They would bring her up to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, where they would adjure her in the same
manner as witnesses were adjured in capital cases. They would say to her, 'My daughter, wine does it
a lot, levity does it a lot, immaturity does it a lot, bad neighbours does it a lot. Do it for the
sake of that Great Name which is written in sanctity, that it not be erased in water.' And they
would tell her things which it would be better that she not have to hear – she and all the kindred of
her family.
1:
The woman is brought before the Sanhedrin. We have already learned in Tractate Sanhedrin that this
Supreme Court of 71 justices met in the precincts of the Bet Mikdash; and in Tractate Tamid we
learned that the chamber in which it met, the Gazit Chamber, straddled the partition between the
Priests' Court and the lay area of the Temple.
2:
Our mishnah tells us that the woman was 'encouraged' to admit her guilt and thus obviate the need for
the ceremony of the 'cursing waters'. She was addressed in gentle terms, designed to make her
realise that it was possible and good to confess. The president of the court would address her as
'my daughter' and to suggest to her many 'excuses' that could be offered to explain adulterous
behaviour. For example, she could claim that she was intoxicated at the time and lost control of
herself. Other causes that the president of the court mentions are levity, immaturity and the
bad influence of society. I feel that it is noteworthy that he does not mention what would seem to
modern susceptibilities to be the most blatant cause of adultery: lust. This would obviously not
encourage the woman to confession.
3:
After this encouragement the court adds a further reason to avoid the whole ceremony, and I feel that
this reason was the real psychological threat to the woman: if the ceremony takes place God's
ineffable name will be written out in full and then put into the water where the ink will be erased.
This water, into which the Divine Name has been dissolved as it were, is what the woman must drink.
If she confesses she will avoid both the responsibility for the sacrilege done to the holy Name and
the danger of imbibing the Name of God, as it were.
4:
Further encouragement to confess is offered by the court by recounting to her 'things which it would
be better that she not have to hear'. Tradition suggests that biblical examples of forthright
confession of adultery were offered, such as in the case of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 39. My own
feeling is that it is being suggested to her that if she confesses now she will avoid bringing
further shame upon herself and upon her family.
Art Kamlet has a question about the 'Amen, Amen' which appears only two places in
the Torah – after the Sotah Curse and after the Curses in last week's Parashah, when we began study
of Sotah. What do we learn from 'Amen' being used for curses alone in the Torah?
I respond:
Not much I think. The single word 'Amen' occurs in many places in the Tanakh in contexts which are
both positive and negative (although Art is correct that this single word response occurs in the
Torah only in the context he quotes [Deuteronomy 17:16 ff]). In particular we should note
exactly the same phrase – 'And all the people said Amen' – at the end of Psalm 106:48, where it is
even followed by the word 'Hallelujah'! If we restrict ourselves only to the doubled phrase 'Amen
Amen' as it is in the case of the Sotah [Numbers 5:22] or to what is almost its equivalent,
'Amen and Amen' we find a positive context in many more places than a negative one. As far as I
know the exact phrase 'Amen, Amen' occurs only in the case of the Sotah (which is a negative context)
and in Nehemiah 8:6 (which is a very positive context). For these reasons I think that the two
examples that Art quotes, however interesting and curious, are purely fortuitous.
David Shemano draws our attention to a news item
which serves to highlight the main achievement of the Sotah law in the Torah.
I comment:
Whereas the Nigerian woman in the news story has been sentenced to death by stoning (!) by a Moslem
religious court, the main thrust of the Torah legislation (and even more so its amplification by the
sages) is to save the woman (and to save her marriage, if possible). Many obstacles are put in the
path of the husband in his attempt to bring his wife to 'justice', and even when he succeeds in his
attempt the ultimate outcome is left to non-judicial circumstance (the outcome of the drinking of
the 'cursing waters'). I believe that the whole thrust of the legislation is psychological, to
bring to woman to admit her own guilt. In such a case, as we have already seen, she does not drink
the waters (which modern knowledge would teach only endangers her health) and the whole incident ends
in her divorce from her husband.
