Horayot 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

“I am assigning you servitude,”

for from now on the burden of the community will be placed upon you. And this is demonstrated by the verse

“as it is stated”

with regard to Rehoboam, when the elders advised him how to rule, in I Kings 12:

“And they spoke to him

when they appointed him king,

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

And therefore Rav Avdimi expounded the verse “the house of freedom”: until then, when Uzziah was king, he was considered a servant of the community; but when he became leprous and was removed from the kingship, he was considered as one who had gone free.

The Sages taught:

It is written:

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

“Asher,” meaning “fortunate,”

fortunate is the generation whose ruler

senses his sin and

brings an offering for his unwitting transgression!

For

if

the

its ruler

, whose heart is not naturally submissive, nevertheless senses his sin and

brings an offering,

then

is it necessary for you to state what is the case of an ordinary person!?

Surely an ordinary person in this generation, whose heart is more submissive than that of the ruler, certainly senses his sin and brings an offering.

And

so you say concerning such a generation:

if

the ruler senses

his unwitting transgression

and

brings an offering, is it necessary for you to state what is the case of his intentional transgression!?

Surely, if the ruler of this generation commits a transgression intentionally, he senses it and repents.

Rava, son of Rabba, objected to this: If that is so,

that everywhere in the Torah where “asher” is written we expound it as meaning “fortunate,” the following difficulty arises: What then is the meaning of that which is

written

concerning one who misappropriates consecrated property, in Leviticus 5:

“And he shall repay that which he sinned against from the sacred property”?

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

in I Kings 14:

“who sinned and caused others to sin,”

is it

likewise

the case here that the meaning of the verse is to say

“fortunate is the generation”

in which there is one who “acts treacherously with consecrated property” and “causes the masses to sin”?

The Gemara answers: Certainly, not every verse in which “asher” is written should be expounded as meaning “fortunate.” Rather, only here, with regard to the offering of a ruler, did they expound it in this manner, because

this case is different

: in this verse,

the verse deviates in its wording

from the other verses referring to a sinner who must bring an offering. In those verses, the word “if” is used, and not “asher.”

For example: “If the entire congregation of Israel errs,” “If the anointed priest,” and “If a person.”

And therefore, only here, where it is written “When a ruler sins,” did they expound that it was written in this manner in order to derive and state: Fortunate is the generation.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written

in Ecclesiastes 8:14:

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

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

The word “asher” should be expounded as though it said “fortunate,” teaching us that

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

That is, it is beneficial for the righteous who receive afflictions in this world, as the wicked receive them in the World-to-Come, for they are punished in this world for their few sins, so that they will inherit the Garden of Eden in the World-to-Come.

And

woe to the wicked, to whom what happens

—reward—in this world happens

according to the deeds

—the reward—of

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

For the wicked who receive their reward in this world are thereby harmed, as it is written: “And He repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them!” Since they receive the reward for their deeds in this world, they do not receive reward in the World-to-Come, and they inherit Gehinnom.

Rava said:

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

For

is it so

—

if the righteous could eat in two worlds,

both this world and the World-to-Come,

would they dislike it?

Would such a thing be hateful and harmful to them?

Rather, Rava said:

This is the meaning of this verse:

fortunate are the righteous, to whom what happens

—benefits—

according to the deeds of the wicked of this world

who fare well in this world, as it is written: “And He repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them—

in this world. Woe to the wicked, to whom what happens

—afflictions in this world—

according to the deeds of the righteous of this world, in this world

[there are righteous people who receive punishment for their deeds in this world so that they will inherit the Garden of Eden in the World-to-Come]. And wicked people who have afflictions in this world have neither this world nor the World-to-Come, because their afflictions do not diminish their sins for 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:

“Are you established,”

that is, do you possess and have it arranged in your mouths,

tractate such-and-such

[a certain tractate]

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

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

Rava asked them again: Had you

become wealthy

—have you become wealthy—

a little,

so that you do not need to toil for your sustenance and have leisure to engage in Torah?

They said to him: “Yes.”

Indeed, we have become somewhat wealthy,

for we purchased

[each of us purchased]

a small plot of land

[a small piece of land], and we are sustained from them comfortably.

