Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Erchin, 16

1) THE "AVNET" ATONES FOR FORBIDDEN THOUGHTS

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Anani bar Sason who teaches that the Avnet of the Kohen atones for Hirhurei ha'Lev, forbidden thoughts in one's heart. What is the connection between the Avnet and forbidden thoughts in one's heart?

ANSWERS:

(a) Rashi in Zevachim (86b, DH a'Heicha) explains that the Avnet was wrapped around the body above the elbows and it covered the area of the heart.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Avnet, according to the Girsa of the SHITAH MEKUBETZES and CHESHEK SHLOMO) explains that the Avnet was wrapped around the Kohen thirty-two times, which is equal to the Gematriya of the word "Lev" (heart).

(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:19) writes that the Avnet was thirty-two Amos long, again the Gematriya of the word "Lev." (According to Josephus, the Kohanim would wrap it around themselves many times and let the remainder hang down to their ankles.)

AGADAH: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Anani bar Sason who teaches that each garment of the Bigdei Kehunah atones for a different type of Aveirah. There are many allusions that reveal the deeper significance of these garments. Rav Mordechai Aran, Shlit'a, the author of NIFLA'OS MI'TORASECHA, has found a number of beautiful allusions of the Begadim in verses in which the names of the Begadim appear as Roshei Teivos or Sofei Teivos.

(a) The Gemara says that the Choshen, which is called the "Choshen Mishpat," atones for "Dinin," the corruption of justice, when Dayanim judge someone wrongfully. One of the rare times that the word "Choshen" appears as a Roshei Teivos in Tanach is in the verse, "Hashem scrutinizes the righteous one, and He despises the wicked and the lover of theft" (Tehilim 11:5). The last three words in that verse are, "Chamas San'ah Nafsho," the Roshei Teivos of which spell "Choshen." This is most appropriate, since that verse discusses how Hashem hates wickedness, specifically the wickedness of theft, which is the underlying sin involved with corruption of justice, for which the Choshen atones.

(The only other two occurrences of the word "Choshen" as Roshei Teivos are in Yirmeyahu 23:32 and Nachum 2:1.)

(b) The Me'il atones for Lashon ha'Ra, because the Pa'amonim and Rimonim (the bells and pomegranate-shaped forms) on the bottom of the hem of the Me'il make a noise as the Kohen walks. The sound that they make atones for the human misuse of sound -- speaking Lashon ha'Ra.

The Midrash teaches that the sin of the Nachash that convinced Adam and Chavah to eat from the Etz ha'Da'as originated with Lashon ha'Ra, for the Nachash spoke Lashon ha'Ra about Hashem (Tanchuma, Bereishis 8:8, and Rashi to Shemos 4:3; see Insights to Shabbos 56a). Those words of Lashon ha'Ra were the first words of Lashon ha'Ra ever spoken, and all subsequent Lashon ha'Ra comes from there. The Gemara here (15b) adds that the snake symbolizes the person who speaks Lashon ha'Ra, because just as the snake bites without deriving any benefit from the bite, the person who speaks Lashon ha'Ra causes damage with his mouth without getting any personal benefit from it.

In the verse that commands that Rimonim be placed on the bottom of the Me'il (Shemos 28:33), the Sofei Teivos of the words, "Al Shulav Rimonei Techeles v'Argaman," spell the word, "Livyasan" (this is the only occurrence of that word in all of Tanach as a Roshei Teivos or Sofei Teivos). The Mekubalim teach that when the verse in Yeshayah (27:1) states that in the future, Hashem will kill the "Livyasan Nachash Akalason," it is referring to the original Nachash, who is also the Yetzer ha'Ra, and is also known as "Lilis." This force of evil is aroused whenever a person speaks Lashon ha'Ra (Zohar, Pekudei 265a; Rav Moshe Cordavero, in Sefer ha'Pardes, Sha'ar ha'Temuros 25:5). Accordingly, it is appropriate that we find the word "Livyasan" in the verse discussing the Pa'amonim and Rimonim on the hem of the Me'il, for they atone for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. They cause the repeal of the power of the Livyasan that is aroused when someone speaks Lashon ha'Ra (when a word appears as the Sofei Teivos, it represents the end of, or repeal, of something).

Rav Aran adds that it is interesting to note that in Parshas Pekudei, in the verse that discusses the fulfillment of the command to place the Rimonim on the Me'il, the verse reads, "Al Shulei ha'Me'il Rimonei Techeles" (Shemos 39:24), the Sofei Teivos of which spell "Lilis." This again demonstrates that the Pa'amonim and Rimonim are able to repeal the power of Lilis which is aroused by Lashon ha'Ra. (There is only one other occurrence of the word "Lilis" as Sofei Teivos, in Divrei ha'Yamim II 17:10.) (See also Insights to Yoma 71:2.)

