Sotah 31a — the Talmud in English

As it is said ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location") "

In assemblies"

when they gathered at the Sea

bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel,"

even those who were in the womb said: “Amen.”

And we raised an objection to it:

But they did not see

for the fetuses did not see the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, and how did they recite song?

And we answer:

Rabbi Tanhum said: The womb

of the mother

became for them like a luminous crystal, and they saw.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Joshua ben Hyrcanus expounded that Job served [God] not

except out of love, as it is said: “Even though He slay me, in Him will I hope,” and nevertheless the matter remains unresolved: was he expecting Him, or was he not expecting Him?

And we raised an objection to it: Why is the matter unresolved?

Let us see this

“not”

if it is written with a lamed and an alef—

“not”

is it.

If it is written with a lamed and a vav—

“to Him”

is it?

And we answer:

And

when

everywhere that it is written with a lamed and an alef,

“not”

is it?

But if that is so,

“In all their affliction He was not afflicted,”

which is written with a lamed and an alef, likewise is it that

“not”

is it,

and its meaning is that He does not care about their affliction?

And should you say: So indeed?

But it is written,

“And the angel of His presence saved them”!

Rather,

by necessity,

it has this meaning and it has that meaning,

it can also be interpreted as though it were written with a vav, and likewise, when it is written with a vav, it can be interpreted as though it were written with an alef [Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishna]; therefore, also concerning Job, it is not decided whether he served out of love or out of fear.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir says: It is said

“God-fearing”

with regard to Job, and it is said

“God-fearing”

with regard to Abraham

at the Binding: “For now I know that you are God-fearing.”

And we expound:

Just as

“God-fearing”

which is said with regard to Abraham—

out of love,

so too

“God-fearing”

which is said with regard to Job—

out of love.

And we raised an objection to it:

And Abraham himself, from where do we know

that he served out of love?

And we answer:

As it is written,

“The seed of Abraham, My beloved.”

And we raised an objection to it:

What difference is there between one who acts out of love and one who acts out of fear,

what is the difference between them?

And we answer:

There is [a difference], as it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Greater is one who acts out of love than one who acts out of fear.

For this one,

the one who acts out of fear, his merit

depends

to protect his descendants only until

one thousand generations.

And this one,

the one who acts out of love, his merit

depends

until

thousands of generations.

And the proof is that

here,

with one who acts out of love,

it is written,

“and performs kindness”

“for thousands, for those who love Me and for those who observe My commandments.”

And there,

with one who acts out of fear,

it is written,

“Who keeps the covenant and the kindness for those who love Him”

“and for those who observe His commandments, for one thousand generations.”

And “those who observe His commandments” means out of fear.

And we challenge:

There too it is written,

“for those who love Him”

“and for those who observe His commandments, for one thousand generations,”

and it implies that even one who acts out of love receives only one thousand generations?

And we resolve:

This one refers to what is adjacent to it, and that one refers to what is adjacent to it.

The “thousands” is adjacent to “those who love Me,” whereas the “one thousand” is adjacent to “and those who observe His commandments.”

Those two students who were sitting before Rava.

One said to him

to Rava:

They recited to me in my dream

the verse

“How abundant is Your goodness, which You have hidden for those who fear You.”

And one said to him: They recited

to

me in my dream

“And all who take refuge in You will rejoice; forever they will sing out and exult in You, those who love Your name.”

Rava said to them

Rava:

Both of you are complete righteous sages.

You! Master,

to whom they recited “and exult in You, those who love Your name,” acts

out of love.

And

the other one,

Master,

to whom they recited “which You have hidden for those who fear You,” acts

out of fear.

We shall return to you, chapter “Just as the water”

Mishna:

He who warned his wife,

a husband who warned his wife before two witnesses, and said to her: Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so

! And she secluded herself

with him. Behold—

Even

if there are no witnesses that she secluded herself, but the husband

heard

so

from a flying bird,

that is, from someone who is not fit to rely upon, and whose words are like the words of a bird flying in the air, such as a male or female slave, who are disqualified from testimony—

she is forbidden to him until she drinks.

And if he does not wish to make her drink,

he shall divorce

her with a bill of divorce,

and give her ketuba.

For she should not lose her ketuba, since he is able to make her drink—

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And this accords with his words at the beginning of the tractate: “He warns her on the basis of two, and makes her drink on the basis of himself,” for testimony that she secluded herself is not required.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

A woman drinks only on the basis of two witnesses, and this accords with his words at the beginning of the tractate: “He warns her on the basis of two, and makes her drink on the basis of two”; therefore, a woman does not leave [her husband] on the testimony of one who is not fit to rely upon.

Until women who spin by moonlight discuss her.

Until women who spin by the light of the moon speak of her promiscuity (the term “spinners” means women who spin); for even though there is here no testimony that she secluded herself, and there is no law of drinking applying to her, nevertheless, since the women discuss her promiscuity, the matter is disgraceful, and she shall leave.

Her husband warned her and she secluded herself, and

one witness said: I saw her become impure

during that seclusion.

She did not drink.

For her impurity had already been established through the witness.

And not only that, but even

if that witness was

a male slave, even a female slave,

who are disqualified from testimony—

these are believed

to prevent her from drinking, and

even to disqualify her from her ketuba.

Even though ordinarily two witnesses are required to testify concerning money, in this case the Torah believed one witness who testified that she became impure, because there are grounds for the matter, since he warned her and she secluded herself.

And just as he is believed to render her impure, he is believed to cause her to lose her ketuba.

His mother-in-law,

his wife’s mother,

his mother-in-law’s daughter,

his wife’s sister,

and his rival wife,

another woman married to her husband,

and his yevama,

the wife of his brother who has no children,

and his wife’s daughter

from another woman, who testified concerning her that she became impure—

these are believed.

And not

did we say that they are believed with regard to

causing her to lose her ketuba,

for these five women are presumed to hate her and are suspected of giving false testimony to her detriment,

but

they are believed with regard to

preventing her from drinking

only.

Now the Mishna explains from where we learned that one witness is believed to testify that she became impure.

It could have been reasoned

that one witness should not be believed concerning her.

For this is what it would have been proper to reason:

And if the first testimony,

that she secluded herself,

which does not forbid her

this testimony

with an eternal prohibition

but only until she drinks,

nevertheless

is not established with fewer than two,

as Rabbi Yehoshua held above, that two witnesses who testify that she secluded herself are required in order to forbid her until she drinks,

the latter testimony,

that she became impure,

which forbids her with an eternal prohibition,

preventing her from drinking and making her eternally forbidden to her husband,

is it not surely not established with fewer than two?

The verse therefore says: “And there is no witness against her.”

As it is written (Numbers 5:13): “And she secluded herself, and she became impure, and there is no witness against her, and she was not seized.”

Any testimony that there is in her.

For the wording of the Torah is thus: “And she secluded herself, and she became impure”; although there is not complete testimony of two that she became impure, rather any testimony that there is in her that she became impure—even one, and even one disqualified—if she was not raped, she is forbidden.

A kal va-chomer for the first testimony from this point.

Since we have learned that one witness is believed that she became impure, it would have been proper to reason by kal va-chomer that one witness is believed that she secluded herself.