THE MEIL AND THE KETORES - TETZAVEH

"You shall make the Robe of the Ephod entirely of turquoise wool.... You shall make on its hem pomegranates of turquoise, purple, and scarlet wool, on its hem all around, and gold bells between them, all around; a gold bell and a pomegranate, a gold bell and a pomegranate on the hem of the robe, all around. "

One of the Vestements of the Kohen Gadol was the Meil, a robe that was adorned with bells and rang whenever the Kohen Gadol walked. The Gemara in Arachin discusses how all of the Kohen Gadol's Vestements atoned for a particular aveiro; the meil atoned for the sin of lashon hara. The Gemara explains that the meil, which made a loud kol (sound) should atone for lashon hara which makes a loud kol. However, the Gemara brings a seemingly contradictory braissa that says that the ketores (incense) that was used in the Mishkan atones for lashon hara. It answers that there are two different types of lashon hara; the ketores atones for a more 'quiet' form lashon hara, when the speaker hides his true feelings from the subject of his criticism and therefore the 'victim' of the lashon hara has no awareness that someone is criticizing him. In contrast, the lashon hara that is atoned for by the meil is characterized by the speaker making no secret of his true feelings about the victim to the extent that the victim is very likely to be aware of what is being said about him .

However, this explanation of the Gemara seems to pose a new difficulty; why is it necessary for there to be two separate functions of the Mishkan to atone for the single sin of lashon hara; why can't either the meil or the ketores atone for both 'loud' and 'quiet' lashon hara? Moreover, it would seem that loud lashon hara is significantly more damaging than 'quiet' lashon hara. Therefore, if the meil has the power to atone for the more severe form of lashon hara, then it should surely be able to atone for the seemingly less damaging 'quiet' lashon hara?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to understand more specifically the negative aspects of these two forms of lashon hara: Loud lashon hara is very damaging in that the victim is aware of the evil speech that is directed towards him and this naturally causes him great pain. In this aspect, loud lashon hara is considered more destructive than its quieter counterpart. However, there is a certain way in which 'quiet' lashon hara is more pernicious than loud lashon hara. Quiet lashon hara is characterized by the perpetrator of this grave sin behaving in a two-faced manner towards his victim; in front of him he is very friendly, but behind his back he slanders him mercilessly and instructs the listeners not to reveal his true feelings to his unfortunate fellow. Since the victim is totally unaware that he is being vilified, he makes no efforts to protect himself from these attacks and they may continue unabated. In contrast, the victim of 'loud' lashon hara is far more likely to find out about the lashon hara spoken about him, consequently he will be able to protect himself.

With this understanding we can now explain why it is necessary for there to be two separate functions of the Mishkan to atone for lashon hara. Each form of lashon hara is more detrimental in some way than the other. Consequently, whilst the meil has the capacity to atone for the damaging aspect of 'loud' lashon hara it cannot atone for the harm caused by quiet lashon hara. Similarly, the ketores can atone for the pernicious features of 'quiet' lashon hara but it cannot do so for the areas in which 'loud' lashon hara is more damaging.

What is particularly striking about this explanation is that in some ways speaking lashon hara in a hidden fashion is worse than doing so in a blatant manner. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l discusses how speaking lashon hara of the 'quiet' kind can also involve a transgression of the Mitzvo, "do not hate your brother in your heart (loh sisna es achicha bilvavecha) ." The simple understanding of this Mitzvo is that one only transgresses it when he keeps his hatred in his heart and does not reveal it to anyone, including the subject of his hatred. However, if he expresses his hatred even in a negative way, he does not transgress 'loh sisna' because he did not keep the hatred in his heart .

