Her husband Joseph,
being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned
to dismiss her quietly. (Matt 1:19 NRSV)
The following texts, taken from the Mishnah,
provide much background to Matt 1:19 and the actions Joseph considered taking
towards Mary:
With regard to one who issues
a warning to his wife not to seclude herself with a particular man, so that
if she does not heed his warning she will assume the status of a woman
suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], Rabbi
Eliezer says: He issues a warning to her based on, i.e., in the
presence of, two witnesses for the warning to be effective. If two
witnesses were not present for the warning, she is not a sota even if
two witnesses saw her seclusion with another man. And the husband gives
the bitter water to her to drink based on the testimony of one
witness who saw the seclusion, or even based on his own
testimony that he himself saw them secluded together, as Rabbi
Eliezer holds that only the warning requires witnesses, not the seclusion. Rabbi
Yehoshua says: He both issues a warning to her based on two
witnesses and gives the bitter water to her to drink based on the
testimony of two witnesses . . . If after the judge’s warning she
says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage
contract. That is, she writes a receipt indicating that she has no claims
on her husband with regard to the sum written in her marriage contract, as a
woman who admits to adultery forfeits her right to this payment. And she is
then divorced from her husband. But if after the warning she
maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they bring her up to the
Eastern Gate, which is at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor, because three rites
were performed there: They give the sota women the bitter water to
drink, and they purify women who have given birth (see Leviticus 12:6–8), and
they purify the lepers (see Leviticus 14:10–20). The mishna continues
describing the sota rite. And the priest grabs hold of her clothing
and pulls them, unconcerned about what happens to the clothing. If the
clothes are torn, so they are torn; if the stitches come apart,
so they come apart. And he pulls her clothing until he reveals her
heart, i.e., her chest. And then he unbraids her hair. Rabbi Yehuda
says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was
attractive he would not unbraid it.
Just as the water evaluates her fidelity, so too, the water
evaluates his, i.e., her alleged paramour’s, involvement in the sin, as
it is stated: “And the water that causes the curse shall enter into
her” (Numbers 5:24), and it
is stated again: “And the water that causes the curse shall enter
into her and become bitter” (Numbers
5:27). It is derived from the double mention of the phrase “and…shall
enter” that both the woman and her paramour are evaluated by the water.
Furthermore, prior to her drinking the water, just as she is forbidden to
her husband, so too is she forbidden to her paramour, because
in contrast to the verse stating: “Is defiled [nitma’a]” (Numbers 5:14), a superfluous
conjoining prefix vav is added to a later verse, rendering the phrase: “And
is defiled [venitma’a]” (Numbers 5:29). The addition indicates another
prohibition, that of the woman to her paramour. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi
Yehoshua said: That was how Zekharya ben HaKatzav would interpret it,
i.e., he also derived from the superfluous vav that the woman is
forbidden to her paramour. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says an alternate source:
The two times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the
passage, namely: “And he warns his wife, and she is defiled” (Numbers 5:14), and the later
verse: “When a wife, being under her husband, goes astray and is defiled”
(Numbers 5:29), indicate
that her defilement results in two prohibitions. One is that she is
forbidden to her husband and one is that she is forbidden to
her paramour.