Arakhin 16b — the Talmud in English

And

that

the cloak among the priestly garments atones for him—this refers to a case where they said it

publicly, and the cloak, which is with a sound, atones for an act of sound.

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

Rabbi Shmuel bar Elnadav asked Rabbi Hanina—and some say

there are those who say

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nadav, Rabbi Hanina’s son-in-law,

was the one who asked

Rabbi Hanina—and some say

the question was

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

“He shall sit isolated; outside the camp shall be his dwelling”?]

And we resolved it:

he

the leper [upon whom afflictions came because he spoke evil speech, as explained above]

separated between a man

and his wife,

causing them to quarrel through the evil speech that he said between them [Rabbeinu Gershom],

and between one man and his fellow; therefore the Torah said: “He shall sit isolated, etc.”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is different about a leper, concerning whom the Torah said, “He shall bring two

birds for his purification”? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: He—the leper [upon whom afflictions came because of evil speech]—

did

an act of twittering,

the sound of evil speech that emerges secretly;

therefore the Torah said: “He shall bring an offering of twittering,”

birds that cry out at every hour.

The Sages taught:

It is written: “

You shall not hate your brother in your heart

but you shall surely rebuke your fellow, and you shall not bear sin because of him.”

I might

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

that he should not strike him, should not slap him

with the back of his hand

and should not curse him

when he rebukes him , [since this would have been implied by what is written immediately afterward, “you shall surely rebuke,” namely, that the rebuke is with words, and the verse says that he should not hate his brother by doing things that indicate hatred, but should rebuke only with words],

the teaching says:

You shall not hate your brother

“in your heart”; the verse speaks of hatred in the heart.

He should not hate him, but he may rebuke him in whatever manner it may be, through striking or cursing. [Based on the Korban Aharon and the implication of Rashi. See also Maimonides, Laws of Character Traits 6:5].

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

rebuke your fellow.”

If he rebuked him and he did not accept it, from where is it that he should return and rebuke him? The teaching says:

You shall surely

“rebuke,” in any event! I might

he should rebuke him in public

even if his face changes,

for the rebuker whitens his face;

the teaching says: “and you shall not

bear sin because of him.”

It was taught: Rabbi Tarfon said: I wonder whether there is in this generation

anyone

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 small sin that is in your hand!

He said to him

he could say to him:

“Remove the beam

the great sin

from between your eyes.”

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I wonder whether there is in this generation

anyone

who knows how to rebuke

in a respectful manner, so that his face will not change!

Rabbi Akiva said: I wonder whether there is in this generation

anyone

who accepts rebuke!

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:

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

I call heaven and earth as witnesses

that even

though Akiva was beaten many times by me, because I would complain

[protest]

against him

when I saw something disgraceful in him,

before Rabban Gamaliel the Great,

and Rabban Gamaliel would flog him.

And all the more did he add

Akiva

love toward me, to fulfill what is said: “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 makes himself humble, saying that he does not wish to rebuke him, while this humility is not for the sake of Heaven but in order that he not hate him—

which of them is preferable?

He said

and resolved

it

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi for his son:

“And 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 them all”

[than all the qualities enumerated in the beraita of Rabbi Pinhas ben Yair—Torah, vigilance, alacrity, cleanliness, abstinence, purity, sanctity, fear of sin, piety]; and since humility for its own sake is preferable,

that 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, for from not for its own sake he comes to 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 Hiyya bar Rav, who were sitting before Shmuel. Hiyya bar Rav said to him,

to Shmuel:

“See, master, that Rav Huna is causing me pain”

[striking and hitting me].

“Accept upon yourself”

[Rav Huna accepted upon himself]

“that you will no longer cause him pain.” After he left

[after Hiyya bar Rav left from before them],

he said to him

Rav Huna said to Shmuel:

“This and this is what he does,”

Hiyya bar Rav, and therefore I was striking him.

He said to him

Shmuel said to Rav Huna:

“Why did you not tell me

that this is what he was doing

in his presence

[in the presence of Hiyya bar Rav]?!

He said to him

Rav Huna said:

“Heaven forbid”

[far be it from me]

“that Rav’s descendant should be shamed through me”

[that Hiyya, Rav’s son, should be shamed through me]! And this is humility not for its own sake, for in his presence he did not recount it.

And we ask:

How far does rebuke extend,

how far is a person obligated to rebuke his fellow?

Rav said: Until striking,

that the sinner strikes the rebuker!

And Shmuel said: Until cursing,

the sinner’s cursing of the rebuker!

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Until reprimand!

And this dispute among the amoraim

is like that of the tannaitic sages;

they had already disagreed over it.

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

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: And all three of them

[Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Ben Azzai]

expounded

their positions

from one verse,

as it is written concerning Jonathan, who rebuked Saul: “And it came to pass on the morrow of the new moon, the second day, that David’s place was vacant. 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 choose the son of Jesse, to your shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness, etc.’

