Sotah 31a (לא.) — the Talmud in English

As it is stated:

"

in assemblies" (

when they assembled at the sea)

“Bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel”,

even those who were in their mothers’ wombs.

And we raised an objection:

But they did not see—

the unborn children did not see the splitting of the Red Sea, so how could they have recited a song?

And we answer:

Rabbi Tanḥum said: The womb

of the mother

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Joshua ben Hyrcanus expounded that Job served God

only out of love, as it is stated: “Though He slay me, I will wait for Him”; but the matter still remains unresolved: Do I await Him, or do I not await Him?

And we raised an objection: Why does the matter remain unresolved?

Let us see this

“not”:

If it is written with a lamed and alef—

“not”

is.

If it is written with a lamed and vav—

“to Him”

is it?

And we answer:

And

for

whenever it is written with a lamed and alef,

“not”

is it?

If so,

“In all their troubles He was troubled,”

since it is written with a lamed and alef, is it likewise

“not”

is He,

meaning that He does not care about their troubles?

And if you would say that this is indeed so,

but it is written

“And the angel of His presence saved them”!

Rather,

necessarily,

it can mean both:

it can also be interpreted as though it were written with a vav; and similarly, when it is written with a vav, it can be interpreted as though it were written with an alef [Rambam’s commentary on the Mishna]. Therefore, with regard to Job as well, it is not conclusive whether he served out of love or out of fear.

It was taught: Rabbi Meir says: It is stated

“God-fearing”

with regard to Job, and it is stated

“God-fearing”

with regard to Abraham

in the binding: “For now I know that you are God-fearing.”

And we derive:

What

“God-fearing”

stated with regard to Abraham—

out of love.

So too,

“God-fearing”

stated with regard to Job—

out of love.

And we raised an objection:

But regarding 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:

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.

This one,

the one who acts out of fear, his merit

is suspended

to protect his descendants only until

one thousand generations.

And this one,

the one who acts out of love, his merit

is suspended

until

thousands of generations.

And the proof is that

here,

with regard to one who acts out of love,

it is written: “And He performs kindness

for thousands

of generations for those who love Me and observe My mitzvot.”

But there,

with regard to 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 mitzvot,

for one thousand generations.”

“Those who observe His mitzvot” refers to one who acts out of fear.

And we challenge this:

There too, it is written

“for those who love Him

and for those who observe His mitzvot, for one thousand generations,”

which implies that even one who acts out of love receives merit for 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 word “thousands” is adjacent to “those who love Me,” whereas “one thousand” is adjacent to “those who observe His mitzvot.”

There were these two students who were sitting before Rava.

One said to him

to Rava:

I was shown in my dream

the verse

“How great is Your goodness, which You have stored up for those who fear You.”

And one said to him: I was shown

to me

in my dream

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

Rava said to them

Rava:

You are both complete righteous scholars.

You, master!

who was shown “and those who love Your Name will exult in You,” acts

out of love.

And

the one

who

was shown “which You have stored up for those who fear You,” acts

out of fear.

The chapter “Just as the water” is concluded.

Mishna:

One who warned his wife,

meaning, a husband who warned his wife in the presence of two witnesses, saying 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

this

from a flying bird,

that is, from someone unfit to rely upon, whose words are like those of a bird flying through 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 give her to drink,

he must divorce

her with a bill of divorce,

and give her the ketuba.

For she should not forfeit her ketuba, since he is able to give her to drink.

This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And this follows his statement at the beginning of the tractate: “He warns her on the basis of two witnesses and gives her to drink on the basis of his own word”; thus, testimony that she secluded herself is not required.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

A woman drinks only on the basis of two witnesses, in accordance with his statement at the beginning of the tractate: “He warns her on the basis of two witnesses and gives her to drink on the basis of two witnesses.” Therefore, a woman does not leave her husband on the testimony of someone unfit to rely upon.

Until weaving women discuss her by moonlight.

Until women who spin by the light of the moon discuss her licentiousness. (The term “weaving women” refers to women who twist thread.) For although there is no testimony here that she secluded herself, and she is therefore not subject to the laws of the sota water, nevertheless, since the women are discussing her licentiousness, the matter is ugly, and she must leave her husband.

Her husband warned her and she secluded herself, and

one witness said: “I saw her become impure”

during that seclusion—

she would not drink.

For her impurity has already been established through the witness.

And furthermore, even

if that witness was

a male slave—even a female slave,

who are disqualified from testimony—

these are believed

to establish that she may not drink, and

even to disqualify her from her ketuba.

Although ordinarily two witnesses are required to testify in monetary matters, in this case the Torah believed one witness who says that she became impure, since there is circumstantial support for his testimony, as he had warned her and she secluded herself.

Just as he is believed to establish her impurity, he is believed to cause her to forfeit her ketuba.

His mother-in-law,

her husband’s mother;

his mother-in-law’s daughter,

his husband’s sister;

his rival wife,

another woman married to her husband;

his yevama,

the wife of her husband’s brother who had no children;

and his daughter

from another woman, who testified that she had become impure—

these are believed.

But

we did not say that they are believed with regard to

causing her to forfeit her ketuba,

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

rather,

they are believed with regard

only to preventing her from drinking

the water.

The Mishna now explains from where we learn that one witness is believed to testify that she became impure.

It could have been established by reasoning

that one witness should not be believed concerning her.

For this would have been the appropriate argument:

If, with regard to the first testimony,

that she secluded herself,

which does not render her forbidden

through this testimony with

an eternal prohibition,

but only until she drinks—

nevertheless,

it is not valid with fewer than two witnesses,

as Rabbi Yehoshua stated above, that two witnesses are required to establish her seclusion and prohibit her until she drinks;

with regard to the latter testimony,

that she became impure,

which renders her forbidden with an eternal prohibition,

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

is it not logical that it should not be valid with fewer than two witnesses?

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

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

Any testimony that exists concerning her.

The Torah’s wording is thus: “And she secluded herself and became impure,” even though there is no complete testimony of two witnesses that she became impure. Rather, any testimony that she became impure, even that of one witness or of someone disqualified from testimony, renders her forbidden, provided that she was not raped.

A fortiori, from this point onward, concerning the first testimony.

Once we have learned that one witness is believed to testify that she became impure, it would be appropriate to derive by a kal va-chomer that one witness is believed to testify that she secluded herself.