Horayot 10b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

I give you servitude,

for from now onward the burden of the community will be placed upon you. And as is proven from the verse,

as it is stated

concerning Rehoboam, when the elders advised him how to reign] [Kings I 12]

“And they spoke to him

[when they made him king]

saying: If today you will be a servant to this people.”

And therefore Rav Avdimi expounded from the verse “the house of freedom” that until now, when Uzziah was king, he was considered a servant to the community, and when he became leprous and passed from his kingship, he was considered as one who had gone out to freedom.

The Sages taught:

It is written,

“When a prince sins.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said:

“When” is in the sense of “fortunate.” —

Fortunate is the generation whose prince

feels his sin, and

brings a sacrifice for his inadvertent act!

For

if

the

prince of the generation,

whose heart by nature is not submissive, nevertheless feels his sin and

brings a sacrifice,

then is it necessary for you to say what a common person is!?

Is it necessary for you to say what a common person is!?

Surely the common person in this generation, whose heart is more submissive than that of the prince, certainly feels his sin and brings a sacrifice.

And

so you say concerning such a generation:

if

the prince feels

his inadvertent act

and

brings a sacrifice, is it necessary for you to say what his intentional act is!?

Surely, if the prince of this generation committed a transgression intentionally, he feels it and repents.

Rava, son of Rabbah, challenged this: Rather, from now on,

that in every place where “when” is written in the Torah we expound it in the sense of “fortunate,” it will be difficult: if so, what of

that which is written

concerning one who misappropriates consecrated property [Leviticus 5]

“And for what he sinned from the consecrated property, he shall pay”?

And concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat, of whom it is written

[Kings I 14]

“who sinned and caused others to sin,”

is it

also so

here that the intention of Scripture is to say

“fortunate is the generation”

in which there is one who “committed a trespass” and “caused the many to sin”!?

And the Gemara answers: Certainly one should not expound all the verses in which “when” is written as meaning “fortunate.” Rather, only here, concerning the sacrifice of a prince, did they expound this way, because

here is different,

in this verse,

for the verse changed its wording

from the other verses that refer to a sinner who must bring a sacrifice. In those, the wording “if” is stated, and not “when.”

Such as: “If the entire congregation of Israel errs,” “If the anointed priest,” “If a person.”

And therefore only here, where it is written “when a prince sins,” did they expound that it was written this way in order to expound and say: fortunate is the generation.

Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written

[Ecclesiastes 8:14]

“There is a vanity that is done upon the earth,

that there are righteous people to whom it happens according to the deed of the wicked, and there are wicked people to whom it happens according to the deed of the righteous.”

One should expound the word “when” as though “fortunate” had been stated, to teach us that

fortunate are the righteous, to whom what happens to the wicked in the World to Come happens in this world.

That is, the righteous who receive troubles in this world, as the wicked receive [punishment] in the World to Come—this matter is good for them, for they are punished in this world for their few sins, so that they may inherit the Garden of Eden in the World to Come.

And

woe to the wicked, to whom there reaches

reward in this world

according to the deed

of the reward of

the righteous of the World to Come, in this world.

For the wicked, who receive reward in this world, it is bad for them, as it is written: “And he repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy him!” For through this—that they receive the reward for their deeds in this world—they do not receive reward in the World to Come, and inherit Gehinnom.

Rava said:

But because the righteous receive punishment in this world, is the matter considered “fortunate” for them? Surely it would be better for them if they also received reward in this world.

For

is it so

that

the righteous, if they eat two worlds,

both this world and the World to Come,

would it be hateful to them?

Would such a thing be hateful and bad for them?

Rather, Rava said:

This is the meaning of this verse:

fortunate are the righteous, to whom there reach

good things

according to the deed of the wicked of this world

[who are well off in this world, as it is written: “And he repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy him”],

in this world. Woe to the wicked, to whom there reach

troubles in this world

according to the deed of the righteous of this world in this world

[there are righteous people who receive the punishment for their deeds in this world, so that they may inherit the Garden of Eden in the World to Come]. And wicked people who have troubles in this world have neither this world nor the World to Come, for their troubles do not deduct anything from their sins as long as they remain in their wickedness.

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came before Rava.

He said to them

Rava:

Have you established

whether you possess, and whether it is arranged in your mouths,

such-and-such tractate

[a certain one]

and such-and-such tractate? They said to him: Yes,

indeed, we have learned these tractates, and they are arranged in our mouths.

Rava again asked them: Have you

become wealthy

—have you become wealthy—

a little,

so that you do not need to toil after food, and you have free time to engage in Torah?

They said to him: Yes.

Indeed, we have become somewhat wealthy,

for we bought

[each one of us bought]

a small plot of land

[small land], and we are nourished from them with ease.

He recited over them

Rava this verse:

fortunate are the righteous, to whom there reaches according to the deed

and the good things of

the wicked in this world, in this world,

and they inherit two worlds, this one and the World to Come.

Rabbah bar bar Hannah said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: What

is the meaning of

that which is written

[Hosea 14]

“For the ways of the Lord are upright, and the righteous shall walk in them, but transgressors shall stumble in them”?

