The Gossiper & the Slandering Tongue

Transcription

1 The Gossiper & the Slandering Tongue Loshon Hara & Rechilut Food for Thought: What (if anything) is wrong with statements like; Oh, you ll never believe what Sheela said about you or, I heard that Johnny didn t want you to come to the party Don t people have a right to know what other people said about them or how they feel about them? Is it immoral to make a nasty comment about someone when it is 100% true? If your friend Sara is stingy, may you say, That Sara is a stingy miser! Everyone knows that Jack is a bit slow. Would there be anything wrong with simply bringing it up in conversation? Let s see what Judaism has to say about the these and other statements that we sometimes make about one another The Verse The Torah tells us the following; Translation: Do not Teilech Rachil among your nation, nor shall you stand by [idly] over your friend s blood, for I am Hashem. (- Lev 19:16) טז לא-תלך רכיל בעמיך, לא תעמד על- דם רעך: אני, יהוה. This study session is going to focus primarily on the first half of the above verse. What does Teilech Rachil, (lit. going as a Rachil) mean? What is a Rachil and where exactly is it going?

2 Rashi 1, in his writings on the above verse, explains this expression as follows: Translation: I say that due to the fact that all those who instigate evil and relate malicious talk go their fellows house to spy out whatever evil they may see or whatever evil they may hear so as to relate it in public, therefore they are called those who go as a Rachil i.e. those who go about spying. ESPIEMENT (espionage) in Old French. The proof to my words is that we do not find Rechilut being used [in scripture] without being written in the context of going. (In Hebrew the word for spying also means foot ) - Rashi ibid. בלשון הליכה Rashi: Rashi sees this term rachil as referring to one who seeks to spy out negative information in his friend s personal life so as to spread it to others. From the way Rashi paints the subject of our verse, how do you think he wants us to relate to him? Let s see a few more approaches to this Teilech Rachil phrase Nachmanides 2 has a different translation of the above verse. First he quotes the ancient Aramaic translation of Onkelos 3 and explains it, and then he suggests his own explanation: Translation: The way of those who engage in Rechilut is to go to the masses or to the [local] ruler and gesticulate with their throat and wink with their eyes so as to imply that they heard [some juicy] words, so that [the listener] will pester them to tell them ודרך הרכילים... לכאן ולכאן Ramban 1 Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki 10th century French scholar. His commentary to the bible, mishna, and Talmud is widely accepted as the most fundamental address for arriving at the basic understanding of the text. Although his commentary is often basic, it is layered with richness and meaning and is therefore enjoyed by expert and novice alike. 2 Commonly known by his Hebrew acronym; Ramban ( ) One of the greatest scholars of his time whose work was influenced by both the Spanish and French yeshivot and their unique approaches. He wrote extensively on the bible, Talmud, and Jewish thought. 3 The 2nd Century pre-talmudic era sage whose Aramaic translation of the bible is so authentic and rich with interpretation that it remains studied even in modern times.

3 [the gossip]. Therefore they are called [in the translation of Onkelos] Ochlei Kurtzin meaning those who gesticulate with hints. Now Onkelos translates the verse liberally so as to explain its ultimate meaning and [in fact] that is the [true] Aramaic term [for this act]. He does not intend to give a literal translation, which is normal for him since his intention [throughout his work] is to allow the [reader] to understand the meaning. (That is as far as the Aramaic translation is concerned. Now Nachmonides explains the literal Hebrew expression ) Now in Hebrew they would refer to them (i.e. those who engage in Rechilut) as those who go about as a Rachil ]the word Rachil meaning the same as it does in the following verse from Song of Songs 3:6-[ The merchant s cosmetic powders. [And as it appears in Ezekiel 26:12] Your Merchandise For a merchant goes about all day buying from here and going elsewhere [to sell those wears]. - Nachmonides ibid. Onkelos, as explained by the above, understands the expression of our verse to be referring to those who gesticulate and wink so as to imply that they have something juicy to share regarding their neighbor. Nachmonides himself, explaining the Hebrew, understands the verse to be referring to those who act like traveling salesmen going about to purchase their gossip wares and sell them to anyone willing to buy the story. We now have three approaches to the accurate understanding of the unusual word Rachil. A spy (Rashi) One who gesticulates with hints (Onkelos) A traveling salesman (Nachmonides) Question: Do the above interpretations of the subject of our verse make you feel any better about this Rachil fellow? Any worse?

