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:

1. when she volunteers the admission that she has been unfaithful to him and had copulated with
   another man;

2. when there are legally competent witnesses to her act of infidelity (even after she has taken the
   test);

3. when her husband has accused her of infidelity and she refuses to take the test of the 'cursing
   waters';

4. 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';

5. 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.

I have upgraded my computer and in the transition I have lost all my previous emails. There were
many very interesting queries and comments that had been sent to me, that have been lost. I would
be very grateful if those who sent an email with questions and comments on the previous mishnayot
would be so kind as to send them again. I will include them and respond to them as soon as they
arrive. My apologies for the inconvenience.