(Gemara) Question: If the Kohen brings a Par for sinning after he was demoted, surely he brings a Par for sinning before he was demoted! (Why must the Mishnah teach this?)

Answer: If a Nasi sinned after he was demoted, he is like a commoner. Both cases of Nasi had to be taught;

Since both cases were taught regarding a Nasi, they were both taught regarding a Mashu'ach.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer: "(A Mashu'ach) will offer for his sin" - he brings his Chatas (a par) after he is demoted.

One might have thought to learn from a Kal va'Chomer:

A Nasi is liable for sinning b'Shogeg, yet he is exempt [from his special Korban, i.e. a Sa'ir] after he is deposed. A Mashu'ach is exempt for Shogeg (without Hora'ah), and all the more so he is exempt [from a Par] after he is demoted!

The verse teaches that he is liable [a Par] after he is demoted.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that a Nasi is liable a Sa'ir after he is deposed!

A Mashu'ach is exempt for Shogeg (alone, without Hora'ah), yet he is liable [a Par] after he is demoted;

A Nasi is liable for Shogeg, and all the more so he should be liable [a Sa'ir] after he is deposed!

Rejection: " That a Nasi will sin" - he is liable like a Nasi if and only if he sinned when he was Nasi, but not after he is demoted. (Then, he brings like a commoner.)

This teaches that he is liable after he is demoted.

(Mishnah): If a commoner sinned, then he was appointed to be Kohen Gadol or Nasi, he brings like a commoner;

R. Shimon says, this is if he found out that he sinned before he was appointed. If he found out afterwards, he is exempt.

The Nasi is the king. "Hash-m Elokav" teaches that only Hash-m is above him.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): "If the Mashu'ach will sin (he brings a Par)", but not for sins before he was appointed.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this!

A Nasi is liable for Shogeg, yet he does not bring the Korban of a Nasi for sins before he was appointed. A Mashu'ach is liable only for Shogeg due to Hora'ah, and all the more so does not bring the Korban of a Mashu'ach for prior sins!

Rejection: We cannot learn from a Nasi, for he does not bring his special Korban after he is deposed, but a Mashu'ach brings his special Korban after he is demoted!

Therefore, we need "if the Mashu'ach will sin." If he sinned when he was as a Mashu'ach, he brings. If he sinned when he was a regular Kohen, he does not bring.

(Beraisa): "That a Nasi will sin (he brings a Sa'ir)", but not for sins before he was appointed.

Suggestion: We should know this from a Kal va'Chomer!

A Mashu'ach brings his special Korban after he is demoted, yet he does not bring it for sins before he was appointed. A Nasi does not bring his special Korban after he is deposed, and all the more so does not bring it for prior sins!

Rejection: We cannot learn from a Mashu'ach, for he is exempt for Shogeg!

Therefore, we need "that a Nasi will sin." If he sinned when he was Nasi (he brings the Korban of a Nasi), and not if he sinned when he was a commoner.

(Beraisa) Suggestion: "That a Nasi will sin" - perhaps it is decreed that he will sin!

Rejection: It says "if the Mashu'ach will sin." Likewise, the Torah teaches what a Nasi brings if he will sin.

Question: Why do we need a verse? How could we have thought that it is decreed that he will sin?!

Answer: We find that the Torah gives bad tidings;

Beraisa (R. Yehudah): "(Hash-m) will put Tzara'as in a house" informs Yisrael that Tzara'as will come upon them;

(R. Shimon): This excludes a case of Ones.

Just as R. Yehudah says it gives bad tidings, likewise I would have said here it is a decree;

That is why we need the verse, "if (the Mashu'ach will sin)".

Question: Does R. Shimon really hold that Tzara'as of Ones is not Tamei?!

(Beraisa): "A man who will see a Tzara'as in his skin" discusses (a plague that arose) after the Torah was given.

Suggestion: We can learn this from Zivah. Just like Zivah applies only after the Torah was given, also Tzara'as.

