Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 15, 2023 | 讻状讚 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Nazir 23

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the refuah shleima of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah and their daughter, Tamar Davida bat Sarah Leah.

If a woman becomes a nazir and her husband nullifies the vow without her knowledge and she drinks wine not knowing that she is no longer a nazir, she does not get lashes by Torah law. However, Rabbi Yehuda adds that she gets lashes by rabbinic law as she intended to go against the law. A braita brings a verse from which this law is derived and Rabbi Akiva learns from there that since one who intended to sin but didn’t sin is punished, how much more so one who intended to sin and actually sinned. Two other verses are brought to show how severe it is for one who intentionally sinned from that fact that one needs to atone for sins that one is not even sure they committed as in a case of doubt whether one ate a piece of permitted fat or forbidden fat from an animal (both in a case where there was one piece and it wasn’t clear if it was permitted or forbidden, and a case where there were two pieces, one permitted and one forbidden and the person isn’t sure which one they ate from). Why was it necessary to mention all three cases? Regarding intent, sometimes different people can do that same action but for righteous people, it will be a righteous act and for the sinner it will be a sinful act. There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about what would be a good example of this. After raising an issue with Reish Lakish’s opinion, a suggestion is made that the episode with Lot and his daughters is a good example of this as they did it with good intentions and he did not. How do we know that he did not have the right intentions? Wasn’t he forced into it as he was drunk? They prove how we know that Lot sinned intentionally and he is ultimately punished by Jews not being allowed to marry males from Amon and Moab, his descendants. Tamar and Zimri are brought as further examples of how the same action could be used for a positive reason and for a negative reason. Tamar was rewarded with kings and prophets and Zimri was punished as thousands of Jews were killed. A discussion ensues about one who sins for the sake of聽 Heaven and one who does a mitzva not for the sake of Heaven – which is more valuable? The example of Yael and Sisra is brought regarding a sin for the sake of Heaven.

讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜讗转 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讬驻专 讗转 砖诇讛 讜砖诇讜 拽讬讬诐

And the mishna is referring to a case where he said to her in the form of a question: I am hereby a nazirite, and what about you? This indicates that he himself has completely accepted his naziriteship, and he is simply asking his wife if she would like to join him. Due to that reason, as he did not link his vow to hers, he may nullify hers and his is intact.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讘讬讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 砖讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讘讬讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐 讗讬谞讛 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 转住驻讜讙 诪讻转 诪专讚讜转

mishna With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and she transgressed her vow since she was drinking wine and rendering herself ritually impure by contact with the dead, she incurs the forty lashes for each of the Torah prohibitions she transgressed. If her husband nullified her vow, and she did not know that her husband had nullified her vow, and she was drinking wine and rendering herself impure by contact with the dead, she does not incur the forty lashes, as she is no longer a nazirite. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if she does not incur the forty lashes by Torah law, she should incur lashes for rebelliousness [makat mardut], an extrajudicial punishment imposed by the Sages, for her intention to commit a transgression, since she believed that it was prohibited to her.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖讛 讛驻专诐 讜讛壮 讬住诇讞 诇讛 讘讗砖讛 砖讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 砖讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛

gemara The Sages taught with regard to a verse in the section discussing vows: 鈥淗er husband has nullified them, and the Lord will forgive her鈥 (Numbers 30:13), that the verse is speaking of a woman whose husband nullified her vow and she did not know that he had done so. It teaches that if she performs the actions prohibited by the vow she requires atonement and forgiveness.

讜讻砖讛讬讛 诪讙讬注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗爪诇 驻住讜拽 讝讛 讛讬讛 讘讜讻讛 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讟诇讛 讟注讜谉 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛 讛诪转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

And when Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse he would cry, saying: And if one who intended to pick up pork in his hand and eat it, and in fact he picked up the meat of a lamb in his hand and ate it, so that he did not in fact commit a transgression, like this woman who tried to sin and was unaware that her husband had nullified her vow, nevertheless requires atonement and forgiveness, then with regard to one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and in fact picked up pork in his hand, all the more so does he require atonement.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讜讗砖诐 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜

On a similar note, you can say and quote the following verse with regard to one who is liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering, which is brought for a possible transgression: 鈥淭hough he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:17).

讜诪讛 诪讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讟诇讛 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻讙讜谉 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜 诪讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

This verse teaches: And if in a case similar to one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand and eat it, which is permitted, and he picked up pork in his hand and ate it, thereby sinning unintentionally, for example, where one took a piece of meat with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is permitted fat and uncertain whether it is forbidden fat, and he ate it, rendering him liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd shall bear his iniquity,鈥 indicating that he requires atonement via an offering; then with regard to one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and in fact picked up pork in his hand, all the more so he requires atonement.

讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讜讗砖诐 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讟诇讛 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻讙讜谉 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜 讛诪转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

Isi ben Yehuda says that this verse: 鈥淭hough he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:17), should be explained in a slightly different manner: And if in a case similar to one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand and he picked up pork in his hand, e.g., where there were two pieces before him, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, and he picked up one and ate it without knowing which of them was forbidden, it states with regard to him: 鈥淎nd shall bear his iniquity,鈥 i.e., he is obligated to bring an offering; then with regard to one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and picked up pork in his hand, all the more so is he in need of atonement.

注诇 讚讘专 讝讛 讬讚讜讜 讛讚讜讜讬诐

The Gemara adds: And with regard to this matter, those who suffer should suffer, i.e., one can see from here the extent to which one requires atonement and forgiveness.

