Arakhin 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

And

this:

that the robe of the priestly garments atones for him refers to a case where they said it

publicly, and the robe, which produces a sound, atones for an act involving sound.

publicly: the robe, which makes a sound through its bells, atones for an act involving sound.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Elnadav asked Rabbi Ḥanina—and some say

there are those who say

that Rabbi Shmuel bar Nadav, Rabbi Ḥanina’s son-in-law,

was the one who asked

Rabbi Ḥanina—and some say

that the question was

asked of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is different about a leper, concerning whom the Torah said

“He shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall be his dwelling”?

And we resolve it:

He,

the leper [who was afflicted with lesions because he spoke lashon hara, as explained above],

separated a man

from his wife,

causing them to quarrel through the lashon hara that he spoke between them [Rabbeinu Gershom],

and separated one man from another; therefore the Torah said: “He shall dwell alone, etc.”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is different about a leper, concerning whom the Torah said that he must bring two

birds for his purification? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: He—the leper—has committed

the leper [who was afflicted with lesions because of lashon hara]

an act of twittering,

meaning the sound of lashon hara spoken secretly;

therefore the Torah said: He must bring a twittering offering,

birds that cry out constantly.

The Sages taught:

It is written: “

You shall not hate your brother in your heart

[rather—Ramban]; you shall surely rebuke your fellow, and you shall not bear sin because of him.”

One might have thought

that if the verse had said only, “You shall not hate your brother,” we would have interpreted it to mean that one must not perform actions indicating hatred,

that he should not strike him or slap him

[with the back of his hand]

and should not curse him

when rebuking him , [ for this would have been implied by the verse immediately following, “you shall surely rebuke,” indicating that rebuke is verbal, and the verse teaches that one should not hate his brother by performing acts that indicate hatred, but should rebuke him only verbally],

the verse therefore states:

You shall not hate your brother

“in your heart”; the verse is speaking of hatred in the heart.

He must not hate him, but he may rebuke him in any manner, through striking or cursing. [Based on Korban Aharon and the implication of Rashi. See also Rambam, Hilkhot De’ot 6:5].

From where is it derived that one who sees in his fellow something improper is obligated to rebuke him? As it is stated: “You shall surely

rebuke your fellow.”

If he rebuked him and he did not accept it, from where is it derived that he must rebuke him again? The verse states:

Rebuke

“you shall surely rebuke,” in any event! One might have thought

that he may rebuke him publicly,

even when his face changes,

meaning that the rebuker whitens his face,

the verse therefore states: “And you shall not

bear sin because of him.”

It was taught: Rabbi Tarfon said: I am astonished whether there is anyone in this generation

who

can rebuke?!

For everyone sins!

If he said to him,

the rebuker to the sinner,

“Remove the splinter from between your teeth,”

that is, remove the minor transgression in your possession,

he could say to him

[he may say to him],

“Remove the beam

of a major transgression

from between your eyes.”

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: I am astonished whether there is anyone in this generation

who

knows how to rebuke

in a respectful manner, without causing the other’s face to change!

Rabbi Akiva said: I am astonished whether there is anyone in this generation

who

accepts rebuke!

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said:

Rabbi Akiva did accept rebuke [Maharsha, according to Rashi],

as I call heaven and earth to bear witness,

that

although Akiva was struck many times by me, because I would lodge complaints

[complain]

against him

when I saw something improper in him,

before Rabban Gamliel the Elder,

and Rabban Gamliel would flog him.

And all the more so, he increased

Akiva

his love for me, fulfilling what is stated: “Do not rebuke

a scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.”

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, asked Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: Rebuke for its own sake

for the sake of Heaven,

and humility not for its own sake,

where he presents himself as humble and does not wish to rebuke him, while that humility is not for the sake of Heaven but rather so that he will not hate him—

which of them is preferable?

He said

and answered

him,

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi to his son:

“Do you not concede that humility for its own sake is preferable to rebuke for its own sake?! For the Master said: Humility is greater than all”

[all the virtues listed in the beraita of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair—Torah, watchfulness, alacrity, cleanliness, abstinence, purity, sanctity, fear of sin, and piety]. And since humility for its own sake is preferable,

humility not for its own sake is also preferable! For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even though

he does so

not for its own sake, because from acting not for its own sake, he comes to act for its own sake!

