"ארור האומר נקום"? ("על השחיטה", ח"נ ביאליק)

The officer said to him: No.
The pious man continued: And if you would greet him, what would they do to you?
The officer said to him: They would cut off my head with a sword.
The pious man said to him: Isn’t this matter an a fortiori inference?
You who were standing before a king of flesh and blood,
of whom your fear is limited because today he is here but tomorrow he is in the grave,
would have reacted in that way;
I, who was standing and praying before the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He,
Who lives and endures for all eternity,
all the more so that I could not pause to respond to someone’s greeting. When he heard this, the officer was immediately appeased and the pious man returned home in peace. We learned in the mishna that even if a snake is wrapped around his heel, he may not interrupt his prayer. In limiting application of this principle, Rav Sheshet said: They only taught this mishna with regard to a snake, as if one does not attack the snake it will not bite him. But if a scorpion approaches an individual while he is praying, he stops, as the scorpion is liable to sting him even if he does not disturb it. The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a Tosefta: Those who saw one fall into a lions’ den but did not see what happened to him thereafter, do not testify that he died. Their testimony is not accepted by the court as proof that he has died as it is possible that the lions did not eat him. However, those who saw one fall into a pit of snakes and scorpions, testify that he died as surely the snakes bit him. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. There, in the case of one who falls into a pit of snakes, it is different, as due to the pressure of his falling on top of them, the snakes will harm him, but a snake who is not touched will not bite. The Gemara cites another halakha stating that he must interrupt his prayer in a case of certain danger. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One who saw oxen coming toward him, he interrupts his prayer, as Rav Hoshaya taught: One distances himself fifty cubits from an innocuous ox [shor tam], an ox with no history of causing damage with the intent to injure, and from a forewarned ox [shor muad], an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox has gored three times already, one distances himself until it is beyond eyeshot. It was taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: While the head of the ox is still in the basket and he is busy eating, go up on the roof and kick the ladder out from underneath you. Shmuel said: This applies only with regard to a black ox, and during the days of Nisan, because that species of ox is particularly dangerous, and during that time of year Satan dances between its horns. With regard to the praise for one who prays and need not fear even a snake, the Sages taught: There was an incident in one place where an arvad was harming the people. They came and told Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and asked for his help. He told them: Show me the hole of the arvad. They showed him its hole. He placed his heel over the mouth of the hole and the arvad came out and bit him, and died. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa placed the arvad over his shoulder and brought it to the study hall. He said to those assembled there: See, my sons, it is not the arvad that kills a person, rather transgression kills a person. The arvad has no power over one who is free of transgression. At that moment the Sages said: Woe unto the person who was attacked by an arvad and woe unto the arvad that was attacked by Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa. MISHNA: This mishna speaks of additions to the standard formula of the Amida prayer and the blessings in which they are incorporated. One mentions the might of the rains and recites: He makes the wind blow and the rain fall, in the second blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of the revival of the dead. And the request for rain: And grant dew and rain as a blessing, in the ninth blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of the years. And the prayer of distinction [havdala], between the holy and the profane recited in the evening prayer following Shabbat and festivals, in the fourth blessing of the Amida prayer: Who graciously grants knowledge. Rabbi Akiva says: Havdala is recited as an independent fourth blessing. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is recited in the seventeenth blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of thanksgiving. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one mentions the might of the rains in the second blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of the revival of the dead. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the might of the rains is mentioned specifically in that blessing? Rav Yosef said: Because the might of the rains is equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, as rain revives new life in the plant world (Jerusalem Talmud). And we also learned in the mishna that the request for rain is added to the blessing of the years. Here, too, the Gemara asks: What is the reason that the request for rain is recited specifically in that blessing? Rav Yosef said: Because rain is a component of sustenance, therefore it was inserted in the blessing of sustenance as part of our request for bountiful sustenance. We also learned in the mishna that havdala, distinguishing between Shabbat and the weekdays, is added in the blessing of: Who graciously grants knowledge. Here too the Gemara asks: What is the reason that havdala is recited specifically in that blessing? Rav Yosef said: Havdala is recited in that blessing because it requires wisdom to distinguish between two entities, they established it in the blessing of wisdom. The Rabbis say a different reason: Because havdala is the distinction between the sacred and the profane, the Sages established it in the blessing of weekdays. The first three blessings of the Amida prayer are recited both on weekdays and on Shabbat and Festivals. The blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge, is the first of the blessings recited exclusively during the week. Having mentioned the blessing of wisdom, the Gemara cites that which Rav Ami said with regard to knowledge: Great is knowledge that was placed at the beginning of the weekday blessings; an indication of its significance. And Rav Ami said in praise of knowledge: Great is knowledge that was placed between two letters, two names of God, as it is stated: “For God of knowledge is the Lord” (I Samuel 2:3). And since knowledge is regarded so highly, anyone without knowledge, it is forbidden to have compassion upon him, as it is stated: “For they are a people of no wisdom, so their Creator will have no compassion upon them and their Creator will not be gracious unto them” (Isaiah 27:11). If God shows no mercy for those who lack wisdom, all the more so should people refrain from doing so. Similarly, Rabbi Elazar said: Great is the Holy Temple, as it too was placed between two letters, two names of God, as it is stated: “The place in which to dwell which You have made, Lord, the Temple, Lord, which Your hands have prepared” (Exodus 15:17). Noting the parallel between these two ideas, Rabbi Elazar added and said: Anyone with knowledge, it is as if the Holy Temple was built in his days; knowledge was placed between two letters and the Temple was placed between two letters, signifying that they stand together. Rav Aḥa Karḥina’a strongly objects to this approach that being placed between two names of God accords significance: However, if so, the same should hold true for vengeance. Great is revenge that was placed between two letters, as it is stated: “God of vengeance, Lord, God of vengeance shine forth” (Psalms 94:1). He said to him: Yes. At least in its place, in the appropriate context, it is great. At times it is necessary. That is that which Ulla said: Why are these two vengeances mentioned in a single verse? One for good and one for evil. Vengeance for good, as it is written: “He shined forth from Mount Paran” (Deuteronomy 33:2) with regard to God’s vengeance against the wicked; vengeance for evil, as it is written: “God of vengeance, Lord, God of vengeance shine forth” with regard to the punishment of Israel. A tannaitic dispute is cited in the mishna with regard to the appropriate blessing in which to recite havdala within the Amida prayer. Rabbi Akiva says: Havdala is recited as an independent fourth blessing. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is recited in the seventeenth blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of thanksgiving. The first tanna says that it is recited in the fourth blessing of the Amida prayer: Who graciously grants knowledge. Regarding this, Rav Shemen, Shimon, bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Now, since the eighteen blessings of the Amida prayer and the other prayer formulas for prayer were instituted for Israel by the members of the Great Assembly just like all the other blessings and prayers, sanctifications and havdalot; let us see where in the Amida prayer the members of the Great Assembly instituted to recite havdala. Rabbi Yoḥanan replied that that would be impossible, as the customs associated with havdala went through several stages. He said to him: Initially, during the difficult, early years of the Second Temple, they established that havdala is to be recited in the Amida prayer. Subsequently, when the people became wealthy, they established that havdala is to be recited over the cup of wine. When the people became impoverished, they again established that it was to be recited in the Amida prayer. And they said: One who recites havdala in the Amida prayer must, if he is able (Shitta Mekubbetzet, Me’iri), recite havdala over the cup of wine as well. Due to all these changes, it was not clear when exactly havdala was to be recited. It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The members of the Great Assembly established for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and havdalot. Initially, they established that havdala is to be recited in the Amida prayer. Subsequently, when the people became wealthy, they established that havdala is to be recited over the cup of wine. When the people again became impoverished, they established that it was to be recited in the Amida prayer. And they said: One who recites havdala in the Amida prayer must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well. It was also stated: Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said: One who recites havdala in the Amida prayer must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well. Rava said: We raise an objection to our halakha based on what was taught in a Tosefta: One who erred and did not mention the might of the rains in the second blessing in the Amida, the blessing on the revival of the dead, and one who erred and failed to recite the request for rain in the ninth blessing of the Amida, the blessing of the years, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it. However, one who erred and failed to recite havdala in the blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, as he can recite havdala over the cup of wine. Apparently, havdala over the cup of wine is optional, not obligatory, at it says because he can recite and not that he must. The Gemara answers: Do not say as it appears in the Tosefta: Because he can recite havdala over the cup of wine. Rather, say: Because he recites havdala over the cup of wine. Proof that one must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well as in the Amida prayer was also stated: Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Yosei asked Rabbi Yoḥanan in Sidon, and some say that Rabbi Shimon ben Ya’akov from the city of Tyre asked Rabbi Yoḥanan, and I, Binyamin bar Yefet, heard: One who already recited havdala in the Amida prayer, must he recite havdala over the cup of wine or not? And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: He must recite havdala over the cup. Having clarified the question whether one who recited havdala during the Amida prayer must also recite havdala over the cup of wine, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who already recited havdala over the cup of wine, what is the ruling as far as his obligation to recite havdala in the Amida prayer is concerned? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This can be derived a fortiori from the established halakha regarding havdala in the Amida prayer. Just as havdala in the Amida prayer, which is where the principal ordinance to recite havdala was instituted, the Sages said that it is not sufficient and one who recited havdala in the Amida prayer must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well, all the more so that one who recited havdala over the cup of wine, which is not where the principal ordinance to recite havdala was instituted, but was merely a later addition, did not fulfill his obligation and must recite havdala in the Amida prayer. Rabbi Aḥa Arikha, the tall, taught a baraita before Rav Ḥinnana: One who recited havdala in the Amida prayer is more praiseworthy than one who recites it over the cup of wine, and if he recited havdala in this, the Amida prayer, and that, over the cup of wine, may blessings rest upon his head. This baraita is apparently self-contradictory. On the one hand, you said that one who recites havdala in the Amida prayer is more praiseworthy than one who recites havdala over the cup of wine, indicating that reciting havdala in the Amida prayer alone is sufficient. And then it is taught: If one recited havdala in this, the Amida prayer, and that, over the cup of wine, may blessings rest upon his head. And since he fulfilled his obligation to recite havdala with one, he is exempt, and the additional recitation of havdala over the cup of wine is an unnecessary blessing. And Rav, and some say Reish Lakish, and still others say Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both said: Anyone who recites an unnecessary blessing violates the biblical prohibition: “Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7). Rather, emend this baraita and say as follows: If one recited havdala in this and not in that, may blessings rest upon his head. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Sheshet with regard to these blessings: If one erred in havdala both in this and in that, what is the ruling? Rav Sheshet said to him: One who erred in this, the Amida prayer, and that, over the cup of wine, returns to the beginning of both the Amida prayer and the havdala over the cup of wine.

It is forbidden for man to be ill-natured and unforgiving, for he must be easily appeased but unwidely to wrath; and when a sinner implores him for pardon, he should grant him pardon wholeheartedly and soulfully. Even if one persecuted him and sinned against him exceedingly he should not be vengeful and grudge-bearing, for such is the path of the seed of Israel and of their excellent heart. Only the idolaters are not so, they are of uncircumcised heart, and their wrath is ever-watchful; and, because the Gibonites were unforgiving and unappeasing, that of them it is said: "Now the Gibonites were not of the children of Israel" (II. Samuel, 21.2).¹¹Baba Kamma, 92a. C.