Sotah 21a — the Talmud in English

Indeed:

then, when you do so,

there will be length for your welfare,”

you will have the merit of extending your welfare, so that the calamity which you saw in the dream will not come upon you immediately.

And it is written,

for indeed,

all

the calamities that Nebuchadnezzar saw in the dream

reached

him,

Nebuchadnezzar the king.”

And it is written,

that the calamity occurred

at the end of [

the end of]

twelve months,”

because the merit of charity suspended it for the period of twelve months.

And below the Gemara will explain why this is not a complete proof.

And if so, our Mishna, which says that merit suspends [the punishment] for three years, follows neither of them!

And we answer:

Actually,

our Mishna follows

Rabbi Ishmael,

who brought a “commemoration of the matter” from what is written concerning Daniel, that merit suspends [punishment] for twelve months.

And

Rabbi Ishmael, after bringing a “commemoration of the matter” from Daniel that merit suspends [punishment] for a year,

found [

found] another

verse [

verse],

which says and repeats,

which states and repeats the suspension of punishment for three “times,” when each “time” is twelve months, as explained in Daniel.

As it is written, “

So says the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom

I shall wait before punishing them until three times, and I shall not punish them for their sins except when they sin a fourth time, at which point I shall punish them also for the first three times.

And from here Rabbi Ishmael learned that merit suspends [punishment] for three “times” of the period of twelve months, that is, that the time of twelve months is to be tripled; and it follows that merit suspends [punishment] for three years.

But now, since it is proved from the verse concerning the transgressions of Edom that merit suspends [punishment] for three years, the Gemara wonders:

And what,

why did Rabbi Ishmael say, “

although there is no proof for the matter,” there is

a

commemoration of the matter”?

But there is a conclusive proof from the verse concerning Daniel and from [the verse concerning] the three transgressions of Edom, that merit suspends [punishment] for up to three years!

And we answer: There is no conclusive proof from the waiting concerning the transgressions of Nebuchadnezzar and Edom.

For

perhaps it is different,

perhaps the law of conduct toward

idolaters

is different from the law of conduct toward Israel, since

with regard to

idolaters,

He does not promptly impose judgment upon them!

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

But with Israel, He hastens to punish them so that their measure will not become full. And if so, there is no proof from these verses that merit suspends [punishment] for so long also with Israel, but merely a “commemoration of the matter.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And merit suspends [the punishment] for three years.

And the Gemara asks:

Merit of what?

What merit does a woman have that can protect her to such an extent?

If you say,

perhaps we should say,

the merit of

the mitzva of studying

Torah,

which is an important merit, protects her and suspends [the punishment] for her—

it is impossible to say so.

For

this—

behold, a woman who studies Torah—“

is not commanded, yet performs”

it.

For a woman is not commanded in the study of Torah. And if she nevertheless studied Torah, it cannot suspend [the punishment] for her, because performing a mitzva in which one is not commanded is not sufficiently important, and its reward is not great enough to suspend [the punishment] for her!

Rather,

necessarily, the

merit of

fulfilling a

mitzva

suspends [the punishment] for her.

And the Gemara wonders: Is it so that

the merit of a mitzva—

does it protect to such an extent,

can it protect her so much!?

And it was taught: This

is the exposition that

Rabbi Menahem bar Yosei expounded,

on the verse in Proverbs [chapter 6]: “

For a lamp—

a mitzva, and Torah—

light.”

He compared,

the verse

compared the mitzva to a

lamp,

and

if

the 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 illuminate permanently, but only while it is burning,

so too a mitzva,

so the mitzva

does not protect

a person

except temporarily,

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

And

if

the Torah

the verse had compared

to “

light,”

in order

to tell you: Just as

the existence of

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 will guide you;

when you lie down, it will guard you; and when you awaken, it will converse with you.”

And the beraita explains the words of the verse— “

When you walk, it will guide you”—

this

during the life of

this world. “

When you lie down, it will guard you”—

this is death. “

And when you awaken, it will converse with you”—

it will plead on your behalf

in the time to come,

for the life of the World to Come.

A parable to a person who was walking in the blackness of night and darkness, and

was

afraid

of three things—

1.

Of thorns, and of pits [

pits],

and of briars [

thorny shrubs].

2.

And of a wild animal, and of bandits,

whose way is to walk about and harm human beings during the nighttime, when the world is dark.

3.

And he does not know on which road

he is

walking.

A torch of light happened upon him—

he was saved

from one thing:

from the thorns, from the pits, and from the briars.

And so too, a person who performs a mitzva is saved from some of the calamity.

And

however,

still

he is

afraid of a wild animal and of bandits, and

likewise, he still

does not know on which road

he is

walking.

When dawn rose—

he was saved

from a second thing:

from a wild animal and from bandits.

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

And he still does not know on which road he is walking.

And likewise, a person, even when he studies Torah, is still not confident in himself until the day of his death, lest his inclination compel him to desist from words of Torah; then the evil inclination will again cause him to sin, and he will again suffer from the calamity.

He reached a crossroads,

and recognized his road—

he was saved from them all.

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

Alternatively,

the verse is to 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.

And

however,

no

performance of a

transgression extinguishes

the light of the

Torah

that he studied.

As it is stated, “

Many waters cannot extinguish the love.”

And the “love” mentioned here is Torah.

And according to the words of this beraita, performing a mitzva cannot protect the woman to such an extent; if so, how can the merit of a mitzva suspend [the punishment] for her!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Yosef:

Indeed, the merit of a mitzva can protect her greatly from suffering and suspend [the punishment] for her.

