Sota 31: See-Through Wombs; Serving for Fear or Love?; Witnesses

Structurally today's daf is different from any other I've learned.  It begins with the end of yesterday's conversation about whether or not a fetus can see the Divine Presence - and the rabbis suggest that a woman's stomach will become clear, like a spectacle, so that the fetus can see through it and then sing along with all other Jews about G-d's supremacy.  From there, it moves into a fascinating but short discussion of righteous acts and mitzvot.  Is it better if they are performed for fear of G-d's retribution, or for love of G-d?  The rabbis disagree about this, but a note teaches that doing mitzvot for the sake of love is the more lofty action.  However, both are necessary at different times.

At this point in the daf we end Perek V and begin Perek VI.  Perek VI is almost exclusively composed of one long Mishna followed by its Gemara.  A new daf begins, and Perek V ends.  

So what is the bulk of Perek VI actually saying?  In most cases, including those of adultery, two valid witnesses are required to cause the woman to drink the bitter waters.  However, our Mishna teaches that there is a difference in halacha when a woman has been warned about seclusion.  The rabbis argue whether or not witnesses are required at all.  And they note that "valid" witnesses need not be men of a certain age and status.  In these cases, a single witness who is a woman; a maidservant or a slave, many different witnesses are considered to be valid witnesses.  However, they permit the woman to avoid drinking the bitter water.  They allow the husband to marry his wife - in certain circumstances, though, the wife is still entitled to her ketubah.  The rabbis discuss the timing of witness testimony, as well - were witnesses speaking simultaneously?

Why do the rabbis make these exceptions?  What is the larger picture here?  Of course, some would argue that this is simply what the Torah implies and thus teaches.  But it seems to me that the prooftexts used by the rabbis could be interpreted differently.  My reading suggests that the rabbis wished to allow men to divorce their wives at will, as we learn in the Torah.  Rabbinical law cannot supercede Torah law.  However, the rabbis wish to ensure that women avoid the humiliation of the sota ritual if at all possible.  Such a ritual would serve as a deterrent to adulterous behaviour, but it would also test the 'magic' of G-d's power, which is dangerous test.  Further, creating the sota also creates a broken, hurt family.  Better if husbands simply divorce their wives if they are jealous or otherwise unhappy.