We find ourselves delving into just that, specifically in Bamidbar Rabbah 9, a section of the great Midrashic compilation on the Book of Numbers. Let's unpack a fascinating, if slightly thorny, passage dealing with the laws of the sotah, the suspected adulteress.
The verse in question, Numbers 5:13, sets the stage: "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." Right away, the Rabbis begin to dissect each phrase, drawing out nuanced meanings and limitations.
"And a man had lain with her" – this excludes a minor, because, well, a minor isn't considered a “man” in this context. Seems straightforward enough, right? But hold on, it gets more complex.
"With her" – this seemingly simple word excludes her sister. The text posits a scenario: if a woman engages in harlotry, she becomes forbidden to her husband. But what if the husband sleeps with her sister? Surprisingly, that doesn’t automatically forbid the woman to her husband. It's a logical puzzle! The text argues that while the wife's infidelity creates a prohibition, the husband's infidelity with her sister does not, even though, logically, it should.
The text then dives into a fascinating legal argument based on degrees of prohibition. If a husband consorts with someone forbidden to him by a relatively minor prohibition (like his wife, who is forbidden because she is married but can become permitted again via divorce), and she becomes forbidden to him because of her actions, then shouldn't the same hold true for more serious prohibitions?
Specifically, what if a man has relations with his wife’s sister or mother-in-law? These relationships are forbidden with a major prohibition, one that isn’t easily undone, even by divorce. Since the wife, through the marriage, is the reason those women are forbidden to him, shouldn't his act of sleeping with them render her forbidden to him?
But no! "With her" – the verse insists that only her actions, not the husband's with her relatives, create the prohibition. So, lying with the wife renders her forbidden, but lying with her sister or mother-in-law does not render her forbidden.
The passage then shifts its focus to the specifics of the situation. "And it was hidden from the eyes of her husband" – clearly, this excludes a blind man. Obvious, perhaps, but necessary for a complete legal definition.
Next, we confront the tricky issue of witnesses. "And she was secluded and she was defiled, [and there is no witness against her]" – Does this mean there are witnesses to the seclusion but not the defilement, or are there no witnesses to either? The Rabbis argue that if there were no witnesses to either, the woman would be permitted to her husband! So, the interpretation must be that there are no witnesses to the defilement, but there are witnesses to the seclusion.
The text further clarifies that "there is no witness against her" means two witnesses. How do we know it means two and not just one? Because, the text explains, unless explicitly stated otherwise, the word "witness" (ed) implies two witnesses. The verse from Deuteronomy 19:15, "One witness [ed echad] shall not stand against a man…", is cited. The redundancy of saying "one" is the key. Since the verse could have simply said "witness," the addition of "one" indicates that when "witness" is used alone, it means two.
Finally, the passage addresses the question of coercion: "And she was not coerced" – this excludes a woman who was raped, who remains permitted to her husband. But, does this apply equally to an Israelite woman and a priest's wife? Here, the text employs a complex argument based on the laws of ritual impurity. If even relatively minor forms of impurity from dead creatures affect a priest's ability to perform his duties, shouldn't the more serious situation of a sotah, even if coerced, also affect her status? The implication, though not explicitly stated here, is that the case of a sotah is handled differently.
So, what are we to make of all this? It's a deep dive into the legal reasoning of the Rabbis, meticulously parsing verses and constructing arguments based on logic, analogy, and textual interpretation. It reveals a legal system striving for precision and fairness, even when dealing with the most delicate and emotionally charged situations. It makes you wonder about the lives of these women, and the communities that judged them. These ancient texts aren't just dry legal pronouncements; they are glimpses into a world grappling with fundamental questions of morality, justice, and human relationships.