In today’s climate of deep division and rising emotional intensity within the Jewish community, disagreements have not only sharpened-they have become corrosive. Lines are crossed in speech that would once have been unthinkable. When people are shocked or outraged by the actions of those on the other side of an ideological divide, language becomes a weapon.
Among the most severe expressions in the Hebrew language is the curse Yimach Shemo V’Zichro-“May his name and memory be blotted out."
For generations, these words were reserved for the enemies of Klal Yisrael-the Amaleks of history, the destroyers of our people. Today, tragically, they are sometimes directed at fellow Jews: political opponents, ideological rivals, or Jews who have strayed from Torah.
This is not a minor slip of language. It is a collapse of boundaries that the Torah itself draws with absolute clarity.
The Torah, Halakha, Chazal, and the conduct of our Gedolim all point in one direction with unmistakable force: no matter how sharp the disagreement, no matter how far another Jew may have fallen, this language does not belong anywhere near a fellow Jew.
The Torah draws a clear line: “You shall not curse the deaf" (Vayikra 19:14). Chazal explain in Sanhedrin 66a that the Torah is not speaking narrowly about a deaf person. It is setting the lowest possible threshold: even someone who will never hear the insult is protected. If that is true there, then all the more so when speaking about someone who hears, feels, and is wounded by every word.
The Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 26:1) rules plainly: cursing a fellow Jew is a Torah violation.
But Yimach Shemo is not a regular curse. It is not merely insult or anger. It is a declaration that a person’s existence, memory, and legacy should be erased entirely. That is already a step beyond ordinary prohibition. It collides directly with ona’as devarim and with the Torah’s command, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart" (Vayikra 19:17).
To understand the gravity of this expression, one must understand where it comes from.
Its source is the command regarding Amalek: “You shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven" (Devarim 25:19).
There, and only there, the Torah speaks in these terms. There, and only there, destruction of memory is a mitzvah.
In Torah thought, a shem-a name-is not a label. It is identity, essence, and mission. To say a person’s name should be erased is to declare that he has no place in history, no future, and no connection to anything enduring.
That language was given for Amalek-not for Klal Yisrael.
To take it and apply it to a fellow Jew is not a small misuse of words. It is a fundamental distortion of Torah categories.
Chazal state the foundation that must never be blurred: Yisrael, af al pi shechata, Yisrael hu-“A Jew, even if he sins, remains a Jew" (Sanhedrin 44a).
A Jew may fall to the lowest depths, but he is still inside the system of Klal Yisrael. No one has the authority to push him outside of it.
This is not theory-it is reflected in the story of Pinchas and Eliyahu HaNavi.
Pinchas acted with fierce zeal in stopping a public desecration of Hashem’s Name. His act halted a plague and he was granted a Bris Shalom.
The Midrash identifies Pinchas with Eliyahu.
Yet later, Eliyahu stood before Hashem and declared: “I have been very zealous… for the Children of Israel have abandoned Your covenant" (Melachim I 19:10 Haftara of Pinchas).
And here the turning point comes. Chazal explain that Hashem rejected this indictment of Klal Yisrael. According to Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, Eliyahu was rebuked for prosecuting against the Jewish people and was effectively removed from his role until he accepted a different mission.
From that moment, Eliyahu becomes the witness at every bris milah. At every bris, he is forced to see what he could not deny: no matter how low Jews may fall, they continue to bind themselves to the covenant of Avraham Avinu. The connection is never severed.
That is the correction: even justified zeal becomes dangerous the moment it turns into writing off Klal Yisrael.
The same pattern appears in Chazal.
Rabbi Meir was disturbed by violent people who harmed him and prayed that they die (Berachos 10a). His wife Beruriah confronted him sharply.
She did not soften the issue. She corrected the core assumption.
The verse says: “Yitamu chata’im min ha’aretz"-not sinners, but sins. The target is evil itself, not the human being.
Rabbi Meir accepted this without argument. He changed his tefillah-and they repented.
That is the Torah’s line: eliminate sin, not people.
The Chafetz Chaim confronted the same distortion in his time, when Jews spoke with contempt about those drifting away from Torah.
He rejected it completely. His analogy is devastatingly simple: a sick child is still a child. No father declares him beyond the family because he is unwell. He treats him.
So too with Jews who have fallen away. They are not enemies to be discarded. They are ill and in need of healing.
Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld expressed this with even sharper clarity.
