Previous daf

1)

(a) We have already quoted the Mishnah, that a Nezirah who contravened her Neder receives Malkos, provided her husband has not annulled her Nezirus. Rebbi Yehudah says there that a woman who contravenes her Nezirus after her husband has already annulled her Nezirus - receives Malkos mi'de'Rabbanan (Makas Mardus).

(b) The Tana of a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Iyshah Hafeiram, va'Hashem Yislach Lah" - that a woman who contravenes her Neder, requires a Kaparah, even though, unknowing to her, her husband already annulled it.

(c) Rebbi Akiva wept when he arrived at this Pasuk - because, he exclaimed, if someone who intended to sin but did *not*, requires a Kaparah, how much more so someone who *did*.

(a) The Pasuk "ve'Lo Yada ve'Asheim ve'Nasa Avono" - refers to someone who transgressed a Safek Kareis, who is required to bring an Asham Taluy.

(b) In similar vein to the previous Pasuk, the Tana Kama learns from there that if someone who inadvertently ate Chazir instead of lamb's meat requires a Kaparah, a parable for someone who ate a piece of Safek Shuman (Kasher fat) and Safek Cheilev (non-Kasher fat), then how much more so someone who actually intended to eat it and did. Isi ben Yehudah interpret the same parable (not with regard to someone who ate a piece of Safek Cheilev, Safek Shuman, but) - with regard to someone who ate one of two pieces, one of which was Cheilev, the other one, Shuman (where, unlike in the previous case, the Isur is fixed).

(c) Isi ben Yehudah exclaimed 've'Al Zeh Yidavu Kol ha'Dovim' in this connection. The acronym of "Yidavu" is - "Yada, ve'Asheim, ve'Nasa".

(a) We now have three similar cases which basically come to teach us the same thing. Having taught us the case of ...

1. ... 'Ishah she'Heifer Lah Ba'alah', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add the case of 'Chatichah Safek shel Cheilev, Safek shel Shuman' - because we would otherwise have thought that, seeing as (unlike in the former case), he did not intend to sin, he will not require a Kaparah.
2. ... 'Chatichah Safek shel Cheilev, Safek shel Shuman', he nevertheless finds it necessary to add the case of 'Ishah she'Heifer Lah Ba'alah' - because we would otherwise have thought that *she* does not require a Kaparah, because (unlike in the former case), she did not actually sin.

(b) And having taught us these two cases, he still needed to add the case of 'Sh'tei Chatichos, Achas shel Shuman ve'Achas shel Shuman' - to teach us that, even though the Isur is fixed, a Kaparah achieves forgiveness without any further measures being necessary.

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan connects the Pasuk in Hoshei'a "Yesharim Darkei Hashem, Tzadikim Yeilchu Bam, u'Resha'im Yikashlu Bam" to two people who ate their Pesach, one of them 'Achilah Gasah' (on a full stomach, without any appetite). We reject this connection however - on the grounds that there is no reason to refer to someone who ate the Pesach 'Achilah Gasah' as a Rasha (seeing as he has fulfilled his obligation).

(b) The Sugya in Yoma, which exempts someone who eats 'Achilah Gasah' on Yom Kipur from a Chatas (suggesting that Achilah Gasah is not considered Achilah at all) - is referring to someone who has already eaten so much, that to eat more, would make him feel sick (though it is not then clear why we could not establish our Sugya too, in that way to explain the Pasuk - see 'Rashi' [and ha'Gahos Rav Renshberg], who avoids this problem) Tosfos.

(c) And we reject the suggestion that the Pasuk refers to two people who are in their respective homes, each with his wife and sister, one of whom is intimate with his wife, the other, with his sister - on the grounds that the Pasuk refers to *one* Derech, and not *two* (meaning that it is referring to a case where each of the two people concerned did exactly the same thing, only with different motives).

(a) So we connect the Pasuk with Lot and his two daughters. We initially reject the suggestion that Lot's daughters are the Tzadikim (for being intimate with their father in order to save the world), whereas Lot (whose motives were not pure) is the Rasha - on the grounds that there is nothing to suggest that Lot's motives were not just as pure as those of his daughters'.

(b) There is no proof from here that a Nochri is forbidden to marry his daughter - because, even if he is permitted to do so, the Nochrim of those generations (following the flood) had accepted it upon themselves as a prohibition.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan attempts to answer this by citing the Pasuk "Vayisa Lot es Einav ... " - from which he extrapolates that Lot was in fact, a lover of adultery, who was motivated to live in S'dom precisely because of the adultery that was practiced there.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan's answer however, is inadequate - because his role in the episode with his daughters was purely beyond his control (seeing as they had made him drunk), in which case, irrespective of his general behavior, he was an O'nes.

(a) We finally resolve our problem from the Pasuk "be'Shichvah u've'Kumah", which is written with a 'dot' on top of the 'Vav' of "u've'Kumoh, from which we learn - that although he did not know what happened at the beginning, he was aware of what happened when he arose.

(b) What Lot could have done about it at that stage - was to do have been on his guard the second night, and it is for not doing so that he is referred to as a Rasha.

