"עבירות שבין אדם למקום, יום הכיפורים מכפר; שבינו לבין חברו - אין יום הכיפורים מכפר, עד שירצה את חברו" (משנה, יומא, ח, ז).
1א
הדף מאת: ממזרח שמש / בית המדרש ממזרח שמש
2ב
במפגש זה נקרא את הסיפור מתוך מסכת חולין בתלמוד הבבלי על רמי בר תמרי שהגיע לעיר סורא בערב יום הכיפורים. במהלך הקריאה נשלב קטעים מתוך מאמרו של אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', המציף שאלות ותובנות בנוגע למקומה של האחריות החברתית ביהדות, ובאשר למקומה של מסורת יהודי ארצות המזרח ותפקידה בעיצוב החברה הישראלית.
3ג
פתיחה: ערב יום הכיפורים
4ד
בְּסוּרָא לֹא אָכְלוּ כָּחָל, בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָּא אָכְלוּ כָּחָל.
The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom.
5ה
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
בסורא לא אוכלים עטינים, בפומבדיתא כן אוכלים. מדוע בסורא לא אוכלים עטינים? - כי בעטינים מעורבבים בשר וחלב, הגבולות לא ברורים, יש חשש איסור, קיים ספק. ו"כיש ספק - אין ספק" - לעולם תחמיר. מה עושים בפומבדיתא עם הבשר והחלב - פשוט, צולים את הבשר, כך שהחלב נשרף כליל. אל תעמיס על הציבור יומרות על חומרות. כשיש פתרון משתמשים בו. כוח ההיתר עדיף.
© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
6ו
רָמִי בַר תַּמְרֵי, הוּא רָמִי בַר דִּקּוֹלֵי מִפּוּמְבְּדִיתָא, נִזְדַּמֵּן לְסוּרָא בְּעֶרֶב יוֹם-הַכִּפּוּרִים;
of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:
7ז
דיון
  • עלילת הסיפור מתרחשת בערב יום הכיפורים: מה מאפיין זמן זה?
  • אילו מחשבות ותחושות עולות בכם בתקופה זו, מה מעסיק אתכם בערב יום הכיפורים?
8ח
לימוד מונחה: התורה של סורא והתורה של פומבדיתא
9ט
הוֹצִיאוּ כְּחָלִים שֶׁלָּהֶם וּזְרָקוּם [=זרקו אותם].
הָלַךְ הוּא וּנְטָלָם [=נטל אותם] וְאֲכָלָם [=ואכל את העטינים].
הֱבִיאוּהוּ לִפְנֵי רַב חִסְדָּא.
of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:
10י
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
למה הם זורקים? כי אסור להם. למה הוא אוכל? כי מותר לו. אבל משטרת הצניעות עובדת, או שמא זו דווקא יוזמה ספונטנית של זורקי העטינים. בכל אופן, אנשי סורא אינם משאירים את החטא בלא משפט. מייד, עוד לפני שיכנס יום הכיפורים, רמי בר תמרי מובל לבית הדין.

© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
11יא
אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי-מָה עָשִׂיתָּ כָּךְ?
אָמַר לוֹ: מִמְּקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַב יְהוּדָה אֲנִי, שֶׁאוֹכֵל.
of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:
12יב
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
מותר לי. ולא על דעת עצמי. יש לי אילן גדול להיתלות בו. זוהי אמירה לא פשוטה. כש"מקל" פוגש "מחמיר", לא תמיד, יש לו היכולת לעמוד על שלו. לא תמיד ברור לו לחלוטין צד ההיתר, מתגנב אליו החשש, שאולי ה"מחמיר" צודק, והוא סתם "חפיפניק". הנטייה היא לשמור על פרופיל נמוך ולעבור ל"צד הבטוח". כך, יהודי מרוקו שהדליקו חשמל ביום טוב, ויש להם אילן גדול להיתלות בו, כשבאו לארץ, הילדים חזרו מבתי הספר האורתודוכסים עם מבט של "אסור" בעיניים - ההורים שלנו מחללים את המועדים. היה מי שרצה להסביר כי חכמי מרוקו פסקו שמותר מכיוון שלא ידעו מזה חשמל (טענה מופרכת כמובן כי במרוקו היה חשמל עוד לפני שהזקן מנהריים הקים את תחנת הכוח הראשונה בארץ). בכל אופן, המפגש עם המחמירים הוביל אותם לאימוץ החומרות ודחיית ההקלות.
© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
13יג
אָמַר לוֹ: וְאֵין לְךָ 'נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חֻמְרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָא מִשָּׁם וְחֻמְרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָלַךְ לְשָׁם'?
אָמַר לוֹ: חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אֲכַלְתִּים.
The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura.
14יד
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
אז למה לא אמרת מראש? הרי כל הסיטואציה היתה נמנעת. נראה שיש עניין לרמי בר תמרי להגיד שמותר. הוא אולי זימן את הסיטואציה הזו כדי ליצור במה ציבורית כדי להגיד שמותר. מה באת למגרש ה"ביתי" שלנו כדי לערער את המוסכמות, לטלטל את הבית?! אז בוא נעמיד אותך במקומך:
© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
15טו
- וּבָמֶּה צָלִיתָ אוֹתָם?
אָמַר לוֹ: בְּחַרְצַנִּים של ענבים.
- וְשֶׁמָּא מִיֵּין נֶסֶךְ הָיוּ?
אָמַר לוֹ: לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶש הָיוּ.

מילים
  • בחרצנים של ענבים - רמי בר תמרי צלה את העטינים, על פי ההלכה הנהוגה בפומבדיתא באמצעות חרצני ענבים.
  • יין נסך - יין שמשמש לעבודה זרה.
of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:
16טז
- וְשֶׁמָּא שֶׁל גָּזֵל הָיוּ?
אָמַר לוֹ: יְאוּשׁ בְּעָלִים הָיוּ, שֶׁגָּדְלוּ בָהֶם חֲלָפִים וַעֲשָׂבִים.
Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate.
17יז
דיון
  • מה דעתכם על התנהגותו של רמי בר תמרי?
18יח
רָאָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מַנִּיחַ תְּפִלִּין.
אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי-מָה אֵינְךָ מַנִּיחַ תְּפִלִּין?
of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:
19יט
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
רב חסדא אינו מוותר. כמו שוטר תנועה שמתעקש לתת דו"ח, גם אם הכל "בסדר" הוא כבר ימצא משהו, כך גם רב חסדא. בני תורה נהגו להניח תפילין כל היום, והנה אתה רמי בר תמרי שאפשר להתרשם מהדיון איתך שאתה אכן בן תורה, מדוע אינך נוהג כך. גם לזה לרמי יש תשובה - יש לי פטור. לא תתפוס אותי. לא תתפוס אותי. באתי מוכן. סגרתי את כל הפינות - אני מקל, אבל לא עובר עבירה.

© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
20כ
אָמַר לוֹ: חֳלִי מְעַיִם הוּא, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה חוֹלֶה מְעַיִם - פָּטוּר מִן הַתְּפִלִּין.
רָאָהוּ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ צִיצִית, אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין לְךָ צִיצִית?
אָמַר לוֹ: טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה הִיא, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה,
כֹּל שְׁלֹשִים יוֹם - פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית.
Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said: With regard to a borrowed robe, during all of the first thirty days that one borrows it, one is exempt from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes with it.
21כא
דיון
  • מה דעתכם על התנהגותו של רמי רב תמרי?
  • מה דעתכם על התנהגותו של רב חסדא?
22כב
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
המצב הזה מזכיר לי את המבוכה של הילדים המזרחים בבתי הספר הממלכתיים-דתיים, ברגע של טקס 'בדיקת הציצית'. המנהג הספרדי הוא שילד שכבר 'מכיר את בוראו' יכול להתעטף בטלית גדול בתפילה. כך שאין לו צורך ללכת עם טלית קטן. מי שרוצה להחמיר על עצמו, לובש טלית קטן אבל אסור לו להוציא את החוטים מחוץ לבגדיו משום יוהרה. המחמיר צריך להחמיר לעצמו. לא להשוויץ בזה שהוא מחמיר. ולא ליצור לחץ על האחרים להחמיר כמותו. כשמורה בודק ציצית לילד ספרדי הוא כופה עליו חומרות, שאמנם אצל האשכנזים הפכו לסטנדרט (מכיוון שאינם מתעטפים בטלית גדול עד בר מצווה, ויש שמחכים עד חתונה), אבל מבחינת הספרדים טלית קטן הוא מנהג השמור למי שבמסלול צדיקות. בכל אופן זה לא משהו שאתה אמור לחלוק עם כל העולם.
