All right, guys. They need They need a Set it. It was תועלת. אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי... אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן, רבי שמואל בר נחמני said in the name of רבי יונתן: כל האומר בני עלי חטאו אינו אלא טועה. Anybody who says that the children of עלי sinned are making a mistake. In other words, in the פסוק we find that it says that they sinned. It even says very terrible things about them. Says the children of עלי, it says, were living with married women, which is ממש איסור אשת איש. So he says, \"No, anybody who says that the children of עלי sinned is a mistake.\" שנאמר it says, ah? ושם ושם שני בני עלי, it says in the משכן there were two sons of עלי, חפני ופנחס כהנים להשם. חפני and פנחס were the כהנים to השם. Now, since it says חפני ופנחס together, and סבר לה כרב, he holds like רב דאמר who says, דאמר רב, רב said פנחס לא חטא, there were two brothers, פנחס and חפני. Now פנחס, he says, did not sin. So, the only one that maybe sinned is חפני. So he says, מקיש חפני לפנחס. We'll see later how do we know פנחס didn't sin. So we compare חפני to פנחס, מה פנחס לא חטא אף חפני לא חטא, just like פנחס did not sin, חפני is not sinned either. אלא מה אני מקיים so what does the פשט אשר ישכבון את הנשים, which means like אשר ישכבון means they slept, and הנשים the women that came to bring bring קרבנות. But if we're saying they didn't sin, this is a real עבירה of אשת איש! So the גמרא answers, they didn't do that עבירה. It's considered מתוך ששהו את קיניהם, because they would See, they weren't such great צדיקים, that's for sure. What they did was, they wanted to חאפ אריין more meat, more things to the קרבנות. So when the women who gave birth used to have to bring a קרבן after they give birth, until then they can't be with their husbands, so they bring birds. There's not much meat in a bird, so they didn't want, so they used to push them off. They used to try to get other קרבנות first. So they would make them wait. So they hold, they delay, they

would make them wait a whole day, and the whole time. וממילא till they got home was very late, so they couldn't be with their husbands. And ממילא that held back the ענין of that held back the ענין of them having children, פריה ורביה, so מעלה עליהם הכתוב כאילו שכבום. So the תורה considers it as if they were with them together, even though they weren't. So to say that they sinned, that's not פשט in the פסוק, even though the simple words mean that. But this is See, this is the המשך to the story with ראובן. By ראובן it says the same thing, ראובן he went and שכב with לאה with בלהה, and really it doesn't mean that, what it means is they something, he mixed up the beds, the תורה considers it. Not even in a place where it's not לשון נקיה? Not לשון הרע, this means saying something bad about a person. This is called לשון נקיה. שכב. It says Well, that's the constant the פסוק always uses. That's when a person says, No, when in fact it shouldn't be by a woman it says the word either שכב or ישכב or בעילה. No, you're saying something else the text is. The גנות בהמה טהורה... אפילו בגנות בהמה טמאה לא דבר הכתוב, and here we're talking about בגנות of them, which is not even true, for saying That that's the שאלה. Maybe because it's not true? No, so why did the תורה He's asking a good שאלה: why did the תורה use a word which is makes them sound bad? Even when the תורה makes is something when they did bad, we try to find excuses, the תורה סתם wouldn't write words make it. When it's בפירוש where they did not do it, and the תורה should write such a word, a good שאלה, like that. Which is the exact word that they hate. It says: אשר ישכבון את הנשים. Okay. But either way we said that he holds that both of them didn't sin. How did he know? Because the תורה puts together חפני and פנחס, and פנחס for sure didn't sin, so חפני also. But where do we know חפני פנחס didn't sin? They didn't do that sin, but they did do a sin. Yeah, but it doesn't fight this sin. They say what they did was they pushed them off. It wasn't like a sin, it was not nice. Women came with their קרבנות, so it's their turn, so they pushed them off, they found other excuses they shouldn't bring. Stopping somebody from being able to procreate is is a Yeah, is it is it טאקע a bad thing, but it's not not איסור אשת איש. So the גמרא says גופא. Now we'll get to the עצם חפץ. אמר רבי פנחס רבי פנחס says, אמר רב, I mean רב said פנחס לא חטא, פנחס didn't sin. Where do we know it? שנאמר it says like this, there's a פסוק that says about a certain כהן called אחיה בן אחיטוב the son of אחיטוב, אחי the brother of איכבוד בן פנחס בן עלי כהן השם, who was the son of פנחס. אחיה was the son of אחיטוב, who was the son of פנחס, who was the son of עלי כהן השם. So the תורה, the פסוק is being מתיחס, gives the יחוס of this אחיה, oh wait a second, through all the way his grandfather פנחס. Was connecting to השילוני this אחיה? No, no. What was that אחיה? No, השילוני means came from a city. השילוני... Yeah, אחיה השילוני. השילוני came from the city שילה, like he came from שילה. So here we have כהן אחיה. Yeah, but I don't know if it's connected. Maybe it's a thousand... How do you say it again אחיה? אחיה השילוני. I see. Someone from שילה is like a חתי, from חת is a חתי. From עילם is a... No, not עילמי, עילמי that's Not from כנען is a כנעני, from שילה is a שילוני. Do we know if he was a כהן, this אחיה השילוני? Somebody knows, I don't. Somebody knows. Anyway, the פסוק says that אחיה was an אייניקל of