Sotah 009

3:
The Torah [Numbers 5:15-18] instructs that

We note that the Sotah is accompanied by a special cereal offering. The other two situations mentioned in our mishnah – the 'leper' and the woman after childbirth – were also situations in which a ceremony of ritual rehabilitation took place and they too were accompanied by an offering. The first chapter of tractate Kelim contains a resumé of ascending sanctity in the land of Israel. Starting with the sanctity of the land itself it enumerates the gradually increasing degrees of sanctity until it reaches the inner sanctum of the Bet Mikdash, the Holy of Holies. Towards the end of the list we read that

We note two things: firstly, anyone passing through the Nicanor Gate was passing from the Women's Court into the Court of Israel (which was, in fact, a narrow strip at the entrance of the Priests' Court where the people of the Ma'amad stood as we learned when we studied Tractate Tamid). Since the three categories mentioned in our mishnah were people 'whose atonement had not yet been effected' the ceremony associated with them took place at the Nicanor Gate.

4:
We should here note something very interesting. The Torah itself mentions one manner in which the priest is to publicly humiliate the Sotah: by releasing her hairdo. (In ancient times women would pile their hair up upon their head so that their hair could be covered and not be seen in public, which was considered most disgraceful.) However, our mishnah adds a further humiliation which is not mentioned in the Torah: the priest rips the woman's clothing open to reveal her breasts. The Gemara [Sotah 7a] performs hermeneutic acrobatics in order to demonstrate that this added humiliation is implied in the Torah text. The resultant 'proof' is unconvincing.

Juan-Carlos Kiel writes:

It seems to me that here the Mishna is challenging the rules of proof: For every other crime, it is required to bring 2 witnesses, and the confession is not enough; here it is sufficient that the woman confesses to the crime and immediately the sentence is issued. Is that correct?

I respond:

The answer is yes and no. In the case of the Sotah the testimony of two witnesses is required to force the husband to divorce his unfaithful wife. However, if the woman voluntarily confesses her guilt the divorce can be effected without further testimony. The refutable evidence of two witnesses is required for a conviction in capital cases; but this is where the sentence is carried out by a human judge. In the case of the Sotah, if she dies as a result of drinking the 'cursing waters' this is considered as a death sentence carried out by the heavenly court.

---

We recently had a discussion (prompted by a comment by Nisan Chavkin) as to whether the description of the sexual infidelity of the Sotah as 'defiled' is a euphemism or not. Aryeh Abranowitz writes:

First of all, in the original text we are concerned with nitma'ah is exactly how the unfaithful wife is described, so I don't see why assume that any euphemism is in use here. In addition, in the laws of purity concerned with discharges of various sorts [Lev. 15:18] 'And a woman who lays with a man for copulation (ejaculation?), and they shall wash in water and be defiled (tamé) until evening'. Since the immediate result of copulation is [temporary] ritual defilement, it makes sense to refer to the actions of the unfaithful wife as nitma'ah – 'and she was defiled'.

I respond:

While everything that Aryeh writes is true and correct, I nevertheless think that the term used in our mishnah in connection with the Sotah is a euphemism. Let us assume that the unfaithful wife bathed in a mikveh after her illicit romantic association with a man other than her husband. She would now be considered 'clean' in the purely ritual sense referred to by Aryeh, but she would still be 'defiled', would she not?