Page 195 - V1

Introduction to החיתפ
Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפסל
Laveen - L8-9
זט ואל - ןיואל

It is certainly true that under normal circumstances, at the moment of רעצמ םא אמלעב רובידב וליפאש ה"ס הוצמב ךוניחה
insult, it is impossible that man’s personality would allow him to remain
silent and not answer back if not for G‑d’s blessings of holiness for this .ש"יע הז ואלב כ"ג רבוע ןתוא
person, as the Chinuch writes in that same mitzvah (#338). But after
the moment of insult passes, when his anger subsides, the Torah forbids םדא לכב ןידה אוהד עמשמ םיטפשמ 'פב י"שר תטישו
him from venting and taking revenge even to the point of not allowing .ש"יע הז ואל ןכ םג שי ללמוא אוהש
him to hold a grudge inwardly (even without expressing it). After more
time has passed, he must erase the entire insult from his consciousness. םינושארה םינפוא עבראב ונייה רבועד םינפב בתכש המו
This is the law as expressed in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat section
3
#421 paragraph #13 in the Hagahah. In a situation where two people םנויזב תא םהינפב עמושהד ףא .רפסמה קרו םהינפבו
insulted or embarrassed each other, the one who started first must pay the .הז ואל אל ךא .הז לע שנוע יאדווב כ"ג ול שי קתושו
applicable penalty (please see the commentary of the Meirat Enayim [in
th
the 24 notation] who explains this Lav just as I have).
But some extensive thought is needed regarding the statement in Gemara .ןויס 'ו ,טבש ו"כ ,ירשת ז"י - תרבועמ הנש .ןויס ז"ט ,טבש ז"ט ,ירשת ז"י - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
Yomah (23a) that differentiates between an incident involving bodily
harm and suffering and an incident involving a monetary issue. It is also םייחה רוקמ
surprising that the Rambam did not support this idea as being the law. The
ֲ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֻ
implication is that he holds like the Chinuch, that it is forbidden to take אוּהֶשׁ ,הפּנח רוּסִּא לע דוֹע )זט( רבוֹע םיִמעְפִלו )זט(
revenge or hold a grudge in all circumstances. How then is one to understand )לוֹריִבגּ ןבּ הֹמלְֹשׁ יִבּרַו ןוֹאגו תוֹפסוֹתּה לעבּ ם"ארְה( םינוֹאגּ הבּרְהל
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ִ
ְ
the statement cited in Gemara Yoma that does make such a distinction? To ְ ֶ ְ ָ ְ ְ ַ ַ ַ ֵ ָ
ֶ
ֲ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ְ
offer an answer for the Chinuch and the Rambam, perhaps the gemara’s תא וּפינחַת אלֹ"דּ )ג"ל ה"ל רבּדְִמּבּ( ואל אוּהו ,רוּמגּ ואל
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
initial understanding that revenge taken in response to bodily suffering is
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ַ
different and that it is permissible. This understanding was dismissed by תוּליִכרְהו ערָה ןוֹשׁלה וֹרוּפִּסבּ ןוּכְּתִמ םִא ,ןוֹגכּ ,"ץרֶאה
the gemara because of the (implied) question raised by Chazal’s statement
ַ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
of “Those who are shamed and don’t respond by shaming others” is still וֹתוֹא לע וֹל שׁיֶּשׁ עדֵוֹי אוּהֶשׁ ,עֵמוֹשּׁהל ףינחהל ידֵכּ
relevant. In conclusion, the gemara does allow holding a grudge when אוּהו ,ויניֵעבּ ןח אצְמי הז ידֵי לעו ,רבכִּמ האנִשׂ ינוֹלְפּ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ִ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
bodily suffering is involved but only when Talmedei Chachamim (Torah
ֶ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
scholars) who were publicly cursed are involved since in that case there is תוצִמ םיּקְַמ וֹניא רֶשׁא ,וּנּמִּמ טעְמּה יִכּ ,יִליִלְפּ ןוֹע
also a disgrace to the Torah, as he writes in the end of the section of law
ְ
ָ
ֲ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
dealing with Torah scholars. Please reference there the commentary of the רֶשׁא האנִשּׂה לע וֹחיִכוֹהל )אָתירָוֹאדּ הֵשֲׂע תוצִמ איִהֶשׁ( החכוֹה
Lechem Mishne and the Se’Mag’s commentary on this mitzvah. רֶשׁא האנִשּׂה תא וירָוּפִּסבּ קיזחי םגּ לבא ,וֹרבח ןיבוּ וֹניבּ
ֵ
ֵ
ֲ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
ֶ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
דלוּיו ,רֵתוֹיו רֵתוֹי וֹתּלוִּאבּ הנְשׁי וֹדי לעו ,רבכִּמ םהיניבּ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ִ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
Choshen Mishpat (4 : ) The Mechaber states in a case where two people
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ֲ
are fighting and each injures the other, the one who is injured more receives .וּנרְֵמְשׁי םֵשּׁה ,םיִלוּקלקִ המּכּ דוֹעו הָשׁדח תקֶלֹחמ הזִּמ
compensation from the other party equivalent to the difference between his
ְ
injuries and the injuries sustained by that other party. That is only in a case אוּהו ,דֹאְמ הבּרְה יוּצמ ,םיִבּרַה וּניֵתוֹנוֲֹעבּ ,הז ןוֹעדּ עדַו
where the fight started simultaneously or the injured party fought back but ְ ֵ ַ ָ ָ ַ ֶ ָ ְ
only after first waiting and allowing some time to elapse. But if the injured רבדֶּשׁ ריִכּמֶּשׁ ףא - עֵמוֹשּׁהו ,וֹרבח תוּנגִבּ רפּסְמ דחאֶשׁכּ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ֲ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
party fought back right away, he would not be culpable at all and the attacker
would have to compensate him for his entire injury. אוּה ןכ יִפּ לע ףא ,אוּה ןידּה ןִמ אלֶֹּשׁ ,וֹרבח לע רבּדֶּשׁ הז
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ֶ
ֲ
ֵ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ַ
165 192
volume 1 volume 1