ordeal in contrast to so much else that contracted it(B. Sotah 26b, 27a).
An interesting discussion indicated that in the case of adultery, not only would the woman's belly and thigh fall away, but also that of her lover(B. Sotah 28a), which for the first time brought some punishment immediately on her lover. He was, of course, also to be liable for the death penalty, but that came later in the sequence of events.
There was concern about the effectiveness of the waters, which should not be questioned, so potential problems were discussed. If the husband cohabited with her during this period, they were not effective. If the court was dealing with one known as an adulterous woman, the waters were ineffective but could be given. If she drank and cleared herself, however, and then witnesses came— the witnesses not the waters were believed. Yet, if the witnesses remained overseas and merely sent statements, they did not suspend the water(B. Sotah 6a). In other words, differences of opinion continued and ultimately the facts rather than the water of the ritual was decisive.
Practical considerations continued, so as the ordeal ceased with the destruction of the Temple, Haninah of Sura cautioned husbands not to warn their wives before two witnesses to refrain from association with a specific male. Thus he would forbid himself forever to his wife as she could no longer remove the suspicion(Sotah 2b).
The talmudic scholars happily gave up on this experiment. Their reasons were simple:(1) It depended on divine intervention in judicial affairs to which they were opposed.(2) It was not a workable solution to a difficult problem.(3) As the woman’s merit could play arole, the ordeal provided no solution. In place of this questionable approach, the rabbis emphasized reconciliation, and if that did not work, easy divorce.