אם נחזור לרמי בא תמרי הרי שבגדו חייב בוודאות בציצית, כי בגדו הוא בגד ארבע כנפות. אבל גם בעניין זה, כמו בלימבו, שהרף הולך ויורד, רמי בר תמרי מצליח לחמוק בחסות היכרות עם סעיפי החוק. מה היה קורה למי שאינו מכיר את סעיפי החוק? האם היה עליו להחמיר? האם היה נענש?

© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
23כג
בְּתוֹךְ כָּךְ, הֵבִיאוּ אָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מְכַבֵּד אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ. כְּפָתוּהוּ.
אָמַר לָהֶם: הַנִּיחוּהוּ,
שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: כֹּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁמַּתַּן שְׂכָרָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ - אֵין בֵּית דִּין שֶׁלְּמַטָּה מֻזְהָרִין עָלֶיהָ.

מושגים
  • מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁמַּתַּן שְׂכָרָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ... - מצוות כיבוד הורים היא מצוות עשה, וייחודה בכך שהיא בין המצוות הבודדות אשר מצוין בה מה השכר על קיומה ("למען יאריכון ימיך"). לפי הכלל המובא כאן, אין בית הדין של מטה (כלומר האדם) צריך להזהיר את החוטא ולהתריע בפניו שלא יעבור על המצווה, אלא הטיפול בחוטא נעשה על ידי האל.
With regard to a borrowed robe, during all of the first thirty days that one borrows it, one is exempt from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes with it. Meanwhile, as Rav Ḥisda and Rami bar Tamrei were talking, the attendants brought in a certain man to Rav Ḥisda’s court who would not honor his father and mother, and they tied him to a pillar in order to flog him. Rami bar Tamrei said to them: Leave him alone, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to any positive mitzva whose reward is stated alongside it in the Torah, the earthly court below is not warned to enforce it through punishments such as flogging. And it is stated after the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “That your days may be long, and that it go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Tamrei: I see that you are very sharp. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: If you were in the place where Rav Yehuda resides, I would be able to show you my sharpness of mind far better than here. § Pursuant to the discussion of different local customs, Abaye said to Rav Safra: When you ascend there, to Eretz Yisrael, ask the Sages there: With regard to liver, how do you treat it? When Rav Safra ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Zerika and asked him this question. Rav Zerika said to him: I cooked liver for Rabbi Ami and he ate it. When Rav Safra returned to Babylonia and came before Abaye and reported what Rav Zerika had said, Abaye said to him: I do not raise the dilemma as to whether liver renders itself prohibited if cooked alone. It is clear to me that the blood that diffuses out of the liver is not absorbed again while it cooks. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to whether liver renders prohibited another piece of meat cooked with it. Rav Zerika’s statement therefore has no bearing on my question. Rav Safra asked Abaye: What is different about the issue of the liver rendering itself prohibited, that you did not raise the dilemma with regard to this case? It is presumably because the answer is obvious to you, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:11) that liver is not rendered prohibited by its own cooking. But if so, you should not raise the dilemma with regard to whether it renders the other piece of meat prohibited either, as we learned in that same mishna: Liver renders food cooked with it in the same pot prohibited but is not prohibited itself, because while it does expel blood as it cooks, it does not absorb this blood again, since the blood diffuses only outward. Abaye said to Rav Safra: That mishna does not answer my question, as perhaps there it is referring specifically to forbidden liver, e.g., the liver of a non-kosher animal.
24כד
דיון
  • מי לדעתכם נתן את ההוראה לשחרר את הבן "שלא היה מכבד את אביו ואת אמו"?
25כה
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
מי נתן את ההוראה לשחרר אותו? טבעי שמי שיאמר זאת יהיה השופט, רב חסדא - ויש מי שמפרש כך. לדעתי, דווקא רמי בר תמרי הוא זה שמשמיע את דעתו: שחררו אותו! הויכוח בין "מקלים" ל"מחמירים" מקיף מכלול נושאים רחב יותר - האם יש גבול להתערבות בתי הדין, הרבנים, הקהילה במערכת היחסים שבין אדם לאלוהיו. דווקא רמי בר תמרי שנראה כמי "עובר כל גבול", ושחי בתחומים האפורים, מכיר את הגבול היטב - לא הכל שפיט. יש מרחב אינטימי בין אדם לאלוהיו, שאין לחברה רשות להתערב בה - בערבית אומרים: הדה הוא ביני ובין אללה.
