Sotah-So-Good For Marriage?

Parshat Naso

by Rabbi Avi Billet

R. Shalom Isaac Mizrachi (Divrei Shalom Responsa YD 9) was asked a question: If a person slaughtered an animal but did not cover the blood, is the meat of the animal permitted to be eaten?

He begins his answer quoting the Shulchan Arukh, who says there is a mitzvah to cover the blood (based on Vayikra 17:13), and the Rama who says that mitzvah is separate from the valid slaughtering which is still good even if he deliberately did not cover the blood.

            

As in any good responsa where the Shulchan Arukh is the tip of the iceberg, he goes on for pages and pages. He distinguishes between this case and circumstances which arise in the Torah in which an antidote is prescribed for a problem.

            

A slaughtered animal is permitted to be eaten regardless of whether one followed or violated the mitzvah to cover the blood. However, a person would remain 'tameh' forever had we not had a mitzvah of the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer). He goes on to say that if we did not have the mitzvah of the Sotah drink (Bamidbar 5 – our parsha), peace would never be attainable for a husband and wife living under a cloud of suspicion and jealousy. The doubts of faithlessness would be enough to force a mandated separation.

            

As he develops the comparison between covering the blood of the slaughtered animal against the Parah Adumah equation and the Sotah, he further distinguishes between the former and the latter two cases. Without the covering of the blood, one can still derive benefit from the slaughtered animal. But it is only with the ashes of the Red Heifer that one derives the benefit of becoming 'tahor.' It is only with the Sotah drink that one derives the benefit of achieving the peace in the home that comes from the divine clarification that leads to a clear conscience.

            

In explaining how he derives these comparisons from the words of Rashi, the Divrei Shalom says, "Had we not been commanded about the Sotah drink (literally 'the dirt of Sotah' which is dissolved in the drink) there would not be peace between husband and wife."

            

This final formulation is a little different than before. Earlier he suggested that peace would not be attainable under the circumstance of suspicion, and now he is suggesting that peace would be impossible in general, were the mitzvah of Sotah not in the books.

            

Is he suggesting that the possibility of undergoing the Sotah embarrassment is meant to be a deterrent? That knowing that "a mere suspicion of faithlessness could be enough to possibly end a marriage" would cause people to be scrupulously attentive to their spouses and to behave in a manner that is, at all times, above suspicion?

Was Sotah, like the mitzvah of the rebellious son (Devarim 21:18-21), which the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) claims never happened, a ritual placed in the Torah as a warning and deterrent, simply for us to learn the lesson of how to and how not to behave?

Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai abolished the Sotah ritual (Sotah 47a) because, as the Talmud suggests, it did not serve very well as a deterrent during his time.

Nowadays, the idea of Sotah seems so anachronistic, on the one hand, and so chauvinistic on the other. And yet I wonder what such a deterrent would do for marriages today.

There are different ways people look at marriage. Some go into it and are committed to stick with it through thick and thin. Some have a very special relationship built on a mutual respect, a shared vision of a life, and the ability to communicate well with one another. Some view it as a commitment that will last as long as it feels right. Some might even assume that they will one day become a statistic.

We don't have the Sotah ritual, but we live in a world in which faithlessness can't hide forever, only to be exposed in some divine ritual. It eventually comes out. And the inevitable exposé doesn't stop those (men or women) who will not respect their marriages.

But maybe there is something to a deterrent of some kind. If Rabbi Mizrachi is correct that peace would be impossible for husbands and wives to achieve without the Sotah ritual being "out there," there are grounds to say that a good number of people will heed the "warning" and will view their marriage commitment as sacred. The "Shalom Bayit" – peace in the home – they will achieve will be elevated by their efforts to renew their love and kinship on a regular basis. They will see only one another, and will never even be tempted to see if there's someone better out there. And any attempt of the yetzer hara (Evil Inclination) will be scornfully turned aside, because "There is none more beautiful in my eyes, or more appropriate for me than the one to whom I am married."

May we merit to think of the Sotah ritual in this way, as an encouragement to find and bring out the best in our spouses so that our marriages can be elevated in the Bayit Neeman B'Yisrael we are all blessed at our weddings to build until we reach the age of 120.