Humiliation through Words

The Gemora (Kesuvos 66a)cited a Mishna in Bava Kamma: If someone spat at his friend and the spittle hit him, or he removed the hair covering of a woman or his friend’s cloak, he is required to pay him/her four hundred zuz. Rav Papa taught: This is only if the spittle reached his friend, but if it only hit his clothes, he is exempt from paying this fine.

The Gemora in Bava Kamma asks: Shouldn’t the perpetrator be liable similar to one who humiliates his fellow with words? The Gemora answers: It is evident from here that one who embarrasses his fellow with words is exempt from any liability.

The Rosh cites Rav Shrira Gaon: Although it seems from the Scriptural verses that one is not liable for humiliating his fellow with words, nevertheless, the Sages would excommunicate him until he appeases his fellow properly according to his honor. He notes that it is logical to assume that there is a higher degree of embarrassment for one who is humiliated with words more than one, who was embarrassed through a wound, for there is nothing worse than slandering one’s fellow.

The Rambam (Hilchos Chovel 5:7) rules that one who admits in Beis Din that he wounded his fellow privately, he will be liable to pay for the embarrassment, for even though the victim was not humiliated at the time of the wounding, he was humiliated at the time of the admission in Beis Din.

The Minchas Chinuch (49:7) asks: Isn’t this a classical case of embarrassing one’s fellow with words, and one is not liable for such humiliation?

Read more!

DIVINE RETRIBUTION - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (106b) describes Doeg’s downfall:

Rabbi Ami said: Doeg did not die until he forgot his learning, as it is stated: He shall die bereft of wisdom, led into error by his great folly. Rav Ashi said: Doeg was afflicted by tzaraas before he died, as it is stated: You cut down (hitzmatah) all who stray from You. The verb hitzmatah alludes to tzaraas, as follows: It is written there, in connection with the Yovel year: litzmisus, which Targum Onkelos renders as lachalutin; and we learned in a Mishnah: There is no difference between a confined metzora and a confirmed (muchlat) metzora except the regulations concerning letting the hair grow and rending the garments. The term muchlat, which is used in this Mishnah in connection with tzaraas, has the same root as lachalutin, which is the Targum for litzmisus. It follows that hitzmatah, which has the same root as litzmisus, also alludes to tzaraas. Thus, scripture implies that Doeg was afflicted with tzaraas.

One may wonder why it was necessary for Doeg to be afflicted with tzaraas before he died. Was it not sufficient for him to die young?

My brother, Reb Binyomin, in his sefer on Sanhedrin explains: Let us understand the punishment of tzaraas. One who slanders someone is liable the punishment of tzaraas, as we see from numerous incidents in the Torah with Moshe disparaging the Jewish People, Miriam talking ill about her brother Moshe, and other instances. The affliction of tzaraas is meant to demonstrate to the sinner that he is an outcast, and the sinner must mend his or hers ways before being allowed normal social interaction. Doeg had slandered Dovid and thus earned the punishment of tzaraas. Although Doeg’s punishment is only inferred from the exposition of the Gemara, the Gemara is teaching us that no one can escape Divine Retribution. Reb Moshe Feinstein, in the Sefer Derash Moshe, explains that this is the reason why the plague of Barad, fire and hail, only affected the flax and the barley in Egypt, while the wheat and the spelt were not struck, as Hashem only punished the Egyptians commensurate with their evil deeds. If we would recognize that Hashem rewards our good deeds five hundred fold , then we would make every attempt to study Torah whenever possible, and perform as many mitzvos as possible.

Read more!

More Food For Thought - Yevamos 62 - Daf Yomi

Some heoros on the Daf by Reb Ben:

This question may sound strange, but isn't there room to think that even Moshe, the greatest prophet, should be married to a woman? We always say that the beauty of Yiddishkeit is that we believe in marriage and bearing children, as this is part of our service of HaShem. I understand that Moshe needed to be constantly in a state of readiness to receive nevuah, but even the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur had a wife designated for him so that the dictum of vicheper baado uvead baiso could be fulfilled. Furthermore, would HaShem reveal Himself to Moshe even at times when He knew that it was not suitable for nevuah?

Why did Moshe make a kal vachomer from Pesach? If the luchos had to be broken, then break them. It seems like there was an issur to break the luchos. The Yerushalmi in Taanis states that since it says, vayispos , I grabbed, we infer that Moshe and HaShem struggled over the luchos but Moshe won out.

Tosfos quotes the Medrash that Tzipporah said, " woe to the wives of these, because from the day that HaShem spoke to Moshe, he separated from me. Did Tzipporah not understand that the nevuah of Moshe was different? Furthermore, if Tzipporah felt the same as Aharon and Moshe, why did she not get tzaraas? ( I think I once saw this question somewhere.)

It has always bothered me why we need a drasha from the word asher to learn yeiyasher kochacha sheshibarta. Yeiyasher means strength and asher means "that." Although we can suggest that the root is shur, wall, or the like, it would seem from the passuk that HaShem is just informing Moshe that he broke the luchos, not that he is giving him a haskama.

The students of Rabbi Akiva died between Pesach and Atzeres. Pesach is referred to in the Gemara as dabcha (like Zavcha) which means slaughter. Thus, the time period alludes to their death (Rabbi Akiva himself was actually slaughtered as the Gemara in Pesachim states that Rabbi Eliezer said regarding Rabbi Akiva, his dearth will be by slaughtering.) Atzeres means to refrain, as they stopped dying by Shavuos.

