Pt3 ‘When a King Sins’: Sin, Reward, and Responsibility in Talmudic Theology (Horayot 10a-b)

This is the third and final part of a three-part series. Part 1 is here; Part 2 is here; the outline of the series can be found at Part 1.

Part 2: Lot and His Daughters; Amon and Moab; Tamar and Zimri; Yael and Sisera

R’ Yoḥanan - Lot’s conduct was driven by lust; the whole verse “And Lot lifted his eyes…” (Genesis 13:10) is read as coded for sexual transgression

ודלמא הוא נמי לשם מצוה (הוא מכוין) [איכוון]!

אמר רבי יוחנן:

כל הפסוק הזה לשם עבירה נאמר

The Talmud challenges: Perhaps Lot too intended his action for the sake of a mitzva.

R' Yoḥanan says:

this entire verse: “And Lot cast his eyes and beheld the entire plain of the Jordan that it was well watered everywhere” (Genesis 13:10), is stated in the context of sexual transgression.¹

He explains:

Sexual allusions in Genesis 13:10: linked to sexual transgressions in Gen 39:7; Judges 14:3; Genesis 34:2; Proverbs 6:26; Hosea 2:7

(See footnote.)²

1. ״וישא לוט״ –

   1. ״ותשא אשת אדניו את עיניה״,

2. ״את עיניו״ –

   1. ״ויאמר שמשון [וגו׳] אותה קח לי כי היא ישרה בעיני״,

3. ״וירא״ –

   1. ״וירא אתה שכם בן חמור״,

4. ״את כל ככר הירדן״ –

   1. ״כי בעד אשה זונה עד ככר לחם״,

5. ״כי כלה משקה״ –

   1. ״אלכה אחרי מאהבי, נתני לחמי ומימי, צמרי ופשתי, שמני ושקויי״.

1. “And Lot cast (ישא) his eyes”

   1. is an allusion to the verse: “His master’s wife cast (תשא) her eyes upon Joseph and said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7).

2. “His eyes”

   1. is an allusion to the verse: “And Samson said: Get her for me, as she is pleasing to my eyes” (Judges 14:3).

3. “And beheld (ירא)”

   1. is an allusion to the verse: “And Shechem, son of Hamor, the prince of the land, beheld her; and he took her and lay with her” (Genesis 34:2).

4. “The entire plain [kikar] of the Jordan”

   1. is an allusion to the verse: “For on account of a prostitute a man is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread” (Proverbs 6:26).

5. “That it was well watered [mashke] everywhere”

   1. is an allusion to the verse “I will follow my lovers, givers of my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink [ve-shikkuyai]” (Hosea 2:7).

R’ Yosei bar Ḥanina - Lot did not know at lying down, but he knew at rising - Genesis 19:33

והא מינס אניס!

תנא משום רבי יוסי בר רבי חוני:

למה נקוד על ויו שב״קומה״ של בכירה?

לומר לך, ש

• בשכבה —

  • לא ידע

• אבל בקומה —

  • ידע

The Talmud asks: Why is Lot accused of wrongdoing?

Wasn’t he the victim of circumstances beyond his control, as he was drunk and asleep?

It is taught in the name of R' Yosei bar R' Ḥoni:

Why is it dotted (נקוד) over the letter vav that is in the word “be-kumah” written with regard to Lot’s elder daughter in the verse: “And he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose [be-kumah]” (Genesis 19:33)?

It is to say to you that

• when she lay down —

  • he did not know;

• but when she arose —

  • he knew.

Therefore, his action was not completely beyond his control.

... he should not have drunk the next night

ומאי הוה ליה למעבד?

מאי דהוה הוה!

נפקא מינה דלפניא אחרינא לא איבעי ליה למישתי.

The Talmud asks: And what was he to do?

What was, was.

The Talmud answers: He should have derived from it that on the following night he should not drink.

Since he drank again, this indicates that he did so with intent to have sex with his other daughter.

Rabba - Lot separated from Abraham and thereby set enmity between Israel and Ammon (Ammonite/Moabite ban) - Proverbs 18:19; Deuteronomy 23:4

דרש רבה,

מאי דכתיב:

״אח נפשע מקרית עז

ומדינים כבריח ארמון״?

Apropos Lot, Rabba taught:

What is the meaning of that which is written:

“A brother betrayed a strong city,

and their contentions (מדינים) are like the bars of a castle” (Proverbs 18:19)?

