Do not spread gossip
Verse: לא תלך רכיל בעמך
Command: Do not speak maliciously
Vayikra 19:16
SMG
It is forbidden to peddle gossip about your friend, as it says in the verse[i] לא תלך רכיל בעמך. And even though one is not lashed for violating this prohibition, it is a great sin and causes the killing of many Jewish souls, which is why the verse continues with the statement לא תעמוד על דם רעיך. [We also find this concept in the prophets, where it says in the verse[ii]] הולכי [אנשי] רכיל היו בך למען שפוך דם. Go learn from what happened to Do’eg the Edomi.[1]
What is a רכיל – that is someone who reveals to one’s friend things that were said to him in confidence, as we learnt in the Gemara[iii] how do we know a judge may not say ‘I am the one who ruled you innocent, but my associate judges ruled you guilty. What can I do since they are the majority.’ [α] Against this the Torah says לא תלך רכיל בעמך.
There is a sin worse than this which is included in the prohibition [of this negative Mitzva] which is לשון הרע – one who talks about the negative traits of his friend. And certainly, one who tells lies [about another] which is called מוציא שם רע. The details of the laws regarding לשון הרע were explained in the Gemara;[iv] we learnt there that Rabbi Eliezer ben Parta said ‘come and see how great the power of לשון הרע is – from where? from the Spies[2]: they only repeated negative information about trees and stones, [β] [but were considered evil and caused a tremendous calamity to the Jewish people]. One who does so about his friend – how much more [damaging] is that.
And we said in the Yerushalmi[v] and in the Tosefta there are three (3)[3] sins which are punished in this world, and for which one has no portion in the world to come; idolatry, immoral sex, and murder – and Lashon Ha’ra is equal to them all. Similarly, in the Gemara[vi] it says that with regard to idolatry[4], the verse[vii] says אנא חטא העם הזה חטאה גדלה, and with regard to immoral sex[5], the verse[viii] says ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדלה הזאת, and with regard to murder[6], the verse[ix] says גדול עוני מנשוא [each is termed a ‘great’ sin] – and with regard to Lashon Ha’ra, the verse[x] terms it לשון מדברת גדלות. This teaches us that Lashon Ha’ra is equal to all of them. Similarly, we find in the Midrash and in the Yerushalmi that during the days of [evil king] Achav the Jewish people were victorious in battle because they would not speak Lashon Ha’ra, even though they were worshiping idols – no one told the king about Ovadya who saved the prophets [from being killed by Achav and his evil wife Izevel]. In contrast to the end of the reign of Shaul, the Jewish people were defeated in battle due to the Lashon Ha’ra[7] even though they were not worshipping idols.
We learnt in the Gemara anyone who tells Lashon Ha’ra is as if he disputes the foundation [of Judaism] [γ], as it says in the verse[xi] אשר אמרו ללשננו נגביר שפתינו אתנו, מי אדון לנו. Furthermore, the Gemara says that three (3) people are [being] killed [with the act of] Lashon Ha’ra; the one who says it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it was said – and the one who accepts it is punished the most. Also, the Gemara provides an example of what Lashon Ha’ra is: Rava said, for example if one says, ‘there’s always fire in so and so’s home.’ [Abaya clarifies[8] that the person’s intent matters, where he said this statement sarcastically, like ‘Where else can one always find fire, if not by so and so’s house.’] Which implies they always have meat and meals cooking there.
There are also such things which have the ‘dust’ of Lashon Ha’ra for example, if one says, ‘don’t talk to me about so and so. I don’t want to tell you what I know about him,’ etc. In the Gemara[xii] Rav Dimi [brother of Rav Safra] taught, ‘a person should not [even] talk about another person’s good qualities, because [one can derive] the bad qualities from the good.’ Meaning do not talk to a person’s enemies [ζ] extolling that person’s virtues, about which practice, Shlomo said in the verse[xiii] מברך רעהו בקול גדול… קללה תחשב לו. But one may do so in front of the subjects friends as we learnt in the Mishna[xiv] about the five (5) students of Rabbi Yoĉanan ben Zakai about whom he publicly [to the point where we know them even today] praised their qualities.
