DANIEL SCHIFF

pressions might convey the sense that this test was nothing more than a demeaning social tool in which the halakhah became involved in the public degradation of women by their jealous husbands, further insight suggests other possibilities. Rachel Biale, Women and Jewish Law—An Exploration of Women’s Issues in Halakhic Sources(New York , 1984), pp. 186-87, proposes that the ease with which the test would have been passed may well have been designed—in the vast majority of cases—to prove women’s innocence. This was particularly important since“suspicion of adultery in a close-knit community would be almost impossible to dispel, and could easily lead to ostracism and perhaps violent revenge.” According to Biale, seen in this light,“the ordeal is changed from a measure threatening women to a mechanism for their protection.” Whether Biale’s explanation as to the motivation for the test itself is plausible, the concern for fair treatment that brought about the cessation of the test is beyond doubt.

53. Sotah 47a-b.

54. Hyam Maccoby in his“Halakhah and Sex Ethics,” in W. Jacob and M. Zemer, Dynamic Jewish Law(Pittsburgh , 1991), p. 138, clearly expressed this notion when he wrote:“But the doctrine of abrizaihu, on this interpretation, also requires martyrdom for lesser offenses that are in some way connected with adultery: for example, the offense of embracing and fondling another man’s wife, which is regarded as Biblically forbidden(on pain of malkut) by Lev. 18:6.”

55. The only Jewish statement on gender equality in matters of adultery was made by Maram, the Israel Council of Progressive Rabbis, in 1983. In a document setting forth its decisions on marriage, Hehachlatot Maram B’Nosei Nissuin—Rishum V’Arichat T’kasim, at section 14A, Maram declared:“The approach of Maram in the matter of adultery is founded in equality....” This ruling, however, applies only to those who come under the aegis of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism, which—at most—numbers several thousand people.

56. Walter Jacob , Contemporary American Reform Responsa(New York , 1987), p. 286. 57, Ibid., pp. 286-87. 58. Shuthan Arukh Even Haezer 11.2.

59. Eugene B. Borowitz , Exploring Jewish Ethics—Papers on Covenant Responsibility(Detroit , 1990), p. 266.

60. Elliot N. Dorff,“This Is My Beloved, This Is My Friend—A Jewish Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality” for and with the Commission on Human Sexuality of the Rabbinical Assembly , April 11, 1994, p. 11; Michael Gold, Does God Belong in the Bedroom?(Philadelphia , 1992), pp. 51-53.

61. For a good summary see Benzion Schereschewsky,“Civil Marriage, ” in Menachem Elon , The Principles of Jewish Law(Jerusalem , 1974), pp. 371-74.

115