Sotah 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

Yes,

when you do this,

there will be lengthening for your welfare",

you will have the merit of an extension for your welfare, so that the calamity you saw in the dream will not befall you immediately.

And it is written,

for indeed,

all

the calamities that Nebuchadnezzar saw in the dream

came

upon

Nebuchadnezzar the king."

And it is written,

that the calamity occurred

at the end of

finally

twelve months",

because the merit of charity postponed it for a period of twelve months.

The Gemara will explain below why this is not a conclusive proof.

If so, our Mishna, which says that merit postpones the punishment for three years, agrees with neither of them!

And we answer:

Actually,

our Mishna is in accordance with

Rabbi Yishmael,

who brought the verse concerning Daniel as a zekher la-davar, an indication, that merit postpones punishment for twelve months.

And

Rabbi Yishmael, after bringing an indication from Daniel that merit postpones punishment for a year,

found

another

verse

that

states and repeats,

speaking of postponing punishment for three “times,” with each “time” being twelve months, as explained with regard to Daniel.

As it is written: "

Thus said the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom

I will wait before punishing them until three transgressions have occurred, and I will punish them for their sins only when they sin a fourth time; then I will punish them also for the first three transgressions.

From here Rabbi Yishmael learned that merit postpones punishment for three “times” of twelve months, that is, the period of twelve months is to be multiplied by three; it follows that merit postpones punishment for three years.

But now, since it is demonstrated from the verse concerning the transgressions of Edom that merit postpones punishment for three years, the Gemara asks:

And what,

why did Rabbi Yishmael say: "

Although there is no proof for the matter

there is

an indication for the matter"?

After all, there is conclusive proof from the verse concerning Daniel and from the verse concerning the three transgressions of Edom that merit postpones punishment for up to three years!

And we answer: There is no conclusive proof from the delay in punishing Nebuchadnezzar and Edom.

For

perhaps it is different,

perhaps the manner in which

idolaters

are treated differs from the manner in which Israel are treated, since

with regard to

idolaters,

He does not hasten the judgment against them!

The Holy One, blessed be He, does not hasten to punish them; rather, He waits until their measure is full, and then punishes them all at once with the full severity of the judgment they deserve for the accumulation of their many sins.

But with Israel, He hastens to punish them so that their measure will not become full. If so, these verses do not prove that merit postpones punishment for such a long period for Israel as well; they are merely an indication.

We learned in the Mishna:

And merit postpones punishment for three years.

The Gemara discusses this:

Merit of what?

What merit does a woman possess that could protect her for so long?

If you say,

perhaps one might say,

the merit of

the mitzva of studying

Torah,

which is an important merit that protects her and postpones the punishment for her—

This cannot be said.

For

that,

a woman who studies Torah, "

is not commanded, yet performs"

it.

For a woman is not commanded in Torah study. And if she nevertheless studies Torah, it cannot postpone the punishment for her, because performing a mitzva in which one is not commanded is not sufficiently significant, and its reward is not great enough to postpone the punishment for her!

Rather,

necessarily, the

merit of

fulfilling a

mitzva

postpones the punishment for her.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it so that

the merit of a mitzva—

can it protect to such an extent

that it can protect her so greatly!?

But was it not taught: This

teaching

was expounded by Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei

on the verse in Proverbs, chapter six: “

For a lamp”—

a mitzva, and Torah—

light.”

He compared,

the verse

compared the mitzva to

“a lamp,”

and

if

Torah

it had compared

to

“light.”

The verse

compared the mitzva to

“a lamp”

in order

to tell you: Just as

a

lamp illuminates only temporarily,

for the light of a lamp does not shine constantly, but only while it is burning,

so too a mitzva,

just as the mitzva

does not protect

a person

except temporarily,

at the time when he performs it, and not afterward.

And

if

Torah

the verse had compared

to

“light,”

in order

to tell you: Just as

the

light

in the world is something permanent and enduring,

so too Torah protects

the person who studies it

forever,

even when he is not studying.

And

the verse continues and

says: "

When you walk, it shall guide you; when you lie down, it shall watch over you; and when you awaken, it shall speak with you."

[Text continues: “when you lie down, it shall watch over you; and when you awaken, it shall speak with you.”]

The beraita explains the words of the verse: “

When you walk, it shall guide you”—

this

in the life of

this world. “

When you lie down, it shall watch over you”—

this is death. “

And when you awaken, it shall speak with you”—

it will plead on your behalf

in the time to come,

for life in the World-to-Come.

