Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Vayetzei – Don’t Ask for Too Much

This Dvar Torah is dedicated l’iluy nishmas Chana Chaya bas Chaim Yachnes, a woman loved by all who knew her, May she be a melitza yosher for gantz Klal Yisrael, amen.



Did you ever wonder why Rochel named her first child Yosef? In this week’s Torah portion of Vayetzei the Torah states in perek 30:

23 And she conceived and bore a son, and she said, “G-D has taken away my reproach.” כגוַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֑ן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר אָסַ֥ף אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־חֶרְפָּתִֽי:
24So she named him Yosef, saying, “May Hashem grant me yet another son!” כדוַתִּקְרָ֧א אֶת־שְׁמ֛וֹ יוֹסֵ֖ף לֵאמֹ֑ר יֹסֵ֧ף יְהֹוָ֛ה לִ֖י בֵּ֥ן אַחֵֽר:

The Rashbam says that Rochel could have named him Asaf, for Hashem ‘taking away her humiliation’ but she called him Yosef because she prayed to have another child so both names were in mind. Rashi adds: “She knew through prophecy that Jacob was destined to establish only twelve tribes. She said, “May it be His will that the one He is destined to establish be from me.” Therefore, she prayed only for another son [and no more]. — [from Gen. Rabbah 72:6]” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Ralbag, however, understands the pasuk as not saying that Rochel had prophesy, but rather the reason behind the prayer was purely practical. “It’s appropriate when asking for a favor or grace [from Hashem] to not ask for something big because maybe He will decisively reject giving the favor altogether. For this reason, you will find that Rochel only asked for one more son so that she will have at least one more child. She did not ask for many children. For this reason, you will find by Yaakov that he only asked from the Blessed Hashem for bread to eat and clothes to wear. For this reason, it’s observed that the blessing of a prophet is calculated according to the one receiving it because he will not beseech Hashem for an abundance of good, more than deserved.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Hashem is the All-knowing, Almighty, who can certainly do whatever He wants; therefore He has the ability to grant even a surplus of things if someone beseeches Him for that. Even if He doesn’t want to, or doesn’t think it is appropriate, why can a person not pray for an abundance of something and be satisfied with whatever he or she gets? It’s still connecting with Hashem and trusting Him, and if he doesn’t get all that he asks for; wouldn’t he be satisfied with what he does get? Why then does the Ralbag say he might get nothing if he asks for abundance? If one asks for a little and his or her prayers aren’t answered wouldn’t that person possibly question Hashem for not answering his or her prayers just as much as the person who asked for a lot and didn’t get all of it would seemingly question Hashem, which is probably why he or she will in the end get nothing?

It would seem that Hashem is unlikely to accept prayers asking for an abundance, but rather is ready to accept prayers asking for just what a person feels they need next. The reason must be because prayers for an abundance are really not full– hearted, and are more of a general plea,on which people would be willing to accept whatever they can get. For this reason, Hashem might not give them anything if He sees their intent, kavana, is not pure and strong. Asking in this fashion creates an attitude and feeling that one doesn’t need to pray as hard as they should. But when one is asking for a little, just enough for the next thing he wants or needs, then his davening will be more authentic, with greater kavana, intent and emotion, and therefore Hashem will be more receptive. And if he sees Hashem isn’t answering his pleas, there is more of a chance that he will understand that he himself isn’t praying hard enough, and he will try to redouble his intent before giving up or settling for what he has.

This is why Rochel only asked for one more son and Yaakov only asked for food to eat and clothes to cover his back, and why the prophet can only ask for what the person deserves, since the intent of the recipient will be more authentic.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #210

Question: Why does the Eshel Avraham hold that drinking coffee with milk in the morning is enough sustenance, the same as having bread for breakfast?

