Sotah 005

1:
The previous mishnah included the mention of the status of a priest's wife regarding her right to eat of his terumah. We have noted on several occasions that the Torah requires the agriculturalist to give a certain amount of his produce to the priest [kohen] of his choice. This produce may only be eaten by the priest to whom it was given and the members of his household. (In ancient Israel the priests had no ancestral territory of their own, and therefore they were not able - in an agricultural society - to support themselves. In exchange for their service to the Bet Mikdash they were entitled to the benefits given them by the rest of the people.)

2:
We have often had occasion to note that sometimes the connection between one mishnah and the next is not logical, but is sparked by a connecting idea - vocabulary, context etc. In the present case our present mishnah elaborates and details what was cursorily mentioned in the previous mishnah: under what circumstances must a priest's wife forfeit her right to eat of his terumah? - because her infidelity must put an end to their marriage.

3:
Our mishnah enumerates five circumstances where a priest's wife must cease eating his Terumah:

when she volunteers the admission that she has been unfaithful to him and had copulated with another man;
when there are legally competent witnesses to her act of infidelity (even after she has taken the test);
when her husband has accused her of infidelity and she refuses to take the test of the 'cursing waters';
when her husband knows that she has been unfaithful to him but does not want to make her undergo the ordeal of the 'cursing waters';
when her husband has accused her of infidelity and is taking her to Jerusalem to undergo the test but on the way there he and his wife copulate.

4:
In all of the above five cases the ceremony of the 'cursing waters' may not take place and the marriage must be ended (even when the woman is married to a man who is not a priest). In the first four situations it is because the woman's infidelity must be assumed to have been proven. In the fifth case the husband has compromised himself: it has been proven by competent testimony that the woman has committed adultery and that she is forbidden to her husband (and to her paramour), and yet he has copulated with her, which is forbidden from the moment of her proven adultery. In the third situation, the woman's refusal to take the test must be presumed to be an indication of her guilt, despite her protestations to the contrary, for otherwise why would she not be anxious to clear her name?

5:
The seifa of our mishnah describes the procedure that must precede the test in the Bet Mikdash. The husband takes his wife to the local court where the judges must be satisfied that he has a case: that he had previously warned his wife not to consort with a certain person and that while there was no conclusive evidence of her infidelity there was good reason for suspicion. Rambam, in his commentary on our present mishnah, points out that if there were competent witnesses for her infidelity there is no need for the test of the 'cursing waters' and the husband must divorce his wife forthwith. The ordeal of the 'cursing waters' is only applied when there is no hard evidence. When the court has given its judgement in the husband's favour he must take his wife to Jerusalem for the test. The local court provides an escort of two talmidei ĥaĥamim [rabbinical scholars] whose task it is to ensure that the husband does not compromise himself on the way to Jerusalem.

6:
The logic of Rabbi Yehudah [ben-Ilai] is that if the husband is given credence that his wife has been unfaithful to him is it not logical that he would refrain from intimacy with her? Halakhah does not follow the view of Rabbi Yehudah.