Raboyseyee and Ladies,
Loose Hair & Exposed Breasts:
How can you not read further? Shoin, and just like that, it’s Thursday afternoon again and Shabbis is around the corner. Settle in as Parshas Nosi -with its 176 pisukim- is the longest in the entire heylige Toirah. Come Sefer Devorim and the Ois will have completed a full fifteen years of parsha and other posts, wow! In Parshas Nosi, he has covered every topic more than once; what to review this week? Not to worry because this year the heylige Mishneh and its alarming coverage -so to speak- of the Soita is in focus; one could argue that “uncovered” would be a better descriptor. It will mamish astound you and the Ois is here with brand-new information on the woman suspected of being an adulteress.
That being stated, we begin where we have been leaving off these last few weeks: Was anyone ever killed by drinking the Soita waters? Was this punishment real? And we ask because in recent weeks we have discovered and discussed that many of the punishments prescribed in the heylige Toirah for various offenses -even big ones- never really happened in real life. Which begs the following question: Were there suspected -and or guilty mamish- Soita’s who drank the water concoction who lived to talk about their experiences?
Mamish an excellent question and one the heylige Gemora discusses but we begin with this. Says the heylige Gemora (Soita 47a, 47b) that the practice -of administrating these ‘bare the truth waters’ was discontinued when adultery became more common and public. Well blow me down! More common and public? More on that below but the bottom line was this: Lewd behavior by many -seemingly too many to ignore- rendered the ritual ineffective davka because it required that the husband himself be guilt-free and that society value purity. In plain English: The magic potion only worked if the woman was guilty but the man innocent. Them are tall orders for a man. Avada it’s understood that no such man could be found and shoin. Someone threw in the proverbial towel. Nice pshat but what took place before discontinuance? Was anyone killed? Were these waters ever administered? Was there a time when women were guilty and the men were all mamish pure? What’s pshat here? Or, did the RBSO just give us these laws for educational purposes? To appease jealous husbands without such suspicions leading to violence? To scare the women straight?
The bottom line is full of good news for all the women out there: There is no recorded instance in the heylige Gemora or other classical Jewish sources where a specific named woman is described as having died as a result of drinking the waters. While the heylige Toirah promises that a guilty woman would suffer a miraculous physical death (her belly would swell and her thigh would fall), the ritual appears to have been rarely -if ever- carried out to its full consequences. Any by rarely it appears that this word could be replaced by never. For full disclosure, there is one medrish suggesting that one case did happen.
Says the Rambam (Hilchot Soita 3:16) that it’s theoretically possible, and affirms the process, but acknowledges it was rare. And says Rashi -other commentators imply the same- that it was more of a spiritual and social deterrent than a commonly completed ritual with deadly consequences. Noch a mol (one more time): There is no record of a woman actually dying from the Soita waters in the historical or rabbinic literature. It was more of a ritual mechanism for resolving suspicion in a deeply moral society, and eventually it was suspended altogether because society was not moral. The bottom line: While the Toirah lays out the punishment for guilt, there is no evidence it was ever carried out to the point of death. And with that a gittin Shabbis.
Ober before we conclude this week’s shortened review of the longest parsha, lets chazir the Mishneh which added a number of humiliating steps to the process and try to figure out why it went out of its way to provide a bunch of disturbing and naked details of the Soita process. What are these details? Let’s learn them together:
As mentioned, the heylige Mishneh lists all sorts of degrading and humiliating procedures that the suspected adulteress needed to undergo, yet none of these are found in the heylige Toirah!? You will mamish be amazed at the imagination of our sages of the Mishneh, but let us begin with what’s found in our parsha -the real directions from the RBSO- as it narrates the staging of a wife suspected by her husband of adultery. Says the heylige Toirah (Bamidbar 5:18):
במדבר ה:יח וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה וּפָרַע אֶת רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן עַל כַּפֶּיהָ אֵת מִנְחַת הַזִּכָּרוֹן מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הִוא וּבְיַד הַכֹּהֵן יִהְיוּ מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים.
“After he has made the woman stand before Hashem, the priest shall dishevel the woman’s hair (or “bare the woman’s head”) and place upon her hands the meal offering of remembrance, which is a meal offering of jealousy. And in the priest’s hands shall be the water of bitterness that induces the spell.”
Once ready, the woman would drink the concoction and you know the rest. So far so good and not so terrible until we read what the Mishneh -for some reason- adds to the ritual. So happens that some of the added steps contradict the simple meaning of the Toirah text (Soita 1:5-6) but that for another time. Let’s read the Mishnah’s instructions. Pay attention!
- Standing at the gate, facing the public
… מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְשַׁעֲרֵי מִזְרָח לְשַׁעֲרֵי נִיקָנוֹר
…They take her up to the Eastern Gate which is across from the Nicanor Gate..
