Previous daf

1)

(a) Having taught us in the Seifa that the Kohen Gadol brings a Par even if he sinned after being removed from office, our Mishnah nevertheless finds it necessary to present the Reisha, which repeats this ruling where he sinned before being removed from office - because, since he needed to teach us in the Seifa, that a Nasi has the Din of a Hedyot, he inserted the Din of a Kohen Gadol in the Reisha to balance it.

(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv al Chataso" - that a Kohen Gadol who sinned after he has been removed from office, brings a Par He'elam Davar, even though he is no longer a Kohen Gadol when he brings his Korban.

(c) If not for the Pasuk, we might have learned a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Nasi - who is Patur even though he is Chayav for Shigegas Ma'aseh (whereas a Kohen Gadol is Patur).

(d) And the Tana learns from the Pasuk there "Asher Nasi Yecheta" - that a Nasi is only Chayav to bring a Sa'ir, as long as he is a Nasi. We might otherwise have thought - that if a Kohen Gadol is Chayav even after he has been removed from office, even though he is Patur from Shigegas Ma'aseh, then how much more so will a Nasi (who is Chayav by Shigegas Ma'aseh) be Chayav.

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah gives a Kohen Gadol and a Nasi who sin and are then appointed, the Din of a Hedyot - who is Patur by He'elam Davar.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, the criterion is - not only when they sinned, but also when they discover that they sinned. Consequently, they are only Patur if they find out after the appointment, but not before.

(c) Rebbi Shimon also disagrees with the Tana Kama's previous ruling, where the Nasi and the Kohen Gadol sinned after leaving office. According to him - if they discover that they sinned only after being removed from office, they do not bring a Par and Sa'ir respectively.

(d) Our Mishnah defines 'Nasi' as - a king (as we explained in the previous Perek.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk there "Im ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Yecheta" - that (according to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah) the Kohen Gadol is only Chayav a Par for sins that he performed after he has been apppointed (to preclude sins that he performed before he took office).

(b) We suggest that we would know that anyway, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the Nasi - who is Patur even though he is generally Chayav a Sa'ir by Shigegas Ma'aseh, then a Kohen Gadol, who is Patur by Shigegas Ma'aseh, should certainly be Patur.

(c) We counter this Kashya however - by citing the earlier case, where the Nasi who has been removed from office is Patur from a Chatas for sins that he performed whilst he was still Nasi (whilst a Kohen Gadol is Chayav [a Pircha on the Kal va'Chomer]).

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk there "Asher Nasi Yecheta" - that (according to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah) the Nasi is only Chayav a Par for sins that he performed after he has been apppointed (to preclude sins that he performed before he took office).

(b) Using reverse logic (to the previous case), we initially thought that we could learn this Halachah from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Kohen Gadol - who is Patur despite the fact that he is Chayav a Chatas even for sins that he performed after he has been removed from office (whereas a Nasi is not).

(c) And we counter the 'Kal-va'Chomer' - from Shigegas Ma'aseh (where the Kohen Gadol is more lenient than the Nasi [a Pircha on the 'Kal-va'Chomer').

(a) The Beraisa initially interprets the Pasuk "Asher Nasi Yecheta" to mean - that by Divine decree, the Nasi is destined to sin (be'Shogeg).

(b) He therefore learns from "Im ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Yecheta" - that just as there is no such decree regarding the Kohen Gadol, so too, is there no such decree on the Nasi either (and we will see later why the Torah uses this expression by Nasi).

(c) We quote the Pasuk "Ve'nasati Nega Tzara'as be'Veis Eretz Achuzaschem" - (meaning that this is what will happen) as a precedent that the Torah does sometimes give such negative predictions (see Mitzpeh Eisan).

(d) This is actually the way Rebbi Yehudah Darshens the latter Pasuk. According to Rebbi Shimon, what the Pasuk means is - that by Nig'ei Batim, the plague must be purely heaven-sent, and not caused by man.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Adam *Ki Yih'yeh* be'Or Besaro Se'eis ... " - that Dinim of Tzara'as only took effect on Nega'im that appeared after Matan Torah (but not on those that were already there before).

(b) We cannot learn this from a Zav, where the Torah also writes "Ki Yih'yeh Zav mi'Besaro" (with the same implication) - because Tzara'as has a Chumra over Zivus, in that it takes efect even be'Ones, whereas Zivus does not.

(c) This poses a Kashya on Rebbi Shimon ('P'rat le'Nig'ei Onsin'). Rava answers 'P'rat le'Nig'ei Ruchos' - by which he means that Rebbi Shimon is referring to Nega'im that came through the power of the demons (but not that came as a person hurting himself).

(d) Rav Papa says - "P'rat le'Nig'ei Cheshafim' (Nega'im that came through witchcraft), but not that came through other means (even demons).

(a) Rav Avdimi bar Chama explains the Beraisa which Darshens "Asher Nasi Yecheta", 'P'rat le'le'Choleh' to mean (not that he is merely sick, but) - one who is stricken with Tzara'as.

(b) That is what happened to Uziyah Hamelech - who was succeeded by his son Yosam.

(c) This Tana argues with Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rebbi Yossi Hegelili on the previous Amud - who learned this from the Pasuk "Lo Sasig Yado" (based on the fact that a deposed king retains his wealth).

(d) The Pasuk in Melachim refers to Uziyah's new abode as a Beis Hachofshis - because authority (bearing in mind the responsibility that accompanies it) is really a form of Avdus.

(a) The source for this latter statement is Raban Gamliel, who was once traveling with Rebbi Yehoshua on a boat, when he ran short of bread. Rebbi Yehoshua however, had taken along flour as well as bread - which he shared with him.

(b) When Rebbi Yehoshua ascribed his foresight (in taking along flour, which does not turn moldy as quickly as bread) to a certain star - he was referring to a star which appears in the sky once every seventy years, and which, unlike other stars, sometimes appears to the right of the north star,and sometimes to the left, causing navigational havoc.

(c) This elicited Raban Gamliel's surprise in that - Rebbi Yehoshua, who was so wise, had to travel so extensively for his Parnasah.

(a) The previous incident caused Rebbi Yehoshua to mention Rebbi Elazar Chisma and Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda to Raban Gamliel. The extent of ...

1. ... their knowledge - was the ability to assess the number of drops of water in the ocean.
2. ... their poverty was the fact that they possessed neither a slice of bread to eat nor clothes to wear.

(b) Raban Gamliel rectified the shortcoming - by giving then an important Rabbinical post (from which they would be able to sustain themselves).

(c) When they refused to come the first time he called them, he told them - that, even if they thought that he was offering them a position of esteem (from which they were running away), they should know that what they would really receive was an Avdus.

(d) And he quoted them the Pasuk (said by the elders to Rechavam) - "Im ha'Yom Tih'yeh Eved la'Am ha'Zeh".

10)

(a) Raban Yochanan ben Zakai explained the Pasuk "Asher Nasi Yecheta" to mean - that the generation whose king confesses to having sinned, is a fortunate generation indeed (from the word "Ashrei"). And if the king confesses to having sinned be'Shogeg, imagine how much more so one can expect ...

1. ... a Hedyot who sinned - to confess.
2. ... a Nasi who sinned be'Meizid - to confess.

(b) We answer Rava bar Rabah's Kashya from the Pesukim "ve'es Asher Chata min ha'Kodesh Yeshalem and "Asher Chata va'Asher Hechti es ha'Rabim" - by ascribing Raban Yochanan's D'rashah (not to the word "Asher" itself, but) to the fact that the Torah changed from the word "Im" to "Asher".

(c) Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda Darshened the Pasuk "Yesh Hevel Asher Na'aseh al ha'Aretz". When he said ...

1. ... "Ashreihem la'Tzadikim she'Magi'a Aleihem ke'Ma'aseh shel Olam ha'Ba, ba'Olam ha'Zeh', he meant to say - how fortunate are the Tzadikim when they receive the punishment in this world that is reserved for the Resha'im in Olam ha'Ba (i.e. they suffer in this world, in order to cleanse them for Olam ha'Ba).
2. ... 'Oy Lahem la'Resha'im she'Magi'a Aleihem ke'Ma'aseh ha'Tzadikim ba'Olam ha'Ba ba'Olam ha'Zeh', he meant - woe to the Resha'im, when they receive the reward that is reserved for the Tzadikim in Olam ha'Ba, in this world (to drive them out of Olam ha'Ba).

(d) Rava objected to this explanation however - because he saw no reason why the Tzadikim should not enjoy both worlds.

(a) So Rava explains ...

1. ... 'Ashreihem la'Tzadikim ... ' to mean - how fortunate are the Tzadikim, when they receive in this world, the reward reserved for the Resha'im in this world.
2. ... 'Oy Lahem la'Resha'im ... ' to mean - woe to the Resha'im, when they receive in this world, the suffering reserved for the Tzadikim in this world (because then they have nothing, neither this world, not the next).

(b) Rav Papa and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua had both learned the various Masechtos that Rava mentioned. When he inquired about their Parnasah, they replied - that they had both purchased a small plot of land, from which they were sustained.

