## Sotah Daf 31a

###### Sotah 31a:1
[Sotah 31a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:1)

״בְּמַקְהֵלוֹת בָּרְכוּ אֱלֹהִים ה׳ מִמְּקוֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“In full assemblies, bless God, the Lord, you that are from the source of Israel”** (Psalms 68:27), indicating that even children that are in the “source,” i.e., their mother’s womb, blessed God when they gathered at the sea.


###### Sotah 31a:2
[Sotah 31a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:2)

וְהָא לָא חֲזוֹ? אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם: כָּרֵס נַעֲשָׂה לָהֶן כְּאַסְפַּקְלַרְיָא הַמְּאִירָה וְרָאוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** the fetuses **could not see,** so how could they have honestly said: “This is my God and I will glorify him”? **Rabbi Tanḥum says:** Their mother’s **stomach was transformed for them like luminous crystal [*aspaklarya*], and they saw** through it.


###### Sotah 31a:3
[Sotah 31a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:3)

בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן הוּרְקָנוֹס שֶׁלֹּא עָבַד אִיּוֹב כּוּ׳. וְלִיחְזֵי הַאי ״לֹא״, אִי בְּלָמֶד אָלֶף כְּתִיב — ״לֹא״ הוּא, אִי בְּלָמֶד וָיו כְּתִיב — ״לוֹ״ הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **On that same day Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus taught that Job served** the Holy One, Blessed be He, **only** out of love, as it is stated: “Though He will slay me, still I will trust in Him [*lo*]” (Job 13:15). The mishna continues that the word *lo* in the verse is ambiguous as to whether it is indicative of Job expressing his yearning for God or his lack thereof. The Gemara asks: **Let us see whether this** word ***lo* is written *lamed alef*,** and therefore its meaning **is:** I will **not** trust, or **whether it is written *lamed vav*,** according to which its meaning **is:** I trust **in Him.** Why is there room for doubt with regard to the meaning of the verse?


###### Sotah 31a:4
[Sotah 31a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:4)

וְכׇל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב בְּלָמֶד אָלֶף, ״לֹא״ הוּא? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״בְּכׇל צָרָתָם לֹא צָר״, דִּכְתִיב בְּלָמֶד אָלֶף, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּ״לֹא״ הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **But** is it true that **anywhere that** the word *lo* **is written *lamed alef*,** its meaning **is: Not? If that is so,** then in the verse: **“In all their affliction He was [*lo*] afflicted”** (Isaiah 63:9), **where** the word *lo* **is written *lamed alef*, so too, does it** mean: **Not,** i.e., God was not afflicted in the afflictions of the Jewish people?


###### Sotah 31a:5
[Sotah 31a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:5)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָכְתִיב ״וּמַלְאַךְ פָּנָיו הוֹשִׁיעָם״! אֶלָּא לָאו, מַשְׁמַע הָכִי וּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **indeed** that is the meaning of the verse, **but isn’t it written** in the continuation of that same verse: **“And the angel of His Presence saved them,”** which clearly indicates that God was concerned with their afflictions? Evidently, the word *lo* in that verse means: “In all their affliction He was afflicted.” **Rather, is it not** clear that *lamed alef* sometimes **indicates this and** sometimes **indicates that?** Therefore, the mishna had to derive the proper meaning of the word from another verse.


###### Sotah 31a:6
[Sotah 31a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:6)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים״ בְּאִיּוֹב, וְנֶאֱמַר ״יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים״ בְּאַבְרָהָם, מָה ״יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים״ הָאָמוּר בְּאַבְרָהָם — מֵאַהֲבָה, אַף ״יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים״ הָאָמוּר בְּאִיּוֹב — מֵאַהֲבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 6:1) that **Rabbi Meir says: It is stated with regard to Job** that he was **“God-fearing”** (Job 1:1), **and it is stated with regard to Abraham** that he was **“God-fearing”** (Genesis 22:12). **Just as** the description **“God-fearing,” which is stated with regard to Abraham,** is referring to Abraham’s fearing God **out of love, so too,** the description **“God-fearing” that is stated with regard to Job** indicates that Job feared God **out of love.**


###### Sotah 31a:7
[Sotah 31a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:7)

וְאַבְרָהָם גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב ״זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם אֹהֲבִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **Abraham himself, from where do we** derive that he acted out of a sense of love? **As it is written: “The offspring of Abraham who loved Me”** (Isaiah 41:8).


