The structure of the piyus sugya The sugya on piyus is composed of eight units: four primarily halachic meimrot, followed by four agadot. As you learn the sugya, ask 1. What do the psukim add to the halachot they support? (especially Shmuel and Bereishit)? 2. Do the meimrot develop a theme, or are they a random collection? 3. Why does the Gemara tell us anecdotes of failed piyus davka? 4. Does the sugya as a whole have a practical lesson as YK approaches. Thoughts on the first four meimrot The sugya begins by challenging Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s claim that YK doesn’t provide kapara for aveirot bein adam lachaveiro. The source, taken from Eli’s tochecha of his sons, suggests the exact opposite. But, of course, Eli’s tochecha is a failure, and the opening prakim of Shmuel are the story of the collapse of a world view that gives primacy to bein adam lamakom and assumes that G-d will forgive sins ben adam lechaveiro. So the gemara accepts a rereading of the verses that rights the wrongs of the biblical story and returns the bein adam lachaveiro to the central and independent status it has according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. In the second meimra, Rabbi Yitzchak builds on Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria’s conclusion that piyus requires the acquiescence of the injured party. Beware of hurting others, he warns, for extricating yourself from the will of another person can be nightmare. To hurt someone, even with ones words, is to be enslaved, for they now hold the keys to ones relationship with G-d. The third meimra brings more people into the picture. Forgiveness can be insincere, and so best to bring an audience. By now we get the impression that while Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria’s approach is both ethical and reasonable, a system that relies exclusively on human forgiveness is more complex than we thought at first. The fourth meimra poses even greater challenges to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. What if the injured person refuses to forgive? Are we really enslaved forever? And what if he dies? Is kapara forever blocked? Is G-d forever distant? Rabbi Yossi bar Hannina sends us to Yosef’s reconciliation with his brothers. According to Yosef, G-d held the reigns of the story from the beginning. And so in a sense, the brothers didn’t sin against Yosef – it was all G-d’s will. What seems like the ultimate ben adam lachaveiro, he explains them, isn’t. For Yosef there is only one truly relevant address –G-d. Thoughts on the second set of four meimrot The first story (Rabbi Yirmiya) points out how precarious the balance of power between the victim and the “aggressor” can be. An accident, an instant of carelessness and everything changes. There is something almost absurd, random about how easily the victim can become the aggressor. Rabbi Yirmiya's inerpretation is that G-d’s hand hides in the chaotic instability of The maid who spilt the dirty (refuse) water on .מאשפות ירים אביון– interpersonal relations him was acting on G-d’s behalf. The sugya is starting to sound a little more like Yosef, and a lot more like Rabbi Akiva. The second story is of Rabbi Zeira taking responsibility for the process of piyus as the injured party. He recognizes that the absence of forgiveness binds him as well. But Rav shows us just how badly that approach can end. By taking Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s emphasis on human responsibility to its extreme, Rav kills a man. Forgiveness becomes an act of aggression. And just as he persisted with the butcher, Rav persists in asking for forgiveness from Rabbi Hanina. And again, his insistence on taking responsibility to the extreme creates a crisis –a crisis that ends with him fleeing both his teacher and the Land of Israel from Israel. The irony is that Rav was destined to move to Bavel. It was G-d’s plan (as revealed in the dream). But what got him there was his insistence on taking full control and responsibility for the process of piyus. Again, G-d’s hand. The sugya accepts Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah as the framework for piyus. We begin by taking responsibility for piyus. But both the halachot and the agadot teach that there are tragic-comic limits to the ability to take control of the process of piyus. Even as we take responsibility we learn to let go, to trust that G-d’s hand is also involved. .