‫פרשות אחרי מות\קדושים‬
One of the most severe prohibitions in the Torah is that which forbids
speaking L'shon Ha'ra', gossip and slander. For reasons I do not know,
Chazal, Rambam and Shulchan 'Aruch did not explain and organize the many
laws of L'shon Ha'ra' in a unified text, as they did with so many other mitzvos
throughout the entire Torah. 'Am Yisroel waited 3200 years from Mattan
Torah for the Chofetz Chaim Zt"L to write his extraordinary works, define the
precise meanings of the various prohibitions (dozens!) that are associated
with various forms of L'shon Ha'ra'. Truly, the Chofetz Chaim could refer to
Masseches Chulin (7 a) and apply to himself the words, "Makon hi'ni'chu li
a'vo'sai l'his'gader bo." My forefathers left me a place to make my own
individual and unique contribution. [Of course, the additional monumental
writings of Chofetz Chaim, including Mishnah Brurah and Likutei Halachos,
among others, are classics. However, none are such an original contribution
as his many writings regarding L'shon Hara'.]
Our generation, which
merited receiving his works, study them and to enjoy the commentaries on
them, has a particular obligation to learn the halachos and to fulfill them.
The Torah expresses the prohibition of gossip in the second of our two
Parshos. "Lo sei'lech rochil b'amecho" (Perek 19/Posuk 16). Do not go
gossiping against your people. Rashi expands upon the phrase the Torah
uses in this Mitzvah. Always, Rashi notes, the Torah associates "halicha",
going, with this prohibition. The reason for this, Rashi explains, is the
common practice of spreading gossip is for people to go from one house to
another, telling tales, gathering information and spreading those tales
continually. In fact, Rashi suggests that the word "rochil", spelled Reish,
Chof, Lamed, is a form of the word "regel", Reish, Gimmel, Lamed, with the
Chof and the Gimmel interchanging, as the rules of grammar of L'shon
HaKodesh allow. According to this, "rochil" is really a form of "regel", the foot
with which we walk, and is a specialized form of "walking to gossip".
Additionally, Rashi analyzes the way Targum Onklos explains the Posuk. The
Targum says, "Lo sei'chool kurtzin b'amoch" which translates Do not eat
destruction among your people.
This strange phrase is used throughout
Chazal to talk about gossip and slander, particularly in reference to the worst
of gossipers, the informer. Not only do these gossipers go from house to
house to spread and receive their slander, they "close the deal" over some
food and drink. They confirm their evil bond over coffee and cake as this
unfortunate friendship adds another accomplishment to their personal bonds.
They literally "eat destruction" as their gossip. Thus, we understand the
phraseology of Chazal, including that of Onklos.
Reflection on the above, particularly the way Chazal express themselves
causes us to contemplate the choice of terms. Granting that such was the
practice to go from house to house to gossip, understanding that often the
partners in L'shon Ha'ra' would raise some glass and make the inappropriate
"L'chaim", the walking to and fro and the eating were not the L'shon Ha'ra'.
The tales that were told formed the 'aveirah, not the eating and drinking. It
was the content of what was set which formed the prohibition, not the
unrelated activities that are usually associated with it. Thus, the choice of
terms, "r'chilus" and "sei'chool kurtzin" seem not best.
In fact, we can associate this question with additional instances when eating
was deemed inappropriate. In the midst of their plot to sell their brother, the
Torah tells us about Yosef's brothers, "Va'yeish'vu le'echol lechem" (B'reishis
Perek 37/Posuk 25). It would seem unimportant and unrelated to the event
that they say down to eat unless we are shown an unexpected and terribly
disappointing crassness and uncaring attitude on the part of the brothers at
the very time they were deciding of the life and death of Yosef (See S'forno).
Thus, in order to give over a sense of uncaring the Torah tells us of the S'uda
in which the brothers participated.
In the Mishnah found in the fifth Perek of Masseches Sanhedrin (40 a) we are
told that on the night before rendering a decision regarding capital
punishment, the judges were required to be "m'ma'atin mi'ma'achal v'lo ho'yu
sho'sim ya'yin kol ha'yom". They would eat little and would not drink wine at
all. They were allowed to eat only minimally, so not to be too weakened to
think clearly and on the other hand not to enjoy themselves. Thus, all
drinking of wine was prohibited, a law that does not apply to any other type
of judgement (see Tosphos "Ha'Oskim", Sanhedrin 42 a). Again, eating and
drinking cannot be associated with dayanim who will render a life and death
judgement. Why?