In Ish Al HaChomah, when someone used Yimach Shemo about a Jewish apostate, he cut him off immediately.
“How can you say Yimach Shemo about a Jew? You do not see what remains inside him. You do not see what can still come from him."
That is not sentimentalism. It is realism. You simply do not know the future. A Jew written off today may return tomorrow. Even if he does not, generations of Torah descendants may emerge from him. You are not allowed to erase what you cannot see.
This becomes even more urgent during the Three Weeks, when we mourn the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash.
The Gemara (Yoma 9b) states clearly: the Second Beit HaMikdash was destroyed because of sinat chinam.
But that hatred did not begin with violence. It began with speech. It began with contempt. It began with Jews deciding other Jews no longer counted.
That is exactly where Yimach Shemo belongs. It is the verbal form of exclusion from Klal Yisrael.
The response is not vague love. It is a reversal of that entire mindset.
Ahavat chinam means refusing to cross the line that erases another Jew.
This does not mean surrendering truth or blurring differences. The Torah demands clarity and strength. We must oppose wrongdoing and stand firm for what is right.
But the line is absolute:
We can reject actions.
We can reject ideas.
We can fight falsehood.
We cannot erase people.
Every Jew is created b’tzelem Elokim.
Every Jew remains part of the eternal covenant between Hashem and His people.
Every Jew retains the possibility of return.
And no human being is authorized to declare otherwise.
This is not just a question of etiquette or sensitivity. It is a question of whether we accept the Torah’s definition of a Jew or replace it with something else.
In times of tension, the test is not only what we believe-it is what we allow ourselves to say about another Jew.
We fight sin, not people.
We oppose falsehood, not erase those who hold it.
We pray for teshuvah, not destruction.
And if speech helped bring destruction in the past, then repaired speech is part of rebuilding.
The Beit HaMikdash will return when Klal Yisrael returns-not only in action, but in how we speak about one another.
Rabbi Eliezer Simcha Weisz is a member of the Chief Rabbinic Council of Israel.
28 comments:
Munkatchers apply it to a Rebbe of theirs who was quickly forced to abdicate because he was Tzioni
Rabbi Weisz should stick to his hashgocho on hadassim & aravos if he's pretending the many cholkim on this shita to protect meshumodim don't exist kaviyochel
And you said yms on neturai karta who are Jewish (think you also said it on chaim walder but that might have been a quote). The chofitz chaim himself said yms on adam hakohen.
Didn't you say it regarding neturai karta? They are still Jewish despite being kapos.
11:25
Typical Charedie response! They want to have the freedom to call anyone they don't like YM"S
12:22
Yes I called the Neturei Karta YM"S but only because I know that they aren't Jewish; they dress Jewish, they are Satmar!
The CC said YM"S ?
So he said!
The CC isn't and wasn't G-d!
12:57
Yes indeed I called them YM"S but only because I thought they weren't Jewish!, I though they were Satmar!
There's a well known story, that following the tragic killing of Dr. Jacob de Haan, someone angrily cursed the attacker with the phrase yemach shemo. Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld z"l, who was a real kanai (unlike today's osim maase Zimri umevakesh schar k'Pinchos), immediately stopped him, pointing to the mitzvah of yibum. He explained that even for the worst sinner, the Torah commands a brother to marry the widow, "v’lo yimacheh shemo miYisroel", so his name isn't blotted out from the Jewish people. Rav Sonnenfeld concluded that if the Torah goes to such lengths to protect a Jew's name, we must never say yemach shemo about a fellow Yid.
הביטוי המדויק "יִמַּח שְׁמָם" מופיע בספר תהילים, פרק ק"ט, פסוק י"ג:
”יְהִי אַחֲרִיתוֹ לְהַכְרִית, בְּדוֹר אַחֵר יִמַּח שְׁמָם.“
I never understood these stories drawing from yibbum. Besides of course Dovid hamelech saying it on other Jews, There are the famous 15 arayois and other situations where its not only optional or not recommended but its actually forbidden to be meyabem the widow and her deceased husband's memory is left to be erased. So these stories pointing out yibum to support under all circumstances to protect any jewish soul seems to be cherry picking one aspect to suit a convenience. Please correct me if Im missing something.
4:49
Are you new to this blog, because we already spoke about this?
Get on the program, buddy!
I answered then that you should look at Rashi that says that it is talking about Eisav!