4 Though the exact translation varies from commentator to commentator, it is apparent that the basic connotation is one and the same. The Torah is painting a picture of a lowly character: the spying, prying fellow who visits his neighbor s home with the hope of collecting some wares and sharing them with the other members of the gossiping society through the secret code of winks and gesticulations. Question: This sarcastic verbal caricature portrayal is uncharacteristic for the Torah. The Torah generally utilizes more straightforward terms. Why does it not come straight out and say. Thou shalt not gossip? To appreciate the connection between the first half of the verse (being a Rachil) and the second half of the verse ( nor shall you stand by [idly] over your friend s blood, for I am Hashem ) and ultimately the true message of this strange caricature, we must take a deeper look at the inherent evil of gossip and slander, and contemplate the massive casualties of these forbidden forms of speech The Greater of the Two Evils Maimonides 4 notes that there are in fact two forms of forbidden speech that are derived from our verse above Translation: What is a Rachil? It is one who loads up words [i.e. gossip] and goes from this one to that one and says, This is what Mr. X said or I heard about Mr. X that he Even though he is telling the truth, he is [nevertheless] destroying the world! (This is the first form of forbidden speech learned from the verse in Lev 19:16. Maimonides now goes on to describe the second, more stringent form of forbidden speech that is derived from that same verse ) Now there is a sin that is very much greater than this, and that is [the sin of] Loshon Hara. [Loshon Hara is] when one speaks of the shortcomings of his fellow even if [what he is saying] is true. If [the Loshon Hara is in fact] Rambam Hilchos De os 7:2 4 Otherwise known by his Hebrew acronym; Rambam 11 th -12 th Century Egypt. He is one of the most prolific writers of that era and he is widely acclaimed as being among the greatest of Jewish philosophers and thinkers.

5 false then [the speaker] is referred to as One who spreads a bad name. Now this speaker of Loshon Hara who sits around and says, This is what Mr. X did or Mr. X s ancestry is or I heard about Mr. X that he And in [all the above examples] he says some negative idea about such a person the verse says, May G-d cut off all the smooth lips, the tongue that speaks haughtily! Psalms 12:4. -Maimonides Hilchot De ot 7:2 Let s sum this up. Firstly, this piece of Maimonides introduces the concept that there are two types of forbidden speech 1)Rechilut and 2) Loshon Hara (and within Loshon Hara there is the subcategory of Motzei Shem Rah). Maimonides describes the difference between these classes of speech; Loshon Hara is factual speech that exudes negativity. (When the Loshon Hara is false then it is known as Motzei Shem Rah.) For example: David is an angry, hateful individual. Is an example of Lashon Hara. If David were in fact a very nice person, then the above comment would be categorized as Motzei Shem Rah. Rechilut is a class of speech that breeds hatred even when nothing objectively negative was said. For Example: To tell a storeowner that your mutual acquaintance does the majority of his shopping at a competitor s store, is not Loshon Hara, but it is Rechilut. It will cause the storeowner to develop negative feelings toward this acquaintance. 5 Now, it is significant that Maimonides sees Loshon Hara as being worse than Rechilut. Rechilut causes hatred between people, and then by extension will cause them to hate the speaker as well. In fact, the Talmud notes 6 that this hatred could easily lead to violence and cause a considerable amount of bloodshed, including the two principal parties as well as the speaker. Loshon Hara on the other hand only makes the object of scorn angry with the speaker. A massive feud between all the parties will not be created only one way anger from the scorned individual to the scorner. Based on the above then, it would seem that we might consider Rechilut to be a greater evil than simply saying a nasty comment about someone. Why then does Maimonides view Loshon Hara as being the greater of the two evils? 5 Sharing this information with someone else, who himself might tell the shop owner, is also Rechilut. 6 Erchin 15b

