Horayot 10

ואחר כך חטא מביא פר חטא ואחר כך עבר ממשיחותו צריכא למימר משום דקתני גבי נשיא דכי עבר מנשיאותו ואחר כך חטא כהדיוט מייתי אהכי תני גבי משיח [חטא ואחר כך עבר] מביא פר

and thereafter sinned brings a bull. Does the case of one who sinned and thereafter moved on from his anointment need to be said? It is obvious that he is liable to bring a bull. The Gemara answers: Due to the fact that the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to a king, that when he moved on from his sovereignty and thereafter sinned he brings. an offering like that of a commoner; therefore, he teaches the corresponding halakha with regard to an anointed priest: If he sinned and thereafter moved on from his priesthood, he brings a bull.

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן והקריב על חטאתו מלמד שמביא חטאתו משעבר

§ With regard to the statement in the mishna concerning an anointed priest who sinned after he was removed from his position, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to the High Priest: “And he shall sacrifice for his sin [ḥattato] that he sinned” (Leviticus 4:3); this teaches that he brings his sin-offering [ḥattato] even after he has moved on from his priesthood.

שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה נשיא שמביא בשגגת מעשה אין מביא חטאתו משעבר משיח שאין מביא בשגגת מעשה אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה [לא] כל שכן תלמוד לומר והקריב על חטאתו מלמד שמביא על חטאתו משעבר

This derivation is necessary, as one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if a king, who brings a goat as his sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action, does not bring a goat as his sin-offering from the moment that he has moved on from his sovereignty, an anointed priest, who does not bring a sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action alone; rather, he is liable only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court together with unwitting performance of an action, is it not all the more so that he will not bring a bull for his sin-offering once he has moved on from the High Priesthood? Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall sacrifice for his sin [ḥattato] that he sinned”; this teaches that he brings his sin-offering [ḥattato] even after he has moved on from his priesthood.

ונייתי נמי נשיא מקל וחומר ומה משיח שאין מביא בשגגת מעשה מביא חטאת משעבר נשיא שמביא חטאת בשגגת מעשה אינו דין שמביא חטאתו משעבר תלמוד לומר אשר נשיא יחטא כשהוא נשיא אין כשהוא הדיוט לא

The Gemara asks: And let a king who is no longer king, too, bring a goat as a sin-offering based on an a fortiori inference: And if an anointed priest, who does not bring an offering for the unwitting performance of an action, brings a sin-offering after he has moved on from the priesthood, then with regard to a king, who brings a sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action, is it not logical that he still brings his sin-offering once he has moved on from his sovereignty? To counter this, the verse states: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22), from which it is derived: If he sins when he is king, yes, he brings his sin-offering; if he sins when he is a commoner, no, he does not bring his sin-offering.

מתני׳ חטאו עד שלא נתמנו ואחר כך נתמנו הרי אלו כהדיוטות רבי שמעון אומר אם נודע להם עד שלא נתמנו חייבים ומשנתמנו פטורים

MISHNA: If a king or High Priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners; they bring the sin-offering of an individual. Rabbi Shimon says: If it became known to them, before they were appointed as king or High Priest, that they had sinned, they are liable to bring the sin-offering of an individual, but if it became known to them after they were appointed as king or High Priest they are completely exempt.

איזהו נשיא זה מלך שנאמר מכל מצות ה׳ אלהיו שאין על גביו אלא ה׳ אלהיו

Who is the nasi? This is a king, as it is stated: “When a nasi sins, and performs any one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God that shall not be performed, unwittingly, and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:22), referring to one who has only the Lord his God over him and no other authority. That is only the king.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת פרט לקודמות

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If a king or High Priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “If the anointed priest shall sin to bring guilt” (Leviticus 4:3); this serves to exclude the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation as High Priest.

שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה נשיא שמביא בשגגת מעשה אין מביא על הקודמות משיח שאין מביא אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה אינו דין שלא יביא על הקודמות

As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if a king, who brings a goat as his sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action, does not bring a sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his coronation, then with regard to an anointed priest, who brings his sin-offering only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court with the unwitting performance of an action, is it not logical that he will not bring his sin-offering for the prior transgressions?

לא אם אמרת בנשיא שכן אין מביא חטאתו משעבר תאמר במשיח שמביא חטאתו משעבר הואיל ומביא חטאתו משעבר יביא על הקודמות תלמוד לומר המשיח יחטא חטא כשהוא משיח מביא כשהוא הדיוט אינו מביא

The Gemara rejects this: No, if you said this with regard to a king, that is reasonable, as he does not bring his goat for a sin-offering once he has moved on from his sovereignty, and instead brings the sin-offering of a commoner. Shall you also say this with regard to an anointed priest, who brings a bull for his sin-offering once he has moved on from his priesthood? Since he brings a bull for his sin-offering even once he has moved on from his priesthood, perhaps he shall bring a bull as a sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation as High Priest? Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest shall sin,” from which it is derived: If he sins when he is serving as an anointed priest he brings a bull as his sin-offering; if he sins when he is an ordinary priest he does not bring a bull as his sin-offering.

ותניא נמי גבי נשיא כהאי גוונא אשר נשיא יחטא פרט לקודמות

And it is also taught in this way in a baraita with regard to a king: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22); this serves to exclude the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his coronation as king.

שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה משיח שמביא חטאתו משעבר אינו מביא על הקודמות נשיא שאין מביא חטאתו משעבר אינו דין שלא יביא על הקודמות

As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? If an anointed priest, who brings a bull for his sin-offering even once he has moved on from his priesthood, does not bring his sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation, then with regard to a king, who does not bring his goat for a sin-offering once he has moved on from his sovereignty, is it not logical that he will not bring his sin-offering for the prior transgressions? Apparently, there is no need for the derivation from the verse.

מה למשיח שכן אין מביא בשגגת מעשה תאמר בנשיא שמביא בשגגת מעשה הואיל ומביא בשגגת מעשה יביא על הקודמות תלמוד לומר אשר נשיא יחטא שחטא והרי הוא נשיא ולא שחטא ועודהו הדיוט

The Gemara notes that this inference can be rejected. What is notable about an anointed priest? He is notable in that he does not bring a sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action unless it was performed on the basis of an erroneous ruling. Shall you say the same with regard to a king, who brings an offering for the unwitting performance of an action alone, even without an erroneous ruling? Since he brings an offering for the unwitting performance of an action alone, shall he bring a bull as a sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his coronation? Therefore, the verse states: “When a king sins,” from which it is derived: In a case where he sins and he is king, he brings a bull as his sin-offering, and not in a case where he sins and he is still a commoner.

תנו רבנן אשר נשיא יחטא יכול גזרה תלמוד לומר אם הכהן המשיח יחטא מה להלן לכשיחטא אף כאן לכשיחטא

§ Apropos a king, the Sages taught: In contrast to other cases where the verse states: If he will sin, it states concerning a king: “When [asher] a king sins.” One might have thought that this is a decree, i.e., that it is a given that the king will sin. Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest shall sin” (Leviticus 4:3). Just as there the meaning is: In the event that the priest shall sin, so too here, the meaning is: In the event that the king shall sin.

אמר מר יכול גזרה גזרה מהיכא תיתי

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: One might have thought that this is a decree. The Gemara asks: A decree? From where would this be derived? Why would it enter one’s mind that there would be a decree that the king must sin?

אמרי אין אשכחן דכתיב ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחזתכם בשורה היא להם שנגעים באים עליהם דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר פרט לנגעי אונסין לאו אמר רבי יהודה בשורה הכא נמי אימא גזרה היא הלכך כתיב אם

The Sages say: Yes, there is a basis for that understanding, as we find that type of interpretation elsewhere; as it is written: “When you come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I shall place the mark of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). These are tidings informing them, i.e., the Jewish people, that leprous marks will come upon them when they enter Eretz Yisrael; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: This verse serves to teach that leprosy causes ritual impurity only when its origins are divine, to the exclusion of leprosy that results from circumstances beyond one’s control, i.e., those that have a clear physical cause. Didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that leprosy could be tidings, i.e., that there will definitely be leprosy? Here too, with regard to the king, say that it is a decree that he will sin. Therefore, it is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin,” meaning that the sin is not a given.

