Talk:Ordeal of the bitter water

Accurate name for this topic/article

It is logical and accurate that this article be called Sotah for the over-all subject and not just for its so-called "ordeal". Therefore Ordeal of the bitter water was redirceted to here with ALL its contents intact. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Article written from a Christian POV?

In Jewish translations of Numbers, there's nothing about the accused woman being pregnant, nor was the ritual supposed to make her miscarry (it was actually supposed to make her and her lover explode). Here's a Jewish translation: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9933

Should there be something in here about how Jewish and Christian translations have different POVs on what the Sotah ritual actually is?(162.140.67.10 (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

I fixed the above. Are there any other issues? -- -- -- 20:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The word "embroider" seems to be offering editorial on the life of Mary in a trivializing tone? Justaquery (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this MEANT (in source *or* by deliberate misrepresentation) to sound... sexualized or erotic???

"Made to swallow the bitter water... that caused the curse... of adultery... while bare breasted... before a priest"?! Is this a fake allusion to ritual fellatio meant to discredit or insult, a real allusion to some pagan pre-Judaic weirdness, a sensationalist translation of something innocent, or for reals? And if for real, is this, then, a really badly written "politically correct" explanation of ritual humiliation of cheating wives or something? 68.183.124.21 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Lengthy discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: page moved to Ordeal of the bitter water. Remaining disambiguation can be done with hatnotes. Miniapolis 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Sotah → Ordeal of the bitter water Sotah (Talmud) → Sotah – restore to "ordeal of the bitter water" the term found in Jacob Neusner The Theology of the halakhah 2001 Page 107 and other English-language scholarly sources relating both to original context in Numbers 5 and also to commentary on Numbers 5 in the Talmud. Sotah should move to redirect as Sotah (Talmud) already does to Tractate 7 of Nashim, no need for disambiguation as no other meaning of Sotah (Hebrew = "wayward wife") in English. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Note to closer - since RM was placed Sotah (Talmud) has changed from a redirect to Nashim to a standalone article, see strikeouts in text above, this may mean that Sotah (Talmud) should move to Sotah, see below Move the ordeal to either Ordeal of the bitter water per request, or to Ordeal of jealousy which is another very common term for the ritual described in Numbers 5. This is an English encyclopedia and we use English article titles whenever possible. Sotah is Hebrew, not English. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Do not move {see below} The term refers to both the ordeal and the woman, moving it would distort the definition. -- Avi (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Isn't the onus the other way round? I would think having a word not normally used in English is more likely to distort. The Hebrew term isn't commonly used in English (witness the JPS translation) for either the ordeal nor for the woman subject to the ordeal. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC) But moving it to one would improperly represent the other. We have articles whose titles are the transliterations of terms. To whit, see Mishnah, Talmud, Brit Milah, Rumspringa, Russefeiring, Shinbyu, Miyamairi, Diksha, etc. This is no different. -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Moreover, moving the tractate article to a title sans (Talmud) would be especially confusing, as no one uses "Sotah" to mean the tractate (outside of an obvious discussion of sources). The term M'seches Sotah (Tractate Sotah) is used. -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Avi, Mishnah is an English word Talmud is an English word Brit Milah is known in English as covenant of circumcision Google Books, this article is clearly mistitled, however the mistitling can pass because Brit Milah lives as a WP:CURRENT custom, which ordeal of the bitter water isn't. Rumspringa has no English Rumschpringe or Rumshpringa, is an Amish term with no English equivalent Russefeiring has no English, The "russ celebration" is for Norwegian high school students in their final spring Shinbyu has no English, it is a Burmese term for a Burmese novitiation ceremony Miyamairi has no English, it is a Japanese term for a Japanese rite of passage in Japan for newborns. Sotah is not used in English, it's not even used in the Hebrew Bible, English sources massively use ordeal of the bitter water So really I don't know what these examples are meant to prove except that the invitation to look in Google Books and see what secular and Jewish academic sources use hasn't been taken up. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Well, your last sentence could have just as easily read (and should, in my opinion) "Sotah has no English, it is the Hebrew term which is used to mean both a particular rite of testing and the woman being tested" and so it remains in its native language as per the others I have listed. -- Avi (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Exactly, wheras ordeal of the bitter water, the original title before the cut-and-paste move is used in English. The issue here is that this a practice of ancient Israel, not of rabbinical Judaism, typically any practice of ancient Israel will be given an English title because the majority of sources and uses are in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Where do you find a difference? The vast majority (99+% perhaps) of the information about the practice of ancient Israel comes from the Mishnah, Talmud, Rishonim, etc. There is over 1000 years of discussion in that corpus, and a pittance elsewhere. What leads you to believe that the practice as described in the Halacha is different from what you are calling "ancient Israel"? -- Avi (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC) In WP:RS sources, as above. You may be right that sources in English are a "pittance" compared to Hebrew sources, but the fact remains the 1000s of English sources call what the sons of Aaron made the woman go through the "ordeal of bitter water". This is WP:COMMONNAME. Avi, is the ordeal of the bitter water still performed today? The sources in article say it is not. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The fact that sources are in another language does not make them not verifiable. As for it being performed, it could not have been since the destruction of the Temple, almost 1950 years ago, and may have stopped earlier when the Sanhedrin left their place in the Temple, around 40 years prior to its destruction. -- Avi (talk) The fact that sources are in another language does not make them not WP:V, but foreign sources are not part of WP:ARTICLETITLE, please read WP:AT and explain how a rabbinical Hebrew term for a section of the Mishnah not used in neutral English sources to refer to the ordeal of bitter water meets WP:COMMONNAME for the ordeal of bitter water. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC) WP:AT states: The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. I maintain that "sotah" is more common than "ordeal of bitter water" and is "English-enough" like Mishnah and Talmud, if not the other dozen or so examples I brought above. I maintain that "ordeal of bitter water" is inaccurate, as the article refers (and should) to both process and person, which are both encapsulated by "sotah" whereas "ordeal of bitter water" does not. I think at this point we need to agree to disagree and let others help us reach a consensus. -- Avi (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Comment. I found over 100,000 English references to Sotah in books.google.com[1]. The claim that this term is not commonly used in English is dubious. Shouldn't Sotah (Talmud) redirect to this article? --B2C 17:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC) No, I do not think so, because they refer to two completely different things. This article refers to the woman and the trial, not the tractate which discusses it. Similarly Tractate Succah is not a hut and Tractate Shabbos is not the Sabbath. Rather, they are the sections of the Talmud in which the majority of the discussion is about the named topic. -- Avi (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I agree with this. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Born2Cycle, no one claims that "Sotah" is not used in English; of course Sotah is used in English - to refer to Sotah (Talmud). But it is not used to refer to the actual subject and original title of this article before the copy paste, the 1500BCE ordeal of the bitter water. Sukkah (Talmud) is used in English because the practice exists in English as Sukkah in the modern Feast of Booths. But the ordeal of the bitter water is written in English because it has not been practised for 2000 years. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Do a google search; although not authritative, it is obvious that the term "Sotah" is being used to refer to both the ordeal and the woman (as it should). The term "ordeal" is used less frequently than even "Sotah" when you exclude "Talmud". In any event, in my opinion: there is no overwhelming evidence that the term "Sotah" is unused and punitively esoteric the proposed English term is not a complete and proper translation of the idea We have a long history of using transliterated titles when the term is 1) not totally rare in English and 2) when the proposed translation is flawed so I continue to maintain the move would deleteriously affect the encyclopedia. Of course we only have two open respondents at this point. More would be helpful. -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC) These three statements have already been show to be incorrect. (1) a simple Google search almost no use of the medieval rabbinical term "sotah" for the ordeal in Ancient Israel. (2) If the Jewish Publication Society and other reliable Jewish academic sources are translating it "wrong" that is not our concern, the fact remains that "ordeal of bitter water" is rendered "ordeal of bitter water" in JPS and academic Jewish sources. (I don't really see how a word which doesn't even occur in the Hebrew Bible can be a good "translation" of other Hebrew words which do occur). (3) we have no history on en.wp of using medieval rabbinical terms for Hebrew Bible topics. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I believe your counterarguments are flawed: The discussion of the process in ancient Israel is almost exclusively discussed in Rabbinic sources that range from the pre-medieval to the post-modern, and all use the term "Sotah"—in Hebrew and English. As for examples, here are some modern google results [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. There are many other reliable sources that do not translate it as the JPS. For example, The New Encyclopedia of Judaism translates Sotah as “wife suspected of adultery,” which is the other meaning, not the process. It does discuss the tractate in the article as well, which is confusing in my opinion. Fallacy of Slothful induction - Even there were no precedent specifically using rabbinic Hebrew to refer to a Biblical process and person as opposed to a English term, there are plenty of examples using a foreign term as opposed to an English translation when the foreign term is better (see the dozen or so examples above) -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry I really do not have time for "Fallacy" arguments. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC) That's a shame, as demonstrating flaws in someone else's position are among the strongest arguments in a disagreement, I believe (see How to disagree). -- Avi (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It's more that we've been in similar discussions before - on the one hand I present piles of academic books published by JPS and similar and on the other side you argue from books you are familiar with. There is no "fallacy" only different starting points. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC) As I said above, I think at this point we need to agree to disagree with each other's arguments and let others help us reach a consensus. -- Avi (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Do not move - Since, it looks to me, if someone did a search for ordeal... instead of sotah, it would redirect here; and since the lede explains the meaning of the term in English; and, also for all the reasons adduced by Avraham above, I believe the encyclopedia is not harmed in the least by maintaining the ancient Hebrew term as the title of the encyclopedia entry. warshy¥¥ 16:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I do want to concede that IIO's point above (a word which doesn't even occur in the Hebrew Bible [should not] be a good "translation" of other Hebrew words which do occur) is correct and is very well taken. However, Rabbinic Judaism did so much discuss and expand on the possible concept, that the article still deserves, IMHO, to be called following the Rabbinic development. The issue does reflect very well the fact that there was a large historical development between the original language of the Hebrew Bible and the religious code created later in the Mishnah and Talmud. But the encyclopedia entry again, IMHO, would still reflect the whole issue/subject better, if named after the later [Rabbinic] Hebrew concept.warshy¥¥ 19:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Warshy, yes but I think this is one of my concerns. To recap: Problem 1, in English the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME of "Sotah" is Sotah (Talmud) which redirects to the Nashim article: Sotah: (סוטה, "Wayward wife"); deals with the ritual of the Sotah - the woman suspected of adultery (Num 5) as well as other rituals involving a spoken formula (such as breaking the heifer's neck, the King's septa-annual public Torah reading, the Blessings and Curses of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, etc...). It consists of 9 chapters. Clear enough then, this is the the use of "Sotah" in English, to refer to Sotah, not to refer to the mayim hamarim in ancient Israel Problem 2 the original Ancient Israel article started 16 July 2007‎ User:Joe Gatt, User:Bionite, User:Newman Luke Ordeal of Bitter Water was largely as it is at the moment. The subject being the ordeal of bitter water, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME of which is "the ordeal of [the] bitter water, also per WP:NPOV a neutral title would reflect the whole issue/subject better. Sotah should have been added to this article as a paragraph at the bottom Ordeal of Bitter Water in Later Rabbinical Interpretation. Which is what we normally do for any other Ancient Israel/Hebrew Bible subject. See Category:Hebrew Bible topics. How many of them have been renamed (and re-weighted) to give then a non-Hebrew Bible rabbinical Hebrew name and focus? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Hello IIO, and thank you for a well thought-out and well researched argument. I think that you are technically correct in all points of your argument. You are correct that there are two different issues here, one being mayim hamarim [pay attention that this is a red link; perhaps a Freudian slip?] in Chapter 5 of the Book of Numbers. The other is the concept of Sotah in the Mishna and the Talmud. Even though the latter derives from the former, they are still two separate subjects. So you are correct, as I said. Not to mention your WP policies and guidelines knowledge and experience, which I can barely maybe start to understand. So the question that remains, in my mind is: should the article be called mayim hamarim or ordeal of bitter water. In my view it should be called mayim hamarim. Would that be acceptable to you? Thanks a lot, warshy¥¥ 14:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) For ease of reading I'll answer before the outdent below as this was specifically addressed to me and Avi has in any case correctly anticipated my answer. Hi Warshy, no there are not really different topics, just one topic and a badly written article that has been messed up more by a cut and paste rename. The topic of the "bitter waters" (Hebrew mayim hamarim yes a redlink, but unlike sotah a term actually in the Numbers text), and then later religious interpretation of the bitter waters in Christian and Jewish materials. The Christian and Jewish commentary on the "Ordeal of Jealousy" (as per the Encyclopedia Judaica, or as per many other encyclopedias) covers both the subject, and later interpretation. Sotah refers to part of Nashim, it doesn't refer to the ordeal in Numbers 5, no matter what Avi says - I am beginning to doubt, sorry but so, whether Avi has ever read any books about Ancient Israel. Where do you get your information about what English texts use Avi? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Personally, I don't know of a more authoritative set of texts on religious traditions of Judaism (in Ancient Israel or otherwise) than the Halachic texts of the Mishnah and Talmud. -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC) If the decision eventually is to split an article on the woman from an article on the process, and the process alone is to be discussed here, another name to consider is "Ordeal of Jealousy" as per the Encyclopedia Judaica. If that is the case, I would still strongly urge that the tractate title remain Sotah (tractate) and that Sotah itself be a brief article explaining that it is the term used for the woman. However, we still don't have a consensus to move this article yet. -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Request for clarification: what should this article be about I think the main crux of the disagreement In octi and I share emanates from our different conceptions of what this article should contain. Please correct me if I am wrong but: In octi is of the opinion that the primary focus of the article should be the testing process and exclude the woman being tested (whom I do not think In octi would argue is called "sotah" in today's parlance). Therefore, "ordeal of ...." or "trial of ...." is an appropriate title. I (and probably IZAK who did the original combination) believe that the article should be about the woman and the process, and therefore, "sotah" which relates to both is a better title than one which does not address a key element. If I am correct, I think we need to address this question before deciding on any moves. I would think that if 1 proves to be the consensus, we have the following structure: This article called "ordeal/trial of Jealousy/Bitter Water" (and I think that preferable to Mayim HaMarim (Hebrew: מים המרים) as this last term is nowhere near as common as sotah) Have Sotah redirect here Leave Sotah (Tractate) as it is to prevent improper conflation of the woman and the text If 2 proves to be the consesus, I suggest: This article called Sotah Have "ordeal/trial of Jealousy/Bitter Water" redirect here Leave Sotah (Tractate) as it is to prevent improper conflation of the woman and the text Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Yes. Where is the link to this so-called "Sotah (Tractate)". I can't find such a link, and this is one of the "technical" issues that has been confusing me all along. That is because the "Nashim" page has an explantion for Sotah, but not a link, like the other tractates. This is confusing to me. Thanks, warshy¥¥ 17:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I meant Sotah (Talmud) which redirects to Nashim. That should be expanded, of course. -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Stubified out of a redirect for now. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I think the article should be about the ordeal as described in Numbers 5. That's why I think its title should be "Ordeal of" either the bitter waters or jealousy. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Avi, could u please explain which part of the article does not at all concern the ordeal, only the woman? (How about naming the article after the ordeal, and to include a section on what type of woman undergoes the ordeal?) -- -- -- 06:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The ordeal is initiated by a jealous husband who suspects his wife of infidelity. If the article is to be named for the man or the woman, I would name it after the man: Ordeal of jealousy. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC) As long as the article isn't named after a religious tractate which came 2000 years later, I'm happy with either of the English names used in English sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC) So at this point, is it fair to say, IIO, that you would prefer this article to be named "Ordeal of Jealousy/Bitter Water" and that you are more indifferent to whether Sotah should be a DAB to both here and Talmud? -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Avi, Sure, per WP:AT we need a title that meets WP:CRITERIA, so yes both the English titles meet those criteria. We would not name this part of Numbers after a non-Biblical-Hebrew word, for the same reason we do not rename Golden calf article ḥēṭ’ ha‘ēggel (which at least unlike sotah is Biblical Hebrew I think). And also yes, I am more indifferent to whether Sotah should be a DAB to both ordeal of bitter water and to Sotah itself, or just redirect Sotah to Sotah. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I think that my concerns would be addressed if Sotah redirects here with a See also at top for the Talmud article (the lede would have to change a tad). I'd prefer that than a DAB page. In that case, I will retract my opposition, and instead recommend that this be moved to "ordeal of jealousy". -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Okay, so what to do now? See above Note to closer - since RM was placed Sotah (Talmud) has changed from a redirect to Nashim to a standalone article, see strikeouts in text above, this may mean that Sotah (Talmud) should move to Sotah, see below Should Sotah (Talmud) move to Sotah, or Sotah be a dab between the ordeal of bitter water and the Tractate? Per WP:TWODABS I believe the first is normal WP:DAB treatment. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I would want Sotah to redirect here, as I don't think anyone disagrees that the term is used to mean the woman undergoing the process. The issue is what is the main thrust of this article, and as it is the process itself, there is reason to prefer an English title which reflects the process. The tractate is not the woman anymore than a tractate is a hut, a levirate marriage, a sacrifice, a tithe, or first, middle, or last gates. So Sotah (Talmud) should stay as it is, and no DAB is needed; the hatnotes are sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Testing the husband