And we explain:

What are the circumstances of rebuke for its own sake and humility not for its own sake? It is like that incident involving Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav, who were sitting before Shmuel. Ḥiyya bar Rav said to Shmuel

to Shmuel:

“The Master sees that Rav Huna is causing me distress”

[striking and hitting me]

; accept upon yourself

[Rav Huna accepted upon himself]

that he will no longer cause him distress.” After he left

[after Ḥiyya bar Rav left them],

he said to him,

Rav Huna said to Shmuel:

“Ḥiyya bar Rav does such and such,”

and that is why I was striking him.

He said to him,

Shmuel said to Rav Huna:

“Why did you not tell me

that he acted this way

in his presence

[in the presence of Ḥiyya bar Rav]?!

He said to him,

Rav Huna said:

“Heaven forbid

[God forbid]

that Rav’s offspring should be humiliated because of me”

[that Ḥiyya, Rav’s son, should be embarrassed because of me]! This is humility not for its own sake, for he did not relate it in his presence.

And we ask:

How far does rebuke extend,

that is, how much is a person obligated to rebuke his fellow?

Rav said: Until striking,

that the sinner strikes the one rebuking him!

And Shmuel said: Until cursing,

that the sinner curses the one rebuking him!

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until reprimand!

This dispute among the amoraim

is a dispute among tannaim,

as they already disagreed about it.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Until striking! Rabbi Yehoshua says: Until cursing! Ben Azzai says: Until reprimand!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: All three of them

[Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Ben Azzai]

derived their views from a single verse

to support their positions!

As it is written

regarding Jonathan, who rebuked Saul: “And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David’s place was empty; and Saul said to Jonathan his son, Why has the son of Jesse not come, etc.? And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me, etc.; therefore he has not come to the king’s table.

And Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him: You son of a perverse rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse, to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness, etc.

And now send and bring him to me, for he is worthy of death. And Jonathan answered Saul his father and said to him: Why should he be put to death? What has he done?”

And it is written: “And Saul cast the spear at him to strike him,”

and Jonathan knew that it was determined by his father to kill David.”

The one who says that rebuke extends until striking

is obligated to rebuke; he derives this from

what is written: “And Saul cast the spear at him ‘to strike him.’”

The one who says that rebuke extends until cursing

is obligated to rebuke; he derives this from

what is written: “To your shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness,”

and certainly Jonathan was rebuking him at that time, for otherwise Saul would not have cursed him—Maharsha.

And according to the one who says that rebuke extends until reprimand, it is written: “And Saul’s anger was kindled,”

and certainly Saul reprimanded him because Jonathan had rebuked him—Maharsha.

And we challenge this:

But according to the one who says that rebuke extends until reprimand, is it not written

that Jonathan rebuked him even to the point of

striking and cursing?

And we answer:

That case is different,

for Jonathan continued rebuking Saul even to the point of cursing and striking him,

because, on account of the extraordinarily deep affection Jonathan had for David, he devoted himself far more!

But that one is obligated to rebuke until reprimand can be learned from there: since Jonathan devoted himself to such an extent that he endured striking, it stands to reason that in the case of another person, he is obligated at least until reprimand [Maharsha; see also Tosafot there].

We ask:

How far may a person not change his lodging,

that is, how much must a guest tolerate from his host before leaving his house [Rabbeinu Gershom]?

Rav said: Until striking,

that the host strikes the guest or his wife because he does not want him to reside with him.

And Shmuel said: Until the householders cast

the guest’s

possessions

[clothing]

behind him,

throwing them out of the house!

And we explain:

With regard to striking him,

the guest himself,

everyone agrees

that this alone is sufficient, and he may change his lodging, as he can no longer remain there. And likewise

with regard to casting his possessions

out,

everyone also agrees

that he may change his lodging.

They disagree with regard to striking his wife

[the guest’s wife].

One master

[Shmuel]

holds: Since he himself is not being caused distress, what difference does it make to him

because of it?

Therefore, he may not change his lodging until his possessions are cast out.

And the other master

[Rav]

holds: He will come to quarrel

[with the host: Why did he strike his wife?—Rabbeinu Gershom], and therefore he may change his lodging even when only his wife is struck. With regard to the casting out of his wife’s possessions, everyone agrees that he may change his lodging. [Based on Iyun Yaakov and the implication of Rashi].

And so much so

that we said the guest must tolerate this before leaving,

why? For the Master said: A guest

who changes his lodging

dishonors

the host

and is himself dishonored,

as people say: How difficult these people are, that they cannot live together.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived from the Torah that a person should not change his lodging? As it is stated:

“And Abram went up from Egypt, etc., and he went on his journeys from the South, etc.,

‘to the place where his tent had been at the beginning,’”

from here it is derived that he returned to the lodging where he had stayed at first [Rabbeinu Gershom].

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: From here

we learn that he should not change his lodging, as it is written: “And Abram went up from Egypt, etc.,

‘and he went on his journeys,’”

along the route where he was accustomed to camp from one journey to the next, without changing his lodging.

What is the difference between them,

between Rav and Rabbi Yosei?

There is a difference between them with regard to a casual guest,

such as a traveler who spent the night there by chance because the sun had set there. According to Rav Yehuda, who derives the ruling from “to the place where his tent had been at the beginning,” only a permanent lodging is considered a lodging; whereas according to Rabbi Yosei, who derives it from “and he went on his journeys,” even a casual lodging is included.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that a person should not change his craft from the craft

of his father—

[Tosafot]

and from the craft of his ancestors, as it is stated

[I Kings 7]:

“And King Solomon sent and brought Hiram from Tyre. He was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a Tyrian, a worker in copper,”

and he [Hiram] was filled with wisdom and understanding to perform every kind of work in copper; thus Hiram adopted his father’s craft.

And it is written

[II Chronicles 2] concerning Hiram:

“The son of a woman of the daughters of Dan,”

[his father was from the tribe of Naphtali and his mother was from the tribe of Dan],

and it is written

[Exodus 38]:

“And with him

[with Bezalel in the work of the Tabernacle]

was Oholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan,”

thus Hiram adopted the craft of his ancestors on his mother’s side, who was from the tribe of Dan. [In this statement, the Gemara’s version and its explanation follow Ḥok Natan. Regarding the Gemara’s proof that Oholiab, who was from the tribe of Dan, was a worker in copper, it may be explained that the source is the verse: “And with him was Oholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, a craftsman and designer.” However, Onkelos translated “craftsman” as “carpenter,” meaning a worker in wood rather than copper. The Gemara’s intent may be explained as follows: Since Oholiab participated in the work of the Tabernacle, which also included work in copper, he was a worker in copper. In the versions of the Gemara before us, some emended the phrase “and with him was Oholiab” to “with him, Oholiab,” referring to the verse in Exodus 31: “And I, behold, I have appointed with him [with Bezalel in the work of the Tabernacle] Oholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, etc.” The reason for this emendation is that they understood the Gemara’s intent to be to prove from the fact that Oholiab participated in the work of the Tabernacle, which included copperwork, and therefore it would have been more appropriate to cite the earlier verse].

What is the extent,

[the end of the measure]

of suffering,

that is, what suffering is such that anything less than it is not considered suffering?

Rabbi Elazar said: Any case in which they wove a garment for him to wear and it does not fit him,

as it is not properly suited to his measurements, causing him distress. But suffering less than this is not considered suffering.

And we challenge this:

Rava Zeira, and some say Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, strongly objected: They said something greater than this

[concerning suffering less than this]:

Even if they intended to dilute for him

a cup of wine

with

water

that was hot,

but they erred

and diluted it for him

the cup

with cold water,

or they intended to dilute it for him

with cold water, but diluted it for him with hot water,

this is considered suffering!

And you say that such a degree is required

for distress to be considered suffering?!

Mar, son of Ravina, said: Even if his garment was turned inside out—

because he did not put it on in the proper order and must turn it around and remove it—it is considered suffering!

Rava

said,

and some say Rav Ḥisda, and some say Rabbi Yitzḥak, and some say it was taught in a baraita: Even if he put his hand into his pocket to take out three

coins

and only two came into his hand,

this is considered suffering! This applies specifically when he wanted to take three and only two came into his hand,

but

if he wanted to take

two and three came into his hand, it is not

considered suffering,

as he has no trouble throwing them

[the extra coin back into the pocket]!

And why so much 73 ,

that is, for what purpose did they say that these things are considered suffering?

And we explain: that it is considered affliction with regard to this matter:

as it is taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Anyone upon whom forty days have passed without afflictions has received

in this

his world 74 ,

all his repose is reserved for the future! And

in the West they say

as follows: Anyone upon whom forty days have passed without afflictions,