QUESTION: Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says in the name of Rebbi Yonasan that one of the sins for which a person is punished with Nega'im is Lashon ha'Ra. The Gemara questions this from the statement of Rebbi Anani bar Sason, who says that the Me'il of the Kohen Gadol atones for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. How can a person be punished with Nega'im (or with any other punishment) for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra if the Me'il atones for that sin?

The Gemara answers that the Me'il does not atone for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra when the person's speech had detrimental effects, causing the victim to suffer. When the person's speech had no detrimental effects, the Me'il does atone for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra.

The Gemara seems to be ignoring an obvious question. Among Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmani's list of sins for which a person is punished with Nega'im are murder (Shefichus Damim) and promiscuity (Giluy Arayos). Rebbi Anani bar Sason's statement regarding the atonement provided by the Bigdei Kehunah includes the Kesones as an atonement for murder, and the Michnasayim as an atonement for promiscuity. Why, then, does the Gemara not immediately ask, as it does with regard to Lashon ha'Ra, how can a person be punished with Nega'im for murder and promiscuity if the Bigdei Kehunah atone for those sins?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH Ahanu) answers that there is a difference between the way Bigdei Kehunah atone for Avodah Zarah, Giluy Arayos and other sins, and the way they atone for Lashon ha'Ra. With regard to Avodah Zarah, Giluy Arayos, and other sins, the Bigdei Kehunah atone for the *innocent people* who would otherwise suffer due to the sins of those who served idols or committed adultery. The atonement provided by the Bigdei Kehunah for murder and promiscuity is an atonement for the Jewish nation as a whole, and not for the individual perpetrators. This is because we find verses that describe how the public is endangered by these sins of an individual. With regard to murder, the verse says, "... for the blood will obligate the land" (Bamidbar 35:33, see Targum Onkelus there). Regarding promiscuity, the verse states, "... and the land became Tamei, and I punished it for its sin" (Vayikra 18:25). These verses show that atonement is needed in order to prevent the Jewish nation as a whole from being punished as a result of the sins of individuals. In contrast, with regard to Lashon ha'Ra, the Bigdei Kehunah atone for the sinner himself (as we do not find that the public is in danger because of the individual's transgression of Lashon ha'Ra).

TOSFOS (DH Ha) asks that this approach seems to be inconsistent with the Gemara in Shevuos (39a) that says that all Jews are responsible for any sin committed by any other Jew, as long as they have the ability to protest and try to stop him. Why, then, does the Gemara assume that Lashon ha'Ra (against which no other Jew protested) does not need a general atonement for the public? Tosfos continues and says that if we suggest that the Lashon ha'Ra was spoken in private and no one was able to protest, then in such a case the public is also not held responsible for murder and promiscuity!

(b) TOSFOS explains that the Gemara itself addresses this question. The Gemara answers that whether the sinner is punished for his Lashon ha'Ra or whether he attains atonement from the Me'il depends on whether or not the sinner's transgression had detrimental consequences. This answer is also referring to sins of murder and promiscuity. If a person actually killed another person (and there are no witnesses), then he is punished with Nega'im. If he did not actually kill, but rather he embarrassed someone -- which is tantamount to killing (see Bava Metzia 58b) -- then the Kesones atones. Similarly, Nega'im is a punishment for one who actually engages in immoral acts. One who commits an act which is merely compared to promiscuity (see Shabbos 55b) receives atonement from the Michnasayim.

Similarly, the SHITAH MEKUBETZES quotes the ROSH who answers the same question regarding Gasei ha'Ru'ach, people who are haughty. The sin of haughtiness is one of the sins for which a person is punished with Nega'im, but it is also atoned for by the Mitznefes of the Kohen Gadol. The Rosh says that the reason why the Gemara does not ask how a person can be punished with Nega'im for haughtiness when the Mitznefes atones for that sin is similar to the reason given by Tosfos. If a person became haughty and actually sinned as a result of his haughtiness (as did Uziyahu ha'Melech when he attempted to offer the Ketores), then he is punished with Nega'im (like Uziyahu). A person who merely feels haughty but does not actively sin as a result of his haughtiness receives atonement from the Mitznefes. (This explanation is also mentioned by the RASHASH.)

(c) The MAHARSHA in Zevachim (88a) gives a different explanation. When the Gemara here says that the Bigdei Kehunah atone for sins so serious as murder and promiscuity, it means that they atone for these sins only when they were committed inadvertently. A sinner who commits these sins knowingly and willfully (and which are not subject to punishment by Beis Din, such as when there is no proper warning) is punished with Nega'im. This is why the Gemara asks only about Lashon ha'Ra, since one cannot transgress the sin of Lashon ha'Ra by mistake, inadvertently. Since both Nega'im and the atonement of the Me'il necessarily apply to Lashon ha'Ra that was spoken willfully, the Gemara asks how can one be punished (with Nega'im) if one attains atonement (through the Me'il). (See also Insights to Zevachim 88:2.)