We learnt in the Gemara[xv] Rabbi Mosia[9] said, from where do we know that one may not tell anyone anything he was told [η] – until explicitly given permission to do so; from the verse[xvi] מאהל מועד לאמר [Moshe Rabeinu] was not to repeat what he was told to command the Jews until explicitly given permission to repeat what Hashem told him לאמר to them.[10]
We learnt in the Gemara[xvii] Rabbi Elazar sent [a message] [θ] to Mar Ukva quoting the verse[xviii] אמרתי אשמרה דרכי מחטוא בלשוני even though an evil person stands against me and is harassing me, I will guard [my tongue] as the verse continues אשמרה לפי מחסום, בעד רשע לנגדי. Instead, I go early and stay late in the Beis Midrash, and they [the evil ones] expire on their own.
We also learnt in the Gemara[xix] Rava[11] said everything that is said in front of [at least] three (3) people, is not something to which the laws of לשון הרע apply[12]. [ι] Rabeinu Moshe [the Rambam] writes[xx] so long as [when repeating what was said, the person doing so] did not intend to spread gossip and make it more known. And if someone who says something is adjoined under the rules of לשון הרע against repeating it, even if what was said was said in public, [he is forbidden from repeating it] as we learnt in the Gemara [regarding the prohibition of a רכיל] that there was a student who made known something that was said in the Beis Midrash twenty two (22) years after the fact, and Rabbi Ami expelled him from the Beis Midrash labeling him as ‘someone-who-reveals-secrets’. [κ]
[1] Doeg is the one who tattled to king Shaul that Dovid was hiding in the city of Nov. Shaul then massacred the people of the city. [Shmuel I 22:9]
[2] The twelve (12) spies sent by Moshe at the urging of the people. Ten (10) of whom came back and reported negative stories about the land of Israel.
[3] Actually, the version of the Yerushalmi we have is that there are four (4) things – as are indeed enumerated by the SMG in his quotation of the Yerushalmi in that Lashon Ha’ra is included in the list.
Furthermore, the Yerushalmi doesn’t state the person has no portion in the World-to-Come, in fact the opposite is true in both the Yerushalmi and the Tosefta. The Yerushalmi states that the ‘interest’ of these sins are punished in this world, while the principal is punished in the World-to-Come, which implies that such a sinner indeed has a portion, within which the sinner will be punished.
I do not know why the SMG stated otherwise, unless he had a different version of the Yerushalmi.
[4] When the Jewish people sinned with the golden calf, Moshe prayed on their behalf acknowledging the sin was great.
[5] When the wife of Potifar pursued Yosef that he should commit adultery with her. Yosef refused claim that sin would be too evil.
[6] After hearing the verdict from G-d as to the punishment to be assessed for having killed his brother Hevel, Kayin exclaimed that his sin was too great for G-d to bear. His exclamation was sarcastic, but G-d nevertheless took that into account as a type of Teshuva and modified the verdict with mercy.
[7] It is noteworthy that the SMG does not state here what the Lashon Ha’ra was, because that in itself would be Lashon Ha’ra – to tell the reader what the Jews in the times of Shaul did wrong.
Presumably, the SMG is referring to that which he hinted at previously – that Shaul was told by Do’eg that Dovid was hiding in the Kohanic city of Nov, as a result of which, Shaul ordered the inhabitants killed – which caused multiple tragedies.
[8] I do not know why the SMG doesn’t include Abaya’s statement. See footnotes to the Amuday Shlomo comment [δ]. Additionally, the Maharshal [ε] also noted this lack.
[9] Our version of the Gemara has the name of the sage in parenthesis [which usually means the text should be edited out] as follows: Rabbi Mosia grandson of Rabbi Masya in the name of Rabbi Mosia.
The Masores Ha’Shas notes that the Sh’iltos quotes this Gemara in the name of Rabbi Menasya.
[10] Meaning, even though what Moshe was told by Hashem was a command to be relayed to the Jewish people, Moshe was not able to relay those commands until given explicit permission to do so – which is why Hashem repeats the word לאמר so often. Indeed, the verse וידבר ה’ אל משה לאמר appears in the Torah two hundred and seventy-nine (279) times. This verse is repeated an additional forty (40) times with Aharon included. The verse ויאמר ה’ אל משה לאמר is repeated twenty (20) times and an additional time (1) with Aharon included. And there are other variants of this verse, such as Shemos 12:1 ויאמר ה’ אל משה ואל אהרן בארץ מצרים לאמר. In all, Hashem repeats to Moshe over three hundred and twenty (320) times that he has permission to relay what he is being told by Hashem.