The Chofetz Chaim argues that this is not necessarily the case; a person may hate his fellow and tells others of his hatred, but act towards him in a friendly manner. This, the Chofetz Chaim writes, is also a transgression of keeping hatred in one's heart. He explains that the root of the sin of keeping hatred in one's heart is that the subject of the hatred is unable to protect himself from the person who despises him. Consequently, if the 'hater' hides his true feelings to his fellow he is guilty of loh sisna even if he tells others about his hatred. We learn from the Chofetz Chaim the above concept that 'quiet' lashon hara has a particularly insidious aspect to it, in that its victim is totally unable to protect himself from the silent bombardments that he is subjected to.

There may be occasions in a person's life where he develops a dislike for someone. It is self-evident that this loathing does not justify speaking lashon hara. We learn further from the Gemara in Arachin that acting towards him in a two-faced manner makes the lashon hara even more destructive. Chazal tell us that Yosef's brothers were wrong in hating him, but to their credit they did not act in a hypocritical manner towards him. The lesson we derive from the brothers' behavior towards Yosef is that whilst it is wrong to hate someone, it is far worse to hide that hatred of him and speak badly about him behind his back. This hanhago only succeeds in causing enmity and machlokes. The ideal course of action is to try to resolve the situation by speaking to the subject of his hatred in a calm and reasonable manner and strive to resolve the issue in a mature fashion. By acting in an honest and candid manner, one can greatly improve his relationships with those around him.

THE ROBE AND THE INCENSE - TETZAVEH

"You shall make the Robe of the Ephod entirely of turquoise wool.... You shall make on its hem pomegranates of turquoise, purple, and scarlet wool, on its hem all around, and gold bells between them, all around; a gold bell and a pomegranate, a gold bell and a pomegranate on the hem of the robe, all around. "

One of the Vestements of the Kohen Gadol was the Meil, a robe that was adorned with bells and rang whenever the Kohen Gadol walked. The Gemara in Arachin discusses how all of the Kohen Gadol's Vestements atoned for a particular aveiro; the meil atoned for the sin of lashon hara. The Gemara explains that the meil, which made a loud kol (sound) should atone for lashon hara which makes a loud kol. However, the Gemara brings a seemingly contradictory braissa that says that the ketores (incense) that was used in the Mishkan atones for lashon hara. It answers that there are two different types of lashon hara; the ketores atones for a more 'quiet' form lashon hara, when the speaker hides his true feelings from the subject of his criticism and therefore the 'victim' of the lashon hara has no awareness that someone is criticizing him. In contrast, the lashon hara that is atoned for by the meil is characterized by the speaker making no secret of his true feelings about the victim to the extent that the victim is very likely to be aware of what is being said about him .

However, this explanation of the Gemara seems to pose a new difficulty; why is it necessary for there to be two separate functions of the Mishkan to atone for the single sin of lashon hara; why can't either the meil or the ketores atone for both 'loud' and 'quiet' lashon hara? Moreover, it would seem that loud lashon hara is significantly more damaging than 'quiet' lashon hara. Therefore, if the meil has the power to atone for the more severe form of lashon hara, then it should surely be able to atone for the seemingly less damaging 'quiet' lashon hara?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to understand more specifically the negative aspects of these two forms of lashon hara: Loud lashon hara is very damaging in that the victim is aware of the evil speech that is directed towards him and this naturally causes him great pain. In this aspect, loud lashon hara is considered more destructive than its quieter counterpart. However, there is a certain way in which 'quiet' lashon hara is more pernicious than loud lashon hara. Quiet lashon hara is characterized by the perpetrator of this grave sin behaving in a two-faced manner towards his victim; in front of him he is very friendly, but behind his back he slanders him mercilessly and instructs the listeners not to reveal his true feelings to his unfortunate fellow. Since the victim is totally unaware that he is being vilified, he makes no efforts to protect himself from these attacks and they may continue unabated. In contrast, the victim of 'loud' lashon hara is far more likely to find out about the lashon hara spoken about him, consequently he will be able to protect himself.

