KORBANOS AND YIRAS HASHEM - VAYIKRA

Parshas Vayikra enumerates many korbanos, including those that must be given for inadvertent sins. Why must a person give a korban for a sin that he did not flagrantly intend to commit? The commentaries explain that the fact that he allowed himself to commit such a sin, even inadvertently, demonstrates an element of carelessness. Had he been more zahir, he would never have allowed himself to get to the point where he could sin. The Torah goes even further and requires that a person who has a doubt as to whether he committed a sin that requires a korban, is required to bring an asham talui . The Sefer HaChinuch explains that this korban does not atone for the actual sin (if it was indeed committed), rather it serves as an atonement for the carelessness that caused the safek .

It still needs to be understood what is the root cause of the carelessness that leads to inadvertent sins and why bringing korbanos helped atone for it. In order to answer this, it is instructive to compare how we conduct ourselves in the physical world with how we act with regard to spiritual matters. If a person is aware that a poisonous substance may be present in the food that he intends to eat he would be extremely careful to avoid any remote possibility of consuming the poison. This is because he is well aware of the dire consequences of eating poison. Just as there are natural consequences to our actions in the physical world, there are also natural consequences to actions in the spiritual world. Therefore, a person who is faced with the possibility of eating food that is forbidden, such as chelev, should have the same level of zehirus to avoid doing something that will cause him grave spiritual damage. When a person stumbles and sins inadvertently or puts himself in a position where he is in doubt as to whether he sinned, he demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the spiritual consequences of his actions; he is not fully cognizant of the spiritual reality that negative actions inevitably have negative results.

There seem to be two main reasons as to why it is far more difficult to attain the same awareness of cause-and-effect in the spiritual world as in the physical world: Firstly, the physical world is completely tangible to us - we can easily see the results of our actions, for example, when a person eats poison, he is visibly damaged. In contrast, the spiritual world is not tangible and we cannot see the results of our actions - for example, a person is less aware of the spiritual consequences of breaking Shabbos b’shogeg, because he has never visually seen them. If he could see what happens in the spiritual realm for turning a light on, forgetting that it is Shabbos, then he would surely never allow himself to commit that sin b’shogeg.

Giving a korban for committing such an aveiro helped a person metaken this flaw of not being real with spiritual consequences. He had to go through a lengthy and expensive process of paying for, and bringing a korban to Yerushalayim, and go through the dramatic process of offering up the korban and seeing its blood. This process surely made it very clear that there are dramatic consequences to one’s actions.

The second reason why it is difficult to live with the awareness that there are consequences to all our actions in the spiritual world, is that we are so familiar with Hashem’s ‘mida‘ of Rachamim that it is easy slip into the trap of thinking that Hashem will automatically forgive us for our sins. As a result, a person will be less fearful of the consequences of sinning. The Gemara in Chagiga observes that there is a natural yetser hara to presume that there is automatic forgiveness for sinning - it states, “If the yetser hara will tell you, ‘sin and Hashem will forgive you,’ do not listen to him. ”

The Mesillas Yesharim addresses this attitude at length and stresses that it is incorrect - Hashem is a ‘Kel Emes’ who judges every action. Hashem’s rachamim does not contradict the concept of reward and punishment: Rachamim does three things; it delays the punishment from taking place immediately giving a person a chance to do teshuva; it causes the onesh to be handed out in smaller, more manageable doses; and it gives us the opportunity to do teshuva and thereby gain complete forgiveness. There is, nonetheless, judgement for every outcome and an awareness of this should cause a person to be far more zahir from sinning . Offering a korban also helped rectify the attitude that Hashem is a vatran. By going through the arduous process of offering the korban, the person would see that he could not gain forgiveness without teshuva.

We do not have the opportunity to offer korbanos for our inadvertent sins, and as a result we do not have this essential tool to help make us aware of the reality of chet. How can we engrain this into ourselves? There are many accounts of Gedolim who saw the spiritual world as tangibly as the physical world: On one occasion, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was asked to leave the Beis Medrash in order to take an important phone call from another country, but he could not get to the phone because somebody was davenning the Shemoneh Esrei in front of the door and his ‘dalet amos’ was blocking the exit. When asked why he would not leave for such an important and costly call, he said that there was a wall blocking him and he could not walk through a wall. For Rav Moshe, ‘dalet amos’ was not some vague concept, it was a clear reality. His Gadlus in Torah was surely the cause of such a tangible sense of Yiras Shamayim - it was not just that he knew all of Torah, but that he allowed it to become so much a part of him that it became so real in his mind. A person can learn Torah in an intellectual way and not let it filter into his being - that kind of learning will probably not be so effective in increasing one’s yiras Shamayim - learning with an appreciation that it is discussing reality and trying to apply it to our lives will hopefully enable a person to be more real with the spiritual world.

A second aitsa is that of Rav Yisroel Salanter - that if a person wants to develop more of a sensitivity in a certain area of halacho, he should learn that area in depth - this will naturally bring him to a much greater awareness of his actions in that area. For example, whenever Rav Yisroel would find himself in a situation that could lead to yichud, he would learn the sugyas of yichud in great depth, in this way assuring himself that he would maintain constant awareness of any possibility of yichud. One particular area where this principle is very important is that of lashon hara: There is such a constant nisayon to speak lashon hara that without learning the laws of lashon hara it is extremely difficult to avoid the numerous pitfalls that arise. By learning the laws, as well as knowing what constitutes forbidden speech, a person will develop a far greater sensitivity in his speech.