ולרבי שמעון נגעי אונסין מי לא מטמו והא תניא אדם כי יהיה מן הדבור ואילך והלא דין הוא טמא בזב וטמא בנגעים מה זב מן הדבור ואילך אף נגעים מן הדבור ואילך

The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita: And according to Rabbi Shimon, do leprous marks that result from circumstances beyond one’s control not cause ritual impurity? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “When a person shall have in the skin of his flesh a wool-white leprous mark or a scab” (Leviticus 13:2); these halakhot apply from this statement onward, i.e., from the time that God gave this mitzva to the Jewish people, and these halakhot do not apply to leprosy that preceded the giving of the mitzva? And could this not be derived through logical inference: The Torah deemed one impure in the case of a zav, and the Torah deemed one impure in the case of leprous marks. Just as a zav is ritually impure only from the statement onward, so too, with regard to leprous marks, there is impurity only from that statement onward. There is no need for a derivation from the verse Leviticus 13:2.

לא אם אמרת בזב שכן אין מטמא באונס תאמר בנגעים שמטמאין באונס תלמוד לומר אדם כי יהיה מן הדבור ואילך רבא אמר פרט לנגעי רוחות רב פפא אמר פרט לנגעי כשפים

The baraita continues: This inference can be rejected: No, if you said that with regard to a zav, this is reasonable, as he does not become impure if his condition was caused by circumstances beyond his control. Shall you say the same with regard to leprous marks, which impart ritual impurity when caused by circumstances beyond one’s control? Therefore, the verse states: “When a person shall have,” indicating that there is impurity only from that statement onward. In any case, it is clear that leprosy causes impurity even if it was caused by circumstances beyond his control. Rava says in explanation: The phrase “and I shall place the mark of leprosy” serves to exclude leprous marks caused by evil spirits. Rav Pappa says in explanation: That phrase serves to exclude leprous marks caused by sorcery.

תנו רבנן אשר נשיא יחטא פרט לחולה משום דהוה ליה חולה אידחי ליה מנשיאותיה אמר רב אבדימי בר חמא פרט לנשיא שנצטרע שנאמר וינגע ה׳ את המלך ויהי מצרע עד יום מתו וישב בבית החפשית ויותם בן המלך על הבית מדקאמר בבית החפשית מכלל דעד השתא עבד הוה

§ Apropos a king, the Sages taught that when the verse states: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22), this serves to exclude a king who is ill. The Gemara asks: Due to the fact that he is ill, is he removed from his sovereignty? Rav Avdimi bar Ḥama said: The reference is not to all illnesses; rather, it is to exclude a king who is afflicted with leprosy, as it is stated concerning King Azariah: “And the Lord afflicted the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death, and dwelt in an independent house. And Jotham, son of the king, was over the household, judging the people of the land” (II Kings 15:5). Azariah was removed from his sovereignty when he was afflicted with leprosy. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the verse states: “In an independent house,” by inference it may be understood that until now he was a servant, i.e., he was in servitude to the people.

