More Discussions for this daf
1. Humble waters 2. Caesar's daughter's question to Rebbi Yehoshuah 3. Rashi - Malkos
4. Rav Avahu 5. Rebbi Zeira Too Weak To Teach 6. Metzah Ishah Zonah
7. 3 Liquids That Can Only Be Held in Earthenware 8. Beauty as a positive or negative?
DAF DISCUSSIONS - TA'ANIS 7

ari asked:

rashi here says "viain bo mishum malkos" and he says we see that from kiddushin, but its obvious because in kiddushin it says you dont get malkus for calling even a regular person a rasha and rashi there says that beis din is not involved and its only taking away his livelihood, so why does rashi over here say that there is no malkus, of course not!!?!

ari, west hempstead ny

The Kollel replies:

(1) This is a very strong observation on Rashi and I found that it is made in Tehila l'Yonah, a very good Sefer on Maseches Ta'anis (and there is another too on Maseches Megilah) published 9 years ago in Lakewood, NJ, in memory of Rabbi and Rebbetzin Yonah Weinstein, A'H.

(2) Tehila l'Yonah cites Tal Torah (by Rabbi Meir Arik, zt'l, one of the Torah giants in the period between the 2 World Wars) on Shas, who also makes your observation. Tal Torah refers us to SM'A on Shulchan Arukh Choshen Mishpat 420:56 who cites Maharam from Rizburk (one of the Rishonim who is also cited there by Darkei Moshe 420:5) who writes that if someone says to his friend "You

are a slave or a mamzer or a rasha etc." he receives malkus.

(3) One sees from this that the Halacha follows Rashi here that merely for calling someone a rasha one receives malkus (unless he is arrogant etc. in which case the Gemara here says that one is permitted to call him a rasha), because the Halacha follows the Maharam of Rizburk - who agrees with Rashi here - since he is cited by the Darkei Moshe, written by the Rema, and by the Sm'a on Shulchan Arukh.

(4) However you have raised the important point that this does not seem to be consistent with the Sugya in Kidushin 28a and Rashi there DH Rasha that if someone calls his friend a rasha, Beis Din do not get involved but he is allowed to take away the livelihood of the person who slandered him.

(5) Well, I should point out that there is no contradiction in Rashi because the later commentators write that "Rashi" on tractate Taanis was not actually written by Rashi. See Maharatz Chiyus at the end of the Maseches who writes that "Rashi" on Taanis is significantly different than Rashi on other tractates and he cites many examples of this. His conclusion there is that "Rashi" on Taanis was written by a student of Rashi and that Tosfos did not see this commentary which is why they never cite it.

(6) Even though the Gemara in Kidushin states that if one calls a friend a rasha the latter is allowed to threaten the livelihood of the former, this does not necessarily mean that he does not receive malkus as well, but "Rashi" Taanis and Maharam from Rizburk can maintain that taking away someone's livelihood is a worse punishment than giving him malkus, so the Gemara Kidushin means that one is even allowed to take away his livelihood and certainly he also receives malkus.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

The Kollel adds:

It is probable that Rashi Taanis possessed a variant reading in the Gemara Kidushin (for instance his text in the Gemara may have been "Someone who calls his friend a mamzer or a slave or a rasha or an adulterer receives malkus" - this would appear to be the text of the aforementioned Mahara of Rizburk in the Gemara Kidushin itself).

Kol Tuv

Dovid Bloom