There is one final exercise that can help increase our level of zehirus: Imagine if someone offered a Torah observant person $100 to speak lashon hara - the person would immediately refuse. What if he offered $1000, or $10,000 or $1000,000?! A person with a clear Torah hashakfa will refuse any amount of money rather than commit a sin because he is intellectually aware that the onesh for speaking lashon hara will be infinitely greater than anything finite. And yet, a person may often speak lashon hara for no money at all! The difference between the two situations is that when a person is clear that what he will do is an aveiro he has intellectual clarity that this is very bad for his neshama. However, without such clarity, b’shaas maaseh, a person rationalizes that what he is about to say is not really lashon hara and allows himself to say it regardless of the possible consequences of such a severe sin. We see from here that a person has the strength to withstand sin when he has total clarity that what he is about to do constitutes an issur. Developing a sense of clarity and intellectual honesty as to when we are committing an aveiro will enable us to tap into this koyach and give us the strength to withstand sin.

We do not have the gift of korbanos anymore, but the lessons that we learn from them can help us develop a strong sense of yiras shamayim that can prevent us from the damage of chet.

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 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. 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 .

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 Segal 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.

TAAMEI HAMITZVOS - CHUKAS

The Parsha begins “this is the chok of the Torah” and proceeds to discuss the laws of Parah Adumah (the red heifer), a mitzvo which is impossible to understand according to human logic. The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh asks why this mitzvo is called the ‘chok of the Torah’, it would have been more appropriate to say ‘this is the chok of tahara’. He answers that the Torah is alluding to us that if we fulfil this mitzvo even though it has no reason to it, then the Passuk considers it as if we have fulfilled the whole Torah, because fulfilling a mitzva without reason shows that we are unconditionally willing to follow Hashem’s Ratson.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that when a person fulfils a mitzvo that has an obvious reason to it, it is still not clear that he is prepared to fulfil the Torah purely because Hashem commanded it. It could be that he is doing it because it makes sense to him. However, once he performs a mitzvo that is without logic that proves that he keeps all the mitzvos, not because they make sense to him, but because Hashem commanded them.

This is a fundamental principle of the Torah - we accept that we must follow Hashem’s will without making any cheshbonos according to our own logic. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l writes that this was Korach’s mistake in his theological attacks against Moshe Rabbeinu. He attempted to expose the fallacy of the mitzvos of tsitsit and mezuza by showing their illogical nature. He argued that the reason for wearing a thread of techeiles on each corner is because it resembles the sea, which resembles the sky, which resembles the Throne of Glory. Based on this reasoning Korach argued that one who wears a garment of techeiles should not need a thread of it on its corner because there is ample reminder of the sea, sky and the throne of glory in the actual garment. In reality, however, the mitzvo applies in all cases, even where the given reason has no apparent application because ultimately all mitzvos must be observed and should be viewed as a gezeira that cannot be questioned.

In light of this principle, a difficulty arises: Many of the greatest Torah scholars such as the Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch and, more recently, Rav Hirsch zt”l went to great lengths to explain the taamey hamitzvos - the reasons behind the mitzvos. Yet it is clear from Parah Adumah that the ultimate reason behind each mitzvo is beyond human understanding; Shlomo Hamelech had thought that he understood the deepest reason for every mitzvo until he came to Parah Aduma which he could not fathom. He then realised that he did not truly understand the definitive reason for any of the mitzvos. In light of this, how can anyone claim to understand a taam for any given mitzvo if Shlomo Hamelech, the wisest man, could not?!

My Rebbe answers by explaining that the commentaries are not claiming to understand the ultimate reason behind the mitzvo - we can have no concept of the genuine reason for any mitzvo - that is something that belongs in the highest olamos. However, this does not mean that the ‘taamey hamitzvos’ have no truth to them. Hashem, in his infinite wisdom ‘arranged’ it so that each mitzvo can make sense on many different levels of existence. For example they can help a person develop desirable character traits and can enhance relationships.

We see this in many mitzvos: The laws of tumah and tahara are among the most difficult to fathom. However, the most relevant of these laws today, taharas mishpacha, has obvious benefits. The Gemara explains that it is very beneficial for husband and wife to separate for a certain time every month so that they can avoid the problem of lack of excitement in the relationship . Based on this Gemara, the Sefer Hachinuch writes that this advantage is one of the taamey hamitzvos of taharas mishpacha . This does not mean that the reason we keep taharas mishpacha is because it helps one’s relationship, however, it is no co-incidence that it does so, Hashem clearly ‘intended’ it to be that way.

Another example of this is the mitzvo of shechita. The Ramban writes that it does not effect Hashem whether we kill an animal by shechita, by nichor or by strangling. However, Hashem instructed us to kill the animal in the least cruel way in order to teach us the mida of rachmanus even at the time of killing . Again this does not mean that we slaughter animals the way we do because it will help us be more merciful, we do it that way purely because Hashem commanded us to. Nevertheless this does not take away from the fact that Hashem also intended for us to develop favourable midos through observing the mitzvos.

Thus, notwithstanding the fact that we cannot fathom the ultimate reason for the mitzvos, we can nonetheless understand taamim to the mitzvos that are emes on a certain level. With this understanding we can now appreciate why the commentaries held it was so important to teach us taamey hamitzvos. It is true that we keep the mitzvos solely because Hashem instructed us to, however, it is not sufficient that we merely do the mitzvo robotically, without any thought as to what we are doing. Mitzvos are intended to change us into better people, and the way that they do this is through the taamey hamitzvos. The Sefer Hachinuch tells us the shoresh to every mitzvo - why? So that we can have an idea of what we are supposed to gain from performing this mitzvo and we can work towards achieveing that benefit.

