Halakhah su Numeri 12:19

And now I shall begin, with the help of the Blessed L–rd to explain how many positive commandments one transgresses in speaking lashon hara and rechiluth, as we projected above.
One who bears tales against his friend, aside from transgressing the negative commandments we mentioned above, also transgresses several positive commandments, which I shall explain, with the help of the Blessed One, one by one.
(1) He transgresses thereby (Devarim 24:9): "Remember what the L–rd your G–d did to Miriam on the way when you went out of Egypt." The Torah exhorted us hereby that we mention verbally, always, the great punishment [leprosy] that the Blessed L–rd brought upon the tzadeketh, Miriam the prophetess — who spoke only about her brother, whom she loved as her soul, whom she raised on her knees, and for whom she endangered her life, to rescue him from the Nile. And she did not speak in denigration of him, but only compared him to other prophets. And she did not speak so to his face to shame him, and not in public, but only to her brother Aaron, privately. And he [Moses] was not offended by all this, viz. (Bamidbar 12:3): "And the man Moses was extremely humble, more than any man on the face of the earth" — in spite of which all her good deeds did not avail her and she was punished with leprosy for this. How much more so will other people, the fools, who are prolix in speaking "great and awesome things" against their friends, be severely punished for this.

The patriarch Avraham stood in prayer and begged that Sodom not be destroyed. God answered him that if there were ten righteous people in Sodom the city would be saved. But ten righteous people were not to be found there, and Sodom was demolished (Bereishit 18). Childless for many years, the patriarch Yitzḥak and matriarch Rivka prayerfully pleaded with God and were answered with the birth of Yaakov and Esav (Bereishit 25). The patriarch Yaakov prayed for God to save him from his brother, Esav, who set out against him with four hundred warriors, and he was answered and saved (Bereishit 32). Following the sin of the Golden Calf, God’s wrath was kindled against the people of Israel, and our teacher Moshe prayed intensely until God canceled the terrible decree that He had threatened to visit on His people (Shemot 32). When Miriam, Moshe’s sister, fell ill with leprosy, Moshe stood and prayed, “Kel na refa na la” (“O God, please heal her!”), and she was healed (Bamidbar 12). To turn back a heaven-sent plague, Aharon used the incense to pray, and the plague ceased (Bamidbar 17). After the army of Israel was defeated by Ai, God heard Yehoshua’s prayers and guided him to rectify the sin of Akhan, after which they won their next battles (Yehoshua 7). When the Philistines waged war against Israel, Shmuel cried out to God for help on behalf of the nation. God answered his prayer, and Israel struck and vanquished the Philistines (1 Shmuel 7). King David of Israel would often pray to God; his prayers eventually became the book of Tehilim. After King Shlomo finished building the Temple, he prayed that the Divine Presence (Shekhina) dwell therein, and that all people who pray there would be answered; God acceded to his prayer (1 Melakhim 8-9). When Eliyahu the Prophet fought against the false prophets of Ba’al on Mount Carmel, he prayed that fire would descend from the sky and so it transpired (1 Melakhim 18). Likewise, Elisha the Prophet prayed to God that He revive the son of the Shunamite woman, and the boy came back to life (2 Melakhim 4). When King Ḥizkiyahu faced death from his disease, he too prayed to God and was cured (2 Melakhim 20).

(Chet) [Yet] I saw ‘difficult visions’: Behold, it is written in Parashat Behaalotecha (Num. 11:35-12:1), “Then the people set out from Kivrot-Hataavah to Hatserot and were in Hatserot. Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe because of the Cushite woman he had married.” And Tosafot on Yevamot 62a (s. v. dekhtiv emor lehem) asked why it is that they waited a long time after the giving of the Torah to speak about Moshe (since their problem was that he had separated from his wife earlier, from when the Torah was given). And they answered that – according to that which is found in the Talmud Yerushalmi³¹The common text of Tosafot has the citation as Sifrei and presumably refers to the account in Sifrei Zuta 12:1. – the seventy elders were chosen at Kivrot-Hataavah. And [at that time] Miriam said to Tsipporah, “Happy are the wives of these [men] that were chosen for greatness.” Tsipporah [however answered], “Woe to them, as behold my husband Moshe separated from me from the day that the Holy One, blessed be He, started speaking to him.” And then the matter became known to them. See there. And it appears [that this is connected to] that which we find there (Num. 11:4-7) that “they desired a desire […] and they said, ‘Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, etc. Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna in our eyes.’ And the manna was like coriander seed, and in color it was like bdellium.” And Rashi (Rashi on Numbers 11:7) explained, “He who said that (i.e. the previous verse) did not say this […]; but rather [it is] the Holy One, blessed be He, who had, ‘And the manna was like coriander seed,’ written in the Torah (even though no one said it).” And it is [further] written (Num. 11:10), “And Moshe heard the people weeping, each family apart, each person at the entrance of his tent.” And Rashi (on this verse) explained [that] “each family apart”³²Le’mishpechoteichem, which can also be read as, for their families. [means], “because of family affairs – because of the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives] that had been forbidden to them.” See there. And that is astonishing; as what does the quarrel of the manna have to do with matters of sexual prohibitions? And it appears that it can be explained according to what the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said about that which is found in the Gemara (Shabbat 88a), “‘And they stood at the lowermost part of the mountain’³³Be’tachtit haHar, which can also be read as, in the lowermost part of the mountain. (Exod. 19:17) – […] teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, overturned the mountain above [the Jews] like a tub, [and said to them], ‘If you accept the Torah, excellent; but if not, there will be your burial.’” And it was asked [that] behold, they already assented and said (Exod. 24:7), “We will do and hear!”³⁴While this is essentially the same question that he cites from the Midrash Tanchuma in Paragraph Zayin, he will now proceed to give a different answer. And it is written in Gur Aryeh³⁵Gur Aryeh on Exodus 19:17. that it is not possible for the Torah to be received by choice – that they would accept it if they wanted to, and not accept it if they did not want to – but rather the Holy One, blessed be He, is showing them that the Torah is imperative for them (that it had to be accepted by them). And something imperative exists permanently; as it is found in the Midrash, that concerning a [woman] forced [to have sexual relations], it is written (Deut. 22:19), “he may not send her away all of his days.”³⁶This midrash is unknown. See Yehoshua Hartman’s edition of Gur Aryeh ad loc., Note 273; and M. Kasher’s Torah Shelemah ad loc., Note 224. See there. And behold we have found that they desired a desire; meaning that they did not have any physical desire and – as is written by (Rabbi Moshe) Alshekh (on Num. 11:4) – they desired that they would have desire. See there. And according to what I have written, the reason is that on account of the manna – that was from the minister of the Torah, and was the bread of mighty ones – all of their wish and yearning was only for Torah. And ‘their souls were dry’ and empty from all physical desire. And [so] they desired desire, such that the receiving of the Torah could be of their wish and wanting, like [when] they said, “We will do and hear” – as no one wishes forced love. Therefore they quarreled about the manna and its forcing the love of Torah [upon them]. And [when] they said, “We remember the fish that we used to eat free (chinam) in Egypt,” its explanation is [that it was] without force, but rather that [it was that] which we chose and which appealed to us. As this is the understanding of the word chinam, as is elucidated in Radak’s³⁷R. David Kimchi (Provence, 1160-1235) was a Biblical commentator and grammarian. Book of Roots under the root, chanan (graced). [And the meaning of] “Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna,” is that we were forced, and we want that the choice be in our hands. However we would also eat the manna by choice. As if the manna were not ‘good to eat and appealing to the sight,’ we would have needed force; but in fact, “the manna was like coriander seed and in color it was like bdellium,” and we would certainly eat of it.³⁸In this way, one no longer has to resort to Rashi’s answer that this phrase was added by God to the quote of the people which accordingly ended abruptly. However all of the desires would [then] not be removed from us and the receiving of the Torah would be with wanting and choice – as [when] they said, “We shall hear and do.”

(Tet) [But even] ‘before they called,’ their disgrace was revealed, as it is written, (Num. 11:10), “And [Moshe] heard the people weeping, each family apart” – meaning, about the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives] that had been forbidden to them. And behold in Gur Aryeh on Parashat Vayigash,³⁹Gur Aryeh on Genesis 46:10. [its author] asks that since Israel had the status of converts with the receiving of the Torah – as it is found in Yevamot 46a-46b, that they required circumcision, sprinkling and immersing like the law for converts – and it is established for us that a convert [may] marry his sister, since “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant”;⁴⁰Yevamot 22a. if so, it should have been appropriate to permit sexual relations between relatives in that generation. And he answers that we only say “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant” about a convert who converted on his own, from his own will – then he is as a newly born infant. But at the time of the giving of the Torah when they were forced to receive it – in that He overturned the mountain above them like a tub – they were accordingly not as a newly born infant. See there. Therefore “they cried for their families,” because of the affairs of the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives], since the manna had forced them to accept the Torah [and not have the leniency of the convert in this regard] – as I wrote in Paragraph Chet. Hence they were forbidden with their relatives. However if it had not been by force – but rather from [their own] will and from [their] choice – they would have been permitted with their relatives, as we elucidated. Yet behold in Yevamot 62b, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree about a gentile who had children and [then] converted – as Rabbi Yochanan reasons that he fulfilled [the commandment of] “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28), as behold he has children; whereas Resh Lakish reasons that “a convert who converts is like a newly born infant,” and he [still] needs to fulfill “Be fruitful and multiply.” And at first glance you could ask [the following] difficulty: [In] that which they say there in the Talmud (Yevamot 61b-62a) in the argument between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel, the School of Shammai reasons [that the requirement is] two male [offspring], and the School of Hillel reasons [that it is] a male and a female. And the reason of the School of Shammai there is that they learn from Moshe, as he had two sons and [then] separated from [his] wife; whereas the School of Hillel learns from the creation of the world, “male and female” (Gen. 1:27). And [the Talmud asks], “Let the School of Hillel learn from Moshe”; and answers, “Moshe separated on his own [and was not commanded by God], and [only afterward] did the Holy One, blessed be He, agree with him.” See there. But if so, according to the School of Shammai that learns from Moshe – granted that he fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply” with two males; but behold, at the time of the giving of the Torah, they had the status of converts! And [though this is not a problem for Rabbi Yochanan], for Resh Lakish, [Moshe would still have] needed to fulfill “Be fruitful and multiply,” as he was like a newly born infant. However according to what is written in Gur Aryeh – that [when the conversion] is by force, the convert is not as a newly born infant – it is fine, even according to Resh Lakish. And with this, the question of Tosafot (at the beginning of Paragraph Chet) is resolved: As Aharon and Miriam did not speak against Moshe until after [they had been at] Kivrot-Hataavah; since before then, they had reasoned that [the principle of] “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant” [applied to them] – and [so Moshe] needed to fulfill, “Be fruitful and multiply,” even if he had sons from before. And if so, Moshe certainly would not have negated the commandment [by separating from his wife] on his own; and so it was the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded him. However when they saw that sexual prohibitions [with blood-relatives] were forbidden to them at Kivrot-Hataavah – and that is from the reason that a forced convert is not as a newly born infant, as it is written in Gur Aryeh; and Moshe [accordingly] fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply” with his earlier children – they found an opening to suspect [the correctness of his decision]. As he separated on his own, since he was not negating a commandment with this – as he fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply’ with [his] two sons, even according to the School of Hillel, who only add that it is even sufficient with one male and one female according to the opinion of the Talmud Yerushalmi Yevamot 6:6, 7c. And hence they quarreled (Num. 12:2), “Has He not spoken through us as well?” [This was] until the Holy One, blessed be He, answered them (Num. 12:8), “I speak to him mouth to mouth” – I agreed to his words.

(Tet) [But even] ‘before they called,’ their disgrace was revealed, as it is written, (Num. 11:10), “And [Moshe] heard the people weeping, each family apart” – meaning, about the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives] that had been forbidden to them. And behold in Gur Aryeh on Parashat Vayigash,³⁹Gur Aryeh on Genesis 46:10. [its author] asks that since Israel had the status of converts with the receiving of the Torah – as it is found in Yevamot 46a-46b, that they required circumcision, sprinkling and immersing like the law for converts – and it is established for us that a convert [may] marry his sister, since “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant”;⁴⁰Yevamot 22a. if so, it should have been appropriate to permit sexual relations between relatives in that generation. And he answers that we only say “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant” about a convert who converted on his own, from his own will – then he is as a newly born infant. But at the time of the giving of the Torah when they were forced to receive it – in that He overturned the mountain above them like a tub – they were accordingly not as a newly born infant. See there. Therefore “they cried for their families,” because of the affairs of the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives], since the manna had forced them to accept the Torah [and not have the leniency of the convert in this regard] – as I wrote in Paragraph Chet. Hence they were forbidden with their relatives. However if it had not been by force – but rather from [their own] will and from [their] choice – they would have been permitted with their relatives, as we elucidated. Yet behold in Yevamot 62b, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree about a gentile who had children and [then] converted – as Rabbi Yochanan reasons that he fulfilled [the commandment of] “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28), as behold he has children; whereas Resh Lakish reasons that “a convert who converts is like a newly born infant,” and he [still] needs to fulfill “Be fruitful and multiply.” And at first glance you could ask [the following] difficulty: [In] that which they say there in the Talmud (Yevamot 61b-62a) in the argument between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel, the School of Shammai reasons [that the requirement is] two male [offspring], and the School of Hillel reasons [that it is] a male and a female. And the reason of the School of Shammai there is that they learn from Moshe, as he had two sons and [then] separated from [his] wife; whereas the School of Hillel learns from the creation of the world, “male and female” (Gen. 1:27). And [the Talmud asks], “Let the School of Hillel learn from Moshe”; and answers, “Moshe separated on his own [and was not commanded by God], and [only afterward] did the Holy One, blessed be He, agree with him.” See there. But if so, according to the School of Shammai that learns from Moshe – granted that he fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply” with two males; but behold, at the time of the giving of the Torah, they had the status of converts! And [though this is not a problem for Rabbi Yochanan], for Resh Lakish, [Moshe would still have] needed to fulfill “Be fruitful and multiply,” as he was like a newly born infant. However according to what is written in Gur Aryeh – that [when the conversion] is by force, the convert is not as a newly born infant – it is fine, even according to Resh Lakish. And with this, the question of Tosafot (at the beginning of Paragraph Chet) is resolved: As Aharon and Miriam did not speak against Moshe until after [they had been at] Kivrot-Hataavah; since before then, they had reasoned that [the principle of] “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant” [applied to them] – and [so Moshe] needed to fulfill, “Be fruitful and multiply,” even if he had sons from before. And if so, Moshe certainly would not have negated the commandment [by separating from his wife] on his own; and so it was the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded him. However when they saw that sexual prohibitions [with blood-relatives] were forbidden to them at Kivrot-Hataavah – and that is from the reason that a forced convert is not as a newly born infant, as it is written in Gur Aryeh; and Moshe [accordingly] fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply” with his earlier children – they found an opening to suspect [the correctness of his decision]. As he separated on his own, since he was not negating a commandment with this – as he fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply’ with [his] two sons, even according to the School of Hillel, who only add that it is even sufficient with one male and one female according to the opinion of the Talmud Yerushalmi Yevamot 6:6, 7c. And hence they quarreled (Num. 12:2), “Has He not spoken through us as well?” [This was] until the Holy One, blessed be He, answered them (Num. 12:8), “I speak to him mouth to mouth” – I agreed to his words.

(Reish) “Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai said, ‘If I had been at Sinai, I would have requested […] two mouths, one for words of the Torah and one for [worldly words. But when he saw the frequency of evil speech which comes out of one mouth…].’” This statement of the [Talmud] Yerushalmi (Berakhot 1:2, 8a) seems [to imply that] there is no great disgrace if one studies [Torah] with the mouth that speaks worldly things, except that one cannot write down the words of the oral Torah. And it is written in Tiferet Yisrael:⁷³Chapter 68 (p. 213 in London edition).
The Torah was related only to Israel. And through the oral Torah – which is literally in the mouth of a person and not on parchment, etc. – the Torah has a connection with Israel, etc. And this is [the meaning of] the statement of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, in the chapter [entitled] HaNizakin (Gittin 60b), “The Holy One, Blessed be He, made a covenant with the Jewish people only for the sake of the matters that were oral (be’al peh), as it is stated (Exod. 34:27), ‘For on the basis of [al pi] these things, I have made a covenant with you, etc.’” As this thing is the covenant and the connection that connects two things together, etc. And if the oral Torah was also written, there would be no Torah that would be unique specifically to Israel. [See there.]
And according to this, the mouth is the parchment of the oral Torah. And just like the parchment of the written Torah requires processing specifically for the sake [of the commandment], and needs to be pure, and not impure – so too does the parchment of the oral Torah, which is the mouth. It [too] requires that it only be for its sake. And [so] it is proper that he requests two mouths – one for Torah and one for worldly things. And according to this, one must be careful not to speak things that are not from the service to God [with] the mouth. And it is written in Midrash Tehillim 17:5 (on Ps. 17:1), “‘Heed my song,’ that is the song of the Torah; ‘without false lips,’ that is the additional prayers (mussafin). Why ‘without false lips’? Because we [do] not stand in prayer [after] wasteful words, nor false lips; but rather [after] words of Torah and good deeds.” And [it] can be explained according to that which is written by Rabbi Menachem Azariah da Fano, [about the liturgical phrase], “the daily [sacrifices] according to their order, and the additional [sacrifices] according to their law”: “As the daily ones correspond to the written Torah and the additional ones correspond to the oral Torah. And that is why they said, ‘And the additional [sacrifices] according to their law’ – as [the oral Torah] is the law.” And more of a clean mouth is required for the Oral Torah than for the written Torah. As [the latter] is already written on a proper parchment, whereas the mouth of a man is the parchment [for the oral Torah). And this is [the meaning of] “‘Listen to my prayer’ […], that is the additional ones” – which correspond to the oral Torah – ‘without false lips,’ because we [do] not stand in prayer [after] wasteful words.” ‘One who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from anguish.’ And we have found that Aharon said to Moshe (Num. 12:11), “Please do not place upon us the sin that we sinned and that we blundered.” And it is [found] in the Yalkut (Yalkut Shimoni on the Torah 741), “If we are inadvertent (shogegin), forgive us as those who are volitional (mezidin).” And it seems to me that [it can be explained] according to that which Rashi explained in Parashat Behaalotecha (Num. 12:8), “‘Why were you not afraid to speak against My servant, Moshe’ – against My servant, even though he were not a Moshe; and against a Moshe, even though he were not My servant, etc. You should have said, ‘The King does not love him for nothing!’ And if you say that He is not cognizant of his doings (i.e. that I love him even though he does not deserve it, since I am not aware of his treatment of his wife), this [notion] is worse than your previous one.”⁷⁴Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 103. To here [are his words]. As sometimes a man speaks about his brother and is mistaken about him; as he really holds that he is bad, as he says about him. But other times a man will be jealous of his neighbor and speak falsely about him in rebellion and sin, even though he knows the truth of the stature of his countryman. And behold, if Aharon and Miriam were inadvertent about Moshe’s stature, their sin would become smaller towards Moshe, but it would be become greater towards the Creator, may He be blessed – as [God] does not love him for nothing. “And if you say that He is not cognizant of his doings, this is worse than anything.” However if they were volitional against Moshe and knew of his stature, and were [just] mocking him, the sin towards the Holy One, blessed be He, would become smaller – as they would not be denying God’s stature at all. And [even though the sin towards Moshe would be greater], Moshe would certainly not be so exacting about his own honor. However the honor of God [would have been] in his heart, to be zealous for Him. And this is why Miriam and Aharon said to him, “If we were inadvertent against you, forgive us as those who are volitional against you – and let the sin not be so great towards the Heavens.”

(Reish) “Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai said, ‘If I had been at Sinai, I would have requested […] two mouths, one for words of the Torah and one for [worldly words. But when he saw the frequency of evil speech which comes out of one mouth…].’” This statement of the [Talmud] Yerushalmi (Berakhot 1:2, 8a) seems [to imply that] there is no great disgrace if one studies [Torah] with the mouth that speaks worldly things, except that one cannot write down the words of the oral Torah. And it is written in Tiferet Yisrael:⁷³Chapter 68 (p. 213 in London edition).
The Torah was related only to Israel. And through the oral Torah – which is literally in the mouth of a person and not on parchment, etc. – the Torah has a connection with Israel, etc. And this is [the meaning of] the statement of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, in the chapter [entitled] HaNizakin (Gittin 60b), “The Holy One, Blessed be He, made a covenant with the Jewish people only for the sake of the matters that were oral (be’al peh), as it is stated (Exod. 34:27), ‘For on the basis of [al pi] these things, I have made a covenant with you, etc.’” As this thing is the covenant and the connection that connects two things together, etc. And if the oral Torah was also written, there would be no Torah that would be unique specifically to Israel. [See there.]
And according to this, the mouth is the parchment of the oral Torah. And just like the parchment of the written Torah requires processing specifically for the sake [of the commandment], and needs to be pure, and not impure – so too does the parchment of the oral Torah, which is the mouth. It [too] requires that it only be for its sake. And [so] it is proper that he requests two mouths – one for Torah and one for worldly things. And according to this, one must be careful not to speak things that are not from the service to God [with] the mouth. And it is written in Midrash Tehillim 17:5 (on Ps. 17:1), “‘Heed my song,’ that is the song of the Torah; ‘without false lips,’ that is the additional prayers (mussafin). Why ‘without false lips’? Because we [do] not stand in prayer [after] wasteful words, nor false lips; but rather [after] words of Torah and good deeds.” And [it] can be explained according to that which is written by Rabbi Menachem Azariah da Fano, [about the liturgical phrase], “the daily [sacrifices] according to their order, and the additional [sacrifices] according to their law”: “As the daily ones correspond to the written Torah and the additional ones correspond to the oral Torah. And that is why they said, ‘And the additional [sacrifices] according to their law’ – as [the oral Torah] is the law.” And more of a clean mouth is required for the Oral Torah than for the written Torah. As [the latter] is already written on a proper parchment, whereas the mouth of a man is the parchment [for the oral Torah). And this is [the meaning of] “‘Listen to my prayer’ […], that is the additional ones” – which correspond to the oral Torah – ‘without false lips,’ because we [do] not stand in prayer [after] wasteful words.” ‘One who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from anguish.’ And we have found that Aharon said to Moshe (Num. 12:11), “Please do not place upon us the sin that we sinned and that we blundered.” And it is [found] in the Yalkut (Yalkut Shimoni on the Torah 741), “If we are inadvertent (shogegin), forgive us as those who are volitional (mezidin).” And it seems to me that [it can be explained] according to that which Rashi explained in Parashat Behaalotecha (Num. 12:8), “‘Why were you not afraid to speak against My servant, Moshe’ – against My servant, even though he were not a Moshe; and against a Moshe, even though he were not My servant, etc. You should have said, ‘The King does not love him for nothing!’ And if you say that He is not cognizant of his doings (i.e. that I love him even though he does not deserve it, since I am not aware of his treatment of his wife), this [notion] is worse than your previous one.”⁷⁴Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 103. To here [are his words]. As sometimes a man speaks about his brother and is mistaken about him; as he really holds that he is bad, as he says about him. But other times a man will be jealous of his neighbor and speak falsely about him in rebellion and sin, even though he knows the truth of the stature of his countryman. And behold, if Aharon and Miriam were inadvertent about Moshe’s stature, their sin would become smaller towards Moshe, but it would be become greater towards the Creator, may He be blessed – as [God] does not love him for nothing. “And if you say that He is not cognizant of his doings, this is worse than anything.” However if they were volitional against Moshe and knew of his stature, and were [just] mocking him, the sin towards the Holy One, blessed be He, would become smaller – as they would not be denying God’s stature at all. And [even though the sin towards Moshe would be greater], Moshe would certainly not be so exacting about his own honor. However the honor of God [would have been] in his heart, to be zealous for Him. And this is why Miriam and Aharon said to him, “If we were inadvertent against you, forgive us as those who are volitional against you – and let the sin not be so great towards the Heavens.”

Early rabbinic authorities decreed, coupled with “חרם²⁹Ḥerem, חרם, is the status of that which is separated from common use or contact, either because it is proscribed as an abomination to God or because it is consecrated to Him.
There are different categories of ḥerem. The Torah considers the following to be ḥerem: Israelites who worship other gods and idols. People who commit this idolatry were to be put to the sword and the objects burned. These people and objects contaminated those they came in contact with; The seven nations inhabiting the land promised to Israel - the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; cf. 20:17). These people were to be totally destroyed; Whatever one privately devoted to the Lord as ḥerem is the most sacred, Kodesh Kodashim, and these objects were never to be sold nor was their status revokable (Leviticus 27:28). Cases of ḥerem in the rest of the Bible follow from these Torah laws. The term later came to mean total destruction.
The term ḥerem began to take on different meanings from the Biblical ones as time passed. Even the term ḥerem in the Bible changed its meaning. In Deuteronomy declaring an enemy as ḥerem was done to gain God’s favor by totally devoting to Him, one’s own nation and the total nation of the enemy.
After Saul the rise of the enemy ḥerem seems to have disappeared. Ḥerem came to mean, when referred to a nation that the other nation’s religion practiced evil ways that would badly influence the Israelites and therefore these people were to be separated from Israel to preserve their true belief in God (Exodus 34:11ff; Numbers 33:51ff; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; 20:16ff).