• ״אח נפשע מקרית עז״ –

  • זה לוט, שפירש מאברהם,

• ״ומדינים כבריח ארמון״ –

  • שהטיל מדינים בין ישראל לעמון,

  • שנאמר: ״לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה׳״.

• “A brother betrayed a strong city”;

  • that is Lot, who parted from Abraham.

• “And their contentions are like the bars of a castle”

  • is stated because he, i.e., Lot, introduced contention between Israel and Ammon,

  • as it is stated: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of YHWH” (Deuteronomy 23:4).

Rava / R’ Yitzḥak - Lot’s separation exposed his shame, taught publicly via the halakha on Ammonites/Moabites - Proverbs 18:1

דרש רבא,

ואיתימא רבי יצחק,

מאי דכתיב:

״לתאוה יבקש נפרד

(ובכל) [בכל] תושיה יתגלע״?

Rava taught,

and some say it was R' Yitzḥak who taught:

What is the meaning of that which is written:

“He that separates himself seeks his own desire,

and snarls against all sound wisdom” (Proverbs 18:1)?

• ״לתאוה יבקש נפרד״ –

  • זה לוט, שנפרד מאברהם

• ״(ובכל) [בכל] תושיה יתגלע״ –

  • שנתגלה קלונו בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות

דתנן:

עמוני ומואבי —

אסורין אסור עולם

• “He that separates himself seeks his own desire”;

  • that is Lot, who separated from Abraham to pursue his lust.

• “And snarls [yitgalla] against all sound wisdom”;

  • his shame was revealed [she-nitgalla] in synagogues and study halls, where the halakha concerning his offspring is taught;

as we learned in a Mishnah (Yevamot 76a):

An Ammonite and a Moabite, descendants of Lot —

are forbidden with a permanent prohibition.

Ulla - Contrast: Tamar’s licentiousness produced kings and prophets; Zimri’s produced mass death - Genesis 38; Numbers 25:6–9

ואמר עולא:

• תמר

  • זנתה

• וזימרי

  • זינה.

• תמר זנתה –

  • יצאו ממנה מלכים ונביאים,

• זימרי זינה –

  • נפלו כמה רבבות מישראל.

§ And Ulla says:

• Tamar

  • engaged in licentiousness with Judah (see Genesis, chapter 38),

• and Zimri

  • engaged in licentiousness with Cozbi (see Numbers 25:6–9).

• Tamar engaged in licentiousness,

  • and kings and prophets emerged from her.³

• Zimri engaged in licentiousness,

  • and many myriads⁴ from the Jewish people fell.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak - A transgression for the sake of Heaven (aveira li-shmah) is greater than a mitzva not for its own sake

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק:

גדולה

• עבירה

  • לשמה

• ממצוה

  • שלא לשמה,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says:

greater is

• A transgression

  • performed for the sake of Heaven

• than a mitzva

  • performed not for its own sake,

Prooftext - Yael is more blessed than the Matriarchs - Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah - Judges 5:24

שנאמר:

״תברך מנשים יעל

אשת חבר הקיני

מנשים באהל תברך״,

מאן נינהו ״נשים באהל״?

1. שרה,

2. רבקה,

3. רחל

4. ולאה

[…]

as it is stated:

“Blessed above women shall be Yael,

the wife of Heber the Kenite,

above women in the tent shall she be blessed” (Judges 5:24).

Who are these “women in the tent”?

They are

1. Sarah,

2. Rebecca,

3. Rachel,

4. and Leah,

and Yael is more blessed than they are.

Apparently, a mitzva performed not for its own sake is a negative phenomenon.

[…]

R’ Yoḥanan - Sisera had sex with Yael 7 times - Judges 5:27

(See footnote.)⁵

אמר רבי יוחנן:

שבע בעילות בעל אותו רשע באותה שעה,

שנאמר: ״בין רגליה כרע נפל שכב וגו׳״.

Apropos Yael, R' Yoḥanan says:

That wicked man Sisera performed seven acts of sex with Yael at that time,

as it is stated: “Between her legs he crouched, he fell, he lay; between her legs he crouched, he fell; where he crouched, there he fell dead” (Judges 5:27).

Each of the seven verbs is a euphemism for sex.

R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Shimon b. Yoḥai - Even the “good” of the wicked is bad for the righteous (Yael derived no pleasure from the act)

והא קא מיתהניא מעבירה?

אמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי:

אפילו טובתם של רשעים

רעה היא אצל צדיקים.

The Talmud asks: But didn’t she experience pleasure from the transgression of having sex with Sisera? Why does the verse praise her?