Background:

 A. The Mishna Berura (155:2:11) says that before going to the Beis medrish one can eat bread for breakfast if that is what he is use too, and it’s good to make it a habit, as it says in the gemara: There are 83 types of sicknesses caused by bile in the gall bladder and a kibeitzah (egg measurement as per the pri megadim) of bread with salt and cup of water in the morning can prevent it. And it’s a mitzvah to act with good attributes and in good measure to protect one’s health in order to be strong so that one can serve Hashem. (Parenthetically Rav Rav Shmuel Wasner zt”l says that if one doesn’t eat breakfast properly he is not a sinner because this wasn’t enacted by the Rabbis as a mitzvah but rather only as good advice and the proper thing to do, like a queasy mitzvah.

B. The Pri Megadim says that it doesn’t have to be specifically bread but any mezonos, cakes, cookies, crackers, pizza (pas haba bikisnen) will suffice, however a cooked dish even something like pasta, oatmeal or cream of wheat would not suffice.

Answer: Since the milk in the coffee has enough vitamins and minerals in it that suffices to sustain the person for this purpose. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura footnote 8.)

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 8

There are many cases that fit into the category of avak rechilus, the dust of rechilus or quasi rechilus, which means you say something which isn’t negative, but the listener might take it negative and therefore it’s forbidden to say. Here are a few examples, please use your head to apply to cases elsewhere:

1. Gary at Todd, how is David doing? Todd says I don’t want to talk about it, or shhhhh, I don’t want to tell you what happened or what’s going to be with him. The point is Todd is obviously hinting to something bad that David is involved with, and Gary might now think up negative thoughts about David which might be or might not be true, but they are negative so it’s avak rechilus, even if the words that Todd said were not negative at all. If Todd had a negative tinge to his voice, then it could be real rechilus especially if Gary is looking for something, has an agenda to know what’s happening with David, but at the very least it is still avak rechilus. The best thing to say is David is fine and moves on with the conversation.

2. If you praise a person in front of someone else, not just his enemy, even loved ones or partners in business, if they will get upset then you can’t praise the person in front of them. For example you praise someone’s partner or spouse in front of their face on how much tzedaka he or she gives, or leant you a big loan, and the like. They might get and think how is just wasting or spending money without calculating, the business will go down the drains or he doesn’t care enough about the family etc. It might lead to arguments or even break ups. This only applies to telling people about big gifts or big loans or the like. This is why the gemara in Erichin 15a says “Do speak praise of your friend because through good it will come to bad.”

3. If you ask a favor from someone and he said I can’t do it. You can’t say back so and so told me you did this favor for him so why can’t you do it for me? The guy might get upset at the one he did the favor to because he told someone else what you did. And even if you don’t tell him that he told you that this guy did a favor for him, you just say I know you’ve done this favor for other people and it’s he knows who must have told him, that us still avak rechilus, because now he will be upset at the person, he originally did the favor to. 4. If you say something that you heard, that could be taken 2 ways. For example, if you tell someone I heard from so and so that you always have a fire on in your kitchen cooking meat and fish all the time. That could mean he’s a glutton and his wife is always cooking for him tons of delicacies to eat or they always have a lot of guests and she cooks up a storm all the time. He might have taken it the wrong way and think so and so was calling him a glutton and feel insulted. We see the severity of this issue from a Yerushalmi in Peah 1:1 with the Pnei Moshe who says that the Angel’s changed what Sarah said when they spoke to Avraham. Instead of saying she laughed and said my husband is old they said that she said I am old. Even though it was the reality and not an insult but it was like avak lashon hara so it was worth lying for this is the severity of avak lashon hara and avak rechilus.

5. The Chofetz Chaim quoting Rabbeinu Yona says this is worse than any other avak rechilus: A person must keep secret a secret his friend confided in him about, even though revealing the secret might not be rechilus but it could cause damage to the person who said the secret and might psychologically disturb him if he finds out the secret was leaked. Also it’s a lack of modesty to reveal a secret and he is just going against the words of the person who entrusted him with that secret.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #209

 

Question: What’s the difference between eating and drinking in regards to feeding your animal first where there is a mitzvah to give food to your animal before you eat but you don’t have to give a drink to your animal before you drink?