7)

(a) Rava Darshens various Pesukim with regard to Lot. The Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ach Nifsha mi'Kiryas Uzo" means - that Lot (whom the Torah refers to as Avraham's brother) separated from Avraham, who is referred to as "Tzur" (which is a symbol of 'Oz' [strength]).
2. ... "u'Medanim ki'Beri'ach Armon" - that the strife of which he was guilty caused him to sin with his daughters, which in turn, was the reason that his descendants (Amon and Mo'av) were later precluded from smarrying into K'lal Yisrael and from entering the Azarah, like the bolt of the palace gate, which keeps unwanted people out).

(b) And the meaning of the other Pasuk there ...

1. ... "le'Ta'avah Yevakesh Nifrad" is - that he separated from Avraham in order to pursue his desires.
2. ... "u've'Chol Tushiyah Yisgala" - that his disgrace is now revealed in all Toros (both the written and the oral).

(c) This last Pasuk hints at the Batei Keneisi'os and Batei Medrashos - because it is in the former that one reads from a Sefer-Torah about the prohibition of Amon and Mo'av, and in the latter that one learns the sayings of Chazal that elaborate on the prohibition.

(d) Amonim and Mo'avim are prohibited from entering the Kahal - forever.

(a) The difference between Tamar and Zimri, both of whom committed adultery, yet from the one descended kings and prophets, whereas the other caused tens of thousands of Yisrael to die is - that the former acted for the sake of Hashem, to perform the 'Mitzvah' of Yibum (when she saw that Yehudah was not marrying her to Sheilah his youngest son); whereas Zimri did what he did in for his own personal pleasure.

(b) The kings who descended from Tamar were the Malchei Beis David - the prophets were Amotz (King Amatzi'ah's brother) and his son Yeshayah.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement 'Gedolah Aveirah Lishmah mi'Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah' (relegating Mitzvos she'Lo Lishmah to an extremely low level) clashes with his other statement 'Le'olam Ya'asok Adam be'Torah u've'Mitzvos Afilu she'Lo Lishmah, she'mi'Toch she'Lo Lishmah Ba Lishmah'.

(d) The amended statement reads - 'Gedolah Aveirah Lishmah ke'Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah'.

(a) We reconcile the principle 'Le'olam Ya'asok Adam be'Torah u've'Mitzvos Afilu she'Lo Lishmah, she'mi'Toch she'Lo Lishmah Ba Lishmah' with Chazal, who say in B'rachos that when someone learns Torah she'Lo Lishmah, he would have been better not to have been born - by establishing the former who studies to become great and make a name for himself (which is after all, a positive motive), whereas the latter speaks when he learns Torah purely in order to prove others wrong (which is totally negative).

(b) We learn that an Aveirah Lishmah is as great as a Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah, from Yael - who had Bi'ah with Sisro in order to weaken him before killing him.

(c) We learn this from the Pasuk "Tevorach mi'Nashim Yael ... mi'Nashim be'Ohel Tevorach", which places her on a par with the Imahos (to whom the term 'Ohel' pertains, because her Aveirah Lishmah (purely for the sake of Hashem) was as great as the Imahos Bi'ah with the Avos (which was she'Lo Lishmah, due to the personal pleasure that they inevitably derived from it).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "Bein Raglehah Kara, Nafal, Shachav ... " (containing seven expressions using one of these three words) that Sisro had Bi'ah with Ya'el seven times (increasing Yael's merit).

11)

(a) We refer to Yael's relations with Sisro as an 'Aveirah *Lishmah*', and to whilst referring to the relations of the Imahos with their husbands as a 'Mitzvah *she'Lo Lishmah*' - because Tzadikim do derive any pleasure from their dealings with Resha'im (however intimate they may be).

(b) We do not ask why Yael should rather have given up her life than perform Bi'ah with Sisro - because as long as a woman plays a passive role in the actual Bi'ah, she is considered 'Karka Olam' (and is certainly not obligated to give her life like a man is).

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Hishamer Lecha mi'Daber Im Ya'akov mi'Tov ve'Ad Ra" - that even the good things that a Rasha does to a Tzadik is harmful in his eyes.

(d) The harm that Lavan did to Ya'akov was his mention of idolatry. The harm that Sisro did to Yael - was the filth with which he impregnated her?

(a) We learn from Balak, who offered forty-two sacrifices to Hashem, - and who was rewarded with having as a 'granddaughter' the Tzadekes, Rus, that Hashem rewards amply for a Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah. (Presumably, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav maintains that Balak's prime concern was the protection of his people, and not the destruction of Yisrael).

(b) We arrive at forty-two sacrifices - because he constructed seven Mizbechos in three separate locations, and on each Mizbei'ach he sacrificed a bull and a ram.

(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates from the daughters of Lot that Hashem does not withhold the reward of even nice speech. Consequently. Lot's younger daughter displayed more refinement than her sister - by calling her son ben Ami (which was later changed to Amon). Consequently, the Torah will later prohibit Yisrael from starting with Amon at all; whereas due to the elder daughter a lack of refinement in calling her son 'Mo'av' (a corruption of 'me'Av' - 'from my father'), Yisrael (who were not permitted to fight with Mo'av) were (nevertheless) permitted to frighten (and even plunder) them.

(b) The older daughter, on the other hand, earned kingship for her generations four generations before her sister - for being the one to instigate the Mitzvah Lishmah in saving the world.

(c) This means - that Rus (ha'Mo'avis) married Boaz, whose initial lineage comprised Oved, Yishai, David and Shlomoh; whereas Na'amah (ha'Amonis) married Rechavam, son of Shlomoh, only four generations later.