Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 23a

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN UNDERTAKES A NAZIRITE VOW AND THEN DRINKS WINE OR IS DEFILED BY A CORPSE,²  SHE IS TO RECEIVE FORTY [STRIPES]. IF HER HUSBAND DECLARES IT VOID WITHOUT HER BEING AWARE OF IT, AND SHE DRINKS WINE OR IS DEFILED BY A CORPSE, SHE DOES NOT RECEIVE THE FORTY [STRIPES]. R. JUDAH SAID: ALTHOUGH [IT MAY BE A FACT THAT] SHE DOES NOT RECEIVE THE FORTY [STRIPES]. SHE SHOULD RECEIVE THE STRIPES INFLICTED FOR DISOBEDIENCE.³

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [In the verse,] Her husband hath made them void,' and the Lord will forgive her,⁴  Scripture is speaking of a woman whose husband has declared her [vow] void without her knowledge.⁵  [intimating] that she requires atonement and forgiveness. When R. Akiba reached this verse. he wept: 'For if one who intended to take swine's flesh and by chance takes lamb's flesh⁶  stands in need of atonement and forgiveness, how much more so does one who intended to take swine's flesh and actually took it, stand in need thereof'?⁷

A similar inference may be made [from the verse]. Though he know it not, yet is he guilty and shall bear his iniquity.⁸  If of one who intends to take lamb's flesh and by chance takes swine's flesh, for instance in the case of [one who ate] a slice of fat concerning which it was uncertain whether it was of the permitted or the forbidden kind,⁹  the text says, 'and shall bear his iniquity', how much more so [is this true] of one who intended to take swine's flesh and actually took it.

Isi b. Judah interpreted [the verse], Though he know it not, yet is he guilty and shall bear his iniquity, [as follows]. If of one who intends to take lamb's flesh and takes swine's flesh for instance in the case of [one who eats one of] two slices¹⁰  of fat one of which is forbidden fat and the other permitted fat, the text says, and shall bear his iniquity, how much more so [is this true] of one who intended to take swine's flesh and actually took it. For this let them grieve that are fain to grieve.

But what need is there for all these cases?¹¹  — They are all necessary. For if we had only been told about the woman, [we might have thought] that atonement and forgiveness are necessary there,¹²  because from the very beginning her intention was to do that which is forbidden, whereas with the slice concerning which it is uncertain whether it is forbidden or permitted fat, where his intention was to do that which is permitted,¹³  [we might have thought] that atonement and forgiveness are not necessary. If, on the other hand, we had only been told about the latter, [we might have thought] that it is because there is a definite prohibition involved,¹⁴  whereas the woman whose husband has declared her [vow] void and whose act is [consequently] permitted, should not require atonement and forgiveness. Again, if we had only been told of these two cases, we might have thought that in these two cases atonement and forgiveness suffice, since the presence of something forbidden is not definite, whereas with two slices of which one is forbidden and one permitted fat, where the presence of something forbidden is definite, atonement and forgiveness do not suffice.¹⁵  We are therefore told that there is no difference.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana, quoting R. Johanan, said:¹⁶  The verse, For the ways of the Lord are right, and the just do walk in them,' but transgressors do stumble therein,¹⁷  may be illustrated by the following example. Two men roast their paschal lambs.¹⁸  One eats it with the intention of fulfilling the precept¹⁹  and the other eats it with the inten tion of having an ordinary meal. To the one who eats it to fulfil the precept [applies]. 'And the just do walk in them,' but to the one who eats it to have an ordinary meal [applies], 'but transgressors do stumble therein'. Resh Lakish remarked to him: Do you call such a man wicked? Granted that he has not fulfilled the precept in the best possible manner, he has at least carried out the passover rite. Rather should it be illustrated by two men, each of whom had his wife and his sister staying with him. One chances upon his wife and the other chances upon his sister. To the one who chances upon his wife [applies], 'And the just do walk in them', and to the one who chances upon his sister [applies], 'but transgressors do stumble therein'.

But are the cases comparable? We speak [in the verse] of one path, whereas here [in the example given] there are two paths.²⁰  Rather is it illustrated by Lot when his two daughters were with him.²¹  To these [the daughters], whose intention it was to do right,²²  [applies], 'the just do walk in them', whereas to him [Lot] whose intention it was to commit the transgression [applies], 'but transgressors do stumble therein'.