讜讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬谉 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讙讘讬 讗砖讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬讗 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讜讜谉 讗讘诇 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讚诇讛讬转专讗 讗讬讻讜讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: And why do I need all these examples for the same idea? The Gemara answers: All of them are necessary, as had we taught this idea only with regard to the case of a woman, one might have said that it is there that she requires atonement and forgiveness because at the outset her intention was to sin. However, in the case of one who took a piece with regard to which it was uncertain whether it was permitted fat and uncertain whether it was forbidden fat, who intended to eat permitted food, one might have said that he does not require atonement and forgiveness.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讚讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 讚讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讚讛转讬专讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛

And had this case concerning one who eats a piece that might be forbidden been stated alone, one could say that atonement is required in this situation, as there is possibly a prohibition present before him. However, with regard to a woman whose husband nullified her vow, where she was in fact permitted to perform the actions she performed, perhaps she does not require atonement and forgiveness.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讜讗 讚住讙讬 诇讛讜谉 讘讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讚讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 砖谞讗

And had only these two cases been stated, I would say: It is in these two cases in which atonement and forgiveness are enough for them, as the prohibition is not established; even one who ate the piece that was possibly forbidden fat has not necessarily committed a sin. However, if there were two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, where the prohibition is established, as there was definitely a forbidden piece before him and nevertheless he proceeded to eat one of them, one might have said that atonement and forgiveness should not suffice for him. Isi ben Yehuda therefore teaches us that there, it is no different, as even this individual is included in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall be forgiven鈥 (Leviticus 5:18).

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬砖专讬诐 讚专讻讬 讛壮 讜爪讚拽讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讘诐 讜驻砖注讬诐 讬讻砖诇讜 讘诐 诪砖诇 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖爪诇讜 讗转 驻住讞讬讛谉 讗讞讚 讗讻诇讜 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讻诇讜 诇砖讜诐 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讝讛 砖讗讻诇讜 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜爪讚拽讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讘诐 讜讝讛 砖讗讻诇讜 诇砖讜诐 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讜驻砖注讬诐 讬讻砖诇讜 讘诐

Rabba bar bar 岣nna said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淔or the paths of the Lord are right, and the just walk in them, but transgressors stumble over them鈥 (Hosea 14:10)? How can the same path lead to such different outcomes? This is comparable to two people who roasted their Paschal offerings on Passover eve, in the proper manner. One ate it for the sake of the mitzva, and one ate it for the sake of excessive eating. This one, who ate it for the sake of the mitzva, has fulfilled: 鈥淎nd the just walk in them,鈥 while that one, who ate it for the sake of excessive eating, is described by the end of the verse: 鈥淏ut transgressors stumble over them.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 专砖注 拽专讬转 诇讬讛 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 驻住讞 诪讬讛讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗诇讗 诪砖诇 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讝讛 讗砖转讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 注诪讜 讜讝讛 讗砖转讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 注诪讜 诇讝讛 谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讗砖转讜 讜诇讝讛 谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讗讞讜转讜 讝讛 砖谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讗砖转讜 爪讚拽讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讘诐 讜讝讛 砖谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讗讞讜转讜 讜驻砖注讬诐 讬讻砖诇讜 讘诐

Reish Lakish said to Rabba bar bar 岣nna: You call this individual wicked? Even though he had not performed the mitzva in the optimal manner when he eats this Paschal offering, he has at least performed the mitzva of the Paschal offering. Rather, this is comparable to two people; this one has his wife and sister in the same house with him, and that one has his wife and sister with him. Each husband arrives home and engages in sexual intercourse with one of the women. This one happened upon his wife, and that one happened upon his sister. This one, who happened upon his wife, is described by the phrase 鈥淎nd the just walk in them,鈥 and that one, who happened upon his sister, is described by the phrase 鈥淏ut transgressors stumble over them.鈥

诪讬 讚诪讬 讗谞谉 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讞讚讗 讚专讱 讛讻讗 砖谞讬 讚专讻讬诐 讗诇讗 诪砖诇 诇诇讜讟 讜砖转讬 讘谞讜转讬讜 注诪讜 讛谉 砖谞转讻讜讜谞讜 诇砖诐 诪爪讜讛 讜爪讚拽讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讘诐 讛讜讗 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇砖诐 注讘讬专讛 讜驻砖注讬诐 讬讻砖诇讜 讘诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it comparable? We said one path; i.e., two people follow the same path by performing the very same action with two different outcomes; whereas here there are two paths. Each person engaged in sexual intercourse with a different relative and therefore they cannot be said to have followed the same path. Rather, it is comparable to Lot and his two daughters, who were with him. They, who intended to engage in sexual intercourse with him for the sake of a mitzva, as they thought that the entire world was destroyed and wished to preserve the human race, are described in the first part of the verse: 鈥淎nd the just walk in them.鈥 He who intended to act for the sake of a transgression is described by the last part: 鈥淏ut transgressors stumble over them.鈥

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讬讻讜讜讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜拽 讛讝讛 注诇 砖诐 注讘讬专讛 谞讗诪专

The Gemara asks: And perhaps Lot too intended that his actions should be for the sake of a mitzva? The Gemara answers: This was not the case, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said with regard to Lot: This entire verse: 鈥淎nd Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere鈥 (Genesis 13:10), is stated with regard to the sin of licentiousness. Since this verse teaches that Lot was a lustful man, it can therefore be assumed he meant to sin with his daughters as well.

