The heart of the topic of the wayward woman in Parashat Nasso, is apparently the attempt to determine truth by means of divine intervention.

The woman is under serious suspicion of a severe offense, but the truth is unknown. The test by the Waters of Bitterness is presented as a supernatural ceremony which reveals hidden truths, so that justice may be seen and done. A very close reading of the Torah text shows that the doubt hangs not only over the woman's action, but also over the process of revealing the truth. There is room for suspicion that the hoped-for divine assistance is not efficient.

In the Mishnah Sotah, uncertainty itself becomes the main subject. The tractate is a well-designed literary creation. It begins with the jealous husband warning his spouse – in front of witnesses – regarding her 'concealment' (stirah) with another man; it concludes with "the elders of that city" unable to behead a heifer because of conflicting evidence (also stirah) given by the witnesses.

The author of the mishnah bases himself primarily on the Torah text which swings between positions and points of view with regard to the suspected woman. The first verse relates to a situation which is, at first blush, definite and even inevitable: "Any man, any man whose wife goes astray, breaking faith, yes, faith with him." The 'going astray' of the wife is a wide-spread occurrence which can befall every family in Israel. The following verse continues along this line, but defines the problem. The woman did indeed break faith with her husband, but did so in a clandestine manner – "there were no witnesses against her." The fact of her adultery is not in doubt. The problem is technical – absence of witnesses who could have led to her conviction in court.

Passage 14 adds a new element to the situation. Before, the problem was juridi-technical, i.e., how to achieve justice in a situation where we know that the woman has transgressed a serious prohibition, but we have no way of proving it. Now the problem is emotional. Yet more, in verse 14 the problem is not that of the woman or of the Bet Din, but of the husband. The husband is jealous of his wife. This is the known and certain fact. Is his suspicion based upon an act actually performed by her, or upon an act which the jealous husband assumes to have taken place? The first passages are directed at the proving of the woman's guilt. The last passage is directed at assuaging the husband.

Therefore the ritual, the details of which are later described, is ambiguous. It is uncertain whether it is supposed to reveal the truth about the wife and provide an extra-judicial proof of guilt. It is possible that the very opposite is true – perhaps the purpose of the ritual is actually to clear the woman whose husband's jealously has no basis in fact.

The Tractate Sotah is composed of nine chapters. The second part of Chapter Nine, mishnayot 9-15, differs from the rest of the tractate both in content and in tone. I strongly feel that the literary structure which begins with Chapter One concludes with Chapter Nine, Mishna Eight.

In line with this assumption, I would like to examine the beginning and the end of the tractate in order to discern the author's attitude to the commandment of Sotah.

The first thing to catch the reader's eye at the beginning of the tractate is the fact that the author of the mishnah ignores passages 12-13. The definite guilt of the woman, clearly implied in the Torah, is absent from the Mishnah. At the outset, the Mishnah informs us that the central problem in the sugya is the husband's jealousy.

The second outstanding feature is that the Torah and the Mishnah relate differently to the problem of absence of witnesses. The Torah declares that there are no eyewitnesses to the intimate relations between the woman and the stranger. But the first thing the Mishnah deals with is the requirement of witnesses for the husband's kin'ah. In the Mishnah, the husband's emotional state – the condition of uncertainty as to the facts – is expressed by a formal process. The husband who suspects relations between his wife and another man, must warn his wife in the presence of witnesses, "witnesses of kin'ah", not to seclude herself with the other man. If and when she nevertheless spends time with the other man – "If she entered with him to the house of seclusion and spent with him sufficient time to become tamei" – only then does the husband have the right to demand her examination via the Waters of Bitterness. He does not have "witnesses to the tum'ah" – witnesses to sexual relations between his wife and the other man. But he must bring witnesses to testify that the woman and the stranger were discovered in a 'hidden place' alone. These witnesses are termed eidei stira -- witnesses to stira – a loaded, not random, phrase.

Then what? The husband brings his wife to the bet din "for that place" and from there "they would bring her up to the Great Bet Din in Yerushalayim." There, in Yerushalayim, she undergoes the test of the Waters of Bitterness.

According to the Torah, the examination is supposed to provide the missing information, to reveal whether or not the woman had committed adultery. According to the beginning of the mishnah, we might anticipate that the Waters of Bitterness ritual would erase the husband's jealousy. After she undergoes the process, the husband should calm down. Either her infidelity is proven, and he must divorce her without giving her ketuba rights, or the examination proves that she is innocent and pure, and his jealousy was unfounded.

If these were indeed the husband's expectations, continued reading of the following chapters will greatly disappoint him. He will find two things: firstof all, there are different and strange situations in which the wife cannot take the test. Secondly, even if she takes the test, the results may be inconclusive. The hoped-for information may be unattainable.

The most surprising revelation is found in Chapter Three, Mishnah Four: Immediately following the terrifying description of what befalls her if her tum'ah is established ("her face becomes sallow, and her eyes bulge, and her veins protrude"), appears a puzzling declaration "If she had a merit, it would hold her punishment in abeyance." This means that a woman possessing merits from other mitzvot which she had performed, is deserving of reward even in a case of adultery; the severe results of the test by the Waters of Bitterness will appear only after a year or more.

The significance of this is that the husband, whose wife successfully passed the test of the Waters and remained unharmed, cannot know with certainty whether his wife is innocent or guilty. He remains in a state of uncertainty, of jealousy, similar to his condition prior to the examination. He returns from Yerushalayim to "the same place"; he is no more knowledgeable than when he set out for Yerushalayim.