[11] Our version of the Gemara quotes Rabba son of Rav Huna, not Rava.
[12] The Gemara states the reason being is because “your friend has a friend, and your friend’s friend has a friend.” In other words, it has already become public knowledge as follows: each friend has a friend and thus the three (3) in front of who it was said, have three (3) friends – and each of those friends have three (3) more extended friends. Thus combined, there are now ten (10) people who know this. The relator (1), the three to whom this was related (1+3), the three friends (1+3+3) and the three extended friends (1+3+3+3=10) – making this something known by a congregation / the public.
[i] Vayikra 19:16
[ii] Yeĉezkel 22:9
[iii] Gem. Sanhedrin 31a: I don’t know if I should note that it was Rabbi Yoĉanan who said this.
[iv] Gem. Eraĉin 15a
[v] Yer. Pay’uh 1:1
[vi] Gem. Eraĉin 15b
[vii] Shemos 32:31
[viii] Beraishis 39:9
[ix] Beraishis 4:13
[x] Tehillim 12:4
[xi] Tehillim 12:5
[xii] Gem. Bava Basra 164b
[xiii] Mishlei 27:24
[xiv] Pirkei Avos 2:8 (some have this as the 9th Mishna)
[xv] Gem. Yoma 4b
[xvi] Vayikra 1:1
[xvii] Gem. Gittin 7a
[xviii] Tehillim 39:2
[xix] Gem. Eraĉin 16a
[xx] Rambam הלכות דעות 7:5
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] and certainly the judge can’t state that the ruling was issued in error – like we find with the story[i] of the animal that was brought to Rav.[1]
[β] [the Maharshal provides the verse[ii] in which the Lashon Ha’ra of the spies was repeated] ארץ אכלת יושביה הוא. The other statement they made in the verse[iii] והערים בצרות גדלת מאד, that was not giving the Land of Israel a bad name, since the content of that statement was related to the inhabitants, [and what they had done to their cities].
[γ] This is worse than idolatry.
[δ] Because with him, the Lashon Ha’ra is completed. This is problematic.[2]
[ε] [the Maharshal notes that the SMG changed the language of the Gemara rather than going into a lengthy explanation as to the need to take into account the intent of the speaker. The Maharshal also notes that this is something the SMG does often in order to ensure that the content is better understood, and that in the introduction, the SMG states that he would do so.]
[ζ] This is counter to the statement of Shmuel who qualified the prohibition as one may not speak too much about the praises of a person in front of their enemy, Shmuel’s reasoning being that when going through the list of praises, he might slip up and say something negative.
Similarly, the BHG prohibits talking about the praises of one’s friend, but one may praise one’s teacher [for which statements this prohibition] doesn’t apply – since everyone knows that as his student, he is obligated to be effulgent in his praises of his teacher, and this will not cause jealousy (as people will discount what he says as exaggeration).
[η] Meaning, he tells the person you are forbidden from speaking any of this until I give you permission. This is why Hashem tells Moshe דבר אל בני ישראל. And we can’t say that Hashem issued a command not to repeat anything unless he was told to do so explicitly, because immediately afterward, Hashem tells him to speak to the people. Why warn him not to repeat if he was going to be told immediately that he should repeat what he was told to the people. Instead, we must say that there is a standard prohibition against repeating things told to you, regardless of the content or [especially] if warned to keep it secret.
[θ] The Maharshal notes that this message from Rabbi Elazar was actually two (2) messages, one after the other. [Meaning, Mar Ukva sent Rabbi Elazar a message as follows:
what is the Halaĉa regarding the following. There are people who are standing on me (harassing me), and I, Mar Ukva, have the ability to turn them over to the authorities, may I do so?
