|
This entry is part of the Blogging-the-Bible series. To see a list of passages, covered so far click here. |
In Part 1 of this post I quoted the passage about subjecting a suspected adulteress to a supernatural “faithfulness” test. It’s too obvious to spend a whole post condemning such blatant misogyny (’twould be an applause light). So I want to continue looking at ways harsh Biblical passages are softened by rabbinic Judaism. To look at such passages in their historical context doesn’t excuse them — but gives us better tools for tracing how such beliefs influence society. Even from the ancient Israelites’ view, the law is very unequal:
- Adultery is a capital offense for both husband and wife. Only a wife is tested with the bitter water. Only a husband has the dubious privilege of experiencing the “spirit of jealousy”.
- It’s a capital offense for both the wife and her paramour [Deut 22:22]. But the water is only described as striking down the woman, not her paramour (which would only be appropriate since the whole procedure’s miraculous).
This too much for the rabbis to bear; so they dispose of both inequalities. According to the Talmud, the husband is meant to first warn his wife “don’t seclude yourself with Joe Bloghs”. A major opinion is that it’s actually forbidden for a husband to issue this warning (since it sows marital discord), so Numbers only speaks of the husband who illegally warned his wife. From my perspective, it’s a bit weak to give YHWH a pass in issuing husbands with such a powerful legal instrument — and then lament when husbands actually use this instrument. However it does show a level of rabbinic discomfort at the Sotah procedure. The second point is dealt with much more swiftly: according to the Talmud, the magic water is meant to strike the woman’s paramour as well (though it’s not mentioned explicitly in the Bible).
The Talmud goes further. In the ritual, the curse scroll is erased by the bitter waters. But the curse contains YHWH’s name. So, the reasoning goes, God is so merciful he’s willing to let his name be erased to bring reconciliation between husband and wife, to restore normal marital relations! [Source: 2.L.3] Now, imagine the couple going home after the wife drank the water and lived (and hence was proved innocent). Something in me seriously doubts their future marriage will be blissful. But the Talmud’s implication is that most of the time the husband’s accusation is unfounded and the magic water is used to exonerate the wife not condemn her. Thus the transformation is complete and the Sotah passage magically becomes a milestone of feminist history and how protected the Israelite wife was…This is the my main problem with having a holy text: with enough interpretation, war is peace.
Now for my take: this is almost an extra-judicial procedure. The normal penalty for adultery is death but the plain text of this passage implies the woman will “merely” end up humiliated and barren (as opposed to dying). So I agree with the rabbis that the passage is meant to cover cases where the death penalty can’t be applied (eg. no witnesses). But it’s definitely engineered very deliberately to humiliate the wife as much as possible and thus serve as a means of extra-judicial social control — something that can be even more binding than an ineffective legal system. And of course even if the ritual was performed, how many times would the magic water cause a woman’s “thigh to sag”? Thus the passage brings a sense of stability and certainty (through the mere threat of supernatural intervention) into a [male-led] Israelite marriage.
9 comments ↓
[...] Softening the Scriptural Blow (Num 5) → [...]
Not to be too pendantic, but “and thus serve as a means of extra-judicial social control” could apply to religion as a whole. It’s really no surprise to find small and clear details of it in situations like these…
Have you read The Bible by Karen Armstrong? I just started it, and so far it’s great — she really illuminates how and why we ended up with the holy texts we did. It further solidifies my (already very solid) position against literalism. I think you’d enjoy it.
Whoops! HTML fail!
What is your take on adultery?
I have no problem committing it! I have major problems with a partner committing it. Irrational and unjust
I also think that the 3rd party should be innocent of all charges. I think ALL religions get that part wrong.
Marriage is simply a legal and social agreement between two consenting adults (in Western society anyway – outside of royalty) so if there is any breach of that agreement it is a civil matter and can be resolved as a simple breach of contract.
As for it being worthy of the death penalty… that coming from a book that actively promotes slavery? I think not.
Alan — on the contrary I think most legal procedures from the Torah are theocratic and come from a time where religion was very much a legal and formal social control. The sotah procedure is therefore an exception to the usual standards of trial and execution for religious offences that the same book of Numbers describes. It’s just that now Judaism has had its bite taken out of it so everything has become extra-judicial.
Daisy — I haven’t but from what I’ve heard of Karen Armstrong (I think she did a TED talk) she seems a bit too conciliatory for me. For example, this very passage in Numbers makes a very strong case against interpretation: it is only by interpreting it that people have turned it from its repressive original meaning into a meaning that makes it appear it’s looking out for women, but that meaning is false.
I imagine you don’t interpret the passage that way yourself, but I think that’s the problem. The Bible has good parts and bad parts — but because it has bad parts it makes it a lot easier for people with a mindset different to yours to use their interpretation to make them even worse.
Does that make sense?
Keddaw — I think adultery is a much bigger problem in society than it needs to be (ie. causes more damage than needed) because we’ve backed ourselves into an unrealistic corner with a monogamy ideal whose strictness is ludicrous. It’s still an overhang from earlier concepts of relationships as more relating to ownership, legitimacy of children etc. When you talk of marriage as being a legal contract, I think that’s part of the problem we’ve inherited, the attempt to make emotions legally binding.
Of course the death penalty is something I won’t even consider as worthy of making an argument against — and neither will a lot of others including religious people! Which shows that they also use tactics similar to the rabbis in softening the blow.
Michael — yes, that makes sense. You’re right about the potential for interpretation making hateful passages even worse, but I don’t think it’s possible to read, to study, without interpreting. I have a lot of thoughts, so I think I’ll spare your comment thread and write a proper post at my place.
: )
Leave a Comment