And it implies that it is speaking of two people who did the same thing: one is considered righteous in that act, and the other wicked. How is such a thing possible?

Rather,

it is a parable to two people who roasted

sacrifices,

their Paschal offerings,

according to law;

one ate it for the sake of the mitzva

of eating the Paschal offering,

and one ate it for the sake of gluttonous eating,

and did not intend to eat it for the sake of the mitzva.

As for the one who ate it for the sake of the mitzva,

the verse called him

“the righteous shall walk in them.”

As for the one who ate it for the sake of gluttonous eating,

the verse said concerning him

“but transgressors shall stumble in them.”

Resh Lakish said to him:

It is impossible to establish the verse in this manner. For is the one who ate it for the sake of gluttonous eating called

“wicked” by you!?

Granted,

for even though

he did not perform the mitzva in the optimal manner,

since he fulfilled the mitzva without intention, nevertheless, the Paschal offering—

did he not eat it!?

And certainly it was not concerning him that the verse said, “but transgressors shall stumble in them.”

Rather,

this is the meaning of the verse:

a parable to two people: this one had his wife and his sister with him in the house, and this one had his wife and his sister with him in the house;

to

one, his wife happened to come before him,

and he had relations with her;

and to the other, his sister happened to come before him,

and he had relations with her.

As for the one to whom his wife happened to come before him, the verse called him “the righteous shall walk in them.” And as for the one to whom his sister happened to come before him,

the verse called him

“but transgressors shall stumble in them,”

for one who has relations with his sister transgresses a prohibition punishable by karet.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: are they comparable this manner to the statement of the verse!? But

Is this comparable

we

in this verse

say

that both walked in

one path,

and performed the very same act, yet one is called righteous in his act and one wicked;

whereas

here, there are two paths,

for this one had relations with his wife and that one had relations with his sister, and the two performed different acts. It is not this that the verse is discussing.

Rather, it is a parable to Lot and his two daughters,

who, after the destruction of Sodom, when they thought that no one remained in the world except them and their father, said, “Let us preserve seed from our father,” and intended through their intercourse to continue the existence of the world.

And in this act,

they, who intended it for the sake of a mitzva,

for the preservation of the world, the verse called them

“the righteous shall walk in them.”

But

he,

Lot,

who intended it for the sake of a transgression,

the verse called him

“but transgressors shall stumble in them.”

But the Gemara was perplexed: from where do we know that Lot intended this act for the sake of a transgression?

Perhaps he too intended it for the sake of a mitzva?

Rather,

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Certainly Lot intended it for the sake of a transgression, for we find that he was already a person of transgression when he went to dwell in Sodom, as it is stated: “And Lot lifted his eyes and saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was entirely watered,” and

this entire verse was stated for the sake

[concerning]

a transgression,

for this is how they expounded this verse:

“And Lot lifted”

corresponding to what is written

“And his master’s wife lifted her eyes.”

That is, just as there, Potiphar’s wife lifted her eyes toward Joseph for the sake of a transgression, so too Lot’s lifting of his eyes here was for the sake of a transgression.

That is, just as Potiphar’s wife lifted her eyes toward Joseph for the purpose of a transgression, so too Lot’s lifting of his eyes here was for the purpose of a transgression.

“his eyes,”

corresponding to what is said regarding Samson,

“And Samson said, ‘Take her for me, for she is upright in my eyes.’”

“And he saw,”

corresponding to what is said concerning Shechem son of Hamor and Dinah,

“And Shechem son of Hamor saw her,”

who committed a transgression against her.

“all the plain of the Jordan,”

corresponding to what is said [Proverbs 6],

“For on account of a prostitute, until a loaf of bread.”

“for all of it is well-watered,”

corresponding to what is said [Hosea 2], “For their mother committed adultery; she who conceived them was ashamed. For she said:

‘I shall go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.’”

And since it is demonstrated that Lot went after licentiousness, therefore also here, in the incident with his daughters, it is considered for him as though he intended a transgression.

And the Gemara raises an objection: How is it possible to say that Lot intended a transgression,

but he was compelled,

for they brought him upon themselves while he was asleep and intoxicated?

And the Gemara answers: Lot was not compelled.

And as

the tanna taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Huna: Why is there a dot,

why is there a dot in the Torah scroll

over

the letter

vav of

the word

“when she rose”

“and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose”

of

his

older

daughter of Lot?

To tell you that

only

when she lay down

with him

did Lot not know

because he was then intoxicated from his wine,

but when she rose, he knew,

for he had already sobered from his intoxication. It follows that he was not compelled at that time.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Even if Lot knew when she rose, nevertheless he was compelled in the matter, for

what could he have done,

after he did not know when she lay down with him? After all,

what happened, happened!

And the Gemara answers:

There is a practical difference:

since he knew that she had done this with him, he should have been careful about it in the future,

on the following night,

on the evening afterward, for

he should not have drunk

wine and become intoxicated. And since he drank and became intoxicated again, he demonstrated that the matter was agreeable to him; therefore Scripture said of him, “And transgressors stumble through them.”

