Sotah 61

(תהלים סח, כז) במקהלות ברכו אלהים ה' ממקור ישראל

Bless ye the Lord in the Congregations, even the Lord, from the fountain of Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. LXVIII, 27, E.V. 26. 'From the fountain' indicates those who were still in the womb. ');">¹</span>

(והא לא חזו אמר רבי תנחום כרס נעשה להן כאספקלריא המאירה וראו)

But these could not behold [the <i>Shechinah</i>]! — R. Tanhum said: The abdomen became for them a kind of transparent medium and they did behold it.

בו ביום דרש רבי יהושע בן הורקנוס שלא עבד איוב כו' וליחזי האי לא אי בלמ"ד אל"ף כתיב לא הוא אי בלמ"ד וי"ו כתיב לו הוא

ON THAT DAY R. JOSHUA B. HYRCANUS EXPOUNDED, JOB ONLY SERVED etc. But let him see how the word 'lo'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Job XIII, 15. ');">²</span>

וכל היכא דכתיב בלמ"ד אל"ף לא הוא אלא מעתה (ישעיהו סג, ט) בכל צרתם לא צר דכתיב בלמ"ד אל"ף הכי נמי דלא הוא

is spelt; if it is written with lamed and aleph then it means 'not', and if with lamed and <i>waw</i> then it means for Him'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So how could the Mishnah state that there is a doubt about the meaning? ');">³</span>

וכ"ת ה"נ והכתיב ומלאך פניו הושיעם אלא (לאו) משמע הכי ומשמע הכי

But is the meaning 'not' wherever the spelling is lamed and aleph? Can it apply to: In all their affliction there was affliction to Him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LXIII, 9. ');">⁴</span>

תניא רבי מאיר אומר נאמר ירא אלהים באיוב ונאמר ירא אלהים באברהם מה ירא אלהים האמור באברהם מאהבה אף ירא אלהים האמור באיוב מאהבה

[The word 'lo', 'to Him'] is spelt lamed and aleph, but does it here also signify 'not'! And should you say that here too [it means 'not'], behold it continues with: And the angel of His presence saved them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These words prove that 'lo' in the preceding clause cannot mean 'not.' ');">⁵</span>

ואברהם גופיה מנלן דכתיב (ישעיהו מא, ח) זרע אברהם אוהבי

But sometimes it has one meaning and at other times the other meaning.

מאי איכא בין עושה מאהבה לעושה מיראה איכא הא דתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר גדול העושה מאהבה יותר מן העושה מיראה שזה תלוי לאלף דור וזה תלוי לאלפים דור

It has been taught: R. Meir Says: It is declared of Job one that feared God,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job I, 1. ');">⁶</span>

הכא כתיב (שמות כ, ה) לאלפים לאהבי ולשומרי מצותי והתם כתיב (דברים ז, ט) ולשומרי מצותיו לאלף דור

and it is declared of Abraham thou fearest God;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXII, 12. ');">⁷</span>

התם נמי כתיב לאוהביו ולשומרי מצותיו לאלף דור

just as 'fearing God' with Abraham indicates from love, so 'fearing God' with Job indicates from love. Whence, however, have we it in connection with Abraham himself [that he was motived by love]? As it is written: The seed of Abraham who loved Me.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XLI, 8, sic. ');">⁸</span>

האי לדסמיך ליה והאי לדסמיך ליה

What difference is there between one who acts from love and one who acts from fear? — The difference is that indicated in this teaching: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Greater is he who acts from love than he who acts from fear, because with the latter [the merit] remains effective for a thousand generations but with the former it remains effective for two thousand generations. Here it is written: Unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 6. 'Thousands' is interpreted as generations, and the plural indicates at least two thousand. ');">⁹</span>

הנהו תרי תלמידי דהוו יתבי קמיה דרבא חד אמר ליה אקריון בחלמאי (תהלים לא, כ) מה רב טובך אשר צפנת ליראיך וחד אמר ליה אקריון בחלמאי (תהלים ה, יב) וישמחו כל חוסי בך לעולם ירננו ויעלצו בך אוהבי שמך אמר להו תרוייכו רבנן צדיקי גמורי אתון מר מאהבה ומר מיראה

and elsewhere it is written: And keep His commandments to a thousand generations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VII. 9. ');">¹⁰</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כשם שהמים</strong></big><br><br>

But in this latter passage it is likewise written: 'With them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations! — In the first verse cited [the word 'thousand'] is attached [to them that love Me,] whereas in the second verse [cited the word 'thousand'] is attached [to keep His commandments].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So in the former the motive is love, in the latter fear of punishment. ');">¹¹</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>מי</strong></big> שקינא לאשתו ונסתרה אפילו שמע מעוף הפורח יוציא ויתן כתובה דברי רבי אליעזר

Two disciples were once sitting in the presence of Raba. One said to him, In my dream they read to me, O how great is Thy goodness which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XXXI, 20. ');">¹²</span>

רבי יהושע אומר עד שישאו ויתנו בה מוזרות בלבנה

The other said to him, In my dream they read to me, But let all those that put their trust in Thee rejoice, let them ever shout for joy, because Thou defendest them; let them also that love Thy name be joyful in Thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. V, 12. ');">¹³</span>

אמר עד אחד אני ראיתיה שנטמאת לא היתה שותה ולא עוד אלא אפילו עבד אפילו שפחה הרי אלו נאמנין אף לפוסלה מכתובתה

He replied to them, Both of you are completely righteous Rabbis, but one is actuated by love and the other by fear.