讜讬砖讗 诇讜讟 讜转砖讗 讗砖转 讗讚谞讬讜 讗转 注讬谞讬讛 [讗转 注讬谞讬讜] 讻讬 讛讬讗 讬砖专讛 讘注讬谞讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan explains: 鈥淎nd Lot lifted up his eyes鈥 employs the same expression as a verse that refers to Joseph鈥檚 temptation: 鈥淭hat his master鈥檚 wife lifted up her eyes鈥 (Genesis 39:7), which is clearly referring to sin. The phrase used in reference to Lot, 鈥渉is eyes,鈥 is stated similarly to Samson鈥檚 appraisal of the Philistine girl he sought to marry: 鈥淔or she is pleasing in my eyes鈥 (Judges 14:3).

讜讬专讗 讜讬专讗 讗转讛 砖讻诐 讘谉 讞诪讜专 讗转 讻诇 讻讻专 讛讬专讚谉 讻讬 讘注讚 讗砖讛 讝讜谞讛 注讚 讻讻专 诇讞诐 讻讬 讻诇讛 诪砖拽讛 讗诇讻讛 讗讞专讬 诪讗讛讘讬 谞转谞讬 诇讞诪讬 讜诪讬诪讬 爪诪专讬 讜驻砖转讬 砖诪谞讬 讜砖讬拽讜讬讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan continues to interpret the verse as a series of references to licentiousness. The phrase 鈥渁nd saw鈥 is reminiscent of the verse dealing with Jacob鈥檚 daughter Dinah: 鈥淎nd Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, saw her and he took her, and lay with her鈥 (Genesis 34:2). The verse continues: 鈥淎ll the plain [kikar] of the Jordan,鈥 which alludes to the verse: 鈥淔or on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread鈥 (Proverbs 6:26). The last part of the verse: 鈥淭hat it was well watered everywhere,鈥 recalls: 鈥淚 will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink鈥 (Hosea 2:7).

讜讛讗 诪讬谞住 讗谞讬住 转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘 讞讜谞讬 诇诪讛 谞拽讜讚 注诇 讜讬讜 讜讘拽讜诪讛 砖诇 讘讻讬专讛 诇讜诪专 砖讘砖讻讘讛 诇讗 讬讚注 讗讘诇 讘拽讜诪讛 讬讚注

The Gemara asks: But Lot was forced to participate in the sexual intercourse, as he was asleep at the time; how can he be considered a sinner? The Gemara answers that this is as a Sage taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav 岣ni: Why is there a dot in a Torah scroll over the letter vav of the word uvekumah,鈥 with regard to Lot鈥檚 elder daughter, in the verse: 鈥淎nd he did not know when she lay down and when she arose [uvekumah]鈥 (Genesis 19:33)? This dot serves to say that when she lay down he did not know; however, when she arose he knew what she had done, as he later understood what had happened.

讜诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚诇驻谞讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇诪讬砖转讬 讞诪专讗

The Gemara asks: And what could he have done about it? What has happened has happened; i.e., Lot could not change the past. The Gemara answers: The difference is that on the other, following, night, he should not have drunk wine again. By allowing himself to get drunk a second time, he showed that the end result, engaging in sexual intercourse with his younger daughter, was something he desired.

讚专砖 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞 谞驻砖注 诪拽专讬转 注讝

Rava interpreted a verse homiletically with regard to Lot: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎 brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city,

讜诪讚讬谞讬诐 讻讘专讬讞 讗专诪讜谉 讗讞 谞驻砖注 诪拽专讬转 注讝 讝讛 诇讜讟 砖驻讬专砖 诪讗讘专讛诐 讜诪讚讬谞讬诐 讻讘专讬讞 讗专诪讜谉 砖讛讟讬诇 诪讚讬谞讬诐 讻讘专讬讞讬谉 讜讗专诪讜谉 诇讗 讬讘讗 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讘拽讛诇 讛壮

and their contentions are like the bars of a castle鈥 (Proverbs 18:19)? 鈥淎 brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city,鈥 this is Lot, called Abraham鈥檚 brother (see Genesis 14:14), who separated from Abraham. 鈥淎nd their contentions are like the bars of a castle,鈥 this is because Lot brought contention between the Jewish people and his own descendants like bars, which lock the gates of a castle. Just as no one can enter a locked castle, so too Lot鈥檚 descendants, Ammon and Moab, were prevented from joining the Jewish people, as it states: 鈥淎n Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:4).

讚专砖 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇转讗讜讛 讬讘拽砖 谞驻专讚 讜讘讻诇 转讜砖讬讛 讬转讙诇注 诇转讗讜讛 讬讘拽砖 谞驻专讚 讝讛 诇讜讟 讜讘讻诇 转讜砖讬讛 讬转讙诇注 砖谞转讙诇讛 拽诇讜谞讜 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讚转谞谉 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐

On the same issue, Rava expounded a verse homiletically, and some say it was Rabbi Yitz岣k: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淗e who separates himself seeks his own desire, and snarls against all sound wisdom鈥 (Proverbs 18:1)? 鈥淗e who separates himself seeks his own desire,鈥 this is Lot, who separated from Abraham. 鈥淎nd snarls [yitgala] against all sound wisdom,鈥 this too describes Lot, as his shame was eventually revealed [nitgala] in the synagogues, when his actions recorded in the Torah are read in public, and in the study halls, where the halakhot of his descendants are taught. As we learned in a mishna: An Ammonite and a Moabite are prohibited from entering the congregation by marrying a Jewish woman, and their prohibition is permanent.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 转诪专 讝讬谞转讛 讝诪专讬 讝讬谞讛

搂 In relation to the preceding discussion with regard to the daughters of Lot, who acted in a wanton manner for the sake of a mitzva, the Gemara cites that which Ulla said: Tamar engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with her father-in-law, Judah (see Genesis, chapter 38), and Zimri ben Salu also engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers, chapter 25).