עֲוֹן אֲבוֹתָיו. עָוֹן שֶׁהֶעֱוָה עַל אֲבוֹתָיו, לְאַבְרָהָם שֶׁגָּרַע חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים מֵחַיָּיו (בראשית רבה סג,יב), וּלְאָבִיו גָּרַם כִּהְיוֹן עֵינַיִם (בראשית רבה סה,ד-ה):
פתיחה
יד
וְחַטַּאת אִמּוֹ. שֶׁהִשְׁחִית רַחְמָהּ וְשֶׁגָּרַם לְהַעֲלִים יוֹם קְבוּרָתָהּ מִן הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יְקַלְלוּהָ שֶׁיָּצָא מִכְּרֵסָהּ עֵשָׂו, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית לה:ח) ״וַתָּמָת דְּבוֹרָה מֵינֶקֶת רִבְקָה וְגוֹמֵר אַלּוֹן בָּכוּת״, בִּלְשׁוֹן יְוָנִי קוֹרִין לְאַחֵר אַלּוֹן, שֶׁאֵבֶל אַחֵר הָיָה לְיַעֲקֹב עִם שֶׁל דְּבוֹרָה, שֶׁמֵּתָה אִמּוֹ וְהֶעֱלִימוּ מִיתָתָהּ:
5:08
Dovid's very own grandmother, Rus, married Boaz, because of the Yibum situation, and it wasn't even a real "yibum" so Dovid was only born because Boaz wanted to protect a Jewish Soul!
Eisav was a Meshumod if you learn like the shitos that there were already Yidden then. One shita however is the Shvotim were the first Yidden. And another shita is there were no Yidden until Matan Torah. Ayein bsefer Parshas Derochim
5:53
Ok, great pshat tell the author of Parshas Derochim, to tell that to Rashi!
And there are still some that say this refers to Doeg and Achitofel. So it isn't that cut and dry.
And lot had a relationship with his daughters. The exception is just that an exception.
Kudos to your honesty printing opposing views.
6:02
ok, let's go with that, that Dovid is referring to Jews and not like Rashi the רבן של ישראל,
Go ahead, continue to curse Jews!
Chatzkel
Just to let you in on a secret, the murder of Dr. Jacob de Haan was not a tragedy; in hindsight, it was a blessing. Dr de Haan was gay and his lover was an Arab Muslim, an antisemite! And Dr dee Haan himself was a rabid anti-Zionist and was on his way to England to try to get those antisemites to recognize a Jewish anti‑Zionist bloc aligned with Arab leaders.
I do agree (however) that this way of speaking about other Jews is an extreme and a person should shudder when hearing this being said regarding another yid and should cut to one's core if said, regarding a child of Hakodosh Boruch Hu.
Parshas Derochim wasn’t mechadesh, he brings other shitos Rishonim cholek on Rashi
Of course the chofetz chaim isn't god but this article uses him to "prove" his point. His yms on adam hakohen refutes it.
2. Satmar is just as Jewish as the Zionists and in many cases more. The grandchildren of david ben gurion through amos are goyim. Makes no difference if satmar are all evil, still jewish as long as their mother is jewish. Neturay kara mouthpiece Yisroel Weiss (who thanks to this article you no longer allow me to say yms on) has a jewish mother thus he is jewish. Are you sticking to your psak?
Poor radak he is now in trouble for going against the psak of din.
Would the CC have called his son Reb Aryeh Leib HaCohen, "YM"S," I'm asking because he was a Zionist?
There is a difference between Ben-Gurion z"l who son married a shiksa and Yisrael Weiss, Yisrael Weiss has no Chelik in Olam Haba, whereas BG who built a home for the majority of the Jewish people is in Gan=Eden!
There are plenty of Satmar married out, in fact a couple of Satmar girls publicly got baptized a couple of years ago!
7:18
Having learned in Chardeie Yeshivois I had never heard of the Radak until I was 18, and I actually heard it from a shidduch date, she mentioned a Radak" and that's the first time I heard about him! I was embarrassed that I knew the Kzois and Shev Shmattzisa but not a simple Radak!
This my friends is the education that you get from Charedeie Yeshivois you become a Lomdishe Amhaaretz!
Sorry you were azoy clueless. In my cheder they taught us Radaks in 7th & 8th grade
10:08
Are you a girl? Because if you are a boy, unless you learn in a Hebrew Day School, I would need to call you a liar!
Some chadorim that are more Heimish than day schools learn Nach in those grades. It stops in mesivta
Post a Comment