Why is it that Rav Shimon Bar Yochai wanted to harm people that weren't doing anything wrong per say. Yes, it is true that workers aren't learning Torah, but as we learned in Berachot, you are permitted to make a living, but never the less Rav Shimon Bar Yochai and his son toasted them. The old man with the field that used to be a graveyard, what did he do that was so bad? And Yehuda Ben Geriim just differed in his opinion about the Romans buildings, why was there a need to harm him even more? I understand why Rav Shimon might not agree or even like these people, but what was the need to harm them?
David Bassan, West Orange, NJ
Your question is a good one. It bothered me too, as it no doubt, bothers just about everyone who learns this Gemara. However, you should have quoted the Gemara in Berachos (35b), since it is Rebbi Yishmael there who condones making a living. Rebbi Shimon is of the opinion that one should learn Torah exclusively, because if people work, 'What will then happen to Torah'? As a matter of fact, the Rashash connects R. Shimon here with his opinion there. Nor is there a problem as to how one would subsist without working, because, as R. Shimon explains in B'rachos, Hash-m would then ensure that their work would be carried out by others.
I'm not sure that R. Shimon and R. Elazar actually killed anyone (besides that old man and R. Yehudah ben Geirim), because the Gemara first describes how wherever they looked (not whoever they looked at) got burned, and then how whoever R. Elazar wounded, R. Shimon cured. No mention is made about killing anybody.
In any event, Hash-m's response clearly indicates that their actions were unacceptable.
Having said that, I will attempt to explain what they did by referring to the creation, where, as Rashi teaches us (end of 1:1) Hash-m first created the world with Midas ha'Din (the attribute of judgment, symbolized by the Name 'Elokim'), and then added Midas ha'Rachamim (His attribute of Mercy, symbolized by 'Hashem'), because He saw that it cannot exist on Midas ha'Din alone.
Similarly, the commentaries explain that when Ya'akov Avinu said to Hash-m "If Elokim will be with me ... " (Bereishis 28:20), he meant that he wanted Hash-m to deal with him only according to the Midas ha'Din (according to his deserts) without Rachamim.
Add to that, the principle that Hash-m punishes Tzadikim more stringently than ordinary people. Why is that? Because they possess a deeper understanding of sin and evil than others, and are therefore expected to avoid it more than them. To carry this a bit further, the greater a person is, the more he is able to perceive the slightest imperfection as
something terrible.
What therefore happened here was that having reached such a great level in the cave, R. Shimon and his son a. perceived not learning Torah as an unforgivable sin and b. they wanted the world to run according to the Midas ha'Din, in which case anyone who fails to live according to the strictest ideals must be punished. Bear in mind also, that just a little earlier on the same Amud, Rashi pointed out that someone who is idle from Torah is Chayav Misah.
From an ideal point of view, he may well have been right, only Hash-m reminded him that the world cannot exist on Midas ha'Din ('Did you leave the cave in order to destroy My world ... '?), to teach him that even if theoretically, he was one hundred per cent right (and everybody is really obligated to learn all the time), Hash-m had already decreed at the creation, that Midas ha'Din must be applied in conjunction with Midas Rachamim.
Later, R. Shimon went on to kill that old man and R. Yehudah ben Geirim, this time without Divine intervention, suggesting that what he did was with Hash-m's authority. Here too, he did not kill them without good reason, but because they both spoke Lashon ha'Ra, and we learned above that this is punishable by Misah (add to this that the one's Lashon ha'Ra was accompanied by Chillul Hash-m, the other's, achieved such dire results).
*You* wrote that R. Yehudah ben Geirim merely differed with R. Shimon's opinion about the Roman buildings. The Gemara however, says that he divulged the minutes of the meeting to his wife and to his Talmidim, via which it reached the ears of the Emperor, which the commentaries describe as Lashon ha'Ra.
One more point. The Gemara in Sukah and elsewhere, relates that when R. Yochanan ben Zakai used to learn Torah, any bird that flew above his head would be burned up by the fire of his Torah.
The commentaries point out that the same is not said about his Rebbe Hillel, who was clearly greater than him. And they ascribe this to Hillel's power of restraint. So great was he, that he was able to contain the fire that he emitted as he learned, thereby preventing it from harming a bird.
I would compare R. Shimon when he came out of the cave to R. Yochanan ben Zakai, and after Hash-m had spoken to him, to Hillel.
R. Eliezer Chrysler
Wasn't it Yonasan ben Uziel whose learning would cause the birds to burn, not Reb Yochanan ben Zakai?
The Gemarah in Sukkah is Rebbe Yonoson B. Uziel that burnt the bird, not R' Yochonon B. Zacai
Quote "how wherever they looked (not whoever they looked at) got burned, and then how whoever R.Elazar wounded, R. Shimon cured. No mention is made about killing anybody."
It only said that he cured them only after the 2nd leaving of the cave, Mashma after the 1st leaving when both burned that Rav Shimonj didn't burn.
You're quite right! The Gemara does indeed cite Yonasan ben Uziel as the one whose learning would cause the birds to burn, and not Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai. I realized this shortly after handing in the answer, but it was too late to change it. It goes then without saying that I was comparing R. Shimon when he first left the cave to Yonasan ben Uziel, and not to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai.
Your second question, Chaim, is not clear. I suppose you meant to write that the first time R. Shimon didn't cure.
I agree with that. The point I was making was that the first time they left the cave, the Gemara says nothing about killing people, only burning locations (which Hashem did not condone either).
R. Eliezer Chrysler