We find in Bamidbar Rabbah (Numbers Rabbah) 9, a fascinating, and frankly, a bit intense dive into the laws surrounding a suspected adulteress, the sotah. It’s a passage that pulls no punches, exploring the depths of betrayal, both financial and physical, and the ripple effects it has on individuals and the community.
The text starts with a stark declaration: "And commit a trespass against him [umaala bo maal] – a double trespass." What does this mean? Well, according to this interpretation, the woman isn’t just betraying her husband physically; she's also committing a trespass against his financial well-being. It’s suggested that she might be enabling others to take his money. It’s like a double whammy of broken trust. It even goes on to say the offspring of this union, the mamzer (a child born from a forbidden union), inherits from her husband, even though he's not the husband's son! Talk about complicated!
But it doesn't stop there. The Rabbah continues, "She committed trespass against him regarding males and females." This, it seems, refers to the possibility of producing mamzerim, both male and female. The transgression taints not just the present but also future generations. And the consequences? "In this world and the World to Come. She is separated from him in two worlds." The separation isn't just physical or emotional; it's cosmic, a rupture that extends beyond this life. Heavy stuff. Then, the text delves into the specifics of the law itself, dissecting the verse from (Numbers 5:13): “And a man had lain with her carnally, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was secluded and she was defiled, and there is no witness against her, and she was not coerced.” The Rabbah meticulously examines each phrase. For instance, "Carnally" limits the scope to sexual intercourse. According to this understanding, other forms of physical contact, even if the husband objects, don't trigger the sotah ritual. It's a fascinatingly narrow interpretation.
"It was hidden from the eyes of her husband" means that if he knows and turns a blind eye, he can't later use the sotah ritual as a sneaky way to deal with it. Seems fair.
Now, here’s where it gets really interesting. What exactly constitutes "seclusion"? The Rabbah asks, “What is the minimum duration of seclusion [that causes her to be liable]?" The answers are… well, let’s just say they’re uniquely rabbinic. We get a series of analogies: the time it takes for a palm tree to return in the wind (Rabbi Eliezer), the time it takes to dilute a cup of wine (Rabbi Yehoshua), the time it takes to drink it (Ben Azai), the time it takes to cook an egg until it rolls (Rabbi Akiva), the time it takes to swallow three rolled eggs (Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira), or even the time it takes a weaver to tie a severed string (Rabbi Elazar ben Pinchas). Penimon even suggests it's the time it takes a woman to reach for a loaf of bread!
Rabbi Yosei adds that all these measures are after the removal of the lower undergarment. Yikes. Rabbi Yochanan wisely says that each one of these rabbis is speaking from his own…experience.
But here’s the kicker: Did Ben Azai, who equated it to drinking a cup of wine, even take a wife? Some suggest he became aroused (awkward!), others that he engaged and withdrew, and yet others say, "The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him; He informs them of His covenant" (Psalms 25:14). In other words, some things are best left a mystery!
The text then grapples with the legal implications of even the beginning of intercourse. Rabbi Yona says that (Leviticus 18:29), with its warning against abominations, likens forbidden relations to menstruation. Just as the menstruant is forbidden from the first stage of intercourse (haaraa), as it is written: “He has probed [he’era] her source” (Leviticus 20:18), so too with all forbidden relations.
And what about witnesses? The Torah says, "And there is no witness [ve’ed] against her." The Rabbah asks, what if the witness isn't even qualified to testify? The answer: even an unqualified witness saying she was defiled is enough to prevent the ritual. The extra "vav" (ו) in the word "witness" (ve'ed) includes even unfit witnesses. Talk about erring on the side of caution!
Finally, the passage addresses coercion. If she was coerced, she’s permitted. But then comes a fascinating case: what if she started willingly but ended under coercion? Forbidden! What if she started under coercion but ended willingly? Permitted! A woman even comes to a Rabbi saying she was raped, and he asks if there was any pleasure for her. She cleverly replies: "Were a person to dip his finger in honey and place it in your mouth on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), is it perhaps not bad for you even though ultimately it is pleasant for you?" He accepts her response and rules that she is permitted to her husband.
The passage ends with a poignant reminder that even if there's no witness now, there might be one later. Just as Sarai, who was initially barren, eventually had a child, and Esther, who initially hid her identity, later revealed it, so too, ultimately, truth will come to light. As (Malachi 3:5) says, “I will approach you in judgment, and I will be a swift witness…[and against the adulterers].”
So, what do we take away from all this? Perhaps it’s a reminder of the profound importance of trust, fidelity, and the enduring consequences of our choices. And maybe, just maybe, a little bit of awe at the sheer depth and complexity of rabbinic interpretation. It's a reminder that even in the most ancient texts, there are layers upon layers of meaning waiting to be uncovered, debated, and ultimately, wrestled with.
