Sotah 21

הן תהוי ארכא לשלותך וכתיב כלא מטא על נבוכדנצר מלכא וכתיב לקצת ירחין תרי עשר

and then there shall be an extension to your tranquility” (Daniel 4:24). And it is written: “All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar” (Daniel 4:25), and it is written in the following verse that this occurred: “At the end of twelve months” (Daniel 4:26). None of the opinions in the baraita are in accordance with the mishna’s statement that merit can delay punishment for up to three years.

לעולם רבי ישמעאל ואשכח קרא דאמר ותני דכתיב כה אמר ה׳ על שלשה פשעי אדום

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who states that merit delays punishment for one year, and he found a verse which states and repeats the possibility that punishment can be delayed, indicating that merit can delay punishment up to three times, as it is written: “Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom, yes, but for four, I will not reverse it” (Amos 1:11). Punishment can therefore be delayed for three consecutive periods of one year.

ומאי אף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר דלמא שאני גוים דלא מפקיד דינא עלייהו:

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael mean by stating: Although there is no explicit proof for the concept of merit delaying punishment for twelve months, there is an allusion to the concept? The verses he cites state explicitly that punishment can be delayed for twelve months. The Gemara answers: The proof is not explicit, as perhaps gentiles are different, as swift judgment is not administered upon them as readily as it is upon the Jewish people, with whom God is more precise in executing judgment.

ויש זכות תולה שלש שנים כו׳: זכות דמאי אילימא זכות דתורה הא אינה מצווה ועושה היא אלא זכות דמצוה

§ The mishna states: And there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. The Gemara asks: Which merit can delay the punishment of a sota? If we say it is the merit of the Torah that she has studied; but a woman who studies Torah is one who is not commanded to do so and performs a mitzva, whose reward is less than that of one who is obligated? Therefore, it would be insufficient to suspend her punishment. Rather, perhaps it is the merit of a mitzva that she performed.

זכות דמצוה מי מגנא כולי האי והתניא את זו דרש רבי מנחם בר יוסי כי נר מצוה ותורה אור תלה הכתוב את המצוה בנר ואת התורה באור את המצוה בנר לומר לך מה נר אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה אף מצוה אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה

The Gemara asks: Does the merit of a mitzva protect one so much as to delay her punishment? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse homiletically: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23). The verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun. The mitzva is associated with a lamp in order to say to you: Just as a lamp does not protect one by its light extensively but only temporarily, while the lamp is in one’s hand, so too, a mitzva protects one only temporarily, i.e., while one is performing the mitzva.

ואת התורה באור לומר לך מה אור מגין לעולם אף תורה מגינה לעולם ואומר בהתהלכך תנחה אתך וגו׳ בהתהלכך תנחה אתך זה העולם הזה בשכבך תשמור עליך זו מיתה והקיצות היא תשיחך לעתיד לבא

And the Torah is associated with light in order to say to you: Just as the light of the sun protects one forever, so too, the Torah one studies protects one forever; and it states in the previous verse with regard to the Torah: “When you walk, it shall lead you; when you lie down, it shall watch over you; and when you awake, it shall talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). The Gemara explains: “When you walk, it shall lead you”; this is referring to when one is in this world. “When you lie down, it shall watch over you”; this is referring to the time of death, when one lies in his grave. “And when you awake, it shall talk with you”; this is referring to the time to come after the resurrection of the dead. The Torah that one studies protects and guides him both in this world and in the next world.

משל לאדם שהיה מהלך באישון לילה ואפילה ומתיירא מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ומחיה רעה ומן הלסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך

This can be illustrated by a parable, as it is comparable to a man who is walking in the blackness of night and the darkness, and he is afraid of the thorns, and of the pits, and of the thistles, which he cannot see due to the darkness. And he is also afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits that lurk at night, and he does not know which way he is walking.

נזדמנה לו אבוקה של אור ניצל מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ועדיין מתיירא מחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך כיון שעלה עמוד השחר ניצל מחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ועדיין אינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך הגיע לפרשת דרכים ניצל מכולם

If a torch of fire comes his way, which is analogous to a mitzva, he is safe from the thorns and from the pits and from the thistles, but he is still afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits, and still does not know which way he is walking. Once the light of dawn rises, which is analogous to Torah study, he is safe from the wild animals and from the bandits, which no longer roam the roads, but he still does not know which way he is walking. If he arrives at a crossroads and recognizes the way, he is saved from all of them.

דבר אחר עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה שנאמר מים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות את האהבה

Alternatively, the verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun in order to teach that a transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva one performed, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah one studied, as it is stated: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love, neither can the floods drown it” (Song of Songs 8:7). The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. One can conclude from the baraita that the merit of performing a mitzva is insufficient to suspend punishment.

אמר רב יוסף מצוה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא תורה בין בעידנא דעסיק בה ובין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה מגנא ומצלא

Rav Yosef said that with regard to a mitzva, at the time when one is engaged in its performance it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the evil inclination; at the time when one is not engaged in its performance, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. With regard to Torah study, both at the time when one is engaged in it and at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the evil inclination. Therefore, the merit of the woman’s mitzvot does protect her from misfortune and delay her punishment.

