Midrash sa Awit ng mga Awit 8:7: Bamidbar Rabbah, Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Shir HaShirim Rabbah & Esther Rabbah

Another matter, “it will be that instead…” – that is what is written: “Many waters cannot extinguish love” (Song of Songs 8:7), and it says: “If a man would give [all the wealth of his house for love, he will be scorned]” (Song of Songs 8:7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: This verse is speaking of two loves; its beginning is referring to the love of Israel. Were all the nations of the world to assemble, to uproot the love that is between Him and Israel, they would be unable, as it is stated: “Many waters cannot extinguish love.” “Many waters” is nothing other than the nations of the world, as it is stated: “Woe, the uproar of many peoples, [like the roar of the seas will they roar; the din of nations will roar like the din of great waters]” (Isaiah 17:12). “And rivers cannot wash it away” (Song of Songs 8:7), these are their kings and their princes, just as it is stated: “Therefore, behold, the Lord is raising the mighty and abundant waters of the River [upon them, the king of Assyria and all his glory]” (Isaiah 8:7). Its end is referring to the love of Torah. Were all the nations of the world to assemble and say: ‘We are selling all our assets and fulfilling Torah and mitzvot,’ the Holy One blessed be He would say to them: ‘Even if you sell all your assets to acquire the Torah, it will be a disgrace [bizayon] for you’ – “If a man would give all the wealth of his house for love, he will be scorned [boz yavuzu lo]” (Song of Songs 8:7). For which love? For the love of Torah, as it is stated: “How I love Your Torah” (Psalms 119:97). They said to Him: ‘Why do You not accept us?’ He says to them: ‘Because you are sinners.’ They said to Him: ‘Are Israel not sinners?’ Rabbi Berekhya said: What is written thereafter? “We have a little sister, [and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day that she will be spoken for?]” (Song of Songs 8:8). The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘Just as this child when she is small’ and she offends her parents, her parents do not become annoyed at her, why, because she is small, so it is regarding Israel; when they sin, the Holy One blessed be He does not hold it against them.’ Know that it is so, as in the days of Hosea, they angered the Holy One blessed be He, and the Holy One blessed be He began intimidating them: “As they are the children of licentiousness…” (Hosea 2:6), “as she is not My wife” (Hosea 2:4), “call his name Not My People, as you are not My people” (Hosea 1:9). He uttered it with His mouth momentarily, although He did so only to cause them to repent, and [because] He could not bear it even briefly, Therefore while He was still in His place, He recanted: “It will be that instead […it will be said of them: Children of the living God]” (Hosea 2:1).
Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Israel: ‘I am first for good and last for evil.’ First for good: “I will say to Not My People: You are My people” (Hosea 2:25), and then: “he will say: My God” (Hosea 2:25). But for bad, I am last: “For you are not My people” (Hosea 1:9), and then: “I will not be yours” (Hosea 1:9). ⁴¹God calls Israel his nation to restore them before they call Him "our God," but when they are cast off, only after they stop being His nation and reject Him, He says "I will not be yours."
Rabbi Ḥanina said: The unknowledgeable think that when He says: “I will not be yours,” He is saying that He is not a God for you. No, but rather, what is “I will not be yours”? Even though you are not My people, as you seek to separate from Me, “I will not be yours” – My thoughts are not the same as yours. Rather, perforce, you will be My people. Likewise it says: “What enters your mind will not be, that which you say: We will be like the nations…” (Ezekiel 20:32). Rather, what will I do to you? “As I live, the utterance of the Lord God, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with outpoured fury, I will reign over you” (Ezekiel 20:33). You learn the love of Israel before the Omnipresent.