Rejection: We cannot learn from a Zav, for he does not become Tamei through Ones, but Tzara'as through Ones is Tamei!

Therefore, the verse is needed. (Note: a Stam Sifra (Beraisa that expounds verses in Vayikra) is assumed to be R. Yehudah (Kidushin 53a). We must say that the logic of this Beraisa is solid. R. Shimon must agree that Tzara'as b'Ones is Tamei, for if not he could not explain why the verse is needed.)

Answer #1 (Rava): R. Shimon holds that Tzara'as (of Ones) caused by Shedim is not Tamei.

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): R. Shimon holds that Tzara'as due to witchcraft is not Tamei.

(Beraisa): "That a Nasi will sin" excludes if he is sick.

Question: Even if he is sick, he is still Nasi!

Answer (Rav Avdimi bar Chama): It excludes if he became a Metzora.

"... The king was a Metzora... he sat in the house of freedom" implies that before this, he was a slave!

A leader is like a slave. The following shows this.

Raban Gamliel and R. Yehoshua were on a boat. Raban Gamliel's supply of bread ran out. R. Yehoshua, who had brought flour (for after the bread will run out), shared with him.

Raban Gamliel: How did you know that we might be delayed so much, to take flour?

R. Yehoshua: There is a star that rises once every 70 years and deceives sailors. I was concerned for it.

Raban Gamliel: You are such a Chacham! Must you go on boats to support yourself?!

R. Yehoshua: R. Eliezer Chisma and R. Yochanan ben Gudgoda can calculate how many drops are in the ocean, and they lack food and clothing!

Raban Gamliel decided to appoint them to be leaders, to correct this. When he arrived, he called for them. They did not come until he called for them a second time.

Raban Gamliel: Were you reluctant to come because you thought I want to give to you authority? I give to you slavery - "if from this day, you (Rechav'om ha'Melech) will be a slave to this nation..."

(Beraisa - R. Yochanan ben Zakai): "Asher Nasi Yecheta" - Ashrei (fortunate) is the generation whose Nasi brings a Korban when he was Shogeg;

If the Nasi brings for Shogeg (even though it is shameful for him), all the more so a commoner will!

If he seeks atonement for Shogeg, all the more he will repent if he was Mezid!

Objection (Rava brei d'Rabah): If so, "Asher he misappropriated from Hekdesh" and "Asher (Yarovom) sinned and made sin" should also be reasons for the generation to rejoice!

Answer: We expound Asher regarding a Nasi, for the Torah used a different word (than it used regarding a Mashu'ach and commoner).

Question (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda): How do we explain "there is a folly done on the land (Hash-m deals with some Tzadikim like is proper for Resha'im, and with intent Resha'im like is proper for Tzadikim)"?

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda): Tzadikim are fortunate. They are punished (to cleanse them from their sins) in this world (where the punishments are much lighter) like is proper for Resha'im in the world to come;

Woe to Resha'im! They receive all the reward for their Mitzvos in this world, whereas Tzadikim get (infinitely greater) reward in the world to come.

Objection (Rava): Why shouldn't a Tzadik be rewarded in both worlds?!

Answer #2 (Rava): Tzadikim are fortunate! They get reward (in addition to reward in the world to come) in this world, like Resha'im get (all their reward) in this world;

Woe to Resha'im, they are punished (also) in this world, like Tzadikim get (all their) punishments in this world.

Rava heard that Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehishua had learned certain tractates and became rich.

Rava: Tzadikim are fortunate! They get reward (even in this world), like Resha'im get (all their reward) in this world.

Question (Rabah bar bar Chanah): How do we explain "the ways of Hash-m are straight. Tzadikim will go in them, and Resha'im will stumble in them"?

Answer #1 (Rabah bar bar Chanah): A parable explains this. There were two men. One ate his Korban Pesach for the sake of the Mitzvah, and the other stuffed himself and ate it.

"Tzadikim will go in them" applies to the first man. "Resha'im will stumble in them" applies to the latter.

