Sotah: The Measure of a Man
I teach Sotah to 10th grade boys.
Sotah, for those unaware, is the unit of law in this week’s parsha, Naso, that focuses on the indiscreet wife. This woman went astray, secluded herself with another man, and is now suspected of having committed adultery. The only way to clear this up is for her to be part of the Sotah trial, a high ritual that requires her every act- the offering she brings, the potion she drinks, the vessel she drinks it from- is redolent with symbolism. Either she will prove her innocence- or she will die horribly.
You may be wondering why it’s important for me to teach this topic, of all topics, to tenth grade boys. There are many reasons, and you can investigate all of them by reading through my unit worksheet (every student makes a copy of this and fills it out as we go along).
The most important reason to teach this unit to boys is because so much of it focuses around male-female interactions. There is a leitwort in this unit that applies to the man. You can view it here.
קנאה. Jealousy.
This is not a typical marriage. This is not a typical love story. This is the story of a love gone wrong, of a man who has done things that led to that love going wrong. Whether it’s his excessive jealousy and possessive nature or the fact that he’s withheld gifts from the Kohen (see the Kli Yakar on the misunderstandings that lead his wife to get back at him by cheating because of this), he has done something that has brought this upon himself.
Rabbi Moshe Don Kestenbaum, who spent nineteen years as a rebbe at Yeshivah Ateres Shmuel of Waterbury, and is now the mashgiach at Beis Medrash of Heichal HaTorah, wrote a well known book called Olam HaMiddos. Originally written in Hebrew, it’s been translated into English and published by ArtScroll. The purpose of the book is to provide “a guide to understanding ourselves and refining our character.” And it’s in that vein that he talks about how a man needs to treat his wife.
It is said in the name of Rav Chaim Vital that a person’s middos [character traits] are assessed purely on the basis of how he treats his wife: מדותיו של אדם נמדדות אך ורק כפי יחסו אל אשתו. This statement is puzzling, however, for why should a person’s middos be assessed solely on the basis of how he treats his wife, and not on the basis of his interactions with other people? True, the marriage relationship is more important than other interpersonal relationships (as explained below, p.199), but why is it the only factor in assessing a person’s middos? Moreover, it is probable that a person spends most of his time outside his home. Considering that his interactions with his wife constitute a small portion of his time, why, then are his middos assessed purely on the basis of the way he treats her?
In order to answer this question, we need to recognize that the obligation of tikkun hamiddos [rectifying one’s character traits] is not merely an external requirement to behaved kindly and pleasantly with others. Rather, it is an internal obligation that requires us to refine our inner emotions and to perfect them, according to the will o f the Torah. Just as we understand that envy is a trait that lurks inside a person’s heart, the same is true of all middos. Let’s say a person performs many kind deeds. That is an impressive achievement, but it does not prove that the person has truly acquired the middah of chesed [kindness], that he truly cares about others. The obligation to rectify one’s middos involves improving our inner character so that the middos will be implanted in our souls. To the degree he has perfected his inner character, so are his middos measured.
If you want to know what a person’s true inner character is, look at the way he treats his wife. We’ve all seen people who appear to be good- they have good middos, they perform chesed- but at home they turn into completely different people, and unfortunately do not treat their wives properly. Sadly, therefore, there are many Jewish homes that are filled with conflict. The reason for this phenomenon is that since a person wants to find favor in people’s eyes, and wants to be liked and respected by them, he naturally behaves calmly around them. Without much thought and effort he is motivated to behave properly. He is certainly afraid to do something truly bad in front of others, for he is afraid of what they will say about him. Consequently, the good behavior and good middos that he displays before others are not altruistic, as he is acting this way only in order to earn their respect. In contrast, in his interactions with his wife he is not afraid to show his bad middos, since he does not receive any honor for displaying good behavior and good middos around her. Therefore, the way a person treats his wife shows us to what extent he has perfected his inner character.
Furthermore, when a person is in the presence of other people, he can easily hide his true feelings. Even if he harbors ill will toward a close friend, he is capable of concealing those feelings, for two reasons. One, since he does not always have to be in the presence of that friend, he can wait until his anger dissipates. Two, even if he does have to be with that friend, their relationship doesn’t require so much love that it would be obvious from his behavior that he is upset with his friend. The relationship of marriage, on the other hand, requires constant love, and therefore, if a husband is angry with his wife, it is difficult for him to hide his anger, and it is virtually impossible that he will treat her the same way he treats her when he is not angry at her.
Additionally, if the husband’s heart is filled with grievances against his wife, it is practically impossible that she, with her woman’s intuition, will not sense it. For this reason, we find that at times, a woman is unhappy in her marriage, and her husband does not understand why; after all, he is treating her respectfully! But because she understands what is really going on inside him she is able to discern his true inner feelings and sense that real love and appreciation is missing, which causes her pain.
In addition, the relationship between husband and wife is very delicate. The wife is sensitive to any insult from her husband, and vice versa. Therefore, in order for love and peace to reign between them, and for them not to offend each other, there has to be true tikkun hamiddos.
-pages 26-28
Based on this, it is unsurprising that in Maimonides’s understanding of Sotah, it is imperative that the man warn his wife (it is part of the process that before the woman can be tried, the husband warns her in front of witnesses not to seclude herself with a specific individual) in a fitting way. The Rambam writes in Sotah 4:18
וְלֹא יְקַנֵּא לָהּ לֹא מִתּוֹךְ שְׂחוֹק וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂיחָה וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ מְרִיבָה וְלֹא לְהַטִּיל עָלֶיהָ אֵימָה.
