QUESTION: The Mishnah states that although one who damages his friend pays him the required compensation, he does not receive atonement for what he did until he requests forgiveness from his victim. This is derived from Hash-m's words to Avimelech, "And now return the man's wife" (Bereishis 20:7). The ME'IRI explains that this is derived from the continuation of the verse, "v'Yispalel Ba'adcha" -- "and he will pray for you" (Bereishis 20:7). Hash-m instructed Avimelech to appease Avraham and seek forgiveness from him in order to have Avraham pray for him. (See also PERISHAH (CM 422:1) and S'MA (CM 422:2) who give different explanations for how the Gemara derives from the verses that Avimelech was required to appease Avraham.)

The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that all the sums mentioned in the Mishnah (90a) are payments for "Boshes," "embarrassment." Even when all of the payments have been paid, the pain of having been shamed is not forgiven "even if he brought all the choice rams of Nevayos" (see Yeshayah 60:7). Therefore, he must request forgiveness from the person he embarrassed. The Beraisa derives this from Hash-m's command to Avimelech, "And now, return the man's wife, because he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live" (Bereishis 20:7). The Gemara asks, what is the meaning of Hash-m's command? Why did Hash-m imply that only because she was the wife of a Navi must Avimelech return her? Even if she would have been the wife of an ordinary man, Avimelech would not have been permitted to keep her!

Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni explains that Avimelech was warned to return Sarah regardless of who her husband was. However, in reply to Avimelech's argument that Avraham and Sarah had told him that they were siblings, Hash-m said that since Avraham was a Navi he knew that he would need to conceal the fact that Sarah was his wife. Avraham saw from Avimelech's conduct that Avimelech sought to take Sarah; when he arrived in town, they asked him whether Sarah was his wife or sister instead of asking him whether he had what to eat and drink.

Rashi's commentary on the Chumash seems to differ from the Gemara. Rashi writes that the reason why Hash-m stressed to Avimelech that Avraham was a Navi was in order that Avimelech should be reassured that Avraham knew that he had not defiled Sarah in any way, and thus Avraham would pray that Avimelech should live. Rashi's source is the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 52:8). Why does Rashi on the Chumash explain the verse according to the Midrash and not according to the Gemara?

ANSWER: The TOSFOS YOM TOV answers that the Gemara and Midrash disagree about whether Avimelech was required to appease Avraham. According to the Midrash, one who insults an ordinary person is required to appease him. This is evident from the Midrash's comment that Avimelech asked Hash-m, "Who will appease Avraham that I did not approach her?" However, since Avraham was a Navi it was unnecessary to appease him, since he knew that Avimelech had not touched Sarah. The Gemara, however, maintains that Avimelech still was required to appease Avraham.

The Tosfos Yom Tov explains that since the Gemara derives from the account of Avimelech that one is required to seek forgiveness from the person he shamed, Avimelech must have been required to seek forgiveness from Avraham Avinu. However, the simple meaning of the verses is more consistent with the Midrash's explanation that Hash-m told Avimelech that Avraham was a Navi and he thus was aware of the fact that Avimelech had not touched Sarah. Rashi on the Chumash, where he prefers to explain the simple meaning of the verses, chooses to cite the Midrash's explanation. (D. Bloom)

QUESTIONS: Rava asked Rabah bar Mari, "What is the source for the teaching of the Rabanan that 'if your friend calls you a donkey, put a saddle on your back'?" RASHI (DH Uchfa) explains the parable means that one should take the saddle from the donkey and draw it towards oneself; in other words, he should agree with his friend's words and not respond.

Rabah bar Mari answered that the source is the verse in which the Mal'ach asked Hagar, "Hagar, maidservant of Sarai, from where have you come and to where are you going?" (Bereishis 16:8). Hagar replied, "I am fleeing from Sarai, my mistress." Rashi (DH Shifchas) explains that the Rabanan's teaching is derived from the fact that Hagar agreed to the Mal'ach's description of her as Sarai's maidservant.

Rava asked Rabah bar Mari another question. "What is the source for what people say, 'If you have a shortcoming, tell people about it first'?" Rabah bar Mari answered that the source is Eliezer's words when he met Besuel and Lavan. Eliezer immediately told them on his own initiative, "I am the servant of Avraham" (Bereishis 24:34), revealing his inferior status as a servant.

These two teachings seem to contradict each other. The first teaching implies that one should admit to a shortcoming only when someone else first mentions it. The second teaching clearly says that one should declare his own shortcoming even before he is asked about it. What lies behind the differences in the two pieces of advice?

Moreover, is there any significant to the fact that the first teaching (according to our text) is taught by the Rabanan, while the second is merely a popular proverb?

ANSWER: The MAHARSHA explains that the difference between the two pieces of advice is whether or not the person himself agrees that he possesses the shortcoming mentioned. In the case of Hagar, she did not really agree that she was still the maidservant of Sarai, because at that time she was running away from her. Nevertheless, out of humility she did not want to contradict the Mal'ach, and thus she agreed that she was Sarai's maidservant.

However, she would not have volunteered her status as Sarai's maidservant since she did not agree that this was her true status. In contrast, Eliezer agreed that he was the servant of Avraham Avinu and he took pride in that status. Therefore, he was prepared to reveal his status even before he was asked about it.

The Maharsha adds that this distinction also explains the significance between the different sources for the two teachings. Most people are not prepared to admit to a shortcoming that they do not agree that they possess. Therefore, the first teaching is not cited as a popular proverb, but rather it is a teaching of the Rabanan. One who admits to a shortcoming which he does not agree that he possesses acts with piety. In contrast, when one agrees that he possesses a particular shortcoming, he should admit it even before he is asked about it (so as not to create any illusions about his status). Since ordinary people also realize that one should behave in this manner, the Gemara says that "people say" that this is the correct mode of conduct. (D. Bloom)