But perhaps it was his intention also to do right? — [Do not think this for a moment, for]²³  R. Johanan has said: The whole of the following verse indicates [Lot's] lustful character. And Lot lifted up²⁴  is paralleled by, And his master's wife lifted up her eyes upon;²⁵  'his eyes' is paralleled by, for she hath found grace in my eyes²⁶  'and beheld' is paralleled by, And Shechem the son of Hamor beheld her;²⁷  'all the kikar ['plain'] of the Jordan' by For on account of a harlot, a man is brought to a kikar ['loaf'] of bread,'²⁸  and 'fat' it was well watered everywhere' by, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink.²⁹

But [Lot] was the victim of compulsion?³⁰  — It had been taught on behalf of R. Jose son of R. Honi that the dot³¹  over the letter waw [_ 'and'] in the word U-bekumah ['and when she arose']³²  occurring in [the story of] the elder daughter, is to signify that it was her lying down that he did not notice, but he did notice when she arose. But what could he have done, since it was all over? — The difference is that he should not have drunk wine the next evening.

Raba expounded as follows: What is the significance of the verse, A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city;

1. Thus his own naziriteship is independent of hers.
2. Intentionally.
3. These were administered at the discretion of the court and are Rabbinical in origin.
4. Num. XXX, 13.
5. Since the same words in verse 9 refer to a woman who knows that her husband has declared her vow void.
6. I.e., the woman who thought to drink wine during her naziriteship, but was not really a nazirite.
7. Tosef. Naz. III, 6.
8. Lev. V, 27. with reference to the offering of a guilt-offering.
9. Heb. Heleb, 'suet'. Animal fat used in the sacrificial rite. This fat might not be eaten even in the case of ordinary animals.
10. Isi b. Judah holds that this guilt-offering was not brought if he ate a slice concerning which it was doubtful whether it was permitted or forbidden fat, but only if he ate one of two slices and did not know if it was the permitted or the forbidden slice.
11. R. Akiba's interpretation of the nazirite woman and the two cases of one who may have eaten forbidden fat.
12. The passage in Lev. V. 27, says that a guilt-offering must be brought for 'atonement' and the offender will be 'forgiven'.
13. He thought it was the permitted kind of fat.
14. For the slice might in fact be forbidden fat.
15. And there must also be expiation. A guilt-offering could be brought only to make as atonement for an unintentional transgression.
16. The whole passage from here to the next Mishnah occurs again in Hor. 10b-12b; for fuller notes v. Hor. (Sonc. ed.). p. 73.
17. Hosea XIV, 20.
18. The passover was to be eaten as the final course of the evening meal when the guests had already eaten their fill.
19. To eat the passover offering. V. Ex. XII, 8.
20. Each has done a different act.
21. After the destruction of Sodom. V. Gen. XIX, 32.
22. Viz., to preserve the human species, for they imagined that the rest of mankind had perished. V. Gen. XIX, 31.
23. Inserted from 'En. Jacob.
24. Gen. XIII, 10.
25. E.V., 'east' her eyes; Potiphar's wife to Joseph. Gen. XXXIX, 7.
26. E.V., 'For she pleaseth me well'; Samson of the Philistine woman. Jud. XIV, 3.
27. Gen. XXXIV, 2.
28. Prov. VI, 16.
29. Hosea II, 7. 'Watered' and 'drink' are from the same root.
30. His daughters first made him drunk.
31. One of the puncta extraordinaria. V. Ges. K. Grammar, sec. 5n.
32. 'And the first born went in and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down,' nor 'when she arose'. Gen. XIX, 33.