The issur of lashon hara demonstrates this idea. Rabbeinu Yonah explains the taam of this issur with a maaseh. A chacham was walking with his talmidim when they came across the corpse of a dead dog. One of the talmidim commented on how disgusting this corpse was. The chacham replied that it had very nice, white teeth . He was teaching his talmid the mida of focussing on the good. This, Rabbeinu Yonah writes, is the taam of shemiras halashon. There is no actual issur of lashon hara for focussing on the unpleasant aspects of a dead dog, however one who sees things in a negative fashion misses the point of the issur of lashon hara. It is not enough merely to not speak badly about others, the root of the mitzvo is to focus on the good in people. In refraining from speaking badly about others, one should strive to transform himself into a person with a positive outlook on life.

Learning from the taamey hamitzvos is not merely a profitable exercise, it is essential to one’s relationship with Hashem. The Ramban in the end of Parshas Bo explains why there are so many mitzvos that relate to Yetsias Mitzrayim. He says that their purpose is to instill in us a deep sense of emuna in Hashem and His hashgacha . It is not sufficient merely to put a mezuza on the doorposts of one’s home and kiss it now and again. We are supposed to see the mezuza and be reminded of the message inside it, that Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim and is continually guiding us in our lives.

The Ramban goes even further and says that, in reality the tachlis of all the mitzvos is to bring us close to Hashem and acknowledge that He is our creator. “This is the purpose of creation, for there is no other reason for our creation, and the only thing that Hashem wants from us is that we know and acknowledge Him. ” This process, whereby a person is brought closer to Hashem through observance of the Mitzvos is not automatic. If a person commits mitzvos out of habit then, although he may have technically fulfilled them, he has not utilised them to achieve their purpose; closeness to Hashem. Some mitzvos do this by directly arousing a person to awareness of Hashem and some do it by encouraging development of certain midos. But the common denominator of all of them is developing our emuna.

We have seen how parah aduma teaches us that we are obligated to fulfil mitzvos without questioning their logic, and yet at the same time, we are also obligated to understand the taamim of the mitzvos so that we can grow from them in the intended way.
A recommended way to achieve this is to spend some time analysing the taamey hamitzvos; there are many sources, one can look to the earlier sources such as Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and Sefer Hachinuch or turn to later commentaries such as Rav Hirsch or Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt”l. By doing this we can remind ourselves that each mitzvo has taamim that we are supposed to be aware of and use to grow from.

This is not an easy task because there is a strong yetser hara that allows us to do mitzvos as long as we miss their intended tachlis. The story is told of a Gadol who visited a home for the Friday night meal. As he and his host entered the house, they saw that the challah had not been covered as is the minhag. The host, upset at this failing in front of his honoured guest, proceeded to berate his hapless wife in front of his guest. After this outburst, the Gadol gently took him aside and asked him if he knew why we cover the challah? The reason is so as not to embarrass it when we bless on the wine before it. By embarrassing his wife the host demonstrated that he had clearly not internalised the message of this minhag. All the mitzvos have internal messages - it is up to us to learn them and use them in their intended way.

MACHLOKES - KORACH

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos describes the machlokes that Korach instigated against Moshe Rabbeinu as one that was ’sheloh leshem shamayim’. Sheloh leshem shamayim refers to selfish reasons such as desire of kavod. However, Chazal tell us that Korach and his cohorts confronted Moshe not with personal attacks but with genuine ideological issues. They argued that all the nation are holy and that they all heard Hashem give the Torah. Therefore, Moshe and Aharon had no right to take for themselves the two highest positions in the nation, rather everyone should equally share power. Although ultimately misguided, this argument seems understandable - how did the Mishna know that it was sheloh leshem shamayim? The answer is found in other sources in Chazal which tell us of Korach’s true motives in attacking Moshe and Aharon. Korach felt that he was next in line to be the leader of Kehathite family and was angered when his cousin Elizaphan was appointed to this position ahead of him. This triggered Korach to attack the leadership of Moshe and Aharon. Thus, it is clear that his ideological crusade was really a pretext for his desire for kavod - he posed as a genuine ‘defender of the people’ when in truth he was merely seeking out his own selfish interests. This led to the terrible aveiros that Korach committed and the devastating punishment that he and his supporters suffered - being swallowed in the ground for all eternity. Yet if one were to ask Korach himself if he were acting leshem shamayim or not then he would surely answer that he was - he convinced himself that he was right in his machlokes because he saw prophetically that among his offspring would be the great prophet Shmuel and twenty-four groups of Leviim who would prophesy with ruach hakodesh. Therefore he reasoned that he was surely justified in his argument with Moshe and Aharon. He failed to foresee, however, that his sons would repent and survive whilst he would disappear into oblivion.