Rabbi Elazar scored the parchment[3] and wrote as follows: The verse[iv] states אמרתי אשמרה דרכי מחטוא בלשוני אשמרה לפי מחסום בעוד רשע לנגדי – from which we can derive, even if there are those who are a רשע לנגדי – evil ones against me, nevertheless אשמרה לפי מחסום – I will keep my mouth muzzled.
Mar Ukva sent back a message stating that they were torturing him greatly, and he couldn’t take it anymore.
Rabbi Elazar [once again] responded with a verse[v] דום לה’ והתחולל לו. Meaning, when דום לה’ – one is silent for G-d’s sake, then G-d will render them as many dead bodies[4]. Get up early and stay late studying in the Beis Midrash, and they will end on their own.
As this statement was issued by Rabbi Elazar, Geniva (the tormentor of Mar Ukva) was placed into irons[5] (by the government).]
[ι] Rashi explains that this applies so long as the person repeating what was said publicly does not do so for the express purpose of spreading the news. This counters what the Ashiri explains, as he writes that it is permitted to say it even to the person about whom the statement was said. And certainly according to the Tosefos in Eiruvin who were more stringent, and they wrote that the permission to repeat something said in front of three (3) others is only about something which could be public knowledge, like a fire constantly burning in someone’s house [which is visible to all who pass by] – about such news it is possible to say that it wasn’t being spread maliciously. But something embarrassing about his friend, even if said to his face, is considered Lashon Ha’ra.
[κ] Perhaps he was revealing things for the purpose of spreading the gossip [which as noted previously is forbidden], because the term used in the Gemara implies he was just revealing things which were known.
[1] An animal was brought to Rav to examine if it had been slaughtered properly and was Kosher. Rav rendered it non-kosher, and also stated that the butcher was not liable. The owner of the animal encountered Rav Kahana and Rav Asi [and presumably complained to them about the animal being rendered non-kosher and losing his money]. They told him that Rav did two (2) things for the man.
The Gemara discusses at length what it was they could have meant by stating ‘Rav did two (2) things’ and concludes that they meant Rav had saved the man from eating something non-kosher and additionally had saved him from pressing charges against the butcher which could have resulted in recouping money that wasn’t his, stealing.
The fact that the Gemara cannot accept that the statement of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi could have meant that Rav made two (2) ‘mistakes’ shows us that it is forbidden to do so – to say Lashon Ha’ra about a judge issuing an order that was disagreed with by other judges, as the SMG and the Maharshal stated.
[2] Meaning, there is no reason why the person who completes the loop is the one who listens rather than the one who speaks. In fact, when it came to the only example the Torah provides of all three (3) individuals involved in Lashon Ha’ra – the speaker Miriam, the listener Aharon, and the subject Moshe – it is the speaker Miriam who was punished the most severely. The Midrash notes that Aharon was only punished momentarily. Moshe was not punished at all – at least there is no record of that punishment. But Miriam was punished for seven (7) days.
In support of the SMG’s statement, I would argue my own idea that the person who listens should be punished more severely since they are violating two (2) prohibitions, negative Mitzva 10 – do not hear Lashon Ha’ra, and negative Mitzva 168 – do not cause the innocent to stumble. But again, we are left with the problem that Miriam, the speaker, is the one who was actually most severely punished.
I heard once from someone, I can’t recall who, that the answer to this can be understood by the next comment from the Maharshal and by Abaya’s answer to Rava: the intent of the statement matters. When Miriam told Aharon what happened with Tzipporah, Miriam’s intent was to cause pressure on Moshe about something Moshe had done that in Miriam’s mind was improper. In other words, she was calling out Moshe for something he had done wrong.
Aharon though was not listening with that intent – more than anyone else, Aharon understood that Moshe was the one selected by Hashem for the mission of freeing the Jews, including the idea of מי שם פה לאדם, that Moshe’s physical state was not something that Hashem was taking into account – presumably the same applied to Moshe’s relationship with Tzipporah. Furthermore, Aharon had been the one to go meet Moshe when he initially came with Tzipporah, and he had been with him throughout when Moshe and Aharon were required to disappear and wait for the right time to free the Jews – during which time he and Moshe presumably accompanied Tzipporah who went back to her father. So, Aharon knew that Moshe was giving up his relationship with Tzipporah because he had to. He may not have known why, but he knew that this wasn’t an arbitrary choice.