###### Sotah 31a:8
[Sotah 31a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:8)

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין עוֹשֶׂה מֵאַהֲבָה לְעוֹשֶׂה מִיִּרְאָה? אִיכָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: גָּדוֹל הָעוֹשֶׂה מֵאַהֲבָה יוֹתֵר מִן הָעוֹשֶׂה מִיִּרְאָה, שֶׁזֶּה תָּלוּי לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר. וְזֶה תָּלוּי לְאַלְפַּיִם דּוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between one who performs** mitzvot **out of love and one who performs** mitzvot **out of fear?** The Gemara answers: **There is that which is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Greater is the one who performs** mitzvot **out of love than the one who performs** mitzvot **out of fear, as** with regard to **this** one who acts out of fear, his merits **endure for one thousand generations, and** with regard to **that** one who serves God out of love, his merits **endure for two thousand generations.**


###### Sotah 31a:9
[Sotah 31a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:9)

הָכָא כְּתִיב: ״לַאֲלָפִים לְאֹהֲבַי וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָי״, וְהָתָם כְּתִיב: ״וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָיו לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Proof of this assertion is that **here it is written: “And showing mercy unto thousands of generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments”** (Exodus 20:5), indicating that merits can last for thousands of generations for those who act out of love, **and there it is written:** “Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God; the faithful God, Who keeps the covenant and mercy with those who love Him **and keep His commandments for a thousand generations”** (Deuteronomy 7:9). The first verse indicates that those who act out of love retain their merits for thousands of generations, whereas the second verse, which mentions only one thousand generations of merit, is referring to the merits of those who keep God’s mitzvot out of fear.


###### Sotah 31a:10
[Sotah 31a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:10)

הָתָם נָמֵי כְּתִיב ״לְאֹהֲבָיו וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָיו לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **there also,** in the second verse, **it is written:** “The faithful God, Who keeps the covenant and mercy **with those who love Him and keep His commandments for a thousand generations”** (Deuteronomy 7:9). Why is the verse interpreted specifically with regard to those who worship God out of fear, yet it is written that they keep His mitzvot out of love? Both types of people seem to be indicated in both verses.


###### Sotah 31a:11
[Sotah 31a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:11)

הַאי לְדִסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ וְהַאי לְדִסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** verse, which mentions one thousand generations, is understood as referring **to that which is adjacent to it.** The phrase “for a thousand generations” is understood as referring those who perform mitzvot out of fear, as it is written immediately preceding the phrase “and keep His commandments,” which does not mention love. **And this** verse, which mentions thousands of generations, is understood as referring **to that which is adjacent to it:** “Unto thousands of generations of those who love Me.”


###### Sotah 31a:12
[Sotah 31a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:12)

הָנְהוּ תְּרֵי תַּלְמִידֵי דַּהֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, חַד אָמַר לֵיהּ אַקְרְיוּן בְּחֶלְמַאי: ״מָה רַב טוּבְךָ אֲשֶׁר צָפַנְתָּ לִּירֵאֶיךָ״, וְחַד אָמַר לֵיהּ: אַקְרְיוּן בְּחֶלְמַאי ״וְיִשְׂמְחוּ כׇל חוֹסֵי בָךְ לְעוֹלָם יְרַנֵּנוּ וְיַעְלְצוּ בְךָ אֹהֲבֵי שְׁמֶךָ״. אֲמַר לְהוּ: תַּרְוַיְיכוּ רַבָּנַן צַדִּיקֵי גְּמוּרֵי אַתּוּן. מָר מֵאַהֲבָה, וּמָר מִיִּרְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It happened that there were **these two students who were sitting before Rava,** and **one said to him: It was read to me in my dream: “How abundant is Your goodness, which You have laid up for those who fear You”** (Psalms 31:20). **And one said to** Rava: **It was read to me in my dream: “So shall all those who take refuge in You rejoice; they will forever shout for joy,** and You will shelter them; **let them also who love Your name exult in You”** (Psalms 5:12). Rava **said to them: You are both completely righteous Sages.** One **Sage,** the second dreamer, serves God **out of love, and** one **Sage,** the first dreamer, serves God **out of fear.** Each Sage’s dream corresponded to his manner of serving God.