Raba and some say R. Isaac, expounded as follows: What is the significance of the verse, He that separateth himself seeketh his own desire and snarleth against all sound wisdom?⁵  'He that separateth himself seeketh his own desire' refers to Lot. 'And snarleth [yithgale'] against all sound wisdom', tells us that his disgrace was published [nithgaleh]⁶  in the Synagogues and Houses of Study, as we have learnt: An Ammonite and a Moabite⁷  are forbidden [in marriage] and the prohibition is perpetual.⁸

'Ulla said: Both Tamar⁹  and Zimri¹⁰  committed adultery. Tamar committed adultery and gave birth to kings and prophets.¹¹  Zimri

R. Nahman b. Isaac said: A transgression performed with good intention is better than a precept performed with evil intention.¹³  But has not Rab Judah, citing Rab, said: A man should always occupy himself with the Torah and [its] precepts, even though it be for some ulterior motive,¹⁴  for the result will be that he will eventually do them without ulterior motive?¹⁵  — Read then: [A transgression performed with good intention is] as good as a precept performed for an ulterior motive, as it is written, Blessed above women shall Jael be, the wife of Heber the Kenite. Above women in the tent shall she be blessed,¹⁶  and by 'women in the tent', Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah are meant.¹⁷

R. Johanan said: That wicked wretch [Sisera] had sevenfold intercourse [with Jael] at that time, as it says, At her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay; etc.¹⁸  But she derived pleasure from his intercourse? — R. Johanan said:¹⁹  All the favours of the wicked are evil to the righteous, for it says, Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.²⁰  Now [that he was not to speak] bad we can understand, but why was he not to speak good? Thus it may properly be inferred that the good of such a one is an evil.

The above text [states]: Rab Judah, citing Rab, said: A man should always occupy himself with the Torah and [its] precepts, even though it be for some ulterior motive, for the result will be that he will eventually do them without ulterior motive. For as reward for the forty-two sacrifices which the wicked Balak offered,²¹  he was privileged to be the progenitor of Ruth, for R. Jose son of

R. Hiyya b. Abba, citing R. Johanan. said: How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold the reward even for a decorous expression? The elder daughter [of Lot] called her son Moab²⁴  and so the All-Merciful One said [to Moses]:²⁵  Be not at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle.²⁶  Only war was forbidden, but they might be harassed. The younger daughter, on the other hand, called [her son's] name Ben-Ammi²⁷  and so it says, Harass them not, nor contend with them.²⁸  They were not to be harassed at all.

R. Hiyya b. Abin said: R. Joshua b. Korha said: A man should always be as alert as possible to perform a precept, for as reward for anticipating the younger by one night, the elder daughter [of Lot]

1. Prov. XVIII, 19.
2. Thereby offending him. V. Gen. XIII, 11.
3. Corrected from Hor. 10b. Thus Moab and Ammon, Lot's descendants, were barred from intermarriage with Israel because Lot offended Abraham. [The text here reads: 'like bolts and the palace.' I.e., the contentions constitute the bolts which bar the admission of Ammon and Moab into the house of Israel — the palace.]
4. Deut. XXIII, 4.
5. Prov. XVIII, 1.
6. A play on the Hebrew roots indicated.
7. But not an Ammonite woman or a Moabite woman.
8. Yeb. 76b.
9. With her father-in-law, Judah. V. Gen. XXXVIII, 14.
10. With the Midianitish woman. V. Num. XXV, 14.
11. David and his descendants were of the tribe of Judah; Amos and Isaiah are traditionally said to have been of the tribe of Judah. V. Sot. 10b.
12. In the plague; v. Num. XXV, 9.
13. For an example see below.
14. [H] 'for its own sake'.
15. An example of this occurs below.
16. Jud. V, 24.
17. The word 'tent' occurs in connection with each of these (Tosaf.). Rashi omits Rebecca and says that the reference is to the fact that each of the other three gage their handmaidens to their husbands with ulterior motive.
18. The words 'he sunk', 'he fell', occur three times each, and the words 'he lay' once. Jud. V. 27.
19. Var. lec., R. Johanan said R. Simon b. Yohai said (Hor. 10b).
20. Gen. XXXI, 29.
21. On the occasion of Balaam's attempt to curse Israel. V. Num. XXIII-XXIV.
22. Lit., 'the granddaughter of', cf. Tosaf.
23. Inserted from Hor. 10b.
24. Lit., 'of my father'.
25. Inserted from Hor. 10b.
26. Deut. II, 9.
27. Lit., 'son of my people'. A less shameless appellation.
28. Deut. II, 19.