(Mishnah - R. Yehoshua): Who will uncover the earth from your eyes, R. Yochanan ben Zakai! You expounded all your days that Iyov served from fear - "a pure man, straight, who fears Hash-m, who veers from evil";

Yehoshua [ben Hurkenos], the Talmid of your Talmid, taught that he served from love! (Stam R. Yehoshua, who taught this Mishnah, was R. Yehoshua ben Chananyah, the Talmid of R. Yochanan ben Zakai.)

(Gemara) Question: When did Iyov live?

Answer #1 (Reish Lakish citing Bar Kapara): He was in the days of Avraham Avinu. It says "Ish Hayah b'Eretz Utz Iyov Shmo", and it says [about Avraham's brother Nachor] "Es Utz Bechoro."

Answer #2 (R. Aba): He was in the days of Yakov Avinu. His wife was Dinah, for it says "k'Daber Achas ha'Nevalos Tedaberi", and it says [about the rape of Dinah] "Ki Nevalah Asah b'Yisrael."

Answer #3 (R. Levi): He was in the days of the Shevatim, for it says "Asher Chachamim Yagidu v'Lo Chichadu me'Avosam." (This refers to Reuven and Yehudah, who admitted to their mistakes.)

Answer #4 (R. Yosi ben Chalifta): He was [born in the year] when [Bnei Yisrael] descended to Miztrayim, and died when they ascended [from Mitzrayim].

Note: I added 'born in the year' in brackets, for Iyov lived 210 years, the duration of Bnei Yisrael in Mitzrayim.

A parable for this is a shepherd. A wolf came to attack his flock. What did he do? He put a male goat in front of it. (The wolf would fight the goat, and the flock would be saved.) This explains "Yasgireni Kel El Avil v'Al Yedei Resha'im Yirteni." (Iyov says that Hash-m handed him over to the Satan, so the Satan would not prosecute against Yisrael.)

Answer #5 (R. Yishmael): Iyov was one of Paro's servants, and among the greatest of his entourage - "ha'Yarei Es Devar Hash-m..." (ha'Yarei connotes the one who feared Hash-m the most), and it says "Ish... Tam v'Yashar vi'Yrei Elokim v'Sar me'Ra."

Answer #6 (R. Yosi bar Yehudah): Iyov was in the days when the Shoftim judged. It says "Hen Atem Kulchem Chazisem v'Lamah Zeh Hevel Tehbalu";

Chazisem (did you see) the actions of my generation? They took Ma'aser in the granaries (bribes to tilt judgment - PNEI MOSHE) - "Ahavta Esnan Al Kol Garnos Dagan."

Answer #7 (Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani citing R. Yonason): He was in the days of Malchus Sheva - "va'Tipol Sheva va'Tikachem."

Answer #8 (R. Nasan): He was in the days of the Babylonians - "Kasdim Samu Sheloshah Rashim."

Answer #9 (R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): He was in the days of Achashverosh. It says "Yevakshu la'Melech Ne'aros Besulos Tovos Mar'eh", and it says "v'Lo Nimzta Nashim Yafos ki'Vnos Iyov."

Answer #10 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): He was among the exiles who returned from Bavel.

(R. Yochanan): He was among the exiles who returned from Bavel, and he was a Yisrael.

[Because he holds that he was a Yisrael,] this is why R. Yochanan learned from laws of Aveilus from [what Iyov did];

"Va'Yakam Iyov va'Yikra Es Me'ilo" - R. Yudah ben Pazi said in the name of R. Yochanan, from here we learn that tearing [due to a Mes] must be done while standing.

(R. Chiyah - Beraisa): [Hash-m says] I had one Nochri in My world, a Tzadik - I paid to him his reward, and I exited him from My world.

Answer #11 (Reish Lakish): Iyov did not live, and he will not live in the future. (Sefer Iyov is only a parable.)

Contradiction: Reish Lakish contradicts himself! There, Reish Lakish said citing Bar Kapara, he was in the days of Avraham Avinu. And here he says so?!

Answer: Rather, he was, but his afflictions were not.

Question: Why is it written about him [that he had great afflictions]?

Answer: This teaches that [he was such a Tzadik that] had they come upon him, he would have stood in them [and not rebelled].