Rabba expounded: What

is the meaning of that which

is written [Proverbs 18],

(Proverbs 18)

“A brother offended is like a strong city, and quarrels are like the bar of a palace.”

“A brother offended is like a strong city”—

this is Lot, who separated from Abraham!

And the meaning of the word “offended” is “rebelled.” He rebelled against Abraham, who was considered like a strong city, whose merit protected all who attached themselves to him, and Lot separated from him. Therefore:

“And quarrels are like the bar of a palace,” for

when he separated,

he placed quarrels A0062

between

between Israel and

the sons of

Ammon,

who are the offspring of Lot, like the bar that locks the palace so that they cannot enter it from outside; likewise, an Ammonite and a Moabite cannot intermingle with Israel,

as it is stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.” Rabbi expounded, and some say Rabbi Yitzhak: What

is the meaning of that which

is written A0070,

Proverbs 18:

“For the one who separates himself seeks desire; in every wise matter he exposes himself.”

That is, one who wishes to separate from his fellow in order to fulfill his desire by himself, in the end his disgrace will be revealed in all places of wisdom.

“For the one who separates himself seeks desire”—

this is Lot, who separated from Abraham

and desired transgression.

“In every wise matter he exposes himself”—

that his disgrace was exposed

of Lot

in synagogues and study halls,

which are called “wisdom,” because the Torah is wisdom, and synagogues and study halls are the place of Torah.

As

we learned: An Ammonite and a Moabite are prohibited with an everlasting prohibition.

And this is Lot’s disgrace, which is learned in the study halls: that his offspring are prohibited from entering the congregation of Israel.

And Ulla said: Tamar committed adultery

with Judah,

and Zimri committed adultery

with Cozbi daughter of Zur, daughter of the king of Midian, but they are different:

Tamar committed adultery,

but she intended for the sake of a mitzva, in order to establish offspring from the righteous, as it is written, “For she saw that Shelah had grown up, and she had not been given to him as a wife”; therefore she merited and

kings and prophets emerged from her.

Whereas

Zimri committed adultery

and intended for the sake of transgression; therefore

fell

because of his sin

many tens of thousands of Israelites.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Greater is

the reward of

a transgression

performed

for its own sake,

for the sake of a mitzva,

than

the reward of

a mitzva

performed

not for its own sake.

As it is stated A0113,

Judges 5:

“Blessed among women is Yael, wife of Heber the Kenite; among women in the tent she shall be blessed!”

Yael was blessed more than those women who performed mitzvot not for their own sake, and concerning them it was said, “women in the tent.”

Who are they,

who are those women whom Scripture called by the name

“women in the tent”? Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah.

It follows from the fact that Scripture mentioned a blessing for this act that although Yael performed a transgression when she had intercourse with Sisera, nevertheless it was considered for her as a mitzva, since she did it for the sake of a mitzva, to save Israel, as below. Therefore Scripture blessed her more than the four matriarchs.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so? But Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot

and

even not for their own sake, for from

studying

not for its own sake

he merits and

comes

after some time to study

for its own sake. 9

And it is demonstrated that even a mitzva performed not for its own sake is considered a mitzva; so how do we say that a transgression for its own sake is greater than a mitzva not for its own sake, implying that a mitzva not for its own sake is not considered a mitzva at all?

And we conclude: this is what Rav Yehuda who said that Rav said:

Say:

a transgression for its own sake is as great

as a mitzva not for its own sake,

and in truth a transgression for its own sake is not greater than a mitzva not for its own sake, but equal to it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That wicked man had intercourse seven times A0205

Sisera]

at that time,

when he fled from Israel and came to Yael’s tent.

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 slain,” thus seven expressions indicating intercourse are stated here [“he crouched, he fell, he lay”].

And the Gemara objects: How can we say that Yael performed a mitzva by having intercourse with that wicked man?

But she derived benefit from a transgression!

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: Even the benefit of the wicked is evil for the righteous,

and therefore Yael did not derive benefit from that act.

In the body of the matter: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot

even not for their own sake, for from

engaging in them

not for their own sake, he comes

to engage in them

for their own sake.

As we find,

that in the merit of the forty-two sacrifices that the wicked Balak offered,

although he did so not for its own sake,

he merited, and Ruth issued from him,

as

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: Ruth,

she is

the daughter of the son of Eglon,

who was

the son of the son of Balak, king of Moab.

And behold, David issued from Ruth, for “he refreshed Him with songs and praises,” and it emerges that the seed of Balak came to [perform] for its own sake.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said, Rabbi Yohanan said: From where [do we know] that the Holy One, blessed is He, does not deprive even the reward for pleasant speech?

From here, for had

his

firstborn

daughter of Lot

called

her daughter

Moab,

the meaning of which is to say, “from my father this one came,” and she used an unclean expression, to hint in his name from where he came, that this child was born from forbidden intercourse, we find regarding her descendants that

the Merciful One said to Moses: “Do not distress Moab, and do not provoke war against them.”