SERVING FROM LOVE AND FEAR
(Mishnah): On that day, R. Eliezer ben Horkinus expounded that Iyov served...
Question: Why does the Tana consider two 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'!
Objection: That is not true! "In all their afflictions, Lo it grieves", and it is spelled with an Alef!
Suggestion: Perhaps it means that Hash-m is not grieved.
Rejection: "An angel of His countenance saved them (in His love and mercy...)"
Conclusion: Really, either way the word is spelled, it can have either meaning.
(Beraisa - R. Meir): It says "who fears Hash-m" regarding both Iyov and Avraham;
Just like Avraham's fear stemmed from love, also Iyov's.
Question: What is the source that Avraham's fear stemmed from love?
Answer: It says "Avraham, who loves Me."
Question: What is the difference between one who serves from love and one who serves from fear?
Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): One who serves from love is greater than one who serves from fear. The reward for the former extends to 2000 generations, and for the latter, to 1000;
It says "to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Mitzvos", and "to those who keep My Mitzvos, to a thousand generations."
Question: Also the latter verse discusses those who serve from love - "to those who love Me and keep My Mitzvos, to a thousand generations"!
Answer: "Thousands" is immediately followed by "to those who love Me." "To those who keep My Mitzvos" is immediately followed by "for a thousand generations."
Two Talmidim or Rava had dreams. One was shown the verse "how great is the good stored away for those who fear You." The other saw the verse "all who trust in You will rejoice in You. Those who love Your name will forever sing and exult in You."
Rava: Both of you are total Tzadikim. The former serves from fear, the latter serves from love.
WHEN A HUSBAND CANNOT MAKE HIS WIFE DRINK
(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If a man warned his wife and she was secluded, even if he hears (of the seclusion) from a bird, he (makes her drink or) must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah;
R. Yehoshua says, he need not divorce her unless women who weave in the moonlight talk about her.
If one witness testifies that she had Bi'ah, she does not drink. Even a male or female slave is believed, even to deprive her of her Kesuvah;
(The women suspected of hating her, i.e.) 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 to prevent her from drinking, but not to deprive her of her Kesuvah.
Suggestion: If we require two witnesses for the first testimony (seclusion), which does not permanently forbid her, all the more so, the latter testimony (Tum'ah), which permanently forbids her, should require two witnesses!
Rejection: "V'Ed Ein Bah" - any testimony (of Tum'ah, even one witness, would be believed).
Suggestion: The latter testimony, which permanently forbids her, needs only one witness. All the more one witness should suffice for the first testimony, which does not permanently forbid her!
Rejection: It says about adultery "Ki Matza Vah Ervas Davar", and about monetary cases it says "according to two or three witnesses a Davar (matter) will be established";
Just like two witnesses are needed there, also regarding seclusion.
If one witness says that she had Bi'ah, and one says that she did not, or a woman says that she was defiled and another woman says that she was not, the Sotah drinks;
If one witness says that she had Bi'ah, and two say that she did not, she drinks;
If two say that she had Bi'ah, and one says that she did not, she does not drink.
TWO WITNESSES ARE NEEDED FOR SECLUSION
(Gemara) Question: Why does the Mishnah say that we learn that seclusion needs two witnesses from "Ki Matza Vah Ervas Davar"? We learn from "V'Ed Ein Bah"!
One witness suffices "Bah" (for Tum'ah), but not for warning or seclusion!
Answer: Indeed, this is what the Mishnah means!
"V'Ed Ein Bah" - one witness suffices for Tum'ah, but not for warning or seclusion;
Question: What is the source to require two witnesses about adultery if there was no warning and seclusion?
Answer: It says "Ki Matza Vah Ervas Davar", and "according to two witnesses... a Davar..." Just like two witnesses are needed there, also for seclusion.
(Mishnah): If one witness says that she was defiled...
Inference: She drinks because a second witness contradicted the first. If there were a lone witness of adultery, he would be believed.
Question: What is the source for this?
Answer (Beraisa): "There is not a witness about her" means, there are not two witnesses about her.
Suggestion: Perhaps it means that there is not even one witness?
Rejection - Question: It says "one witness will not rise against a man." 'Witness' implies one. Why did the Torah need to say "one witness"?
Answer: This teaches that in the entire Torah, 'witness' refers to two witnesses, unless the Torah specifies one.
(Culmination of answer): The Torah said that there is not a (really, two) witness(es) about her, rather one, and if "she was not forced", she is forbidden.
Question: Since one witness is believed mid'Oraisa that she is forbidden, how can the other witness contradict him?
Ula taught that wherever the Torah believes one witness, he is believed like two. The other witness is not believed against two!
Answer #1 (Ula and R. Yitzchak): The Mishnah should say that she does not drink.
(R. Chiya): She drinks.
Question: How does R. Chiya answer question (g)?
Answer #2: The Mishnah discusses when the witnesses testify 'together' (within Toch Kedei Dibur of each other). Ula's law (the first witness is believed like two) applies only when the witness of Tum'ah came first (and there was a delay before the other witnesses came).
(Mishnah): If one witness says that she was defiled, and two say that she was not, she drinks.
Inference: If only one witness said that she is innocent, she would not drink.
Question: This refutes R. Chiya!
Counter-question (Reisha): If two say that she was defiled, and one says that she was not, she does not drink.
Inference: If only one witness said she was defiled, she would drink. (This supports R. Chiya and refutes Ula!)
Answer to both questions: Both Ula and R. Chiya must explain that these last two clauses of the Mishnah discuss invalid witnesses, like R. Nechemyah:
(Beraisa - R. Nechemyah): Wherever the Torah believed one witness, we follow the majority;
Version #1: Two women who contradict a man are like two men who contradict a man (and they are believed. One woman is not believed to contradict a man.)