Now let us turn to the end of the Mishnah, Chapter Nine. This chapter does not deal with the Sotah, but with another mitzva which deals with a condition of ignorance of the truth -- the mitzva of egla arufa – the beheaded heifer. A human corpse is discovered outside the boundaries of cities or towns in the area; it is necessary to decide which community must accept responsibility for the murder which occurred nearby. By beheading a heifer at the site of the corpse's discovery, the community will receive atonement for its responsibility for the crime.

In this case, traffic moves in the opposite direction from that of the Sotah. The dwellers of that place do not go up to Yerushalayim; "Three from the Great Bet Din of Yerushalayim would go out" to the site of the murder. They would measure the distances between the site of the crime and the nearby settlements in order to determine which is the closest, and this settlement must carry out the ritual of the egla arufa.

The examination by the Waters of Bitterness takes place under the supervision of the priests and members of the Great Bet Din. In the case of egla arufa, however, after establishing which is the nearest settlement, the members of the court leave. "The elders of Yerushalayim finished and left." The procedure is conducted by "the elders of that town". The chapter (as I define it) ends with another discussion about witnesses, which echoes the discussion from the beginning of the tractate; if there are two witnesses who claim to have seen the murder and an additional witness claims that these two witnesses did not see the murder, the procedure of egla arufa does not take place.

It seems to me that the author of mishnah is attempting to dash the hope and the confidence which seem to penetrate a simple reading of the Sotah chapter in the Torah. When we search for justice, we should not depend upon miracles. Let us not expect to acquire certain knowledge about the behavior of others, even of those closest to us. Let us not think that we can go up to Yerushalayim in order to find the truth and eliminate our jealousy, nor should we expect the elders of Yerushalyim to come to us and reveal the truth. Ultimately, we have to cope by ourselves with a situation in which we are alone in the field with a young heifer at our right, and contradictory witnesses at our left. The practice of justice "is not in heaven" -- it is left to our lips, our hearts, and our hands; we must pursue justice, even when truth eludes us.

On 24^th of Nissan (17.04.01), in the Hartman Institute in Yerushalayim, there took place a symposium on the subject: "Recognizing the Suffering of the Other – Religious Commandment, Psychological Challenge". Participants were Dr. Daniel Brom, Clinical Psychologist, Director of the Trauma Center at Herzog Hospital, Dr. Muhamad Horani, of Hartman Institute, Sr. Shafik Masalha, Clinical Psychologist who teaches at T. A. Univ., and Rabbi David Rosen, formerly Chief Rabbi for Ireland, Director of the Interfaith Center of the American-Jewish Committee. Professor Alice Shalvi chaired the evening.

The lecture hall was filled to overflowing, and the speakers related to various aspects of the problem.

Rabbi Rosen surveyed sources from various periods which stress the priority of peace over war. He also reviewed responsa of poskim of later generations, such as Rabbis Uziel, Amiel, and Unterman, who dealt with the legitimate limits of the use of power even in war situations.

Dr. Horani related to the concept of 'otherness' in various cultures, including Islam, and cited many quotes from the Koran proving that in Islam, too, there can be heard a strong voice of seeking peace and of relating to the other respectfully. He expressed the hope that we all learn to relate to the suffering of others, regardless of race, religion or nationality. He described various educational activities among Israel's Arab population in which he is involved.

Dr. Dani Brom spoke about the psychological difficulties we all experience in some measure, which prevent us from relating to the other's suffering. It is difficult for us to free ourselves of a narcissistic position which causes us to relate to our own distress and traumatic experience as something unique and exclusive. Recognition of the suffering of others demands considerable effort and is not to be taken for granted in a population exposed to trauma and distress.

Dr. Masalha shared with the audience his personal experience as an Israeli Arab in traumatic events which occurred to the Arabs of Israel since 1948. He discerned a number of factors which make it difficult for us to recognize the other, sometimes causing us to dehumanize the other: basic inability to empathize, the need to see the bad in the other and goodness and justness only in ourselves, the fear that recognition of the rights of the other must be at the expense of our own rights, and the feelings of solidarity with our own. As against these factors, Dr. Masalha described three factors which can facilitate recognition of the other: tolerance – the acceptance of the other even though I believe he is wrong; pluralism – the acceptance of the other and recognition of his worth even though I disagree with him; partnership or multiculturalism – in addition to acceptance of the presence of the other, there is the feeling that the other enriches our world, and that without him we would lack something.

An evening such as this, taking place only a few kilometers from exchange of gunfire, leaves us with hope that someday, even though the process be an extended one, the cycle of bloodshed will cease, for 'this melody cannot be stopped.'

Our member, Professor Avi Ravitsky, recipient of the Israel Prize for Jewish Philosophy, a founder of Oz V'Shalom – Netivot Shalom, will lecture on:

The lecture will take place on Wednesday, 15 Sivan (6.6.01) at 20:15, at the Hebrew University, Mt Scopus, Faculty of Social Sciences, Room 2110

To our readers:

We will be happy to have you actively participate in "Shabbat Shalom" by:

1. Letters to the editor
2. Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)
3. Membership in Oz V'Shalom – Netivot Shalom and payment of dues.

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

1 Hebrew edition distributed in Is $1000

1 English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

Tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom.

New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Canada, 801 Eglinton Ave. West, Suite #401, Toronto, Ontario M5N 1E3 Canada

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom

P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians

Our activities are funded by donations, volunteer efforts and one part time employee.