R' Yoḥanan says in the name of R' Shimon ben Yoḥai:

Even the good provided by the wicked

is bad for the righteous,

so Yael did not experience any pleasure from her sex with Sisera.

Rav Yehuda citing Rav - One should always engage in Torah/mitzvot even not for their own sake, for this leads to for-their-own-sake

אמר רב יהודה, אמר רב:

לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות

אפילו שלא לשמה,

שמתוך שלא לשמה --

בא לשמה,

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says:

A person should always engage in Torah study and the performance of mitzvot,

even if he does so not for its own sake,

as through the performance of mitzvot not for its own sake —

one gains understanding and comes to perform them for its own sake.

Prooftext - Balak’s 42 offerings merited Ruth - Numbers 23 (offerings of Balak)

שבשכר ארבעים ושנים קרבנות שהקריב בלק הרשע --

זכה ויצתה ממנו רות,

Proof for this can be adduced from the incident involving Balak, as in reward for the 42 offerings that Balak the wicked sacrificed to God,

despite the fact that he did this in order to curse the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 23) --

he merited and Ruth emerged from him,

R’ Yosei ben Ḥanina - Ruth was a granddaughter of Eglon, who was a grandson of Balak

דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא:

רות --

בת בנו של עגלון,

בן בנו של בלק מלך מואב.

as R' Yosei, son of R' Ḥanina, says:

Ruth --

was the daughter of the son of Eglon,

the son of the son of Balak, king of Moab.

R’ Ḥiyya bar Abba citing R’ Yoḥanan - God rewards euphemistic speech

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא, אמר רבי יוחנן:

מנין שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא מקפח אפילו שכר שיחה נאה?

§ Apropos Lot and his daughters, R' Ḥiyya bar Abba says that R' Yoḥanan says:

From where is it derived that God does not withhold even the reward for euphemistic speech?⁶

Prooftext - Israel was told not to wage war against Moab, but permitted to harass

מהכא,

דאילו בכירה

דקריתיה “מואב”

אמר ליה רחמנא למשה:

״אל תצר את מואב

ואל תתגר בם מלחמה״.

מלחמה הוא דלא,

הא צעורי צערינהו

It is derived from here,

as the elder daughter

called her son “Moab”, an allusion to the fact that the child is from her own father [me’av],

and God said to Moses:

“Be not at enmity (תצר) with Moab,

neither contend (תתגר) with them in battle” (Deuteronomy 2:9).

From this it may be inferred:

It is in battle that one may not contend with them,

but it is permitted to harass them.

... in contrast with Amon who earned a full ban, including on harassment - Deuteronomy 2:9, 19

ואילו צעירה

דקריתיה ״בן עמי״,

אמר ליה:

״אל תצרם

ואל תתגר בם״,

כלל,

אפילו צעורי לא.

While concerning the offspring of the younger daughter,

who called her son “ben Ami”, “son of my people”, avoiding any direct mention of the baby’s father,

God said to Moses:

“Neither harass them,

nor contend with them” (Deuteronomy 2:19),

at all.

Even to harass them is not permitted.

R’ Ḥiyya bar Avin citing R’ Yehoshua ben Korḥa - Be first to a mitzva: Lot’s elder daughter’s precedence earned her lineage a 4-generation head start over the younger - Genesis 19

אמר רבי חייא בר אבין, אמר רבי יהושע בן קרחה:

לעולם יקדים אדם לדבר מצוה,

שבשכר לילה אחת שקדמה בכירה לצעירה,

זכתה וקדמתה ארבע דורות למלכות

R' Ḥiyya bar Avin says that R' Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:

A person should always be first to perform a matter of a mitzva,

as in reward for one night that the elder daughter preceded the younger daughter,

she merited and preceded her to royalty by four generations.

Ruth the Moabite, ancestor of King David,⁷ descended from her son Moab, and she preceded Naamah the Ammonite, who was married to King Solomon, by four generations.

1. כל הפסוק הזה לשם עבירה נאמר.

See a similar style of homiletic interpretation in my “Pharaoh’s Strategy, Miriam’s Watchfulness, and Divine Retribution: Talmudic Interpretations of Exodus 1:8-10 (Sotah 11a)“, section “Mystical Interpretation of Miriam’s Watchfulness (Exodus 2:4): a Seven-Part allegory for the Shekhina watching over Moses“:

״ותתצב אחותו מרחוק״,

אמר רבי יצחק:

פסוק זה כולו על שם שכינה נאמר:

[…]

With regard to Miriam’s deed the verse states: “And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him” (Exodus 2:4).

