We begin on דף נ״ח עמוּד ב, continuing with the theme of אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים and the power of words:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: גָּדוֹל אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים מֵאוֹנָאַת מָמוֹן, שֶׁזֶּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וְזֶה לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ״. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: זֶה בְּגוּפוֹ וְזֶה בְּמָמוֹנוֹ. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: זֶה נִיתַּן לְהִישָּׁבוֹן, וְזֶה לֹא נִיתַּן לְהִישָּׁבוֹן
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן says in the name of רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: Greater is the transgression of אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים (verbal mistreatment) than the transgression of monetary exploitation (אוֹנָאַת מָמוֹן). We know this from the pasuk regarding אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים which states: “וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ”. This in contrast with אוֹנָאַת מָמוֹן which does not mention the fear of G-d. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר offered this distinction between the two: אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים affects one’s body, but אוֹנָאַת מָמוֹן only affects one’s money. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי offered yet another differentiation: אוֹנָאַת מָמוֹן is subject to restitution whereas אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים is not.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כל הַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים, כְּאִילּוּ שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר קָא אָמְרַתְּ, דְּחָזֵינָא לֵיהּ דְּאָזֵיל סוּמָּקָא וְאָתֵי חִוּוֹרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: בְּמַעְרְבָא בְּמַאי זְהִירִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאַחְווֹרֵי אַפֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַכֹּל יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם, חוּץ מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה
The following baraisa was taught in front of before רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that after the humiliated person blushes, the red leaves his face and pallor comes in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. אַבַּיֵי said to רַב דִּימִי: In the West (אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל), with regard to what mitzva are they particularly vigilant? רַב דִּימִי said to him: They are vigilant in refraining from humiliating others, as רַבִּי חֲנִינָא says: Everyone descends to גֵיהִנָּם except for three.
הַכֹּל סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כָּל הַיּוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם עוֹלִים, חוּץ מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיּוֹרְדִין וְאֵין עוֹלִין. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים, וְהַמְכַנֶּה שֵׁם רַע לַחֲבֵירוֹ. מְכַנֶּה הַיְינוּ מַלְבִּין? אַף עַל גַּב דְּדָשׁ בֵּיהּ בִּשְׁמֵיהּ
The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone descends to גֵיהִנָּם? Rather, say: Anyone who descends to גֵיהִנָּם ultimately ascends, except for three:
- One who engages in intercourse with a married woman [הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ]
- One who humiliates another in public [הַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים]
- One who calls another a derogatory name [הַמְכַנֶּה שֵׁם רַע לַחֲבֵירוֹ]
It seems that one who calls another a derogatory name is identical to one who shames him; why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: Although the victim grew accustomed to being called that nickname in place of his name (like “Shorty” to a vertically challenged person), and he is no longer humiliated by being called that name, still the intent was to insult him and the perpetrator’s punishment is severe.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה cites רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן as saying:
נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיָּבוֹא עַל סְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְאַל יַלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים. מְנָא לַן? מִדְּדָרֵשׁ רָבָא, דְּדָרֵשׁ רָבָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וּבְצַלְעִי שָׂמְחוּ וְנֶאֱסָפוּ… קָרְעוּ וְלֹא דָמּוּ״? אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנֶיךָ, שֶׁאִם הָיוּ מְקָרְעִים בְּשָׂרִי, לֹא הָיָה דָּמִי שׁוֹתֵת לָאָרֶץ
It is preferable for a person to engage in intercourse with a woman whose married status is uncertain and not humiliate another in public. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: From which רָבָא interpreted: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when I limped they rejoiced and gathered…they tore and did not cease” (וּבְצַלְעִי֮ שָׂמְחוּ וְֽנֶ֫אֱסָ֥פוּ נֶאֶסְפ֬וּ עָלַ֣י נֵ֭כִים וְלֹ֣א יָדַ֑עְתִּי קָרְע֥וּ וְלֹא־דָֽמּוּ – Tehilim 35:15)? The term “דָמּוּ” can also be understood as a reference to blood. Concerning the fasting he undertook to atone for his sin with Batsheva (see שְׁמוּאֵל ב, chapters 11–12), Dovid Hamelech said before הקבּ״ה: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that if my tormenters were to tear my flesh, my blood would not flow to the ground, due to excessive fasting.
