Arakhin 16

Arakhin 16

רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִיתְאַמְרָא בְּאַפֵּי תְּלָתָא, לֵית בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם לִישָּׁנָא בִּישָׁא. מַאי טַעְמָא? חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְחַבְרָא דְּחַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.

i.e., Rabba bar Rav Huna says: Any matter that was said in the presence of three people does not have the status of malicious speech if one subsequently repeats it. What is the reason? The reason is that your friend has a friend, and your friend’s friend has a friend. Once the information has been stated in the presence of three people, it can be assumed that it will spread and become public knowledge, as each person will tell someone else.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״מְבָרֵךְ רֵעֵהוּ בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל בַּבּוֹקֶר הַשְׁכֵּם קְלָלָה תֵּחָשֵׁב לוֹ״? כְּגוֹן דְּמִיקְּלַע לְאוּשְׁפִּיזָא וְטָרְחוּ קַמֵּיהּ שַׁפִּיר, לִמְחַר נָפֵיק יָתֵיב בְּשׁוּקָא וְאָמַר: רַחֲמָנָא נִיבָרְכֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא דְּהָכִי טְרַח קַמַּאי, וְשָׁמְעִין אִינָשֵׁי וְאָזְלִין וְאָנְסִין לֵיהּ.

The Gemara continues its discussion of good and bad speech. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He that blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him” (Proverbs 27:14)? For example, when one is invited to a host, and they look after him very well. The following day the guest goes out and sits in the marketplace and says: May the Merciful One bless so-and-so, as this is how well he looked after me. And all the people in the marketplace hear and go to this host and afflict him by expecting him to look after all of them in the same way, and he is compelled to spend his money on them. It turns out that the praise and blessing the guest lavished upon his host brought a curse upon him.

תָּנֵי רַב דִּימִי אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב סָפְרָא: לְעוֹלָם אַל יְסַפֵּר אָדָם בְּטוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ טוֹבָתוֹ בָּא לִידֵי רָעָתוֹ.

Similarly, Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, teaches: A person should never speak about the goodness of another in the presence of others, as through speaking about his goodness he will come to speak about him in a derogatory manner, as he will eventually note the exceptions to his goodness, or his listeners will temper his praise by mentioning that individual’s bad qualities.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַב דִּימִי אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב סָפְרָא חֲלַשׁ, עָל רַב סָפְרָא לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: תֵּיתֵי לִי דְּקַיֵּימִי כֹּל דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא מִי מְקַיְּימַתְּ — לְעוֹלָם אַל יְסַפֵּר אָדָם בְּטוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ טוֹבָתוֹ בָּא לִידֵי גְּנוּתוֹ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא שְׁמִיעָא לִי, וְאִי הֲוָה שְׁמִיעָא לִי — קַיֵּימְתַּהּ.

There are those who say that Rav Dimi did not actually make this statement himself. Rather, the following incident occurred: Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, was ill. Rav Safra went in to inquire about his condition. Rav Dimi said to those present: I have blessing and merit coming to me, as I have fulfilled all of the statements that the Sages say. Rav Safra said to him: But have you fulfilled the instruction of the Sages that a person should never speak about the goodness of another in the presence of others, as through speaking about his goodness he will come to speak about him in a derogatory manner? Rav Dimi said to them: I never heard this statement of the Sages, but had I heard it, I would have fulfilled it.

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַל שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים נְגָעִים בָּאִין — עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְעַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְעַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, וְעַל גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וְעַל גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ, וְעַל הַגָּזֵל, וְעַל צָרוּת הָעַיִן.

§ Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Leprous marks come and afflict a person for seven sinful matters: For malicious speech, for bloodshed, for an oath taken in vain, for forbidden sexual relations, for arrogance, for theft, and for stinginess.

עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע — דִּכְתִיב: ״מְלׇשְׁנִי בַסֵּתֶר רֵעֵהוּ אוֹתוֹ אַצְמִית״.

The Gemara explains the source for the claim that each of these seven sins is punishable with leprosy. For malicious speech one is punished, as it is written: “Whoever defames his neighbor in secret, I will destroy him; whoever is haughty of eye and proud of heart, I will not suffer him” (Psalms 101:5). The Gemara explained above (15b) that this is referring to leprosy.

עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים — דִּכְתִיב ״וְאַל יִכָּרֵת מִבֵּית יוֹאָב זָב וּמְצֹרָע וְגוֹ׳״.

For bloodshed, as it is written about Joab, as punishment for murdering Abner: “And let there not fail from the house of Joab a zav, or a leper, or that leans on a staff, or that falls by the sword, or that lacks bread” (II Samuel 3:29).

וְעַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר נַעֲמָן הוֹאֵל קַח כִּכָּרָיִם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְצָרַעַת נַעֲמָן תִּדְבַּק בְּךָ וְגוֹ׳״.

And for an oath taken in vain, as it is written: “And Naaman said: Be content [ho’el], take two talents. And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of garment, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bore them before him” (II Kings 5:23). The Sages maintain that the term ho’el indicates an oath, and that Naaman requested of Gehazi, to whom this was stated, to take an oath that Elisha had sent him to accept gifts, which Elisha had not done, and Gehazi took the oath. When Elisha found out what Gehazi had done he cursed him, and so it is written: “The leprosy of Naaman shall stick to you and to your children forever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow” (II Kings 5:27).

וְעַל גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְנַגַּע ה׳ אֶת פַּרְעֹה נְגָעִים וְגוֹ׳״.

And for forbidden sexual relations, as it is written: “And the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great afflictions because of Sarai, Abram’s wife” (Genesis 12:17).

וְעַל גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְחֶזְקָתוֹ גָּבַהּ לִבּוֹ עַד לְהַשְׁחִית וַיִּמְעוֹל בַּה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״, ״וְהַצָּרַעַת זָרְחָה בְּמִצְחוֹ״.

And for arrogance, as it is written with regard to King Uzziah: “But when he was strong his heart became arrogant so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against the Lord his God; for he went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense” (II Chronicles 26:16). And it states: “Then Uzziah was angry; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was angry with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead” (II Chronicles 26:19).

וְעַל הַגָּזֵל — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְצִוָּה הַכֹּהֵן וּפִנּוּ אֶת הַבַּיִת״. תָּנָא: הוּא כּוֹנֵס מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן וִיפַזֵּר מָמוֹנוֹ.

And for theft, as it is written: “And the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go in to see the mark, that all that is in the house not become impure; and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house” (Leviticus 14:36). In explanation of this verse, the Sages taught: He gathered property that is not his, therefore let the priest come and scatter his property.

וְעַל צָרוּת הָעַיִן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבָא אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַבַּיִת״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִי שֶׁמְיוּחָד בֵּיתוֹ לוֹ.

And for stinginess, as it is written: “Then he that owns the house shall come and tell the priest, saying: There seems to me to be as it were a mark in the house” (Leviticus 14:35). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse calls him the one who owns the house because it is referring to one who was stingy and treated his house as being exclusively his, and did not allow others to share his property.

אִינִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲנָנִי בַּר שָׂשׂוֹן: לָמָּה נִסְמְכָה פָּרָשַׁת בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה לְפָרָשַׁת קׇרְבָּנוֹת? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה קׇרְבָּנוֹת מְכַפְּרִין — אַף בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה מְכַפְּרִין. כְּתוֹנֶת מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶת הַכֻּתֹּנֶת בַּדָּם״. מִכְנָסַיִם מְכַפְּרִים עַל גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַעֲשֵׂה לָהֶם מִכְנְסֵי בָד לְכַסּוֹת בְּשַׂר עֶרְוָה״.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Doesn’t Rabbi Anani bar Sason say: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus 8) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1–7)? To tell you that just as offerings atone, so too the priestly vestments atone. For what does each garment atone? The tunic [ketonet] atones for bloodshed, as it is written with regard to Joseph’s brothers after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the coat [ketonet] in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is written with regard to the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42).

מִצְנֶפֶת מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל גַּסֵּי הָרוּחַ — כִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: יָבֹא דָּבָר שֶׁבַּגּוֹבַהּ וִיכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה גּוֹבַהּ. אַבְנֵט (מכפרת) [מְכַפֵּר] עַל הִרְהוּר הַלֵּב, אַהֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה עַל לֵב אַהֲרֹן״.

The mitre atones for the arrogant, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the matter of an elevated heart. The belt atones for thought of the heart. The Gemara elaborates: The belt atones for the sins occurring where it is situated, i.e., over the heart, as it is written: “And you shall put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Tummim; and it shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goes in before the Lord; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually” (Exodus 28:30).

