The nature of the punishment, essentially a false pregnancy, indicated that this ritual was not primarily about adultery but about paternity, as the belly of a barren women or one past menopause was not going to swell. The rabbinic material turned to this issue in a limited way.
The mishnaic account and the talmudic discussions occurred after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem , which made the discussion of the ritual academic.(B. San. 37b; B. Ket 30a; B. San. 41a stated that it had already ceased 40 years earlier.) The Bavli and to a lesser extent the Jerushalmi proceeded to discuss it even though it was no longer possible to carry it out, as the Temple had been destroyed. The discussions expressed concern over(1) the complications of the ritual;(2) the purpose of the ritual as the Jewish people was now widely scattered and it no longer served as a public warning to women;(3) the inaccessibility of the ritual, even if the Temple was restored, as the population was so widely scattered.
Unspoken considerations also played a role in these discussions:(1) The rabbis sought to eliminate the predominant role of the priesthood. This powerful ritual was an obstacle as long as the Temple stood and the latter only theoretically;(2) the theological consideration of the rabbinic opposition to divine interference in daily human affairs;(3) The theological consideration of“merit”(in this case of the woman) which counterbalanced human failings and made a satisfactory outcome impossible or doubtful. As this was involved, how would anyone be able to decide whether the waters were ineffective because of her innocence or her accumulated merit. In other words, the ritual neither cleared the woman’s name nor satisfied the husband. Let us see how the rabbinic literature treated this significant biblical ritual.