In the incident between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua, when it came to appointing a Nasi to take over, the possiblity of R' Akiva was brought up and then dismissed. The reason for this was that since he lacked Zechus Avos, Rabban Gamliel would be overly distressed by this, and this could cause R' Akiva to be punished.
Would this punishment due to R' Gamliel's ''hakpada'' be a conscious act? We find later on daf 55a that of three things which cause one's sins to be mentioned, one of them is being ''moser din al chaveiro l'shomayim'' It seems from Rashi there that this person is confident that his zechusim suffice to ''purchase'' as it were, the satisfaction of his rival being punished. It seems that zechusim are used up, lost thereby. So why would someone of the stature of R' Gamliel have wanted that his replacement -- even if that person would lack Zechus Avos -- be punished? One, R' Gamliel himself would lose thereby. And two, it would seem that an exalted person would be above this and refrain from seeking such a thing. Perhaps this punishment due to R' Gamliel's ''hakpada'' would not be a conscious act, and the Gem. on 55a was speaking of a situation where the sense of ''hakpada'' would be a conscious act(?)
I look forward to your comments.
Yitzchok Gesser, Mexico City, Mexico
You are making a good point. "Hakpadah" is like an "Ayin Ha'ra," in that it involves a very small, almost untraceable, feeling of jealousy (when the person involved is a Gadol), which has an effect upon the person that caused the jealousy (because of some slight misdeed that he might have done). It will not be able to have an effect on him, though, if he has great Zechuyos from his forebears to protect him (see Hagahos ha'Ya'avetz in the new Wagshal printing to Yevamos 106a).
Alternatively, perhaps there was a fear that Raban Gamliel would indeed attempt to punish whoever was elected in his place. The fear was not that Raban Gamliel would be "Moser Din Al Chaveiro," relying on his own Zechuyos to have the other person punished for a personal affront, but rather that Raban Gamliel felt that the honor of Torah was at stake, and it was his responsibility to protect the honor of Torah, as is the responsibility of a Talmid Chacham, like the Gemara says in Yoma (23a; see our Insights there).
Kol Tuv,
M. Kornfeld