Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 2, 2019 | כ״ט בסיון תשע״ט

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah. 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Arakhin 16

What is considered lashon hara? What else causes leprosy besides loshon hara? The clothing of the priests atone on particular sins. How does that correlate to the other sources regarding leprosy? One cannot leave a place where he was dwelling – why? One has to always be concerned for ramifications of one’s actions/speech.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

רבה בר רב הונא כל מילתא דמיתאמרא באפי תלתא לית בה משום לישנא בישא מאי טעמא חברך חברא אית ליה וחברא דחברך חברא אית ליה

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.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר מאי דכתיב מברך רעהו בקול גדול בבוקר השכם קללה תחשב לו כגון דמיקלע לאושפיזא וטרחו קמיה שפיר למחר נפיק יתיב בשוקא ואמר רחמנא ניברכיה לפלניא דהכי טרח קמאי ושמעין אינשי ואזלין ואנסין ליה

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.

תני רב דימי אחוה דרב ספרא לעולם אל יספר אדם בטובתו של חבירו שמתוך טובתו בא לידי רעתו

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.

איכא דאמרי רב דימי אחוה דרב ספרא חלש על רב ספרא לשיולי ביה אמר להו תיתי לי דקיימי כל דאמר רבנן אמר ליה הא מי מקיימת לעולם אל יספר אדם בטובתו של חבירו שמתוך טובתו בא לידי גנותו אמר להו לא שמיעא לי ואי הוה שמיעא לי קיימתה

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.

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן על שבעה דברים נגעים באין על לשון הרע ועל שפיכות דמים ועל שבועת שוא ועל גילוי עריות ועל גסות הרוח ועל הגזל ועל צרות העין

§ 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.

על לשון הרע דכתיב מלשני בסתר רעהו אותו אצמית

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.

על שפיכות דמים דכתיב ואל יכרת מבית יואב זב ומצרע וגו׳

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).

ועל שבועת שוא דכתיב ויאמר נעמן הואל קח ככרים וכתיב וצרעת נעמן תדבק בך וגו׳

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).

ועל גילוי עריות דכתיב וינגע ה׳ את פרעה נגעים וגו׳

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).

ועל גסות הרוח דכתיב ובחזקתו גבה לבו עד להשחית וימעול בה׳ אלהיו והצרעת זרחה במצחו

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).

ועל הגזל דכתיב וצוה הכהן ופנו את הבית תנא הוא כונס ממון שאינו שלו יבא הכהן ויפזר ממונו

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.

ועל צרות העין דכתיב ובא אשר לו הבית ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מי שמיוחד ביתו לו

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.

איני והא אמר רבי ענני בר ששון למה נסמכה פרשת בגדי כהונה לפרשת קרבנות לומר לך מה קרבנות מכפרין אף בגדי כהונה מכפרין כתונת מכפרת על שפיכות דמים דכתיב ויטבלו את הכתנת בדם מכנסים מכפרים על גילוי עריות דכתיב ועשה להם מכנסי בד לכסות בשר ערוה

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).

מצנפת מכפרת על גסי הרוח כדרבי חנינא דאמר רבי חנינא יבא דבר שבגובה ויכפר על מעשה גובה אבנט מכפרת על הרהור הלב אהיכא דאיתיה דכתיב והיה על לב אהרן

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).

חושן מכפר על הדינין דכתיב ועשית חשן משפט אפוד מכפר על עבודה זרה דכתיב אין אפוד ותרפים מעיל מכפר על לשון הרע אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא יבא דבר שבקול ויכפר על מעשה הקול

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.

ציץ מכפר על מעשה עזי פנים כתיב הכא והיה על מצח אהרן וכתיב התם ומצח אשה זונה היה לך

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.

לא קשיא הא דאהנו מעשיו הא דלא אהנו מעשיו אי אהנו מעשיו אתו נגעים עליה אי לא אהנו מעשיו מעיל מכפר

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.

והאמר רבי סימון אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שני דברים לא מצינו להם בקרבנות כפרה בדבר אחר מצינו להם כפרה שפיכות דמים ולשון הרע שפיכות דמים בעגלה ערופה

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).