There are many lessons that can be learned from Korach - one of the most important is that a person can be convinced that he is acting leshem shamayim in criticizing others whilst in reality he is simply being misled by his yetser hara. This nisayon is especially common in the Torah world - observant Jews believe that there is right and wrong - we reject the secular notion of relativist morality; that whatever one believes has validity. We believe in the truth and we are willing to fight for that belief. However, this hanhaga brings with it a great risk that, like Korach, the real kavanna behind it can be sheloh leshem shamayim and consequently it can lead to damaging machloksim . Rav Leib Gurwitz zt”l discusses this phenomenon in his sefer Meoray Shearim : He says that on leil Shabbos we praise Hashem as “He who spreads the shelter of peace upon us, upon all of his people Israel, and upon Yerushalayim.” Why do we specifically mention Yerushalayim, it should be automatically included in ‘Israel’? He answers that Yerushalayim is the home of talmidey chachamim who “commonly get involved in machloksim that, in their eyes, are leshem shamayim, and their kina is in their eyes leshem shamayim, therefore Yerushalayim needs a special tefilla for itself” to protect itself from the wrong type of machlokes. It is very easy to justify criticising individuals or groups of people on the grounds that it is leshem shamayim, however it requires a great deal of self-analysis for a person to be sure that he is indeed acting leshem shamayim, for if he is not, then the damage caused can be great. Moreover, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz Shlita points out that to criticise another group is considered lashon hara letoeles and like all toeles, one needs to fulfill the seven conditions that the Chofetz Chaim enumerates in order to be allowed to speak such criticism. One of those conditions is that the speaker feel no sense of enjoyment that he is criticising others. This is a very hard condition to genuinely fulfil, therefore, generally it better be left to Talmidey Chachamim to decide when it is appropriate to speak negatively about different groups within Klal Yisroel and for us to remain quiet. The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal zt”l echoed this sentiment. On one occasion “he said that only an exceptional tzaddik can dare speak critically of a group within Torah Jewry or its leader. Everyone else would do well to remain silent regarding such differences and focus their efforts on self-growth and yiras shamayim. ”

However, even if we do not get involved in ideological disagreements ourselves, Gedolim and Roshei Yeshivah have, at times, deemed it proper to speak out against attitudes or movements from within the Torah world that they have felt are wrong. It is clear that they were purely leshem shamayim in their intentions, not tainted by a desire for kavod or enjoyment of criticising others. Yet, there remains the risk that we misunderstand their words and apply it in a more personal way than was intended, again falling into the trap of lashon hara and machlokes. Consequently, there is always the risk that different groups within Torah Judaism can look down on one another and label them with negative descriptions. This is not just a mildly negative outcome, the Netziv writes that this was the attitude that led to the destruction of the 2nd Beis Hamikdash. Even though the people of that generation were tzadikim and ameilim b’Torah because “they had sinas chinam in their hearts and suspected anyone who they saw not acting in the way that they felt correct, as being a Tzadukki and Apkorus. ”

What is the correct way to approach disagreement? The answer to this can be seen in the other machlokes which Chazal contrast to that of Korach - the machlokes between Hillel and Shammai. Their machlokes is described as one which was leshem shamayim, there was no underlying personal motives in their disagreement, only the desire to get to the truth. A simun of this is that, despite the fact that they argued strongly in areas of halacha, that did not prevent their children from marrying each other. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but only if it is based on a sincere desire for emes. If it is, then the participants will not confuse ideological differences between personal hostility.

This attitude is exemplified in the following story involving Rav Segal zt”l. On one occasion, he had voiced criticism of a certain organisation and his opinion was greeted by some with great disfavour. The Rosh Yeshivah was unmoved by such opposition and held his ground. Finally, one of the oranisation’s directors decided to visit the Rosh Yeshivah and discuss the matter. Upon the man’s arrival, the Rosh Yeshiva presented him with a gift - a volume of Sefer Chofetz Chaim which he had inscribed with a warm blessing. The man stood dumbfounded, not comprehending why his adversary would want to offer him a gift. The Rosh Yeshivah explained, “It was R’Yisroel Salanter’s way to present a gift to someone with whom he had engaged in ideological debate , in order to make clear that the disagreement was purely ideological and not personal.”

We have seen that the key to preventing ideological disagreements from degenerating into personal hostility is to separate the individual from his behaviour or attitude. One can be wrong but at the same time still be a good person. This is not an easy separation to make. My rebbe suggests one way of making it easier is to study the hashkafa and halacha of bein adam lechaveiro - these give a person the Torah outlook of how to look at one’s fellow Jew, even if he acts in a way that you deem to be wrong. Beyond this, as we stated earlier, it is very advisable to not get involved in attacks on other organisations without strict guidance from a competent Rabbiniic authority. By working in this area then we can begin to metaken this type of sinas chinam - that which the Netziv said was the cause of the Churban Beis Hamikdash that we are still suffering from.

PURIYING OUR SPEECH - TAZRIA-METSORA

The Parshios of Tazria and Metsora discuss in length the spiritual malaise of tzoraas whereby a person is afflicted with white blotches on his skin. He must then experience a period of isolation and finally undergo a process of purification. Chazal tell us that this affliction comes about because of a person's sins, in particular that of lashon hara (negative speech) . The process that the metsora must undergo is intended to demonstrate to him the destructiveness of his sin and teach him how to improve himself in the future so that he avoid sinning in such a way again.

It seems that there are two lessons in particular that one who speaks lashon hara is taught during the period of his tzoraas: Firstly, Chazal tell us, "he caused separation between man and his friend [through his lashon hara] and therefore the Torah said that he must sit alone. " Speaking negatively about others inevitably causes friendships to break apart and people to distance themselves from each other. Therefore, measure for measure, one who speaks lashon hara is forced to live alone for a period of time, separated from others. This teaches him the pain that he causes by breaking up relationships. Secondly, the blotches themselves act as a potent demonstration of the damage that one who speaks lashon hara does to his neshama (soul). Tzoraas is not a regular physical illness, rather it is the physical manifestation of a spiritual malaise that offers indisputable evidence to the sinner that he has greatly damaged himself in a spiritual sense and is in desperate need of spiritual improvement .