Rav Volhbe zt"l quoted sefarim (Probably Arizal) that state that HaShem fulfilled the dictum mentioned in our Gemara that one should be poked his wife before he goes on the road. Subsequent to the destruction of the first Bais HaMikdash, Hashem gave the Jewish People the prophecy of Yechezkel where he saw the merkavah. Subsequent to the destruction of the second Bais HaMikdash, we received the Zohar through Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.

Read more!

FOOD FOR THOUGHT - Yevamos 62 - Daf Yomi

*** Rabbi Yochanan asked Rish Lakish: It is written [Melachim II 20:12]: At that time, Berodach-baladan son of Baladan, the king of Bavel, sent etc. (We see that an idolater is identified as the son of another idolater; this would seemingly be inconsistent with Rish Lakish’s viewpoint.)

Why did the Gemora use specifically this idolater’s name; there are many other names in the Torah, such as Balak ben Tzipor and others? What is the significance of mentioning Berodach-baladan son of Baladan?

*** Rav said: Everyone agrees that a slave does not have genealogical connections to their offspring, for it is written [Breishis 22:5]: Stay here by yourselves with the donkey. We understand that to mean that a slave is similar to a donkey.

Why would Avraham use such a seemingly derogatory language to his servant Eliezer and to his son Yishmael?

*** Rav Assi said: “The son of David will not come until all the souls are vacated from guf.” (There exists a chamber in heaven that contains the souls created during the six days of creation. The mitzvah of procreation is to bring the souls out of guf and advance the coming of Mashiach. One who has children fulfills this obligation even if they subsequently die.)

The Maharal writes that the souls which descend into this world before the Redemption are contained in a chamber called guf, body. This is because the souls residing in this world prior to the arrival of Mashiach have a connection to the body, the physical world. After the arrival of Mashiach, the souls will not be embedded inside the body; rather, they will be separate from the body.

*** Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students spread out from Gevas until Antiparis, and they all died during one period because they did not treat each other with respect.

Why does the Gemora say that there were twelve thousand pairs of students; it should have stated that there were twenty four thousand students?

Ben Yehoyadah answers: Rabbi Akiva observed that there was jealousy amongst them. He intentionally paired the younger students with the older ones in order that the younger disciples will be forced to respect those that were older than them. Nevertheless, it didn’t work, and they still didn’t honor each other.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 9 - SHAMING A STUDENT

Levi asked of Rebbe: Why did the Mishna list only fifteen cases of women who exempt themselves and their co-wives from yibum and chalitzah; the Mishna should have listed sixteen? Rebbe said: It would seem to me that he doesn’t have any brains in his head.

The commentators ask: How could Rebbe talk to Levi in such a demeaning way? Doesn’t it say in Koheles [9:17]: The words of the wise are heard when spoken softly, more than the shout of a ruler of fools? The Mishna in Pirkei Avos [2:10] says: Rabbi Eliezer said: Let the honor of your fellow be as precious to you as your own. Why did Rebbe degrade Levi in such a manner?

The Chavos Yair (152) answers: Levi was the student of Rebbe and since Rebbe understood that Levi was a tremendous Torah scholar, it wasn’t possible for him to err unless he did not thoroughly examine the matter prior to his question. Rebbe did not talk this way out of anger or haughtiness; as a matter of fact, the Gemora in Sotah (49a) states that when Rebbe died, humbleness was lost. Rebbe was instructing his student Levi that one must always scrutinize all relative material on any subject before openly discussing it.

This is the source for the following Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah (4:5) and cited in Shulchan Aruch (Y”D 246:11) as well (Torah.org): The student should not be embarrassed because his peers grasped [the lesson] after one or two times and he learned it only after many times. If he is embarrassed from this matter, he will end up coming in and going out of the Beit Midrash without learning anything. Therefore, the early sages said: "The shy one does not learn and the short-tempered one cannot teach" (Avot 2:5). When does this apply? If they didn't understand because of the depth of the Halakha or their limited abilities. However, if it became apparent to the teacher that they were not applying themselves to the words of Torah and were being lax about them - and therefore, they did not understand - , he is obligated to become angry with them and to shame them with words in order to sharpen them. In this context, the sages said: "Cast fear into the students." (BT Ketubot 103b).

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 16 - Blasphemous Words Regarding a Beis Din

The Gemora states: The agent of the Beis Din is permitted to report back to the Beis Din the derogatory words of the defendant and it is not considered loshon horah (slander). Scriptural proof is cited from the fact that Dasan and Aviram’s words were reported back to Moshe and Moshe accepted the report as true.

The Chasam Sofer asks: The Yerushalmi states: One is permitted to speak loshon horah on baalei machlokes (people causing arguments); what is the proof that one is allowed to repeat the blasphemous words of the defendant from the fact that the agent informed Moshe regarding Dasan and Aviram’s words; they were involved in an argument and it would be permitted for anyone to speak about them?

Gilyon Hashas answers: The reason why the Yerushalmi permits one to talk about people stirring a dispute is only if it is for the sake of quieting the argument; it is obvious that it is forbidden to talk about them if the intention is to arouse more strife. The agent who told over to Moshe the offensive words of Dasan and Aviram was causing the quarrel to become stronger and therefore it would have been forbidden to repeat if not for the fact that there is a special permission granted to an emissary from Beis Din.

The Ritva explains that the reason for this authorization is because people will become careful not to insult Beis Din and to refrain from saying disparaging remarks regarding the Beis Din.

Read more!