Yoma 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Any Torah scholar

who does not take revenge

for his grievance,

and harbors

enmity in his heart

like a snake —

is not a Torah scholar.

And we raise an objection:

But is it not written: “You shall neither take revenge nor bear a grudge”?

And we answer:

That verse was written with regard to monetary matters.

When someone wronged him financially. But if someone wronged him physically, for example, by striking or humiliating him, it is permitted for him to take revenge and bear a grudge.

As it was taught in a beraita: What constitutes taking revenge, and what constitutes bearing a grudge?

Taking revenge—

He said to him: Lend me your sickle! He said to him:

No.

I will not

lend it to you.

The next day, he said to him

the owner of the sickle:

Lend me your ax! He said to him: I will not lend it to you, just as you did not lend it to me!

This is taking revenge.

And what constitutes bearing a grudge?

He said to him: Lend me your ax! He said to him: No!

The next day he said to him: Lend me your garment! He said to him: Here it is! I am not like you, who did not lend it to me!

This is bearing a grudge,

because the matter remains stored in his heart and he has not dismissed it from his mind [Rashi].

And we raise an objection:

A

s for

physical suffering, is it not so!?

Is it not prohibited to take revenge and bear a grudge over pain or over anything else that does not involve money?

But it was taught in a beraita: Those who are humiliated but do not humiliate others, who hear their disgrace but do not respond, who perform

mitzvot

out of love, and who rejoice in suffering—

concerning them the verse says: “And those who love Him are like the sun when it goes forth in its might”!?

And we answer:

Actually, he may retain it in his heart.

Although the Torah scholar himself may not take revenge against one who wronged him, he is permitted to retain the matter in his heart. And if another person comes to take revenge for him, he should remain silent and not protest against him.

And we raise an objection:

But Rava said: Whoever overlooks measures taken against him, they overlook all his transgressions

This indicates that he must erase the matter completely from his heart?

And we answer: What Rava said applies

when they appease him.

When those who wronged him ask him for forgiveness

and he is appeased.

He overlooks what was done to him and forgives. But when they do not ask him for forgiveness, he should take revenge and bear a grudge like a snake.

We learned in the Mishna:

And what do they extend, one finger or two?

We consider this:

Now, if two

fingers

may be extended,

so that there is concern about deception—

is it necessary to say that one

may be extended, since certainly they will not come to deceive?

And we answer:

Rav Chisda said: It is not difficult: Here, it is referring to a healthy person,

A healthy koen may extend only one finger.

Here, it is referring to a sick person,

a sick koen who does not have full control of his fingers, so that when he extends one, the other also emerges with it; it is permitted for him to extend two.

But it was taught in a beraita:

(as an unqualified statement):

They extend one.

They do not extend two. In what circumstance is this statement said,

that they do not extend two?

With regard to a healthy person.

But with regard to a sick person, they may extend even two.

And those who are isolated

a designation for the sick, since they lie in isolation

extend two.

And they count them as only one

the two fingers are counted only as one.

And we raise an objection:

B

ut

do they count him as only one

alone?

But it was taught in a beraita: They do not extend:

a third finger

the third, middle finger, so that he should not add it in addition to the finger [as explained below].

nor a thumb

even by itself [Rashash].

because of the deceivers,

who might extend an additional finger alongside the thumb in order to be counted as two.

And if he extended a third finger

in addition to the finger,

they count him.

But if he extended

a thumb, they do not count him.

Moreover, he is flogged

for this

by the appointed official with a whip,

by the official responsible for the straps used for flogging.

And it might have entered our minds that when he extends a third finger, they count him as two; and this would be difficult from the beraita above, which teaches that they count him as only one.

And we answer:

What does “they count him” mean,

as stated with regard to one who extended a third finger?

Also, one,

only.

Although he acted improperly, nevertheless they do not remove him from the count, because he is not a deceiver, as he cannot separate these fingers sufficiently for them to appear as two people. But if he extended a thumb, they do not count him at all; rather, they remove him from the count.

And we explain:

What is the meaning of “whip”?