转诪专 讝讬谞转讛 讬爪讗讜 诪诪谞讛 诪诇讻讬诐 讜谞讘讬讗讬诐 讝诪专讬 讝讬谞讛 谞驻诇讜 注诇讬讜 讻诪讛 专讘讘讜转 诪讬砖专讗诇

Yet despite the similarity between their actions, Tamar engaged in licentious sexual intercourse for the sake of a mitzva, to have children, and therefore she merited that kings of the House of David descended from her. King David鈥檚 lineage traces back to Tamar鈥檚 son Peretz (see Ruth 4:18鈥22). And she also merited to be the ancestor of prophets, e.g., Isaiah, who was related to the royal family. Conversely, with regard to Zimri, who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse for the purpose of a transgression, several multitudes of Israel fell due to him; twenty-four thousand in a plague (see Numbers 25:9). This shows that a great deal depends on one鈥檚 intentions.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讙讚讜诇讛 注讘讬专讛 诇砖诪讛 诪诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讬注住讜拽 讗讚诐 讘转讜专讛 讜讘诪爪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 砖诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讘讗 诇砖诪谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Greater is a transgression committed for its own sake, i.e., for the sake of Heaven, than a mitzva performed not for its own sake. The Gemara questions this comparison: But didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, as it is through acts performed not for their own sake that good deeds for their own sake come about? How, then, can any transgression be considered greater than a mitzva not for the sake of Heaven?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 转讘专讱 诪谞砖讬诐 讬注诇 讗砖转 讞讘专 讛拽讬谞讬 诪谞砖讬诐 讘讗讛诇 转讘专讱 诪讗谉 谞砖讬诐 砖讘讗讛诇 砖专讛 专讘拽讛 专讞诇 讜诇讗讛

Rather, one must emend the above statement and say as follows: A transgression for the sake of Heaven is equivalent to a mitzva not for its own sake. The proof is as it is written: 鈥淏lessed above women shall Yael be, the wife of Hever the Kenite, above women in the tent she shall be blessed鈥 (Judges 5:24), and it is taught: Who are these 鈥渨omen in the tent?鈥 They are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. Yael鈥檚 forbidden intercourse with Sisera for the sake of Heaven is compared to the sexual intercourse in which the Matriarchs engaged.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讘注 讘注讬诇讜转 讘注诇 讗讜转讜 专砖注 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬谉 专讙诇讬讛 讻专注 谞驻诇 砖讻讘 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: How is it derived that Yael engaged in sexual intercourse with Sisera? As Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That wicked one, Sisera, engaged in seven acts of sexual intercourse with Yael at that time, as it is stated: 鈥淏etween her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay; between her feet he sunk, he fell; where he sunk, there he fell down dead鈥 (Judges 5:27). Each mention of falling is referring to another act of intercourse.

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪转讛谞讬讗 诪讘注讬诇讛 讚讬诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讟讜讘转谉 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 专注讛 讗爪诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐

The Gemara asks: But Yael at least enjoyed the sexual intercourse with him; why is the verse so effusive in her praise? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: All the good of the wicked, i.e., anything good received from wicked people, is nothing other than evil for the righteous, and therefore she certainly derived no pleasure from the act.

砖谞讗诪专 讛砖诪专 诇讱 诪讚讘专 注诐 讬注拽讘 诪讟讜讘 讜注讚 专注 讘砖诇诪讗 专注 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讟讜讘 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟讜讘转讜 专注讛 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: From where is this principle derived? As it is stated in the verse that God warned Laban the Aramean, when he was chasing Jacob: 鈥淕uard yourself from speaking to Jacob, from good to evil鈥 (Genesis 31:24). Granted, with regard to the warning against speaking evil, it is fine that Laban was warned not to harm Jacob. However, why shouldn鈥檛 he say anything good to Jacob? Rather, must one not conclude from this verse that even Laban鈥檚 good is bad in Jacob鈥檚 eyes? The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that it is so.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讬注住讜拽 讗讚诐 讘转讜专讛 讜讘诪爪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 砖诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讘讗 诇砖诪谉 砖讘砖讻专 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 拽专讘谞讜转 砖讛拽专讬讘 讘诇拽 讛专砖注 讝讻讛 讜讬爪讗讛 诪诪谞讜 专讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讜转 讘转 讘谞讜 砖诇 注讙诇讜谉 诪诇讱 诪讜讗讘 讛讬转讛

搂 The Gemara returns to analyze in greater detail the above matter itself. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, as through these acts performed not for their own sake, good deeds for their own sake come about. The proof for this is that in reward for the forty-two offerings that the wicked Balak sacrificed (see Numbers, chapter 23), although he did not do so for the sake of Heaven but to facilitate the cursing of the Jewish people, nevertheless he merited that Ruth descended from him. Not only was he the forebear of a righteous convert, but also of King David. And this is as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: Ruth was the daughter of the son of Eglon, king of Moab, who descended from Balak, king of Moab.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪拽驻讞 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻专 砖讬讞讛 谞讗讛 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讻讬专讛 讚拽专讬转讬讛 诪讜讗讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 转爪专 讗转 诪讜讗讘 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 诪诇讞诪讛 诪诇讞诪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讘诇 爪注讜专讬 爪注专讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deprive one of even the reward for proper speech, i.e., for speaking in a refined manner? As while there is the case of Lot鈥檚 elder daughter, who called her son Moab [mo鈥檃v], which alludes to his shameful origins, as me鈥檃v means: From father, and the Merciful One says to Moses: 鈥淒o not besiege Moab, nor contend with them in war鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:9), which indicates: It is war that is not permitted; however, with regard to harassing, the Jews were permitted to harass them.

