הוריות י

הוריות י

וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא מֵבִיא פַּר, חָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי נָשִׂיא, דְּכִי עָבַר מִנְּשִׂיאוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא – כְּהֶדְיוֹט מַיְיתֵי, אַהָכִי תָּנֵי גַּבֵּי מָשִׁיחַ [חָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר] מֵבִיא פַּר.

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.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר,

§ 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.

שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה נָשִׂיא שֶׁמֵּבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵין מֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר, מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – [לֹא] כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּבִיא עַל חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר.

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.

וְנַיְיתֵי נָמֵי נָשִׂיא מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – מֵבִיא חַטָּאת מִשֶּׁעָבַר, נָשִׂיא שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאת בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״, כְּשֶׁהוּא נָשִׂיא – אִין, כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט – לָא.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ חָטְאוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַנּוּ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּהֶדְיוֹטוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם נוֹדַע לָהֶם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ – חַיָּיבִים, וּמִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנּוּ – פְּטוּרִים.

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.

אֵיזֶהוּ נָשִׂיא? זֶה מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״, שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו.

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.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא (לְאַשְׁמַת)״ – פְּרָט לַקּוֹדְמוֹת,

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.

שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה נָשִׂיא שֶׁמֵּבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵין מֵבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת, מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת!

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?

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנָשִׂיא – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר, תֹּאמַר בְּמָשִׁיחַ – שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר, הוֹאִיל וּמֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר – יָבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא״, חָטָא כְּשֶׁהוּא מָשִׁיחַ – מֵבִיא, כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא.

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.

וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי גַּבֵּי נָשִׂיא כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״ – פְּרָט לַקּוֹדְמוֹת,

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.

שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת, נָשִׂיא שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת?

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.

מָה לְמָשִׁיחַ שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, תֹּאמַר בְּנָשִׂיא שֶׁמֵּבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה? הוֹאִיל וּמֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – יָבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״ – שֶׁחָטָא וַהֲרֵי הוּא נָשִׂיא, וְלֹא שֶׁחָטָא וְעוֹדֵהוּ הֶדְיוֹט.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״, יָכוֹל גְּזֵרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא״, מָה לְהַלָּן לִכְשֶׁיֶּחֱטָא – אַף כָּאן לִכְשֶׁיֶּחֱטָא.

§ 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.

אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל גְּזֵרָה, גְּזֵרָה מֵהֵיכָא תֵּיתֵי?

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?

אָמְרִי אִין, אַשְׁכְּחַן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם״, בְּשׂוֹרָה הִיא לָהֶם שֶׁנְּגָעִים בָּאִים עֲלֵיהֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: פְּרָט לְנִגְעֵי אוֹנָסִין. לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּשׂוֹרָה? הָכָא נָמֵי אֵימָא גְּזֵרָה הִיא! הִלְכָּךְ כְּתִיב: ״אִם״.

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.

וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, נִגְעֵי אוֹנָסִין מִי לָא מְטַמּוּ? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה״ – מִן הַדִּבּוּר וְאֵילָךְ. וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: טָמֵא בְּזָב וְטָמֵא בִּנְגָעִים, מָה זָב – מִן הַדִּבּוּר וְאֵילָךְ, אַף נְגָעִים – מִן הַדִּבּוּר וְאֵילָךְ?

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.

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּזָב שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, תֹּאמַר בִּנְגָעִים שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין בְּאוֹנֶס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה״, מִן הַדִּבּוּר וְאֵילָךְ. רָבָא אָמַר: פְּרָט לְנִגְעֵי רוּחוֹת. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: פְּרָט לְנִגְעֵי כְשָׁפִים.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״ – פְּרָט לְחוֹלֶה. מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ חוֹלֶה, אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִנְּשִׂיאוּתֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב אַבְדִּימִי בַּר חָמָא: פְּרָט לְנָשִׂיא שֶׁנִּצְטָרַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְנַגַּע ה׳ אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיְהִי מְצֹרָע עַד יוֹם מֹתוֹ וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּבֵית הַחׇפְשִׁית וְיוֹתָם בֶּן הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל הַבַּיִת״. מִדְּקָאָמַר ״בְּבֵית הַחׇפְשִׁית״, מִכְּלָל דְּעַד הַשְׁתָּא עֶבֶד הֲוָה.

§ 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.

