Sermon Tone Analysis

Hello Friends!

Numbers 5

I couldn’t help myself from taking the easy way out this week.

We could start in and begin with the census of the Levites and the delineation of their differing roles.

We could do that (and look at the other topics…); and we would probably learn something profound.

Actually, it’s the Bible, we would definitely learn something profound… But I just couldn’t help but jump right into the most glaringly difficult passage of the ‘wife suspected of adultery’.

It poses so many avenues for enquiry and so many difficult questions.

This passage is found in .

It is known as ‘The Sotah’ which also refers specifically to the woman suspected of adultery.

Sotah

As a quick aside, the word ‘Sotah’ is derived from;

The word goes ‘goes astray’ is ‘tisteh’ and means ‘to commit adultery’.

It’s root word is ‘sotah’ and means ‘to deviate, to turn aside, to go astray...’.

Thus the going ‘astray’ of a wife is the act of adultery.

The Ordeal

Focus: Sotah

The Ordeal Itself.

This is a truly fascinating occurence.

It remains the only legal code in the Bible where someone’s ‘trial’ and verdict is determined by ‘ordeal’.

Judgement is determined by a miracle.

Now as we keep moving through this you’ll hear me continue to refer to the the Sotah as a ‘trial by ordeal’.

It’s the only case where you had to go through something, i.e. an ordeal such as the bitter waters etc. which would determine your guilt or innocence.

Some disagree with the phrase but it is recognised widespread in Christendom and Judaism that these verses are the Bible’s ‘trial by ordeal’.

The Bible gives us 2 scenarios where a husband can present his wife for the ordeal;

If a woman sleeps with another man and the husband suspects (i.e. has a spirit of jealousy)

The Bible gives us 2 scenarios where a husband can bring his wife forward

If a woman has not committed adultery yet the husband suspects it anyway

Simply put, the initiation of the trial was instigated by the husband who suspected his wife.

Comparing the ordeal to similar cases in the Ancient World does help us to highlight some of the facts with regard to the Sotah.

Trial by ordeal, with regard to adultery, was widespread in the Ancient World.

The Sotah is unique in many ways (as we shall see…) but it is hardly a unique phenomenon in many respects.

The Code of Hammurabi (CH) gives us some of the most clear comparisons where a woman could be put through trial by ordeal with respect to adultery.

There are 2 criteria in the code;

1.If the husband of a married woman has accused her but she is not caught lying with another man...

2. If a finger has been pointed at the married woman with regard to another man and she is not caught lying with the other man...

Notably, as is the case in other cultures, if any man suspects a woman committing adultery she could be accused and put through ordeal.

This is unlike the Bible which only allows for the husband, who under suspicion of his wife, can present her for the ordeal.

Other people can accuse all they want (they probably can’t as that might be slander…), but they cannot put a suspected adulteress through trial.

(New Testament alarm bells should be going off…)

The ordeal itself is fascinating.

It consisted of a process where the husband and wife went go the priest;

There is the presentation of the wife which includes having her hair uncovered (an act of shaming/mourning)

Initially it is the husband who brings the grain offering however before the oath it is put in the woman’s hands

The woman is put under oath by the priest

The woman drinks the bitter waters which the priest prepared for her to drink

The grain offering is taken from her and presented to God

Then there is the verdict

The verdict itself is fascinating when compared with the ancient world.

In the Bible the woman is blessed with children if innocent; if guilty, her thigh rots and her belly swells.

It’s interpreted that the guilty woman will not conceive children.

Outside of Israel the penalty for the guilty party is death.

There are also laws in the ancient world where the woman would not die, however the husband could exact financial restitution from the woman’s family.

That might not sound so profound but the difference lay in the fact that the punishment for adultery in Israel’s case lay with God who determines verdict and restitution.

In the ancient world they viewed adultery as a sin against the gods yet it was man who could determine the punishment.

Did This Really Occur?

Why The Ordeal?

Rabbininc restrictions on the ordeal?

Did This Really Occur?

Did this actually happen, or was it some mythical legal thing that never really took place?

Well, we know it was a thing.

The Talmud has this to say;

“[Now] if she said, “I am unclean,” she gives a quittance for her marriage contract [which is not paid over to her], and goes forth [with a writ of divorce].

And if she said, “I am clean,” they bring her up to the eastern gate, which is at the entrance of Nicanor’s Gate.

There it is that they force accused wives to drink the bitter water.”

Mishnah, Sotah 1:4, The Mishnah: A New Translation by Jacob Neusner, Yale University Press, pg.

448

It’s in interesting because it indicates that if a woman wanted to admit to adultery, she was then given a writ of divorce.

Notably, she was not put to death.

What we learn here though is that there was an actual place in the Temple Grounds (the eastern gate) where this occurence was known to be initiated.

The Talmud actually teaches us a little bit about the ordeal and how it may have been executed in the time of the Second Temple period.

My JPS commentary sums up the evidence like this;

The precise architectural details concerning the construction and function of installations in the Temple court for the execution of the ordeal further corroborate the presumption that it had continued to be a living practice.

To cite but a few of these details: The officiating priest was chosen by lot (Tosef.

Sot.

1:2); he prepared the potion by mixing the holy water from the laver with dust taken from the Temple court, from beneath a slab one cubit square, located at the right of the entrance; the slab was affixed with a ring so that it could be easily lifted (Mish.

Sot.

2:2); the verses containing the imprecation were inscribed on a golden tablet hung on the Temple wall so that it was visible from the court (Tosef.

Sot.

2:1).

Such a tablet was one of the many donations of Queen Helena of Adiabene (Mish.

Yoma 3:10).

Its purpose was to obviate the need to bring in a Torah scroll in order to copy out the appropriate verses (cf.

Rashi on Sot.

37a).

JPS Numbers

Interestingly enough, my JPS commentary continues to say;

Despite the evidence of these facilities and of cases of the ordeal, the many restrictions imposed by the rabbis for its administration render it likely that it was a rare occurrence.

JPS Numbers

What the commentary is referring to, is the fact that the Rabbi’s legislated for the Sotah and created a number of criteria which had to be met in order for a husband to be permitted to present his wife for the ordeal.

The sages required;

That the suspicion of the husband be warranted.

There need not be a witness to the act but there had to be witness to the fact that the woman had occasion to commit adultery (i.e. was secluded and alone with another man).

The sages also interpreted the verse ‘he is jealous of his wife’ to mean that he had already expressed his suspicions to his wife and warned her to not go astray with certain men.

His suspicions had to be expressed to her with at least 2 witnesses.

Without these criteria being met the husband was not permitted to bring forth his wife for the ordeal.

The sages also taught that if a husband had committed adultery himself in secret that the ordeal would be of nil effect.

Christian and Jewish scholars agree, whilst there is evidence of the ordeal, it was likely a rare occurence.

Adultery = Death