חוֹשֶׁן מְכַפֵּר עַל הַדִּינִין — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ חֹשֶׁן מִשְׁפָּט״. אֵפוֹד מְכַפֵּר עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵין אֵפוֹד וּתְרָפִים״. מְעִיל מְכַפֵּר עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יָבֹא דָּבָר שֶׁבַּקּוֹל וִיכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקּוֹל.

The breastplate of the High Priest atones for improper judgments, as it is written: “And you shall make a breastplate of judgment” (Exodus 28:15). The ephod of the High Priest atones for idol worship, as it is written: “And without ephod or teraphim” (Hosea 3:4), that is to say, when there is no ephod, the sin of teraphim, i.e., idol worship, is found. This indicates that if there is an ephod, there is no sin of idol worship. The robe of the High Priest atones for malicious speech, as the Holy One, Blessed be He says: Let an item that produces sound, i.e., the bells of the robe, come and atone for an act of malicious sound, i.e., malicious speech.

צִיץ מְכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה עַזֵּי פָנִים — כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְהָיָה עַל מֵצַח אַהֲרֹן״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וּמֵצַח אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה הָיָה לָךְ״.

Finally, the frontplate of the High Priest atones for an act of brazenness. From where is this derived? Here, with regard to the frontplate, it is written: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead” (Exodus 28:38), and there, with regard to brazenness, it is written: “And you had a prostitute’s forehead” (Jeremiah 3:3). The statement of Rabbi Anani bar Sason indicates that the robe worn by the High Priest atones for malicious speech, which means that one is not punished by leprosy, as claimed by Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani.

לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו, הָא דְּלָא אַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו. אִי אַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו — אָתוּ נְגָעִים עֲלֵיהּ, אִי לָא אַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו — מְעִיל מְכַפֵּר.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the statement of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani is referring to a case where his actions were effective and caused damage. There, Rabbi Anani bar Sason is referring to a case where his actions were not effective. If his actions were effective and caused harm or quarrels, leprous marks come upon him as punishment. If his actions were not effective and did not cause any damage, the robe atones for his sin.

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים לֹא מָצִינוּ לָהֶם בַּקׇּרְבָּנוֹת כַּפָּרָה, בְּדָבָר אַחֵר מָצִינוּ לָהֶם כַּפָּרָה, שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים וְלָשׁוֹן הָרָע. שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים בְּעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Simon say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are two matters for which we do not find atonement through offerings, but we find atonement for them through another matter, and they are: Bloodshed and malicious speech. With regard to bloodshed, its atonement comes from the heifer whose neck is broken. This is referring to a case where a murdered body is found but the murderer is unknown. In such an instance, the Torah mandates that the town nearest the body must break the neck of a heifer as atonement for the transgression (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9).

וְלָשׁוֹן הָרָע — בִּקְטֹרֶת, דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לָמַדְנוּ לִקְטֹרֶת שֶׁמְּכַפֶּרֶת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת וַיְכַפֵּר עַל הָעָם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: עַל מָה קְטֹרֶת מְכַפֶּרֶת — עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יָבֹא דָּבָר שֶׁבַּחֲשַׁאי וִיכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה חֲשַׁאי.

And malicious speech is atoned for through incense, as Rabbi Ḥanina taught in a baraita: We have learned that incense atones, as it is written in the incident when the Israelites were afflicted with a plague for speaking slanderously against Moses and Aaron: “And he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people” (Numbers 17:12). And similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what does incense atone? For malicious speech. It is as though the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Let an item that is sacrificed in private, i.e., the incense, which is burnt inside the Sanctuary, come and atone for an action generally performed in private, i.e., malicious speech.

קַשְׁיָא שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, קַשְׁיָא לָשׁוֹן הָרָע אַלָּשׁוֹן הָרָע!

The Gemara notes the apparent contradictions: One statement concerning bloodshed is difficult, as it is contradicted by the other statement about bloodshed: According to Rabbi Anani bar Sason the tunic atones for bloodshed, whereas the baraita states that the heifer whose neck is broken atones for this sin. Furthermore, one statement concerning malicious speech is difficult, as it is contradicted by the other statement about malicious speech: Rabbi Anani bar Sason maintains that the robe atones for malicious speech, whereas according to the baraita it is the incense that atones for this transgression.

שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּידִיעַ מַאן קַטְלֵיהּ, הָא דְּלָא יְדִיעַ מַאן קַטְלֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement about bloodshed and the other statement about bloodshed is not difficult, as this, the tunic, atones for bloodshed in a case where it is known who killed him, and that, the heifer, atones in a case where it is not known who killed him.

דִּידִיעַ מַאן קַטְלֵיהּ בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא! בְּמֵזִיד וְלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ.

The Gemara asks: If it is known who killed him, the murderer is deserving of death, and there is no atonement for the community until he is put to death, as the verse states: “And no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed within it, but by the blood of him that shed it” (Numbers 35:33). The Gemara responds: There are certain instances where it is impossible to put him to death, e.g., if he murdered intentionally but witnesses did not warn him beforehand of the consequences of committing murder. In such a case, the court may not put the murderer to death, as there is no punishment without prior warning.

לָשׁוֹן הָרָע אַלָּשׁוֹן הָרָע לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּצִינְעָא,

The Gemara continues: With regard to the apparent contradiction between one statement dealing with malicious speech and the other statement about malicious speech, it is also not difficult, as this, the incense, atones for malicious speech spoken in private,

הָא בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא.

whereas that robe atones for malicious speech spoken in public.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נָדָב מֵרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נָדָב חַתְנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מֵרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מֵרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה מְצוֹרָע שֶׁאָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מוֹשָׁבוֹ״? הוּא הִבְדִּיל בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, בֵּין אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ, לְפִיכָךְ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nadav asked Rabbi Ḥanina, and some say that it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Nadav, the son-in-law of Rabbi Ḥanina, who asked of Rabbi Ḥanina, and some say that he asked it of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is different and notable about a leper, that the Torah states: “He shall dwell alone; outside of the camp shall be his dwelling” (Leviticus 13:46)? He replied: By speaking malicious speech he separated between husband and wife and between one person and another; therefore he is punished with leprosy, and the Torah says: “He shall dwell alone; outside of the camp shall be his dwelling.”

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן לֵוִי: מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה מְצוֹרָע שֶׁאָמְרָה תּוֹרָה יָבִיא שְׁתֵּי צִיפֳּרִים לְטׇהֳרָתוֹ? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הוּא עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה פַּטִּיט, לְפִיכָךְ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה יָבִיא קׇרְבַּן פַּטִּיט.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Levi says: What is different and notable about a leper that the Torah states that he is to bring two birds for his purification (Leviticus 14:4)? The Holy One, Blessed be He says: He acted by speaking malicious speech with an act of chatter; therefore the Torah says that he is to bring an offering of birds, who chirp and chatter all the time.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ״ — יָכוֹל לֹא יַכֶּנּוּ, לֹא יִסְטְרֶנּוּ, וְלֹא יְקַלְּלֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בִּלְבָבֶךָ״ — שִׂנְאָה שֶׁבַּלֵּב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall rebuke [hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ] your neighbor, and do not bear sin because of him” (Leviticus 19:17). Why does the verse specify “in your heart”? One might have thought that the verse means: Do not hit him, do not slap him, and do not ruin him due to hatred. Therefore the verse states “in your heart.” This teaches that the verse speaks of hatred in the heart.

מִנַּיִן לָרוֹאֶה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ דָּבָר מְגוּנֶּה שֶׁחַיָּיב לְהוֹכִיחוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ״. הוֹכִיחוֹ וְלֹא קִבֵּל, מִנַּיִן שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר וְיוֹכִיחֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹכִיחַ״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁתַּנִּים פָּנָיו? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא״.

