(Rabah bar Rav Huna): Anything said in front of three people is not Lashon ha'Ra. (One may tell it to others. Tosfos - this refers to statements like "where will you find fire... ," which can be understood in a positive or negative way. She'altos (Vayeshev 28, b'Sof) - normally, one needs permission to repeat anything he was told. If it was told in front of three, this is like permission. Ha'Emek She'alah says that Rashi explains similarly. Rashbam (Bava Basra Sof 39a) - if Reuven spoke about Shimon in front of three, they may tell the matter to Shimon. This teaching is brought there regarding a protest that Shimon is using Reuven's land without permission.)

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The speaker knows that one who hears will tell his friend, and he will tell his friend, and surely everyone will eventually hear about it. (Tosfos - therefore, surely he says it in a positive way.)

(Rav Dimi): "Mevarech Re'ehu b'Kol Gadol ba'Boker Haskem Kelalah Techashev Lo" is one who received nice hospitality and publicly blesses his host who toiled so much for him. People hear this, and take his money. (Powerful people hear of his wealth, and take it by force. Alternatively, he is inundated with guests until his money is consumed.)

Version #1 (Rav Dimi, Rav Safra's brother): One should never speak (Rashi - too) highly of a person (Rambam - in front of people who hate him), lest the speaker or a listener point out a flaw in the person.

Version #2: Rav Dimi fell ill. Rav Safra came to visit.

Rav Dimi: I fulfilled every mid'Rabanan law.

Rav Safra: Did you fulfill not speaking highly of Ploni, lest the speaker or a listener point out a flaw in Ploni? (Ben Yehoyada - Rav Dimi held that people should discuss the praises of a sick person to arouse his merits. Rav Safra held that even others should not do so, lest it arouse harsh judgments, all the more so the Choleh himself should not!)

Rav Dimi: I did not hear this until now. Had I heard it, I would have fulfilled it.

(R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): Tzara'as comes due to seven things - Lashon ha'Ra, murder, false or vain oaths, Giluy Arayos, haughtiness, theft, and stinginess:

It comes for Lashon ha'Ra - "Melashni va'Saser Re'ehu Oso Atzmis." (We said (15b) that this alludes to Tzara'as);

It comes for murder - "v'Al Yichras mi'Beis Yo'av";

It comes for false or vain oaths. It says "va'Yomer Na'aman Ho'el Kach Kikarim" (Gechazi accepted the oath), and it says "v'Tzara'as Na'aman Tidbak Becha";

It comes for Giluy Arayos - "va'Ynaga Hash-m Es Par'o Nega'im";

It comes for haughtiness. Regarding Uziyahu it says "uch'Chezkaso Gavah Libo," and it says "veha'Tzara'as Zorchah v'Mitzcho";

It comes for theft - "vTzivah ha'Kohen u'Finu Es ha'Bayis" (when Tzara'as comes on a house, all the Kelim are removed from it);

(Beraisa): The owner of the house gathered money that was not his, therefore the Kohen scatters his money.

It comes for stinginess - "u'Va Asher Lo ha'Bayis";

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): This refers to one who considers his house to be exclusively his. (He does not lend his possessions.)

Question: Bigdei Kehunah atone (for Lashon ha'Ra; Tosfos - and murder and Arayos). Why does Tzara'as come for these matters?

Question (R. Anani bar Sason): Why did the Torah write the Parshah of Korbanos next to that of Bigdei Kehunah?

Answer: This teaches that just like Korbanos atone for sins, also Bigdei Kehunah.

The Kesones atones for murder - (when Yosef's brothers planned to kill him) "va'Yitbelu Es ha'Kutones ba'Dam."

The Michnesayim atone for Giluy Arayos - "... Michnesei Vad Lechasos (cover up) Besar Ervah";

The Mitznefes atones for haughtiness, like R. Chanina taught:

(R. Chanina): It is proper that something worn at the highest place (the head) atones for elevating oneself.

The Avnet atones for thoughts of the heart, for it is worn there.

The Choshen atones for (corrupting) judgment - "v'Asisa Choshen Mishpat."

The Efod atones for idolatry - "v'Ein Efod u'Serafim." (This implies that when there is an Efod, there is no (liability for) idolatry.)

The Me'il atones for Lashon ha'Ra;

It is proper that something with a voice (the bells on the Me'il are heard when the Kohen Gadol walks) atone for misuse of voice.