(c) Rava subsequently exclaimed - 'How fortunate are the Tzadikim, who receive in this world, the reward that is reserved for the Resha'im in this world.

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah initially explained the Pasuk in Hoshei'a "Ki Yesharim Darkei Hashem Tzadikim Yeilchu Bam, Re'sha'im Yikashlu Bam" - to refer to two people who roasted a Korban Pesach, where the one ate it in order to fulfill the Mitzvah, the other, purely as a dessert.

(b) Resh Lakish objected to ...

1. ... this explanation however - on the grounds that someone who eats the Pesach in this way is not a Rasha. He may not have fulfilled the Mitzvah in the ideal manner, but that hardly renders him a Rasha.
2. ... the second suggestion that the Pasuk speaks about two people who are in their respective houses with their wife and their sister, where the one had relations with his wife, and the other, inadvertently had relations wwith his sister - on the grounds that this is a case of two different paths (since they in fact, performed two different acts), whereas the Pasuk is referring to two people traversing the same path.

(c) When we establish the Pasuk by Lot and his daughters, we mean - that we are referring to Lot, who had relations with his daughters, only whereas their intentions were for the sake of saving the world, his was purely for his personal pleasure.

(d) We answer the query how we know that Lot intended to sin, by citing Rebbi Yochanan - who interprets every phrase in the Pasuk "Vayisa Lot es Einav" detrimentally (since each one is based on another Pasuk, which has evil connotations).

(a) We ask how it is possible to accuse Lot of sinning, when, in a state of total inebriation, he was A'nus. And we answer by citing Rebbi Yossi bar Rebbi Choni, who Darshens from the dot on the 'Vav' of "u've'Kumah" - that even though Lot did not know in advance what his daughters had contrived to do, he was aware of what happened when he awoke on the first night.

(b) Despite the fact that he only realized what had happened as he got up - he should have guarded himself against getting drunk the following night.

(c) Rabah (or Rava) ascribes the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ach Niftier mi'Kiryas Oz" to Lot, who separated from his 'brother' Avram.
2. ... "u'Medinim ki'Beri'ach Armon" - to the ongoing enmity between Lot's offspring (Amon and Mo'av) and Avraham's (K'lal Yisrael), as the Torah writes in Ki Seitzei "Lo Yavo Amoni u'Mo'avi bi'Kehal Hashem" (like the bolt of the palace that prevents those who are outside from entering).
3. ... "le'Sa'avah Yevakesh Nifrad, be'Chol Tushi'ah Yisgala" (though some quote this in the name Rebbi Yitzchak) to Lot, who separated from Avraham in order to give vent to his desires, an act which became revealed in the Torah, and which we all read about whenever we learn Parshas Ki-Seitzei.

(a) Tamar had illicit relations, says Ula, and so did Zimri. The difference between them was - that whereas from Tamar, who did what she did for the sake of Hashem, there descended kings (Malchus Beis David) and prophets (Yeshayah and Amotz, his father), Zimri caused tens of thousands of B'nei Yisrael to die.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak derives from the Pasuk "Tevorach mi'Nashim Ya'el ... mi'Nashim be'Ohel (the Imahos) Tevorach" that - a sin Leshem Shamayim is equal to a Mitzvah she'Lo Leshem Shamayim.

(c) The initial wording of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's statement is 'Gedolah Aveirah li'Shemah *mi'Mitzvah* she'Lo li'Shemah' - implying that a Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah is not a good thing, whereas Rav Yehudah Amar Rav has taught that one should not hesitate to perform a Mitzvah she'Lo Lishmah, because this will result in one's eventually performing it Lishmah.

(d) So we amend it to - 'Gedolah Aveirah li'Shemah *ke'Mitzvah* she'Lo li'Shemah'

(a) Ya'el allowed herself to be raped seven times by Sisra, as the Pasuk in Shoftim indicates ("Bein Raglehah Kara, Nafal, Shachav ... ") - in order to weaken him, so that she would be able to kill him.

(b) The reason that she is praised for doing that, Rebbi Yochanan explains in the name of Shimon bar Yochai is - because Tzadikim do not derive pleasure from relationships with Resha'im (see Tosfos Nazir 23b DH 've'Ha Mis'hanya').

(c) Balak ha'Rasha sacrificed forty-two Korbanos (a bull and a ram on the seven Alters that he built on three occasions), so that Yisrael should fall into his hands.

(d) As a reward - he merited that Rus descended from him, as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina states, eliciting the principle 'Le'olam Ya'asok be'Torah u've'Mitzvos she'Lo li'Shemah ... ' from Rav Yehudah Amar Rav.