The Gem. Brochos 24b says that for one who is ''misatesh'', he passed wind noisely, it is a bad siman. The Madane Yom Tov explains that because of the noise, others take heed and the person feels humiliated. This experience of feeling this humiliation ia a bad siman since it means he is not held in high regard in Heaven.
The question is, in other instances it would seem that this sense of humiliation, discomfort, etc. is a source of zechus or kapara. Eg. Gem. Megila (15b) asks why Esther invited Haman to her seuda. One answer, that of R' Shimon ben Menasya, is that she hoped perhaps Ha-shem would be sensitized to Klal Yisrael's plight, and perform a miracle which is indeed what happened. Rashi says there that she hoped Ha-shem would be sensitized by her having to cheapen herself in flattering this rasha.
So why in the Gem in Brochos is this humiliation -- which is also a way of being ''cheapened'' -- considered a bad siman rather a zechus?
Thank you
Yosef Gesser, Mexico City, Mexico
There seems to be a difference between "embarrassment," which causes a person to be seen in a negative light (i.e. the person is considered lowly), and "humiliation" which is not truly a statement on the person. Esther was humiliated but not looked down upon.
Dov Zupnik
Rav Zupnick is correct that we can distinguish between the case of Esther and the case of Berachos 24b as he suggested, however from Berachos 12b (Rashi DH Gam ba'Chalomos) it seems that even if one is embarrassed in a way that puts him in a very negative light, it also brings a Kaparah.
Perhaps it is a Siman Ra in Berachos because the embarrassment is related to something that prevents him from doing Mitzvos, that is, because he passed gas he must stop praying while the smell lasts, and others around him as well (Orach Chayim 103). A hint that there is a difference between such an embarrassment and others can be found in Rashi 5b DH Ha Lan. (This also explains why Itush is a Siman Ra even if no others are present, as the Ma'adanei Yom Tov says.)
However, there may be more to it. True, the Ma'adanei Yom Tov learns from the fact that Rashi mentions "b'Kol" that it is the disgrace that causes the Siman Ra. However, that is not agreed upon by all. The Magen Avraham (103:6) proves at length that the word b'Kol is not the correct Girsa in Rashi. The reason it is a Siman Ra is because he did not force himself to hold the Itush back, and that is why "it is recognized by all that he is disgusting." This fits perfectly with the Gemara's previous answer, "Kan l'Onso..." (Note, however, that it is not clear whether Rashi had those words in his Girsa after the Beraisa mentions Itush or before, see Vilna Gaon, Rashi DH ha'Megahek.)
Although Rashi writes that Itush cannot be controlled, that is only according to what the Gemara orginally thought, that it meant sneezing. The Gemara concludes, though, that it means passing gas, which can be controlled, and therefore is a bad sign if it is not controlled. (This answers the Rashash's question on Rashi here, why Rashi didn't offer a simpler explanation for the Gemara's question.)
Even according to our Girsa in Rashi, "b'KOl" Rashi is just trying to explain why it is " recognized by all that he is disgusting," or why it is such a bad sign. The bad sign is that he is brazen enough not to care that others hear him do such a thing during Tefilah.
In any case, according to this understanding there is no question in the first place.
Be well, Mordecai Kornfeld