Furthermore, he was the one who witnessed Moshe placing his hands into his shirt to change the skin from regular skin to Tzara’as afflicted skin, and certainly Moshe and he had spoken about how and why that sign had been provided to Moshe as a result of Moshe’s Lashan Ha’ra statement against the Jewish people of והם לא יאמינו לי. So, Aharon knew not to speak or listen to Lashan Ha’ra – but there is no indication that Miriam had been informed of this, nor that she had been present when they performed those miracles.
Therefore, when Miriam came to him, he didn’t intend to participate in Lashon Ha’ra. He only listened to ease the pain of his sister and sister-in-law by lending them a sympathetic ear. It never occurred to Aharon that Moshe might have done something wrong.
This idea of different sins having been performed is supported by Aharon’s plea to Moshe after Miriam was struck. He hinted to the two (2) sins with two (2) separate terms he used in describing those sins; אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו – as we have acted foolishly, and we have sinned. The foolish action was Aharon’s in not stopping Miriam and explaining what he knew. He may not have known the extent of Moshe’s prophetic ability, but he knew more than Miriam, and he knew that Moshe had acted as Hashem had instructed – and instead of being a sympathetic ear, he should have defended Moshe’s actions. Thus, Aharon was punished for acting foolishly, and not for violating this Mitzva.
Since the act of Lashon Ha’ra was thus incomplete – it lacked the recipient to whom the Lashon Ha’ra was related – Moshe, the subject of conversation, was not punished at all. Therefore, we can learn from here it is the listener who completes the circle, and thus is the one who would be punished most severely.
[3] Without scoring the parchment, it would be forbidden to write a verse on it. See the laws regarding the writing of a Sefer Torah.
[4] The word והתחולל can be associated with the word חללים, which means dead bodies.
[5] Later on [Gem. Gittin 65b], the Gemara notes on another matter that Geniva was taken to be executed by the government, and prior to doing so paid Rabbi Avina four hundred (400) Zuz for the wine he held in the city by the Panya river.
Geniva is mentioned several times in the Gemara as one of the sages. I do not know how he was considered to be Mar Ukva’s tormentor. The Gemara in Gittin continues with a short discussion and various questions raised to the Reish Galusa, without identifying who was asking or which Exilarch responded. Perhaps this Exilarch was Mar Ukva and perhaps the one questioning him was Geniva – which would explain the Gemara’s continuation. While Mar Ukva was a respected sage, the position of Exilarch didn’t necessarily mean he was the greatest of the sages, but that he was a scion from the house of Dovid. It is possible that these questions were thus impertinent in that they could have exposed the Exilarch to being deemed to be a less worthy sage than another. This would also explain why Mar Ukva felt he had the power to have Geniva turned over to the civil authorities. As the Exilarch, he could uniquely employ political power with the gentiles unlike his fellow sages. This would explain why Mar Ukva nevertheless sought counsel from Rabbi Elazar – presumably the Rabbi Elazar ben P’das, who was an Amora in Israel as opposed to Babylon and the head of the Yeshiva in Tever’ya as well. Mar Ukva would not have sought counsel from the Babylonian sages, as that would further undermine his position. It also explains the careful way that Rabbi Elazar responded, not taking upon himself to respond directly, but rather by quoting verses and explaining them as applying to Mar Ukva’s situation. This would allow him to defer authority to simply quoting the verse, while simultaneously showing the Exilarch a great deal of respect in that the verses are being homiletically ascribed to Mar Ukva’s situation. This also explains why Mar Ukva didn’t do anything to Geniva directly. Since Geniva’s harassment was in the form of asking questions of Halaĉa, any punishment in response would be deemed as petty and unbecoming of the treatment of one sage to another – and yet Mar Ukva could not stand by idly while perceived challenges to his authority and respect due to him as Exilarch were being made.