(R. Akiva): "Va'Yichar Af Elihu ven Barach'el ha'Buzi mi'Mishpachas Ram" - Elihu is Bil'am; [he is called] ven Barach'el, for he came to curse Yisrael, and he blessed them - "v'Lo Avah Hash-m Elokecha Lishmo'a El Bil'am";

"Ha'Buzi" - his prophecy was disgraced - "Nofel u'Geluy Einayim" (because he was uncircumcised, he fell when having prophecy - Rashi Bamidbar 24:4. Also Geluy Einayim belittles his prophecy; he was shown what was needed, unlike Moshe, who received prophecy for his honor and Hana'ah - HA'EMEK DAVAR ibid., based on Sifri Devarim 357.) Mi'Mishpachas Ram - "Min Aram Yancheni Valak";

R. Elazar ben Azaryah: If you are correct - Hash-m covered up [his shame]. Will He not dispute with you [for revealing it]?!

Rather, Elihu is Yitzchak. Ven Barach'el - Hash-m blessed him, like it says "va'Yvarcheu Hash-m;

"Ha'Buzi" - he disgraced houses of idolatry when he was tied on the Mizbe'ach. Mi'Mishpachas Ram - the son Avram of "Min Aram Yancheni Valak";

Moshe wrote the five Chumashim, and then wrote Parshas Balak and Bil'am, and he wrote Sefer Iyov.

"Ish... Tam v'Yashar vi'Yrei Elokim v'Sar me'Ra" - R. Tachlifa said, [v'Sar me'Ra means that he avoided Ayin ha'Ra]; he used to pardon.

Objection (R. Ze'ira): One who does not pardon, is he not Kosher?!

Rather, he pardoned people who cursed him.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One who warned his wife and she was secluded, even if he heard from a flying bird, he must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah. (TOSFOS HA'ROSH (Sof 31a) - a flying bird is a rumor. At the end of this Halachah, we equate women who heard, and do not know from whom they heard, to a flying bird. ME'IRI (31a) - it is someone not proper to rely on him. I.e. an unknown person told her husband, and disappeared (ALEI TAMAR).)

R. Yehoshua says, [he must divorce her only] from when women who spin in the moon[light] talk about her.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): This entire Perek is when he warned her and said 'do not be secluded with Ploni.'

(Mishnah): One who warned his wife and she was secluded...

(Reish Lakish): It is even if she was not secluded.

(R. Ze'ira, in front of R. Yosa): Reish Lakish does not argue [with our Mishnah]. Rather, he holds (explains) like the Tana (R. Eliezer in the first Perek) who is lenient about witnesses seclusion (they are not needed to be Mashkeh her; it suffices that he knows that she was secluded. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

Our text [of our Mishnah] has an argument [of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua]. Some teach [R. Eliezer's opinion] Stam;

Question (R. Ze'ira, in front of R. Mana): (Even according to our text, perhaps there is no argument!) Who says that R. Yehoshua argues with what R. Eliezer said?

Answer (R. Mana): Since R. Yehoshua says 'until women who weave in the moonlight' (this shows that he argues. We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Question (R. Aba Mari): There, R. Chizkiyah cited R. Avahu citing R. Elazar to say that wherever Rebbi taught an argument [in the Mishnah] and afterwards a Stam Mishnah, the Halachah follows the Stam, and here [the one who says that our Mishnah is Stam] says so?! (If so, the Halachah should follow R. Eliezer. However, the Halachah does not follow him, for he is from Beis Shamai!)

Our text says 'Motzros' [in the moonlight]. Some teach 'Mozros';

The one who says 'Motzros', they are Menapetz wool (bang it to crush and remove impurities; alternatively, separate clumps into fibers; alternatively, brush and comb it). The one who says 'Mozros', they spin flax.

Question: What is the case?

If [the women] heard, and do not know from whom they heard, this is like a flying bird! (Why does R. Yehoshua distinguish them?)

If [they] heard, and know from whom they heard, this is like Ed mi'Pi Ed (it is proper testimony for Sotah)!

Answer: The case is, Ploni heard from Ploni, and [the latter] Ploni heard from Ploni - this is a matter without a foundation.

(Mishnah): If one witness testifies that she had Bi'ah, she does not drink. Further, 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. This is not to deprive her of her Kesuvah, rather, just to prevent her from drinking.

(Gemara) Question: "V'Ed Ein Bah" - I would know only a [Kosher] witness. What is the source for even a male or female slave?

Answer: "V'Ed Ein Bah" - in any case.

