Save "Jewish Value: Compassion"
Jewish Value: Compassion
אָמַר: הָנֵי מֵעֵרֶב רַב קָא אָתוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים וְרִחַמְךָ״, כׇּל הַמְרַחֵם עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, וְכׇל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַחֵם עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ.
He said: These wealthy people are not descendants of our forefathers, but they came from the mixed multitude, as it is written: “And show you compassion, and have compassion upon you, and multiply you, as He has sworn to your fathers” (Deuteronomy 13:18), from which it is derived: Anyone who has compassion for God’s creatures, it is known that he is of the descendants of Abraham, our father, and anyone who does not have compassion for God’s creatures, it is known that he is not of the descendants of Abraham, our father. Since these wealthy Babylonians do not have compassion on people, clearly they are not descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
אִי בְּשֶׁתְּכָפוּהוּ אֲבָלָיו, מַאי אִירְיָא כׇּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נָמֵי? דְּתַנְיָא: תְּכָפוּהוּ אֲבָלָיו זֶה אַחַר זֶה, הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ — מֵיקֵל בְּתַעַר, וּמְכַבֵּס כְּסוּתוֹ בְּמַיִם.
The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a case where his mourning applied in succession, then why specifically does the baraita discuss all those about whom it was said that they may cut their hair? The allowance should apply even to everyone, not only to those who had been unavoidably prevented from cutting their hair in the preceding period, as it is taught in a baraita: If one’s mourning periods applied in succession, one after the other, and his hair grew long and became heavy, he may lighten it by cutting his hair with a razor, and he may wash his garment in water, so that he does not suffer for such a long time without cutting his hair or washing his clothes.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הַמּוֹצֵא אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ אָבֵל לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וּמְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ תַּנְחוּמִין, לְמָה הוּא דּוֹמֶה? לְאָדָם שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ וְחָיְתָה, מְצָאוֹ רוֹפֵא וְאָמַר לוֹ: כְּלָךְ אֶצְלִי שֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹבְרָהּ וַאֲרַפְּאֶנָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּדַע שֶׁסַּמְמָנִין שֶׁלִּי יָפִין!
Rabbi Meir said: One who finds another in mourning after twelve months and speaks to him words of consolation, to what may this situation be likened? To a person who broke his leg and it healed, and afterward a physician found him and said to him: Come to me, for I will break it a second time and then I will heal it, so that you may know how good my medicines are and how well they work. One who consoles his friend after so much time has passed acts in a similar fashion, stirring up an old wound and then trying to heal it. In any event, it appears that one must not extend greetings to a mourner during the entire twelve-month mourning period.
כַּלָּה כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״כַּלָּה נָאָה וַחֲסוּדָה״. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה חִיגֶּרֶת אוֹ סוֹמָא, אוֹמְרִים לָהּ: ״כַּלָּה נָאָה וַחֲסוּדָה״? וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״מִדְּבַר שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק״! אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, מִי שֶׁלָּקַח מִקָּח רַע מִן הַשּׁוּק, יְשַׁבְּחֶנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו, אוֹ יְגַנֶּנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: יְשַׁבְּחֶנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעוֹרֶבֶת עִם הַבְּרִיּוֹת.
One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beit Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: “Keep you from a false matter” (Exodus 23:7). Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. From here the Sages said: A person’s disposition should always be empathetic with mankind, and treat everyone courteously. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive.
This is a famous debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel—should one be honest with a bride about her appearance or should every bride be praised? Bet Hillel holds that despite the untruth, one should always strive to make others feel good, praising them and the things that they have bought. There is no reason whatsoever to tell a bride that she is not beautiful.
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר חֲנַנְיָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַכֹּל מְשַׁהִין בִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁמָּשׁ, חוּץ מִבָּשָׂר וְיַיִן. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בָּשָׂר שָׁמֵן וְיַיִן יָשָׁן. אָמַר רָבָא: בָּשָׂר שָׁמֵן — כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ, יַיִן יָשָׁן — בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז.
§ Apropos statements by Rav Yitzḥak ben Ḥananya, the Gemara cites other statements in his name. Rav Yitzḥak bar Ḥananya said that Rav Huna said: All foods may be withheld from before the waiter, as one who is a waiter at the meal must wait until the guests have eaten from every food and only then may he eat, except for meat and wine, as these foods arouse the appetite more and the waiter would suffer if he could not eat them together with the other participants. Rav Ḥisda said: This is referring only to fatty meat and aged wine. Rava said: It applies to fatty meat all year round but aged wine only during the season of Tammuz, in the summer. Due to the heat, the aroma of the wine is more pervasive at that time.
