Naso: Sota

An appealing aspect of Rabbinic Torah Judaism is the deep analytic process. The close reading of the text, and its placement into the context of the tradition uncovers assumptions that deserve to be questioned and are frequently found to be wrong. 

The central core of this week's Torah portion deals with assertions of individuality. The sota, the wayward, is a spouse accused of possible infidelity. From a modern perspective, the ritual consisted of series of steps that would always exonerate a woman, unless she confessed.

According to the Talmud, before a woman could be brought to the ritual, her husband would need to warn her, in front of two valid witnesses, that she may not isolate with a particular man - the presumed paramour. She would then need to be seen going into seclusion with that individual by a witness ( or two, it is  a controversy).  Once the husband is aware of the episode of post-warning seclusion, physical contact between the couple is forbidden, until the issue is resolved. Suspicion is not enough, there must be formal eyewitness testimony  for the ritual to proceed. The sota ritual is an alternative to wife-beating. ( I cannot guarantee that it was always used that way, but at least, the alternative was made available)

The accused wife is then brought to the Temple for the rite. Now (not before) she is offered an oath of exoneration. She can swear that she has not behaved in manner that could have allowed her lover to impregnate her. This vow of fidelity was not part of the stated agreement with her spouse when they married. Although fidelity was assumed, it was not a stated condition until now. Jewish marriage is not a set of vows, it is a contract within a context. The  fidelity  requirement is not stated. Now, during the challenge of the sotah ritual, the accused takes a vow of informed consent. 

This is legal informed consent. The ritual cannot proceed unless she agrees. She agrees that she may suffer physical consequences and public shame if she has, indeed, strayed. The sota contract, specifying the punishment for violating the tradition and transgressing the oath is written. And the words, including the ineffable  Name of Gd ( the great enforcer of oaths and traditions), are scraped into a slurry of water and Temple dust. She must drink this liquor, which she vowed to do. She is then exonerated.

The probability that the beverage of words and dust would harm a person, in the absence of miraculous intervention [or foul play] is infinitesimal. The natural course would be exoneration. 

Am I trying to legitimize an ugly, misogynous, paternalizing  section of the Torah? Yes! of course! 

Sometimes it takes a drama to save a relationship.  Compare Madam Bovary and Anna Karenina with the sota.