כי הא דרבן גמליאל ורבי יהושע הוו אזלי בספינתא בהדי דרבן גמליאל הוה פיתא בהדי רבי יהושע הוה פיתא וסולתא שלים פיתיה דרבן גמליאל סמך אסולתיה דרבי יהושע אמר ליה מי הוה ידעת דהוה לן עכובא כולי האי דאיתית סולתא אמר ליה כוכב אחד לשבעים שנה עולה ומתעה את (הספינות) [הספנים] ואמרתי שמא יעלה ויתעה [אותנו]

The Gemara notes: This is similar to that incident where Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were traveling together on a ship. Rabban Gamliel had sufficient bread for the journey. Rabbi Yehoshua also had sufficient bread, and additionally he had flour. The journey lasted longer than expected, and Rabban Gamliel’s bread was finished. He relied on Rabbi Yehoshua’s flour for nourishment. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Did you know from the outset that we would have so substantial a delay? Is that the reason that you brought flour with you? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: There is one star that rises once in seventy years and misleads sailors at sea, causing their journeys to be extended. And I said: Perhaps that star will rise during our journey and mislead us.

אמר ליה כל כך בידך ואתה עולה בספינה אמר ליה עד שאתה תמה עלי תמה על שני תלמידים שיש לך ביבשה רבי אלעזר חסמא ורבי יוחנן בן גודגדא שיודעין לשער כמה טפות יש בים ואין להם פת לאכול ולא בגד ללבוש נתן דעתו להושיבם בראש

Rabban Gamliel said to him: So much wisdom is at your disposal, and you board a ship to earn your livelihood? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Before you wonder about me, wonder about two students that you have on dry land, Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, who are so wise that they know how to calculate how many drops of water there are in the sea, and yet they have neither bread to eat nor a garment to wear. Rabban Gamliel made up his mind to seat them at the head of the academy.

כשעלה שלח להם ולא באו חזר ושלח ובאו אמר להם כמדומין אתם ששררה אני נותן לכם

When Rabban Gamliel ascended to dry land, he sent a messenger to them to tell them to come so that he could appoint them and they did not come. He again sent a messenger to them and they came. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Do you imagine that I am granting you authority, and since you did not want to accept the honor you did not come when I sent for you?

עבדות אני נותן לכם שנאמר וידברו אליו לאמר אם היום תהיה עבד לעם הזה

I am granting you servitude, as it is stated: “And they spoke to him saying: If you will be a servant to this people today” (I Kings 12:7). This explains the phrase “in an independent house.”

תנו רבנן אשר נשיא יחטא אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אשרי הדור שהנשיא שלו מביא קרבן על שגגתו אם נשיא שלו מביא קרבן צריך אתה לומר מהו הדיוט ואם על שגגתו מביא קרבן צריך אתה לומר מהו זדונו

§ The Sages taught: The verse states concerning a king: “When [asher] a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22). Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: Happy [ashrei] is the generation whose king feels the need to bring an offering for his unwitting transgression. If the generation’s king brings an offering, you must say all the more so what a commoner will do to atone for his sin, i.e., he will certainly bring an offering. And if the king brings an offering for his unwitting transgression, you must say all the more so what he will do to atone for his intentional transgression, i.e., he will certainly repent.

מתקיף לה רבא בריה דרבה אלא מעתה דכתיב ואת אשר חטא מן הקדש ישלם ובירבעם בן נבט דכתיב ביה אשר חטא ואשר החטיא הכי נמי דאשרי הדור הוא שאני הכא דשני קרא בדבוריה

Rava, son of Rabba, objects to this: If that is so, and the term asher is interpreted in that manner, then concerning that which is written: “And he shall pay for that which [asher] he has sinned from the sacred item” (Leviticus 5:16), and with regard to Jeroboam, son of Nevat, about whom it is written: “Who [asher] sinned and caused others to sin” (I Kings 14:16), so too is the interpretation that this generation is happy? The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of a king who brings an offering, it is different, as the verse altered its formulation; in parallel verses, the term “if” is utilized, e.g., in the verse: “If the anointed priest shall sin” (Leviticus 4:3). In the other instances, asher is the standard formulation.

דרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא מאי דכתיב יש הבל אשר נעשה על הארץ וגו׳ אשריהם לצדיקים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הרשעים של עולם הבא בעולם הזה אוי להם לרשעים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הצדיקים של עולם הבא בעולם הזה

Apropos the homiletic interpretation of the term asher, Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “There is a vanity that is [asher] performed upon the earth; that there are [asher] righteous men to whom it happens according to [asher] the action of the wicked, and there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the action of the righteous” (Ecclesiastes 8:14)? Happy [ashrei] are the righteous, to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the wicked in the World-to-Come, i.e., they suffer in this world. Woe unto the wicked, to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the righteous in the World-to-Come, i.e., they enjoy this world.

