of the nesi'im
(princes), appropriate to the role that the Mishkan will perform as the center of
the nation.
This
explains the importance of the two preceding chapters. With the integration of
the Mishkan within their camp, every
member of the Jewish people now shares the opportunity to partake of the new
sense of sanctity that permeates the camp, as described in the beginning of
Chapter 5. Then, In Chapter 6, we discover that the common man, should he so
desire, can share the status of the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) by taking a nazirite
vow (vv. 1-21); at the same time, the kohanim receive the additional
commandment to bless the people (vv. 22-27).
Still,
more than any other commandment, the Mishkan's influence and ability to
penetrate into the most intimate realms of human existence expresses itself
through the commandment of sota (5:11-31).[1] The sota is a married woman, suspected by
her husband of committing adultery, who willingly sequesters herself with
another man. The drinking of the
"bitter waters," containing the very earth of the Mishkan combined with the ink of God's
written name, offers her the opportunity of either exposure or
vindication:
The
kohen shall take sanctified water in
an earthen vessel, and taking some of the earth that is on the floor of the Mishkan, the kohen shall put it into the water. (v. 17)
The
kohen shall put these curses down in
writing, and rub it off into the bitter waters. (v. 23)
The
"bitter waters" of sota, placed
before the description of the Mishkan's completion, bring us full
circle, to the impetus behind its construction.[2]
[Moshe]
took the Calf that they had made and burned it. He ground it to powder, and strewed it
upon the water, and made the Israelites drink it. (Shemot
32:20)
His
intent was to probe them, like the sota
(Avoda Zara
44a)
What
are these waters? The Torah uses
two modifiers to describe these waters: "marim" (bitter) and
"me'arerim" (cursed); in verses 18, 19, 24 (twice) and 27, these
terms are combined, but they are used separately in verse 23 ("mei
ha-marim") and verse 22 ("ha-mayim ha-marerim") respectively. The Ibn Ezra notes that the Torah uses
the phrase "mei ha-marim" (the construction denotes not "bitter waters,"
as we have translated it, but "waters of bitter things") and states cryptically,
"its secret is known." The
Abarbanel, in explaining the two terms, ascribes the bitterness to both the
flavor of the dust that is put into the water and the nature of the curses that
will befall the guilty woman who drinks them.
In
explaining the purpose of this commandment, we find a fundamental disagreement
between the Rambam and the Ramban.
According to the Rambam (Moreh Ha-nvukhim 3:49), the commandment's
value lies in the deterrence factor.
The humiliation that the woman undergoes is so embarrassing, that "many
people would rather expend their entire fortunes, and even die, than undergo
such an ordeal." In Mishneh
Torah (Hilkhot Sota 3:5), the Rambam emphasizes the
public aspect of the ceremony:
A
great throng of women is brought about her, because all the women who are to be
found there must see her and any man who wishes to see her may come and see
her. She stands there without her
veil and without her kerchief, in her [torn] clothing like a woman in the
privacy of her own home.
The
Ramban (v. 31), however, stresses the supernatural abilities of the seemingly
innocuous water to elicit the truth:
There
is nothing in the laws of the Torah as dependent on a miracle as this matter,
which is marvelous and a fixed miracle in Israel when the majority follows the
will of God. For He wishes, for the
sake of his righteousness, to rebuke the women, so that they not act not in the
licentious manner of other nations, and He wishes to cleanse and purify Israel
from bastardy, so that they will deserve to have the Divine Presence in their
midst. Therefore, the miracle
ceased when they became corrupted with sin, as the Sages say (Sota 47a): "When the adulterers
increased, they stopped administering the bitter waters, as it is written, 'I will not
remember to punish your daughters when the prostitute themselves, and your
daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because [the husbands] have set
themselves apart with prostitutes and sacrifice together with the harlots, and a
nation that does not understand will stumble' (Hoshe'a 4:14)." This does not mean that the women who
commit adultery are free from sin because their husbands are adulterers, but
rather that this great miracle will not occur. It takes place for their honor, and
because they are a holy nation. It
is for a similar reason that they say (Sota 47b) that when the Torah
closes the topic with "The man shall be free of sin" (v. 31), it means "when the man is
free of sin, the waters test his wife; but when the man is not free of sin, the
waters do not test his wife."[3]
In
his explanation, the Ramban touches upon the role of the husband. A superficial reading of the text's
simple meaning creates the perception that the Torah is one-sided, totally
partial to the jealous husband, at the wife's expense. The entire process is based upon the
husband's claims, and it is he who is seized with the spirit of jealousy. He feels the need to clarify his
suspicions; he is the one who drags his wife to the Mishkan. From the outset, it appears that no one
asks the view of the woman, and given the Rambam's description above, clearly no
one would wish upon herself undergoing this humiliating ordeal.
However,
rabbinic thought, beginning with the first mishna in Massekhet Sota, endeavors to nullify this apparent
lack of symmetry. Based on this,
the Rambam (Hilkhot Sota 1:1) says:
The
jealousy about which the Torah speaks "and he is jealous for his wife" (v. 14)
- means that he tells her, before witnesses: "Do not seclude yourself with
so-and-so!"