Another matter: “And commit a trespass against him [umaala bo maal]” – a double trespass, as she committed a trespass against him regarding both his person and his money. She brought other people to take his money.20The mamzer inherits from her husband even though he is not the husband's son. Another matter: “And commit a trespass against him [umaala bo maal]” – she committed trespass against him regarding males and females.21Male and female children who are mamzerim. “And commit a trespass against him [umaala bo maal]” – in this world and in the World to Come. She is separated from him in two worlds. “And a man had lain with her carnally, and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was secluded and she was defiled, and there is no witness against her, and she was not coerced” (Numbers 5:13). “And a man had lain” – with regard to a man he warns her, but he does not warn her with regard to an animal. “With her” – it is only the one whom he warned.22If he has two wives and warned one of them not to seclude herself with a certain man, the other is not included in the warning, even if she heard it. “Carnally” – to the exclusion if he warned her regarding other limbs,23Any form of physical contact other than sexual intercourse is not included in the laws addressing a sota. so you will not say that the verse made it contingent on the opposition of the husband, and the husband opposes.24The laws addressing a sota apply only to sexual intercourse, even if the husband opposes his wife’s engaging in a different form of physical contact with another man. That is why it is stated: “Carnally.” “It was hidden from the eyes of her husband” – but not if the husband sees and closes his eyes. That is, if the husband knew about her, he cannot engage in subterfuge in her regard and cause her to drink. “And she was secluded and she was defiled” – once she was secluded, the Torah characterizes her as defiled. Another matter: “And she was secluded and she was defiled” – what is the minimum duration of seclusion [that causes her to be liable]? It is the duration of defilement. How long is defilement? It is the duration of intercourse. How long is intercourse? It is the duration of the initial stage of intercourse.25Contact between the sexual organs. How long is the initial stage of intercourse? Rabbi Eliezer says: The duration of the return of a palm tree in the wind.26The time it takes for a branch pushed by the wind to return to its initial position (Rashi, Sota 4a). Rabbi Yehoshua says: The duration of diluting a cup.27Of wine. Ben Azai says: The duration of drinking it. Rabbi Akiva says: The duration of cooking an egg until it rolls. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: The duration of swallowing three rolled eggs one after another. Rabbi Elazar ben Pinḥas said: The duration that it takes a weaver to tie a severed string. Penimon says: The duration it takes for a woman to extend her hand and take a loaf from the basket. Even though there is no proof of the matter there is an allusion to the matter: “For due to a licentious woman one is brought to a loaf of bread, and an adulteress hunts a precious soul” (Proverbs 6:26). Rabbi Yosei said: All these measures are after removal of the lower undergarment. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Each and every one calculated based on his own experience. But did ben Azai ever take a wife? Some wish to say that he became aroused. Some wish to say that he engaged in relations and withdrew.28He married but then continued life alone. Some wish to say: “The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him; He informs them of His covenant” (Psalms 25:14). From where is it derived that the first stage of intercourse renders a married woman forbidden [to her husband]? Rabbi Yona said: As it is written: “For anyone who will perform any of these abominations…[will be excised from among their people]” (Leviticus 18:29). All the forbidden relations were likened to the menstruant. Just as the menstruant, it29The prohibition is violated. is with the first stage of intercourse [haaraa], as it is written: “He has probed [he’era] her source” (Leviticus 20:18), so too, all forbidden relations are with the first stage of intercourse. “And there is no witness [ve’ed] against her” – one that is fit to testify. From where is it derived that even a witness who is not fit to testify, if he says that she was defiled, she does not drink? The verse states: “A witness, and a witness.”30The vav prefix to the word witness [ed], comes to include even a witness unfit to testify. “And she was not coerced” – she is forbidden, but if she was coerced, she is permitted. But you have an Israelite woman who was coerced and is forbidden. Which is that? It is anyone who began willingly but ended under coercion. And you have an Israelite woman who was not coerced and is permitted. It is anyone who began under coercion but ended willingly, like a certain woman who came to Rabbi and said: I was raped. He said to her: Was there no pleasure for you? She said to him: Were a person to dip his finger in honey and place it in your mouth on Yom Kippur, is it perhaps not bad for you even though ultimately it is pleasant for you? He accepted her response.31He ruled that she was permitted to her husband even though she felt pleasure. Another matter: “And there is no witness against her” – even though there is not one in her regard now, there is one in her regard later. Similarly, it says: “Sarai was barren; she had no child” (Genesis 11:30) – even though she does not have now, she has later, as it is stated: “The Lord remembered Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken” (Genesis 21:1). Similarly, it says: “Esther did not disclose her people or her birthplace, because Mordekhai had commanded her that she should not disclose it” (Esther 2:10) – even though she did not disclose it now, she disclosed it later.32See Esther 7:3–4. Here too, “and there is no witness against her” – even though there is not one in her regard now, there is one in her regard later, as it is stated: “I will approach you in judgment, and I will be a swift witness…[and against the adulterers]” (Malachi 3:5).