With this understanding we can now explain why it is necessary for there to be two separate functions of the Mishkan to atone for lashon hara. Each form of lashon hara is more detrimental in some way than the other. Consequently, whilst the meil has the capacity to atone for the damaging aspect of 'loud' lashon hara it cannot atone for the harm caused by quiet lashon hara. Similarly, the ketores can atone for the pernicious features of 'quiet' lashon hara but it cannot do so for the areas in which 'loud' lashon hara is more damaging.

What is particularly striking about this explanation is that in some ways speaking lashon hara in a hidden fashion is worse than doing so in a blatant manner. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l discusses how speaking lashon hara of the 'quiet' kind can also involve a transgression of the Mitzvo, "do not hate your brother in your heart (loh sisna es achicha bilvavecha) ." The simple understanding of this Mitzvo is that one only transgresses it when he keeps his hatred in his heart and does not reveal it to anyone, including the subject of his hatred. However, if he expresses his hatred even in a negative way, he does not transgress 'loh sisna' because he did not keep the hatred in his heart .

The Chofetz Chaim argues that this is not necessarily the case; a person may hate his fellow and tells others of his hatred, but act towards him in a friendly manner. This, the Chofetz Chaim writes, is also a transgression of keeping hatred in one's heart. He explains that the root of the sin of keeping hatred in one's heart is that the subject of the hatred is unable to protect himself from the person who despises him. Consequently, if the 'hater' hides his true feelings to his fellow he is guilty of loh sisna even if he tells others about his hatred. We learn from the Chofetz Chaim the above concept that 'quiet' lashon hara has a particularly insidious aspect to it, in that its victim is totally unable to protect himself from the silent bombardments that he is subjected to.

There may be occasions in a person's life where he develops a dislike for someone. It is self-evident that this loathing does not justify speaking lashon hara. We learn further from the Gemara in Arachin that acting towards him in a two-faced manner makes the lashon hara even more destructive. Chazal tell us that Yosef's brothers were wrong in hating him, but to their credit they did not act in a hypocritical manner towards him. The lesson we derive from the brothers' behavior towards Yosef is that whilst it is wrong to hate someone, it is far worse to hide that hatred of him and speak badly about him behind his back. This hanhago only succeeds in causing enmity and machlokes. The ideal course of action is to try to resolve the situation by speaking to the subject of his hatred in a calm and reasonable manner and strive to resolve the issue in a mature fashion. By acting in an honest and candid manner, one can greatly improve his relationships with those around him.

THE ROOT OF LASHON HARA - TETZAVEH

Chazal tell us that the various items of clothing of the Kohen Gadol served as atonements for the sins of Klal Yisroel. The meil atoned for lashon hara. One of the striking features of the meil was that it was fully techeiles, the color that resembles the Kisay HaKavod.[1] What is the connection between the techeiles of the meil with atonement for lashon hara? The Chofetz Chaim zt”l explains by quoting a Tana d’bey Eliyahu that says that lashon hara rises up to the Kisay HaKavod. This means that a person who speaks lashon hara will have to face judgement in front of the Kisay HaKavod. The techeiles on the meil of the Kohen Gadol would serve as a reminder that our words have great spiritual power[2].

Thanks to the drive against lashon hara there is far more awareness as to the halachos and hashkafo of shemiras halashon. Nonetheless, lashon hara remains as being one of the most difficult aveiros to avoid - there are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that we speak so much and that there is strong social pressure that makes it very hard to avoid negative speech.

However, perhaps there is a deeper cause to lashon hara that lies at the root of much of the lashon hara spoken. Halacho acknowledges that we derive pleasure from speaking negatively about others - we see this in the laws of constructive speech: There are times when it is permissible and even required to speak lashon hara in order to prevent damage, however even this is forbidden if the speaker is pleased in his heart to cast the perpetrator in a bad light. This is difficult to understand - there are many aveiros for which there is an obvious taiva, such as arayos, however there is no obvious physical pleasure derived by speaking lashon hara. Why is there such a drive to speak negatively about other people?