6 The Destructive Power of Lashon Hara Let s take a look at how the classic ethics work, Sha arei Teshuva 7, approaches the act of speaking Loshon Hara and thereby gain an approach to its inherent evil: Translation: There are two [negative] outcomes that come about by one s speaking of Loshon Hara: 1) The damage and embarrassment caused to his fellow, 2) and the choice [on the part of the speaker] to malign and vilify his fellow and to rejoice in his downfall! King Solomon, may he rest in peace, said, The foolish discuss fault, but among the straightforward [they discuss that which is] desirable 8 Proverbs 14:9 This verse is interpreted as follows: The fool discusses iniquity in that he searches out the shortcomings and faults of people, and he casts dispersions on the and criticizes them. He never speaks of their qualities or of the good within them. As the saying goes, flies are attracted to places of filth. (That is, only the fly goes looking for filth. Don t be a fly) [The interpretation of the second half of the above verse is] But among the straightforward desirable [meaning] it is the way of the straightforward (i.e. righteous) to overlook the faults, and to rather praise the man for the good within him. [The above is beautifully depicted in the] ethical parable of the man who was walking with the sage, and in their journey they chanced upon an [animal] carcass. The man said, how putrid is this carcass! but the sage proclaimed, But see how white are its teeth! - Sha arei Teshuva 3: Rabbeinu yona Sha arei Teshuva 3 : והמספר לשון...לאידם 216 ואמר שלמה...הלכלוך 3:217 ובין ישרים רצון כי...לבנות שניה 7 Written by Rabbi Yona Gerondi ( Rabbeinu Yona) 13 th century Spain 8 The translation is based on the homolitical interpretation provided by Rabbeinu Yona above

7 Rabbeinu Yona here is telling us that over and above the basic evil of speaking in a way that causes another damage and embarrassment, there is the deeper evil of the destruction of one s weltanschauung. Fools look to find fault; Whom can I criticize and put down today? In contrast, the righteous, upstanding person seeks out what is good. It is telling that Maimonides too 9, refers to the one who speaks Loshon Hara as a silly fool. When we seek out the negative, we are wreaking damage on ourselves! As Rabbeinu Yona notes, we are like putrid flies attracted to filth. We develop a negative world outlook. We tear down everything around us, instead of developing the good! Discussion: Based on the above, why would you say that the Torah uses an almost sarcastic phrase to discuss the speaker of Loshon Hara/Rechilut? In what respect is Loshon Hara more evil than Rechilut? 10 The Miraculous Disease The Torah goes to great lengths to describe the disease known in Hebrew as Tzarat. Tzarat was an eruption of some form of discoloration which could effect both one s personal items, like his clothing or home, or his actual skin. The sages tell us that this skin disease existed in biblical times only and was sent as a punishment to those who spoke Loshon Hara. In effect it was a vivid reminder to them of the destructive powers of Loshon Hara, and it was a wake up call to clean up their act. While one was inflicted with this disease in his person, he was commanded to quarantine himself from the rest of society living alone outside the city. As the verse says; Translation: (46) All the days that the Vayikra 13:46 9 In Hilchos Tumas Tzaras 16:10 10 It would seem that the Torah is painting a caricature. The Torah portrays the gossipmonger as a class apart from society. He is a spy, or a lowly traveling salesman. He is part of a subculture. The Torah wants to isolate this person, and tell us that his behavior is unacceptable. The Aramaic translation of Onkelos, understanding this connotation, uses an expression that conveys the same idea. In his words, we are dealing with a Saychul Kurtzin type of person: someone who is part of this subculture of hints and winks, of gesticulations and intimations. In terms of why Loshon Hara is the greater of the two evils we see that Rechilut is simply hate breeding information. It does not necessarily focus on something negative in the other. The above example of telling the storeowner that your friend shops by the competition is not negative information regarding the friend. Shopping by the competition is not intrinsically bad or negative. Loshon Hara, though, is by definition negative. When someone engages in the negative act of gossiping, he becomes an even lower, more despicable member of this subculture. He has sought out the negative. He looks for fault and then proceeds to share that ugly information with the world! Such a person has sinned against the person about whom he speaks, he has sinned against Hashem, and he has sinned against himself.

8 affliction is upon him he shall remain contaminated. He is contaminated. He shall dwell in isolation his dwelling shall be outside the camp. - Lev 13:46 Rashi (quoting the Talmud in Erchin 16b) comments on the above verse: Translation: Even the other contaminated people may not sit with him. And our Sages explain; why is it that the one with Tzarat is different than all other contaminated individuals and has to dwell alone? [The answer is that] since he caused separation through his Loshon Hara between man and his wife or between man and his fellow, he too should be separated [from society]. -Rashi ibid. Rashi sv B dad According to this, the affliction of Tzarat and the quarantine that it entails is perfectly suited for one who speaks Loshon Hara. From all that we have learned, it is clear that the act of speaking Loshon Hara makes one a member of a subculture of spying, prying, gossip salesmen. Such people are a menace to the rest of society and ultimately a menace to themselves.