אמר רבא אטו צדיקי אי אכלי תרי עולמי מי סני להו אלא אמר רבא אשריהם לצדיקים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הרשעים של עולם הזה בעולם הזה אוי להם לרשעים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הצדיקים של עולם הזה בעולם הזה

Rava said: Is that to say that if the righteous enjoyed two worlds it would be awful for them? Why must the righteous suffer in this world? Rather, Rava said as follows: Happy are the righteous to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the wicked in this world, i.e., happy are the righteous who enjoy this world as well. Woe to the wicked, to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the righteous in this world, i.e., like the many righteous people who suffer in this world.

רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אתו לקמיה דרבא אמר להו אוקימתון מסכתא פלן ומסכתא פלן אמרו ליה אין איעתריתו פורתא אמרו ליה אין דזבנן קטינא דארעא קרי עלייהו אשריהם לצדיקים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הרשעים שבעולם הזה בעולם הזה

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came before Rava. Rava said to them: Have you mastered this tractate and that tractate? They said to him: Yes. Rava said to them: Have you become somewhat wealthy? They said to him: Yes, as each of us bought a parcel of land from which we earn our livelihoods. Rava proclaimed about them: Happy are the righteous, to whom it happens in this world according to the goodness resulting from the actions of the wicked in this world.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב כי ישרים דרכי ה׳ וצדקים ילכו בם ופשעים יכשלו בם משל לשני בני אדם שצלו פסחיהם אחד אכלו לשום מצוה ואחד אכלו לשום אכילה גסה זה שאכלו לשום מצוה צדקים ילכו בם זה שאכלו לשום אכילה גסה ופשעים יכשלו בם

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the ways of the Lord are right, and the righteous will walk in them and transgressors will stumble in them” (Hosea 14:10)? It is comparable to an incident involving two people who roasted their Paschal offerings. One ate it for the sake of the mitzva, and the other one ate it with gusto, for the sake of excessive eating. With regard to that person who ate it for the sake of the mitzva, it is written: “The righteous will walk in them.” With regard to that person who ate it for the sake of excessive eating, it is written: “And transgressors will stumble in them.”

אמר ליה ריש לקיש רשע קרית ליה נהי דלא עביד מצוה מן המובחר פסח מי לא קאכיל אלא משל לשני בני אדם זה אשתו ואחותו עמו בבית וזה אשתו ואחותו עמו בבית אחד נזדמנה לו אשתו ואחד נזדמנה לו אחותו זה שנזדמנה לו אשתו צדקים ילכו בם וזה שנזדמנה לו אחותו ופשעים יכשלו בם

Reish Lakish said to Rabba bar bar Ḥana: Did you call the one who ate the Paschal offering for the sake of excessive eating wicked? Although he did not perform the mitzva in the ideal manner, didn’t he eat the Paschal offering? Since he fulfilled the mitzva, how can he be characterized as a transgressor? Rather, it is analogous to an incident involving two people; this one has his wife and his sister with him in a dark house and that one has his wife and his sister with him in a dark house. One of them, his wife happened to come to him and he engaged in intercourse with her, and the other one, his sister happened to come to him and he engaged in intercourse with her. With regard to that one, to whom his wife happened to come, it is written: “The righteous will walk in them.” With regard to that one, to whom his sister happened to come, it is written: “And transgressors will stumble in them.”