It seems that the root cause of the pleasure of speaking lashon hara is that it provides an artificial boost to our self-worth: If we feel a lack of self-worth there are two ways in which we can boost it - one is to get involved in constructive activities and improve our character. In this way we feel more fulfilled and positive about ourselves. However, there is another, easier option; We often tend to value ourselves in relation to others, consequently our self-image is often dependent upon how we compare to those around us. By criticizing them we knock them down, thereby we now see ourselves in a more favorable light in comparison. For example, if we feel lacking in a mida such as intelligence, by criticizing someone else in that exact same area can help us feel better about our own level of intelligence.

This would seem to the explanation of Chazal’s statement that a person only criticizes others about a flaw that they themselves possess. Chazal understood the psychological needs of people to feel good about themselves and that a prime way of trying to do so is by knocking down others in their very own areas of weakness.

Of course the rise in self-worth derived from speaking lashon hara is artificial and very short-lived. After a short while the speaker’s true sense of inadequacy returns and he feels the need to criticize more in order to boost himself. Any person who has tried to refrain from lashon hara can testify that on the occasions when they held themselves they did not feel any lacking - on the contrary they felt better about themselves for doing the right thing.

There are two important lessons that can be dreived from this understanding of lashon hara. Firstly we must be highly vigilant of our intentions when we speak negatively for a constructive purpose. This is especially true in the delicate area of criticizing other groups or ideologies within Judaism. Indeed the Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Sega zt”l said that only great tzaddikim can speak critically of other groups. One reason for this may be that tzaddikim are secure in themselves and have no psychological need to criticize people. However, everyone else is prone to feelings of lack of self-worth and we may express righteous condemnation of those that we disapprove of for reasons that are not leshem shamayim. This constitutes lashon hara midoraysa and it is surely wise to heed the words of Rav Segal and to never risk transgressing such a serious aveiro.

The second lesson is that if we see in ourselves the desire to disparage others then we must do a cheshbon hanefesh to discover its source. Very often, it may arise because of a lack of self-worth. But instead of putting down others, we can feel better about ourselves by improving our midos and striving to be active and productive members of society. May we all be zocheh to purify our speech and learn the lesson of the meil.

[1] Arachin, 16a.
[2] Chofetz Chaim Al HaTorah, Parshas Tetzaveh

THE MEIL AND THE KETORES - TETZAVEH

"You shall make the Robe of the Ephod entirely of turquoise wool.... You shall make on its hem pomegranates of turquoise, purple, and scarlet wool, on its hem all around, and gold bells between them, all around; a gold bell and a pomegranate, a gold bell and a pomegranate on the hem of the robe, all around.[1]"

One of the Vestements of the Kohen Gadol was the Meil, a robe that was adorned with bells and rang whenever the Kohen Gadol walked. The Gemara in Arachin discusses how all of the Kohen Gadol's Vestements atoned for a particular aveiro; the meil atoned for the sin of lashon hara. The Gemara explains that the meil, which made a loud kol (sound) should atone for lashon hara which makes a loud kol. However, the Gemara brings a seemingly contradictory braissa[2] that says that the ketores (incense) that was used in the Mishkan atones for lashon hara. It answers that there are two different types of lashon hara; the ketores atones for a more 'quiet' form lashon hara, when the speaker hides his true feelings from the subject of his criticism and therefore the 'victim' of the lashon hara has no awareness that someone is criticizing him. In contrast, the lashon hara that is atoned for by the meil is characterized by the speaker making no secret of his true feelings about the victim to the extent that the victim is very likely to be aware of what is being said about him[3].

