I have several questions on today's daf:
1. The Gemara says: "Al zos yidvu hadovim". It sounds like the "dovim"
are people who are sad anyway, since it doesn's say "Al zos yidvu hakol"
or something like that.
2. The Gemara constantly uses the phrase "kapara and slicha". The posuk
in parashas nedarim says only "vashem yislach lah". Where do we see
that any of the examples given by the Gemara have a kapara?
3. Tosafos distinguishes between a shelo lishma which is simply not
lishma, and one which is "lekapeach". How then can the Gemara use Balak
as an example of shelo lishma? Was he not lekapeach?
4. The Gemara says gedola aveira lishma, equal to a mitzva shelo
lishma. The posuk by Yael says "minashim baohel tevorach", implying
that her aveira lishma was greater than the imahos' mitzva shelo lishma.
How can the Gemara call them equal?
1. The point of this expression is that it is proper to be sad about this, in contrast to other things. "If you are sad, this is something worth being sad about." The emphasis is on the "Zos".
2. Any Aveirah which needs Selichah subsequently needs Kaparah in order for the Aveirah to be totally removed. Kaparah is the ultimate atonement, in which the sin is "wiped away" (see Rasih Zevachim 25a DH Kipurei). It is to achieve Kaparah that a Korban or Yom Kipur is necessary after Teshuvah has been done.
3. Although Balak had an ulterior motive, the actual Korban was to appease Hash-m. L'Kapeach, is when the whole object is the bad intent. (See Insights to the Daf copied below.)
4. See Tosfos, as explained by Orach Mishor. Mi'Nashim does not mean "greater than", but "with the Berachah Hash-m blessed the Imahos."
Dov Zupnik
=============================================================
(From Insights to the Daf, Nazir 23:2)
TOSFOS (DH she'Mitoch) questions this from the Gemara in Berachos (17a) that says that "one who is involved in a Mitzvah for insincere motives is better off having not been created." Tosfos answers that the Gemara in Berachos refers to one who does a Mitzvah with intention to undermine or persecute others, while here the Gemara refers to one who does a Mitzvah just to gain honor or a good reputation.
The SEFAS EMES asks that according to this distinction, what is the Gemara's proof from Balak that one who engages in Torah and Mitzvos "she'Lo Lishmah" will eventually come to do it "Lishmah?" In the case of Balak, his offering of sacrifices to Hash-m was clearly for the sake of destroying the Jewish people, and it was not just for the insincere motive of personal honor! How, then, can the Gemara prove from there that "she'Lo Lishmah" leads to "Lishmah," if Balak's form of "she'Lo Lishmah" was the type for which the Gemara in Berachos says that the person "is better off having not been created?"
ANSWER: When Tosfos says that learning Torah or doing Mitzvos in order to persecute others is bad, he means that the person has the sole intention of doing the Mitzvah in order to undermine someone else through this action which happens to be a Mitzvah. The person does not intend to do the will of Hash-m at all. Balak, on the other hand, had genuine intent to do the Mitzvah in order to gain favor in the eyes of Hash-m. Even though his final goal was to gain favor in the eyes of Hash-m in order to bring about the downfall of the Jewish people, his immediate goal was to gain favor, which is an acceptable form of "she'Lo Lishmah."
This might be why the result of Balak's Mitzvah "she'Lo Lishmah" was a "Lishmah" that happened only after many generations passed, when Ruth was born. Since his Mitzvah "she'Lo Lishmah" was not done simply to gain honor but also included the ultimate goal of gaining honor in order to cause someone else's downfall, the merit of that Mitzvah "she'Lo Lishmah" did not come to himself. In contrast, when a person is involved in a Mitzvah "she'Lo Lishmah" only for his own personal benefit, then he merits, personally, to be involved in a Mitzvah "Lishmah."