( ontrolling Passions- Mixed Results 109
would have no effect, R. Jose ben R. Bun stated that the husband should divorce her if he was suspicious. While R. Josiah quoting Zeira stated that a husband could forgive his wife in this instance just as one could forgive a rebellious son and a rebellious elder(J. Sotah 4:1, 2).
R. Yohanan emphasized the need of the husband to warn his wife and not to go merely on suspicion and hearsay(J Sotah 6:1). Both male or female witnesses were acceptable, and a single witness could lead to her being declared unclean, but not to deprive her of her ketubah(J. Sotah 6:4). The confusion of witnesses contradicting each other discussed in the Mishnah was not clarified by the Yerushalmi discussion, either. R. Josiah emphasized that the woman was addressed in any language that she understood, not necessarily Hebrew (J. Sotah 6:4). The text also dealt with details of the ritual, the meal offering, as well as a good deal of other material as often in talmudic discussions.
The rabbis were, of course, aware of the fact that the rite had ceased with the destruction of the Temple, so they had to ask whether punishment for this act of adultery, when proved, still prevailed. They stated that God would bring about execution, in this case as in others, though a method akin to one of the four mandated by the Bible and provided the details(B. Sotah 8b). This, of course, meant that any fatal accident would be ascribed to divine punishment for what may have happened or only been a figment of a jealous husband’s imagination. The cloud of the accusation would continue throughout the woman’s life. One later rabbi provided the usual explanation as morality had declined, it was no longer feasible, and had nothing to do with the destruction of the Temple, although that was also due to the decline of morality.
The Bavli began with simple a question that placed the possible misdeed in a different light— why Sofah after the tractate Nazir— because it was probably wine that caused the woman’s