Why was the priestly exam of a woman suspected of adultery not applied to men (Numbers 5:11-31)?

Question

In the book of Numbers, there is a very interesting test for a woman suspected of committing adultery. After some initial discussion, if the woman refuses to admit her sin, or is innocent, the priest will write the curses that might fall upon her on a scroll. Then he will scrape this ink off the scroll into some water that already had some dirt sprinkled into it. If she was guilty, she would suffer as a result, even though it could never be proved. If she was innocent than she would be fine; the bitter water would not harm her.

²³The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. ²⁴He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. ²⁵The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. ²⁶The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. ²⁷If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. (Numbers 5:23-27)

My question is, Why was not such a ‘miraculous test’ made for men, whose wives had suspected them of being adulterous? I have my own theory that I may post later. As extreme as this case is, I do not see it as sexual discrimination by an unjust man based society. I am looking for answer that unfolds the righteousness of God in his holy laws. For bonus points, any symbolic meaning attached to the practice is also welcome.

Answer 1

This test has many dimensions to it. It has little to do with the guilt or innocence of the woman.

In order for the test to apply, the woman must become foolish. This has been interpreted to mean that she has aroused her husband's jealousy by flirting. Or she has aroused the suspicion of witnesses to her flirting, but they have not witnessed adultery, and have made it known to the husband.

The time of causing suspicion must be followed by a period of sufficient length of time where the two were isolated together and had opportunity for adultery. see Rashi's comments

If the husband is suspicious, the test is a method of being reconciled.

If the community is suspicious, the husband may not have relations with her until she is cleared.

The first effect of the law is that it is a deterrent. And apparently an effective one since part of the law is that a woman so condemned would become a curse. Her name would be used in a phrase such as '...may you be as so-and-so who cheated on her husband." There is no record of a woman who has become such a curse.

The second effect is that innocent women are not put away because of libelous suspicions of the community or simple jealousies of the husband.

The third effect is that it caused a jealous husband to reconsider his jealousy. If she had really been unfaithful, she would die during the test. He had to consider if he really wanted to put her to death, or to grant mercy in the absence of proof.

The OP asks why is there not a test for the suspected man. The simple answer is that a woman could not divorce her husband even if he was unfaithful, nor could she have him put to death.

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

However, some have interpreted that the test also applies to the adulterer:

causing the belly to swell and the thigh to rupture: [This refers to] the belly and thigh of the adulterer, or perhaps only those of the adulteress? [However,] when Scripture says “causes your thigh to rupture and your belly to swell” (verse 21), those of the adulteress are stated [thus here it must refer to the adulterer]. — [Sotah 28a and Sifrei Naso 1:65]

If the man and the woman were guilty, they could either confess and be stoned, or face the test, hoping to gain mercy from God, which would certainly be a life-changing event.

Addendum: Christian symbolism of this passage

The man is Christ and the wife is the church. The church is a prostitute that has been made into a virgin. Christ's jealousy is appeased through the realities of the symbolic offerings.

Water is the word of God which brings life or death. And such is the bitter water that the woman must drink.

The grain offering is a similitude of the seed of the woman, Christ himself. The wave offering is symbolic of Christ being offered on the cross, but being kept on earth within the body of Christ. He goes but stays. The burnt portion is a remembrance of Christ's total devotion to the FAther and his bride.

The oath the woman took is the devotion to Christ in her trust that only He can give her mercy, though she be guilty or innocent. She trusts Him to be the righteous and merciful judge.

The curses against the church are written in a book but blotted out with the living water of Christ. The salvation gained through Christ comes with the bitterness of the cross.

Those who are accepted by Christ have been made clean by his blood. Christ is guiltless in the condemnation of the wicked.

Answer 2

Under torah a woman does not have standing to bring a legal claim against her husband, nor can she initiate a divorce. It seems to follow, then, that she could not initiate the sotah ritual against a straying husband. (Note that if there has been adultery, then this means the other man's wife, if he is married, has no recourse against him.)

According to torah, capital offenses -- of which adultery is one -- require witnesses. If someone commits a capital offense but there are no witnesses, an earthly court cannot convict and punishment is in the hands of heaven. The ritual described here can only be invoked when there are no witnesses (Num 5:13). So this ritual must have some purpose other than to punish; a court can't punish anyway in this case, and God doesn't need a special ritual to punish wrongdoers. What might that purpose be?

This ritual actually provides some protection for the accused woman. In the passage in Numbers 5 note that she has to consent:

21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'

I wondered what happens in the case where she doesn't consent. The answer is that he has to give her a divorce on the spot. Without this ritual and without witnesses, he would be able to stay in the marriage, taking his suspicions out on her and perhaps holding a divorce "hostage" to other demands, so to speak. (Even in the case where she is innocent, she might be better off refusing and getting out of a marriage to someone jealous enough to invoke this ritual!)

While the focus here is on the woman, the only one who can be accused, this does not mean that the man won't also be divinely punished if they are guilty (as noted by Bob in his answer).