讜讗讬诇讜 爪注讬专讛 讚拽专讬转讬讛 讘谉 注诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转爪专诐 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 讗驻讬诇讜 爪注讜专讬 诇讗 转爪注专讬谞谉 讻诇诇

And while there is the case of Lot鈥檚 younger daughter, who called her son Ben-Ami, son of my people, without explicitly mentioning her father. With regard to her descendants, God said to Moses: 鈥淒o not harass them, nor contend with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:19), which means even as far as harassing is concerned, you may not harass them at all.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇注讜诇诐 讬拽讚讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖讘砖讻专 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 砖拽讚诪转讛 讘讻讬专讛 诇爪注讬专讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 said: A person should always come first with regard to a matter of a mitzva, as in reward of the one night that the elder daughter of Lot preceded the younger for the sake of a mitzva,

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 23-29 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a woman who takes on the vow of Nazir and then her husband revokes...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 23: Pure Motives

Can a person intentionally commit a sin but still perform a good dead? The Gemara explores how intentionality impacts the...

Nazir 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 23

讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜讗转 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讬驻专 讗转 砖诇讛 讜砖诇讜 拽讬讬诐

And the mishna is referring to a case where he said to her in the form of a question: I am hereby a nazirite, and what about you? This indicates that he himself has completely accepted his naziriteship, and he is simply asking his wife if she would like to join him. Due to that reason, as he did not link his vow to hers, he may nullify hers and his is intact.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讘讬讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 砖讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讘讬讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐 讗讬谞讛 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 转住驻讜讙 诪讻转 诪专讚讜转

mishna With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and she transgressed her vow since she was drinking wine and rendering herself ritually impure by contact with the dead, she incurs the forty lashes for each of the Torah prohibitions she transgressed. If her husband nullified her vow, and she did not know that her husband had nullified her vow, and she was drinking wine and rendering herself impure by contact with the dead, she does not incur the forty lashes, as she is no longer a nazirite. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if she does not incur the forty lashes by Torah law, she should incur lashes for rebelliousness [makat mardut], an extrajudicial punishment imposed by the Sages, for her intention to commit a transgression, since she believed that it was prohibited to her.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖讛 讛驻专诐 讜讛壮 讬住诇讞 诇讛 讘讗砖讛 砖讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 砖讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛

gemara The Sages taught with regard to a verse in the section discussing vows: 鈥淗er husband has nullified them, and the Lord will forgive her鈥 (Numbers 30:13), that the verse is speaking of a woman whose husband nullified her vow and she did not know that he had done so. It teaches that if she performs the actions prohibited by the vow she requires atonement and forgiveness.

讜讻砖讛讬讛 诪讙讬注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗爪诇 驻住讜拽 讝讛 讛讬讛 讘讜讻讛 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讟诇讛 讟注讜谉 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛 讛诪转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

And when Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse he would cry, saying: And if one who intended to pick up pork in his hand and eat it, and in fact he picked up the meat of a lamb in his hand and ate it, so that he did not in fact commit a transgression, like this woman who tried to sin and was unaware that her husband had nullified her vow, nevertheless requires atonement and forgiveness, then with regard to one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and in fact picked up pork in his hand, all the more so does he require atonement.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讜讗砖诐 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜

On a similar note, you can say and quote the following verse with regard to one who is liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering, which is brought for a possible transgression: 鈥淭hough he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:17).

讜诪讛 诪讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讟诇讛 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻讙讜谉 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜 诪讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

This verse teaches: And if in a case similar to one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand and eat it, which is permitted, and he picked up pork in his hand and ate it, thereby sinning unintentionally, for example, where one took a piece of meat with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is permitted fat and uncertain whether it is forbidden fat, and he ate it, rendering him liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd shall bear his iniquity,鈥 indicating that he requires atonement via an offering; then with regard to one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and in fact picked up pork in his hand, all the more so he requires atonement.

讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讜讗砖诐 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讟诇讛 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讻讙讜谉 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜 讛诪转讻讜讜谉 诇注诇讜转 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

Isi ben Yehuda says that this verse: 鈥淭hough he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:17), should be explained in a slightly different manner: And if in a case similar to one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand and he picked up pork in his hand, e.g., where there were two pieces before him, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, and he picked up one and ate it without knowing which of them was forbidden, it states with regard to him: 鈥淎nd shall bear his iniquity,鈥 i.e., he is obligated to bring an offering; then with regard to one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and picked up pork in his hand, all the more so is he in need of atonement.

注诇 讚讘专 讝讛 讬讚讜讜 讛讚讜讜讬诐

The Gemara adds: And with regard to this matter, those who suffer should suffer, i.e., one can see from here the extent to which one requires atonement and forgiveness.

讜讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬谉 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讙讘讬 讗砖讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬讗 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讜讜谉 讗讘诇 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讚诇讛讬转专讗 讗讬讻讜讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: And why do I need all these examples for the same idea? The Gemara answers: All of them are necessary, as had we taught this idea only with regard to the case of a woman, one might have said that it is there that she requires atonement and forgiveness because at the outset her intention was to sin. However, in the case of one who took a piece with regard to which it was uncertain whether it was permitted fat and uncertain whether it was forbidden fat, who intended to eat permitted food, one might have said that he does not require atonement and forgiveness.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讚讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 讚讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讚讛转讬专讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛

And had this case concerning one who eats a piece that might be forbidden been stated alone, one could say that atonement is required in this situation, as there is possibly a prohibition present before him. However, with regard to a woman whose husband nullified her vow, where she was in fact permitted to perform the actions she performed, perhaps she does not require atonement and forgiveness.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讜讗 讚住讙讬 诇讛讜谉 讘讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讚讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讻驻专讛 讜住诇讬讞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 砖谞讗

And had only these two cases been stated, I would say: It is in these two cases in which atonement and forgiveness are enough for them, as the prohibition is not established; even one who ate the piece that was possibly forbidden fat has not necessarily committed a sin. However, if there were two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, where the prohibition is established, as there was definitely a forbidden piece before him and nevertheless he proceeded to eat one of them, one might have said that atonement and forgiveness should not suffice for him. Isi ben Yehuda therefore teaches us that there, it is no different, as even this individual is included in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall be forgiven鈥 (Leviticus 5:18).