פנחס. אפשר חטא? חטא בא לידו, is it possible that פנחס sinned, והכתוב מייחסו? And the תורה would make the יחוס of his אייניקל to him? Why not? He's like if the זיידע is a bad person, you can't make a יחוס? He explains why. הרי כבר נאמר, there's a פסוק that says יכרות ה׳ לאיש אשר יעשנה. A person does these bad things, ה׳ will cut him off. Meaning he will ער ועונה, cut off an ער and עונה from אהלי יעקב, the tents of יעקב, and he will cut off מגיש מנחה, bringing a קרבן from ה׳ צבאות. So the טייטש is what does it mean? אם ישראל הוא, if the one that does this, it means a person who does the איסור אשת איש, if he's a ישראל, what's his punishment? לא יהיה לו ער בחכמים, he will not have any descendants who will be awake, who will be smart amongst the חכמים, ולא עונה בתלמידים, he won't have a grandson or any descendant that will be someone who is able to answer questions among the חכמים. ואם כהן הוא, if he's a כהן, לא יהיה לו בן מגיש מנחה, he will not have a son who will bring a קרבן. The אייבערשטער will not allow him to have children who will also be כהנים. Here, we're saying that grandson is a כהן, the יחוס is from פנחס. Now, if

פנחס did this, obviously, the תורה says he will not have grandchildren, so how could the תורה be מייחס him to him? אלא שמע מינה, there's a ראיה that פנחס לא חטא. So who sinned? So, according to רב, only one that sinned was חפני. Now according to the other opinion, חפני didn't sin either. Okay, but רב just says פנחס didn't sin. It's pretty if one is more stronger punishment than the other, isn't it? But, the ישראל had a son, it just won't be very smart, won't be a חכם. כהן won't even have a son. No, not a son. How why would he not be a כהן? Yeah, they won't let him, they won't let him or he'll become a בעל מום, a מום, yeah, or become טמא. I mean they will not he will not have he'll have a son, but they won't serve. And here we're saying that this אחיה served in the משכן. Oh, yeah? אחיה served? But then the גמרא says, now that you're saying only one of them sinned, אלא הכתיב, it says that when the father found out what they're doing, so he told them, he gave them מוסר, and he says that, \"Why are you אשר ישכבון?\" You, and this is לשון רבים, it's plural, that you are ישכבו, you are sleeping. לשון רבים, so it means both. So, he says ישכבון, see, it says without a ו, which really is לשון יחיד, that he is. Then הכתיב, it says he told them, \"אל בני כי לא טובה השמועה.\" He says, \"My son my children, do not be like that. It's not good what I hear.\" So, it says \"בני\", my sons? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, \"בני כתיב.\" We tuck it we read it \"בני\", but the way it's written, it's \"בני\", my son. Then it says, והכתיב, it says \"מעבירים\", it says you are taking away from one to on somebody else, you are taking away their their their money, but it says \"מעבירים\", לשון רבים? אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע, \"מעבירם כתיב.\" It says \"מעבירם\", he is taking away. Then he asks, והכתיב, it says \"בני עלי בני בליעל\"? The children of עלי were bad? According to what we just said now, it's not the children, it's only one child. But the גמרא answers, מתוך שהיה לו לפנחס למחות בחפני, since פנחס should have protested against חפני, ולא מיחה, he didn't, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו חטא, so the תורה considers it as if he sinned also. This is the המשך. That's how this whole thing comes in because we learned before if someone started with רבי אלעזר בן עזריה that he didn't protest against So, we're bringing in all these things where it says someone sinned, someone didn't sin. And here we say even though he didn't sin, but because he didn't stop someone else who he was able, obviously, he was able to stop him. הוכיח תוכיח. Then he should have been מוחה. המחאה, he's supposed to protest. Why are they still allowed to serve in the בית המקדש? Who, the one that did it, yeah? Who who should allow them? Who should not allow them? עלי. עלי gave him how come when עלי found out, he gave him מוסר. He told him. מוסר, but he still served. I don't know if he continued to serve, but then זאגט די גמרא ווייטער, אמר שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן, רב שמואל בר נחמני said in the name of רבי יונתן Can I ask you just quickly, so by by reading and by the how it's written The קרי and כתיב, yeah. Yeah, so we're

confused on the two the two פשט פשטים, so Whenever we have one way of writing, one way of reading, both of them are true and each one teaches you another פרט. And he says it's always like this. So here also, by the fact that it's written \"בני\", yes, it's only one. Why does it say \"בני\"? So there is something there. Because we just finished up by saying, because סוף כל סוף, he gets the discredit for this also, because he didn't, but he didn't really sin, no. So that's a good example, this happens to be a good example that both are true. It's only one and it's both. It's really only one and he could count both also. So we read both and it's written one. Hard to believe what they did was actually adultery. Well, that's like just like how come by ראובן the same question? The truth be you want to know in his level like adultery. Such a צדיק, and people that are such great people, I mean such a level, to do things like this it's ממש like adultery. The level of ראובן to go mix in the bed of his father is like adultery. Probably על פי קבלה probably there are the המשכות the things that happened through adultery in a certain miniature way it happened there also, whatever. חסידות. That's why it's so important to help them have children so they shouldn't turn out that way. Maybe when they pushed the woman away they physically pushed them. Huh? Could be when they pushed the woman away they physically pushed them. Like, \"Guys, get out of the exit.\" So the גמרא weiter, אמר רב שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן, כל האומר בני שמואל חטאו אינו אלא טועה. By the