אָמַר רַב עָנָן בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל וְאַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ תַּבְשִׁילָא דְאַרְדֵי, וְאִי לָאו דִּיהַב לִי, אִיסְתַּכַּנִי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא וְאַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ גַּרְגְּלִידֵי דְלִיפְתָּא בְּחַלָּא, וְאִי לָאו דִּיהַב לִי, אִיסְתַּכַּנִי. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תְּמַרְתָּא דַּהֲנוּנִיתָא. כְּלָלָא דְמִילְּתָא: כֹּל דְּאִית לֵיהּ רֵיחָא וְאִית לֵיהּ קִיּוּהָא.
Rav Anan bar Taḥalifa said: I was once standing before Mar Shmuel, and they brought him a cooked dish of mushrooms, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered due to the craving that I suffered. Rav Ashi said: I was once standing before Rav Kahana, and they brought him slices [gargelidei] of turnip in vinegar, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered. Rav Pappa said: Even a fragrant date should be offered to the waiter. The Gemara concludes: The principle of the matter is: One should offer some of everything that either has an aroma or that has a sharp taste to whomever is present when it is served, so that no one suffer by being unable to partake of these foods.
אֲבוּהּ בַּר אִיהִי וּמִנְיָמִין בַּר אִיהִי, חַד סָפֵי מִכֹּל מִינָא וּמִינָא, וְחַד סָפֵי מֵחַד מִינָא. מָר — מִשְׁתַּעֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּמָר — לָא מִשְׁתַּעֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ.
It is related about two Sages, Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi, that one of them was accustomed to give his waiter from every type of food that he ate, while the other one would give him only one of the types of food that he ate. The Gemara says: Elijah spoke with this Sage, but Elijah did not speak with that Sage, since he did not act with piety and caused his waiter to suffer.
מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם נִלְמַד צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא קָאָמַר, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְסַיְּימִי קְרָאֵי. אֲבָל מְסַיְּימִי קְרָאֵי דָּרְשִׁינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר, מִשּׁוּם מַאי לָאו מִשּׁוּם צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים דָּרְשִׁינַן?
From the statements of both of these tanna’im it can be learned that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law. As even Rabbi Shimon says that he disagreed with the opinion of the Rabbis only because the verses are not clearly defined; but had the verses been clearly defined, we would have learned the same a fortiori inference. Due to what factor can that inference be learned? What, is it not due to the matter of suffering of animals, which is a factor in unloading and not a factor in loading, that we would have learned the a fortiori inference?
מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם נִלְמַד צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא קָאָמַר, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְסַיְּימִי קְרָאֵי. אֲבָל מְסַיְּימִי קְרָאֵי דָּרְשִׁינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר, מִשּׁוּם מַאי לָאו מִשּׁוּם צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים דָּרְשִׁינַן?
From the statements of both of these tanna’im it can be learned that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law. As even Rabbi Shimon says that he disagreed with the opinion of the Rabbis only because the verses are not clearly defined; but had the verses been clearly defined, we would have learned the same a fortiori inference. Due to what factor can that inference be learned? What, is it not due to the matter of suffering of animals, which is a factor in unloading and not a factor in loading, that we would have learned the a fortiori inference?
״וַיִּחַדְּ יִתְרוֹ״ – רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. רַב אָמַר: שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר חֶרֶב חַדָּה עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה חִדּוּדִים חִדּוּדִים כׇּל בְּשָׂרוֹ. אָמַר רַב: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי, גִּיּוֹרָא עַד עַשְׂרָה דָּרֵי לָא תִּבְזֵה אַרְמַאי קַמֵּיהּ.
It is written in the previous verse: Vayyiḥad Yitro for all the goodness that the Lord had done to Israel, whom He had delivered out of the hand of Egypt” (Exodus 18:9). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to the meaning of vayyiḥad. Rav says: He passed a sharp [ḥad] sword over his flesh, i.e., he circumcised himself and converted. And Shmuel says: He felt as though cuts [ḥiddudim] were made over his flesh, i.e., he had an unpleasant feeling due to the downfall of Egypt. Rav says with regard to this statement of Shmuel that this is in accordance with the adage that people say: With regard to a convert, for ten generations after his conversion one should not disparage a gentile before him and his descendants, as they continue to identify somewhat with gentiles and remain sensitive to their pain.