כִּי הָא דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הֲווֹ אָזְלִי בִּסְפִינְתָּא, בַּהֲדֵי דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הֲוָה פִּיתָּא, בַּהֲדֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הֲוָה פִּיתָּא וְסוּלְתָּא. שְׁלִים פִּיתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, סְמַךְ אַסּוּלְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי הֲוָה יָדְעַתְּ דְּהָוֵה לַן עִכּוּבָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי דְּאַיְתֵית סוּלְתָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כּוֹכָב אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה עוֹלֶה וּמַתְעֶה אֶת (הַסְּפִינוֹת) [הַסַּפָּנִים], וְאָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה וְיַתְעֶה [אוֹתָנוּ].

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כׇּל כָּךְ בְּיָדְךָ, וְאַתָּה עוֹלֶה בִּסְפִינָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה תָּמֵהַּ עָלַי, תְּמַהּ עַל שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ בַּיַּבָּשָׁה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא, שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין לְשַׁעֵר כַּמָּה טִפּוֹת יֵשׁ בַּיָּם, וְאֵין לָהֶם פַּת לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֹא בֶּגֶד לִלְבּוֹשׁ! נָתַן דַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹשִׁיבָם בָּרֹאשׁ.

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.

כְּשֶׁעָלָה, שָׁלַח לָהֶם וְלֹא בָּאוּ, חָזַר וְשָׁלַח וּבָאוּ. אָמַר לָהֶם: כִּמְדוּמִּין אַתֶּם שֶׁשְּׂרָרָה אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָכֶם?

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?

עַבְדוּת אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָכֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר אִם הַיּוֹם תִּהְיֶה עֶבֶד לָעָם הַזֶּה״.

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.”

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: אַשְׁרֵי הַדּוֹר שֶׁהַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁלּוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ. אִם נָשִׂיא שֶׁלּוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן, צָרִיךְ אַתָּה לוֹמַר מַהוּ הֶדְיוֹט! וְאִם עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן, צָרִיךְ אַתָּה לוֹמַר מַהוּ זְדוֹנוֹ!

§ 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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר חָטָא מִן הַקֹּדֶשׁ יְשַׁלֵּם״, וּבְיָרׇבְעָם בֶּן נְבָט, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״אֲשֶׁר חָטָא וַאֲשֶׁר הֶחֱטִיא״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאַשְׁרֵי הַדּוֹר הוּא! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּשַׁנִּי קְרָא בְּדִבּוּרֵיהּ.

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.

דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״יֶשׁ הֶבֶל אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה עַל הָאָרֶץ וְגוֹ׳״ – אַשְׁרֵיהֶם לַצַּדִּיקִים, שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַבָּא בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. אוֹי לָהֶם לָרְשָׁעִים, שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַבָּא בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: אַטּוּ צַדִּיקֵי אִי אָכְלִי תְּרֵי עָלְמֵי מִי סְנֵי לְהוּ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אַשְׁרֵיהֶם לַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַזֶּה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, אוֹי לָהֶם לָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַזֶּה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה.

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.

רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אוֹקֵימְתּוּן מַסֶּכְתָּא פְּלָן וּמַסֶּכְתָּא פְּלָן? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִין. אִיעַתְּרִיתוּ פּוּרְתָּא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִין, דִּזְבַנַן קַטִּינָא דְּאַרְעָא. קָרֵי עֲלַיְיהוּ: אַשְׁרֵיהֶם לַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה.

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.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יְשָׁרִים דַּרְכֵי ה׳ וְצַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״? מָשָׁל לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁצָּלוּ פִּסְחֵיהֶם, אֶחָד אֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה, וְאֶחָד אֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה. זֶה שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה – ״צַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם״, זֶה שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה – ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״.

§ 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.”

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רָשָׁע קָרֵית לֵיהּ? נְהִי דְּלָא עָבֵיד מִצְוָה מִן הַמּוּבְחָר, פֶּסַח מִי לָא קָאָכֵיל? אֶלָּא: מָשָׁל לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, זֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת, וְזֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת, אֶחָד נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאֶחָד נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ, זֶה שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ – ״צַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָּם״, וְזֶה שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ – ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״.

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.”

מִי דָּמֵי? אֲנַן קָאָמְרִינַן חֲדָא דֶּרֶךְ, וְהָכָא שְׁנֵי דְּרָכִים! אֶלָּא מָשָׁל לְלוֹט וּשְׁתֵּי בְנוֹתָיו, הֵן שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּונוּ לְשֵׁם מִצְוָה – ״צַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם״, הוּא שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּון לְשֵׁם עֲבֵירָה – ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״.

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.”