Objection (Reish Lakish): Why do you call the latter a Rasha? Granted, he didn't do the Mitzvah ideally, but he did fulfill it!

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): Rather, the following parable explains this. There were two men. Each was in a house with his wife and his sister. One chanced upon his wife (and had relations with her), and the other chanced upon his sister.

"Tzadikim will go in them" applies to the first man. "Resha'im will stumble in them" applies to the latter.

Objection: The verse discusses men going on the same path. In the parable, they are in different paths! (One did a Mitzvah, and the other sinned.)

Answer #3: Rather, an example is Lot and his two daughters (with whom he had Bi'ah (relations)). They intended for a Mitzvah. They are Tzidkaniyos walking in Hash-m's ways. Lot intended to sin. He is a Rasha stumbling in Hash-m's ways.

Question: Perhaps also Lot intended for a Mitzvah!

Answer (R. Yochanan): An entire verse connects Lot to sexual immorality.

"Lot lifted (his eyes)" - just like Potifar's wife;

"His eyes" - just like Shimshon's first wife was pleasing in his eyes.

"He saw" - just like Shechem saw Dinah;

"The whole Kikar (plain) of the Yarden" - just like "for a harlot, a Kikar (loaf) of bread";

"It is all Mashkeh (fertile)" - just like "I will follow my lovers, who give... and Shikuyai (my drinks)."

Question: Lot was drunk (and unaware of what happened)!

Answer (R. Yosi bar Rav Choni): The 'Vov' in "and when he rose (after sleeping with the older daughter)" is dotted, to show that he did not know when he went to lie with her, but he knew when he got up.

Question: The incest already happened. Why is Lot blamed?

Answer: He should not have gotten drunk the next night.

(Rava): "A brother cut himself off from a city of strength" refers to Lot, who separated from Avraham;

"And quarrels like a bolt on a fortress" - he instigated quarrels (that keep him out) like a bolted fortress -"an Amoni or Mo'avi will not marry into the congregation of Hash-m."

(Rava): "One who seeks lust will be isolated" refers to Lot;

"And in all salvation he will be exposed" - his disgrace is revealed in Batei Kenesiyos (when they read the above verse of the Torah forbidding his descendants) and Batei Medrash (when they learn the following Mishnah).

(Mishnah): The Isur of an Amoni or Moavi is forever.

(Ula): Tamar and Zimri both had Bi'as Zenus (outside of marriage). Kings and prophets descended from Tamar's act. Many tens of thousands of Yisrael died as a result of Zimri's act.

(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): A sin done with pure intent (i.e. for Hash-m's sake) is better than a Mitzvah with impure intent.

Rav Nachman learns from "Ya'el, the wife of Chever the Kini, will be blessed like women in the tent."

The women in the tent are Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah.

Objection: (This implies that a Mitzvah with impure intent is bad.) Rav Yehudah taught that one should always engage in Torah and Mitzvos, even with impure intent, for this will lead him to do them with pure intent!

Correction: Rather, a sin done with pure intent is as good as a Mitzvah with impure intent.

(R. Yochanan): Sisera had relations with Ya'el seven times - "between her legs he bent, he fell, he lied... "

Question: Ya'el enjoyed the sin! (Why is she praised for it?)

Answer (R. Yochanan): She did not enjoy it. Benefit that Tzadikim get from Resha'im is bad for Tzadikim. Hash-m told Lavan "beware not to speak to Yakov good nor evil."

Question: Granted, he should not speak evil. Why shouldn't he speak nicely to him?

Answer: The good of Resha'im is bad for Tzadikim.

(Rav Yehudah): One should always engage in Torah and Mitzvos, even with impure intent, for this will lead him to do them with pure intent.

Balak offered 42 Korbanos (to try to entice Hash-m to let Bilam curse Yisrael). Due to this, he merited that Rus descended from him.

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): Rus was the granddaughter of Eglon, king of Moav, who was himself the grandson of Balak, king of Moav.