מי דמי אנן קאמרינן חדא דרך והכא שני דרכים אלא משל ללוט ושתי בנותיו הן שנתכוונו לשם מצוה צדקים ילכו בם הוא שנתכוון לשם עבירה ופשעים יכשלו בם

The Gemara asks: Are these matters comparable? In the verse, we are speaking of one path upon which both the righteous and the wicked walk, and here, in the incident mentioned by Reish Lakish, there are two paths, as the two people are not performing the same action. Rather, it is analogous to the incident involving Lot and his two daughters (see Genesis 19:30–38): With regard to the daughters, who, when engaging in intercourse with their father, intended their action for the sake of a mitzva, as they believed that the world had been destroyed and that only they remained alive, it is written: “The righteous will walk in them.” With regard to Lot, who intended his action for the sake of a transgression, it is written: “And transgressors will stumble in them.”

ודלמא הוא נמי לשם מצוה הוא מכוין אמר רבי יוחנן כל הפסוק הזה לשם עבירה נאמר

The Gemara challenges: Perhaps Lot too intended his action for the sake of a mitzva. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this entire verse: “And Lot cast his eyes and beheld the entire plain of the Jordan that it was well watered everywhere” (Genesis 13:10), is stated in the context of transgression.

וישא לוט ותשא אשת אדניו את עיניה את עיניו ויאמר שמשון [וגו׳] אותה קח לי כי היא ישרה בעיני וירא וירא אתה שכם בן חמור את כל ככר הירדן כי בעד אשה זונה עד ככר לחם כי כלה משקה אלכה אחרי מאהבי נתני לחמי ומימי צמרי ופשתי שמני ושקויי

He explains: “And Lot cast his eyes” is an allusion to the verse: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). “His eyes” is an allusion to the verse: “And Samson said: Get her for me, as she is pleasing to my eyes” (Judges 14:3). “And beheld” is an allusion to the verse: “And Shechem, son of Hamor, the prince of the land, beheld her; and he took her and lay with her” (Genesis 34:2). “The entire plain [kikar] of the Jordan” is an allusion to the verse: “For on account of a prostitute a man is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread” (Proverbs 6:26). “That it was well watered [mashke] everywhere” is an allusion to the verse “I will follow my lovers, givers of my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink [veshikkuyai]” (Hosea 2:7).

והא מינס אניס תנא משום רבי יוסי בר רבי חוני למה נקוד על ויו שבקומה של בכירה לומר לך שבשכבה לא ידע אבל בקומה ידע ומאי הוה ליה למעבד מאי דהוה הוה נפקא מינה דלפניא אחרינא לא איבעי ליה למישתי

The Gemara asks: Why is Lot accused of wrongdoing? Wasn’t he the victim of circumstances beyond his control, as he was drunk and asleep? It is taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥoni: Why is it dotted over the letter vav that is in the word “bekumah” written with regard to Lot’s elder daughter in the verse: “And he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose [bekumah]” (Genesis 19:33)? It is to say to you that when she lay down he did not know; but when she arose, he knew. Therefore, his action was not completely beyond his control. The Gemara asks: And what was he to do? What was, was. The Gemara answers: He should have derived from it that on the following night he should not drink. Since he drank again, this indicates that he did so with intent to engage in intercourse with his other daughter.

דרש רבה מאי דכתיב אח נפשע מקרית עז ומדינים כבריח ארמון אח נפשע מקרית עז זה לוט שפירש מאברהם ומדינים כבריח ארמון שהטיל מדינים בין ישראל לעמון שנאמר לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה׳

Apropos Lot, Rabba taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A brother betrayed a strong city, and their contentions are like the bars of a castle” (Proverbs 18:19)? “A brother betrayed a strong city”; that is Lot, who parted from Abraham. “And their contentions are like the bars of a castle” is stated because he, i.e., Lot, introduced contention between Israel and Ammon, as it is stated: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4).