R' Yitzḥak says:

This entire verse is stated in reference to the Shekhina, i.e., each phrase alludes to the Divine Presence watching over Moses.

There, as here, the formula used is “This entire verse (פסוק) is stated (נאמר) in reference to (לשם / על שם) [X]”; the verse is then read allegorically phrase by phrase to refer to X.

2. This midrashic reading portrays Lot’s gaze not as innocent landscape appreciation but as sexualized looking, linked thematically to narratives of lust, seduction, rape, prostitution, and adultery elsewhere in Scripture.

The sexual allusions in Genesis 13:10 according to this homiletic reading, each linked to later biblical passages about sexual transgression:

1. ״וישא לוט״ – “And Lot lifted (his eyes)”
   ⇢ Allusion to Genesis 39:7: “And his master’s wife cast (תשא) her eyes upon Joseph…” (Potiphar’s wife’s lust for Joseph).

2. ״את עיניו״ – “His eyes”
   ⇢ Allusion to Judges 14:3: “Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes” (Samson’s desire for Delilah).

3. ״וירא״ – “And he beheld”
   ⇢ Allusion to Genesis 34:2: “And Shechem… saw her, and took her, and lay with her…” (the intro to the story of Shechem’s rape of Dinah).

4. ״את כל ככר הירדן״ – “The whole plain [kikar] of the Jordan”
   ⇢ Allusion to Proverbs 6:26: “For on account of a prostitute, a man is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread”.

5. ״כי כלה משקה״ – “That it was well watered [mashke] everywhere”
   ⇢ Allusion to Hosea 2:7: “I will follow my lovers, who give me my bread and my water… my oil and my drink [shikkuyai]” (Israel’s adulterous pursuit of lovers).

3. Referring to King David and the Davidic dynasty.

See the summary of the biblical story in Wikipedia, “Tamar (Genesis)“, section “Judah and Tamar“:

After Shelah had grown up, Judah became a widower. After Judah mourned the death of his wife, he planned on going to Timnath to shear his sheep. Upon hearing this news, Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute and immediately went to Timnath which was en route to Judah's destination.

Upon arriving at a place near Timnath, where two roads met, Judah saw the woman but did not recognize her as Tamar because of the veil she wore over her face. Thinking she was a prostitute, he requested her services. Tamar's plan was to become pregnant by this ruse so that she might bear a child in Judah's line, since Judah had not given her to his son Shelah […]

Three months later, Tamar was reported to Judah by family members to be pregnant […]

Tamar gave birth to twins, Perez and Zerah […]

Perez is identified in the Book of Ruth as the ancestor of King David.

4. רבבות - “tens of thousands”.

On the extensive Talmudic discussion of this biblical story in Numbers 25, see my two-part series, “The Prophet, the Prostitutes, and the Curses Reversed: The Biblical Story of Balaam in Talmudic Interpretation (Sanhedrin 105b-106b)“, final part here.

See especially ibid., section “Balaam's Plot: The Dramatic Story of How Prostitutes Led the Jewish Men Astray“.

And see also Wikipedia, “Numbers 31“ > “Background”, sub-sections “Israelite–Moabite fraternisation at Peor (Numbers 25:1–9)“ and “Plague inside the Israelite camp (Numbers 25:6–18)“.

5. This passage is found elsewhere in the Talmud as well; I cite a parallel in my “Pt2 Talmudic Elaboration of Sexuality and Love in Biblical Narratives“, section “Sisera had sex with Yael seven times (Yevamot 103a)“.

6. שיחה נאה - literally: “pleasant/nice speech”.

7. On the importance in the Talmud of Ruth as ancestor of David, see my “Book of Ruth 2-3 Through Talmudic Eyes: Intelligence, Modesty, and Davidic Descendants (Shabbat 113b-114a)“.

And see also the passages in these pieces of mine:

• “‘Where in Scripture is Notarikon Found?’: Talmudic Interpretation of Biblical Words as Acronyms (Shabbat 105a)“, section “Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov - I Kings 2:8 - "Nimretzet" - “He [=David] is an adulterer, Moabite, murderer, oppressor, abomination” — Shimi’s indictment“.

• “Pt2 Talmudic Theodicy: Moses’ Requests, Divine Responses, and the Mystery of Divine Justice (Berakhot 7a-b)“, section “R' Yoḥanan - Ruth was named thus because David “inundated” God with praise“.