The Tzitz atones for audacity - "v'Hayah Al Metzach Aharon";

The forehead is where audacity is seen - "u'Metzach Ishah Zonah Hayah Lach."

Answer: The Me'il atones if the Lashon ha'Ra did not succeed (to cause a feud). If it did, Tzara'as comes. (Tosfos - also, Michnesayim and Kesones atone for transgressions that are considered like Arayos and murder (e.g. humiliating someone) - if the actual transgression was done, Tzara'as comes.)

Question: R. Simon taught that two transgressions have atonements other than Korbanos: murder and Lashon ha'Ra;

Eglah Arufah atones for murder, and Ketores atones for Lashon ha'Ra.

(Beraisa - R. Chanina): Ketores atones for Lashon ha'Ra - "va'Yiten Es ha'Ketores va'Yechaper Al ha'Am." (Bnei Yisrael had spoken Lashon ha'Ra about Moshe and Aharon.)

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): Ketores atones for Lashon ha'Ra. It is offered covertly (in the Heichal), so it atones for things said covertly.

Summation of question: Above, we said that the Ketores and Me'il atone for murder and Lashon ha'Ra!

Answer - part 1: We can resolve murder. Eglah Arufah atones (for Bnei Yisrael) when we do not know who was the murderer, and the Ketores atones when we know.

Question: If we know the murderer, we kill him! (No other atonement is needed.)

Answer: The case is, we cannot execute him, for he was (Mezid but was) not warned.

Answer - part 2: We can resolve Lashon ha'Ra. The Ketores atones for covert Lashon ha'Ra, and the Me'il atones for Lashon ha'Ra said in public.

Question (R. Shmuel bar Nadav): Why is Metzora different than other Teme'im - "Badad Yeshev mi'Chutz la'Machaneh Moshavo"?

Answer (R. Chanina): He separated (through speaking Lashon ha'Ra) between a man and his wife, or between a man and his friend, therefore he must sit alone.

Question (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Why does the Torah require a Metzora to bring "Shtei Tziporim" for his Taharah?

Answer: He did an act of gossip, therefore he brings birds, which always chirp.

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Lo Sisna Es Achicha bi'Levavecha" forbids to hit, slap, or curse (Rashi - when rebuking for transgressions)!

Rejection: "Bi'Lvavecha" teaches that only hatred (concealed) in the heart is forbidden (Rambam - due to this Lav; Rashi - when rebuking).

Question: What is the source that if one sees someone do something improper, he must rebuke him?

Answer: It says "Hoche'ah Tochi'ach."

Question: What is the source that if he did not accept the rebuke, he must rebuke him again?

Answer: It says "Tochi'ach", in any case.

Suggestion: Perhaps this is even if the transgressor will blush from embarrassment!

Rejection: It says "v'Lo Sisa Alav Chet."

R. Tarfon: I would be amazed if there was anyone in this generation that can receive (Shitah Mekubetzes - give) rebuke:

If Ploni would rebuke Almoni for a small transgression, Almoni would rebuke Ploni for a great transgression.

R. Elazar ben Azaryah: I would be amazed if there was anyone in this generation that knows how to (properly) rebuke.

R. Yochanan ben Nuri: I testify about R. Akiva. Often he was lashed due to me, for I told R. Gamliel about his misconduct, and he loved me more for this - "Al Tochach Letz Pen Yisna'echa Hochah l'Chacham v'Ye'ehavecha." (Ben Yehoyada - R. Akiva often came late to the Beis Medrash because he was reviewing his learning, but he did not say so. It was the custom to hit Talmidim who came late.)

Question (R. Yehudah brei d'R. Shimon ben Pazi): Which is better - rebuke Lishmah (l'Shem Shamayim), or humility Lo Lishmah? (One refrains from rebuking, lest it arouse hatred (Rashi; Sefas Emes - lest he be rebuked for his sins; Tzon Kodashim - for he does not want to make himself above the transgresser. Tosfos - humility Lo Lishmah is acting humbly to become respected.)

Answer (R. Shimon ben Pazi): You admit that humility Lishmah is better than rebuke. It was taught that humility is greater than all the levels in Avodas Hash-m;

Therefore, also humility Lo Lishmah is better!

