Confronting the Wicked, Keviat Makom for Tefillah, Shimush Talmidei Chakhamim, and the Centrality of Tefillah be-Tzibbur

The Gemara on daf zayin amud bet continues a series of memrot transmitted by Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. The central topics addressed here are: (1) the permissibility and parameters of confronting the wicked in this world; (2) the significance of establishing a fixed place for tefillah; (3) the principle that shimush of Torah scholars surpasses formal study; and (4) the nature and importance of tefillah be-tzibbur, including an extended discussion on what one ought to pray for.

Hitgarut ba-Resha’im: The Permissibility and Parameters of Confronting the Wicked

Rabbi Yochanan states in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: mutar lehitgarot ba-resha’im ba-olam ha-zeh — it is permitted to confront the wicked in this world. The source is the pasuk in Mishlei (28:4): “Ozvei Torah yehalelu rasha, ve-shomrei Torah yitgaru vam.” Those who abandon the Torah will praise the wicked, but those who guard the Torah will contend with them. A baraita corroborates this: Rabbi Dostai bar Matun likewise rules mutar lehitgarot, citing the same pasuk.

The Gemara raises an objection from Tehillim (37:1): “Al titchar ba-mere’im, al tekanei be-osei avlah.” This pasuk appears to counsel against engaging with evildoers. The resolution offered is that the reading of this pasuk depends on one’s inner disposition: mi she-libbo nokfo — one whose conscience troubles him, who fears his own sins may undermine his standing, reads it as a prohibition against confrontation. But the proper reading is different: al titchar ba-mere’im means al tihyeh ke-mere’im — do not become like them. Similarly, al tekanei be-osei avlah means do not envy them or aspire to be like them. A supporting pasuk from Mishlei (23:17) confirms: “Al yekanei libbekha ba-chata’im, ki im be-yir’at Hashem kol ha-yom.” If one wishes to feel jealousy, let it be toward those who possess yir’at Hashem, not toward the wicked.

Rabbi Yitzchak then qualifies the principle: “Im ra’ita rasha she-ha-sha’ah mesacheket lo — al titgareh bo.” If you see a rasha who is currently prospering, do not provoke him. The proof is from Tehillim (10:5): “Yachilu derakhav be-khol eit” — his ways succeed at all times. Moreover, not only might you fail to defeat him, but he may even prevail in judgment: “Marom mishpatekha mi-negdo” — God’s judgments are removed from before him. Worse still, he may witness the downfall of his adversaries: “Kol tzorerav yafi’ach bahem.”

The Gemara now faces a contradiction between the ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai (mutar lehitgarot) and that of Rabbi Yitzchak (al titgareh). Four resolutions are offered:

First resolution: lo kashya — ha be-milei didei, ha be-milei di-shmaya. If the matter concerns one’s personal affairs (milei didei) and the rasha is currently prospering, one should refrain. But if the matter concerns milei di-shmaya — matters of Torah and yir’at shamayim — one is permitted, indeed obligated, to confront the rasha regardless of his current success. The principle here is that one must choose one’s battles: for personal grievances, prudence dictates restraint; for the honor of Heaven, one must exercise mesirut nefesh.

Second resolution: ve-ibaeit eima — ha ve-ha be-milei di-shmaya. Both statements address heavenly matters. The distinction is: ha be-rasha she-ha-sha’ah mesacheket lo — when the rasha is prospering, even in matters of shmaya one should refrain; ha be-rasha she-ein ha-sha’ah mesacheket lo — when the rasha is not currently prospering, one may confront him. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai’s ruling (mutar lehitgarot) does not specify the rasha’s current fortunes, and thus applies to the case where the rasha is not prospering.

Third resolution: ve-ibaeit eima — ha be-tzaddik gamur, ha be-tzaddik she-eino gamur. The focus shifts from the identity of the rasha to the identity of the one who would confront him. A tzaddik gamur — a completely righteous person — may confront even a rasha she-ha-sha’ah mesacheket lo. A tzaddik she-eino gamur should not, for he cannot be certain of prevailing.

The proof is from Chavakuk (1:13): “Lamah tabit bogdim, tacharish be-vala rasha tzaddik mimenu.” Can a rasha truly swallow a tzaddik? The answer: tzaddik mimenu — one who is righteous relative to the rasha, but not absolutely so — can indeed be harmed. But a tzaddik gamur cannot, as Tehillim (37:33) states: “Hashem lo ya’azvenu be-yado.” And Mishlei (12:21): “Lo ye’uneh la-tzaddik kol aven” — no harm befalls a truly righteous person.

Fourth resolution: the Gemara offers one more permutation combining the variables — even where both speak of a tzaddik she-eino gamur, the distinction is whether the rasha is prospering or not.