בטריפוליטאית מספרים על איש שהגיע בערב שבת הביתה מהעבודה, וכבר שבת נכנסה. הוא "מת" להתקלח, אבל לא יודע אם מותר או אסור. הוא מחליט ללכת לרב לשאול אותו. דופק בדלת, פותחת אשתו של הרב. איפה הרב? במקלחת. יופי. מחכה שהרב יצא, ומסביר לו. הגעתי מהעבודה מאוחר. אני מלוכלך. "מת" להתקלח - אסור או מותר. הרב עונה לו: אסור. מה אסור?! שואל האיש, אתה כרגע יצאת מהמקלחת. אני לא שאלתי אף אחד, עונה הרב. מעבר לבדיחה - לא הכל שפיט. יש מרחב אינטימי בין אדם לאלוהיו, שאין לרב להתערב בה, ואין לחברה לערב את הרבנים שלה בהם.

© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
26כו
אָמַר לוֹ: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁחָרִיף אַתָּה הַרְבֵּה!
With regard to a borrowed robe, during all of the first thirty days that one borrows it, one is exempt from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes with it. Meanwhile, as Rav Ḥisda and Rami bar Tamrei were talking, the attendants brought in a certain man to Rav Ḥisda’s court who would not honor his father and mother, and they tied him to a pillar in order to flog him. Rami bar Tamrei said to them: Leave him alone, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to any positive mitzva whose reward is stated alongside it in the Torah, the earthly court below is not warned to enforce it through punishments such as flogging. And it is stated after the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “That your days may be long, and that it go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Tamrei: I see that you are very sharp. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: If you were in the place where Rav Yehuda resides, I would be able to show you my sharpness of mind far better than here. § Pursuant to the discussion of different local customs, Abaye said to Rav Safra: When you ascend there, to Eretz Yisrael, ask the Sages there: With regard to liver, how do you treat it? When Rav Safra ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Zerika and asked him this question. Rav Zerika said to him: I cooked liver for Rabbi Ami and he ate it. When Rav Safra returned to Babylonia and came before Abaye and reported what Rav Zerika had said, Abaye said to him: I do not raise the dilemma as to whether liver renders itself prohibited if cooked alone. It is clear to me that the blood that diffuses out of the liver is not absorbed again while it cooks. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to whether liver renders prohibited another piece of meat cooked with it. Rav Zerika’s statement therefore has no bearing on my question. Rav Safra asked Abaye: What is different about the issue of the liver rendering itself prohibited, that you did not raise the dilemma with regard to this case? It is presumably because the answer is obvious to you, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:11) that liver is not rendered prohibited by its own cooking. But if so, you should not raise the dilemma with regard to whether it renders the other piece of meat prohibited either, as we learned in that same mishna: Liver renders food cooked with it in the same pot prohibited but is not prohibited itself, because while it does expel blood as it cooks, it does not absorb this blood again, since the blood diffuses only outward. Abaye said to Rav Safra: That mishna does not answer my question, as perhaps there it is referring specifically to forbidden liver, e.g., the liver of a non-kosher animal.
27כז
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
'ואללה', רב חסדא מבין שעומד מולו בן תורה רציני, מעמיק, מלומד, עם שיטה מסודרת ומנומקת עם מסורת הלכתית מגובשת. הוא לא ה'חפיפניק' שאולי ראה בו לראשונה.
© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
28כח
אָמַר לוֹ: אִלּוּ הָיִיתָ בִמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַב יְהוּדָה, הָיִיתִי מַרְאֲךָ אֶת חֲרִיפוּתִי!
