|Photo that has two women photo-|
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Sotah, Modesty, Suspicion & Peace- A Womanless photo & Strauss-Kahn. Naso
“The Straying Woman”
We read the case of woman accused of adultery, she is described as a “Sotah” סוטה which is related to the idea of straying. The procedure outlined in the Torah is no longer practiced for technical reasons[i]. Essentially, if a married woman is suspected by her husband of infidelity with a particular man, he warns her to stay away from him. If she is found alone with this man she would be given a choice to either accept a divorce or go through a humiliating[ii], public, and supernatural procedure in which she drinks water in which God’s name had been erased and dies a horrible death if she is guilty (as does her lover[iii]) but is exonerated and blessed if she is innocent[iv].
The Torah Context
In the Torah adultery is not just a betrayal between two married people but also a betrayal of God. This is hinted at in the repletion of the word man in the verse
אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל “a man, a man if his wife will stray[v]”, hinting that she betrayed, the “Divine man of war” as well as her husband[vi]. While I don’t know how common adultery in the non-religious world, there is definitely an advantage for marriages to exist within a worldview in which adultery is a shocking crime.
Following the principle of “make a gate around the Torah”[vii] there are various laws to keep people away from compromising situations. The laws include a prohibition of “Yichud”, a prohibition for any man and woman not married to each other (except for immediate family) to be in a locked room together, unless others have keys and can come in at any moment.
These laws combine with placing a high value on modesty. While modern observant Jewish women are far from invisible, orthodox Jewish thinking is guided to varying degrees by the phrase “all the glory of the daughter of the king is within”[viii] which is interpret as relating to a standard of modesty[ix]. ‘Like Abraham and Sarah, Abraham is at the front of the tent welcoming guests[x] and Sarah is behind the scenes[xi] “in the tent”, shy and reserved yet also rising to the occasion whenever a crisis hits[xii] or critical action when it is called for’[xiii].
Taking it too far
Our tradition warns against husbands expecting women to stay at home all the time. The phrase “a man, a man” hints at the husbands being perhaps too ‘manly”, seeking to keep women locked up at home. A story is told of Yehudah Ben Pappos who locked his wife in the house every time he left. This should not be done “because this causes hatred to arise between husband and wife and leads her to commit adultery”[xiv].
I think today there is generally an egalitarian dynamic between Orthodox Jewish husbands and wives, reflecting the principle that a man must his honour his wife more than himself[xv]. Classical sources on this issue reflect other ideas, one the one hand, men are advised to be easy going and overlook problems in their house, if wine spills or there is damage he should not fight with his wife, but on the other hand it states “but if he hears something relating to his manhood/role as a husband, stand up like a man, to the one whose master you are show your authority with all your ability, that is why it say, a man, a man”[xvi]. The husband also brings an offering on his wife’s behalf[xvii]. Of course there is also no opportunity for a wife who suspects her husband of infidelity to warn her husband, nor is there a male equivalent of the Sotah. As someone who values and imperfectly practices equality (can do better with the house work), yet lives my life by the guidance found in these sacred texts this is far from comfortable.
In spite of teachings about judging others favourably[xviii] and guidance not to accept reports about others’ wrongdoing as true there is clearly no presumption of innocence in this case. (Arguably the concept is not part of the Halachic system[xix]). In terms of process at least a judge is told “When the litigants are standing before you, let them be in your eyes as wicked[xx]”.
It seems that the ethical imperative of giving people the benefit of the doubt is linked to having an untarnished reputation, “anyone who suspects “Kosher” (people) receives (the punishment of) lashes on his body”[xxi]. While this helps people with a record of being Kosher (Chezkat Kashrut), it is of little use to DSK who allegedly had a track record of improper behaviour around women. It also works against the straying woman, who in spite of the lack of sufficient proof must undergo the humiliating ordeal. Her hair is uncovered and un-braided, which is deemed culturally humiliating[xxii]. The reason for proceeding is because “this matters has legs, as he (her husband) had already warned her”[xxiii] on the basis of witnesses reports of her secluding herself with a man who was not her husband.