מתקיף לה רבה אלא מעתה דואג ואחיתופל מי לא עסקי בתורה אמאי לא הגינה עלייהו אלא אמר רבא תורה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא מצוה בין בעידנא דעסיק בה בין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא

Rabba objects to this explanation: If that is so, then with regard to Doeg (see I Samuel, chapters 21–22) and Ahithophel (see II Samuel, chapter 16), who were both wise scholars despite their wickedness, did they not engage in the study of Torah? Why did it not protect them from sinning? Rather, Rava said: With regard to Torah study, at the time when one is engaged in it, it protects and saves; at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. With regard to a mitzva, both at the time when one is engaged in its performance and at the time when one is not engaged in its performance, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination.

רבינא אמר לעולם זכות תורה ודקאמרת אינה מצווה ועושה נהי דפקודי לא מפקדא באגרא דמקרין ומתניין בנייהו ונטרן להו לגברייהו עד דאתו מבי מדרשא מי לא פלגאן בהדייהו

Ravina said: Actually, the merit that delays the punishment of the sota is the merit of Torah study, and with regard to that which you say, i.e., that she is not commanded to do so and performs a mitzva, the mishna is not referring to the merit of her own Torah study. Granted, she is not commanded to study Torah herself; however, in reward for causing their sons to read the Written Torah and to learn the Mishna, and for waiting for their husbands until they come home from the study hall, don’t they share the reward with their sons and husbands? Therefore, if the sota enabled her sons and husband to study Torah, the merit of their Torah study can protect her and delay her punishment.

מאי פרשת דרכים אמר רב חסדא זה תלמיד חכם ויום מיתה רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר זה תלמיד חכם ויראת חטא מר זוטרא אמר זה תלמיד חכם דסלקא ליה שמעתתא אליבא דהלכתא

With regard to the aforementioned parable, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the crossroads, which provide clarity? Rav Ḥisda says: This is referring to a Torah scholar and his day of death. Due to his continued commitment to the Torah, when the time comes for him to die, it is clear to him that he will go to the place of his eternal reward. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: This is a Torah scholar who has also acquired fear of sin, as his fear of sin guides him to the correct understanding of the Torah. Mar Zutra says: This is a Torah scholar who reaches conclusions from his discussion in accordance with the halakha, as that is an indication that he is following the right path.

דבר אחר עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה אמר רב יוסף דרשיה רבי מנחם בר יוסי להאי קרא כי סיני ואילמלא דרשוה דואג ואחיתופל הכי לא רדפו בתר דוד דכתיב לאמר אלהים עזבו וגו׳

The baraita states: Alternatively: A transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah. Rav Yosef says: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse as it was given on Mount Sinai, and had Doeg and Ahithophel only interpreted it in this way they would not have pursued David, as it is written: “For my enemies speak concerning me…saying, God has forsaken him; pursue and take him, for there is none to deliver” (Psalms 71:10–11). Doeg and Ahithophel incorrectly thought that since David had sinned, his sins had extinguished his merits and God had forsaken him.

מאי דרוש ולא יראה בך ערות דבר וגו׳ והן אינן יודעין שעבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה

The Gemara asks: What verse did Doeg and Ahithophel interpret incorrectly, causing them to err? They interpreted this verse: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp…to give up your enemies before you…that He see no licentious matter in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), to indicate that God turns away from one who engaged in forbidden relations, and since David had sinned with Bathsheba God must have turned away from him. But they did not know that a transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah.

מאי בוז יבוזו לו אמר עולא לא כשמעון אחי עזריה ולא כרבי יוחנן דבי נשיאה

The Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse cited by the baraita with regard to Torah study: What is the meaning of: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love…if a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7)? The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. Therefore, the verse indicates that one cannot acquire a share in the reward for Torah study with money. Ulla says: The verse is not speaking of individuals like Shimon, brother of Azarya, whose brother Azarya supported him and enabled him to study Torah. And it is not speaking of individuals like Rabbi Yoḥanan of the house of the Nasi, whom the Nasi supported so that he could study Torah.

אלא כהלל ושבנא דכי אתא רב דימי אמר הלל ושבנא אחי הוו הלל עסק בתורה שבנא עבד עיסקא לסוף אמר ליה תא נערוב וליפלוג יצתה בת קול ואמרה אם יתן איש את כל הון ביתו וגו׳:

Rather, it is speaking of individuals like Hillel and Shevna, as when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia he said: Hillel and Shevna were brothers; Hillel engaged in Torah study and remained impoverished, whereas Shevna entered into a business venture and became wealthy. In the end, Shevna said to Hillel: Come, let us join our wealth together and divide it between us; I will give you half of my money and you will give me half of the reward for your Torah study. In response to this request a Divine Voice issued forth and said: “If a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7).