With regard to a borrowed robe, during all of the first thirty days that one borrows it, one is exempt from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes with it. Meanwhile, as Rav Ḥisda and Rami bar Tamrei were talking, the attendants brought in a certain man to Rav Ḥisda’s court who would not honor his father and mother, and they tied him to a pillar in order to flog him. Rami bar Tamrei said to them: Leave him alone, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to any positive mitzva whose reward is stated alongside it in the Torah, the earthly court below is not warned to enforce it through punishments such as flogging. And it is stated after the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “That your days may be long, and that it go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Tamrei: I see that you are very sharp. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: If you were in the place where Rav Yehuda resides, I would be able to show you my sharpness of mind far better than here. § Pursuant to the discussion of different local customs, Abaye said to Rav Safra: When you ascend there, to Eretz Yisrael, ask the Sages there: With regard to liver, how do you treat it? When Rav Safra ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Zerika and asked him this question. Rav Zerika said to him: I cooked liver for Rabbi Ami and he ate it. When Rav Safra returned to Babylonia and came before Abaye and reported what Rav Zerika had said, Abaye said to him: I do not raise the dilemma as to whether liver renders itself prohibited if cooked alone. It is clear to me that the blood that diffuses out of the liver is not absorbed again while it cooks. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to whether liver renders prohibited another piece of meat cooked with it. Rav Zerika’s statement therefore has no bearing on my question. Rav Safra asked Abaye: What is different about the issue of the liver rendering itself prohibited, that you did not raise the dilemma with regard to this case? It is presumably because the answer is obvious to you, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:11) that liver is not rendered prohibited by its own cooking. But if so, you should not raise the dilemma with regard to whether it renders the other piece of meat prohibited either, as we learned in that same mishna: Liver renders food cooked with it in the same pot prohibited but is not prohibited itself, because while it does expel blood as it cooks, it does not absorb this blood again, since the blood diffuses only outward. Abaye said to Rav Safra: That mishna does not answer my question, as perhaps there it is referring specifically to forbidden liver, e.g., the liver of a non-kosher animal.
29כט
דיון
  • מהי ה'חריפות' של רמי בר תמרי ?
  • מה דעתכם על תגובתו של רמי בר תמרי?
30ל
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
רמי בר תמרי אינו מתרצה. סך הכל רב חסדא מחמיא לו, אבל מבחינת רמי בר תמרי, רב חסדא עדיין מפספס. העניין הוא לא חריפות. לא באתי להתחרות איתך במי חריף יותר. ברור לי שמי ש"מקל" צריך להיות חריף יותר כדי להקל, אבל זה לא העניין. לא חריפות. לא פלפול. לא ידע.
© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
31לא
סיכום: "עבירות שבין אדם למקום, יום הכיפורים מכפר; שבינו לבין חברו - אין יום הכיפורים מכפר, עד שירצה את חברו" (משנה, יומא, ח', ז')
32לב
דיון
  • נחזור לתחילת הסיפור, וננסה לעמוד על דמותו של רמי בר תמרי מבין השיטין: מה ידוע לנו עליו ועל זהותו: איך הוא נראה, מה הוא לובש, מה הוא אוכל?
33לג
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
רמי בר תמרי מכונה בתחילת הסיפור גם 'רמי בר דיקולי'. דיקולי הוא סל העשוי מעלי דקל, 'רמי עם הסל'. זה כמעט כמו לקרוא לו 'ההומלס שאוסף בקבוקים'. הרי הוא גם זה שנאלץ ללכת ולאסוף מזון מהמזבלה ולאכול עטינים שאנשים השליכו לאשפה. זוהי אולי הסיבה למחלת המעיים שיש לו. אפילו הבגד שלו הוא בגד שאול שלא שייך לו. לפנינו אדם עני ורעב. הציפייה שלו מרב חסדא (=רב החסד) בערב יום הכיפורים היא שבמקום לבדוק אותו בדקדוקי הלכות בבית הדין, יבוא ויבדוק אם יש מי שמאכיל ומלביש את העני או האורח שהזדמן לקהילה. רב חסדא, מה הבעיה המרכזית שצריכה להעסיק אותך? עטינים או עניים?

כמעט בכל הפעמים שלימדתי את הסיפור, המשתתפים לא הבחינו שרמי בר תמרי הוא אדם עני או לפחות אורח, שנקלע לעיר זרה, בערב יום הכיפורים, בלי "סידור", שמחכה שיארחו אותו. משום מה קשה לנו לאמץ את הקריאה הזאת מבלי שיצביעו לנו עליה. רמי בר תמרי הוא איש חריף שעומד על שלו, איננו מצפים או מורגלים לעני כזה. אנחנו מצפים שעני יהיה מסכן, יתחנן. יוריד את הראש. שהרי "חכמת המסכן בזויה ודבריו אינם נשמעים" (קהלת ט', ט"ז).
© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר
34לד
הצעת סיכום לסדרת המפגשים "ברכת האורח"
35לה
מתוך: אלי ברקת, 'ברכת האורח', פרסום פנימי, ממזרח שמש, 2007
הפרק השני ביצירתו של דוד בן שטרית – "רוח קדים כרוניקה מרוקאית", מסתיים בשתי הצעות לציבור המזרחי בישראל. הראשונה של הרב אריה דרעי - מאבק בקלפי, תפיסת מוקדי כוח שלטוניים, הגדרה מחדש של הטוב הציבורי, וחלוקה אחרת של התקציב. השנייה של ראובן אברג'ל - מאבק ברחוב, הפגנות, מחאה, אלימות - "בעלי הכוח יוותרו על הכוח רק בכוח". שתי ההצעות מציגות אסטרטגיות שונות: אריה דרעי, אומנם לא בעל הבית, אבל כבר לא אורח. הוא מרגיש חלק מ"הבית", ו"עובד" על לקבל חדר או משהו כזה; ראובן אברג'ל מחוץ לבית. רוצה להחליף את "בעל הבית", ולשנות את חוקי הבית.
בעיני, שתי ההצעות הללו הן מאותו סוג - שתיהן מדברות על "לקחת", "לחלק מחדש". אני הייתי רוצה לקחת על עצמי את תפקיד האורח של רבי ינאי [מן השיעור הקודם בסדרה], לא להיתקע בהעלבות, ולחלוק את המסורת שלי עם כל החברה הישראלית - מסורת שבמרכזה אחריות חברתית. אני מוכן, אם צריך, להיות גם האורח של רב חסדא - להגן על כוח ההיתר ולמצוא צד להקל; לשמור על המרחב האינטימי בין אדם לאלוהיו; להזכיר לרבנים, וליהודים בכלל, לראות את האדם מעבר לדקדוקי ההלכה; ולהשמיע את חכמתו של המסכן בכל אתר ואתר כדי לקיים את הפסוק: "וזרחה לכם יראי שמי, שמש צדקה ומרפא בכנפיה" (מלאכי ג', כ').
© כל הזכויות שמורות למחבר


מושגים
  • אריה (מכלוף) דרעי - נולד במקנס שבמרוקו ב-17 בפברואר 1959. בילדותו עלה עם הוריו ואחיו לישראל, וקיבל חינוך חרדי ב"ישיבת פורת יוסף" וב"ישיבת חברון" בירושלים. עם בגרותו החל להתבלט כעסקן ציבורי, תחילה במישור המוניציפלי, ובהמשך כיהן כח"כ וכשר מטעם מפלגת ש"ס, אשר נמנה עם מקימיה. מקימי ש"ס היו ירושלמים ספרדים בשנות השלושים לחייהם, שחוו על בשרם אפליה תרבותית וחברתית מצד החרדים האשכנזים. הם התייאשו מהאגף המזרחי בתוך "אגודת ישראל", והחליטו להקים מפלגה אשר תפנה לא רק אל האוכלוסייה החרדית-ספרדית, אלא לכל המזרחים, כולל אלה שאינם שומרים מצוות. למפלגה היו שתי מטרות עיקריות: דאגה לציבור החרדי, ודאגה לציבור המזרחי. על-פי המצע שלה, מטרותיה של ש"ס הן להביא לכך שלא תהיה אפליה בין ספרדים לאשכנזים, וכן לקרב את הספרדים שומרי-מסורת אל היהדות ובכך "להחזיר עטרה ליושנה". כמו כן ש"ס מתמידה להציג עצמה כמפלגה סוציאל-דמוקרטית, השמה את האינטרסים של המעמדות הסוציו-אקונומיים הנמוכים בראש מעייניה.
  • ראובן (רוברט) אברג'ל - נולד ב-1943. מהאבות המייסדים של תנועת 'הפנתרים השחורים' וממנהיגיה. איש חינוך, חבר ב'קשת הדמוקרטית המזרחית' ומרצה בנושאים חברתיים ובנושאים הקשורים בשלום.
36לו
דיון
  • אילו דרכי התמודדות מציע ברקת במאמרו?
  • האם אתם מזדהים עם הפתרונות שהועלו? מדוע?
38 לח
39לט
דף הנחיות למנחה:
ברכת האורח.rtf
40מ
דף מספר 2 בסדרה ברכת האורח, דפים נוספים בסדרה:
1