No
longer are we dealing with an incidental encounter between the woman and a man
other than her husband, which gives rise to the latter's obsessive and
uncontrolled jealousy. The "seclusion" discussed in verse 13 occurs after, not
before, his official warning to her before witnesses, and only if she secludes
herself with the specific man her husband has mentioned. Apparently, the suspicion is strong
enough that the husband has already warned his wife, in front of two witnesses,
not to seclude herself with this man. The woman acts, despite the stern
warning, and indeed secludes herself with the man concerned for a period of time
that would make it possible for her to have sexual intercourse. Rashi explains the continuation of verse
14 as follows:
"And
she was defiled, or he was overcome
and she was not defiled" - in other words,
he warns her and she subsequently acts against his warning, and it is not known
whether she has been defiled or not.
The
Mizrachi notes that even at the beginning of the section, in verse 12, Rashi is
bothered by the seemingly repetitive phrase "if his wife strays"
("tisteh," from which the term "sota" is derived) as well as "and
she betrays him." Why could the
Torah have not said simply: if his wife betrays him? Therefore, Rashi explains that even
before she betrays or deceives him (the second verb), she has already provided
grounds for suspicion in his eyes: "'If his wife strays' if she veers from the
paths of modesty and becomes suspect in his eyes."
For
this reason, the Torah's formulation of the husband's suspicions is that of a
certainty, not the jealous ravings and fantasies of an insecure husband (vv.
12-13)
Any
man, if his wife strays and she betrays him, and a man lies with her and gives
seed, and the matter is hidden from her husband, for she was secluded; and she
was defiled but there is no witness
Despite
this, rabbinic thought emphasizes that the efficiency of the test is dependent
upon the husband's own standards of behavior, as alluded to in the Ramban's
words above. Based on the Gemara in
Sota, the Rambam explains similarly (Hilkhot Sota 2:8,
3:17-19):
If
a man HAS EVER HAD ANY ILLICIT RELATIONS as an adult, then the waters that bring
a curse will not test his wife
As
it is written, "The man shall be free of sin, and that woman shall bear her
iniquity:" when the man is free of sin, then the woman bears her
iniquity.
And
all of these things apply only if the husband has never sinned himself (in this
regard); but if he has engaged in any illicit relations, then the waters do not
test his wife, as we have explained. And if he did transgress and then makes his
wife drink the water, this adds rebellious sin to his error, for he causes God's
Name to be blotted out in the water for no purpose, and he causes the waters of
the sota to be cheapened; for his
wife will tell others that she had engaged in adultery, yet the waters did not
test her, and she will not know that it was her husband's deeds that caused
this. FOR THIS REASON, WHEN THE
NUMBER OF THOSE WHO ENGAGED OPENLY IN ADULTERY DURING THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD
INCREASED, THE SANHEDRIN CANCELLED THE PRACTICE OF THE BITTER
WATERS
An
in-depth reading of the laws of sota,
beyond the scope of this discussion, reveals another salient point the
ceremony and process is only used when both parties wish to maintain (and
repair) the relationship. Should
the husband wish to divorce his wife, he may choose to do so (paying her the
necessary sum as stipulated in the ketuba). The wife may sue for divorce or may
refuse to undergo the test. Only
when both parties desire to remain married does the process become necessary,
and only then if the husband feels it necessary to clear his mind of any
lingering suspicions.
The
rabbinic approach sees in the section the result of a husband who is too
domineering and overbearing. The
Talmud (Gittin 6b) explicitly warns:
A
husband must never terrorize his family.
Whoever rules over his family in fear will eventually bring about the
committing of carnal sin, murder, and desecration of the
Shabbat.
Yehuda
ben Pappas, whose jealousy leads him to confine his wife in his house, becomes
the rabbinic example of this principle (see Gittin 90a, Rashi ad
loc.).
Finally,
we should note that as part of the process, the husband must bring a "minchat
kena'ot" (v. 15) "a meal-offering of jealousies."[4] Why the plural form of jealousy? Rashi suggests that there are two
jealous parties that must be appeased God and her husband. However, the Chizkuni says that the
offering cannot be meant to achieve pardon for the wife, as we know that "the
sacrifice of the sinner is an abomination" (Mishlei 21:27). If anyone needs absolution and
forgiveness, it is the husband. He
has allowed the situation to deteriorate and has not objected earlier. Indirectly, he too bears a share in the
responsibility for the erasure of God's name.
The
Rashbam expresses a similar idea, but he links his thought to the closing verse
"And the man shall be free of sin" (v. 31): only after the ordeal ends can the
husband be considered not guilty.
If his wife is proven guilty by the ordeal, he will be free of sin; if,
however, she is proclaimed innocent, he will be vilified for the sin of
humiliating her. Either way, he is
initially considered guilty and requires a form of pardon.
[1] All references are from
this passage unless otherwise stated.
[2] According to the approach
of Rashi and Seforno, the commandment to build the Mishkan atones for the sin of the Golden
Calf.
[3] Other commentators ascribe
the waters' potency to less supernatural sources. For example, the Melekhet Machshevet
explains them as deriving from the power of the imagination. The kohen wishes to put fear into the
woman's heart and prevent the erasure of God's name. He relates to her the powerful nature of
the water if she is guilty, as if she were to drink poison. Her sense of imagination fills in the
rest when she drinks, her sense of taste actually relates to her the sensation
that she is drinking bitter waters.
[4] This term appears in v. 18 and v. 25 as well; indeed, v. 29 calls the
entire passage "torat ha-kena'ot," "the law of jealousies."