He recited concerning them

Rava recited this verse:

“Fortunate are the righteous, to whom what happens according to the deeds

and the benefits

of the wicked in this world happens in this world,”

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

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: What

is the meaning of

that which is written

in Hosea 10:

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

It implies that there are two people who did the same thing: one is considered righteous for that act, while the other is wicked. How can this be?

Rather,

it is analogous to two people who roasted

their

Paschal offerings

properly:

one ate it for the sake of the mitzva

of eating the Paschal offering,

and the other ate it for the sake of gross eating,

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

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

the verse says of him:

“The righteous will walk in them.”

Regarding the one who ate it for the sake of gross eating,

the verse says of him:

“But transgressors will stumble in them.”

Reish Lakish said to him:

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

“wicked”!?

Granted,

even though he

did not perform the mitzva in the optimal manner

because he fulfilled the mitzva without the proper intention,

did he not at least eat the Paschal offering!?

Surely the verse, “But transgressors will stumble in them,” was not said of him.

Rather,

this is the meaning of the verse:

“It is analogous to two people, each of whom had his wife and his sister with him in the house;

for

one encountered his wife

and had intercourse with her,

while the other encountered his sister

and had intercourse with her.

Regarding the one who encountered his wife, the verse says of him: “The righteous will walk in them.” And regarding the one who encountered his sister,

the verse says:

“But transgressors will stumble in them,”

because one who has intercourse with his sister violates a prohibition punishable by karet.

The Gemara objects: Are they comparable to the matter stated in the verse!? Surely we

Is this comparable

are saying in this verse

that

both followed

one path,

and performed the very same act, yet one is called righteous for his act and the other wicked.

But

here there are

two paths,

for this one had intercourse with his wife and that one had intercourse with his sister, and the two performed different acts. The verse is not referring to such a case.

Rather, it is analogous 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 offspring from our father,” intending through intercourse with him to perpetuate 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, are described by the verse:

“The righteous will walk in them.”

But

he,

Lot,

who intended it for the sake of a transgression,

is described by the verse:

“But transgressors will stumble in them.”

But the Gemara asks: How 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:

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

Certainly Lot intended it for the sake of a transgression, for we find that he was already a transgressor when he went to live 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 with regard

[in the context]

to transgression,

for this is how they expounded this verse:

“And Lot lifted”

corresponds 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 purpose of a transgression, so too Lot’s lifting of his eyes here was for the purpose of a transgression.

“his eyes,”

corresponds to what is stated concerning Samson:

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

“And he saw,”

corresponds to what is stated concerning Shechem son of Hamor and Dinah:

“And Shechem son of Hamor saw her,”

and he committed a transgression with her.

“All the plain of the Jordan,”

corresponds to what is stated [Proverbs 6]:

“For on account of a prostitute one is reduced to a loaf of bread.”

“For it is all well-watered,”

corresponds to what is stated [Hosea 2]: “For their mother has committed harlotry; she who conceived them has acted shamefully. For she said:

‘I will follow 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 followed after harlotry, therefore here as well, in the incident with his daughters, it is considered for him as though he intended to commit a transgression.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can it be said that Lot intended to commit a transgression?

But he was coerced,

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

The Gemara answers: Lot was not coerced.

And this is

as the tanna taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Huni: Why are dots placed

—why is there a dot in the Torah scroll

above

the letter

vav that is

in the word

“when she arose”

[“And he did not know when she lay down or when she arose”]

of

his

elder

daughter of Lot?

To tell you that

only

when she lay down

with him

did Lot not know,

as he was then intoxicated from his wine,

but when she arose, he knew,

for by then he had recovered from his intoxication. It follows that at that time he was not coerced.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Even if Lot knew when she arose, nevertheless he was coerced in the matter, because

what could he have done,

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

what happened, happened!

The Gemara answers:

There is a practical difference:

once he knew what she had done with him, he should have been careful about it in the future,

on the following night,

the next evening, for

he should not have drunk

wine and become intoxicated. And since he drank and became intoxicated again, this demonstrated that he was comfortable with the matter. Therefore Scripture said concerning him: “And transgressors stumble over them.”