 Background:

 A. The Mishna Berura (167:6:40) says that if a person says a bracha, before taking a bite, besides being allowed to ask for the salt, or telling someone to pass a piece to someone, he can also say please feed the pet because there is a mitzvah to feed animals before you eat so if you forgot and said a bracha and about to eat then you can tell someone to feed the animals before he takes a bite. But in terms of drinking a person has the right to drink before his animals as we see that Rivka first gave water to Eliezer then the camels at the well.

B. There can be issues of getting too busy or suffering.

Answer: Footnote 31 in the Dirshu says in the name of the Ksav Sofer and Har Tzvi that a person will more easily get distracted while eating and forget to feed his animals then while drinking. Or a person is in more pain over thirst than over hunger so he has a right to drink first. The Ohr Hachaim adds that if he has a lot of hunger pains then he can eat first then feed animals.

Posted on

Toldos – Unwavering Dedication to Mesorah


In this week’s Torah Portion of Toldos, Yitzchak is found in Gerar due to another famine in the Land of Canaan. Yitzchak became very wealthy when in Gerar and the Torah relates, “And he had possessions of sheep and possessions of cattle and much production, and the Philistines envied him. And all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the days of Avraham his father the Philistines stopped them up and filled them with earth. And Avimelech said to Yitzchak, ‘Go away from us, for you have become much stronger than we.’ And Yitzchak went away from there, and he encamped in the valley of Gerar and dwelt there. And Yitzchak again dug the wells of water which they had dug in the days of his father, Avraham, and the Philistines had stopped them up after Avraham’s death; and he gave them names like the names that his father had given them” (Breishis 26:14-18).
Rabbeinu Bachye elaborates on this episode. “The Torah is telling us that because of the jealousy the Plishtim felt they should close up the wells that were dug in the days of Avraham, his father, in order so that Yitzchak can’t make use of them for his crops and flock to drink. Yitzchak wound up overtaking them and digging up the wells and called them by the same names as his father. He did this in honor of his father. The fact that the Torah mentioned this seems to mean it was a merit to Yitzchak. There is inspiration to be learned from here and all the more so that one should not go against the ways of his forefathers. For we see that Yitzchak didn’t even want to change the names of the wells of his father all the more so one should follow the path of his forefathers, their customs and their mussar, (morality). And perhaps for this reason his name was not changed as our other forefathers, which was measure for measure. This is the explanation of the Gaon zt”l.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 We see from here that Yitzchak was so meticulous with following the ways of his father that even the wells that he had uncovered from when his father had first dug them were renamed the same names as his father had named them.
This was a gesture of respect for his father, to name the wells by the names his father had called them. Yet couldn’t he have shown his father even more respect by, let’s say renaming the wells after the many positive traits of his father, or something of the like, which would seemingly have been a greater honor to the memory of his father? What would have been the big deal if Yitzchak had changed the names of the wells?

It would seem that using the names his father had given to the wells is a greater honor to his father than naming them after his father. There also seems to be a connection to doing this simple act and the much broader picture of following his father’s morals and ways of life. This seems to be because adherence to tradition, to mesorah, in even the simplest of acts, reinforces our commitment to the ways of one’s parents and forefathers. Changing from these ways, as opposed to adaptation which might be needed at times, even if the change might seem  better, is a breech in the system of mesorah, which most definitely would lead to further excuses to change and possibly even eventual complete break away from the proper ways and customs of one’s family, religion and proper morals.

 Because of Yitzchak’s meticulous adherence to his family and their mesorah, measure for measure Hashem rewarded him with not needing to change his name.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 7 halachos 3-5

Halacha 3: Makes no difference if you spoke rechilus to the subject himself or to his relatives, even if you tell them to keep it a secret because they will still get angry and bear a grudge against someone who said or did something to his or her relative. Surely to not tell them to keep it a secret is forbidden because word spreads and the subject will find out and fights will escalate but even if they won’t tell him, it’s forbidden whether it’s an outright negative statement or it can be taken either way, telling the relatives we can assume the relatives will take a negative slant and defend their family. However, if you tell a total stranger what someone did to someone else and tell him to keep it a secret that is fine because nothing can escalate.

 Halacha 4: Rechilus is a problem whether you are telling on a Jew to another or to a non-Jew and it’s even worse telling a non-Jew because no doubt he will cause trouble for the would be suspect and might even be life threatening. This means even telling a non-Jew that this Jewish prodect you bought isn’t so good or the job the Jew did for you wasn’t a great job and the like. However, if it is really true that the Jew sold the non-Jew something broken or really did a terrible job the there is an obligation to tell the non-Jew based on the pasuk of “righteousness, righteousness you shall run after” (Devarim 16:20). The Jews are holy; just and upright, therefore we have to adhere to doing the right thing and if one of us did wrong even to a non-Jew we can’t cover it up. However, if the matter is relative or false then it is certainly rechilus.

Halacha 5: You can’t accept rechilus from anyone just like lashon hara even from your wife. It’s extra critical when your wife is telling you about her day, she is allowed to vent but if she starts telling you how she heard how someone said something or did something not nice to you then you can’t show your interest in what she is saying and you should politely and nicely show your disinterest and figure out a way to nicely tell her you don’t want to here about it. This is because what she is saying is rechilus and if you agreeably listen now she will speak rechilus again some other time and it will cause a lot of anger, frustration, arguments and eventually depression.

Posted on

Chaye Sarah-Proper Etiquette

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.


Many people are embarrassed by their hair going gray, yet on the contrary it is a crown of glory as the Medrish Tanchuma (3) at the very end of the piece on this week’s parsha concludes: “Another interpretation, ‘You were dressed in glory and splendor’ from Your glory and Your splendor You dressed Avraham’s head that You gave him glory in his old age as it says ‘and Avraham was old'”. The Etz Yosef explains that Hashem attributed the pasuk in Daniel 7:9, “His hair like clean wool” to Avraham. We see in fact that a head of white hair is actually a glorified crown on the head of a person.
 The Medrish Tanchuma elaborates in more detail about this concept in his first piece on the parsha based on the pasuk, “Now Avraham was old, well on in years, and Hashem had blessed Avraham with everything” (Breishis 24:1). The Medrish Tanchuma begins the parsha of Chayei Sarah by stressing the importance of being focused and having a clear mind while praying.The medrish then says, “There was no person who focused all his mind and intent in prayer like Avraham Avinu, who said before Hashem, ‘You should not do something like this.’ When Hashem saw that he was beseeching a merit for the world not to be destroyed, He started praising him and saying ‘You are more beautiful beyond any other man etc.’ (Tehillim 45:3). [Avraham]said back to [Hashem], what beauty do I have, when my son and I walk into a city they can’t differentiate between the father and the son because a person lives 100 or 200 years and doesn’t grow old! Avraham [further] said, Master of the Universe, You must differentiate between the father and son and between the young and the old, so that the elder will be distinguished by the youth. Hashem said back to him that I swear I will start with you. [Avraham] went his way and went to sleep that night and got up in the morning. Upon waking up he found that the hair on his head and beard had turned white. He said before Him, Master of the Universe, you made me an example! He said back to him, ‘The crown of splendor is old age’ (Tehillim 16:32). ‘The glory of elders is old age’ (Tehillim 20:29). That is why it says, ‘And Avraham was old.'”

The Anaf Yosefasks a blatant question on this medrish; “it already wrote by the destruction of Sodom ‘from the young to the old’ and Lot’s daughters said, ‘Our father is old’? Even by Avraham, himself, the Torah writes that Sarah said ‘My master is old,’ it also writes, ‘And Avraham and Sarah were old;‘ so why is this pasuk of ‘and Avraham was old’ any better than those pesukim to be indicative that white hair only started at this point? He answers that the feeling of being old out of living for most of one’s years was already felt in the world, but there was no recognition in the world of elderliness recognizable by hair graying, and therefore people who wanted to talk with Avraham would talk to Yitzchak. For this reason, Avraham asked for mercy that old age would be recognizable by the whitening of hair. The medrish is learning from this pasuk when it says ‘ Avraham was old well into his days’ though it wrote earlier before Yitzchak was born, ‘And my master is old’ as well as ‘And Avraham and Sarah were old’ for Avraham was then 100 years old. But the pasuk here was written after that for Yitzchak also had a nice long beard at this point and whoever wanted to speak with Avraham would mistakenly start speaking with Yitzchak, and therefore Avraham requested mercy that his hair would turn white.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Until that point people had felt their innards growing old, the aches and pains that come with old age; but nothing substantially different on the outside. Therefore, Yitzchak and Avraham, two great sages with long beards, looked the same, and people approached Yitzchak instead of Avraham if they went to a city of people who didn’t know them. Was Avraham jealous of Yitzchak? Why would he be, the Torah says Avraham had everything, he was an incredibly great tzadik and had nothing to be jealous about, especially over his own son. On the contrary, it should have been a source of great pride that his son was being treated with such respect and if Avraham felt someone really was supposed to be talking to him, he could politely say excuse me, I think you really wanted to speak to me, and Yitzchak could even direct the stranger to Avraham. So why did Avraham pray for his hair to turn white, asking for mercy, as if something terrible was happening every time he walked into a city with his son and they approached Yitzchak instead of him?

We must say that proper etiquette and basic manners is to first approach and speak to the elder before the younger person accompanying him and a breach of derech Eretz, proper manners might lead to a breakdown in society which Avraham did not want to cause so he beseeched from Hashem to change nature and have hair whiten in old age, which is the crown jewel of an elder who deserves the proper respect due to a person who has many years of experience in life.

Posted on

Vayera – Sanity Together Through the Will of Hashem

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.
In this week’s Torah portion of Vayera, perek 20, Avraham goes down to Gerar and there is a confrontation between Avraham, the populace, and Avimelech, the king. In this encounter  Avraham, scared, feels he must tell them that Sarah is his sister in order to save his own life.

Unlike when Avraham went down to Egypt because of a famine, and when Yitzchak went to Gerar because of a famine, the Torah does not mention that Avraham went to Gerar because of a famine. Why then did he go there? The Radak says he traveled from there to the Land of Plishtim in order to dwell in every spot that Hashem promised him he would inherit so that he will have acquired every portion of the land. Plishtim was also part of the inheritance, belonging to the tribe of Yehuda as mentioned in Yehoshua 13:3. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

In fact, when they get to Gerar the pasuk says “Avimelech, the king of Gerar sent [soldiers] and took Sarah” (20:2). Rabbeinu Bachye asks, “After Sarah was taken in Egypt to Pharaoh and a great miracle happened, that great blemishes started showing up [on Pharaoh and his palace,] which forced him to return her, then why did he now go down to Gerar, and say she is my sister, is it appropriate to rely on a miracle each time, maybe a miracle won’t happen this time? Rabbeinu Chanannel zt”l writes that now when he came to Gerar, he divorced her because he was afraid that they would kill him if he would say she is his wife. Nevertheless, Hashem didn’t let him be totally separated from her and leave such a righteous woman by a wicked man because it’s not right to let the scepter of the wicked be left on the fate of the righteous. This divorce was under duress, and this is why Hashem told [Avimelech in a dream] that she is married, for it wasn’t a complete divorce.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Avraham, out of fear for his life not only said what appears to be a white lie, although it did contain an element of truth since Sarah was indeed his niece, the daughter of his brother, so she was like a sister once removed. (See the end of this piece in the Rabbeinu Bachye.) In order to minimize the reliance on a miracle, which there is a rule in Jewish Law that one should not rely on miracles, rather believe they can happen if Hashem wants them to happen, Avraham even divorced his wife. And even though he was motivated by fear, and therefore Hashem didn’t allow the separation to be complete, and Avraham, unbeknownst to himself at the time, but undoubtedly thankful afterwards, was in fact still married to Sarah.  Therefore Hashem decided a miracle once again was needed to be performed, to save Sarah’s dignity and life.

Eventually, after Avimelech gave Sarah back to Avraham, he insisted on making a peace treaty with Avraham, and Avraham acquiesced. Later in the next perek the Torah relates, “And Avraham contended with Avimelech about the well of water that the servants of Avimelech had forcibly seized” (Breishis 21:25). The Ralbag learns two lessons from this pasuk (Click here for Hebrew text.): 

  1. It is proper for a person to distance himself as much as possible from any sense of oppression in business and of stealing. We see this from the fact that Avraham rebuked Avimelech even though he was the king, over the robbery that his servants oppressed Avraham with, thinking that it was done under the king’s command.
  2. A person should be brave-hearted when appropriate and soft of heart when appropriate. For we see that Avraham Avinu was originally afraid of Avimelech and therefore said about Sarah that she was his sister, out of fear of being killed. But now he strengthened himself to claim against the king about the king’s servants oppressing him, so that it will be clear to him that Avimelech did not want anything bad to be done to him since Avimelech was seeking out peace with him.

 Fear is an emotional reaction which is inborn and very hard to control and to turn on and off. Even if Avraham was a good actor, it is known that actors go crazy from constantly playing different roles and changing their emotions on a sporadic basis. In reality we can assume Avraham wasn’t acting; so how was he able to control his emotions? What’s even more astounding is that the Ralbag says what he did should be a lesson for everyone to emulate. How can we be expected to control our emotions and be brave-hearted at the appropriate times, and soft-hearted at the appropriate times?

However, if one was to analyze what Avraham did and felt, and the motivations behind them, there is a common thread which binds it all together. That is doing Hashem’s will. Hashem wanted him to go place to place to live in every single spot he would be inheriting. Hashem did not want him to rely on miracles, and Hashem wanted him to admonish unlawful business, violence, and theft.

 Therefore there will be times where Hashem will want him to be in a state of natural fear because no one really wants to die, it’s instinctive to want to stay alive. He was also afraid of relying on a miracle to be saved from death, so he felt he had to reduce that threat of relying on a miracle by divorcing his wife, which Avraham thought was Hashem’s will. But when Avimelech’s servants robbed Avraham’s wells he got angry and stood up to King Avimelech because he thought they confiscated them under his direction. If you look closely at the Ralbag he did not “strengthen his heart” because Avimelech’s servants took something away from him, being a personal issue, rather because he felt he had to rebuke the king for allowing or maybe even enforcing such injustice. Avraham understood and felt the detriment of these actions on the world and therefore he knew it was Hashem’s will to stand up to the king whom he previously feared and to set him straight. One would think Avraham would want to appease him since Avimelech was trying to make peace with him.  Instead, the right thing to do was to rebuke Avimelech at this point; that is what Avraham calculated was Hashem’s will at that time and he acted in that fashion.

Running one’s life with the attitude of what does Hashem want from me at this moment, what is Hashem’s will right now, is not only an attitude that Avraham could live his life by, but the Ralbag is teaching us that you and I, everyone, has the ability to live every moment of one’s life with the attitude of what is Hashem’s will for me at this moment.

Through living by this attitude, it makes sense that at the right time one can have a brave heart, and at another right time have a soft heart, it is all for the same reason, what is Hashem’s will.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus chapter 7 halachos 1,2

Halacha 1: There is no difference whether rechilus was spoken by a man or a woman, relative or non-relative as we see by the episode of Miriam speaking out again her brother, Moshe, and we know there is no difference between lashin hara and rechilus. Even if you hear someone say something bad about your parents and you are so upset that you tell your parents what so and so said about them, that is still rechilus. Even if someone said something bad about one’s rebbe or rav, he can’t go and tell the rabbi what heard. However in Kiddushin 70a, we see that speaking badly about a court or the messenger of the court, the messenger is believed like two witnesses, about what was said about him or the court and the court can accept this report back as testimony and excommunicate the guy he was sent to deliver the court’s message to. (See Choshen Mishpat 8:5 with the Be’er Hagola there.)

It also makes no difference whether the subject spoken about was a man or a woman, an adult or a child, it’s the same as lashon hara and forbidden. Achild is also considered “your nation” even though he isn’t liable in mitzvos yet. Especially since the whole point of the spirit of the law is to prevent fighting and damages, of course rechilus will be forbidden even against a child. Let say an adult saw two children get into a fight with punches thrown and he goes over to one of the fathers and tells what happened. That father might go over to the kid and smack him, then the argument might escalate and the two fathers might start fighting with each other. Certainly if you don’t know who is really at fault or started the fight. But even if you do know who did what and whose faukt it is, still you can’t escalate the issue by telling on the child unless the prerequisites in chapter 9 that we’ll be reading will all be met.

Halacha 2: It doesn’t make a difference whether the subject talked about is an am ha’aretz, a simpleton who  might not understand the severity of mitzvos, or know all the halachos, but if you see him speak nastily about someone else you can’t tell the other guy what he said because he is still considered part of your nation. Only someone who purposefully sins knowing the alacha and the severity of the sin, but transgressing just to spite is out of the realm of “your nation,” and loshon haa or rechilus could be said about him.

All the more so speaking rechilus about a rabbi or sage is much more wors for a number of reason.

  1. The sin of rechilus itself, if speaking rechilus about a friend where you might lie, is really bad, then all the more so to tell someone what you heard a rabbi say about you or did to you, most probably has lying with in the report because we can assume most often than not that the rabbi or sage know halacha, is G-D fearing and must have had a calculation of why he said what he said or did what he did, so you can repeat it to the subject, because you ight not understand the whole story and most like saying something false.
  2. The person himself you are talking about, the Torah commands us to cling to our sages, it’s a mitzvah to eat and drink with them, do business with them, marry our children off to there children, so especially if you speak out against them you are turning yourself away from them as well as others.
  3. The ramifications of the story, telling over what so and so said about you or did to you, sometimes might not be a big deal, because who caees, he is a no body. But if you say this is what this Rabbi said about you then it hurts more and they will believe it and thbe quicker to hate the rabbi, how could such a respectful person say that about me…, so that another reason why it’s worse to speak recilus about rabbis.
Posted on

CITE Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 6 end of note 20 in halacha 9 and halacha 10

Note 20: a classic example of when one might have circumstantial evidence, but you can’t take matters into your own hand is in a case where Shimon found out he had money stolen. He and his family went away and left Reuvain to sleep the night. The next morning Shimon came back to his house and found his drawer open and a whole wad of money missing. He might even see a wad of cash sticking out of Reuvain’s bag and even confront Reuvain and he said he did not here any burglars break in last night. However, Shimon can’t just grab the money away. He can only take Reuvain to court to force him to swear a rabbinic oath that he didn’t steal Shimon’s money. This is the apparent view of the Shach and Taz in Choshen Mishpat 75, Shach (4) sand Taz (17), though the Sm’a (49) argues. Whether you can verbally degrade the suspect because you have circumstantial evidence that the rechilus is true the Chofetz Chaim is unsure about and leaves it tzarich iyun gadol.

Halacha 10: There is a very serious problem that we find even now a days where one business (or political campaign) might have been hurt because of a smear campaign by another business (or his political opponent), both owned by Jews (or are Jewish), and there is circumstantial evidence that points to the Jewish owner of the competitor personally involve in the smear campaign, the first owner who lost a lot of business and money might think, if he can smear me I can smear him back. But that is absolutely wrong for a number of reasons.

  1. One is only allowed to smear his competitor or opponent if by doing so it will be of positive use in the future, for example to stop any further damage, and there is no other way to save oneself. But one may not do it out if revenge. (See Choshen Mishpat 388:9 in the Rem”a.)

One is only allowed to smear his competitor or opponent in order to stop him from doing further damage only if you heard it from his own mouth, but if you just have circumstantial evidence even if it seems pretty obvious like a commercial put out smearing his competitor or opponent, as long as you don’t know for sure, like if it was clarified in court, or even outside of court you found out that it was definitely him that put out the commercial, for example, and not supporters of him, or people that work under him without his knowledge or approbation, then you cannot go after him. You would have to go after the perpetrators themselves to stop things from escalating. Certainly if you only heard secondhand knowledge that your competitor or opponent is smearing you then you can’t use against him, and all the more so to cause him a loss, even on a miniscule level and even if you think his loss will minimize your loss in the future, it is still forbidden.