Nowadays there is no tzoraas, and superficially this may seem like a good thing. However, the commentaries point out the exact opposite; tzoraas was a chessed (kindness) of Hashem in that He communicated very clearly to the sinner of his transgression and the need to do teshuva. Without this gift, it is immeasurably more difficult for a person to recognize when he has sinned. And yet, it is very clear that the sin of lashon hara remains as one of the most difficult to avoid. Indeed the Gemara writes that whilst a minority of people stumble in arayos , and a majority stumble in certain forms of theft; "everyone [stumbles] in avak lashon hara. " Given the apparently widespread transgression of lashon hara, what replacement is there for tzoraas - how can a person recognize the spiritual damage one causes himself when he speaks lashon hara and the extent of the damage that negative words can have on other people?

Rav Alexander Moshe Lapidus in his sefer, Divrei Emes answers this question . He notes that a person who had tzoraas had to go to a Kohen who would guide him through the process of teshuva. Now, there remains a Kohen who continually guides us how to rectify the sin of lashon hara - that is the Chofetz Chaim zt"l, whose sefarim on this topic are the ultimate authorities in the laws and Torah outlook about guarding ones speech. They teach a person about the damage he causes other when he speaks lashon hara and they show at length the harm that one who speaks lashon hara does to himself. The Chofetz Chaim himself writes in the name of the Maharsha, that when the Gemara says, everyone sins in avak lashon hara, it refers to everyone who does not make a conscious effort to improve his speech . However, if a person learns the laws and outlook about guarding one's speech then he will be able to avoid this pernicious sin. Whilst nobody in this generation is afflicted with tzoraas, it is apparent that everyone who does not work on himself in this area will inevitably speak at least avak lashon hara. Thus, the insight of the Divrei Emes teaches us that it is incumbent upon everyone to learn about the laws of lashon hara from the Chofetz Chaim.

One still may ask, why is it necessary to learn the laws of lashon hara, wouldn't it be sufficient to learn mussar about the damage it does, and thereby one would develop enough yiras Hashem (fear of Hashem) to avoid speaking lashon hara. The Chofetz Chaim addresses this issue in his introduction to his mussar sefer, Shemiras Halashon. He writes that it is not sufficient to learn this work alone, rather one has to also learn his halacho sefer, Chofetz Chaim: "What is the benefit of all the mussar in the world that speaks of the severity of the prohibitions of lashon hara and rechillus , since he has permitted himself saying that this thing is not included in lashon hara, or that the Torah did not prohibit speaking lashon hara about this kind of person, therefore one must know which things do fall in the category of lashon hara. " Thus, the Chofetz Chaim teaches us that without knowing the laws of lashon hara a person will inevitably stumble because he is not aware what constitutes forbidden speech.

A second reason for the importance of learning the laws of lashon hara can be derived from a teaching of Rav Yisroel Salanter: He taught that learning about a particular area of halacho is an excellent way of developing an awareness of ever stumbling in that specific area. Accordingly, when he would find himself in a situation that could potentially lead to transgression of yichud he would immerse himself in learning about it, thus ensuring that he would maintain constant vigilance in this area. In a similar vein, one Rav who taught beginners the laws and hashkafa of Shabbos, noted that far more people began keeping Shabbos as a result of his halacho classes than from those in hashkafa. He explained that when a person is learning about the laws of a melacha , it is far more difficult for him to blatantly transgress that very melacha on the following Shabbos. Similarly when a person is constantly learning the laws of lashon hara he is far more likely to be able to maintain awareness of his speech and ensure that he speaks no forbidden words.

Based on the constant test of speaking lashon hara and the Gemara's assertion that no one is free from this sin, it seems that the only way to improve in this area is through constant study of the laws and hashkafa of shemiras halashon (guarding ones speech). Accordingly, many Gedolim signed a document urging everyone to set aside a time to learn both Sefer Chofetz Chaim and Sefer Shemiras Halashon. Moreover, they instructed every institution head to try to include classes about guarding ones speech in the regular learning schedule . In this vein, the Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal zt"l developed a daily calendar for learning these two sefarim, and shortly before his passing, he asked the Chofetz Chaim foundation to produce the sefer, 'A Lesson a Day' which constitutes a short daily section on halacho and hashkafa . These Gedolim recognized that constant learning about shemiras halashon was the only way to ensure avoiding transgressing the severe prohibition of lashon hara.

In earlier times, one who spoke lashon hare was inflicted with tzoraas and guided by the Kohen in his teshuva process. Now, a person is not blessed with such a clear message, and therefore, and he must turn to the words of the great Kohen, the Chofetz Chaim to guide himself how to improve his speech through constantly learning his great sefarim. May we all be blessed with the ability to avoid all forms of negative speech.

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. 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 .

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 Segal 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.

DO NOT STAND OVER YOUR BROTHER’S BLOOD Part 2

DO NOT STAND OVER YOUR BROTHER’S BLOOD Part 2

Last week we began discussion of the Mitzva, ‘Do not stand over your brother’s blood’. We saw that this obligates us to do whatever is in our power to help our fellow when he is in difficulty. We discussed that one aspect of the Mitzva is to save him from physical harm.

Another aspect of the Mitzva is to save him from financial loss whenever possible. For example, if he plans to use his money in a way that you know is likely to have negative results, then you must try to prevent him from embarking on his plan.

This Mitzva is so important that it even allows us to speak lashon hara (negative speech) when necessary. For example, if you see that a person plans to be involved in business with an untrustworthy person then, if certain conditions are fulfilled, you are allowed, and in fact obligated to inform him that he should not trust this person. However, one must be very vigilant to ensure that he observe all the conditions that allow one to speak lashon hara for constructive reasons. Without any of these conditions, it is forbidden to speak out even to prevent one’s fellow from harm. The conditions are listed below.

