As a precursor to the story of the Meraglim, the Torah introduces us to Klal Yisrael’s insensitization towards Lashon Hara through the story of Miryam HaNivia and the harsh words she had for her brother, Moshe. We know her words were harsh because Rashi tells us so:
VaTidabeir – The word Dibur means nothing but harsh language; likewise, it says “the man [Yoseif] spoke harshly (Dibeir) to us [when the brothers went down to Mitzrayim to collect grain]. [Conversely,] the lashon of Amirah is only one of supplication; likewise, it says “And [
Rashi, BaMidbar 12:1
Rashi’s comments are certainly accurate and well supported, but their placement is rather obscure and seemingly arbitrary. By the time we reach Sefer BaMidbar, one would hope that we are familiar with the usage of Amirah and Dibur, so that Rashi should not have to remind us what the two words mean. More to the point, if Rashi derives his proofs from pasukim in Beraishis, then why doesn’t he make his comment there? Clearly, something in our pasuk is bothering Rashi to state the seemingly obvious, but what problem do we see with the word ViTidabeir? Furthermore, even if Rashi wants to discuss the usage of Dibur in our pasuk, the lashon of Amirah is nowhere to be found. Why does Rashi feel the need to set up this distinction?
But there are more glaring difficulties to be dealt with. Quoting Rabbi Nosson, Rashi explains that Miryam’s name is mentioned in our pasuk before Aharon’s because she first informed her brother, and then the two spoke against Moshe. And from whom did Miryam discover that Moshe had separated from his wife? When Gershom returned and told Moshe that Eldad and Meidad were prophesying in the camp, Tziporah cried out, “woe to their wives, for they will surely be divorced just as my husband separated from me when he began to prophesy.” From there Miryam found out, and then informed her brother Aharon. Rashi then continues, and just as Miryam, who only had constructive intent (to correct her brother Moshe’s mistakes) was still punished, all the more so will those who have destructive intent be punished!
From Rashi’s last comment, we see that Miryam did not purposelessly speak out against her youngest brother, and yet she was still punished with Tzara’as. Considering Tziporah’s role within Rabbi Nosson’s story, it is difficult to imagine that her actions were any more constructive. She blurts out personal matters, and in a negative tone, and yet we don’t find anywhere that Tziporah is punished! By Rashi’s Kal ViChomer, Tziporah should be dealt with at least as harshly as Miryam was; Rashi’s comments are clearly contradictory!
Perhaps these questions can answer each other. If we look ahead to pasuk 2, we find that Miryam and Aharon both speak out against Moshe, VaYomiru HaRak Ach BiMoshe Diber Hashem. And yet, later in the perek, only Miryam is punished. Interestingly, this pasuk begins with a lashon of VaYomiru, a soft lashon of resolution, like the resolution
But pasuk 1 begins VaTidabeir Miryam, that Miryam spoke harshly, with the attitude of conflict much like Yoseif HaTzadik displayed towards his brothers. Her intentions may have been pure, but the attitude she enjoined with her speech was of no value; to speak harshly at a time of Hochacha more often works against one’s goals of resolution. And so Miryam was punished, not for her complaints to Moshe, but for her harsh words.
Therefore, Rashi explains, our parasha opens with a lashon of ViTidabeir, unlike the Amirah of the following pasuk. And we can understand why both Aharon and Tziporah, the two calm and soft speakers were not guilty of the afflictions Miryam incurred. It was one thing to speak out against Moshe, but another to speak out disgracefully, even if constructively.
What is Lishna Bisha, disparaging language? Rabbah said, “There is a fire in Yosef’s house” [constitutes Lishna Bisha, for one is informing a pauper where he can find an abundance of food, and intruding on Yosef’s personal matters]. Abayei responded, what has he done wrong? He has merely informed [the pauper] of a known fact! Rather, [an example of] Lishna Bisha is to say “Where else can you find a fire than Yosef’s house, for he’s always got something on the stove” [derogatorily implying that Yosef is a glutton].
Mesechet Arachin, 15b
Rashi comments on the juxtaposition of Miyam’s punishment alongside the Meraglim’s account, explaining that the spies should have taken a lesson from this early episode of Lashon Hara, and yet did not improve their ways. At the heart of Lashon Hara lies not the iniquity of misinformation or the incivility of exposition, but rather the simple disgrace of negative attitude. The nation was punished with forty years of wandering not for the facts and lies their delegates spoke of the land, but rather for their disbelief in Hashem’s promise, their negative attitude towards the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, and the ensuing tears. We are punished Middah K’Neged Midah for the people’s crying, just as Miryam is punished for her sour attitude.
Not surprisingly, sometimes the most potent remedy for Lashon Hara is nothing more than positive attitude.
VaYomeru [Yehoshu and Caleiv]… Tova Ha’Aretz Mi’od Mi’od. Im Chafeitz Banu Hashem ViHaivee Osanu El Ha’Aretz Ha’Zos.
BaMidbar, 14:7-8
Shabbat Shalom from Artzeinu HaKadosh
No comments:
Post a Comment