ולשון הרע בקטרת דתניא רבי חנינא למדנו לקטרת שמכפרת דכתיב ויתן את הקטרת ויכפר על העם ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל על מה קטרת מכפרת על לשון הרע אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא יבא דבר שבחשאי ויכפר על מעשה חשאי

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.

קשיא שפיכות דמים אשפיכות דמים קשיא לשון הרע אלשון הרע

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.

שפיכות דמים אשפיכות דמים לא קשיא הא דידיע מאן קטליה הא דלא ידיע מאן קטליה

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.

דידיע מאן קטליה בר קטלא הוא במזיד ולא אתרו ביה

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.

לשון הרע אלשון הרע לא קשיא הא בצינעא

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,

הא בפרהסיא

whereas that robe atones for malicious speech spoken in public.

בעא מיניה רבי שמואל בר נדב מרבי חנינא ואמרי לה רבי שמואל בר נדב חתניה דרבי חנינא מרבי חנינא ואמרי לה מרבי יהושע בן לוי מה נשתנה מצורע שאמרה תורה בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו הוא הבדיל בין איש לאשתו בין איש לרעהו לפיכך אמרה תורה בדד ישב וגו׳

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.”

אמר רבי יהודה בן לוי מה נשתנה מצורע שאמרה תורה יביא שתי ציפרים לטהרתו אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא הוא עושה מעשה פטיט לפיכך אמרה תורה יביא קרבן פטיט

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.

תנו רבנן לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך יכול לא יכנו לא יסטרנו ולא יקלקלנו תלמוד לומר בלבבך שנאה שבלב הכתוב מדבר

§ 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.

מנין לרואה בחבירו דבר מגונה שחייב להוכיחו שנאמר הוכח תוכיח הוכיחו ולא קבל מנין שיחזור ויוכיחנו תלמוד לומר תוכיח מכל מקום יכול אפילו משתנים פניו תלמוד לומר לא תשא עליו חטא

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.

תניא אמר רבי טרפון תמיהני אני אם יש בדור הזה שמקבל תוכחה אם אמר לו טול קיסם מבין עיניך אמר לו טול קורה מבין עיניך אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה תמיהני אם יש בדור הזה שיודע להוכיח

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.

ואמר רבי יוחנן בן נורי מעיד אני עלי שמים וארץ שהרבה פעמים לקה עקיבא על ידי שהייתי קובל עליו לפני רבן שמעון בריבי וכל שכן שהוספתי בו אהבה לקיים מה שנאמר אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך הוכח לחכם ויאהבך

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.

בעא מיניה רבי יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון תוכחה לשמה וענוה שלא לשמה הי מינייהו עדיפא אמר ליה ולא מודית דענוה לשמה עדיפא דאמר מר ענוה גדולה מכולם שלא לשמה נמי עדיפא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אף על פי שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה

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.

היכי דמי תוכחה לשמה וענוה שלא לשמה כי הא דרב הונא וחייא בר רב הוו יתבי קמיה דשמואל אמר ליה חייא בר רב חזי מר דקא מצער לי קביל עליה דתו לא מצער ליה בתר דנפיק אמר ליה הכי והכי קא עביד אמר ליה אמאי לא אמרת ליה באנפיה אמר ליה חס לי דליכסוף זרעיה דרב על ידאי

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.

עד היכן תוכחה רב אמר עד הכאה ושמואל אמר עד קללה ורבי יוחנן אמר עד נזיפה כתנאי רבי אליעזר אומר עד הכאה רבי יהושע אומר עד קללה בן עזאי אומר עד נזיפה

§ 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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו ויחר אף שאול ביהונתן ויאמר לו בן נעות המרדות וכתיב ויטל שאול את החנית עליו להכותו

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).

למאן דאמר עד הכאה דכתיב להכותו ולמאן דאמר עד קללה דכתיב לבשתך ולבשת ערות אמך ולמאן דאמר עד נזיפה דכתיב ויחר אף שאול

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.”