דרש רבא ואיתימא רבי יצחק מאי דכתיב לתאוה יבקש נפרד (ובכל) [בכל] תושיה יתגלע לתאוה יבקש נפרד זה לוט שנפרד מאברהם (ובכל) [בכל] תושיה יתגלע שנתגלה קלונו בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות דתנן עמוני ומואבי אסורין איסור עולם

Rava taught, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak who taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He that separates himself seeks his own desire, and snarls against all sound wisdom” (Proverbs 18:1)? “He that separates himself seeks his own desire”; that is Lot, who separated from Abraham to pursue his lust. “And snarls [yitgalla] against all sound wisdom”; his shame was revealed [shenitgalla] in synagogues and study halls, where the halakha concerning his offspring is taught; as we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 76a): An Ammonite and a Moabite, descendants of Lot, are forbidden with a permanent prohibition.

ואמר עולא תמר זנתה וזימרי זינה תמר זנתה יצאו ממנה מלכים ונביאים זימרי זינה נפלו כמה רבבות מישראל אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק גדולה עבירה לשמה ממצוה שלא לשמה שנאמר תברך מנשים יעל אשת חבר הקיני מנשים באהל תברך מאן נינהו נשים באהל שרה רבקה רחל ולאה

§ And Ulla says: Tamar engaged in licentiousness with Judah (see Genesis, chapter 38), and Zimri engaged in licentiousness with Cozbi (see Numbers 25:6–9). Tamar engaged in licentiousness, and kings and prophets emerged from her. Zimri engaged in licentiousness, and tens of thousands from the Jewish people fell. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: A transgression performed for the sake of Heaven is greater than a mitzva performed not for its own sake, as it is stated: “Blessed above women shall be Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, above women in the tent shall she be blessed” (Judges 5:24). Who are these “women in the tent”? They are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah, and Yael is more blessed than they are. Apparently, a mitzva performed not for its own sake is a negative phenomenon.

איני והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפילו שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה אימא כמצוה שלא לשמה

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and the performance of mitzvot, even if he does so not for its own sake, as through the performance of mitzvot not for its own sake, one gains understanding and comes to perform them for its own sake. Apparently, even when performed not for its own sake a mitzva is still a positive phenomenon. The Gemara emends the statement: Say that the status of a transgression performed for the sake of Heaven is like that of a mitzva performed not for its own sake.

אמר רבי יוחנן שבע בעילות בעל אותו רשע באותה שעה שנאמר בין רגליה כרע נפל שכב וגו׳ והא קא מיתהניא מעבירה אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אפילו טובתם של רשעים רעה היא אצל צדיקים

Apropos Yael, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That wicked man Sisera performed seven acts of intercourse with Yael at that time, as it is stated: “Between her legs he crouched, he fell, he lay; between her legs he crouched, he fell; where he crouched, there he fell dead” (Judges 5:27). Each of the seven verbs is a euphemism for intercourse. The Gemara asks: But didn’t she experience pleasure from the transgression of engaging in intercourse with Sisera? Why does the verse praise her? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Even the good provided by the wicked is bad for the righteous, so Yael did not experience any pleasure from her intercourse with Sisera.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפילו שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה שבשכר ארבעים ושנים קרבנות שהקריב בלק הרשע זכה ויצתה ממנו רות דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא רות בת בנו של עגלון בן בנו של בלק מלך מואב

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and the performance of mitzvot, even if he does so not for its own sake, as through the performance of mitzvot not for its own sake, one gains understanding and comes to perform them for its own sake. Proof for this can be adduced from the incident involving Balak, as in reward for the forty-two offerings that Balak the wicked sacrificed to God, despite the fact that he did this in order to curse the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 23), he merited and Ruth emerged from him, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Ruth was the daughter of the son of Eglon, the son of the son of Balak, king of Moab.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן מנין שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא מקפח אפילו שכר שיחה נאה מהכא דאילו בכירה דקרייה מואב אמר ליה רחמנא למשה אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה מלחמה

§ Apropos Lot and his daughters, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not withhold even the reward for euphemistic speech? It is derived from here, as the elder daughter called her son Moab, an allusion to the fact that the child is from her own father [me’av], and the Merciful One said to Moses: “Be not at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle” (Deuteronomy 2:9). From this it may be inferred: It is in battle