אומר בן עזאי חייב אדם ללמד את וכו׳: רבי אליעזר אומר כל המלמד את בתו תורה מלמדה תיפלות תיפלות סלקא דעתך אלא אימא כאילו למדה תיפלות

§ The mishna states: From here ben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit of hers has delayed her punishment. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity. The Gemara asks: Could it enter your mind to say that teaching one’s daughter Torah is actually teaching her promiscuity? Rather, say: It is considered as if he taught her promiscuity.

אמר רבי אבהו מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר דכתיב אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה כיון שנכנסה חכמה באדם נכנסה עמו ערמומית

Rabbi Abbahu says: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s statement? It is as it is written: “I, wisdom, dwell with cunning” (Proverbs 8:12), which indicates that once wisdom enters into a person, cunning enters with it. Rabbi Eliezer fears that the woman will use the cunning she achieves by learning the wisdom of the Torah to engage in promiscuous behavior.

ורבנן האי אני חכמה מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שמעמיד עצמו ערום עליהן שנאמר אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה אמר רבי יוחנן אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שמשים עצמו כמי שאינו שנאמר והחכמה מאין תמצא:

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis who disagree with him, what do they do with this verse: “I, wisdom, dwell with cunning [orma]”; how do they interpret it? The Gemara responds: He requires that verse for that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, states, interpreting the word “orma” as nakedness rather than cunningness, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who stands naked for them, as it is stated: “I, wisdom, dwell with nakedness [orma]” (Proverbs 8:12). This means that wisdom dwells only in one who is prepared to give away all of his possessions for the sake of Torah study. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who considers himself as one who does not exist, as it is stated: “But wisdom, it can be found in nothingness” (Job 28:12).

רבי יהושע אומר רוצה אשה וכו׳: מאי קאמר הכי קאמר רוצה אשה בקב ותיפלות עמו מתשעת קבין ופרישות:

§ The mishna states that Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? This is what Rabbi Yehoshua is saying: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and with it a sexual relationship, i.e., her husband’s availability to fulfill her sexual desires, rather than nine kav of food and with it abstinence, and since her desires are of a sexual nature, it is undesirable for her to study Torah.

הוא היה אומר חסיד שוטה כו׳: היכי דמי חסיד שוטה כגון דקא טבעה איתתא בנהרא ואמר לאו אורח ארעא לאיסתכולי בה ואצולה

§ The mishna continues: He, Rabbi Yehoshua, would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman, and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world. The Gemara asks: Who is considered a foolish man of piety? For example, it is one who sees that a woman is drowning in a river, and he says: It is not proper conduct to look at her while she is undressed and save her.

היכי דמי רשע ערום אמר רבי יוחנן זה המטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חברו רבי אבהו אומר זה הנותן דינר לעני להשלים לו מאתים זוז דתנן מי שיש לו מאתים זוז לא יטול לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני היה לו מאתים חסר דינר אפילו אלף נותנין לו כאחת הרי זה יטול

The Gemara asks: Who is considered a conniving wicked person? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is one who presents his statement to the judge before the other litigant comes and thereby prejudices the judge in his favor. Rabbi Abbahu says: This is referring to one who gives a dinar to a poor man in order to complete the sum of two hundred dinars for him, so that he will no longer be entitled to receive charity, as we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 8:8): One who has two hundred dinars may not collect gleanings, forgotten sheaves, pe’a, and the poor man’s tithe, since he is not defined as poor. However, if he has two hundred less one dinar, even if he is given one thousand dinars at once, he may collect.

רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן זה המשיא עצה למכור בנכסים מועטין דאמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן יתומים שקדמו ומכרו בנכסים מועטין מה שמכרו מכרו

Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A conniving wicked person is one who provides advice to male orphans to sell from the small quantity of property left to them by their father, before it is appropriated by the court for the purpose of providing for the daughters, who do not inherit property. This causes the daughters to lose their right to sustenance, because although it is improper to do so, the sale is valid, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to male orphans who preemptively sold the property from a small estate, that which they sold, they sold, and the sons retain the money.

אביי אמר זה המשיא עצה למכור בנכסים כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתניא נכסי לך ואחריך לפלוני וירד הראשון ומכר ואכל השני מוציא מיד הלקוחות דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין לשני אלא מה ששייר ראשון

Abaye says: A conniving wicked person is one who provides advice to sell property in accordance with the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who said: My property is given to you, and after you die, to so-and-so, and the first beneficiary entered the property and sold it and consumed the profits, the second beneficiary repossesses the property from the purchasers, as the property belongs to him after the death of the first beneficiary; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The second beneficiary receives only that which the first beneficiary left, since his sale is valid. However, it is not permitted to sell the property ab initio, since the giver intended for the second beneficiary to receive the property.

רב יוסף בר חמא אמר רב ששת זה המכריע אחרים באורחותיו רבי זריקא אמר רב הונא זה המיקל לעצמו ומחמיר לאחרים עולא אמר זה

Rav Yosef bar Ḥama says that Rav Sheshet says: A conniving wicked person is one who persuades others with his ways, convincing others to mimic his seemingly righteous behavior, in order to hide his faults. Rabbi Zerika says that Rav Huna says: A conniving wicked person is one who is lenient in the halakha for himself and strict for others. Ulla says: This