She is told during the process, [xxiv]וְאַתְּ כִּי שָׂטִית תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ which in context would be translated as “And as for you, if you have gone astray [to another] instead of your husband”, homiletically the word כִּי (which could be understood as if) is interpreted in its more usage of “because”. She is presumed guilty at least of great immodesty and she is told “you are fitting for humiliation because you strayed, as your husband had formally expressed his jealousy and still you secluded yourself [xxv]. Quite jarring stuff.
On the other hand when the offering is brought it is labelled “a remembrance of sin[xxvi]”, which one commentary explained it as being brought because of one of the two options, either the sin of the woman or the sin of the husband who suspects her[xxvii]. Another view is that even if the wife is proven innocent the husband is not considered to have sinned because he was required to deal with his suspicion because he would not be allowed to continue to be married to her without clearing up the matter [xxviii].
Peace in the home
It has been argued that the great shame involved in this ordeal would serve as a deterrent to both women and men, for the former to conduct themselves in a way that is always above suspicion, for the latter to avoid frivolous accusations. The end result of this fear would be to prevent domestic tragedies[xxix]. One of the messages drawn from this reading is the importance of peace between husband and wife. If she is innocent, she this procedure with her face shining, finding good will from her husband [xxx]…, the couple able to continue their marriage, hopefully putting this episode behind them. This is so important that the name of God can be erased [xxxi] in the pursuit of this objective.
None of this justifies removing the face of Hillary from a newspaper photo, nor does it all sit comfortably with modern ideas about equality and rights, but it opens a window into thousands of years of religious thinking about various ways men and women with the support of their communities can handle their urges and suspicions and preserve the sanctity of marriage.
[i] The procedure was only done when the people were at a higher level of righteousness. It was discontinued thousands of years ago, when it could no longer be expected that men who suspected their wives of infidelity were themselves innocent.
[ii] Her hair was uncovered, she brought a sacrifice of animal feed, a Cohen held on to her clothes and if they tore, they tore, if the stiches came apart, they came apart until her heart is revealed, (Mishna Sotah 1:5). There is a similarity to the text in Hoseah 2, where
is compared to an adulterous wife and is told “lest I strip her naked, and set her like the day she was born”. Israel
[iii] Rashi on Numbers 5:22
[iv] Numbers 5:11-31
[vii] Pirkey Avot 1:1
[viii] Psalms, 45:14
[ix] Talmud Yevmot 77a
[x] Genesis 18 Genesis 21:9-10
[xi] Genesis 18:9
[xii] Such as the need to protect her son from negative influence of danger as in Genesis 21:9-10
[xiii] Soloveitchik Rabbi J.B, quoted in Insights a Talmudic Treasury, by Rabbi Saul Weiss,
, Feldheim, New York , p 202 Jerusalem
[xiv] Talmud Gittin 90a
[xv] Maimonides, Laws of Marriage, .
[xvi] Bamibar Rabba 9:2, with commentary by M”HRZV, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 36, p.167
[xviii] Pirkey Avot 1:6
[xix] On the website “Jewish Virtual Library” a writer asserts “There is no explicit presumption of innocence in Jewish law; the requirements of proof of guilt are, however, so stringent and rigorous, and the possibilities of establishing a valid defence so wide and flexible, that a conviction is much more difficult and an acquittal much easier to obtain than under a rebuttable presumption of innocence.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_06166.html see also http://www.oceansidejewishcenter.org/rebmark/TORAH_TABLE_TALK/5769/TTTshoftim69.pdf
[xx] Avot 1:8
[xxi] Talmud Shabbat 97a, Yoma 19b
[xxii] Numbers and Rashi’s commentary
[xxiii] Talmud Sotah 3a
[xxv] Chizkuni on Numbers 5:20
[xxvii] Chizkuni on Numbers 5:15
[xxviii] Bchor Shor on Numbers 5:31
[xxix] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:49, cited in Munk, Rabbi E, The Call of the Torah, Bamidbar p. 49
[xxx] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel