What an interesting conversation. I once heard a shiur from Rabbi Saul Zucker in Camp Morasha. He was explaining why lashon hara would be worse than motzi shem ra. Isn't worse to say something bad about a person that is not true than something that is? In Western law, truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel or slander, how can it be better to make something up than to simply report the truth?
He answered (based on a Rambam) that when we speak lashon hara, besides the bein adam l'chaveiro offense, we are also committing a sin bein adam lamakom. Hashem is meant to be the sole judge in the world, to the point that when human shoftim judge, it is only permissible because they are serving as God's agents (-the Torah calls a court Elohim). So when people speak motzi shem ra, they has offended the person and told a lie - both terrible crimes, but comparable to other similar offenses. When they tell lashon hara though, they have usurped the domain of Hashem by judging the object of the talk.
If so, much of the damage caused by lashon hara is not relevant to the Torah, as Hashem Himself is doing the judging.
As a side point this would also explain the otherwise bizarre discussion of the חטא המרגלים as being lashon hara against Eretz Yisrael. Though we find that Moshe was obligated to show הכרת הטוב to the Nile & earth, that is pretty clearly an inwardly directed מדות issue (no?). Why would lashon hara against a land (even Eretz Yisrael) be so terrible, if LH were primarily a bein adam l'chaveiro issue? Perhaps Rabbi Zucker's approach makes it easier to understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment