Sotah

ON THAT DAY R. JOSHUA B. HYRCANUS EXPOUNDED, JOB ONLY SERVED etc. But let him see how the word 'lo'  is spelt; if it is written with lamed and aleph then it means 'not', and if with lamed and waw then it means for Him'!  But is the meaning 'not' wherever the spelling is lamed and aleph? Can it apply to: In all their affliction there was affliction to Him?  [The word 'lo', 'to Him'] is spelt lamed and aleph, but does it here also signify 'not'! And should you say that here too [it means 'not'], behold it continues with: And the angel of His presence saved them!  But sometimes it has one meaning and at other times the other meaning. It has been taught: R. Meir Says: It is declared of Job one that feared God,  and it is declared of Abraham thou fearest God;  just as 'fearing God' with Abraham indicates from love, so 'fearing God' with Job indicates from love. Whence, however, have we it in connection with Abraham himself [that he was motived by love]? As it is written: The seed of Abraham who loved Me.  What difference is there between one who acts from love and one who acts from fear? — The difference is that indicated in this teaching: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Greater is he who acts from love than he who acts from fear, because with the latter [the merit] remains effective for a thousand generations but with the former it remains effective for two thousand generations. Here it is written: Unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments  and elsewhere it is written: And keep His commandments to a thousand generations.  But in this latter passage it is likewise written: 'With them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations! — In the first verse cited [the word 'thousand'] is attached [to them that love Me,] whereas in the second verse [cited the word 'thousand'] is attached [to keep His commandments]. Two disciples were once sitting in the presence of Raba. One said to him, In my dream they read to me, O how great is Thy goodness which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee.  The other said to him, In my dream they read to me, But let all those that put their trust in Thee rejoice, let them ever shout for joy, because Thou defendest them; let them also that love Thy name be joyful in Thee.  He replied to them, Both of you are completely righteous Rabbis, but one is actuated by love and the other by fear. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WARNED HIS WIFE AND SHE SECLUDED HERSELF [WITH ANOTHER MAN], EVEN IF HE HEARD [THAT SHE HAD DONE SO] FROM A FLYING BIRD,  HE DIVORCES HER AND GIVES HER THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT.  SUCH IS THE STATEMENT OF R. ELIEZER. R. JOSHUA SAYS: [HE DOES NOT DO THIS] UNTIL WOMEN WHO SPIN BY MOONLIGHT DISCUSS HER. IF ONE WITNESS SAID, I SAW THAT SHE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT, SHE DOES NOT DRINK THE WATER.  NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EVEN A SLAVE, MALE OR FEMALE,  IS BELIEVED ALSO TO DISQUALIFY HER FOR THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT. HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, HER MOTHER-IN-LAW'S DAUGHTER, HER ASSOCIATE-WIFE,  HER SISTER-IN-LAW  AND HER STEPDAUGHTER  ARE BELIEVED, NOT TO DISQUALIFY HER FOR THE MARRIAGE-SETTLEMENT BUT THAT SHE SHOULD NOT DRINK. IT  IS A PROPER CONCLUSION THAT IF THE FIRST EVIDENCE [THAT THE WOMAN HAD SECLUDED HERSELF WITH THE MAN], WHICH DOES NOT PROHIBIT HER [TO HER HUSBAND] FOR ALL TIME,  IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY FEWER THAN TWO WITNESSES, IS IT NOT RIGHT THAT THE FINAL EVIDENCE [THAT SHE HAD MISCONDUCTED HERSELF] WHICH PROHIBITS HER TO HIM FOR ALL TIME, SHOULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY FEWER THAN TWO WITNESSES! THEREFORE THERE IS A TEXT TO STATE, AND THERE BE NO WITNESS AGAINST HER,  I.E., WHATEVER [EVIDENCE] THERE MAY BE AGAINST HER [IS BELIEVED, EVEN IF IT BE ONLY ONE WITNESS]. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST EVIDENCE [ABOUT HER SECLUSION WITH THE MAN, THAT ONE WITNESS SUFFICES MAY BE ARGUED BY] A FORTIORI REASONING AS FOLLOWS IF