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬砖专讬诐 讚专讻讬 讛壮 讜爪讚拽讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讘诐 讜驻砖注讬诐 讬讻砖诇讜 讘诐 诪砖诇 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖爪诇讜 讗转 驻住讞讬讛谉 讗讞讚 讗讻诇讜 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讻诇讜 诇砖讜诐 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讝讛 砖讗讻诇讜 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜爪讚拽讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讘诐 讜讝讛 砖讗讻诇讜 诇砖讜诐 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讜驻砖注讬诐 讬讻砖诇讜 讘诐

Rabba bar bar 岣nna said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淔or the paths of the Lord are right, and the just walk in them, but transgressors stumble over them鈥 (Hosea 14:10)? How can the same path lead to such different outcomes? This is comparable to two people who roasted their Paschal offerings on Passover eve, in the proper manner. One ate it for the sake of the mitzva, and one ate it for the sake of excessive eating. This one, who ate it for the sake of the mitzva, has fulfilled: 鈥淎nd the just walk in them,鈥 while that one, who ate it for the sake of excessive eating, is described by the end of the verse: 鈥淏ut transgressors stumble over them.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 专砖注 拽专讬转 诇讬讛 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 驻住讞 诪讬讛讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗诇讗 诪砖诇 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讝讛 讗砖转讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 注诪讜 讜讝讛 讗砖转讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 注诪讜 诇讝讛 谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讗砖转讜 讜诇讝讛 谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讗讞讜转讜 讝讛 砖谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讗砖转讜 爪讚拽讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讘诐 讜讝讛 砖谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讗讞讜转讜 讜驻砖注讬诐 讬讻砖诇讜 讘诐

Reish Lakish said to Rabba bar bar 岣nna: You call this individual wicked? Even though he had not performed the mitzva in the optimal manner when he eats this Paschal offering, he has at least performed the mitzva of the Paschal offering. Rather, this is comparable to two people; this one has his wife and sister in the same house with him, and that one has his wife and sister with him. Each husband arrives home and engages in sexual intercourse with one of the women. This one happened upon his wife, and that one happened upon his sister. This one, who happened upon his wife, is described by the phrase 鈥淎nd the just walk in them,鈥 and that one, who happened upon his sister, is described by the phrase 鈥淏ut transgressors stumble over them.鈥

诪讬 讚诪讬 讗谞谉 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讞讚讗 讚专讱 讛讻讗 砖谞讬 讚专讻讬诐 讗诇讗 诪砖诇 诇诇讜讟 讜砖转讬 讘谞讜转讬讜 注诪讜 讛谉 砖谞转讻讜讜谞讜 诇砖诐 诪爪讜讛 讜爪讚拽讬诐 讬诇讻讜 讘诐 讛讜讗 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇砖诐 注讘讬专讛 讜驻砖注讬诐 讬讻砖诇讜 讘诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it comparable? We said one path; i.e., two people follow the same path by performing the very same action with two different outcomes; whereas here there are two paths. Each person engaged in sexual intercourse with a different relative and therefore they cannot be said to have followed the same path. Rather, it is comparable to Lot and his two daughters, who were with him. They, who intended to engage in sexual intercourse with him for the sake of a mitzva, as they thought that the entire world was destroyed and wished to preserve the human race, are described in the first part of the verse: 鈥淎nd the just walk in them.鈥 He who intended to act for the sake of a transgression is described by the last part: 鈥淏ut transgressors stumble over them.鈥

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讬讻讜讜讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜拽 讛讝讛 注诇 砖诐 注讘讬专讛 谞讗诪专

The Gemara asks: And perhaps Lot too intended that his actions should be for the sake of a mitzva? The Gemara answers: This was not the case, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said with regard to Lot: This entire verse: 鈥淎nd Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere鈥 (Genesis 13:10), is stated with regard to the sin of licentiousness. Since this verse teaches that Lot was a lustful man, it can therefore be assumed he meant to sin with his daughters as well.

讜讬砖讗 诇讜讟 讜转砖讗 讗砖转 讗讚谞讬讜 讗转 注讬谞讬讛 [讗转 注讬谞讬讜] 讻讬 讛讬讗 讬砖专讛 讘注讬谞讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan explains: 鈥淎nd Lot lifted up his eyes鈥 employs the same expression as a verse that refers to Joseph鈥檚 temptation: 鈥淭hat his master鈥檚 wife lifted up her eyes鈥 (Genesis 39:7), which is clearly referring to sin. The phrase used in reference to Lot, 鈥渉is eyes,鈥 is stated similarly to Samson鈥檚 appraisal of the Philistine girl he sought to marry: 鈥淔or she is pleasing in my eyes鈥 (Judges 14:3).