חמותה ובת חמותה וצרתה ויבמתה ובת בעלה הרי אלו נאמנות ולא לפוסלה מכתובתה אלא שלא תשתה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN WARNED HIS WIFE AND SHE SECLUDED HERSELF [WITH ANOTHER MAN], EVEN IF HE HEARD [THAT SHE HAD DONE SO] FROM A FLYING BIRD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was only a vague rumour that came to his ears. [The rumour was concerning (a) seclusion only (Rashi); (b) misconduct (Maim.). — 'A FLYING BIRD' may denote a talking bird, a parrot (v. Maim. and Strashun.) ');">¹⁴</span>

שהיה בדין ומה אם עדות ראשונה שאין אוסרתה איסור עולם אינה מתקיימת בפחות משנים עדות אחרונה שאוסרתה איסור עולם אינו דין שלא תתקיים בפחות משנים

HE DIVORCES HER AND GIVES HER THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He gives this to her if he was unwilling for her to drink the water, (Rashi). [According to this interpretation the husband, if he wishes, can make her drink even on the strength of a vague rumour, even as he can on the evidence of one witness to the seclusion, according to R. Eliezer. Rashbam, however, holds that a vague rumour is not on par with one witness and the husband therefore, though he cannot make her drink, must put her away and give her the marriage-settlement. (V. Tosaf. Sens): Similarly on the view of Maimonides (v. n. 1) the divorce is compulsory. though in the absence of real evidence of misconduct she does not forfeit the marriage-settlement.] ');">¹⁵</span>

תלמוד לומר (במדבר ה, יג) ועד אין בה כל עדות שיש בה

SUCH IS THE STATEMENT OF R. ELIEZER. R. JOSHUA SAYS: [HE DOES NOT DO THIS] UNTIL WOMEN WHO SPIN BY MOONLIGHT DISCUSS HER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her behaviour had given rise to public scandal. ');">¹⁶</span>

קל וחומר לעדות הראשונה מעתה ומה אם

IF ONE WITNESS SAID, I SAW THAT SHE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT, SHE DOES NOT DRINK THE WATER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One witness is accepted and she is divorced besides losing the marriage-settlement. V. supra 2a. ');">¹⁷</span> NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EVEN A SLAVE, MALE OR FEMALE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose evidence is not accepted in an ordinary case. ');">¹⁸</span> IS BELIEVED ALSO TO DISQUALIFY HER FOR THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT. HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, HER MOTHER-IN-LAW'S DAUGHTER, HER ASSOCIATE-WIFE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband had more than one wife. ');">¹⁹</span> HER SISTER-IN-LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the wife of her husband's brother whom she was due to marry if she was left a childless widow. ');">²⁰</span> AND HER STEPDAUGHTER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All these are presumably ill-disposed towards her, and their evidence would not have been accepted in any other kind of charge. ');">²¹</span> ARE BELIEVED, NOT TO DISQUALIFY HER FOR THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT BUT THAT SHE SHOULD NOT DRINK. IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 3b. ');">²²</span> IS A PROPER CONCLUSION THAT IF THE FIRST EVIDENCE [THAT THE WOMAN HAD SECLUDED HERSELF WITH THE MAN], WHICH DOES NOT PROHIBIT HER [TO HER HUSBAND] FOR ALL TIME,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the water may prove her innocent. ');">²³</span> IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY FEWER THAN TWO WITNESSES, IS IT NOT RIGHT THAT THE FINAL EVIDENCE [THAT SHE HAD MISCONDUCTED HERSELF] WHICH PROHIBITS HER TO HIM FOR ALL TIME, SHOULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY FEWER THAN TWO WITNESSES! THEREFORE THERE IS A TEXT TO STATE, AND THERE BE NO WITNESS AGAINST HER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 13. ');">²⁴</span> I.E., WHATEVER [EVIDENCE] THERE MAY BE AGAINST HER [IS BELIEVED, EVEN IF IT BE ONLY ONE WITNESS]. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST EVIDENCE [ABOUT HER SECLUSION WITH THE MAN, THAT ONE WITNESS SUFFICES MAY BE ARGUED BY] <i>A FORTIORI</i> REASONING AS FOLLOWS IF