An answer may be understood from a Posuk familiar to all. In the first of our
Parshos we learn of Avodas Yom HaKippurim. At the end of that section we
are also told of the prohibition of eating on Yom HaKippurim. It is surprising
that the Torah tells us of that prohibition there since it apparently is not
inherently connected to the Avoda. In fact, the Posuk does appear in a later
Parsha (Emor) in the context of all the mo'adim-Holydays and their specific
laws (Vayikra Perek 23/Posuk 27) where it is appropriate.
Thus, when we read "t'a'nu es naf'sho'sei'chem" (Perek 16/Posuk 29), "afflict
your souls" in connection with Yom HaKippurim we wonder about its
placement. Furthermore, how did Chazal know that the "affliction of souls"
means not eating and drinking? [True, in addition to these issurim, one must
abstain from leather shoes, perfumes, marital relations and washing,
however, according to many opinions these prohibitions are not from the
Torah. Even according to those opinions these prohibitions are from the
Torah, the punishment of Koreis which applies to eating and drinking does
not apply to them.]
Ibn 'Ezra, cited by Ramban as well, proves that " 'i'nui", affliction, which is
associated with "nefesh", soul, refers to eating and drinking. From this we
learn that pleasure and abstinence that are related to food and drink
consumption provide more than physical sustenance. The strength they
supply goes to the very soul of a person's existence. Maharal writes in
Netzach Yisroel Perek 25 (see Rav Yehoshua Hartman's edition and the
extensive remarks in footnotes 123-128) that "ha'achila hu ki'yum ha'adam".
Eating is (not only provides) man's existence. Maharal means that eating is
beyond calories, protein and carbohydrates. It is related to man's inner
nature as well.
Maharal continues:, "ki ein sofek she'ho'achila m'ka'yem es
ha'nefesh". There is no doubt that eating gives existence to the soul! Thus,
eating is an inherent part of man's being.
If that is so, we can now understand why the Torah writes the mitzvah of
"inui nefesh" in connection with 'Avodas Yom HaKippurim as well. On that
holiest of days, when the unique bond between Jew and HaKodosh Boruch
Hu is reaffirmed and strengthened, the Jew must recognize that his life is
totally dependent on HaKodosh Boruch Hu, the fact that food feeds him is Gd's decree. Thus, not dissimilar to the prohibition of creative m'lacha on
Shabbos designating Hashem's mastery over creation, we prohibit eating and
drinking on Yom HaKippurim to touch the very inner being of our soul"she'no'sato bi", that You, Hashem, have given me.
If that is so, when the brothers of Yosef wished to take away his life, his soul,
the act of eating was in stark contradiction to their terrible plans. When the
judge is commanded to decide regarding capital punishment he knows to
refrain from eating. It is not only "not nice" to eat. That act is opposed to
the monumental task that he must deal with.
So many verses tell us of the deadly affect of L'shon Ha'ra'. "Hachaim
v'ha'moves b'yad ha'loshon". Life and death are in the "hand" of the tongue.
"Chetz sho'chut l'sho'nom". Their [slanders ] tongue is a slaughtering arrow.
Gossip and slander are murdersome! No wonder, shortly after the sale of
Yosef, Tamar remains silent in the face of an untrue accusation. No wonder
that she personified the lesson that Chazal teach us that it is better to cast
yourself into a fiery furnace than cause shame [Breishis Perek 38/Posuk 25
and Rashi]. The draining of blood from the face, "malbin p'nei chaveiro" is
not a metaphor. It is the truth. Slander is not tantamount to murder. It is.
Thus, when the Torah expresses the prohibition of slander it notes those
activities which do have an inherent relationship to the event. They are not
merely side events. They become part of the prohibition and express how
bad the teller of tales truly is. He literally eats destruction, as Chazal explain
and express it. That which Hashem's creation deemed to be at the very
nature of man's existence is now associated with activities that attempt to
end that existence and cause irreparable harm.
It is nice to choose a particular hour on a particular time to be particularly
concerned with the prohibition of L'shon Ha'ra'. Perhaps through those
concerns we bring z'chuyot and merit to particular individuals. In truth
though, as we would not consider suggesting refraining from eating non-
Kosher foods on Tuesdays from 3-4 PM, we must go beyond those very
limitations of "sei'chool kurtzin", eating the destructive anti-food of L'shon
Ha'ra'. If the fulfillment of the laws of L'shon Ha'ra' become an ongoing,
continuing goal then we will bring z'chuyot for all Klal Yisroel in this time
when it is so desperately needed.
Shabbat Shalom
Rabbi Pollock
P.S. With these words we are beginning the fourth cycle of our weekly Divrei
Torah conceived and instituted by Mrs. Shira (Markowitz) Hochheimer.