讜讬专讗 讜讬专讗 讗转讛 砖讻诐 讘谉 讞诪讜专 讗转 讻诇 讻讻专 讛讬专讚谉 讻讬 讘注讚 讗砖讛 讝讜谞讛 注讚 讻讻专 诇讞诐 讻讬 讻诇讛 诪砖拽讛 讗诇讻讛 讗讞专讬 诪讗讛讘讬 谞转谞讬 诇讞诪讬 讜诪讬诪讬 爪诪专讬 讜驻砖转讬 砖诪谞讬 讜砖讬拽讜讬讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan continues to interpret the verse as a series of references to licentiousness. The phrase 鈥渁nd saw鈥 is reminiscent of the verse dealing with Jacob鈥檚 daughter Dinah: 鈥淎nd Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, saw her and he took her, and lay with her鈥 (Genesis 34:2). The verse continues: 鈥淎ll the plain [kikar] of the Jordan,鈥 which alludes to the verse: 鈥淔or on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread鈥 (Proverbs 6:26). The last part of the verse: 鈥淭hat it was well watered everywhere,鈥 recalls: 鈥淚 will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink鈥 (Hosea 2:7).

讜讛讗 诪讬谞住 讗谞讬住 转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘 讞讜谞讬 诇诪讛 谞拽讜讚 注诇 讜讬讜 讜讘拽讜诪讛 砖诇 讘讻讬专讛 诇讜诪专 砖讘砖讻讘讛 诇讗 讬讚注 讗讘诇 讘拽讜诪讛 讬讚注

The Gemara asks: But Lot was forced to participate in the sexual intercourse, as he was asleep at the time; how can he be considered a sinner? The Gemara answers that this is as a Sage taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav 岣ni: Why is there a dot in a Torah scroll over the letter vav of the word uvekumah,鈥 with regard to Lot鈥檚 elder daughter, in the verse: 鈥淎nd he did not know when she lay down and when she arose [uvekumah]鈥 (Genesis 19:33)? This dot serves to say that when she lay down he did not know; however, when she arose he knew what she had done, as he later understood what had happened.

讜诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚诇驻谞讬讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇诪讬砖转讬 讞诪专讗

The Gemara asks: And what could he have done about it? What has happened has happened; i.e., Lot could not change the past. The Gemara answers: The difference is that on the other, following, night, he should not have drunk wine again. By allowing himself to get drunk a second time, he showed that the end result, engaging in sexual intercourse with his younger daughter, was something he desired.

讚专砖 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞 谞驻砖注 诪拽专讬转 注讝

Rava interpreted a verse homiletically with regard to Lot: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎 brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city,

讜诪讚讬谞讬诐 讻讘专讬讞 讗专诪讜谉 讗讞 谞驻砖注 诪拽专讬转 注讝 讝讛 诇讜讟 砖驻讬专砖 诪讗讘专讛诐 讜诪讚讬谞讬诐 讻讘专讬讞 讗专诪讜谉 砖讛讟讬诇 诪讚讬谞讬诐 讻讘专讬讞讬谉 讜讗专诪讜谉 诇讗 讬讘讗 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讘拽讛诇 讛壮

and their contentions are like the bars of a castle鈥 (Proverbs 18:19)? 鈥淎 brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city,鈥 this is Lot, called Abraham鈥檚 brother (see Genesis 14:14), who separated from Abraham. 鈥淎nd their contentions are like the bars of a castle,鈥 this is because Lot brought contention between the Jewish people and his own descendants like bars, which lock the gates of a castle. Just as no one can enter a locked castle, so too Lot鈥檚 descendants, Ammon and Moab, were prevented from joining the Jewish people, as it states: 鈥淎n Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:4).

讚专砖 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇转讗讜讛 讬讘拽砖 谞驻专讚 讜讘讻诇 转讜砖讬讛 讬转讙诇注 诇转讗讜讛 讬讘拽砖 谞驻专讚 讝讛 诇讜讟 讜讘讻诇 转讜砖讬讛 讬转讙诇注 砖谞转讙诇讛 拽诇讜谞讜 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讚转谞谉 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐

On the same issue, Rava expounded a verse homiletically, and some say it was Rabbi Yitz岣k: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淗e who separates himself seeks his own desire, and snarls against all sound wisdom鈥 (Proverbs 18:1)? 鈥淗e who separates himself seeks his own desire,鈥 this is Lot, who separated from Abraham. 鈥淎nd snarls [yitgala] against all sound wisdom,鈥 this too describes Lot, as his shame was eventually revealed [nitgala] in the synagogues, when his actions recorded in the Torah are read in public, and in the study halls, where the halakhot of his descendants are taught. As we learned in a mishna: An Ammonite and a Moabite are prohibited from entering the congregation by marrying a Jewish woman, and their prohibition is permanent.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 转诪专 讝讬谞转讛 讝诪专讬 讝讬谞讛

搂 In relation to the preceding discussion with regard to the daughters of Lot, who acted in a wanton manner for the sake of a mitzva, the Gemara cites that which Ulla said: Tamar engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with her father-in-law, Judah (see Genesis, chapter 38), and Zimri ben Salu also engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers, chapter 25).