(The above lithograph from 1956 representing “David & Bathsheba” is by March Chagall)
Following the nature of the dalliance between those two, and the example of Tamar with Yehuda in the Torah, the Gemara proceeds to this:
אָמַר רַב חִנָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ״? עַם שֶׁאִתְּךָ בְּתוֹרָה וּבַמִּצְווֹת, אַל תּוֹנֵיהוּ. אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם זָהִיר בְּאוֹנָאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁדִּמְעָתָהּ מְצוּיָה, אוֹנָאָתָהּ קְרוֹבָה
רַב חִנָּנָא the son of רַב אִידִי says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat each man his colleague” (וְלֹ֤א תוֹנוּ֙ אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־עֲמִית֔וֹ וְיָרֵ֖אתָ מֵֽאֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם – Vayikra 25:17)? As Rashi notes, the word עֲמִיתוֹ is interpreted as a contraction of עִם אִתּוֹ, meaning: One who is with him. In other words, with one who is with you in observance of Torah and mitzvos, you shall not mistreat. רַב says: A person must always be careful about mistreatment of his wife. Since she is sensitive (שֶׁדִּמְעָתָהּ מְצוּיָה – she is easily brought to tears) punishment for her mistreatment comes swiftly.
To say that the following set of statements are potentially controversial is putting it mildly. At the very least, it may have gotten רַב in hot water at home:
וְאָמַר רַב: כל הַהוֹלֵךְ בַּעֲצַת אִשְׁתּוֹ נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רַק לֹא הָיָה כְאַחְאָב וְגוֹ׳״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְהָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי, אִיתְּתָךְ גּוּצָא – גְּחֵין וְתִלְחוֹשׁ לָהּ! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּמִילֵּי דְעָלְמָא, וְהָא בְּמִילֵּי דְבֵיתָא. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: הָא בְּמִילֵּי דִשְׁמַיָּא, וְהָא בְּמִילֵּי דְעָלְמָא
רַב says: Anyone who follows the counsel of his wife descends into בְּגֵיהִנָּם, as it is stated: “But there was none like Ahab, who did give himself over to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife incited” (רַ֚ק לֹא־הָיָ֣ה כְאַחְאָ֔ב אֲשֶׁ֣ר הִתְמַכֵּ֔ר לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת הָרַ֖ע בְּעֵינֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה אֲשֶׁר־הֵסַ֥תָּה אֹת֖וֹ אִיזֶ֥בֶל אִשְׁתּֽוֹ – I Kings 21:25). רַב פָּפָּא said to אַבַּיֵי: But don’t people say a popular proverb: “If your wife is short, stoop and whisper to her and consult with her”? The Gemara answers: The statement of רַב instructs that one not follow her counsel in general matters; and that proverb instructs that one follow her counsel in household matters. The Gemara presents another version of this distinction: This statement of רַב maintains that one should not follow her counsel in divine matters; and that proverb maintains that one should follow her counsel in general matters.
Actually I think we can bail רַב out of the אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים by noting that he was referring to the worst case scenario of listening to the advice of one’s spouse who is of particularly poor character. This is evidenced by the pasuk that he cited from מַלְאָכִים א involving אִיזֶ֥בֶל, the particularly evil wife of King אַחְאָ֔ב. You can read more about the extent of her influence on her husband, and how it resulted in the Jews following the unsavory practices of worshiping Ba’al, in this piece from the Virtual Bais Medresh of Torat Har Etzion.
To counterbalance this negative example, let’s zoom ahead to a more positive note:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם זָהִיר בִּכְבוֹד אִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁאֵין בְּרָכָה מְצוּיָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְאַבְרָם הֵטִיב בַּעֲבוּרָהּ״. וְהַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא לִבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא: אוֹקִירוּ לִנְשַׁיְיכוּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִתְעַתְּרוּ
And רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ says: A person must always be careful about sustaining the honor of his wife, as blessing is found in a person’s house only because of his wife, as it is stated in allusion to this: “And he dealt well with Abram for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen” (וּלְאַבְרָ֥ם הֵיטִ֖יב בַּעֲבוּרָ֑הּ וַֽיְהִי־ל֤וֹ צֹאן־וּבָקָר֙ וַחֲמֹרִ֔ים וַעֲבָדִים֙ וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת וַאֲתֹנֹ֖ת וּגְמַלִּֽים – Bereishis 12:16). And that is what רָבָא said to the residents of מָחוֹזָא, where he lived: Honor your wives, so that you will be enriched.
Following this the Gemara proceeds to what Rabbi Stern characterized as one of the most famous passages in all of ש״ס, which is the תַּנּוּר שֶׁל עַכְנַאי (Oven of Achnai). It is so legendary that it has its own Wikipedia entry. I was intrigued by the imagery of it, as well as the discussion, depicted here by Yael Shahar.
Rabbi Stern relates how the drama unfolds, beginning at the 17:45 minute mark of his video.
Pressvision's Blog 