Sotah 010

2:
If the woman was dressed in white the priest covers the white garments with black. White garments, especially for women, were considered a sign of festivity. There is a well known mishnah [Ta'anit 4:8] which describes how the girls of Jerusalem would go out on two festive occasions in the year to dance in the vineyards dressed in white. If she was wearing jewelry it is removed. The jewelry mentioned may include a golden headdress: the Gemara [Shabbat 59a] describes a 'golden city' as a headpiece which Rabbi Akiva bought for his wife. Elsewhere it is called a 'Jerusalem of Gold'.

3:
After the woman has been thus vilified the priest ties a rope around her breasts, above her nipples. The Gemara [Sotah 8b] says that the purpose is to prevent her garment slipping down. The usual translation of the term our mishnah uses for the rope is 'Egyptian rope', but it seems more likely that the term comes from the Hebrew word for sawn off (palm branches) – a cord made from the cheapest materials available.

4:
Our mishnah says that anyone in the Women’s Court who wishes to witness this ceremony may do so, with the exception of the woman's personal servants. The reason given by our mishnah for their exclusion, an exclusion which would seem very strange if the purpose was to cause the woman humiliation, is that 'she does not hold them in esteem'. This seems to indicate the psychology that is at work here. The objective of the humiliation is to get the woman to obviate the test by confessing at the last moment. The presence of her personal servants would serve rather to give the upper hand to her pride, which would defeat this purpose.

5:
The Gemara [Sotah 8b] explains that while the menfolk present in the Women’s Court could watch if they chose to do so, the women who were present were required to act as spectators. This is in accordance with a verse from the prophets [Ezekiel 23:28] which suggests that the woman thus becomes an object lesson for all her sex.

I guess this is the feminist side in me, but, isn't a person supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Why was the whole humiliating ceremony done before she drunk the water and not after? If she was faithful to her husband, she was wrongly humiliated! Why?!!

I respond:

Technically, the judicial status of the woman is that of an accused person (by her husband), and her guilt can either be admitted or needs to be proven. It is only a woman who maintains that she is innocent who is subjected to this ceremony at the demand of her husband. The husband suspects his wife, but has no proof. The best way to prevent the ceremony from taking place at all is for her to confess. However, the sages were careful not to discourage the woman too much: she might well be truly innocent and become afraid to prove this by submitting to the ceremony. Therefore they also tell her not to be afraid to drink the potion if she is absolutely convinced of her innocence, because then no harm will befall her.

A second question which Nehama asks:

In two quotes from the Bible (that I quickly found and didn't look further), it clearly states that the punishment for an act of adultery is death. How is it that in the 6th Mishna the 'only' result is a divorce? I am referring to Leviticus 18:29 and 20:10. BTW, where is the adulterer in all of this?

I respond:

I recently answered the question about capital punishment. I wrote: 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.

   Under Torah law the husband cannot be an adulterer, since he is not restricted to one wife/woman.