Nazir 23b — the Talmud in English

A brother estranged from a fortified city":

“A brother”:

this is Lot,

the son of Abraham’s brother, who estranged himself—“from a fortified city”: “fortified” is expounded like “strong,” meaning hard as rock—

who separated himself 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 hollowed. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you.” "And

with quarrels like the bar of a palace":

For he placed quarrels

between himself and Israel,

like bars and a palace,

like bars with which the palace is locked, so that outsiders cannot enter inside; and so an Ammonite and a Moabite cannot mingle with Israel, as it is stated:

“An Ammonite and a Moabite shall 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:

“For desire he will seek one who separates himself, and against all sound wisdom he will expose himself”? "

For desire"—

of transgression—"

he will seek one who separates himself":

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. And as explained above, on page 23a, the entire verse was stated with reference to transgression. "

And against all sound wisdom"—

in all Torah, in the Written Torah and the Oral Torah—"

he will expose himself"—

an expression of revealing—

for his disgrace was revealed,

that he had intercourse 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 and a Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.”

For we learned

in the Oral Torah:

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

Ulla said:

Tamar committed sexual transgression

and

Zimri committed sexual transgression;

what is the difference between this one and that one?

Tamar committed sexual transgression,

but she intended it for the sake of a mitzva, in order to establish offspring from the 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 came forth from her,

namely, the kingdom of the House of David, which came from Perez, Tamar’s son,

and prophets,

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

But

Zimri committed sexual transgression

for the sake of transgression, and

many tens of thousands of Israel fell because of him,

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

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

Greater is a transgression for the sake of Heaven

than a transgression performed for the sake of a mitzva

than a mitzva not for its own sake—

Before the Gemara finished bringing all his words, the Gemara challenges him: He said that a transgression for the sake of Heaven is greater than a mitzva not for its own sake, and if so, it implies that a mitzva not for its own sake is not significant:

But did not Rav Judah say in the name of Rav: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, since from acting not for their own sake he comes to act for their own sake!?

Rather, say:

a transgression for the sake of Heaven is greater

than a mitzva not for its own sake!

For it is written

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

Blessed among women is Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite;

among women in the tent she shall be blessed.

Water he asked for, milk she gave; in a mighty bowl she brought cream. Her hand to the peg she sent forth, and her right hand to the laborer’s hammer; she hammered Sisera, she crushed his head, and she shattered and pierced his temple. Between her legs he knelt, fell, lay [this is an expression of intercourse]; between her legs he knelt, fell; where he knelt, there he fell, vanquished.”

And Yael performed a transgression and intended it for the sake of a mitzva, in order to weaken Sisera’s strength so that she could kill him.

Who are “

the women in the tent”?

Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

That wicked man had intercourse seven times

[Sisera]

at that time,

as it is stated,

seven times in the language of kneeling, falling, and lying:

“Between her legs he knelt, fell, lay,

between her legs he knelt, fell; where he knelt, there he fell, vanquished.”

And we challenge:

But she derived pleasure from his intercourse

[and yet Yael benefited from the transgression]; and why does the verse praise her!?

He said,

he answered,

Rabbi Yohanan:

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 lest you speak with Jacob from good to evil”—

And seemingly one could challenge:

Granted,

“evil”

is fitting—

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

but

“good”,

why not

speak with Jacob!?

Rather, is it not evident from here that his benefit

of Laban

is evil

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

It follows

that it is evident

that it is evil for the righteous, and the reason in the case of Yael is that he injected impurity into her.

The body of the matter: Rav Judah said in the name of Rav:

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

For as the reward for 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 mother of royalty; thus he received reward even for a mitzva not for its own sake.

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

And Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: Ruth was the daughter of his son

[that is, from his descendants]

of Eglon, king of Moab,

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

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

From where do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold

even the reward for a fine expression?

For whereas

Lot’s

older

daughter,

who called him

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 distress Moab and do not provoke them to war”;

it is war that you may not wage, but you may cause him distress

[only do not wage war against him, but cause him distress].

Whereas

Lot’s

younger

daughter

who called him “

son of my people,”

He said to him

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

do not distress them and do not provoke them,”

and it implies:

you shall not cause them any distress at all.

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

A person should always be early in performing a mitzva, for as the reward for one night in which the older daughter was earlier than the younger

to conceive from their father—