잠언 27:14의 유대 사상

(Arakhin 15b-16a:) What is considered malicious speech? For example, if one says, "There is [always] fire at so-and-so’s home." Abbaye said, "That is merely revealing a matter. Rather, it is if he expressed this in a slanderous manner and said, 'Where else can one find fire except at so-and-so’s home, because there is meat there.'" This means to say that there is evil speech even in this way, even though he only intended to say that fire is found there, and that there is no disgrace of a sin; at the end of the day, something disparaging is [still] heard about him. Hence, it is included in evil speech. Rav Pappa said, "Any statement that is said in the presence of its master [i.e., if the subject of the statement was there], does not have [any prohibition due to] malicious speech." Abbaye said to him, "All the more so, as it is both impudence and malicious speech." He [answered] him, "I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei says, 'In all my days I never said something and then turned around.'" Rabba bar Rav Huna says, "Any matter that was said in the presence of three does not have [any prohibition due to] malicious speech [if someone else repeats it]." What is the reason? Your friend has a friend, and your friend’s friend has a friend. When Rav Ami came, he said, "What is [the meaning of] that which is written: He that blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him (Proverbs 27:14)? For example, when one is invited to a host, and they look after him very well. The following day, he goes out in the marketplace and says, 'May the Merciful One bless so-and-so, as this is how well he looked after me.' And people hear and go [to this host] and cause him damage." To here [is the Gemara]. This means to say that it is not malicious speech [literally, an evil tongue] when a person has an argument or a dispute with others, as this does not depend on the tongue. For if he is in front of him, he can hit him or kill him. And also if he is in front of his fellow, he can stand up to him and respond to his words. And since he can respond to his words and stand up to him, this is not so bad as to be considered malicious speech. And more than this, even if he was not in front of him, but if the one who the malicious speech is being spoken about were in front him and the one saying it would not be concerned and say it in front of him [regardless], this is not malicious speech. As if he were in front of him, it would not be malicious speech, and he is not exacting about it, to say it [only] not in front of him, so it is not an actual evil tongue. It is only if he is exacting not to say it in front of him, but rather only to say it not in front of him — such a thing is specifically dependent on the tongue. And that is why malicious speech [literally, an evil tongue] is called an evil tongue; it is specifically with the tongue.