Rav said: A braided whip.

What is the meaning of “a braided whip”?

Rav Pappa said: The whip of the Arab horsemen,

a strap that the Ishmaelites use as a whip for horses,

whose end is split,

so that it divides at its end into thin straps, enabling the horse to feel it more acutely [“paki’a” derives from an expression of splitting and cracks, as below: “From the worn garments of the kohanim they would split,” meaning tear].

Abaye said: At first,

initially,

I thought that what we learned

in tractate Shekalim:

Ben Bivai,

the name of a man, was

appointed

in the Temple

over the whip—

I thought,

I understood, that this meant

a wick. As we learned: From the worn garments of the kohanim,

from their worn-out garments,

and from their worn girdles,

from their old belts,

they would make wicks

they made wicks.

And with them they would light

the lamps during the Celebration of the Drawing of the Water in the Temple.

But

once I heard that which was taught in a beraita: “Moreover, he is flogged by the appointed official with a whip”—

I thought: What is a whip?

Straps,

straps for flogging.

We learned in the Mishna:

An incident occurred in which the two were equal, and they ran and ascended the ramp.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving two kohanim who were equal, and they ran and ascended the ramp. One of them preceded the other and entered within four cubits of him,

he was the first to reach the four cubits adjacent to the altar, and he thereby merited the removal of the ashes.

The second one took

the other

a knife and thrust it into his heart

of the first.

Rabbi Tzadok stood on the steps of the Entrance Hall

and said: Our brothers, the house of Israel, listen!

It says

in the passage concerning the heifer whose neck is broken:

“When one slain is found in the land, and your elders and your judges shall go forth”

to measure which city is nearest to the slain person, and that city must bring a heifer whose neck is broken.

As for us, upon whom should a heifer whose neck is broken be brought,

who is obligated to bring a heifer whose neck is broken—

upon the city,

that is, the residents of the city,

or upon the Temple courtyards?

Or perhaps the kohanim who guard the courtyard?!

The entire people cried out,

they shouted,

in weeping.

The father of the young koen came,

the koen who had been killed,

and found him

still

twitching.

He said

to them:

Behold, he is your atonement!

His death will atone for you, but

my son is still twitching, and the knife has not become impure!

Hurry to remove the knife from his heart before he dies, and it becomes impure with impurity imparted by a corpse [Ritva].

This teaches you that the purification of vessels was more difficult for them than bloodshed!

And so it says: “Manasseh also shed very much innocent blood, until he filled Jerusalem from edge to edge”

from gate to gate.

Thus, bloodshed was considered a minor matter in their eyes.

We consider this:

Which incident preceded

which incident came first: the incident in the Mishna, in which the koen’s leg was broken, or the incident in the beraita, in which the koen was killed?

If you say

that this incident,

the one involving bloodshed,

came first, this is difficult:

Now, if they did not institute a lottery on account of the bloodshed,

for even after this incident they continued to run toward the altar until the koen’s leg was broken—

would they institute one merely because his leg was broken

alone,

institute

a lottery?!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the incident

in which his leg was broken came first.

If so, this is difficult:

And once they had

already

instituted a lottery,

because his leg had been broken, then what was the matter of

the four cubits,

and the incident in which one preceded the other by four cubits, followed by bloodshed—

what role did they play?!

How could this have occurred, since there was already a lottery?

And we answer:

Rather, actually, the incident

of

bloodshed came first.

At first, they thought it was merely an isolated occurrence,

and there was no concern that it would happen again.

Once they saw

that

even of itself,

even without such an isolated occurrence,

they came into danger

in the incident of the broken leg,

the Sages instituted

then

a lottery.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Tzadok stood on the steps of the Entrance Hall and said: Our brothers, the house of Israel, listen.

It says: “When one slain is found in the land.”

Upon whom should we bring it: upon the city or upon the Temple courtyards?

We consider this:

B

ut

is Jerusalem subject to bringing a heifer whose neck is broken?

For Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken at all for a slain person found in the vicinity of the city. For:

Ten matters were stated concerning Jerusalem.

And this is one of them: