ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 23
(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
(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.
(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.
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.
(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
(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
(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.
(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]).
(b) And the meaning of the other Pasuk there ...
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).
1. ... "le'Ta'avah Yevakesh Nifrad" is - that he separated from Avraham in
order to pursue his desires.
(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.
2. ... "u've'Chol Tushiyah Yisgala" - that his disgrace is now revealed in
all Toros (both the written and the oral).
(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
(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).
The Imahos are referred to as "Nashim be'Ohel" - because by each of them,
the Torah writes the word "Ohel" (which in turn, is a reflection of their
level of modesty [as the Pasuk in Tehilim writes "Kol Kevudah bas Melech
(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
(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).
(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
(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
(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.