This discussion evokes the broader theological problem of tzaddik ve-ra lo, rasha ve-tov lo. The Gemara on daf vav addressed this through Moshe Rabbeinu’s attempt to understand divine justice, and one opinion there holds that the question was never fully answered. This sugya aligns with that sensibility. The concept of tzaddik gamur and tzaddik she-eino gamur as an explanatory framework has its limits — it can resemble the reasoning of Iyov’s companions, who assumed that suffering necessarily indicates sin. My Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Yehuda Amital z”l, a Holocaust survivor, would say that everything that was said about tzaddik ve-ra lo before the Shoah belongs to one category, but what he witnessed with his own eyes — children murdered, trains carrying people to Auschwitz — is beyond all human explanation. No theological framework adequately accounts for such evil. The Rav, Rav Soloveitchik z”l, would likewise say: do not ask why there is evil; ask rather — how shall I respond to it? What do I do when I encounter evil? One cannot choose one’s situation, but one can choose one’s reaction. The Rambam himself states that no person can calculate the precise balance of merit and sin in the heavenly ledger. The proper response, then, is not to demand an accounting, but to live with vigilance and moral seriousness — to “watch every penny” precisely because the balance is unknown.

Kevi’at Makom li-Tefillah: The Fixed Place of Prayer

The Gemara transitions to a new memra: Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai states that kol ha-kovei’a makom li-tefilato — whoever establishes a fixed place for his prayer — oyvav noflim tachtav, his enemies fall beneath him. The proof is from Shmuel Bet (7:10): “Ve-samti makom le-ami Yisrael u-netativ, ve-shakhan tachtav, ve-lo yirgaz od, ve-lo yosifu bnei avlah le-anoto.” The language of “netativ” — planting, taking root — conveys that when Am Yisrael has a makom kavua, rooted in Eretz Yisrael, the wicked will no longer be able to oppress them.

The Rif and the Rosh have a variant reading: not kol ha-kovei’a makom li-tefilato but kol ha-kovei’a makom le-torato — one who establishes a fixed place for Torah study. According to this girsa, the emphasis is on the regularity and permanence of Torah learning as an essential part of one’s identity and daily schedule. Tefillah or Torah — in either reading, the point is that one’s connection to Hakadosh Barukh Hu must be permanent, not casual, but woven into the fabric of one’s existence.

Gedolah Shimushah Yoter mi-Limudah

The Gemara introduces Elisha’s introduction in Melakhim Bet (3:11): “Po Elisha ben Shafat asher yatzak mayim al yedei Eliyahu.” When they wished to identify Elisha as a prophetic authority, they did not describe his learning or his knowledge. They said: he poured water over Eliyahu’s hands — he served him, he lived in his presence. From here: gedolah shimushah yoter mi-limudah — serving and living in the presence of Torah scholars surpasses formal study. Shimush does not mean mere servitude; it means witnessing how a person of Torah lives — not only his ideas, but the totality of his existence. This is how the essence of a life of Torah is transmitted.

Tefillah be-Tzibbur: The Significance of Communal Prayer

The Gemara then records an exchange between Rav Yitzchak and Rav Nachman. Rav Yitzchak asks Rav Nachman: why did you not come to the beit ha-kenesset to pray? Rav Nachman replies that he was too weak. Rav Yitzchak presses: you should have gathered ten men and prayed at home. Rav Nachman says: it was too burdensome to arrange. Rav Yitzchak persists: at least you should have asked the sheli’ach tzibbur to notify you of the time of tefillah so that you could pray simultaneously with the congregation. Even when one cannot physically join the tzibbur, davening at the same time as the tzibbur constitutes a form of tefillah be-tzibbur.

Rav Nachman’s exasperated response — “mai kulei hai?” — what is all this? — reflects a genuine position. When one examines Masekhet Berakhot in the Mishnah, the basic description of tefillah is that of tefillat ha-yachid. The sheli’ach tzibbur appears only once, in the fifth chapter. The detailed Mishnah listing devarim she-bi-kedushah requiring a minyan is found not in Berakhot but in Masekhet Megillah, in the context of keri’at ha-Torah and public Scripture readings. The Rambam in Hilkhot Tefillah strongly recommends praying in a beit ha-kenesset — he describes the tzibbur as the place of the Shekhinah, where prayers are more readily heard — but he does not formulate this as an absolute obligation. There is a Gemara in Shabbat regarding figures like Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, so immersed in Torah study that they were exempt from keri’at Shema and tefillah. The Bavli resists this idea, but the Yerushalmi accepts it. The world of Brisk, as I can attest, was not universally insistent on attending a minyan — not out of disregard for tefillah, but because their total absorption in avodat Hashem allocated priorities differently. None of this diminishes the importance of tefillah be-tzibbur; it is essential. But one should know that tefillah be-yechidut is valid.