(Rav Yehudah): One should always engage in Torah and Mitzvos even Lo Lishmah, for this will lead him to do them Lishmah.

Question: What is an example of (a choice between) rebuke Lishmah and humility Lo Lishmah?

Answer: Rav Huna illustrates this:

Rav Huna and Chiya bar Rav were sitting in front of Shmuel. Chiya complained "see how Rav Huna is paining me!"

Rav Huna agreed not to pain him again.

After Chiya left, Rav Huna told Shmuel that he pained Chiya due to transgressions.

Shmuel: Why didn't you tell me in front of him?

Rav Huna: I did not want to (give rebuke Lishmah, for it would) embarrass the seed of (my Rebbi,) Rav. (Rather, he refrained from rebuke, Lo Lishmah.)

Question: To what extent must one rebuke?

Answer #1 (Rav): One must rebuke until the point that the transgresser is ready to hit him.

Answer #2 (Shmuel): One must rebuke until the transgresser is ready to curse him.

Answer #3 (R. Yochanan): One must rebuke until the transgresser gets angry.

Tana'im argue like the Amora'im do;

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): One must rebuke until the transgresser is ready to hit him;

R. Yehoshua says, he must rebuke until he is ready to curse him;

Ben Azai says, he must rebuke until he gets angry.

All of them learn from "va'Yichar Af Sha'ul bi'Yehonason... va'Yatel Sha'ul Es ha'Chanis Lehakoso";

The three opinions learn from, respectively, "Lehakoso," "l'Voshtecha ul'Voshes Ervas Imecha"; and "va'Yichar Af Sha'ul."

Question (against the third opinion): Even after Sha'ul was angry, Yonason rebuked him to the point of hitting and cursing!

Answer: R. Yonason loved David exceedingly, therefore he rebuked his father (for wanting to kill David for no reason) more than one is required to.

Question: How much must one endure before changing his lodging?

Answer #1 (Rav): He should not change until the host is ready to hit;

Answer #2 (Shmuel): He should not change until the host is preparing to throw his belongings outside.

They do not argue if the host is ready to hit him or throw his belongings outside. (Surely, this is grounds to change.) They argue about if the host is ready to hit his wife. (Seemingly, it refers to the host's wife. However, R. Gershom, and Rashi in Ein Yakov, explain that it refers to the guest's wife.)

Shmuel says that this is not grounds to change, since the guest himself is not affected;

Rav says that this is grounds to change, lest he come to quarrel with the host.

Question: Why should one endure so much before changing his lodging?

Answer: Changing reflects badly on the host and guest (that they could not get along).

Question (Rav Yehudah): What is the source that one should not change his host?

Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): We learn from "Ad ha'Makom Asher Hayah Sham Ohalo ba'Techilah";

Answer #2 (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): We learn from "va'Yelech l'Masa'av."

Question: (Both learn from Avraham.) What is the difference between these answers?

Answer: They argue about whether one must try to avoid changing a incidental (chance) lodging. (R. Yosi is concerned. Rav Yehudah is concerned only for fixed lodgings, like "Ohalo".)

(R. Yochanan): One should not change from his (father's) profession and that of his ancestors. "Chiram mi'Tzor Ben Ishah Almanah Hu mi'Mateh Naftali v'Aviv Ish Tzori Choresh Nechoshes" made copper Kelim for Bayis Rishon;

It was taught that his mother was from Dan, the Shevet of Ohali'av, who helped Betzalel to build the Mishkan and its Kelim. (Maharsha - since it already says that he was from Naftali, surely his mother is mentioned to teach that he continued in the profession of his maternal ancestors.)

Question: What is the smallest suffering that is considered affliction?

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): If a garment was made for someone and it does not fit him, this is Yesurim.

Objection (Rava Ze'ira): Even less than this is Yesurim!

Answer #2 (Rava Ze'ira): Even if one intended to mix wine with warm water, and mistakenly mixed it with cold, or vice-versa, this is is considered Yesurim;

Answer #3 (Mar brei d'Ravina): Even if his cloak was inside out when he (R. Gershom - was about to) put it on and he must reverse it, this is Yesurim;

Answer #4 (Rava): Even if his put his hand into his wallet to take three coins and he mistakenly took only two, this is Yesurim;

This is only if he wanted to take three coins and got two, for he must he put his hand in again. However, if he wanted to take two and took three, it is no exertion to throw one of them back in.