Horayot 10b:2הוריות י׳ ב:ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Horayot 10b:2'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
10bי׳ ב

עבדות אני נותן לכם שנאמר (מלכים א יב, ז) 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.”

ת"ר (ויקרא ד, כב) אשר נשיא יחטא אמר ריב"ז 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 דכתי' (ויקרא ה, טז) ואת אשר חטא מן הקדש ישלם ובירבעם בן נבט דכתיב ביה (מלכים א יד, טז) 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 (קהלת ח, יד) 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 עלמי 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 (הושע יד, י) כי ישרים דרכי ה' וצדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם משל לשני בני אדם שצלו פסחיהם אחד אכלו לשום מצוה ואחד אכלו לשום אכילה גסה זה שאכלו לשום מצוה צדיקים ילכו בם זה שאכלו לשום אכילה גסה ופושעים 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.”

א"ל 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 צדיקים ילכו בם וזה שנזדמנה לו אחותו ופושעים 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 צדיקים ילכו בם הוא שנתכוון לשם עבירה ופושעים 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 א"ר 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.

(בראשית יג, י) וישא לוט (בראשית לט, ז) ותשא אשת אדניו את עיניה את עיניו (בראשית לד, ד) ויאמר שמשון [וגו'] אותה קח לי כי היא ישרה בעיני וירא (בראשית לד, ב) וירא אותה שכם בן חמור את כל ככר הירדן (משלי ו, כו) כי בעד אשה זונה עד ככר לחם כי כלה משקה (הושע ב, ז) אלכה אחרי מאהבי נותני 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 וי"ו שבקומה של בכירה לומר לך שבשכבה לא ידע אבל בקומה ידע ומאי ה"ל 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 (משלי יח, יט) אח נפשע מקרית עוז ומדינים כבריח ארמון אח נפשע מקרית עוז זה לוט שפירש מאברהם ומדינים כבריח ארמון שהטיל מדינים בין ישראל לעמון שנאמר (דברים כג, ד) 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 ר' יצחק מאי דכתיב (משלי יח, א) 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 (שופטים ה, כד) תבורך מנשים יעל אשת חבר הקיני מנשים באהל תבורך 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 (שופטים ה, כז) 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 מ"ב 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.

א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מנין שאין הקב"ה מקפח אפילו שכר שיחה נאה מהכא דאילו בכירה דקרייה מואב אמר ליה רחמנא למשה (דברים ב, ט) 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