Dedicate Daf 31a to:



במקהלות ברכו אלהים ה' ממקור ישראל
"Bless Hashem in assemblies
(when the Jews assembled at the Red Sea)
, from the source
(womb)
of Israel".

(והא לא חזו אמר רבי תנחום כרס נעשה להן כאספקלריא המאירה וראו)
But
how could the infants
see
Hashem?
Rabbi Tanchum said that the wombs became clear like glass
so the fetus
would
be able to
see.

 
 
 
 
: בו ביום דרש רבי יהושע בן הורקנוס שלא עבד איוב כו':
On that day Rabbi Yehoshua ben Horkanos expounded that Iyov only served Hashem through fear...

 
The Gemara asks:
 
 
וליחזי האי לא
Why
didn't they just
look
in the verse and see how the word
"Lo"
was spelled?

אי בלמ"ד אל"ף כתיב לא הוא
So, for example,
if
the word Lo was written
with a Lamed Aleph, it means
that Iyov was
not
awaiting reward,

אי בלמ"ד וי"ו כתיב לו הוא
While
if
Lo was spelled
Lamed Vav, it means
Iyov was awaiting the reward due
"to him."

 
The Gemara answers that the text says Lo with an Aleph, and would normally mean "no". However, the Gemara will find a place where Lo with an Aleph means "to him":
 
 
וכל היכא דכתיב בלמ"ד אל"ף לא הוא
But does every
Lo spelled as
"Lamed Aleph" mean no?

אלא מעתה בכל צרתם לא צר דכתיב בלמ"ד אל"ף הכי נמי דלא הוא
But
does the verse
"In all suffering, (Lo) 'Lamed Aleph' is in pain'" mean
that Hashem doesn't suffer when the Jews suffer?

וכ"ת ה"נ והכתיב ומלאך פניו הושיעם
That can't be true, since the verse says
"and the angel of His presence saved them"

אלא (לאו) משמע הכי ומשמע הכי
Rather, sometimes Lo
spelled as Aleph Lamed
means
no
, and sometimes it means
to him
.

 
 
 
תניא
A Braisa
taught:

רבי מאיר אומר נאמר ירא אלהים באיוב ונאמר ירא אלהים באברהם
Rabbi Meir said that
the verse refers to both
Iyov and Avraham
as
fearing Hashem,

מה ירא אלהים האמור באברהם מאהבה אף ירא אלהים האמור באיוב מאהבה
Just as Avraham's fear of Heaven came from love
of Hashem
, so too Iyov's fear of heaven came from love
of Hashem
.

ואברהם גופיה מנלן
And what's
the source
that Avraham
feared Hashem from love?

דכתיב זרע אברהם אוהבי
The verse
said "the seed of Avraham, the one who loved Me".

מאי איכא בין עושה מאהבה לעושה מיראה
What's the difference
in level between one who serves Hashem
from love
and the one who serves Hashem
from fear?

איכא הא דתניא
The following Braisa
taught
the difference:

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר גדול העושה מאהבה יותר מן העושה מיראה
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said that the one who
serves Hashem
from love is greater
than one who serves Hashem
from fear,

שזה תלוי לאלף דור וזה תלוי לאלפים דור
For
serving Hashem out of fear
postpones
punishment
for a thousand generations, while
serving Hashem out of love
postpones
punishment
for two thousand generations.

הכא כתיב לאלפים לאהבי ולשומרי מצותי והתם כתיב ולשומרי מצותיו לאלף דור
In one verse
it is written "
that Hashem protects
for two thousand generations those who love Me and do My commandments",
while another verse
says "and those who keep my commandments
are protected
for a thousand generations".

התם נמי כתיב לאוהביו ולשומרי מצותיו לאלף דור
But
the verse
also says "
Hashem will protect
those who love Him and do His commandments for a thousand generations"?

האי לדסמיך ליה והאי לדסמיך ליה
That verse is not a proof since the verse puts the words "to do His commandments"
closer
to "protection" than "love Him"

 
 
 
הנהו תרי תלמידי דהוו יתבי קמיה דרבא
There were two students who were sitting in front of Rava,

חד אמר ליה אקריון בחלמאי
One
had the following verse
read to him in his dream:

מה רב טובך אשר צפנת ליראיך
"Oh how abundant is Your goodness, which You have hidden for them that fear You".