2.Tearing her clothes
…וְכֹהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ אִם נִיקְרָעוּ נִיקְרָעוּ וְאִם נִיפְרָמוּ נִיפְרָמוּ עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִיבָּהּ וְסוֹתֵר אֶת סְעָרָהּ..
…And a priest takes hold of her garments—if they were torn then they were torn, if they were ripped at the seam then ripped at the seam—until he uncovers her bosom. And he loosens her hair.
For full disclosure, the text continues with this tidbit: Judah says: “If her bosom was lovely, he would not expose it. If her hair was lovely, he would not loosen it.” You can only imagine the line of koihanim on days when suspected Soitas were coming in to have their bosoms inspected.
ר׳ יְהוּדָה אוֹ׳ אִם הָיָה לִיבָּהּ נָאֶה לֹא הָיָה מְגַלֵּיהוּ וְאִם הָיָה סְעָרָהּ נָאֶה לֹא הָיָה סוֹתְרוֹ׃
3.Dressing her in black
הָיְתָה מְכוּסָּה בִלְבָנִים מְכַסָּהּ בִּשְׁחוֹרִים
If she was dressed in white, he would dress her in black.
4.Removing her jewelry
הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ כְּלֵי זָהָב קְטַלָּיוֹת נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת מַעֲבִירִים מִמֶּנָּה כְּדֵי לְנַוְּולָהּ
If she was wearing jewels of gold and chains and nose-rings and finger-rings, they would be taken from her to deface her.
5.Tying a rope above her exposed breasts
וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֵבֶל מִצְרִי וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ
And then he brings a rope of wicker and ties it above her breasts.
6.Making her a spectacle
וְכָל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּא וְרֹאֶה חוּץ מֵעֲבָדֶיהָ וְשִׁפְחוֹתֶיהָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּיבָּהּ גָּס בָּהֶן וּשְׁאַר כָּל הַנָּשִׁים מוּתָּרוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ שֶׁנֶּ׳ ״וְנִיָסְרוּ כָל הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִימַּתְכֶנָה״ (יחזקאל כג:מח).
And whoever wishes to watch comes and watches, except her slaves and maids, since with them she feels no shame. And all women may watch her, for it is written “That all women may take warning and not commit lewdness as you have done.” (Ezek 23:48).
My oh my! Did you read all these additions to the what the Toirah told us? What sort of behavior was this from our kohanim? Undressing her? Baring her breasts? Dangling some rope and wicker from, or above her breasts? Is this the Mishneh? Or was the Mishneh lifted from a scene in a movie or some magazine you used to spend money on? What’s happening here?
How could the Mishneh write these things? Is that what the RBSO wanted but didn’t reduce to writing in the heylige Toirah? Was this the oral tradition? Or, did the scribes of the Mishneh let their imaginations run wild? And why did the Mishneh take it upon themselves to add to what the RBSO described as the real ritual? One thing is zicher: The Mishneh took a particularly hostile attitude to the woman accused of adultery and heaped extra humiliations on her as part of the process. Why should the koihen be exposing and looking at the Soita’s breasts and dangling wicker and rope? Most of the described additions are strikingly graphic, disturbing, and even degrading.
Or, might we rationalize the Mishneh by suggesting that each step had a purpose, and that the Mishneh was totally justified in its approach? Perhaps the Mishneh davka wanted to publicly humiliate her if she was guilty. Might we argue that this symbolic “uncovering” exposed her to shame, not titillation. On the other hand, titillation is davka what was exposed, if you chap. Ober, what about the ropes or cords (possibly of wicker or fiber)? Might we argue these were used to bind her clothing so it couldn’t fall or be altered during the ceremony? Nice try! Was it more about ensuring the integrity of the process than about punishment? Ober why would the koihen have to look at her in that state? Was it not voyeurism? Not just the koihen, let’s read that again: “And whoever wishes to watch comes and watches, except her slaves and maids, since with them she feels no shame.” And all women may watch her? OMG! Might we argue that the Koihen oversees the ritual to observe for signs of divine response and to enforce the seriousness of the ritual? Na! Might we further argue that taka it’s uncomfortable to read these rituals today in 2025, ober back then, this was all about spiritual authority and not personal curiosity? That the koihen was able to concentrate on what his duties were and not get distracted by her bare breasts and disheveled hair? Let’s read that words of the Mishneh (Soita 1:6) again:
“And he [the Koihen] tears her clothing until he exposes her heart [chest], and then he undoes her hair.”
