Yoma 22b - Revenge and Grudges

This is a chaburah that I'm supposed to give soon. Any help or he'oros would be most appreciated!

Gemara according to Rashi:
How can the Torah require a ת"ח to take revenge - the Torah forbids it? Answer: the prohibition is only for monetary matters, not צערא דגופא (which includes insults).
But even if there is no prohibition, it is a very good thing for a great person (certainly including ת"ח) to ignore even insults and not respond! Answer: the ת"ח should indeed not respond at all, but he may still keep the insult in mind, and if someone else tries to stand up for him and take revenge, he should let them. [This is exactly what Rashi said that Shaul did not do (ד"ה וכתיב ויעל כו')
But if someone ignores the insult completely, he will be rewarded - how can it be bad for a ת"ח! Answer: that is only if the other person asks for forgiveness.
Not a sin per se (those were mentioned earlier), but a failure to have the proper character of a king.

Note that Rashi must say that Shaul’s offence is not ויהי כמחריש, but later. This is somewhat hidden in the gemara itself.

See also the Maharal (באר הגולה עמוד ל באר שני) who explains that a ת"ח must be נוקם ונוטר because of the midah of שכל and אמת - just as הקב"ה will not be a וותרן. But because of the ת"ח’s חסידות and mercy, the gemara repeatedly weakens this midah’s application in practice.
Note that none of this seems to have to do with an insult to כבוד התורה, just with proper midos.

Rambam:
There are several clear differences in the Rambam from the peirush according to Rashi:
He makes no distinction of גופו and ממונו. [Note the reason he gives for the prohibitions, and see the Sefer Hachinuch for his very different reason.] Indeed, the example of David he brings from Tehillim does not seem to be monetary [nor is the example of ספה"ח of Shimi ben Geira who insulted David].
He says explicitly that לא תטור requires competely removing the event from his heart, exactly what the gemara seems to say that the person does not need to do. Indeed, his wording makes it sound like that is the issur of לא תטור - not the lack of verbal response.
Those apply to everyone; a regular person should not do these things at all. But in Hilchos Talmud Torah, he says that a ת"ח may respond more than a regular person, for כבוד התורה. There are two categories:
For his own כבוד (which is also a part of כבוד תורה), he may respond לנדות, but it is not a שבח to him to do so. Here the Rambam brings the ma’amar of הנעלבין ואינן עולבין etc. This is when he was insulted in private.
But if he was insulted in public, he is not allowed to be mochel. Rather he should be מנדה, that is, respond directly [כנלע"ד, since this is the converse of what these חכמים גדולים were proud that did not do for their own כבוד.]
According to the Rambam, נוקם ונוטר כנחש seems literal - no idea of נקט בליביה alone. In that case, Shaul’s punishment was for ויהי כמחריש - not responding right then; the following phrase about נחש העמוני may be agadata about how Hashem responded to his failure. And נענש should be literally punished (not just showing that he didn't have the midos of a king/talmid chacham). I'm not sure where that happens; maybe one could suggest that this is why Hashem tolerated David's sins and not Shaul's?

It is very hard to read our gemara according to the Rambam (see לח"מ, חפץ חיים, מנחת חינוך). But in מעשה נסים, the teshuvos of R’ Avraham ben Harambam at the end of ספה"מ, he gives a different girsa in the gemara (I guess in place of גופו and ממונו): הא במילי באור' הא במילי בעלמא. The Ritva ר"ה יז• has a similar girsa: הא במילי דשמיא הא במילי דעלמא. That helps, but it’s still not easy to read the end of the gemara. The paragraph about איזו היא נקימה etc. might be illustrating מילי דעלמא. After that, the gemara would need to define the two sub-categories of מילי דאורייתא; it asks from הנעלבין ואינן עולבין, and it should answer הא בצנעה הא בפרהסיא or the like. It’s hard to see how the phrase דנקיט ליה בליביה would fit in. Then the ending about being מפייס is okay; that’s only needed for the case of פרהסיא, as בסתר the Rambam said that it’s good for the ת"ח to be mochel even without that. Still, I’m not sure how the gemara knows that the ma’amar כל המעביר כו' is talking about this case.

R' Zvi Berkowitz shlit"a emailed me to look in Maharshag chelek 2 siman 53. I don't have easy access, but I'll try to get to one.

Update: I read the teshuvah. Interesting, but not really focused on the Rambam. As far as I can see, he seems to say that the distinction isn't really ממון vs. גוף, it's between cases where the first person did nothing wrong (e.g., for whatever reason didn't want to lend his axe), and where he did an aveirah (for example, the gemara where someone intrudes on someone else's livelihood).