ולמאן דאמר נזיפה הכתיב הכאה וקללה שאני התם דאגב חביבותא יתירא דהוה ביה ליהונתן בדוד מסר נפשיה טפי

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.

עד היכן לא ישנה אדם באכסניא שלו רב אמר עד הכאה ושמואל אמר עד שיפשלו לו כליו לאחוריו

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.

בהכאה דידיה כולי עלמא לא פליגי בהפשלת כליו לאחוריו כולי עלמא נמי לא פליגי כי פליגי בהכאה דדביתהו מר סבר כיון דלדידיה לא מצער ליה מאי נפקא ליה מינה ומר סבר אתי לאיטרודי

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.

וכל כך למה דאמר מר אכסנאי פוגם ונפגם

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מנין שלא ישנה אדם באכסניא שלו מן התורה שנאמר אל המקום אשר היה שם אהלו בתחלה

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.

רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר מהכא וילך למסעיו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו אכסנאי דאקראי

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.

אמר רבי יוחנן מנין שלא ישנה אדם מאומנותו ומאומנות אבותיו שנאמר וישלח המלך שלמה ויקח את חירם מצר בן אשה אלמנה הוא ממטה נפתלי ואביו איש צרי חרש נחושת

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).

ואמר מר אימיה מבית דן וכתיב ואתו אהליאב בן אחיסמך למטה דן

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.

עד היכן תכלית יסורין אמר רבי אלעזר כל שארגו לו בגד ללבוש ואין מתקבל עליו מתקיף לה רבא זעירא ואיתימא רבי שמואל בר נחמני גדולה מזו אמרו אפילו נתכוונו למזוג בחמין ומזגו לו בצונן בצונן ומזגו לו בחמין ואת אמרת כולי האי

§ 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?

מר בריה דרבינא אמר אפילו נהפך לו חלוקו רבא ואיתימא רב חסדא ואיתימא רבי יצחק ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא אפילו הושיט ידו לכיס ליטול שלש ועלו בידו שתים

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.

דווקא שלש ועלו בידו שתים אבל שתים ועלו בידו שלש לא דליכא טירחא למישדייהו

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.

וכל כך למה דתניא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל שעברו עליו ארבעים יום בלא יסורין קיבל עולמו במערבא אמרי

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:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah. 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 16

רבה בר רב הונא כל מילתא דמיתאמרא באפי תלתא לית בה משום לישנא בישא מאי טעמא חברך חברא אית ליה וחברא דחברך חברא אית ליה

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.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר מאי דכתיב מברך רעהו בקול גדול בבוקר השכם קללה תחשב לו כגון דמיקלע לאושפיזא וטרחו קמיה שפיר למחר נפיק יתיב בשוקא ואמר רחמנא ניברכיה לפלניא דהכי טרח קמאי ושמעין אינשי ואזלין ואנסין ליה

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.

תני רב דימי אחוה דרב ספרא לעולם אל יספר אדם בטובתו של חבירו שמתוך טובתו בא לידי רעתו

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.

איכא דאמרי רב דימי אחוה דרב ספרא חלש על רב ספרא לשיולי ביה אמר להו תיתי לי דקיימי כל דאמר רבנן אמר ליה הא מי מקיימת לעולם אל יספר אדם בטובתו של חבירו שמתוך טובתו בא לידי גנותו אמר להו לא שמיעא לי ואי הוה שמיעא לי קיימתה

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.

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן על שבעה דברים נגעים באין על לשון הרע ועל שפיכות דמים ועל שבועת שוא ועל גילוי עריות ועל גסות הרוח ועל הגזל ועל צרות העין

§ 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.

על לשון הרע דכתיב מלשני בסתר רעהו אותו אצמית

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.

על שפיכות דמים דכתיב ואל יכרת מבית יואב זב ומצרע וגו׳

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).

ועל שבועת שוא דכתיב ויאמר נעמן הואל קח ככרים וכתיב וצרעת נעמן תדבק בך וגו׳

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).

ועל גילוי עריות דכתיב וינגע ה׳ את פרעה נגעים וגו׳

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).