From where is it derived with regard to one who sees an unseemly matter in another that he is obligated to rebuke him? As it is stated: “You shall rebuke [hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ] your neighbor.” If one rebuked him for his action but he did not accept the rebuke, from where is it derived that he must rebuke him again? The verse states: “You shall rebuke [hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ],” and the double language indicates he must rebuke in any case. One might have thought that one should continue rebuking him even if his face changes due to humiliation. Therefore, the verse states: “Do not bear sin because of him”; the one giving rebuke may not sin by embarrassing the other person.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: תְּמֵיהַנִי אֲנִי אִם יֵשׁ בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל תּוֹכֵחָה, אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר לוֹ ״טוֹל קֵיסָם מִבֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״טוֹל קוֹרָה מִבֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: תְּמֵיהַנִי אִם יֵשׁ בְּדוֹר הַזֶּה שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לְהוֹכִיחַ.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Tarfon says: I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who can receive rebuke. Why? Because if the one rebuking says to him: Remove the splinter from between your eyes, i.e., rid yourself of a minor infraction, the other says to him: Remove the beam from between your eyes, i.e., you have committed far more severe sins. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who knows how to rebuke correctly, without embarrassing the person he is rebuking.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: מֵעִיד אֲנִי עָלַי שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ שֶׁהַרְבֵּה פְּעָמִים לָקָה עֲקִיבָא עַל יְדֵי, שֶׁהָיִיתִי קוֹבֵל עָלָיו לִפְנֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרִיבִּי, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁהוֹסַפְתִּי בּוֹ אַהֲבָה, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תּוֹכַח לֵץ פֶּן יִשְׂנָאֶךָּ הוֹכַח לְחָכָם וְיֶאֱהָבֶךָּ״.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses before me that Akiva was lashed, i.e., punished, many times on my account, as I would complain about him before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Great. And all the more so I thereby increased his love for me. This incident serves to affirm that which is stated: “Do not rebuke a scorner lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8). A wise man wants to improve himself and loves those who assist him in that task.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: תּוֹכֵחָה לִשְׁמָהּ וַעֲנָוָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיפָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָא מוֹדֵית דַּעֲנָוָה לִשְׁמָהּ עֲדִיפָא, דְּאָמַר מָר: עֲנָוָה גְּדוֹלָה מִכּוּלָּם? שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ נָמֵי עֲדִיפָא, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ.

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon, asked his father: If one is faced with the choice of rebuke for its own sake, or humility not for its own sake, which of them is preferable? His father said to him: Do you not concede that humility for its own sake is preferable? As the Master says: Humility is the greatest of all the positive attributes. If so, humility not for its own sake is also preferable, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even if not for their own sake, i.e., without the proper motivation but for ulterior motives, as through the performance of mitzvot not for their own sake, one will come in the end to do them for their own sake.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי תּוֹכֵחָה לִשְׁמָהּ וַעֲנָוָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ? כִּי הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב הֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ חִיָּיא בַּר רַב: חֲזִי מָר דְּקָא מְצַעַר לִי. קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ דְּתוּ לָא מְצַעַר לֵיהּ. בָּתַר דְּנָפֵיק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי וְהָכִי קָא עָבֵיד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי לָא אֲמַרְתְּ לֵיהּ בְּאַנְפֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַס לִי דְּלִיכְּסִיף זַרְעֵיהּ דְּרַב עַל יְדַאי!

The Gemara asks: What is considered rebuke for its own sake and humility not for its own sake? The Gemara answers: It is like this incident that occurred when Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav were sitting before Shmuel. Ḥiyya bar Rav said to Shmuel: See, Master, that Rav Huna is afflicting me. Rav Huna accepted upon himself that he would not afflict Ḥiyya bar Rav anymore. After Ḥiyya bar Rav left, Rav Huna said to Shmuel: Ḥiyya bar Rav did such-and-such to me, and therefore I was in the right to cause him distress. Shmuel said to him: Why did you not say this in his presence? Rav Huna said to him: Heaven forbid that the son of Rav should be humiliated because of me. This provides an example of rebuke for its own sake, as Rav Huna originally rebuked Ḥiyya bar Rav only when Shmuel was not present, and of humility not for its own sake, as Rav Huna did not forgive Ḥiyya bar Rav but simply did not wish to humiliate him.

עַד הֵיכָן תּוֹכֵחָה? רַב אָמַר: עַד הַכָּאָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: עַד קְלָלָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: עַד נְזִיפָה. כְּתַנָּאֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: עַד הַכָּאָה, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: עַד קְלָלָה, בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: עַד נְזִיפָה.