This may be compared to a person who was walking in the dead of night and darkness, and

who

was afraid

of three things:

a.

of thorns and of pits

pits,

and of briars

thorny bushes.

b.

And of wild animals and robbers,

who customarily roam about and harm people at night, when the world is dark.

c.

And he does not know on which path

he

is walking.

An illuminated torch happened to come to him—

he was saved

from one matter:

from the thorns, the pits, and the briars.

So too, a person who performs a mitzva is saved from some of the calamities.

But

nevertheless,

still

he

is afraid of wild animals and robbers, and

likewise, he still

does not know on which path

he

is walking.

Once dawn broke—

he was saved

from a second matter:

from wild animals and robbers.

So too, a person who studies Torah is saved from sin and from suffering.

Yet he still does not know on which path he is walking.

Likewise, even while a person is studying Torah, he is not secure in himself until the day of his death, lest his inclination compel him to cease from words of Torah; then the evil inclination will again cause him to sin, and he will again suffer calamity.

He reached a crossroads,

and recognized his path—

he was saved from them all.

Likewise, a person who did not separate from Torah until the day of his death is then assured of his success.

Alternatively,

the verse may be expounded in a different manner:

A transgression

that a person commits

extinguishes

the light of the reward of the

mitzva

that he performed previously.

However,

although

the performance of a

transgression

does not extinguish

the light of the

Torah

that he studied.

As it is stated: "

Many waters cannot extinguish the love."

The “love” mentioned here refers to Torah.

According to this beraita, performing a mitzva cannot protect the woman to such an extent. If so, how can the merit of a mitzva postpone the punishment for her!?

Rabbi Yosef

replied:

said

Indeed, the merit of a mitzva can protect her extensively from suffering and postpone the punishment for her.

And you should not raise a difficulty from this beraita, for the tanna did not intend to say that a mitzva lacks the power to protect from suffering. Rather, this is what the tanna intended to say:

A mitzva—

while one is engaged in it,

at the time when a person is occupied with performing it,

protects,

the mitzva protects him from suffering,

and

also

saves,

at that time it saves him from the control of the evil inclination.

But afterward,

when one is not engaged in it,

when he has ceased to engage

in it—

only

does it protect,

it protects him from suffering, but

as for saving him—

it does not save

him then! The mitzva does not have the power to prevent the influence of the evil inclination even during the period following the performance of the mitzva. But

Torah—

both while one is engaged in it and while one is not engaged in it—

it always

protects

from suffering,

and

also

saves,

it always saves him from the evil inclination!

Rava challenged this: If that is so,

that Torah saves a person from the evil inclination at all times, even when he is not engaged in it, this is difficult:

Doeg and Ahithophel—

how did they fail?

Did

they

not engage

Doeg and Ahithophel

in Torah?

Surely they did engage in it, as both of them were Torah scholars!

And if it is as you say, the difficulty is:

Why did it not protect them

the Torah in which they engaged, from the evil inclination, so that they would not stumble and become utterly wicked!?

Rather, Rava said,

this is what the tanna intended to say in the beraita:

Torah, while one is engaged in it—

it protects and saves.

When one is not engaged in it—

only

does it protect.

But

as for saving

from the evil inclination,

it does not save

when he is not engaged in it.

A mitzva, whether while one is engaged in it or while one is not engaged in it,

only

protects,

but

does not save,

even when he is engaged in it.

Ravina said: In fact, the merit of Torah

does postpone the punishment for the woman.

And when you say,

that a woman who studies Torah

is not commanded yet performs

it, and her reward is therefore not great and cannot protect her—

the reference is not to a woman who studies Torah herself. Rather, the reference is to the merit of Torah that she possesses because of her husband and sons, for whom she is concerned and toils so that they can study Torah!

For

although,

even though

women

are

not commanded,

as they are not commanded to study Torah, nevertheless

through the reward

for

bringing their sons to read and study,

as they toil to bring their sons to school so that they will study Scripture and learn Mishna,

and

are willing for their husbands to go to another city to study Torah, and they

wait for their husbands

sitting alone and awaiting their husbands

until they return from the study hall,

so that they will return from their study hall outside the city—that is, they are prepared to spend their entire lives sitting and awaiting their husbands, provided that their husbands study Torah in a place of Torah, even if it is outside their city—if so,

do they not share with them

in the merit of their husbands’ Torah!?