[i] Gem. Bava Kama 99b
[ii] Bamidbar 13:32
[iii] Bamidbar 13:28
[iv] Tehillim 39:2
[v] Tehillim 37:7
RASHI
Rashi on the verse discusses the etymology of the word רכיל as being the combination of the word לרגל – to spy, and הולכים – to go. They walk around the neighborhood spying out what they can see or hear, and then they go tell all their friends. Rashi proves this since the term רכיל is always[1] written with an associated word meaning to walk. Rashi then offers his own opinion that the term רכל is actually the word for spy רגל with the letter ג exchanged for the letter כ – which is possible since the letters that are all enunciated from the same component of the mouth can be exchanged.
On the second half of the verse, Rashi notes[i] that לא תעמוד על דם רעיך means that when one has the ability to save someone, he also has the obligation to do so.
The question of course is: what do these segments of the verse have in common that they were placed together. Perhaps, this is an admonishment that if one knows gossip that can be used to exonerate someone, that is the only time it is permitted to be repeated, as we almost find with Tamar and Yehuda – who for the sake of protecting her unborn children she risked the chance that someone might figure out that Yehuda was the father when she sent the message with Yehuda’s seal and staff to Yehuda saying[ii] לאיש אשר אלה לו אנכי הרה… הכר נא. Presumably, such things were easily recognizable, and the one relaying the message would have guessed as to what happened. (Possibly Yehuda could still have claimed they were replicas, or that Tamar had possession of those for some other reason, but that seems unlikely.)
[1] With the exception of the verse [Yeĉezkel 22:9] אנשי רכיל היו… I do not know why Rashi decided not to analyze this instance of רכיל which was the only one written without the term for walking.
[i] Rashi לא תעמוד Gem. Sanhedrin 73a
[ii] Beraishis 38:25
Discussion by SMS
Rabbi Ĉama son of Rabbi Ĉanina said, for one who has previously spoken Lashon Ha’ra, what should he do to fix it, as the verse[i] states, מרפא לשון עץ חיים – and the Tree of Life is the Torah, as it says in the verse[ii] עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה. If he can’t learn, he should become obsequious.
The verse in Tehillim[iii] מה יתן לך ומה יסיף לך לשון רמיה contemplates what G‑d Almighty does to those with an evil tongue: G‑d Almighty tells the minister of hell to come judge him (between a rock and a hard place) as Tehillim continues חצי גבור שנונים עם גחלי רתמים – the ‘arrows’ are tongues, as it says in the verse[iv] חץ שחוט לשונם, and גחלי רתמים is a reference to the long-burning fires of Hell.
Other examples not discussed above that are provided in the Torah of those who spoke Lashon Ha’ra and their punishment(s) include:
- Yosef, as a youngster, would tell his father about every perceived negative action in his half-brothers conduct.[v] For each of these tales he was punished like-for-like throughout his exile and imprisonment later in life. What would have been if he instead would have not borne tales to his father – would they have hated him and sold him to Egypt? Would we have been slaves in Egypt?
- Moshe, in attempting to refuse his mission to lead the Jewish people from their bondage in Egypt, states that they, the Jewish people, will not believe him when he tells them G‑d sent him to redeem them.[vi] For stating Lashon Ha’ra, that the Jewish people would not believe an emissary of G‑d, he was struck with temporary Tzara’as which was to be one of the signs of his mission. However, as this was a private conversation between Moshe and G-d, why would the Torah repeat this argument and its punishment if not to provide us with a lesson.
[i] Mishlei 15:4
[ii] Mishlei 3:18
[iii] Tehillim 120:3
[iv] Yirmiyahu 9:7
[v] Beraishis 37:2
[vi] Shemos 4:1
Supplemental – on the association of Tzara’as with Lashon Ha’ra
Rabbi Yosi ben Zimra said[i] anyone who speaks Lashon Ha’ra is punished with Tzara’as, as it says in the verse[ii] מלושני בסתר רעהו אותו אצמית, and in the Torah[iii], the לצמתת is translated as לחלוטין. (Rashi though does not translate לצמיתות as having anything to do with Tzara’as.)
We find the example of this with the famous case of Miriam being punished with Tzara’as:
One of[1] the six (6) remembrances which are recited daily is the one to recall the punishment given to Miriam for speaking Lashon Hara. The obligation to do so is derived from the verse[iv] זכור את אשר עשה ה’ אלקיך למרים, בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים.