§ The Gemara asks: Until where does the obligation of rebuke extend? Rav says: Until his rebuke is met by hitting, i.e., until the person being rebuked hits the person rebuking him.And Shmuel says: Until his rebuke is met by cursing, i.e., he curses the one rebuking him. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Until his rebuke is met by reprimand. The Gemara points out that this dispute between these amora’im is like a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Eliezer says: Until his rebuke is met by hitting; Rabbi Yehoshua says: Until his rebuke is met by cursing; ben Azzai says: Until his rebuke is met by reprimand.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וּשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וַיִּחַר אַף שָׁאוּל בִּיהוֹנָתָן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ בֶּן נַעֲוַת הַמַּרְדּוּת״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּטֶל שָׁאוּל אֶת הַחֲנִית עָלָיו לְהַכּוֹתוֹ״.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And all three of them expounded the same one verse, from which they derived their respective opinions. After Jonathan rebuked his father, Saul, for the way he treated David, the verse states: “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him: You son of perverse rebellion, do not I know that you have chosen the son of Yishai to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness” (I Samuel 20:30). And it is written: “And Saul cast his spear at him to smite him, whereby Jonathan knew that it had been determined by his father to put David to death” (I Samuel 20:33).

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד הַכָּאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְהַכּוֹתוֹ״, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד קְלָלָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְבׇשְׁתְּךָ וּלְבֹשֶׁת עֶרְוַת אִמֶּךָ״, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד נְזִיפָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּחַר אַף שָׁאוּל״.

According to the one who says: Until his rebuke is met by hitting, it is derived from that which is written: “To smite him.” And according to the one who says: Until his rebuke is met by cursing, it is derived from that which is written: “To the shame of your mother’s nakedness.” And according to the one who says: Until his rebuke is met by reprimand, it is derived from that which is written: “Then Saul’s anger was kindled.”

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר נְזִיפָה, הָכְתִיב הַכָּאָה וּקְלָלָה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאַגַּב חַבִּיבוּתָא יַתִּירָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּיהּ לִיהוֹנָתָן בְּדָוִד, מְסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ טְפֵי.

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says: Until his rebuke is met by reprimand, aren’t both hitting and cursing written in that verse? The Gemara answers: It is different there, as due to the special fondness that Jonathan had for David, he subjected himself to more abuse than is required by halakha.

עַד הֵיכָן לֹא יְשַׁנֶּה אָדָם בָּאַכְסַנְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ? רַב אָמַר: עַד הַכָּאָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁלוּ לוֹ כֵּלָיו לַאֲחוֹרָיו.

Apropos the topic of losing patience and hitting another, the Gemara asks: Until where does the requirement that a person should not change his place of lodging extend, i.e., how much must one suffer before he may move elsewhere? Rav says: Until the point of the host’s hitting him. And Shmuel says: Until the host packs up the guest’s clothes and places them on his back to throw him out.

בְּהַכָּאָה דִּידֵיהּ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, בְּהַפְשָׁלַת כֵּלָיו לַאֲחוֹרָיו — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נָמֵי לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בְּהַכָּאָה דִּדְבֵיתְהוּ, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דִּלְדִידֵיהּ לָא מְצַעֵר לֵיהּ מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: אָתֵי לְאִיטְּרוֹדֵי.

The Gemara comments: If it is a case where the host hits the guest himself, everyone agrees that the guest may move lodging. Similarly, if the host packs up the guest’s clothes and places them on his back, everyone also agrees that he may leave. When they disagree is in a case where the host hits his wife. One Sage, Rav, holds that since the host does not hurt the guest himself, what difference does it make to him? Therefore, he should not change his lodging on that account. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that if he continues to stay in that place he will come to fight with his host about this matter.

וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה? דְּאָמַר מָר: אַכְסְנַאי פּוֹגֵם וְנִפְגָּם.

And why is it so important that one should remain in the same lodging until he is forced to leave? It is as the Master says: A guest has the potential to degrade and to be degraded. If he moves from one place of lodging to another, people will assume that his host is unpleasant to him and that he is not a well-behaved guest, as the two of them cannot get along with one another, and the reputations of both of them will be tarnished.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנֶּה אָדָם בָּאַכְסַנְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הָיָה שָׁם אׇהֳלוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה״.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: From where in the Torah is it derived that a person should not change his place of lodging? As it is stated when Abraham returned from Egypt: “And he went on his journeys from the South to Beth El, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beth El and Ai” (Genesis 13:3). Abraham took pains to revisit the same places he had stayed on his journey to Egypt.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא ״וַיֵּלֶךְ לְמַסָּעָיו״. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ אַכְסְנַאי דְּאַקְרַאי.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina says: The source is from here, the beginning of the verse: “And he went on his journeys,” i.e., the same journeys he made on the way down to Egypt. What is the difference between these two explanations? The practical difference between them is with regard to a temporary lodging. According to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina, even one who is on a journey must return to stay in the same place where he originally lodged, whereas “his tent” indicates a measure of permanence.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנֶּה אָדָם מֵאוּמָּנוּתוֹ וּמֵאוּמָּנוּת אֲבוֹתָיו? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה וַיִּקַּח אֶת חִירָם מִצֹּר, בֶּן אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה הוּא מִמַּטֵּה נַפְתָּלִי וְאָבִיו אִישׁ צֹרִי חֹרֵשׁ נְחוֹשֶׁת״.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived that a person should not change from his craft and from the craft of his fathers? As it is stated: “And King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass; and he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill, to work all works in brass. And he came to King Solomon, and wrought all his work” (I Kings 7:13–14).