1.We cannot make any critical statement about a person on the basis of information obtained through hearsay. Only through first-hand information may one assume that someone’s character or behavior is wanting . Even if we have personally witnessed seemingly unacceptable behavior we must not hastily pass judgment. Circumstances must be carefully investigated before we can be sure that we understand a situation correctly .

2.Before we relate negative information we must carefully consider whether or not our words will in fact bring about the desired result. For example, we may seek to discourage a a potentially harmful business association but often a final decision has already been make and speaking negatively of the other party will serve no constructive purpose.

3.Before speaking about a person with others, we must, if at all feasible, first discuss the issue with that person himself. For example, if someone is acting in an anti-social way speaking to the person himself may be effective, precluding the need to speak lashon hara. This condition does not apply if speaking to the sinner might make it more difficult to achieve the desired result through other means. An example of this is if we suspect someone of certain dishonesty - speaking to him may only succeed in causing him to be more careful not to get caught. In such a situation, we should not speak to him first.

4.If in addition to personal reproof, any other option exists that could preclude the necessity to speak negatively, it must be pursued.

5.Even if speaking negatively is necessary we should choose the least blatant means by which to communicate that information. Directing someone to where he will become aware of information on his own is preferable to expressing it verbally.

6.While derogatory information may be related for a constructive purpose, slander cannot be justified. In particular we must be very careful not to exaggerate - this is included within the definition of slander.

7.Having fulfilled all the above conditions we must be certain that his sole intent is for a constructive purpose. However, if we know that in our heart we are pleased to cast the person in a bad light then we are not permitted to speak - even though the purpose cannot be accomplished any other way. It is necessary first to eradicate any negative feelings towards that person and only then can the negative information be spoken.

MACHLOKES - KORACH

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos describes the machlokes that Korach instigated against Moshe Rabbeinu as one that was ’sheloh leshem shamayim’.[1] Sheloh leshem shamayim refers to selfish reasons such as desire of kavod. However, Chazal tell us that Korach and his cohorts confronted Moshe not with personal attacks but with genuine ideological issues. They argued that all the nation are holy and that they all heard Hashem give the Torah. Therefore, Moshe and Aharon had no right to take for themselves the two highest positions in the nation, rather everyone should equally share power. Although ultimately misguided, this argument seems understandable - how did the Mishna know that it was sheloh leshem shamayim? The answer is found in other sources in Chazal which tell us of Korach’s true motives in attacking Moshe and Aharon. Korach felt that he was next in line to be the leader of Kehathite family and was angered when his cousin Elizaphan was appointed to this position ahead of him. This triggered Korach to attack the leadership of Moshe and Aharon.[2] Thus, it is clear that his ideological crusade was really a pretext for his desire for kavod - he posed as a genuine ‘defender of the people’ when in truth he was merely seeking out his own selfish interests.[3] This led to the terrible aveiros that Korach committed and the devastating punishment that he and his supporters suffered - being swallowed in the ground for all eternity. Yet if one were to ask Korach himself if he were acting leshem shamayim or not then he would surely answer that he was - he convinced himself that he was right in his machlokes because he saw prophetically that among his offspring would be the great prophet Shmuel and twenty-four groups of Leviim who would prophesy with ruach hakodesh. Therefore he reasoned that he was surely justified in his argument with Moshe and Aharon. He failed to foresee, however, that his sons would repent and survive whilst he would disappear into oblivion.[4]

There are many lessons that can be learned from Korach - one of the most important is that a person can be convinced that he is acting leshem shamayim in criticizing others whilst in reality he is simply being misled by his yetser hara. This nisayon is especially common in the Torah world - observant Jews believe that there is right and wrong - we reject the secular notion of relativist morality; that whatever one believes has validity. We believe in the truth and we are willing to fight for that belief. However, this hanhaga brings with it a great risk that, like Korach, the real kavanna behind it can be sheloh leshem shamayim and consequently it can lead to damaging machloksim . Rav Leib Gurwitz zt”l discusses this phenomenon in his sefer Meoray Shearim[5]: He says that on leil Shabbos we praise Hashem as “He who spreads the shelter of peace upon us, upon all of his people Israel, and upon Yerushalayim.” Why do we specifically mention Yerushalayim, it should be automatically included in ‘Israel’? He answers that Yerushalayim is the home of talmidey chachamim who “commonly get involved in machloksim that, in their eyes, are leshem shamayim, and their kina is in their eyes leshem shamayim, therefore Yerushalayim needs a special tefilla for itself” to protect itself from the wrong type of machlokes. It is very easy to justify criticising individuals or groups of people on the grounds that it is leshem shamayim, however it requires a great deal of self-analysis for a person to be sure that he is indeed acting leshem shamayim, for if he is not, then the damage caused can be great. Moreover, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz Shlita points out that to criticise another group is considered lashon hara letoeles and like all toeles, one needs to fulfill the seven conditions that the Chofetz Chaim enumerates in order to be allowed to speak such criticism. One of those conditions is that the speaker feel no sense of enjoyment that he is criticising others. This is a very hard condition to genuinely fulfil, therefore, generally it better be left to Talmidey Chachamim to decide when it is appropriate to speak negatively about different groups within Klal Yisroel and for us to remain quiet. The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal zt”l echoed this sentiment. On one occasion “he said that only an exceptional tzaddik can dare speak critically of a group within Torah Jewry or its leader. Everyone else would do well to remain silent regarding such differences and focus their efforts on self-growth and yiras shamayim.[6]”