It should be noted that this is obviously not to embarrass Miriam or to speak Lashon Ha’ra about her, but rather the opposite. Tzara’as is only given as a punishment to the righteous, which is why it is no longer active in these past centuries. For Miriam to receive the punishment immediately shows just how righteous she was.
Furthermore, Miriam was the spokesperson for the Jewish babies and families. That is why she was named Pu’ah even as a small child. When her father inspired all the Jewish men to divorce so as to not give birth to more children, Miriam criticized him harshly, and successfully overturned that decree resulting in all Jewish man returning to their wives and living to produce the next generation, the generation of redemption. And here too, when Moshe separated from his wife, Miriam stepped up again to speak out against that. If even regular people have an obligation to bring forth children for the women to raise into the next generation, how much more so do the Tzaddikim of the world. She was of course mistaken in this one instance regarding Moshe and Tzipporah, since she was unaware of the specific instruction provided by Hashem against Moshe remaining married – but her protest remains in the Torah and is recited daily to teach us about the need to dedicate one’s life to the needs of Jewish children like Miriam did, even if it means protesting against decrees issued by heaven, and even if it means protesting against the undisputed leaders of our generation.
We’re still left with the question though, why are we commanded to recall the affliction of Tzara’as given as a punishment to Miriam when the commandment itself violates both the prohibition against Lashon Hara and negative Mitzva 6 – do not embarrass your friend.
Finally, why is it important to remember where this event occurred, as the verse says בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים.
The answer is that the verse states this recollection is not about the punishment of Tzara’as given to Miriam, but את אשר עשה ה’ אלקיך למרים – about what G‑d did for Miriam after she received the punishment. As the next verse[v] states והעם לא נסע עד האסף מרים – the entire nation sat in place and did not move on so long as Miriam remained expelled. This is why the Torah mentions the place where this occurred, בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים, meaning the entire nation was on its way to its destiny and everyone had to stop out of respect for Miriam. This is what Hashem did for her, and this is what we recall daily.
Why then did the people wait for her?
Rashi notes based on the Gemara[vi] that this was a reward for Miriam’s waiting in the reeds to see what would happen to her baby brother Moshe who had been placed in the river. She knew prophetically that he would grow up to be the one to lead the Jewish people from Egypt, and notwithstanding having been placed in the river, where there was no natural chance at survival, she waited מרחק לדעה מה יעשה לו – from afar, to see what would happen with him. She had no doubts she would witness a miracle, and he would be saved, which is why she waited from afar – too far away to do anything except bear witness to the miracle.
This is the attitude we must recall and emulate daily. Notwithstanding the exile we find ourselves in, we have been told by every single one of our prophets to await daily the coming of Moshiach and the end of the exile. Anything that appears to counter that is just a miracle-waiting-to-happen, and we need to know this with certainty.
[1] The six (6) Remembrances are – to remember:
- the Exodus from Egypt (discussed with positive Mitzvah 41)
- receiving the Torah at Mt Sinai (discussed with positive Mitzva 12)
- recalling what the nation of Amalek did to the Jewish people on their way out of Egypt (discussed with negative Mitzva 226)
- how the Jewish people angered G‑d in the wilderness (discussed with negative Mitzva 4)
- What was done for Miriam (discussed above)
- Shabbos (discussed with positive Mitzva 29)
[i] Gem. Eraĉin 15b
[ii] Tehillim 101:5
[iii] Vayikra 25:23
[iv] Devarim 24:9
[v] Bamidbar 12:15
[vi] Gem. Sota 9b
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- רכיל – Traveling Peddler of Gossip. Rashi on the verse discusses the etymology of the word רכיל as being the combination of the word לרגל – to spy, and הולכים – to go. They walk around the neighborhood spying out what they can see or hear, and then they go tell all their friends.
- לשון הרע – Calumniate. Literally ‘evil tongue’ or ‘evil language’
- מוציא שם רע – exposing a bad name. Reish Lakish said the word מצורע is a combination of the word מוציא רע – one who speaks evil.
- אבק לשון הרע – dust [like from wrestling in the dirt, doing so kicks up dust which in itself is damaging but not as bad as the actual wrestling] of evil speech – something that isn’t in itself a violation of Lashon Ha’ra, but is correlated with it.