Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SERVING FROM LOVE AND FEAR

(a) (Mishnah): On that day R. Eliezer ben Hurkinus expounded that Iyov served ...
(b) Question: Why does the Tana consider 2 possible interpretations of the word "Lo" - if it is spelled with an Alef, it means 'No'; if it is spelled with a Vav, it means 'to him'!

1. Objection: That is not true! "In all their afflictions, Lo it grieves", and it is spelled with an Alef!

i. Suggestion: Perhaps it means, Hash-m is not grieved.
ii. Rejection: "An angel of His countenance saved them (in His love and mercy...)".

(c) Conclusion: Really, either way the word is spelled, it can have either meaning.
(d) (Beraisa - R. Meir): It says "G-d fearing" both by Iyov and by Avraham.

1. Just as Avraham's fear stemmed from love, also Iyov's.

(e) Question: How do we know that Avraham's fear stemmed from love?
(f) Answer: "Avraham, the one who loves Me".
(g) Question: What is the difference between one who serves from love and one who serves from fear?
(h) Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): One who serves from love is greater than one who serves from fear - the reward of the former extends to 2000 generations; of the latter, 1000;

1. "To thousands, to those that love Me and keep My Mitzvos"; "To those that keep My Mitzvos, to a thousand generations".

(i) Question: But the latter verse also speaks of those that serve from love - "To those that love Me and keep My Mitzvos, to a thousand generations"!
(j) Answer: "Thousands" is immediately followed by "to those that love Me"; "To those that keep My Mitzvos" is immediately followed by "to a thousand generations".
(k) 2 Talmidim or Rava had dreams. One was shown the verse "How great is the good stored away for those that fear You"; the other saw the verse "Will rejoice in You all that trust in You; forever will sing and exult in You, those that love Your name".

1. Rava: Both of you are total Tzadikim; the former serves from fear, the latter from love.

2) WHEN A HUSBAND CANNOT MAKE HIS WIFE DRINK

(a) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): A man warned his wife, and she was secluded. Even if he hears (of the seclusion) from a bird, he (either makes her drink or) must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah;

1. R. Yehoshua says, there is no need to divorce her, unless the women that weave in the moonlight are talking about her.

(b) If 1 witness testifies that she was defiled, she does not drink - even a male or female slave is believed, and she loses her Kesuvah;
(c) (The women suspected of hating her - ) her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, her co-wife, her husband's brother's wife, or her husband's daughter (from a different wife) are believed, only to prevent her from drinking, but not to deprive her of her Kesuvah;
(d) There should be a Kal va'Chomer: the 1st testimony (that she was secluded) does not forbid her permanently, yet it requires 2 witnesses; testimony that she was defiled, which forbids her permanently, all the more so should require 2 witnesses;

1. "There is not a witness about her" - any testimony about her (prevents her from drinking).

(e) There should be a Kal va'Chomer to seclusion: the last testimony (that she was defiled) forbids her permanently, yet 1 witness suffices; testimony that she was secluded, which does not forbid her permanently, all the more so, 1 witness should suffice;

1. "He found in her a matter of incest"; it also says "according to 2 witnesses a matter will be established" - just as 2 witnesses are required there, also for seclusion.

(f) 1 witness says that she was defiled, 1 says that she was not; or, a woman says that the Sotah was defiled, another woman says that she was not - the Sotah drinks;
(g) 1 witness says that she was defiled, 2 say that she was not - she drinks;
(h) 2 say that she was defiled, 1 says that she was not - she does not drink.

(a) (Gemara) Question: The Mishnah says that we learn that 2 witnesses are needed for seclusion from "He found in her a matter of incest" - but really, we learn from "(A witness) about her (defilement)" - and not a (lone) witness about her warning, and not a (lone) witness about her seclusion!
(b) Answer: Indeed, that is what the Tana means.

1. We learn from "About her (defilement)" - and not (a lone witness) about her warning, and not about her seclusion;
2. Question: How do we know that 1 witness is not believed about her adultery if there was no warning and seclusion?
3. Answer: It says here "A matter"; it also says "(According to 2 witnesses) a matter..." - just as 2 witnesses are required there, also for adultery.

(c) (Mishnah): 1 witness says that she was defiled ...

1. We infer, she drinks because a 2nd witness contradicted the 1st; but if there was a lone witness of adultery, he would be believed.

(d) Question: What is the source for this?
(e) Answer (Beraisa): "There is not a witness about her" - this means, there are not 2 witnesses about her.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps it means, there is not even 1 witness?
2. Rejection: "1 witness will not rise against a man" - 'witness' implies 1, why did the Torah have to say "1 witness"?

i. To teach that everywhere in the Torah, 'witness' refers to 2 witnesses, unless the Torah specifies 1.

(f) (Culmination of answer): The Torah said, there is not a (really, 2) witness(es) about her, rather 1 - and "She was not forced", she is forbidden.
(g) Question: Since 1 witness is believed mid'Oraisa that she is forbidden, how can the other witness contradict him?

1. But Ula taught, wherever the Torah believed 1 witness, he is believed as 2, and the other witness is not believed against 2!

(h) Answer #1 (Ula and R. Yitzchak): The Mishnah should say that she does not drink.
(i) (R. Chiya): She drinks.

1. Question: How does R. Chiya answer the above question?
2. Answer (This is a 2nd answer to question (g)): The Mishnah speaks when the witnesses testify together; Ula's law only applies when they come at different times.

(j) (Mishnah): 1 witness says that she was defiled, 2 say that she was not - she drinks.

1. Question: We infer, if only 1 witness said she is innocent, she would not drink - this refutes R. Chiya!
2. Counter-question (end of the Mishnah): 2 say that she was defiled, 1 says that she was not - she does not drink.

i. We infer, if only 1 witness said she was defiled, she would drink (this supports R. Chiya and refutes Ula)!

3. Answer: Both Ula and R. Chiya must explain that these last 2 clauses of the Mishnah speak of invalid witnesses, as R. Nechemyah.

(k) (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah): Wherever the Torah believed 1 witness, we follow the majority;

1. Version #1: 2 women that contradict a man are as 2 men that contradict a man (and they are believed).
2. Version #2: If a valid witness came first, even if 100 women later contradict him, they are only considered as 1 man (and they are not believed, since the valid witness was believed as 2).