[Avodah] Revenge and Punishment

[Dov Kaiser]

R. Eidensohn excerpted:
 
<<*Yoma^] (23a): *Any scholar who does not avenge himself and bear grudge like a snake is not a real talmid chachom. But doesn't the Torah (Vayikra 19:18) prohibit bearing grudges or taking revenge? The answer is that the Torah prohibition only applies to monetary matters. Support for this in found in the following teaching. Prohibited revenge occurs when a person asked to borrow tools from a neighbor and was refused. If the neighbor then asks to borrow tools from him on another occasion and he refuses because he had been refused by the neighbor---that is revenge. Prohibited bearing of grudge occurs when a person asked to borrow tools from a neighbor and was refused. If the neighbor then asks to borrow tools from him on another occasion and he responds: "I will lend it to you because I am not like you"---that is bearing a grudge. But doesn't the prohibition also apply in cases of personal insult as it was taught: Those who have been insulted and yet do not insult in revenge....they that love Him shall be as the sun in its might? That refers to a person who was insulted and yet does not respond---even though he still bears grudge. However Rava stated that whoever forgives those who insult him has all his sins forgiven? Rava is referring only to the case where the one who insulted him has asked for and received forgiveness for the insult. Therefore the prohibition only applies to monetary matters>>
 
The last sentence in your translation does not appear in the Gemara.  I assume it is the translator's interpolation, and it strikes me as inaccurate.
 
The Gemara is working hard to find a heikhei timtza for R. Yochanan’s statement that a talmid chakham who does not take revenge like a snake is not a real talmid chakham.  It rejects the possibility that the statement refers to monetary matters, as the Torah forbids revenge in this area.  It then rejects the possibility that it refers to taking revenge for a tzaara d’gufa, because we have already learned in Shabbos 68b about the virtue of *ha-ne’elavin v’ein olvin* (which is the Gemara R. Micha quoted in a subsequent post).  The Gemara then narrows down the application of the statement to a case where the talmid chakham suffers tzaara d’gufa but receives no apology.  The Gemara’s conclusion is that it is virtuous for a talmid chakham to take revenge for a personal slight where no apology has been offered.
 
RMB has already clarified that there are Rishonim who explain this statement of R. Yochanan to be referring to slights to kevod haTorah rather than personal slights.  However, there is no hint to that qualification in the words of the Gemara in Yoma.  I have to admit that I was comforted by this Gemara when I first saw it, as I find myself able to forgive very quickly where I detect remorse.  On the other hand, I find it very difficult to forgive where the perpetrator goes along his merry way without remorse.  Clearly, according to the Rishonim you cite, I still have some work to do.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100221/645bcc44/attachment-0002.htm>