However, even if we do not get involved in ideological disagreements ourselves, Gedolim and Roshei Yeshivah have, at times, deemed it proper to speak out against attitudes or movements from within the Torah world that they have felt are wrong. It is clear that they were purely leshem shamayim in their intentions, not tainted by a desire for kavod or enjoyment of criticising others. Yet, there remains the risk that we misunderstand their words and apply it in a more personal way than was intended, again falling into the trap of lashon hara and machlokes. Consequently, there is always the risk that different groups within Torah Judaism can look down on one another and label them with negative descriptions. This is not just a mildly negative outcome, the Netziv writes that this was the attitude that led to the destruction of the 2nd Beis Hamikdash. Even though the people of that generation were tzadikim and ameilim b’Torah because “they had sinas chinam in their hearts and suspected anyone who they saw not acting in the way that they felt correct, as being a Tzadukki and Apkorus.[7]”

What is the correct way to approach disagreement? The answer to this can be seen in the other machlokes which Chazal contrast to that of Korach - the machlokes between Hillel and Shammai. Their machlokes is described as one which was leshem shamayim, there was no underlying personal motives in their disagreement, only the desire to get to the truth. A simun of this is that, despite the fact that they argued strongly in areas of halacha, that did not prevent their children from marrying each other.[8] There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but only if it is based on a sincere desire for emes. If it is, then the participants will not confuse ideological differences between personal hostility.

This attitude is exemplified in the following story involving Rav Segal zt”l. On one occasion, he had voiced criticism of a certain organisation and his opinion was greeted by some with great disfavour. The Rosh Yeshivah was unmoved by such opposition and held his ground. Finally, one of the oranisation’s directors decided to visit the Rosh Yeshivah and discuss the matter. Upon the man’s arrival, the Rosh Yeshiva presented him with a gift - a volume of Sefer Chofetz Chaim which he had inscribed with a warm blessing. The man stood dumbfounded, not comprehending why his adversary would want to offer him a gift. The Rosh Yeshivah explained, “It was R’Yisroel Salanter’s way to present a gift to someone with whom he had engaged in ideological debate , in order to make clear that the disagreement was purely ideological and not personal.”[9]
We have seen that the key to preventing ideological disagreements from degenerating into personal hostility is to separate the individual from his behaviour or attitude. One can be wrong but at the same time still be a good person. This is not an easy separation to make. My rebbe suggests one way of making it easier is to study the hashkafa and halacha of bein adam lechaveiro - these give a person the Torah outlook of how to look at one’s fellow Jew, even if he acts in a way that you deem to be wrong. Beyond this, as we stated earlier, it is very advisable to not get involved in attacks on other organisations without strict guidance from a competent Rabbiniic authority. By working in this area then we can begin to metaken this type of sinas chinam - that which the Netziv said was the cause of the Churban Beis Ha
[1] Avos 5:17
[2] Bamidbar Rabbah 18:2
[3] This explanation was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita.
[4] Tanchuma 5 quoted by Rashi 16:7 and Bamidbar Rabbah 18:8.
[5] Quoted in Hameor Sheb’avos, p.405.
[6] Finkelman & Weiss, The Manchester Rosh Yeshivah, p.355.
[7] Emek Davar, Hakdama to Parshas Bereishis.
[8] Yevamos 13a,b.
[9] Ibid, p.279.

PURIYING OUR SPEECH - TAZRIA-METSORA

The Parshios of Tazria and Metsora discuss in length the spiritual malaise of tzoraas whereby a person is afflicted with white blotches on his skin. He must then experience a period of isolation and finally undergo a process of purification. Chazal tell us that this affliction comes about because of a person's sins, in particular that of lashon hara (negative speech)[1]. The process that the metsora must undergo is intended to demonstrate to him the destructiveness of his sin and teach him how to improve himself in the future so that he avoid sinning in such a way again.

It seems that there are two lessons in particular that one who speaks lashon hara is taught during the period of his tzoraas: Firstly, Chazal tell us, "he caused separation between man and his friend [through his lashon hara] and therefore the Torah said that he must sit alone.[2]" Speaking negatively about others inevitably causes friendships to break apart and people to distance themselves from each other. Therefore, measure for measure, one who speaks lashon hara is forced to live alone for a period of time, separated from others. This teaches him the pain that he causes by breaking up relationships. Secondly, the blotches themselves act as a potent demonstration of the damage that one who speaks lashon hara does to his neshama (soul). Tzoraas is not a regular physical illness, rather it is the physical manifestation of a spiritual malaise that offers indisputable evidence to the sinner that he has greatly damaged himself in a spiritual sense and is in desperate need of spiritual improvement[3].

Nowadays there is no tzoraas, and superficially this may seem like a good thing. However, the commentaries point out the exact opposite; tzoraas was a chessed (kindness) of Hashem in that He communicated very clearly to the sinner of his transgression and the need to do teshuva. Without this gift, it is immeasurably more difficult for a person to recognize when he has sinned. And yet, it is very clear that the sin of lashon hara remains as one of the most difficult to avoid. Indeed the Gemara writes that whilst a minority of people stumble in arayos[4], and a majority stumble in certain forms of theft; "everyone [stumbles] in avak lashon hara.[5]" Given the apparently widespread transgression of lashon hara, what replacement is there for tzoraas - how can a person recognize the spiritual damage one causes himself when he speaks lashon hara and the extent of the damage that negative words can have on other people?