And you should not raise a difficulty from the words of this beraita, for the intention of the tannai is not to say that a mitzva has no power to protect from suffering. Rather, this is what the tannai intended to say:

A mitzva—

at the time when he is occupied with it,

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

it protects,

the mitzva protects him from suffering,

and

also

it saves,

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

But afterward,

at the time when he is not occupied with it,

at the time when he ceases to be occupied

with it—

only

it protects,

it protects him from suffering, but

saving -

it does not save

him then! The mitzva has no power to prevent the influence of the evil inclination upon him also during the period after performing the mitzva. But

Torah—

both at the time when he is occupied with it and at the time when he is not occupied with it—

it always

protects

him from suffering,

and

also

saves,

it always saves him from the evil inclination!

Rabba challenged this: But if that is so,

that Torah saves from the evil inclination always, even when a person is not occupied with it, this is difficult:

Doeg and Ahithophel—

how did they stumble!?

Did

they perhaps

not occupy themselves

Doeg and Ahithophel

with Torah?

Surely they certainly occupied themselves with it, for both of them were Torah scholars!

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

Why did it not protect them

the Torah with which they occupied themselves, from the evil inclination, so that they would not stumble and become completely wicked!?

Rather, said Rava,

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

Torah, at the time when he is occupied with it—

it protects and saves.

At the time when he is not occupied with it—

only

it protects.

But

saving

from the evil inclination,

it does not save

when he is not occupied with it.

A mitzva, both at the time when he is occupied with it and at the time when he is not occupied with it,

only

it protects,

but

it does not save,

even when he is occupied with it.

Ravina said: Actually, the merit of Torah

suspends [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 not great, and it cannot protect her—

the intention is not a woman who studies Torah herself. Rather, the intention is the merit of Torah that she has on account of her husband and sons, for whom she cares and toils for the sake of their Torah study!

For

although,

even though

that

women

are not commanded,

that they are not commanded in the study of Torah, nevertheless

in the reward

for

teaching and reviewing with their sons,

for they toil to bring their sons to school so that they will study Scripture and review Mishna,

and

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

wait for their husbands,

sit alone and await their husbands

until they return from the beit-midrash,

so that they return from their beit-midrash outside the city [that is, they are willing that all their lives they sit and await 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,

do they not have a share in the merit of their husbands’ Torah!?

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

And the Gemara discusses:

After it was explained that the torch is a parable for a mitzva, and that dawn is a parable for Torah, if so,

what,

what is meant by

“a crossroads,”

which is the complete rescue in this parable?

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

Only on the day of his death is the Torah scholar certain that he succeeded in his life, and that the inclination did not cause him to cast off from himself the yoke of Torah.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: This is a Torah scholar and fear of sin.

For if the Torah scholar merits, in addition to studying Torah, also to reach 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 for whom the discussion comes out in accordance with the halakha.

For from Heaven they assist him so that his words are accepted by his colleagues as practical halakha. For as long as he studies Torah but his words are not accepted by his colleagues as a ruling according to halakha, he is indeed confident of his rescue from sin, but he has still not succeeded on his path, and he must still seek the correct path in Torah study.

And now the Gemara explains what we learned in the beraita—

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

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

in the Book of Psalms, which will be explained below,

as though it were from Sinai!

as though it had been given from Sinai.

And if only,

if

Doeg and Ahithophel had expounded this verse

in this manner

thus—

they would not have pursued

after

David.

As it is written [

in Psalms 71], “

saying: God has abandoned him

for there is no savior!”

For this is what they said concerning David: Pursue him and seize him, since God has abandoned him because he came upon a married woman, and we will not be punished for pursuing him. And he has no savior, for he possesses no merit that can 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 for him on account of the deed with Bathsheba?—

They learned this from the verse in Deuteronomy [23]: “

And He will not see an indecent thing among you

and turn away from you.”

And they understood the meaning of the verse to be that if a matter of transgression is seen in a person, the Holy One, blessed be He, will turn away from him and no longer protect him, because the transgression extinguished the mitzvot he had performed.

And they do not know—

that a transgression extinguishes

only

a mitzva, but no transgression extinguishes Torah!

But David occupied himself with Torah, and this merit stood by him to be saved from them.

And 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 we say that this “love” is Torah, why should they scorn one who gives all the wealth of his house for it?

What,

what is the meaning of

“they would utterly scorn him”?

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

The intention of the verse is not that one should scorn a person like Azariah, the brother of Shimon, for giving the wealth of his house to his brother Shimon in exchange for a share in the merit of his brother Shimon’s study.

For Azariah engaged in business and supported his brother Shimon, enabling him to occupy himself with Torah. And since all of Shimon’s study was made possible because his brother supported him, Azariah had a share in his brother’s study, and by virtue of this Shimon, who was a tannai, was called by his brother’s name: “Shimon, the brother of Azariah.”

And not

does the verse intend that one should scorn

Rabbi Yohanan of the house of the Nasi,

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

Rather,

the intention of the verse is that one should scorn someone who gives wealth in exchange for a merit in Torah,

like Hillel and Shevna.

And when Rav Dimi came,

when Rav Dimi came from the Land of Israel,

he said: Hillel and Shevna were brothers,

they were brothers.

Hillel engaged in Torah.

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,

Shevna said to him,

Shevna said to Hillel:

Come,

come,

let us form a partnership,

let us join together, both in the profits from my business and in the reward for your Torah,

and let us divide,

and let us divide everything between us!

A Divine Voice went forth and said: “If a man gives all the wealth of his house”

for love, in exchange for the merit of the Torah that another person studied—he will be utterly scorned!