וְדִלְמָא הוּא נָמֵי לְשֵׁם מִצְוָה (הוּא מְכַוֵּין) [אִיכַּוַּון]! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, כׇּל הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה לְשֵׁם עֲבֵירָה נֶאֱמַר.

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.

״וַיִּשָּׂא לוֹט״ – ״וַתִּשָּׂא אֵשֶׁת אֲדֹנָיו אֶת עֵינֶיהָ״, ״אֶת עֵינָיו״ – ״וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשׁוֹן [וְגוֹ׳] אוֹתָהּ קַח לִי כִּי הִיא יָשְׁרָה בְעֵינָי״, ״וַיַּרְא״ – ״וַיַּרְא אֹתָהּ שְׁכֶם בֶּן חֲמוֹר״, ״אֶת כׇּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן״ – ״כִּי בְעַד אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה עַד כִּכַּר לָחֶם״, ״כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה״ – ״אֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי מְאַהֲבַי נֹתְנֵי לַחְמִי וּמֵימַי צַמְרִי וּפִשְׁתִּי שַׁמְנִי וְשִׁקּוּיָי״.

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).

וְהָא מֵינָס אֲנִיס! תָּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי חוֹנִי: לָמָּה נָקוּד עַל וָיו שֶׁבְּ״קוּמָהּ״ שֶׁל בְּכִירָה? לוֹמַר לָךְ, שֶׁבְּשִׁכְבָהּ לָא יָדַע אֲבָל בְּקוּמָהּ יָדַע. וּמַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? מַאי דַּהֲוָה הֲוָה! נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ דִּלְפַנְיָא אַחֲרִינָא לָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִישְׁתֵּי.

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.

דָּרֵשׁ רַבָּה, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אָח נִפְשָׁע מִקִּרְיַת עֹז וּמִדְיָנִים כִּבְרִיחַ אַרְמוֹן״? ״אָח נִפְשָׁע מִקִּרְיַת עֹז״ – זֶה לוֹט שֶׁפֵּירַשׁ מֵאַבְרָהָם, ״וּמִדְיָנִים כִּבְרִיחַ אַרְמוֹן״ – שֶׁהֵטִיל מִדְיָנִים בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעַמּוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל 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).

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״לְתַאֲוָה יְבַקֵּשׁ נִפְרָד (וּבְכָל) [בְּכָל] תּוּשִׁיָּה יִתְגַּלָּע״? ״לְתַאֲוָה יְבַקֵּשׁ נִפְרָד״ – זֶה לוֹט שֶׁנִּפְרָד מֵאַבְרָהָם. ״(וּבְכָל) [בְּכָל] תּוּשִׁיָּה יִתְגַּלָּע״ – שֶׁנִּתְגַּלָּה קְלוֹנוֹ בְּבָתֵּי כְּנֵסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת. דִּתְנַן: עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אֲסוּרִין אִסּוּר עוֹלָם.

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.

וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: תָּמָר זִנְּתָה וְזִימְרִי זִינָּה. תָּמָר זִנְּתָה – יָצְאוּ מִמֶּנָּה מְלָכִים וּנְבִיאִים, זִימְרִי זִינָּה – נָפְלוּ כַּמָּה רְבָבוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: גְּדוֹלָה עֲבֵירָה לִשְׁמָהּ מִמִּצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּבֹרַךְ מִנָּשִׁים יָעֵל אֵשֶׁת חֶבֶר הַקֵּינִי מִנָּשִׁים בָּאֹהֶל תְּבֹרָךְ״, מַאן נִינְהוּ ״נָשִׁים בָּאֹהֶל״? שָׂרָה, רִבְקָה, רָחֵל וְלֵאָה.

§ 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.

אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ. אֵימָא: כְּמִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁבַע בְּעִילוֹת בָּעַל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ כָּרַע נָפַל שָׁכָב וְגוֹ׳״. וְהָא קָא מִיתְהַנְיָא מֵעֲבֵירָה? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: אֲפִילּוּ טוֹבָתָם שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים רָעָה הִיא אֵצֶל צַדִּיקִים.

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַמִּצְוֹת אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁבִּשְׂכַר אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנַיִם קׇרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהִקְרִיב בָּלָק הָרָשָׁע, זָכָה וְיָצְתָה מִמֶּנּוּ רוּת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רוּת בַּת בְּנוֹ שֶׁל עֶגְלוֹן, בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל בָּלָק מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְקַפֵּחַ אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכַר שִׂיחָה נָאָה? מֵהָכָא, דְּאִילּוּ בְּכִירָה דִּקְרָיתֵיהּ מוֹאָב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה: ״אַל תָּצַר אֶת מוֹאָב וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָם מִלְחָמָה״. מִלְחָמָה

§ 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