Rav Yitzchak responds to Rav Nachman’s challenge with a memra of Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: “Mai dikhtiv va-ani tefilati lekha Hashem eit ratzon?” When is an eit ratzon — a time of divine favor? Be-sha’ah she-ha-tzibbur mitpallelim — at the time when the congregation prays.

Rabbi Yochanan expresses surprise that Jews in Bavel enjoy arikhut yamim, given that the pasuk “le-ma’an yirbu yemeikhem” is linked to Eretz Yisrael. Once he learns that they come early and stay late at the beit ha-kenesset, he acknowledges that this is the source of their long life. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi instructs his children: kaddimu ve-chashikhu — arrive early and stay late at the beit ha-kenesset, so that you may merit long life. The deeper meaning: arikhut yamim in Eretz Yisrael derives from living as part of a nation, where every action is part of the collective story of Am Yisrael. In chutz la-aretz, Jewish life is fractured — one lives as a Jew privately, within one’s home, while the public sphere belongs to the surrounding society. The beit ha-kenesset, even in the Diaspora, recreates a space in which one belongs to a community and to a story larger than oneself. This is connected to the idea discussed in Masekhet Horayot daf gimmel: when determining who constitutes Am Yisrael for purposes of a mistaken ruling of the Beit Din ha-Gadol, only those residing in Eretz Yisrael are counted. Jews in chutz la-aretz, scattered among the nations, do not constitute the collective in the same halakhic sense.

Rabbi Acha bar Chanina cites the pasuk in Mishlei (8:34): “Ashrei adam shomei’a li, lishkod al daltotai yom yom.” Praised is the person who comes early to the doors of the beit ha-kenesset. The following pasuk reads: “ki motze’i matza chayyim” — for one who finds me finds life. On a practical level, the beit ha-kenesset provides structure, regularity, and community, especially for those who might otherwise lose their daily framework — this in itself contributes to arikhut yamim.

Le-Eit Matzo: What One Ought to Pray For

The Gemara then turns to the pasuk “ki motze’i matza chayyim” in the context of marriage. When a man would marry, people would ask him: matza o motzei? — referencing the contrasting pesukim: “Matza ishah matza tov” (Mishlei 18:22) versus “U-motzei ani mar mi-mavet et ha-ishah” (Kohelet 7:26). The ba’alei musar would note that the key difference lies in the word “ani” — motzei ani, where the self is placed at the center. When one enters a marriage with the attitude of “ani,” placing oneself above the partnership, it will not succeed. But matza — one who recognizes that he has received a gift, that he is part of a couple — will find tov.

Rabbi Natan offers a different reading: “ki motzei matza chayyim” refers to Torah — one should pray that one’s learning succeed. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reads “le-eit matzo” as referring to death: one should pray for a good death. The pasuk in Tehillim (68:21), “La-Hashem Adonai la-mavet totza’ot,” indicates that there are many forms of death. The Gemara calculates from the gematria of totza’ot: tav (400) + tav (400) + tzadi (90) + vav (6) + vav (6) + alef (1) = 903 possible manners of death. The most difficult is askara (diphtheria), described as painfully tearing the soul from the body — like extracting a wad of wool caught in thorns. The easiest is neshikah — death by divine kiss, smooth and painless, like drawing a hair from milk.

Rabbi Yochanan adds: “le-eit matzo” also refers to burial — one should pray for a proper burial. The pasuk in Iyov (3:22), “Yasisu ki yimtze’u kaver,” attests to the significance of finding a grave. Rabba bar Shila adds that one should pray for comfort even until zibula batra’ah — the final stage of burial. This is not merely theoretical; millions of Jews in the Shoah were denied burial entirely, with no grave and no remembrance.

Mar Zutra states: “le-eit matzo” refers to a beit ha-kisei — a functioning lavatory. In antiquity, indoor plumbing was a luxury of the wealthy; one should pray for physical comfort and dignity in daily life. The sages of Eretz Yisrael declared that Mar Zutra’s interpretation is the most consequential of all: how one dies is beyond one’s control, but how one lives is the subject of daily prayer.

In summary: four memrot of Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, and a series of related teachings, address fundamental questions of religious life. The parameters of confronting the wicked depend on the nature of the cause, the fortunes of the rasha, and the spiritual standing of the one who would confront him — but ultimately, no human calculus can fully resolve the problem of tzaddik ve-ra lo. Establishing a fixed place for tefillah, or for Torah, reflects one’s permanent bond with God. Shimush talmidei chakhamim transmits the living essence of Torah beyond what formal instruction can achieve. The beit ha-kenesset is not merely a location for prayer but the space in which Jewish communal identity and arikhut yamim are sustained. And tefillah itself encompasses the totality of human existence: marriage, Torah, death, burial, and the simple dignity of daily physical life.