In later Jewish law the concept of ḥerem changed radically. The ḥerem of Ezra is the first indication that meant banishment and persecution. The term niddui was used in tannaitic literature to mean the punishment of an offender by his isolation from and his being held in contempt by the community at large. The term niddui was used in the Bible (Numbers 12:14) as an isolation punishment. The Pharisees employed niddui if a person did not follow their prescribed standards. A scholar was isolated for his non-compliance with the majority and no one was permitted to contact him lest they too became defiled. Niddui was a Punishment employed by the courts on the heads of the academies.
Later in the talmudic laws the term ḥerem was used again as an aggravated form of niddui. A niddui could last for two 30 day periods. After 60 days passed and the person did not satisfy the courts or the academies by changing his ways, a ḥerem was declared which was a total banishment and isolation. Another type of punishment was also established. That was a nezifah, a “reprimand”, which lasted for seven days. It was intended for shame and remorse and automatically expired while a niddui and a ḥerem had to be lifted by the courts.
A niddui differed from a ḥerem in that one who was declared niddui could have social intercourse for purposes of study or business, but one placed in ḥerem had to study alone and earn money from the small shop he was permitted to maintain. One punished by niddui or ḥerem was considered in a state of mourning and was therefore not permitted to cut his hair, do laundry, or wear shoes, except for out-of-town walks. He was forbidden to wash himself except for his face, hands, and feet but he did not have to rend his clothes. He had to live in confinement with his family only, no outsider was permitted to come near him, eat or drink with him, greet him, or give him any enjoyment (Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 334:2). He could not be counted as part of the three for grace after the meals nor as one of the ten for a prayer minyan. After his death, his coffin would be stoned, (one stone could be symbolically placed on the coffin). The niddui was actually considered a rather light penalty for minor offenses since it could be so easily lifted. Niddui was during talmudic times put on people by laymen and individual scholars for various reasons, not only by the courts, for reasons such as debt. Only a court designated niddui would necessitate the whole community from disassociating with the isolated person. A non-judicial niddui did not require this. A person had to be warned about a possible niddui for a non-religious offense, but for a religious one no warning was necessary. The niddui had to be publically announced but no evidence was required. The court was considered fair. A niddui by a court could be lifted by any court. A personal niddui had to be lifted by the person who imposed it and, if he was unavailable, by the nasi or leader of the community. The courts tended not to pronounce a niddui against a judge or a scholar. Flogging (see footnote 31) was considered a more appropriate punishment.
In post-talmudic times the threat of a niddui or a ḥerem was considered a way of future law enforcement. As time went on the conditions put on one who was excommunicated in the Talmud became the minimum. They became more and more severe. One who was banned could not have his sons circumcised or their children married, their children and wives were expelled from the synagogue, and they were not to be buried with any honor. He was considered as a non-Jew; his ẓiẓit fringes, were cut off, his mezuzah removed from his door, his food proclaimed unfit for Jews, and his books considered trash. The ḥerem became actually, a civil death. The man was dead to the community.
Ḥerem became more and more frequent as the punishment of excommunication by the Church increased. Jewish courts were influenced by civil courts of the land to impose ḥerem on Jews for monetary reasons, but the Jewish courts remained independent in religious matters. Rabbis became more and more reluctant to impose a ḥerem on an individual especially without the consent of the entire congregation due to the extreme hardship it imposed on the family of the isolated man. This caused the development of partial ḥerem which was less severe and only isolated the person in synagogue worship but not in daily life, for example. Niddui was then imposed for major offenses such as a man refusing to divorce his wife when it was felt that he should, a bridegroom refusing to marry his bride, or offenses such as theft or fraud.
Minor forms of ḥerem, niddui or nezifah were pronounced by the head of the rabbinical court, but a severe ḥerem was pronounced in the synagogue either before the open ark or while holding the Torah scroll. The proclaimation was made with the sounding of the shofar, the ram’s horn (see footnote 221). The people held candles and put them out symbolically when the excommunication was declared. Several Biblical verses were recited against the one excommunicated and people were warned against associating with the person put in ḥerem. The ceremony concluded with a prayer for the faithful of the congregation.
In later times the niddui and ḥerem became so frequent and common that it lost almost all of its significance and force. It became the standard rabbinic reaction to all forms of deviation from the norm of Orthodoxy. Although still pronounced they are no longer binding on the person involved or the community, nor do they carry the terror they once did.
Haim Hermann Cohn, E. J., v. 8, pp. 344-55.”, ban, that the living should not slander the dead.