We should mention that according to Chazal, the ordeal tests the husband as well, and if he is guilty of the same he is punished similarly. I have to look up the mekoros though, as I don't remember them off-hand. -- Avi (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, -- -- --. -- Avi (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference point?

In octuli, perhaps I am just obtuse, but what does your recent edit add to the understanding of the topic? I'm not even sure what it means. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the actual ordeal was no longer practised I think Helena Zlotnick's point is that afterwards it was a reference point to future alternative "tests" of adultery. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain that:

1. That is encylopedic
2. The source supports that contention
3. Even if it is relevant, if it is lede-worthy

Even the sentence as you write it, in my opinion, does not add meaningful information knowledge to the article, and I personally would think it is not necessary, certainly in the lede. I will move it to the body for now, but I'd like to hear others' opinions as to whether or not this sentence is helpful for fleshing out the article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I added "According to Helena Zlotnick," to avoid giving a minority view undue weight. I am not aware of any other sources holding Zlotnick's view. -- -- -- 20:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that it adds anything to the article, or should be removed? -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

From our Orthodox Jewish POV, it should definitely be removed. But I can not comment on how it should be treated by Wikipedia rules. (After all, you're the administrator here, not me). -- -- -- 21:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so, but for the purposes of editing the article I'm no more and no less editor than anyone else in good standing. I don't see any benefit to the article that this sentence brings, from any perspective. -- Avi (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Helena Zlotnick is not in fact the only commentator to ask the question how/if at all does this apply in the modern era. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood; the Talmud itself discusses the inability to perform the rite in the modern era (well, modern for them :-) ). My question is, all the sentence does is say "Sotah has been discussed in the 20th century." It's discussed daily by hundreds or thousands of people learning Meseches Sotah, what relevance does that have to this article? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it's partly a prompt to improve a very badly structured/sourced article. Normally we have (i) ancient near east material, (ii) rabbinical era commentary, modern 2013 synagogue application (iii) Christian and muslim development if any, in this article as far as I know none. In this article if anyone can pick out 2013 application from the mess they are cleverer than me. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying that nowadays, the ordeal of bitter water is (only?) refered to when searching for replacements for testing adultery? Is anyone searching for such replacements nowadays? -- -- -- 03:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Helena Zlotnick, and also Jacob Neusner and Nahmanides, say that since the end of the ordeal of bitter water, the main use of the ordeal of bitter water - as in Sotah - is mainly refered to when searching for replacements for testing adultery? Since it isn't done, what other modern use is there? The only other context is academics discussing the original ordeal in Ancient Israel. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Were her breasts bared?

The article seems to contradict itself on this matter stating:

"The Mishnah also states that the garment she was wearing was ripped to expose her heart. A rope was tied above her breasts so that her clothes did not completely fall off. The Mishnah, however, argues that the clothing on the woman's upper body was also stripped away, leaving her bare-breasted."

It cites Mishna, Sotah, 1:5, but as far as I can tell the Mishnah says:

"וְקוֹרֵעַ עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבָּהּ... וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִדָּדֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְּלוּ הַבְּגָדִים וְנִמְצֵאת עֲרֻמָּה"

I don't see any further elaboration in the Talmude, Nor in Mishneh Torah. however, the Jewish encyclopedia states:

"He rent her garment so that her breast was exposed, and loosened her hair; she was draped in black; all ornaments were removed from her person, and a rope was tied around her chest."

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Doesnt cover all of Numbers 5:11-31

see above Johnphantom (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Bibleverse

This template creates an external link. The external links content guideline states that external links "should not normally be used in the body of an article". Furthermore, the use of inline parenthetical referencing is now deprecated on Wikipedia. Place external links to the Bible in footnotes, but be aware that the Bible may be considered a primary source, which should be used with care in sourcing Wikipedia articles.

I only changed the first one in the article because I want to see how this is received. (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)