And this merit of Torah has the power to protect the woman!

The Gemara discusses:

Once it has been explained that the torch is an analogy for a mitzva and dawn is an analogy for Torah, if so,

what

is meant by

“a crossroads”,

which represents complete rescue in this analogy?

Rav Hisda said: This is a Torah scholar and the day of death.

Only on the day of his death can a Torah scholar be certain that he succeeded in his life and that the evil inclination did not cause him to cast off the yoke of Torah.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This is a Torah scholar and fear of sin.

If the Torah scholar merits attaining, in addition to Torah study, the level of fear of sin, he can be certain that the evil inclination will no longer cause him to stumble, because the Torah he studied teaches him how to conduct himself, and fear of sin prevents the evil inclination from taking control of him.

Mar Zutra said: This is a Torah scholar whose teachings are resolved for him in accordance with halakha.

Heaven assists him so that his words are accepted by his colleagues as practical halakhic rulings. For as long as he studies Torah but his words are not accepted by his colleagues as a halakhic ruling, he is indeed certain of being saved from sin, but he has not yet succeeded on his path, and he must still seek the correct path in Torah study.

The Gemara now explains what we learned in the beraita—

Alternatively: A transgression extinguishes a mitzva, but no transgression extinguishes Torah.

Rabbi Yosef said: Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei expounded this verse,

in the book of Psalms, as will be explained below,

as though it had been given at Sinai!

And had

it been the case that

Doeg and Ahithophel

had expounded it

this verse

in this manner—

they would not have pursued

after

David.

As it is written

in Psalms 71: "

Saying: God has forsaken him

for there is no one to save him!"

This is what they said about David: Pursue him and seize him, since God has forsaken him because he slept with a married woman, and we will not be punished for pursuing him. And he has no one to save him, for he possesses no merit that could save him, since the transgression he committed extinguished his merits.

What did they expound,

from where did Doeg and Ahithophel learn that David’s merits would not stand by him because of the incident with Bathsheba?—

They learned it from the verse in Deuteronomy, chapter 23: "

And He shall not see an indecent thing in you

and turn away from you."

They understood the meaning of the verse to be that if God sees a sinful matter in a person, the Holy One, blessed be He, will turn away from him and no longer protect him, because the transgression extinguishes the mitzvot he performed.

But they did not know—

that a transgression extinguishes

only

a mitzva, but no transgression extinguishes Torah!

Had David been engaged in Torah, this merit would have stood by him to save him from them.

Since the beraita brought the verse in Song of Songs, “Many waters cannot extinguish the love,” and said that this “love” is Torah, the Gemara now discusses the continuation of the verse in Song of Songs: “If a man were to give all the wealth of his house for love, they would utterly scorn him!”

For if it is said that this “love” is Torah, why would they scorn one who gives all the wealth of his house for it?

What

is the meaning of

“they would utterly scorn him”?

Ulla said: Not like Shimon, the brother of Azarya.

The verse does not intend that one should scorn a person like Azarya, the brother of Shimon, for giving the wealth of his household to his brother Shimon in exchange for a share in the merit of his brother’s study.

For Azarya engaged in commerce and supported his brother Shimon, enabling him to engage in Torah study. Since all of Shimon’s study was made possible because his brother supported him, Azarya had a share in his brother’s study; and by virtue of this, Shimon, who was a tanna, was called by his brother’s name—“Shimon, the brother of Azarya.”

Nor

does the verse intend that one should scorn

Rabbi Yoḥanan of the house of the Nasi,

for Rabbi Yoḥanan was supported by the house of the Nasi, and therefore the Nasi had a share in the merit of his Torah.

Rather,

the verse means that one should scorn someone who gives wealth in exchange for a share in Torah merit,

like Hillel and Shevna.

When Rav Dimi arrived,

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said: “Hillel and Shevna were brothers”,

they were brothers.

Hillel occupied himself with Torah study.

Shevna engaged in business.

But Shevna did not support his brother Hillel.

In the end,

after Hillel had studied Torah without his brother supporting him,

he said to him

Shevna to Hillel:

Come,

come and

let us enter into a partnership,

let us share both the profits from my business and the reward for your Torah study,

and divide it,

let us divide everything between us!

A Divine voice emerged and said: “If a man were to give all the wealth of his house”

out of love, in exchange for the merit of the Torah studied by another person—he would be utterly scorned!