Rashi (Kiddushin 28a): Beis din does not get involved but the victim is allowed to hate the perpetrator and damage his livelihood and to ruin his business.
Ritva (Kiddushin 28a): This is mida keneged mida (measure for measure). Since the perpetrator caused him a loss in his well being because society does not have mercy on one called a rasha. Therefore beis din does not get involved but it is permitted for him to damage the perpetrator's livelihood and to cause him a loss in his well being.
=============
If someome discovers that they are wrong about another person that they have publicly condemned - what should be the response?
Berachos(31a-b): [Soncino Translation] R. Hamnuna said: How many most important laws can be learnt from these verses relating to Hannah!33 Now Hannah, she spoke in her heart: from this we learn that one who prays must direct his heart. Only her lips moved: from this we learn that he who prays must frame the words distinctly with his lips. But her voice could not be heard: from this, it is forbidden to raise one's voice in the Tefillah. Therefore Eli thought she had been drunken: from this, that a drunken person is forbidden to say the Tefillah. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken, etc.34 R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who sees in his neighbour something unseemly must reprove him. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord. ‘Ulla, or as some say R. Jose b. Hanina, said: She said to him: Thou art no lord in this matter, nor does the holy spirit rest on thee, that thou suspectest me of this thing. Some say, She said to him: Thou art no lord, [meaning] the Shechinah and the holy spirit is not with you in that you take the harsher and not the more lenient view of my conduct. Dost thou not know that I am a woman of sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink. R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who is suspected wrongfully must clear himself. Count not thy handmaid for a daughter of Belial; a man who says the Tefillah when drunk is like one who serves idols. It is written here, Count not thy handmaid for a daughter of Belial, and it is written elsewhere, Certain sons of Belial have gone forth from the midst of thee. Just as there the term is used in connection with idolatry, so here. Then Eli answered and said, Go in Peace. R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who suspects his neighbour of a fault which he has not committed must beg his pardon;6 nay more, he must bless him, as it says, And the God of Israel grant thy petition.
=============
If someome discovers that they are wrong about another person that they have publicly condemned - what should be the response?
Berachos(31a-b): [Soncino Translation] R. Hamnuna said: How many most important laws can be learnt from these verses relating to Hannah!33 Now Hannah, she spoke in her heart: from this we learn that one who prays must direct his heart. Only her lips moved: from this we learn that he who prays must frame the words distinctly with his lips. But her voice could not be heard: from this, it is forbidden to raise one's voice in the Tefillah. Therefore Eli thought she had been drunken: from this, that a drunken person is forbidden to say the Tefillah. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken, etc.34 R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who sees in his neighbour something unseemly must reprove him. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord. ‘Ulla, or as some say R. Jose b. Hanina, said: She said to him: Thou art no lord in this matter, nor does the holy spirit rest on thee, that thou suspectest me of this thing. Some say, She said to him: Thou art no lord, [meaning] the Shechinah and the holy spirit is not with you in that you take the harsher and not the more lenient view of my conduct. Dost thou not know that I am a woman of sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink. R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who is suspected wrongfully must clear himself. Count not thy handmaid for a daughter of Belial; a man who says the Tefillah when drunk is like one who serves idols. It is written here, Count not thy handmaid for a daughter of Belial, and it is written elsewhere, Certain sons of Belial have gone forth from the midst of thee. Just as there the term is used in connection with idolatry, so here. Then Eli answered and said, Go in Peace. R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who suspects his neighbour of a fault which he has not committed must beg his pardon;6 nay more, he must bless him, as it says, And the God of Israel grant thy petition.
Are these referring to insults or to accusations of halachic staus, eg calling someone a mamzer as a insult or as a claim for their legal status?
ReplyDeleteAlso, what if the word used is in English for example "he is an evil b....."?
From the gemora and commentaries it is referring to giving a person a status which causes others to avoid him. Thus calling him evil or the like in English would also be included. There are times when it is halachicly permitted to call someone a rasha - obviously the gemora is not referring to that. It would be applicable where someone falsely claims that it is permitted to call another a rasha.
DeleteGood post. It was shameful of Rabbi Feldman to call Rabbi Lipman a rasha, and other bad names. I listened to part of Rabbi Lipman's radio interview motsei Shabbos, and he is the far bigger man. He accepted Rabbi Feldman's apology. Others, including me, wouldn't have, because it was partial, and so transparently insincere.
ReplyDeleteI think we're in a poor position to doubt the apology's insincerity. The original accusatory statement might have been due to some type of coercion.
DeleteHow is apologizing for the name-calling, yet not retracting one's firmly held opinion, partial or insincere? I also listened to both. Should Rabbi Feldman have completely changed his mind about the whole matter because of an unfortunate lapse based on having been fed misinformation by someone he trusted?
DeleteAbove, I meant "...the apology's sincerity"
DeleteOpinions on this matter are inevitably going to be subjective. Even if Rabbi Lipman had said what Rabbi Feldman originally thought he said - a rasha, an Amalek, a Haman? And I think these words, overlooked, were even worse: "They're trying to undermine everything". No, Rabbi Feldman, "they" are not. They are trying to make things better, all out in the open, putting their opinions in the marketplace of ideas, for all the world to see, and comment and improve upon, if possible. I guess, by this time, I and we shouldn't be astonished by these cruel, extreme statements, but I, for one, still am. A frum man, a musmach, a family man, a new member of Knesset, trying to alleviate poverty and ignorance, and he is defamed by a very senior religious figure. I think that's terribly wrong. A message is being sent to all potential dissenters, like Rabbi Lipman: if you try to leave us, we will hurt you. We will call you bad names, and you will be socially ostracized. The cold, qualified apology hardly makes the victim whole.
DeleteTo Rav Feldman's credit and as a sign of his integrity he did publicly apologize. We're still waiting for the other "Gedolim" who attacked Rav Lipman to do the same though.
ReplyDeleteI read Rav Feldman differently: "I shouldn't have called you a rasha; what your party plans to do is wrong but you meant well and were acting out of ignorance" seems to me to imply "and now that I've told you, now you know. Since you have now been publicly informed of the wrongness of your actions, the next time you promote this agenda, you ARE a rasha."
DeleteRav Lipman seems to be firmly committed to his party's agenda, so I guess we'll see how Rav Feldman actually meant what he said when we see what he says with respect to Rav Lipman the next time.
What a shame...Thanks for posting this...
ReplyDeleteRav Ahron Feldman is a Talmid Chacham, as well a very thought out person (he doesnt need my haskama, he already has the chazon ish and the steipler and rav schach for that). my point is not the old and regurgitated comment on every blog saying "who do you think you are, Rav ploni is blah blah blah) but lets be honest here. we are talking about one of the foremost Rashei Yeshiva in America, who has written a tremendous amount of scholarly works in some of the most difficult sections of Torah, versus someone who (clearly) only has a cursory understanding of the wider yeshiva world both in America and Israel. someone who loves attention (as attested to people who have grown up with him or are acquainted with him (including the commentator).In terms of scholarly works includes a book of superficial answers to surface level hashkafic question, sports/torah mashalim and a weekly section of relatively easy question on the parsha in torah tidbits. at some point we have to honest and follow the one who logically makes sense to listen to. its that simple
ReplyDelete