And now send and take him to me, for he is a son 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, “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, “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 then, for otherwise he would not have cursed him—the Maharsha.

And according to the one who says, “Until reprimand,” for it is written: “And Saul’s anger was kindled,”

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

And we challenge:

And according to the one who says, “Until reprimand,” is it not written

that Jonathan rebuked him even until

striking and cursing?

And we answer:

There it is different,

for Jonathan added to rebuking Saul even until cursing and striking,

because, on account of the excessive affection that Jonathan had for David, he endangered himself all the more!

But that one is obligated to rebuke until reprimand can be learned from there: since Jonathan endangered himself so greatly, even to the point of striking, it stands to reason that regarding another man, he is obligated at least until reprimand [the Maharsha; and see further there, in Tosafot].

We need to know:

How far may a person not change his lodging,

that is, how much must a guest endure 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 wish him to lodge with him.

And Shmuel said: Until the householders pull

the host’s

utensils

[garments] of the guest

behind him,

to throw them out of the house!

And we explain:

Regarding striking him

the guest himself,

everyone agrees

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

regarding pulling his utensils

his

everyone also agrees

that he may change his lodging.

When they disagree is regarding striking his wife

[the guest’s wife]!

One master

[Shmuel]

holds: Since he does not cause him pain personally, what difference does it make to him

from it?

Therefore he should not change his lodging until his utensils are pulled out.

And one 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. Regarding pulling out his wife’s utensils, everyone agrees that he should not change his lodging. [Based on Iyyun Yaakov and the implication of Rashi].

And so much

that we said the guest is obligated to endure before leaving—

why? For the Master said: A guest

who changes his lodging,

blemishes

the host

and is blemished

himself, for people say: How difficult these people are, that they cannot lodge 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? For 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 that he returned to the lodging where he had initially been [Rabbeinu Gershom].

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: From here,

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

‘and he went on his journeys,’”

along the route on which he was accustomed to camp from journey to journey, for he did not change his lodging house.

What is the difference between them,

between Rav and Rabbi Yosei?

There is a difference between them regarding a guest staying incidentally,

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

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

of his father—

[Tosafot]—

and from the craft of his forefathers? For 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 man, a craftsman in copper,”

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

And it is written

[II Chronicles 2] concerning Hiram that he was

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

[his father being from the tribe of Naphtali and his mother 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 took up his forefathers’ craft through his mother, who was from the tribe of Dan. [Regarding this tradition, the wording of the Gemara and its explanation are according to Ḥok Natan. As for the reason the Gemara brought proof that Oholiab, who was from the tribe of Dan, was a craftsman 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,” namely, a woodworker and not a copper craftsman. The intention of the Gemara may be explained as follows: since Oholiab participated in the work of the Tabernacle, which also included work in copper, he was a copper craftsman. In the versions of the Gemara before us, they emended the wording from “and with him was Oholiab” to “he took Oholiab,” referring to the verse in Exodus 31: “And I, behold, I have given with him [with Bezalel in the work of the Tabernacle] Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, etc.” The reason for their emendation is that they understood the Gemara’s intention to be to prove from the fact that Oholiab was a partner in the making of the Tabernacle, which included copper craftsmanship; therefore it would be appropriate to bring the earlier verse.]

How far is the extent

[the end of the measure]

of afflictions,

that is, which afflictions are such that those lesser than them are not considered afflictions?

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

for it is not properly according to his measure, and it causes him distress! But afflictions lesser than this are not considered afflictions.

And we challenge this:

Rava Zeira attacked this, and some say Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani: Greater than this

[regarding afflictions lesser than these]

they said: Even if they intended to mix for him

a cup of wine

with

water

hot,

but they erred

and mixed for him

the cup

with cold water,

or they intended to mix it for him

with cold water, but they mixed it for him with hot water,

this is included among afflictions!

And you say that we require all this,

distress in order for it to be considered afflictions?!

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

for he did not put it on in the order in which it is worn and must turn it and remove it—it is included among afflictions!

Rava

said,

and some say Rav Hisda, and some say Rabbi Yitzhak, and some say that a tannaitic teaching taught it: Even if he put his hand into his pocket to take three

coins

and two came up,

it is included among afflictions! This applies specifically when he wished to take three and two came up,

but

he wished to take

two and three came up—it is not

considered afflictions,

for there is no exertion in throwing them away

[putting the extra coin back into the pocket]!

And why so much 73 ,

that is, for what matter did they say that these things are included among afflictions?

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

for it was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: Whoever forty days passed over him without afflictions, acquired

by this

his world 74 ,

and all his rest in the future!

And in the West they say

as follows: Whoever forty days passed over him without afflictions,