ועל גסות הרוח דכתיב ובחזקתו גבה לבו עד להשחית וימעול בה׳ אלהיו והצרעת זרחה במצחו

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).

ועל הגזל דכתיב וצוה הכהן ופנו את הבית תנא הוא כונס ממון שאינו שלו יבא הכהן ויפזר ממונו

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.

ועל צרות העין דכתיב ובא אשר לו הבית ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מי שמיוחד ביתו לו

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.

איני והא אמר רבי ענני בר ששון למה נסמכה פרשת בגדי כהונה לפרשת קרבנות לומר לך מה קרבנות מכפרין אף בגדי כהונה מכפרין כתונת מכפרת על שפיכות דמים דכתיב ויטבלו את הכתנת בדם מכנסים מכפרים על גילוי עריות דכתיב ועשה להם מכנסי בד לכסות בשר ערוה

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).

מצנפת מכפרת על גסי הרוח כדרבי חנינא דאמר רבי חנינא יבא דבר שבגובה ויכפר על מעשה גובה אבנט מכפרת על הרהור הלב אהיכא דאיתיה דכתיב והיה על לב אהרן

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).

חושן מכפר על הדינין דכתיב ועשית חשן משפט אפוד מכפר על עבודה זרה דכתיב אין אפוד ותרפים מעיל מכפר על לשון הרע אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא יבא דבר שבקול ויכפר על מעשה הקול

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.

ציץ מכפר על מעשה עזי פנים כתיב הכא והיה על מצח אהרן וכתיב התם ומצח אשה זונה היה לך

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.

לא קשיא הא דאהנו מעשיו הא דלא אהנו מעשיו אי אהנו מעשיו אתו נגעים עליה אי לא אהנו מעשיו מעיל מכפר

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.

והאמר רבי סימון אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שני דברים לא מצינו להם בקרבנות כפרה בדבר אחר מצינו להם כפרה שפיכות דמים ולשון הרע שפיכות דמים בעגלה ערופה

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).

ולשון הרע בקטרת דתניא רבי חנינא למדנו לקטרת שמכפרת דכתיב ויתן את הקטרת ויכפר על העם ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל על מה קטרת מכפרת על לשון הרע אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא יבא דבר שבחשאי ויכפר על מעשה חשאי

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.

קשיא שפיכות דמים אשפיכות דמים קשיא לשון הרע אלשון הרע

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.

שפיכות דמים אשפיכות דמים לא קשיא הא דידיע מאן קטליה הא דלא ידיע מאן קטליה

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.

דידיע מאן קטליה בר קטלא הוא במזיד ולא אתרו ביה

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.

לשון הרע אלשון הרע לא קשיא הא בצינעא

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,

הא בפרהסיא

whereas that robe atones for malicious speech spoken in public.

בעא מיניה רבי שמואל בר נדב מרבי חנינא ואמרי לה רבי שמואל בר נדב חתניה דרבי חנינא מרבי חנינא ואמרי לה מרבי יהושע בן לוי מה נשתנה מצורע שאמרה תורה בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו הוא הבדיל בין איש לאשתו בין איש לרעהו לפיכך אמרה תורה בדד ישב וגו׳

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.”

אמר רבי יהודה בן לוי מה נשתנה מצורע שאמרה תורה יביא שתי ציפרים לטהרתו אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא הוא עושה מעשה פטיט לפיכך אמרה תורה יביא קרבן פטיט

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.

תנו רבנן לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך יכול לא יכנו לא יסטרנו ולא יקלקלנו תלמוד לומר בלבבך שנאה שבלב הכתוב מדבר

§ 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.

מנין לרואה בחבירו דבר מגונה שחייב להוכיחו שנאמר הוכח תוכיח הוכיחו ולא קבל מנין שיחזור ויוכיחנו תלמוד לומר תוכיח מכל מקום יכול אפילו משתנים פניו תלמוד לומר לא תשא עליו חטא

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.

תניא אמר רבי טרפון תמיהני אני אם יש בדור הזה שמקבל תוכחה אם אמר לו טול קיסם מבין עיניך אמר לו טול קורה מבין עיניך אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה תמיהני אם יש בדור הזה שיודע להוכיח

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.

ואמר רבי יוחנן בן נורי מעיד אני עלי שמים וארץ שהרבה פעמים לקה עקיבא על ידי שהייתי קובל עליו לפני רבן שמעון בריבי וכל שכן שהוספתי בו אהבה לקיים מה שנאמר אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך הוכח לחכם ויאהבך

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.

בעא מיניה רבי יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון תוכחה לשמה וענוה שלא לשמה הי מינייהו עדיפא אמר ליה ולא מודית דענוה לשמה עדיפא דאמר מר ענוה גדולה מכולם שלא לשמה נמי עדיפא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אף על פי שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה

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.

היכי דמי תוכחה לשמה וענוה שלא לשמה כי הא דרב הונא וחייא בר רב הוו יתבי קמיה דשמואל אמר ליה חייא בר רב חזי מר דקא מצער לי קביל עליה דתו לא מצער ליה בתר דנפיק אמר ליה הכי והכי קא עביד אמר ליה אמאי לא אמרת ליה באנפיה אמר ליה חס לי דליכסוף זרעיה דרב על ידאי

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.

עד היכן תוכחה רב אמר עד הכאה ושמואל אמר עד קללה ורבי יוחנן אמר עד נזיפה כתנאי רבי אליעזר אומר עד הכאה רבי יהושע אומר עד קללה בן עזאי אומר עד נזיפה

§ 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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו ויחר אף שאול ביהונתן ויאמר לו בן נעות המרדות וכתיב ויטל שאול את החנית עליו להכותו

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).

למאן דאמר עד הכאה דכתיב להכותו ולמאן דאמר עד קללה דכתיב לבשתך ולבשת ערות אמך ולמאן דאמר עד נזיפה דכתיב ויחר אף שאול

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.”

ולמאן דאמר נזיפה הכתיב הכאה וקללה שאני התם דאגב חביבותא יתירא דהוה ביה ליהונתן בדוד מסר נפשיה טפי

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.

עד היכן לא ישנה אדם באכסניא שלו רב אמר עד הכאה ושמואל אמר עד שיפשלו לו כליו לאחוריו

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.

בהכאה דידיה כולי עלמא לא פליגי בהפשלת כליו לאחוריו כולי עלמא נמי לא פליגי כי פליגי בהכאה דדביתהו מר סבר כיון דלדידיה לא מצער ליה מאי נפקא ליה מינה ומר סבר אתי לאיטרודי

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.

וכל כך למה דאמר מר אכסנאי פוגם ונפגם

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מנין שלא ישנה אדם באכסניא שלו מן התורה שנאמר אל המקום אשר היה שם אהלו בתחלה

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.

רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר מהכא וילך למסעיו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו אכסנאי דאקראי

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.

אמר רבי יוחנן מנין שלא ישנה אדם מאומנותו ומאומנות אבותיו שנאמר וישלח המלך שלמה ויקח את חירם מצר בן אשה אלמנה הוא ממטה נפתלי ואביו איש צרי חרש נחושת

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).

ואמר מר אימיה מבית דן וכתיב ואתו אהליאב בן אחיסמך למטה דן

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.

עד היכן תכלית יסורין אמר רבי אלעזר כל שארגו לו בגד ללבוש ואין מתקבל עליו מתקיף לה רבא זעירא ואיתימא רבי שמואל בר נחמני גדולה מזו אמרו אפילו נתכוונו למזוג בחמין ומזגו לו בצונן בצונן ומזגו לו בחמין ואת אמרת כולי האי

§ 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?

מר בריה דרבינא אמר אפילו נהפך לו חלוקו רבא ואיתימא רב חסדא ואיתימא רבי יצחק ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא אפילו הושיט ידו לכיס ליטול שלש ועלו בידו שתים

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.

דווקא שלש ועלו בידו שתים אבל שתים ועלו בידו שלש לא דליכא טירחא למישדייהו

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.

וכל כך למה דתניא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל שעברו עליו ארבעים יום בלא יסורין קיבל עולמו במערבא אמרי

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:

Scroll To Top