More Discussions for this daf
1. Two Lameds 2. "Ish Ish" 3. Na'arah and Bogeres
4. Cursing a Father
DAF DISCUSSIONS - SANHEDRIN 66

Mark Bergman asks:

The Gemoro (Sanhedrin 66a) attempts to learn the prohibition to curse one's father, e.g. from issuring to curse nosi and dayan, and later limudim.

Why does the Gemoro say this would apply to cursing a father, rather than cursing any Jew?

("Af ani ovi Ovicho shebeAmcha")

(I saw that Tosfos on omud beis learns cursing a chaver from a father, but why could the limudim on omud aleph not go straight to a chaver?)

Gmar chasima Tova

Meir Eliezer Bergman

Manchester UK

The Kollel replies:

It seems to me that the Gemara could not say that it applies to cursing any Jew, because if so the Gemara could have asked a pircha on the limud from nosi and dayan. The pircha would be that one can not learn a Binyan Av from nosi and dayan because we could say that both nosi and dayan have a "tzad chamur". The tzad chamur of nosi is that you are chayev misah for defying his command. The tzad chamur of dayan is that you are chayev misah for not following his hora'ah; instruction. Any average Jew has no such tzad chamur. In contrast, the father does have a tzad chamur; namely that "Hukash Kevodo l'kavod Hamakom"; his honour is equal to the honour of Hash-m, as Rashi DH She-Kein writes. Therefore the Gemara only learnt cursing the father from the Tzad HaShaveh, not any Jew.

Good Yomtov

Dovid Bloom

Martin Shejtman comments:

Rav David,

This was wonderful to learn. Tizke lamitzvot and shana tova!

The Kollel replies:

1) I looked more into this sugya and saw that the Chidushel HaRan here writes that when the Gemara says "If it is not needed for itself, learn it for his father" ("Tenehu l'Oviv") this does not in fact mean only his father, but really it means any Jew. The Ran writes that the reason the Gemara mentions the father is because the father is included in the prohibition, since he is no less than any Yisroel.

2) The Maharsha 66b DH veDa cites a dispute between Rashi in Chumash Vayikra 19:14 and the Ramban there. The verse there states "Do not curse a deaf person", and Rashi writes that the prohibition to curse everyone else is derived from Shemos 22:27 "In your people you shall not curse". Ramban writes that what Rashi writes is not consistent with our Gemara. However Maharsha cites Mizrachi on the above Ramban, who defends Rashi, but Maharsha criticises the Mizrachi on a certain point that he makes; namely that Mizrachi writes that the prohibiton against cursing the rest of the people is derived in our sugya from "Do not curse Elokim; if this is not required for itself, learn it for the rest of the people" ("Tenehu l'Shar Ha'am"). Maharsha writes that Mizrachi was inaccurate in writing "Tenehu l'Shar Ha'am", because the Gemara does not actually say that. Rather the Gemara states "Tenehu l'Oviv", "learn it for his father". Maharsha writes that the reason the father is different is because his honour is compared to the honour of Hashem. He adds that this is stated by Tosfos top 66b; that we learn it from cheresh and the father, after the Torah revealed this through the father. [This is in fact what I wrote in my first reply. Boruch She-kivanti to the words of the Maharsha!- DB].

3) So we see that there is a dispute between Maharsha and Mizrachi. According to Maharsha the words "Tenehu l'Oviv" are to be taken literally; that one only learns the father directly from this limud, whilst according to Mizrachi the limud goes directly to the chaver. Mizrachi has Chidushei HaRan (and it would seem the Ramban also) on his side, whilst Maharsha has Tosfos (and possibly Rashi also) on his side.

Wishing you a very Healthy Winter.

Dovid Bloom