Rav Alexander Moshe Lapidus in his sefer, Divrei Emes answers this question[6]. He notes that a person who had tzoraas had to go to a Kohen who would guide him through the process of teshuva. Now, there remains a Kohen who continually guides us how to rectify the sin of lashon hara - that is the Chofetz Chaim zt"l, whose sefarim on this topic[7] are the ultimate authorities in the laws and Torah outlook about guarding ones speech. They teach a person about the damage he causes other when he speaks lashon hara and they show at length the harm that one who speaks lashon hara does to himself. The Chofetz Chaim himself writes in the name of the Maharsha, that when the Gemara says, everyone sins in avak lashon hara, it refers to everyone who does not make a conscious effort to improve his speech[8]. However, if a person learns the laws and outlook about guarding one's speech then he will be able to avoid this pernicious sin. Whilst nobody in this generation is afflicted with tzoraas, it is apparent that everyone who does not work on himself in this area will inevitably speak at least avak lashon hara. Thus, the insight of the Divrei Emes teaches us that it is incumbent upon everyone to learn about the laws of lashon hara from the Chofetz Chaim.

One still may ask, why is it necessary to learn the laws of lashon hara, wouldn't it be sufficient to learn mussar about the damage it does, and thereby one would develop enough yiras Hashem (fear of Hashem) to avoid speaking lashon hara. The Chofetz Chaim addresses this issue in his introduction to his mussar[9] sefer, Shemiras Halashon. He writes that it is not sufficient to learn this work alone, rather one has to also learn his halacho sefer, Chofetz Chaim: "What is the benefit of all the mussar in the world that speaks of the severity of the prohibitions of lashon hara and rechillus[10], since he has permitted himself saying that this thing is not included in lashon hara, or that the Torah did not prohibit speaking lashon hara about this kind of person, therefore one must know which things do fall in the category of lashon hara.[11]" Thus, the Chofetz Chaim teaches us that without knowing the laws of lashon hara a person will inevitably stumble because he is not aware what constitutes forbidden speech.

A second reason for the importance of learning the laws of lashon hara can be derived from a teaching of Rav Yisroel Salanter: He taught that learning about a particular area of halacho is an excellent way of developing an awareness of ever stumbling in that specific area. Accordingly, when he would find himself in a situation that could potentially lead to transgression of yichud[12] he would immerse himself in learning about it, thus ensuring that he would maintain constant vigilance in this area. In a similar vein, one Rav who taught beginners the laws and hashkafa of Shabbos, noted that far more people began keeping Shabbos as a result of his halacho classes than from those in hashkafa. He explained that when a person is learning about the laws of a melacha[13], it is far more difficult for him to blatantly transgress that very melacha on the following Shabbos. Similarly when a person is constantly learning the laws of lashon hara he is far more likely to be able to maintain awareness of his speech and ensure that he speaks no forbidden words.

Based on the constant test of speaking lashon hara and the Gemara's assertion that no one is free from this sin, it seems that the only way to improve in this area is through constant study of the laws and hashkafa of shemiras halashon (guarding ones speech). Accordingly, many Gedolim[14] signed a document urging everyone to set aside a time to learn both Sefer Chofetz Chaim and Sefer Shemiras Halashon. Moreover, they instructed every institution head[15] to try to include classes about guarding ones speech in the regular learning schedule[16]. In this vein, the Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal zt"l developed a daily calendar for learning these two sefarim, and shortly before his passing, he asked the Chofetz Chaim foundation to produce the sefer, 'A Lesson a Day' which constitutes a short daily section on halacho and hashkafa[17]. These Gedolim recognized that constant learning about shemiras halashon was the only way to ensure avoiding transgressing the severe prohibition of lashon hara.

In earlier times, one who spoke lashon hare was inflicted with tzoraas and guided by the Kohen in his teshuva process. Now, a person is not blessed with such a clear message, and therefore, and he must turn to the words of the great Kohen, the Chofetz Chaim to guide himself how to improve his speech through constantly learning his great sefarim. May we all be blessed with the ability to avoid all forms of negative speech.

[1] Arachin, 15b-16a.
[2] Arachin, 16b.
[3] See Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch zt"l who proves at length that tzoraas is not the same as the physical sickness of leprosy.
[4] Translated as immorality.
[5] Bava Basra, 165a. Avak literally means 'dust'. Avak lashon hara is known as the 'dust' of lashon hara in that it does not constitute the Torah prohibited lashon hara, but it represents a number of forms of speech that are forbidden by the Rabbis because of their resemblance to lashon hara or their likelihood in leading one to speak the lashon hara that is prohibited by the Torah. See Sefer Chofetz Chaim, Hilchos Lashon Hara, Klal 9 for a thorough outline of avak lashon hara.
[6] Quoted in Lekach Tov, Parshas Tazria, p.107.
[7] The sefer, Chofetz Chaim discusses the laws of lashon hara and Shemiras Halashon outlines the Torah's outlook about lashon hara.
[8] Shemiras Halashon, Ch.15.
[9] The word, 'mussar' is usually translated as growth, although the root of the word comes from the same root as yissurim, which means suffering, teaching that the process of self-growth can be a painful one.
[10] 'Rechillus' is another form of prohibited speech in which Reuven informs Shimon of how Levi spoke badly about Shimon, thus causing great damage to their relationship.
[11] Introduction to Shemiras Halashon, p.17.
[12] Yichud (literally meaning alone) is the prohibition to be alone with a member of the opposite gender in certain circumstances.
[13] A creative form of activity that is prohibited on Shabbos.
[14] Including, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l, The Steipler Gaon zt"l, the Beis Yisroel zt"l, Rav Wosner Shlita and many others.
[15] Including the Rav of a community, a head of a Yeshiva katana or a head of a Seminary.
[16] Kriah Gedolah found at the beginning of 'A Lesson a Day'.
[17] Also found at the beginning of 'A Lesson a Day'.

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.