转诪专 讝讬谞转讛 讬爪讗讜 诪诪谞讛 诪诇讻讬诐 讜谞讘讬讗讬诐 讝诪专讬 讝讬谞讛 谞驻诇讜 注诇讬讜 讻诪讛 专讘讘讜转 诪讬砖专讗诇

Yet despite the similarity between their actions, Tamar engaged in licentious sexual intercourse for the sake of a mitzva, to have children, and therefore she merited that kings of the House of David descended from her. King David鈥檚 lineage traces back to Tamar鈥檚 son Peretz (see Ruth 4:18鈥22). And she also merited to be the ancestor of prophets, e.g., Isaiah, who was related to the royal family. Conversely, with regard to Zimri, who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse for the purpose of a transgression, several multitudes of Israel fell due to him; twenty-four thousand in a plague (see Numbers 25:9). This shows that a great deal depends on one鈥檚 intentions.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讙讚讜诇讛 注讘讬专讛 诇砖诪讛 诪诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讬注住讜拽 讗讚诐 讘转讜专讛 讜讘诪爪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 砖诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讘讗 诇砖诪谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Greater is a transgression committed for its own sake, i.e., for the sake of Heaven, than a mitzva performed not for its own sake. The Gemara questions this comparison: But didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, as it is through acts performed not for their own sake that good deeds for their own sake come about? How, then, can any transgression be considered greater than a mitzva not for the sake of Heaven?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 转讘专讱 诪谞砖讬诐 讬注诇 讗砖转 讞讘专 讛拽讬谞讬 诪谞砖讬诐 讘讗讛诇 转讘专讱 诪讗谉 谞砖讬诐 砖讘讗讛诇 砖专讛 专讘拽讛 专讞诇 讜诇讗讛

Rather, one must emend the above statement and say as follows: A transgression for the sake of Heaven is equivalent to a mitzva not for its own sake. The proof is as it is written: 鈥淏lessed above women shall Yael be, the wife of Hever the Kenite, above women in the tent she shall be blessed鈥 (Judges 5:24), and it is taught: Who are these 鈥渨omen in the tent?鈥 They are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. Yael鈥檚 forbidden intercourse with Sisera for the sake of Heaven is compared to the sexual intercourse in which the Matriarchs engaged.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讘注 讘注讬诇讜转 讘注诇 讗讜转讜 专砖注 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬谉 专讙诇讬讛 讻专注 谞驻诇 砖讻讘 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: How is it derived that Yael engaged in sexual intercourse with Sisera? As Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That wicked one, Sisera, engaged in seven acts of sexual intercourse with Yael at that time, as it is stated: 鈥淏etween her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay; between her feet he sunk, he fell; where he sunk, there he fell down dead鈥 (Judges 5:27). Each mention of falling is referring to another act of intercourse.

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪转讛谞讬讗 诪讘注讬诇讛 讚讬诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讟讜讘转谉 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 专注讛 讗爪诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐

The Gemara asks: But Yael at least enjoyed the sexual intercourse with him; why is the verse so effusive in her praise? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: All the good of the wicked, i.e., anything good received from wicked people, is nothing other than evil for the righteous, and therefore she certainly derived no pleasure from the act.

砖谞讗诪专 讛砖诪专 诇讱 诪讚讘专 注诐 讬注拽讘 诪讟讜讘 讜注讚 专注 讘砖诇诪讗 专注 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讟讜讘 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟讜讘转讜 专注讛 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: From where is this principle derived? As it is stated in the verse that God warned Laban the Aramean, when he was chasing Jacob: 鈥淕uard yourself from speaking to Jacob, from good to evil鈥 (Genesis 31:24). Granted, with regard to the warning against speaking evil, it is fine that Laban was warned not to harm Jacob. However, why shouldn鈥檛 he say anything good to Jacob? Rather, must one not conclude from this verse that even Laban鈥檚 good is bad in Jacob鈥檚 eyes? The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that it is so.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讬注住讜拽 讗讚诐 讘转讜专讛 讜讘诪爪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 砖诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讘讗 诇砖诪谉 砖讘砖讻专 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 拽专讘谞讜转 砖讛拽专讬讘 讘诇拽 讛专砖注 讝讻讛 讜讬爪讗讛 诪诪谞讜 专讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讜转 讘转 讘谞讜 砖诇 注讙诇讜谉 诪诇讱 诪讜讗讘 讛讬转讛

搂 The Gemara returns to analyze in greater detail the above matter itself. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, as through these acts performed not for their own sake, good deeds for their own sake come about. The proof for this is that in reward for the forty-two offerings that the wicked Balak sacrificed (see Numbers, chapter 23), although he did not do so for the sake of Heaven but to facilitate the cursing of the Jewish people, nevertheless he merited that Ruth descended from him. Not only was he the forebear of a righteous convert, but also of King David. And this is as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: Ruth was the daughter of the son of Eglon, king of Moab, who descended from Balak, king of Moab.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪拽驻讞 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻专 砖讬讞讛 谞讗讛 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讻讬专讛 讚拽专讬转讬讛 诪讜讗讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 转爪专 讗转 诪讜讗讘 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 诪诇讞诪讛 诪诇讞诪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讘诇 爪注讜专讬 爪注专讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deprive one of even the reward for proper speech, i.e., for speaking in a refined manner? As while there is the case of Lot鈥檚 elder daughter, who called her son Moab [mo鈥檃v], which alludes to his shameful origins, as me鈥檃v means: From father, and the Merciful One says to Moses: 鈥淒o not besiege Moab, nor contend with them in war鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:9), which indicates: It is war that is not permitted; however, with regard to harassing, the Jews were permitted to harass them.

讜讗讬诇讜 爪注讬专讛 讚拽专讬转讬讛 讘谉 注诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转爪专诐 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 讗驻讬诇讜 爪注讜专讬 诇讗 转爪注专讬谞谉 讻诇诇

And while there is the case of Lot鈥檚 younger daughter, who called her son Ben-Ami, son of my people, without explicitly mentioning her father. With regard to her descendants, God said to Moses: 鈥淒o not harass them, nor contend with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:19), which means even as far as harassing is concerned, you may not harass them at all.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇注讜诇诐 讬拽讚讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖讘砖讻专 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 砖拽讚诪转讛 讘讻讬专讛 诇爪注讬专讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 said: A person should always come first with regard to a matter of a mitzva, as in reward of the one night that the elder daughter of Lot preceded the younger for the sake of a mitzva,

Scroll To Top