Rabba taught: What

is meant by

that which is written

[Proverbs 18]:

“A brother offended is more inaccessible than a fortified city, and quarrels are like the bars of a citadel”?

“A brother offended is more inaccessible than a fortified city”—

this is Lot, who separated from Abraham!

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

“And quarrels are like the bars of a citadel,”

for when he separated from him

he created quarrels

[strife and distance]

between Israel and

the descendants of

Ammon,

who were Lot’s progeny, like a bar that locks a citadel so that those outside cannot enter it. Likewise, an Ammonite and a Moabite cannot intermarry with Israel,

as it is stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbi Yehuda taught, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak: What

is meant by

that which is written

[Proverbs 18]:

“One who separates himself seeks desire; he rages against all sound wisdom”?

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

“One who separates himself seeks desire”—

this is Lot, who separated from Abraham

and desired transgression.

“He rages against all sound wisdom”—

his disgrace was revealed

of Lot

in synagogues and houses of study,

which are called “sound wisdom,” because the Torah is sound wisdom, and synagogues and houses of study are places of Torah.

As

we learned in the Mishna: An Ammonite and a Moabite are prohibited with an eternal prohibition.

And this is Lot’s disgrace, which is studied in houses of study: that his descendants are prohibited from entering the assembly of Israel.

And Ulla said: Tamar committed harlotry

with Judah,

and Zimri committed harlotry

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

Tamar committed harlotry,

but she intended it for the sake of a mitzva, in order to establish offspring from the righteous, as it is written: “For she saw that Shela had grown, yet she had not been given to him as a wife.” Therefore she merited that

kings and prophets emerged from her.

Whereas

Zimri committed harlotry

and intended to commit a transgression. Therefore

there fell

because of his sin

many tens of thousands of Israelites.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Greater is

the reward of

a transgression

that is performed

for its own sake,

for the sake of a mitzva,

than

the reward of

a mitzva

that is performed

not for its own sake.

As it is stated

[Judges 5]:

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

Yael was blessed more than those women who performed mitzvot not for their own sake, concerning whom it is stated: “women in the tent.”

Who are they,

who are those women whom Scripture called

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

It is implied by the blessing that Scripture mentions concerning this act that although Yael committed a transgression when she was intimate 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 explained below. Therefore Scripture blessed her more than the four Matriarchs.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Is that so? But Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot

and

even not for their own sake, because from

studying

not for its own sake

one merits and

comes

after some time to study

for its own sake 9 .

This proves that even a mitzva performed not for its own sake is considered a mitzva. How, then, can we say that a transgression performed for its own sake is greater than a mitzva performed not for its own sake? This implies that a mitzva performed not for its own sake is not considered a mitzva at all.

The conclusion is that this is what Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav said:

Say:

a transgression performed for its own sake is greater

than a mitzva performed not for its own sake,

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That wicked man had intercourse seven times

[Sisera]

at that time,

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

as it is stated: “Between her legs he bent, he fell, he lay,

between her legs he bent, he fell; where he bent, there he fell slain,” thus seven expressions indicating intercourse are stated here [“he bent, he fell, he lay”].

The Gemara raises an objection: How could we say that Yael performed a mitzva by engaging in intercourse with that wicked man?

But she derived pleasure from a transgression!

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: Even the benefit received by the wicked is harmful to the righteous,

and therefore Yael did not derive benefit from that act.

In connection with the matter itself: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot

even שלא לשמה, because from

engaging in them

שלא לשמה, he comes

to engage in them

As we find

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

although he did so שלא לשמה,

he merited that Ruth emerged from him,

as

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: Ruth,

was

the daughter of the son of Eglon,

who was

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

And David emerged from Ruth, who “refreshed Him with songs and praises,” and it follows that the descendants of Balak ultimately arrived at לשמה.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, blessed be He, withholds not even the reward for pleasant conversation?

From here, for had

the daughter

the elder

of Lot

who called

her son

Moab,

meaning that she said, “From my father this one has come,” using an immodest expression to allude in his name to the source from which he came, that this child had been born through a forbidden act, we find concerning his descendants that

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