children of שמואל we also find that they sinned, seems like, same thing. Anyone that says they sinned, it's not true. שנאמר it says, like this, it says in פסוק: ויהי כאשר זקן שמואל, when שמואל was old, then it continues ולא הלכו בניו בדרכיו. His children didn't go in his ways. So people טייטש: What do you mean they didn't go in his ways? He was a צדיק and they were not, they were bad. So he says, no, בדרכיו הוא דלא הלכו, they didn't do like him. But מיחטא לא חטאו, they didn't sin, they weren't like him. The גמרא will even go into detail what exactly wasn't like him. But they weren't like him, but it doesn't say they sinned. אלא מה אני מקיים why does it say in פסוק: ויטו אחרי הבצע, it says they turned to money? In other words they they took See, שמואל was a שופט, שמואל judged the people, they were also judges. So here it's משמע that they took bribery. They turned after the money, someone gave them, paid them more, they someone bribed them, they פסקנ'ד like him. That means like this he says, not the פשט that they took bribery, actually. They are two different עבירות would you say? One is to פסקן according to the bribery and one is to take bribery. If you take, automatically you פסקן like the bribery. Those are two different things, right? There is, but one is the result of the other. It's only an עבירה if you take it first. They took it on purpose. It says they did. השוחד יעור עיני חכמים means that the שוחד makes you make a mistake. Yeah. So no, it's still an עבירה if they made a mistake. So it's a bad thing. In other words they פסקנ'ד wrong. But well, פסקנ'ing wrong is an עבירה, especially if No, but if you take שוחד and then you פסקנ wrong Intentionally? I believe it's I believe so. If you take שוחד, and you know that שוחד will make you פסקן wrong, so it's your fault. It's how, you know how they call it the category, it's תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס. Even if it's אונס later, they made a mistake, תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס is a פשיעה. You're חייב. This is ממש a good example of תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס. You take bribery and you פסקן wrong by mistake, it's not an אונס. No, but בשעת מעשה you could call it an אונס. He didn't mean to פסקן wrong, he looked in and his mind worked that way. But why did it work that way? If it's פסק wrong, it's his fault. So we find by פרעה the other five מכות that the אייבערשטער made it. The אייבערשטער made his heart hard, so why did he punish for all the מכות? The one of the answers the רבי brings because the reason the רמב\"ם says why it happened is because the first five he did it on his own, so the אייבערשטער punished him, so it's תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס. So the hardening of the heart was the punishment. Was the punishment. Anyway, so the גמרא asks, if you say they didn't sin, what's the פשט that they turned to money? שלא עשו כמעשה אביהם, they didn't behave like their father, שמואל. What did he do? שמואל הצדיק היה מחזר בכל מקומות ישראל ודן אותם בעריהם. שמואל would go to the people, he would travel to the cities to judge them. שנאמר it says: והלך מדי שנה בשנה וסבב בית-אל והגלגל והמצפה, he went to this city, that city, ושפט את ישראל, they פסקנ'ד. והם לא עשו כן, they didn't go. אלא ישבו בעריהם, they sat in their cities, not so they should get money, כדי להרבות שכר לחזניהם ולסופריהם. Because if you come to a city, you're a judge, so you always have the people who are there, the ones that write down the פסק and the people who take care, the secretaries. So if you come to every city, you have different secretaries because they're over there. He wanted his guys to get the money, so he sat home and always these guys got it. So it's not really bribery. For them, aber that's not considered like שמואל. שמואל didn't want that. ממילא that's the פשט that they didn't sin. But then then when it's not so true, not everyone agrees that they didn't sin. כתנאי It's a מחלוקת תנאים. שמואל got paid? שמואל got paid when he went? When he went to judge he was getting paid? It was a job? No, if if anything he got שכר בטלה. You're not allowed to get paid. You're not allowed to. Says ויטו אחרי הבצע, the ברייתא quotes the פסוק that he turned to the money. רבי מאיר אומר, different פשט, חלקם שאלו בפיהם. They went and they asked for their share. Since they were לויים, שמואל was a לוי, they got מעשר ראשון. And they came they would ask for it from people. And what would that do? Since they were חשובי people, no one had the חוצפה not to give him. So basically they got it, and what happened? So most other לויים couldn't get. Even if people didn't want to give him, they פשוט felt uncomfortable so they gave him. And that's really bribery. That's not That's taking money and now they're going to judge him and they got the מעשר. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, but not real bribery. But the other one, he's real bribery, מלאה הטילו על בעלי בתים, more of bribery. What is the פשט?