According to many commentaries, “exposing her heart” (liba) is understood to mean exposing her breasts. This was part of the ritual meant to publicly shame the woman and serve as a deterrent to others. It was conducted in the Temple courtyard, in view of others, including women, and sometimes even men. The good news -if you can call it that- is this: The heylige Gemora (Soita 7a) discusses efforts to limit the exposure to only women or at least minimize who was present, recognizing the inherent tension with values of modesty (tznius). In other words: Not everyone was entitled to see her bare breasts but certainly enough people to cause her maximum embarrassment.
Whatever it was, let’s all agree that in our times, reading the ritual as the Mishneh spells it out, might have us think that that the process was sexualized and degrading, but in its time, the Soita ritual was seemingly normative behavior and but a legal and spiritual mechanism for resolving a jealousy-driven accusation without violence designed to deter both infidelity and false accusations. And yes, it involved public and shaming, but strictly regulated and rarely performed. The bottom line: Why did the Mishneh add these wild details? Ver Veyst? Ober, we have to assume that the Mishneh was not inventing rituals arbitrarily; it had good intentions. Its aim was to preserve the sanctity and deterrent power of the ritual, while also emphasizing the gravity of marital infidelity — and of false accusations.
Ober there is good news: Though this is verbatim what the Mishneh states was the procedure, not all sages agreed with the expanded public humiliation ritual. It so happens that the Sifrei (Bamidbar 11), dismisses completely the presence of an audience during the humiliating gestures of the ritual. Nor does it mention the bare breasts. The text begins with a description of some of the details similar to those in the Mishneh:
היתה מכוסה לבנים, מכסה שחורין. היו שחורין נאים לה מפשיטה ומלבישה כעורין. היו עליה כלי זהב קטלאות נזמין וטבעות, מסלקן הימנה כדי לנוולה.
If she were clad in white he would dress her in black. If she bore jewels of gold and chains and nose-rings and finger-rings, they would take them from her to deface her.
Ober, from there, the Sifrei lays out his views of the ritual and they don’t include the bare breast.
ר’ יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אין מנוולין בנות ישראל יתר ממה שכתוב בתורה,
Reb Yoichonon ben Berokah says, “The daughters of Israel are not to be defaced more than what the Toirah says.” Reb Yoichonon opposes the excessive defacement narrated by the sages, advocating in its stead a plain reading of Scripture. He continues with new details that further protect the woman from humiliation, and abrogate entirely the audience’s participation:
לפני ה’ ופרע את ראש האישה וגו’ – סדין של בוץ היה פורס בינו לבין העם, כהן פונה לאחוריה ופורעה כדי לקיים בה מצות פריעה.
“[And the priest shall bring the wife] before G-d, and unbind the woman’s hair”—[The priest] would stretch out a linen sheet between himself and the people. The priest would [then] go behind the woman and unbind her hair [to the minimal measure required] to perform in her the mitzvah of unbinding.
In his view, even the one humiliation the Toirah does prescribe, the unbinding of her hair, must be done minimally, and behind a sheet, so that nobody other than the priest who performs the ritual sees her in this state. This is proven here based on a midrashic reading of the statement that the woman must stand “before G-d” when her hair is loosened, i.e., “before the RBSO” alone, and not before anyone else. Since Nikanor Gate is a public place (the public place of the Temple) a linen sheet must be used to create this concealment. And avada and avada, there is no mention of bare breasts and or rope. Was this the procedure? Ober Reb Yoichonon’s colleagues were not convinced by his argument and said this:
אמרו לו, כשם שלא חסה על כבוד המקום כך אין חסין על כבודה, אלא כל הניוול הזה מנוולה.
They said to him, “Just as she did not spare the RBSO’s dignity, her own dignity is not spared, but rather He defaces her with all of this defacement.”
The good news again: By the time the heylige Gemora was redacted, the ritual had largely fallen out of use because it was considered ineffective without societal integrity (Soita 47a): “When adulterers became common, the Soita ritual was suspended”). As the discussion comes to an end, the Mishneh claims that the Soita ritual, among other rituals, was cancelled at a certain point (Soita 9:9). Why? Because the male adulterers were so very plentiful; what else is new?!
משרבו הנאפים – פסקו המים המאררים. רבן יוחנן בן זכיי היפסיקן, שנאמר, ׳לא אפקד על בנותיכם כי תיזנינה ועל כלותיכם כי תנאפנה [כִּי־הֵם֙ עִם־הַזֹּנ֣וֹת יְפָרֵ֔דוּ]׳ (הושע ד,יד).
When [male] adulterers abounded, the rite of the water of bitterness ceased. Rabban Yoichonon ben Zakkai annulled it. For it is written, “I shall not punish your daughters when they fornicate, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, [for they themselves turn aside with whores.]” (Hosea 4:14).
We are all seemingly free to move about the cabin. And now you know!
A gittin Shabbis
The Oisvorfer Ruv
Yitz Grossman