(Fol. 21) "There are merits that may retard the result of the water even for three years." What kind of a merit is it that causes postponement of three years? Shall we assume the merits of the study of the Torah? Behold a woman is not in duty bound to study the Torah? We must therefore say that it refers to meritorius deeds. Is this a fact? Behold we are taught in a Baraitha that R. M'nachem b. R. Jose expounded the following (Pr. 6, 23) For the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light. "The passage compares meritorious commandments to a lamp and the Torah to light, to teach us that just as a lamp furnishes light only for a certain period, so also does a commandment protect only for a certain period; and just as light endures to eternity so also does protection of the Torah endure to eternity. And again there is a passage (Ib., ib., 22) When thou walkest; it shall lead thee, etc., when thou walkest it shall lead thee, refers to this world; when thou liest down it shall watch over thee; this refers to the time of death; and when thou art awake it shall converse with thee, refers to the future world. This may be likened unto a man who walked on a path during a very dark night and was afraid that he might stumble over thorns and thistles, or fall into a pit, or be devoured by a wild beast or attacked by burglars, and he didn't know what direction to take. When, however, a burning torch happened to come in his possession he was relieved from the fear of stumbling over thorns and thistles or from fall in a pit. However, he was still afraid that he would be devoured by a wild beast or of being attacked by burglars and didn't know what direction to take. When dawn appeared he was relieved from the dread of wild beasts and also from burglars; still he didn't know what direction to choose, but he reached the cross-road [where there is a guide-post;] he was then saved from all the dangers." In another way the above passage may be explained: A transgression causes the extinction of a commandment, but a transgression can't cause the extinction of the Torah, as it is said (Songs 8, 7) Many waters are not able to quench love. R. Joseph said: "There is also a distinction between meritorious deeds and the study of the Torah. Meritorious deeds protect and save a man while he is occupied in performing them, but when he is not occupied in their performance, they merely protect him from trouble, but do not save him once the trouble has already come; while the Torah protects and saves a man during the time of study and after the time of study." Raba raised the following objection: "If this be true then why did the Torah not protect Doeg and Achitoffel who studied the Torah?" Raba therefore said: "The Torah saves a man if anything happens to him during the time of his actual study, but after he has finished the study it merely protects and does not save him from trouble, while the commandment, during the time of its performance or after it has been performed merely protects man [from trouble] but does not save him from trouble if it had already befallen him." Rabina said: "Merits mentioned in the Mishnah are indeed due to the study of the Torah and as to your question that a woman is not commanded to study it, we may say that even though she is not ordered to study the Torah, nevertheless for the reward of bringing her children to the teacher to study with them the Pentateuch and the Mishnah, and as reward for waiting for their husbands until they come from the college, they share reward with them."

"When he reached the cross-road (where there is a guide-post)," what does crossroad mean? Said R. Chisda: "This means when a scholar approaches his death." R. Nachman b. Isaac said: "This means a scholar who fears sin." Mar Zutra said: "This refers to a scholar who reaches such a stage as to report tradition in agreement with the prevailing law." In another way the above may be explained: A transgression destroyed a meritorious act, bat it cannot destroy the Torah. R. Joseph said that R. M'nachem b. R. Joseph interpreted the above passage just as if it were handed down from Mt. Sinai, and had Doeg and Achitoffel interpreted it in that sense they would have never decided to pursue after David. For it is written (Ps. 71, 11) Saying: 'God hath forsaken him; pursue and take him; for there is none to deliver.' What passage did they interpret to guide them in their theory [to pursue David?] The following passage (Duet. 23, 15) So that He sees no unseemly thing in thee, and turn away from thee. They did not know that although a transgression could nullify a commandment, nevertheless it could not destroy the Torah of [David]. "What is the meaning of the passage (Songs 8, 7) Man would utterly despise him? Said Ulla: "Neither like Simon the brother of Azariah, nor like R. Jochanan of the prince's family, but like Hillel and Shebna; for when R. Dimi came he said that Hillel and Shebna were brothers. Hillel devoted his time to the Torah, while Shebna devoted his time to business. At the end they said to each other: 'Come and let us be partners and share both worlds.' Whereupon a heavenly voice came forth saying (Ib., ib., ib.)If a man were to give all the wealth of his house for love, man would utterly despise him."