However, this explanation of the Gemara seems to pose a new difficulty; why is it necessary for there to be two separate functions of the Mishkan to atone for the single sin of lashon hara; why can't either the meil or the ketores atone for both 'loud' and 'quiet' lashon hara? Moreover, it would seem that loud lashon hara is significantly more damaging than 'quiet' lashon hara. Therefore, if the meil has the power to atone for the more severe form of lashon hara, then it should surely be able to atone for the seemingly less damaging 'quiet' lashon hara?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to understand more specifically the negative aspects of these two forms of lashon hara: Loud lashon hara is very damaging in that the victim is aware of the evil speech that is directed towards him and this naturally causes him great pain. In this aspect, loud lashon hara is considered more destructive than its quieter counterpart. However, there is a certain way in which 'quiet' lashon hara is more pernicious than loud lashon hara. Quiet lashon hara is characterized by the perpetrator of this grave sin behaving in a two-faced manner towards his victim; in front of him he is very friendly, but behind his back he slanders him mercilessly and instructs the listeners not to reveal his true feelings to his unfortunate fellow. Since the victim is totally unaware that he is being vilified, he makes no efforts to protect himself from these attacks and they may continue unabated. In contrast, the victim of 'loud' lashon hara is far more likely to find out about the lashon hara spoken about him, consequently he will be able to protect himself.

With this understanding we can now explain why it is necessary for there to be two separate functions of the Mishkan to atone for lashon hara. Each form of lashon hara is more detrimental in some way than the other. Consequently, whilst the meil has the capacity to atone for the damaging aspect of 'loud' lashon hara it cannot atone for the harm caused by quiet lashon hara. Similarly, the ketores can atone for the pernicious features of 'quiet' lashon hara but it cannot do so for the areas in which 'loud' lashon hara is more damaging.

What is particularly striking about this explanation is that in some ways speaking lashon hara in a hidden fashion is worse than doing so in a blatant manner. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l discusses how speaking lashon hara of the 'quiet' kind can also involve a transgression of the Mitzvo, "do not hate your brother in your heart (loh sisna es achicha bilvavecha)[4]." The simple understanding of this Mitzvo is that one only transgresses it when he keeps his hatred in his heart and does not reveal it to anyone, including the subject of his hatred. However, if he expresses his hatred even in a negative way, he does not transgress 'loh sisna' because he did not keep the hatred in his heart[5].

The Chofetz Chaim argues that this is not necessarily the case; a person may hate his fellow and tells others of his hatred, but act towards him in a friendly manner. This, the Chofetz Chaim writes, is also a transgression of keeping hatred in one's heart. He explains that the root of the sin of keeping hatred in one's heart is that the subject of the hatred is unable to protect himself from the person who despises him. Consequently, if the 'hater' hides his true feelings to his fellow he is guilty of loh sisna even if he tells others about his hatred. We learn from the Chofetz Chaim the above concept that 'quiet' lashon hara has a particularly insidious aspect to it, in that its victim is totally unable to protect himself from the silent bombardments that he is subjected to.

There may be occasions in a person's life where he develops a dislike for someone. It is self-evident that this loathing does not justify speaking lashon hara. We learn further from the Gemara in Arachin that acting towards him in a two-faced manner makes the lashon hara even more destructive. Chazal tell us that Yosef's brothers were wrong in hating him, but to their credit they did not act in a hypocritical manner towards him. The lesson we derive from the brothers' behavior towards Yosef is that whilst it is wrong to hate someone, it is far worse to hide that hatred of him and speak badly about him behind his back. This hanhago only succeeds in causing enmity and machlokes. The ideal course of action is to try to resolve the situation by speaking to the subject of his hatred in a calm and reasonable manner and strive to resolve the issue in a mature fashion. By acting in an honest and candid manner, one can greatly improve his relationships with those around him.

[1] Tetzaveh, 28:31-34.
[2] A source that dates from the time of the Mishna.
[3] Arachin, 16a. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita gave this explanation of what the Gemara meant by 'loud' and 'quiet' lashon hara.
[4] Kedoshim, 19:17.
[5] See Rambam, Hilchos Deos, Ch.6, Halachos 5-6; Ramban and Rashbam, Kedoshim, 19:17. Needless to say one is not permitted to express one's hatred in a hostile fashion, such as by shouting or striking his fellow Jew.