QUESTION: Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says in the name of Rebbi Yonasan that one of the sins for which a person is punished with Nega'im is Lashon ha'Ra. The Gemara questions this from the statement of Rebbi Anani bar Sason, who says that the Me'il of the Kohen Gadol atones for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. How can a person be punished with Nega'im (or with any other punishment) for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra if the Me'il atones for that sin?

The Gemara answers that the Me'il does not atone for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra when the person's speech had detrimental effects, causing the victim to suffer. When the person's speech had no detrimental effects, the Me'il does atone for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra.

Why does the Gemara not give a much more basic answer to this question? Certainly, the Bigdei Kehunah provide atonement for sins only when the wrongdoer has repented. If the sinner has not done Teshuvah, then the Bigdei Kehunah obviously cannot provide atonement. (This is obvious, for if the Bigdei Kehunah provides atonement even when the sinners do not repent, then the Jewish people would never have been exiled as a result of the sin of Avodah Zarah, since the Efod would have atoned for their sin of Avodah Zarah!)

Accordingly, the Gemara should have answered simply that if a person does Teshuvah, then the Me'il atones for him, but when he does not do Teshuvah, then he is punished with Nega'im? (ROSH, cited by Shitah Mekubetzes #9)

ANSWER: We may answer this question based on the words of RASHI here. Rashi (DH Ahanu) explains that there is a difference between the way Bigdei Kehunah atone for Avodah Zarah, Giluy Arayos and other sins, and the way they atone for Lashon ha'Ra. With regard to Avodah Zarah, Giluy Arayos, and other sins, the Bigdei Kehunah atone for the *innocent people* who would otherwise suffer due to the sins of those who served idols or committed adultery. With regard to Lashon ha'Ra, though, the Bigdei Kehunah atone for the sinner himself.

This implies that just as the Bigdei Kehunah atone for the innocent neighbors of idolaters even when they do not repent (since they did not sin, there is nothing for which they need to repent), so, too, the Bigdei Kehunah atone for the one who *speaks* Lashon ha'Ra even though he does not repent. Therefore, the Gemara gives another answer for why a person is punished with Nega'im if the Me'il atones for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. (The Jewish people were exiled because they served idols themselves. The Bigdei Kehunah do not provide atonement for those who serve idols themselves, but only for their neighbors.) (M. Kornfeld)

16b

QUESTION: The Gemara asks to what extent must one go in giving rebuke to a fellow Jew. Shmuel says that one is obligated to rebuke another Jew until the recipient of the rebuke curses the admonisher. Rav says that one is obligated to rebuke another Jew until the recipient of the rebuke hits him. Rebbi Yochanan says that one must rebuke the wrongdoer until the wrongdoer becomes enraged.

What is the source for exempting a person from a Mitzvah d'Oraisa (such as Tochechah) merely because of concern that he will be hit (or cursed)

ANSWER: The RAMBAM (Hilchos De'os 6:7) rules that "one who is rebuking his fellow Jew, whether it is for a matter between the two of them, or for a matter between man and Hashem, must do so in private. He should speak to him calmly and gently and inform him that he is rebuking him for his own benefit, to bring him to Olam ha'Ba, the World to Come." We learn from here that the act of Tochechah must be an act showing concern for the person being rebuked. If the person being rebuked responds with a curse, violence, or rage, this indicates that it is not being received as an act of concern, and, consequently, does not constitute the Mitzvah of Tochechah. The admonisher is thus exempt from continuing to rebuke the wrongdoer.

This approach may resolve another question. The Gemara in Yoma (9b) states that the second Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed because of baseless hatred. However, the Gemara in Shabbos (119b) states that the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed because the people did not rebuke each other!

This contradiction can be resolved based on the words of the Rambam. According to the Rambam, the two reasons for why the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed are not mutually exclusive; both reasons are true. Since the people hated each other with a baseless hatred, the basis for the Mitzvah of Tochechah -- concern and caring for one's fellow man -- was absent. (RAV YAKOV KAMINETSKY zt'l in EMES L'YAKOV, Parshas va'Yetzei)

OPINIONS: The Gemara asks to what extent must one go in giving rebuke to a fellow Jew. Shmuel says that one is obligated to rebuke another Jew until the recipient of the rebuke curses the admonisher. Rav says that one is obligated to rebuke another Jew until the recipient of the rebuke hits him. Rebbi Yochanan says that one must rebuke the wrongdoer until the wrongdoer becomes enraged.

What is the Halachah in practice?

(a) The REMA (OC 608:2) quotes the opinions of both Shmuel and Rav. The BI'UR HALACHAH cites the SEFER HA'CHINUCH who explains that "until he hits him" means until the point where the person receiving the Tochechah would be *close* to hitting him, but not that the admonisher must actually get beaten for giving Tochechah.

(b) The MISHNAH BERURAH in SHA'AR HA'TZIYON (608:13) rules that one may rely on the opinion that it is sufficient to rebuke a wrongdoer until the point at which the wrongdoer is ready to curse him.

(With regard to the admonisher hitting the wrongdoer to stop him from sinning, see Insights to Bava Kama 28:1 at length.)