Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 23

1) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "MALKUS D'ORAISA" AND "MALKUS MARDUS"

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that when a woman drinks wine thinking that she is a Nazir, unaware that her husband already annulled her Nezirus, she does not receive the 39 Malkus of the Torah. Rebbi Yehudah adds that she nevertheless receives Malkus Mardus (that is, Malkus d'Rabanan).

It is obvious that Malkus Mardus are different than Malkus of the Torah. In what way are they different?

(a) The ARUCH (Erech "Mered") writes that Malkus of the Torah are 39 lashes, but Beis Din must evaluate the strength of the person receiving the Malkus in order to determine how many Malkus he is fit to suffer without it endangering his life. Beis Din then gives him the closest number to that estimate divisible by three. Malkus Mardus, on the other hand, do not have a specific number; the Beis Din hits him until he stops sinning or "until his soul leaves him" (Kesuvos 86a), and Beis Din does not first evaluate how strong the person is.

TOSFOS (20b, DH Rebbi Yehudah) and the ROSH cite this difference from the Tosefta in the end of Makos. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 6:12), too, records this difference. This is also the view of RASHI in Chulin (141b, DH Makos).

However, the RIVASH (#90) was asked how could Malkus d'Rabanan be worse than the Malkus of the Torah? (This question is especially applicable in the case of our Gemara, where the sin of the woman cannot even be called transgressing an Isur d'Rabanan, since she is just being punished for intending to transgress an Isur d'Oraisa.)

The Rivash concludes that Malkus Mardus that are given "until his soul leaves him" are only a form of preventative Malkus, given as rebuke to convince a person to fulfill a Mitzvah actively (b'Kum v'Aseh). However, if a person transgressed a Mitzvah already and Beis Din does not want him to do anything about it, but simply to punish him, then Malkus Mardus are also only 39 Malkus, like the Malkus of the Torah. This distinction is also noted by the Tosfos and the Rosh in our Sugya. (According to the Rivash, it seems that the word "Mardus" does not mean "rebelling," but "rebuke," as in Berachos 7a; see also Rashi in Chulin, loc. cit.) According to this, however, in our Mishnah Malkus Mardus should also be 39, so what difference does it make if she gets Malkus Mardus or Malkus d'Oraisa?

(b) RABEINU TAM (cited by SHILTEI GIBORIM on the MORDECHAI, Bava Basra 8:1, and by TESHUVOS RASHBASH #96) explains that the Malkus Mardus for an Aveirah that was already done are only 13 lashes and not 39. The reason the Torah prescribes 39 is because of the need to give a triple set of lashes, one on each shoulder, and one on the stomach. Malkus Mardus do not have to be tripled and are only given on the back, and therefore only 13 are given. (This might be what the Aruch means when he mentions that Malkus d'Oraisa are "Meshulashos" but not Malkus Mardus.)

(c) The RIVASH explains that Malkus Mardus are not as powerful as Malkus d'Oraisa. They are given while the person is dressed, and without the full strength of the one administering the Malkus. He cites "Tosfos" as his source (see Tosfos in Bechoros 54a, DH u'Shnei).

The Rivash explains that this is why it is not necessary to evaluate the strength of the person before giving Malkus Mardus since they does not involve such life threatening lashes.

(d) Some say that Malkus Mardus are done with a stick instead of a whip (see Rashi, Sanhedrin 7b, DH Makel). According to this, the word "Mardus" might come from the expression of "Rodeh b'Makel" (see Sotah 40a, Shabbos 52b).

The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that Rebbi Akiva would cry when he read the verse, "Her husband annulled [her Nedarim], and Hashem will pardon her" (Bamidbar 30:13), which teaches that even if a woman tried to do an Aveirah by transgressing her Neder, but she failed to do the Aveirah because her husband already annulled the Neder without her knowledge, she still needs pardon and atonement (Selichah v'Kaparah).

Rav YOSEF ENGEL in GILYONEI HA'SHAS cites an earlier source that explains why it was specifically Rebbi Akiva who reacted in such a dramatic way to the teaching of this verse. The ARIZAL explains that the deaths of the Asarah Harugei Malchus, the ten great Tana'im tortured and executed near the time of the Churban of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, was an atonement for the sin of the ten tribes who sold Yosef to Mitzrayim (this is hinted to in a number of Piyutim composed to memorialize the Asarah Harugei Malchus). He adds that Rebbi Akiva who was the greatest among all of them, and thus his death was intended to atone for the sin of Shimon, who was the most influential one involved in the plot to sell Yosef. (His name "Akiva ben Yosef" hints that his fate was determined by what happened to Yosef.)

When the tribes asked Yosef for forgiveness after their father died (Bereishis 50:16-17), Yosef responded to them that there is nothing to forgive, explaining to them that even though they had malicious intentions when they sold him, Hashem intended it to be for the good, in order to keep the people of Yakov alive during the famine (Bereishis 50:20). (The ORACH CHAIM there points out that Yosef never actually said that he forgave them, and that is why the Asarah Harugei Malchus had to atone for the sin of the Shevatim.)

According to Yosef's response, it seems that the sin of the ten tribes for which Rebbi Akiva suffered so greatly was that they *wanted* to do evil, even though they failed in accomplishing their intent. That is why Rebbi Akiva reacted so emotionally when he read this verse, "and Hashem will pardon her," and understood that atonement is necessary even for one who merely intended to do evil. He realized that this was going to be the source for his own suffering, the seal of his own fate.

23b

QUESTION: Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav teaches that a person should always engage himself in the study of Torah and the fulfillment of Mitzvos, even if his motives are insincere ("she'Lo Lishmah"), because by practicing these acts, even though it is with ulterior motives, one will eventually practice them through sincere motivation ("Lishmah"). This precept is learned from Balak, who offered 42 sacrifices to Hashem with intention of endearing Hashem to help him destroy the Jewish people. In return for his Mitzvah "she'Lo Lishmah," Balak merited to have Ruth among his descendants (see next Insight). (The MEFARESH refers to the Gemara in Berachos (7b) that says that her name was "Ruth" because she had a great-grandson, David ha'Melech, "who satisfied (she'Rivahu) Hashem with songs and praises," which was the ultimate involvement in serving Hashem "Lishmah.")

TOSFOS (DH she'Mitoch) questions this from the Gemara in Berachos (17a) that says that "one who is involved in a Mitzvah for insincere motives is better off having not been created." Tosfos answers that the Gemara in Berachos refers to one who does a Mitzvah with intention to undermine or persecute others, while here the Gemara refers to one who does a Mitzvah just to gain honor or a good reputation.

The SEFAS EMES asks that according to this distinction, what is the Gemara's proof from Balak that one who engages in Torah and Mitzvos "she'Lo Lishmah" will eventually come to do it "Lishmah?" In the case of Balak, his offering of sacrifices to Hashem was clearly for the sake of destroying the Jewish people, and it was not just for the insincere motive of personal honor! How, then, can the Gemara prove from there that "she'Lo Lishmah" leads to "Lishmah," if Balak's form of "she'Lo Lishmah" was the type for which the Gemara in Berachos says that the person "is better off having not been created?"

ANSWER: When Tosfos says that learning Torah or doing Mitzvos in order to persecute others is bad, he means that the person has the sole intention of doing the Mitzvah in order to undermine someone else through this action which happens to be a Mitzvah. The person does not intend to do the will of Hashem at all. Balak, on the other hand, had genuine intent to do the Mitzvah in order to gain favor in the eyes of Hashem. Even though his final goal was to gain favor in the eyes of Hashem in order to bring about the downfall of the Jewish people, his immediate goal was to gain favor, which is an acceptable form of "she'Lo Lishmah."

This might be why the result of Balak's Mitzvah "she'Lo Lishmah" was a "Lishmah" that happened only after many generations passed, when Ruth was born. Since his Mitzvah "she'Lo Lishmah" was not done simply to gain honor but also included the ultimate goal of gaining honor in order to cause someone else's downfall, the merit of that Mitzvah "she'Lo Lishmah" did not come in his lifetime. In contrast, when a person is involved in a Mitzvah "she'Lo Lishmah" only for his own personal benefit, then he merits, personally, to be involved in a Mitzvah "Lishmah."

QUESTION: Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav teaches that a person should always engage himself in the study of Torah and the fulfillment of Mitzvos, even if his motives are insincere ("she'Lo Lishmah"), because by practicing these acts, even though it is with ulterior motives, one will eventually practice them through sincere motivation ("Lishmah"). This precept is learned from Balak, who offered 42 sacrifices to Hashem and, in return, he merited to have Ruth among his descendants. (The MEFARESH refers to the Gemara in Berachos (7b) that says that her name was "Ruth" because she had a great-grandson, David ha'Melech, "who satisfied (she'Rivahu) Hashem with songs and praises," which was the ultimate involvement in serving Hashem "Lishmah.")

We know that Hashem always deals with mankind through the system of "Midah k'Neged Midah," measure for measure, in that the reward or punishment Hashem metes out for one's deed always corresponds to the deed itself. What, then, is the connection between Balak's 42 sacrifices and his reward of being the forebear of the greatest king of Israel?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI in Sotah (47a, DH Zachah) offers a very simple explanation. David planned (and his son Shlomo executed) the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim -- the place where Hashem chose to have sacrifices brought before Him. Hence, the sacrifices of Balak led to the institution of a place of worship where sacrifices would be offered on a regular basis.

(b) We may add that even the number of Balak's sacrifices (42), of which the Gemara makes special mention, is accounted for in Balak's reward. Balak's 42 sacrifices were actually offered at three different locations and times, each occasion involving *14* sacrifices (see Bamidbar 23:1, 23:14, 23:29). Fourteen is the numerical value of the name David (4+6+4)!

The years of David's life may be divided into three periods: 1) Before he was anointed as king; 2) the seven years that he ruled, in Chevron, only over the tribe of Yehudah; and 3) the 33 years that he ruled in Yerushalayim over the united kingdom of Israel. Perhaps the three sets of sacrifices (14 in each set) offered by Balak corresponded to the three stages in the development of David ha'Melech's kingship.

We may add yet another dimension to this analysis. We read in the book of Shmuel (I 13:1) that Shaul ha'Melech, who ruled over Israel for two years before David took over, sinned against Hashem in the first year of his reign (following Rashi's interpretation of that verse). According to Seder Olam (ch. 13), it was at that point that the prophet Shmuel went to anoint David as king of Israel (see Shmuel I, ch. 16). According to this, David was anointed as king for two years before he "officially" ascended to the throne at Chevron. If we add these two years to the total length of David ha'Melechs reign, we will see that David was anointed as king of Israel for a total of exactly 42 years! We can now discern a close parallel between Balak's acts (his sacrifice of 42 animals) and his reward (having his descendant anointed as king over Israel for 42 years).