Nazir 23b (כג:) — the Talmud in English

A brother estranged from a stronghold": "

Brother:"

this is Lot,

the son of Abraham’s brother, who estranged himself—“from a stronghold”: “stronghold” is expounded as though it said “strong,” meaning something hard as a rock—

who separated from Abraham,

who was called “rock,” as it is stated: “Look to the rock from which you were hewn and to the hole of the pit from which you were quarried. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you”." "

And disputes are like the bars of a palace":

For he caused disputes

between himself and Israel,

like bars and a palace,

like the bars that lock the palace, preventing those outside from entering within; so too, an Ammonite or a Moabite cannot become integrated into Israel, as it is stated:

“An Ammonite or a Moabite may not enter the assembly of the Lord.”

Rava expounded, and some say Rabbi Yitzhak:

What is the meaning of that which is written

in Proverbs 18:1:

“One who separates himself seeks desire, and in every sound teaching he reveals himself”? "

Desire"

—of transgression—

“he seeks separation”:

this is Lot,

who separated himself from Abraham and sought desire, as it is stated: “Please separate yourself from me,” etc. “And Lot lifted his eyes and saw the entire plain of the Jordan.” And what did he see there? Desire, as explained above on page 23a, that the entire verse refers to transgression. "

And in every sound teaching"

—in the entire Torah, both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah—

“he reveals himself”

—an expression of revelation—

for his disgrace was revealed,

because he had relations with his daughters,

in synagogues

where the Written Torah is read,

and in study halls

where the Oral Torah is expounded.

As it is stated in the Written Torah: “An Ammonite or a Moabite may not enter the assembly of the Lord.”

As we learned

in the Oral Torah:

“An Ammonite and a Moabite are forbidden, and their prohibition is an eternal prohibition.”

Ulla said:

Tamar committed an illicit act

and

Zimri committed an illicit act,

what is the difference between the two?

Tamar committed an illicit act

with the intention of fulfilling a mitzva, in order to establish offspring from righteous Judah, as it is stated: “For she saw that Shelah had grown up”—Judah’s son—“and she had not been given to him as a wife”; and

kings emerged from her,

namely, the Davidic dynasty, which descended from Peretz, Tamar’s son,

and prophets,

for Amotz, [the father of Isaiah the prophet,] was a prophet, and Amotz and King Amaziah, who was descended from David, were brothers.

But

Zimri committed an illicit act

for the sake of transgression, and

several tens of thousands of Israelites fell because of him,

as it is stated: “And those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.”

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

An illicit act performed for the sake of Heaven is greater

than an act performed for the sake of a mitzva

not for its own sake—

Before the Gemara finished presenting all his words, the Gemara challenged him: He had said that an illicit act performed for the sake of Heaven is greater than a mitzva performed not for its own sake. This implies that a mitzva performed not for its own sake is not significant:

But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, since through acting not for their own sake one comes to act for their own sake!?

Rather, say:

An illicit act performed for the sake of Heaven is greater

than a mitzva performed not for its own sake!

As it is written

in the song of Deborah and Barak son of Avinoam after Sisera’s death: "

Most blessed among women is Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite;

most blessed among women in the tent.

She asked for water, he gave her milk; in a majestic bowl she brought cream. Her hand reached for the tent peg, and her right hand for the workmen’s hammer; she hammered Sisera, she crushed his head, she shattered and pierced his temple. Between her legs he bowed, fell, lay—this is an expression referring to intercourse—between her legs he bowed, fell; where he bowed, there he fell, slain."

Jael committed an illicit act with the intention of fulfilling a mitzva, in order to weaken Sisera so that she could kill him.

Who are

the women in the tent?

Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

That wicked man had intercourse seven times

with Sisera

at that time,

as it is stated,

using seven expressions of bowing, falling, and lying:

“Between her legs he bowed, fell, lay,

between her legs he bowed, fell; where he bowed, there he fell, slain.”

And we challenge this:

But she benefited from his intercourse

—did Jael not benefit from the transgression? And why does the verse praise her!?

He said—

he answered—

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

All the benefit of the wicked is only evil for the righteous, as it is stated

in the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Laban when he pursued Jacob:

“Beware that you speak with Jacob neither from good to bad.”

And at first glance, this may be challenged:

Granted,

“bad”

is properly understood:

the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded him not to speak with Jacob.

But

“good,”

why may he not

speak with Jacob!?

Rather, can one not conclude from here that his benefit

—Laban’s—

is evil

for Jacob: perhaps he would mention the name of an idolatry in the course of his words, and the Torah said: “You shall not mention the name of other gods; it shall not be heard upon your mouth”—that is, the name of other gods may not be heard through you, even from the mouth of others.

Conclude from here that it is evil for the righteous, and the reason in the case of Jael is that he imparted impurity to her.

The principal matter: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, since through acting not for their own sake one comes to act for their own sake.

For in the merit of the forty-two sacrifices

that the wicked Balak offered,

not for their own sake, but so that Balaam would be able to curse Israel,

he merited, and Ruth descended from him,

who was the ancestress of the Davidic dynasty. Thus, he received reward even for a mitzva performed not for its own sake.

And from where do we know that Ruth descended from Balak, king of Moab?

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina said: She was the daughter of his grandson

—that is, from his descendants—

of Eglon, king of Moab,

and Eglon was descended from Balak, who was king of Moab.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

From where is it derived that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deprive anyone even of the reward for a pleasant utterance?

For whereas

Lot’s

older daughter,

of Lot,

called it

—the name of the son born to her from her father—

“Moab,”

like “from a father”—

the Merciful One said

to Moses [Deuteronomy 2:9]: “And the Lord said to me:

Do not harass Moab and do not provoke them to war”;

war is what you may not wage against him, but you may cause him distress.

Whereas

Lot’s

younger daughter

called it

“son of my people,”

He said to him

—the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses [Deuteronomy 2:19]: “And you are approaching opposite the children of Ammon;

do not harass them and do not provoke them”;

and this implies:

you may not cause them distress at all.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa:

A person should always be first to undertake a matter of mitzva, for in the merit of the one night by which the older daughter preceded the younger

to conceive from their father—

and this implies:

you may not distress them at all.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha:

A person should always be the first to undertake a mitzva, for as a reward for the older daughter being the first to conceive from their father on one night

—end of fragment.