Day 40. Numbers 5-6

There is very little defense for Numbers 5: 11-29 from the modern point of view. But what is being described here is a comparatively mild form of trial by ordeal. Trial by ordeal was common enough in the ancient world, and was still being practiced in early modern times as a way of discovering hidden guilt. (The accounts of the Salem witch trials are full of it.) And it is still being used in those societies where individual rights are not triumphant and the assumption of innocence is not enshrined in law.
It was a way for the community to discover guilt in matters that concerned the welfare of the community itself.
Remember that in the Old Testament world, the well being of the family was considered more important that the rights of any individual person. Here in Numbers trial by ordeal is suggested as a way of determining the guilt of a woman accused by her husband of adultery. In the world of the Old Testament, securing legitimate offspring was a matter of the highest importance. Women bore the primary responsibility for this. Establishing legitimacy insured stability in society and the orderly transfer of property from father to son.
There is no question that that this trial seems cruel and unfair to the unfortunate woman, but it is worth noting that a woman accused of adultery without witnesses could not be put to death. Where both partners were discovered in adultery by witnesses, both were put to death. That was the Law; it was harsh, but it was just.
But without witnesses, the trial by ordeal was the only way for a woman to satisfy her jealous husband of her innocence and be restored to her place in the community. The “hocus pocus” surrounding the trial--the holy water mixed with dust from the floor of the tabernacle, the curse to which the woman was required to say “Amen. Amen.” (5:22)--gave solemnity and the weight of divine authority to the proceedings.
As the text says--“the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people.” In other words, the result was a spontaneous abortion.
But if she survived it unscathed, she was acquitted. Again—“if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive”(5:27-28).
(I guess we can only hope the test always worked as expected and only the guilty were discovered and punished.)
It is always felt necessary for some people to carry their devotion to God beyond the ordinary forms of conventional piety. The vow of the Nazirites, described in Chapter 6, could be made by the person him or herself or for a child by its parents, as in the case of Samuel. Nazirites might “separate themselves to the LORD” (6:2) for a lifetime or for only a given period, as fulfillment of a vow or until a certain task was accomplished.
They were pledged to sober austerity of life. Nazirites “separated themselves” from wine and strong drink absolutely, and from everything that had to so with the fruit of the vine (6:1-4). They also carefully avoided any ritual uncleanness and refrained from cutting their hair as sign of their vow.
In Old Testament heroes like Samson were Nazirites; in the New Testament there is evidence that St. Paul may once have taken a Nazirite vow—see Acts 18:18. It was a religious movement within Judaism that called those who entered it to follow the Law of Moses with personal devotion and single-minded vigor.