וחד אמר ליה אקריון בחלמאי
And
the other had the following verse
read to him in his dream:

וישמחו כל חוסי בך לעולם ירננו ויעלצו בך אוהבי שמך
"So shall all those that take refuge in You rejoice, They shall ever shout for joy, And You shall shelter them; Let them also that
love Your
name exult in You."

אמר להו תרוייכו רבנן צדיקי גמורי אתון
Rava
said to them that they are both completely righteous,

מר מאהבה ומר מיראה:
Though the first serves Hashem
from love while
the second
serves Him from fear.

 
 
 
Chapter Six

Mishna
מי שקינא לאשתו ונסתרה אפילו שמע מעוף הפורח יוציא ויתן כתובה דברי רבי אליעזר
Rabbi Eliezer said that if one warned his wife
to not seclude herself with another man, and, despite his warning,
she was secluded, even if
the husband only knew about the seclusion
from a flying bird
(that is, even if there's no formal testimony)
, he must divorce
his wife
and pay her Kesuba
(if he doesn't want to test her with the Sotah water).

 
As Rabbi Eliezer holds (on page ) that seclusion does not require proper witnesses.
 
 
רבי יהושע אומר עד שישאו ויתנו בה מוזרות בלבנה
Rabbi Yehoshua said
that one is not obligated to divorce his wife, (even if she's suspected of adultery),
unless
even
those who weave to the
light of the
moon close
For the says that this is strong enough evidence that the Sotah waters wouldn't test her
talk about her
immorality, or if there are witnesses that she was secluded.

 
As Rabbi Yehoshua requires (on page ) that the seclusion must be properly witnessed.
 
 
 
אמר עד אחד אני ראיתיה שנטמאת לא היתה שותה
If
one witness testified that she was
immoral (after proper warning),
she wouldn't drink
the bitter waters.

ולא עוד אלא אפילו עבד אפילו שפחה הרי אלו נאמנין אף לפוסלה מכתובתה
Moreover, even a servant or a maid are believed
to testify that a woman was immoral (if there was proper testimony of seclusion),
and
that testimony is strong enough
that
she may not be tested through the bitter waters (once it's known that a woman was impure, she must divorce and can't vindicate herself through drinking the bitter waters), and
looses her Kesuba.

חמותה ובת חמותה וצרתה ויבמתה ובת בעלה הרי אלו נאמנות ולא לפוסלה מכתובתה אלא שלא תשתה
A woman's
mother in law, husband's sister, co-wife , and husband's daughter are close
These women are not normally believed to testify for or against someone, for they are assumed to resent their daughter - in - law, brother's wife and father's wife, respectively.
believed
to testify that she was immoral. Their testimony is strong enough to
prevent her from drinking
the bitter water,
but not
strong enough to
forfeit her Kesuba.

The Mishna explains why a single witness is believed:
שהיה בדין
There is a
logical
counter-argument :

ומה אם עדות ראשונה שאין אוסרתה איסור עולם אינה מתקיימת בפחות משנים
If the "first testimony"
(i.e. the testimony of the Sotah's seclusion)
, which doesn't permanently forbid a wife onto her husband
(since if she survives the bitter water, they are permitted to stay married)
, require two
witnesses
,

עדות אחרונה שאוסרתה איסור עולם אינו דין שלא תתקיים בפחות משנים
All the more so should the "final testimony"
(the testimony of the Sotah's immorality)
, (which
does
permanently forbid
the wife onto her husband
), require two
witnesses
.

תלמוד לומר ועד אין בה כל עדות שיש בה
Therefore, the verse says
"And there was no witness",
that however many
witnesses were there,
forbid her - even if there was only one.

 
 
 
קל וחומר לעדות הראשונה
But one can now make
the backwards
logical argument onto the "first testimony"
(of the seclusion)
:

מעתה
Now,

ומה אם
If






Translation copyright by the OpenGemara project. If you would like permission to use our data, please contact us

Dedicated in loving memory of Leah Rivka Bas Reb Dovid HaKohen A"H.
Last build: 2019-01-31T02:13:57Z