###### Sotah 31a:13
[Sotah 31a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:13)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם**


###### Sotah 31a:14
[Sotah 31a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:14)

**מִי שֶׁקִּינֵּא** לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִסְתְּרָה, אֲפִילּוּ שָׁמַע מֵעוֹף הַפּוֹרֵחַ — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who warned his wife** not to seclude herself with a particular man **and she** subsequently **secluded herself** with the man she was warned about, **even if he heard** about it **from a flying bird,** or any other source whatsoever, **he must divorce** his wife. However, he must still **grant her** the money accorded to her by her **marriage contract** because there is no actual proof of her seclusion with the man in question. This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,** who, as quoted in the first mishna of the tractate (2a), holds that there is no necessity for witnesses to testify with regard to the seclusion, and the woman becomes forbidden to her husband even in the absence of witnesses, by the husband’s word alone.


###### Sotah 31a:15
[Sotah 31a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:15)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂאוּ וְיִתְּנוּ בָּהּ מוֹזְרוֹת בַּלְּבָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua** disagrees, as he did in the mishna (2a), and **says:** He does not divorce his wife in the absence of witnesses **until** the gossiping women who sit and **spin** thread **by** the **light of the moon** begin to **discuss her** behavior, as they share the gossip of the town. The Gemara earlier (6b) taught that a woman whose infidelity became subject to this public discussion can no longer be tested by the bitter water of a *sota*. Consequently, she must get divorced.


###### Sotah 31a:16
[Sotah 31a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:16)

אָמַר עֵד אֶחָד ״אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת״ — לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ עֶבֶד אֲפִילּוּ שִׁפְחָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין אַף לְפוֹסְלָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues to list various possible testimonies concerning such acts of seclusion. If **one witness said: I saw that she became defiled** during her seclusion by engaging in sexual intercourse with that other man, **she does not drink** the bitter water, but rather, he divorces her immediately. **And furthermore, even** if the one who testified was **a slave or a maidservant,** neither of whom is generally regarded as a valid witness, **they are deemed credible** to testify to the wife’s adultery **even to** the extent that their testimony **disqualifies her from** receiving **her marriage contract** and prevents her from drinking the bitter water.


###### Sotah 31a:17
[Sotah 31a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:17)

חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ וִיבִמְתָּהּ וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת. וְלֹא לְפוֹסְלָהּ מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues by listing women whose testimony is only partially accepted concerning this matter: **Her mother-in-law, and her mother in-law’s daughter, and her rival wife,** i.e., a second wife of the husband, **and her *yevama*,** i.e., her husband’s brother’s wife, **and her husband’s daughter,** all of whom are generally not deemed credible if they say anything incriminating pertaining to this woman due to the tumultuous relationships these women often have. **They are** all **deemed credible** to testify concerning the woman’s defilement while in seclusion, **but** are **not** deemed credible **to** the extent that their testimony will **disqualify her from** receiving **her marriage contract; rather,** it is deemed credible to the extent that she will **not drink** of the bitter water of a *sota*.


###### Sotah 31a:18
[Sotah 31a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:18)

שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין: וּמָה אִם עֵדוּת רִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — אֵינָהּ מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם, עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְקַיֵּים בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This ruling allowing one witness’s testimony with regard to defilement needs to be stated, **as, by right,** it **should** not **have been** deemed credible based on the following *a fortiori* inference: **And just as if** with regard to **the first testimony** concerning seclusion, **which does not forbid her** with **an irrevocable prohibition,** as the woman can be found innocent permitting her again to her husband by drinking the bitter water, **is not established with fewer than two** witnesses, since according to the mishna the testimony of seclusion requires two witnesses, then with regard to **the final testimony** concerning defilement, **which forbids her** to her husband with **an irrevocable prohibition, is it not logical that it** should also **not be established with fewer than two** witnesses?


###### Sotah 31a:19
[Sotah 31a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:19)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ״, כׇּל עֵדוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, to counter this derivation, **the verse states: “And there be no witness against her”** (Numbers 5:13), teaching that **any** testimony with regard to defilement **that there is against her** is sufficient, and two witnesses are not required.


###### Sotah 31a:20
[Sotah 31a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/31a:20)

וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לְעֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה אִם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Mishnah asks: **And from now** that it is established that one witness suffices to testify with regard to defilement, **an *a fortiori*** inference can be made **with regard to the first testimony** of seclusion: **And just as if**