A warning should not be issued in a spirit of levity, nor in the midst of conversation, nor with frivolity, nor in the midst of an argument, nor with the purpose of instilling fear.
Also, the husband should not rush to judgment, immediately warning her in front of witnesses to stay away from the man he suspects. Instead, as Maimonides explains in Sotah 4:19
אֵין רָאוּי לִקְפֹּץ וּלְקַנְּאוֹת בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ בְּנַחַת וּבְדֶרֶךְ טָהֳרָה וְאַזְהָרָה כְּדֵי לְהַדְרִיכָהּ בְּדֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה וּלְהָסִיר הַמִּכְשׁוֹל.
It is not proper for a man to rush and at the outset issue a warning in the presence of witnesses. Instead, he should [first speak to his wife] privately and gently, in a spirit of purity and caution, in order to guide her to the proper path and remove obstacles.
Say the husband speaks to his wife, she flouts his warning, so he warns her again in front of witnesses and she is found secluding herself with the individual he told her to stay away from. What then? He’s not permitted to kill her in a crime of passion; instead, he needs to take her to the priest, who will offer her the option of going to trial. However, she does not need to go to trial. She has the option of losing her Ketubah [money promised to her in her bridal contract] and simply getting a divorce.
The fact that the husband prefers to take his wife to trial rather than divorcing her without a penny suggests that he may actually want to reconcile with her. This is something we discuss in class as well. The husband may simply be unable to remove the images he’s imagining from his mind- the images of his wife in the arms of another man.
I tend to think of the scene ‘El Tango de Roxanne’ from Moulin Rouge, especially the introduction, “First, there is desire. Then, passion. Then, suspicion. Jealousy, anger, betrayal. Where love is for the highest bidder, there can be no trust. Without trust, there is no love! Jealousy, yes, jealousy, will drive you mad.”
And then there is the poor poet singing to Santine and saying
His eyes upon your face
His hand upon your hand
His lips caress your skin
It's more than I can stand.
Back to our luckless husband in the story of the Sotah. The only way the husband can truly remove doubt is for his wife to go through the Sotah trial and survive. And she, if she wishes to stay married to him, thus has a means to prove her innocence- which explains the approach that focuses on God’s magnanimity in permitting His name to be erased for the sake of these two individuals.
But we discuss this in class. Why does the Sotah trial exist? Is it a deterrent, because the punishment is so horrible no woman will chance adultery? Is it a way for an overbearing husband to punish his wife? Is it a path towards rectification and new hope in the marriage? As you might imagine, the students have a variety of opinions- and there are many Torah perspectives that accord with their diverse points of view.
As a side note, when I first learned Sotah, it was in tenth grade from Rebbetzin Zucker. I had read Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame in eighth grade and as we learned, I noted the similarities between the garments the Sotah wears and how she is treated and how Hugo portrays Esmeralda. One obvious comparison is
In the fatal cart sat a young girl with her arms tied behind her back, and with no priest beside her. She was in her shift; her long black hair (the fashion then was to cut it off only at the foot of the gallows) fell in disorder upon her half-bared throat and shoulders.
Athwart that waving hair, more glossy than the plumage of a raven, a thick, rough, gray rope was visible, twisted and knotted, chafing her delicate collar-bones and twining round the charming neck of the poor girl, like an earthworm round a flower. Beneath that rope glittered a tiny amulet ornamented with bits of green glass, which had been left to her no doubt, because nothing is refused to those who are about to die. The spectators in the windows could see in the bottom of the cart her naked legs which she strove to hide beneath her, as by a final feminine instinct. At her feet lay a little goat, bound. The condemned girl held together with her teeth her imperfectly fastened shift. One would have said that she suffered still more in her misery from being thus exposed almost naked to the eyes of all. Alas! modesty is not made for such shocks.
There’s also this parallel in terms of the experience of the onlookers. It’s not a perfect parallel, because in the understanding of the commentaries, the public views the woman as an object of derision, not desire, and her very exposure makes it so. But the point is that her exposure to the public is shameful for her.
He reflected that the people also, the entire populace, had had before their eyes the woman whom he loved exposed almost naked. He writhed his arms with agony as he thought that the woman whose form, caught by him alone in the darkness would have been supreme happiness, had been delivered up in broad daylight at full noonday, to a whole people, clad as for a night of voluptuousness. He wept with rage over all these mysteries of love, profaned, soiled, laid bare, withered forever. He wept with rage as he pictured to himself how many impure looks had been gratified at the sight of that badly fastened shift, and that this beautiful girl, this virgin lily, this cup of modesty and delight, to which he would have dared to place his lips only trembling, had just been transformed into a sort of public bowl, whereat the vilest populace of Paris, thieves, beggars, lackeys, had come to quaff in common an audacious, impure, and depraved pleasure.
In addition to the focus on the relationship between the couple, the symbolism of each aspect of the trial, and figuring out why the trial exists, in class, we discuss my favorite Sifri ever- which Rebbetzin Zucker first taught me. It’s the one that clarifies that the waters will only test the woman if the man is not a hypocrite. If he was faithless and committed adultery himself, even if she is guilty, the Sotah waters will not test her.
When we’ve successfully learned through the unit, I assign an assessment. Here are some of my favorite examples of student work.
An Interactive Video Choose Your Own Adventure (Note: you will need to click to follow the video all the way through. My students acted and performed in this, and it’s epic. Especially clever is the song about being young and dumb playing in the background as the rabbis attempt to pressure the young woman to confess what she did and lose her Ketubah rather than attempt the trial and die horribly. The song’s a direct reference to one of the reasons the woman might have gone astray per the mishna. They approved my sharing this video with others.)
A Google Forms Choose Your Own Adventure by my student Aiden.
