Sotah 008

2:
The text of the second sentence of our mishnah is not clear. I have translated it as seems to make the best sense. In this present context it would seem that the Eastern Gate and the Nicanor Gate are synonymous, the gate being on the eastern wall of the Priests' Court. We Have often mentioned the Nicanor Gate. When we studied tractate Tamid I wrote:

As our mishnah points out, several ceremonies were held by the Nicanor Gate. When those who had recovered from a skin disease ('leper') were ritually rehabilitated this was done just inside the Priests' Court, at the top of the steps, inside the Nicanor gate. It seems reasonable to assume that this was the case also with the other two ceremonies. The one that concerns us, that of the Sotah, probably took place in the entrance way of the Gate so that while the hapless woman was inside the Priests' Court she could be seen by all the men and women in the main courtyard, the Women’s' Court.

To be continued.

Orin Rotman writes:

To whom is the woman required to admit/confess to her liaison for the purpose of avoiding the ordeal of Sotah? Is it correct to understand that a confession/admission in private to the husband would engender a get and forfeiture of the ketubah (and associated social stigma), but could not stand as testimony in a capital case for adultery (as a person or her relative may not testify against her)?

I respond:

Initially, the woman might admit her infidelity to her husband. As Oren notes this would require him to deliver to her a Deed of Divorce [Get, Get Pitturin] and to forfeit her Ketubah money; she would then be able to marry any man except her divorced husband and her admitted paramour. If she does not admit her guilt to her husband and her husband brings her to court she might admit her guilt before the Sanhedrin, as we saw in the previous mishnah. The consequences would be the same. The issue of a capital charge is irrelevant for two reasons:

1. The ability of the Sanhedrin to carry out a death sentence had been abolished about 40 years before the destruction of the Bet Mikdash;
2. If the woman submitted to the ordeal (willingly or unwillingly) one of two things would happen (as seen through the eyes of pious tradition): either she would survive the ordeal, in which case she returns to her husband (and this must have been the case almost invariably); or she would die as a result of the ordeal – a divine indication of her guilt, as it were.

---

As if foreseeing my response to Orin above, Michael Lewyn writes:

It seems to me very unlikely that a woman is likely to die or suffer the promised immediate serious illness merely from drinking dirty water. So doesn't it follow that the Sotah ritual will nearly always exonerate the woman?

I respond:

Yes, as I wrote above.

Michael continues:

And if the Sotah ritual always exonerates the woman, doesn't the rabbis' narrowing of the seemingly harsh Sotah law actually make marital law more punitive rather than less so?

I respond:

I don't see why. The purpose of the 'test' (as developed by the sages) seems to be to offer the husband divine proof that he may continue to live happily with his innocent wife. The psychology works both ways: if the woman has a guilty conscience she will admit her guilt rather than take the 'test'; if she takes the test successfully her husband will be reassured of her fidelity.

Michael adds another query:

More recently you mentioned in passing that where a woman's infidelity is apparently proven 'the marriage must be ended.' Does this mean there is no room for forgiveness by the husband? And if so, how has this seemingly harsh rule been watered down over the years?

I respond:

If a Bet Din has rendered a verdict that a woman has committed adultery, the divorce must take place – even today. Presumably, the forgiving husband nowadays would not take his wife to court.

---

Several more people have responded to my request for resubmission of queries and comments. I am doing my best to present them with as great a dispatch as I can.