Question: Is this like R. Yishmael?! R. Yishmael says, wherever it says in the Torah "Ed" Stam, it refers to two witnesses, unless the verse specifies that it is one witness! (Here, it is not explicit!)

Remark: (Indeed, it is not!) A Beraisa was found - R. Yishmael says, two witnesses [of Tum'ah are needed to prevent her from drinking. We explained this like SEFER NIR.]

Our Mishnah is after R. Tarfon agreed with R. Akiva (this will be explained);

(Beraisa - R. Tarfon): One witness is believed to be Metamei (forbid) her, but one witness is not believed to make her forfeit her Kesuvah.

(R. Akiva): Just like one witness is believed to be Metamei her, so one witness is believed to make her forfeit her Kesuvah.

R. Tarfon: Where do we find that one witness is believed in monetary matters [to make someone lose property]?!

R. Akiva: Where do we find that one witness is believed about an Eshes Ish at all?! Rather, [Sotah is different]. Just like one witness is believed to be Metamei her, so one witness is believed to make her forfeit her Kesuvah.

R. Tarfon retracted to teach like R. Akiva.

Question (R. Bun bar Chiyah): If her mother-in-law said 'I saw that she was defiled', and one witness came and said 'I saw that she was defiled' - for what does he come to testify? If it is for [preventing her from] drinking, already she cannot drink!

Rather, he comes only to make her forfeit her Kesuvah. Is he believed to make her forfeit her Kesuvah?

Note: We explained like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL and ALEI TAMAR, that R. Tarfon retracted to hold like R. Akiva. We cannot settle this question from R. Tarfon; we ask according to R. Akiva, if he is believed for the Kesuvah only when he was believed to stop her from drinking.

Answer: [Since he comes only for the Kesuvah,] we do not make someone lose property through one witness.

Question (R. Yosi): If he heard from a flying bird 'I saw that she was defiled', you say that she does not drink. If one witness came and said 'I saw that she was defiled' - for what does he come to testify? If it is for [preventing her from] drinking, already she cannot drink!

Rather, he comes only to make her forfeit her Kesuvah. (Is he believed?)

Answer: We do not make someone lose property through one witness.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer #1: R. Yosi taught that [if a witness says] 'Ploni ate Chelev, and I warned him', he is not lashed. If one person told him 'this is Chelev', and two witnesses warned him, he is lashed;

Is the primary testimony not through one witness (to establish the Isur? Also here, when one witness testifies that she may not drink, she loses her Kesuvah.)

Answer #2: R. Yehudah taught that [if a witness says] 'Ploni the Nazir became Tamei, and I warned him', he is not lashed. If one person told him 'you are a Nazir', and he conducted Nezirus based on his words, if he drank wine or became Tamei Mes, and two witnesses warned him, he is lashed. Is the primary testimony not through one witness?

Answer #3: R. Mana taught that [if a witness says] Plonis is a Kohenes, and she was Mezanah, and her husband had Bi'ah with her, and her husband is a Kohen, and I warned him, he is not lashed [for Zonah];

If she was secluded in front of two, and one says 'I saw that she was defiled', and her husband, a Kohen, had Bi'ah with her, and her husband is a Kohen, if two warned him, he is lashed. Is the primary testimony not through one witness? (SEFER NIR - he establishes it to discuss a Kohen, so he is lashed even according to R. Yosi ben Kiper, who says that there is no Lav for a Sotah.)

(Mishnah): Suggestion: If we require two witnesses for the first testimony (seclusion), which does not permanently forbid her, all the more so, all the more so the latter testimony (Tum'ah), which permanently forbids her, should require two witnesses!

Rejection: "V'Ed Ein Bah" - any testimony about her [of Tum'ah, is 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 ""Al Pi Shnayim Edim Oh "Al Pi Sheloshah Edim Yakum Davar" - just like the Davar said there (monetary cases) needs [at least] two witnesses, also the Davar said here (seclusion) needs two witnesses.

(Gemara): The first testimony is seclusion. The second testimony is Tum'ah.

Our Mishnah [requires two witnesses for seclusion]. It is like R. Yehoshua, for R. Yehoshua says that he is Mekanei in front of two, and is Mashkeh her based on two [witnesses of seclusion].

(R. Mana): It is even like the following Tana;

(Beraisa - R. Yosi bei Rebbi Yehudah, citing R. Eliezer): He is Mekanei in front of one witness, or by himself. He is Mashkeh through two.