וְאָמַר מָר: אִימֵּיהּ מִבֵּית דָּן, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאִתּוֹ אׇהֳלִיאָב בֶּן אֲחִיסָמָךְ לְמַטֵּה דָן״.

And the Master says: Hiram’s mother was also from the house of Dan, as the verse states about him: “The son of a woman of the daughters of Dan” (II Chronicles 2:13). And it is written with regard to those who constructed the Tabernacle: “And with him was Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, a craftsman, and a skillful workman, and a weaver in colors, in blue, and in purple, and in scarlet, and fine linen” (Exodus 38:23). This teaches that Hiram continued in the craft of brass work, the craft of his father’s family and also of his mother’s family from Dan.

עַד הֵיכָן תַּכְלִית יִסּוּרִין? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל שֶׁאָרְגוּ לוֹ בֶּגֶד לִלְבּוֹשׁ וְאֵין מִתְקַבֵּל עָלָיו. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא זְעֵירָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי: גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ אָמְרוּ, אֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּוְּונוּ לִמְזוֹג בְּחַמִּין וּמָזְגוּ לוֹ בְּצוֹנֵן, בְּצוֹנֵן וּמָזְגוּ לוֹ בְּחַמִּין, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ כּוּלֵּי הַאי?

§ The Gemara asks: Until where is the minimum limit of suffering? What is the least amount pain that is included in the definition of suffering? Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone for whom they wove a garment to wear and the garment does not suit him, i.e., it does not fit him exactly. Rava the Younger objects to this, and some say Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani objects: The Sages said an even greater statement than this, i.e., that even lesser inconvenience is still considered suffering: Even if people intended that they would dilute his wine with hot water, but they accidentally diluted it for him with cold water, it is considered suffering. Similarly, if he wanted it diluted with cold water, but they diluted it for him with hot water, this too is considered suffering. And you say all this, that it is considered suffering, only if the garment one ordered does not fit?

מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נֶהְפַּךְ לוֹ חֲלוּקוֹ. רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: אֲפִילּוּ הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לַכִּיס לִיטּוֹל שָׁלֹשׁ וְעָלוּ בְּיָדוֹ שְׁתַּיִם.

Mar son of Ravina says: Even if one’s cloak turns around as he puts it on, so that he has to take it off and put it on again, this too is considered a form of suffering. Rava said, and some say it was Rav Ḥisda, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak, and some say it was taught in a baraita: Even if one reached his hand into his pocket to take out three coins, but two coins came up in his hand, it is considered a form of suffering.

דַּוְוקָא שָׁלֹשׁ וְעָלוּ בְּיָדוֹ שְׁתַּיִם, אֲבָל שְׁתַּיִם וְעָלוּ בְּיָדוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ — לָא, דְּלֵיכָּא טִירְחָא לְמִישְׁדְּיַיהּוֹ.

The Gemara notes that it constitutes suffering specifically in a case where one reached into his pocket to take three coins, and two coins came up in his hand. But if he reached into his pocket to take two, and instead three coins came up in his hand, this is not considered to be suffering, as it is not an exertion to drop the extra coin back into his pocket.

וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה? דְּתַנְיָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כֹּל שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלָיו אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם בְּלֹא יִסּוּרִין קִיבֵּל עוֹלָמוֹ. בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי:

And why is it so important to know the least amount of suffering? As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: Anyone who passes forty days without suffering has received his World, i.e., his reward, and he will have no further reward in the World-to-Come. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: