시편 12:5의 인용 해설

This is the answer to these questions. People transgress due to four causes: slovenliness, heresy, desire, taking liberties,⁷⁵The Hebrew expression here is “love of freedom.” I believe the point of the cause of sin is that the person is of the opinion that he can do whatever he wants. as it says: “They say, ‘by our tongues we shall travail; with lips such as ours who shall be our master?” (Ps. 12:5) God causes adversity because of these spiritual illnesses in order to cause them to turn in repentance so that they can be saved.
• Slovenliness: A person who sinks into a deep slumber causing him to forget the Lord. For such a person the travail is to face the dangers of the sea, as the sailors said to Jonah: “How can you be sleeping so soundlessly? Get up and call to your God!” (Jonah 1:6)
• Heresy: Someone who leaves the path of truth, as Solomon said in his parable: “Let your mind not wander down her⁷⁶The passage is speaking of the person who goes in search of wanton women. Ettlinger interprets this as a reference to heresy. ways; do not stray unto her paths.” (Prov. 7:25) The travails for such a person is to wander in the wilderness, off the king’s path, so that he is far from his path and is both spiritually hungry and thirsty.
• Desire: Of this person the Psalmist says “All food was loathsome to them; they reached the gates of death.” Their punishment is that they are unable to enjoy any of the simple pleasures because of illness.
• Taking liberties: The punishment for such a person is that he is imprisoned in a jail, a place of darkness.

It appears that the intent of the Midrash’s author is to explain why this section is placed here. For it was stated on the first of Nissan, otherwise why would the impure individuals have come to Moses on the 14th of Nissan saying, We are unclean because of a dead person; why should we be excluded, etc. (Numbers 9:7)? If so, why was this section established here? Rather, certainly after arranging the Tabernacle in its place and causing His Divine Presence to dwell among them, He came to warn them not to cause the removal of the Divine Presence through these three primary sins that cause destruction. Therefore, He commanded to send out from the camp every person with tzara’at, every person with a discharge, and everyone impure from contact with the dead, because these three are distinctive signs that within them is either a trace of heresy of idolatry, which brings tzara’at, as it says regarding the Golden Calf, Moses saw that the people were unrestrained (Exodus 32:25). And our Sages said (Bamidbar Rabbah 7:4) that they became leprous, as it is written about the leper, his head shall be unrestrained (Leviticus 13:45). Due to this sin, the First and Second Temples were destroyed, for although they did not worship idols during the Second Temple period, nevertheless, they were guilty of the sin of baseless hatred and evil speech, which is equivalent to idolatry, as our Sages learned (Yalkut Shimoni, Psalms 656) from the verse, With our tongue we will prevail; our lips are with us; who is Lord over us? (Psalms 12:5). One who speaks evil speech is considered as if he has denied a fundamental principle of faith. The reason for sending the leper outside all three camps is to distance any trace of idolatry from all three. And if it is due to the sin of evil speech, he must dwell in isolation, just as he caused separation between people, and if he were not distanced from all three camps, he would not be dwelling in isolation. And everyone with a discharge — for his discharge is a sign that he is unbridled in matters of sexual immorality, and therefore he develops a discharge. He is sent out of the holy Divine Presence camp and out of the Levite camp, which also possesses holiness, as any place of holiness cannot tolerate matters of sexual immorality, in contrast to the Israelite camp, which does not have as much holiness. And everyone impure from contact with the dead — for this also indicates a wayward spirit within him, and that he is not careful about becoming impure through contact with a human corpse, thereby affecting the image of God, so to speak. Therefore, it is appropriate that he distance himself from the camp of the Divine Presence, as he damages the honor of the Divine Presence.

The fifth division is the permissible and is the speech about what is specific to a person about his business, his livelihood, his food, his drink, his clothing and the rest of what he needs for himself. And it is permissible - it is not beloved or disgusting. Rather, if he wants, he can speak what he wants of it, and if he wants, he will not speak [it]. And with this division, a person is praiseworthy when he minimizes his speaking of it. And the men of ethics have warned about increasing words in it. But the forbidden and the disgusting does not require a warning nor a commandment, as it is fitting to be completely silent from it. However the commanded and the beloved [speech], if a person could speak in it all of his days, it would be good. However one must be careful about two things: The one is that his deeds match his words, as they said, "Pleasant are the words that come out of the mouth of one who does them." And about this matter did he intend in his saying, "And the exposition [of Torah] is not what is essential, but the action." And the sages say to a righteous one that [specifically] he teach the virtues, in their saying, "Expound, and for you it is fit to expound." And the prophet stated (Psalms 33a), "Rejoice, righteous ones in the Lord; for the straight is praise beautiful." And the other matter is terseness and that he make efforts to maximize content with few words and not that the matter be the opposite. And this is what they said (Pesachim 3a), "A man should teach his students in the brief way." And know that songs, that are composed in any language that it be, must be examined for their contents - if they are following the way of speech that we have divided. And indeed, I have clarified this even though it is clear [already], because I have seen elders and and pious men from the people of our Torah when they are at a wine party like a wedding or something else and a person wants to sing an Arabic song - even if the subject of that song is praise of courage or generosity and that is from the division of the beloved, [as well as] when it is in praise of wine - they push it off with every angle of distancing, and it is not permissible according to them to hear it. And when the lyricist sings one of the Hebrew canticles it is not bad in their eyes if it is from the things that we are warned against or which are disgusting. And this is complete foolishness, as speech is not forbidden or extraneous or beloved or disgusting or commanded in its saying because of the language that it is in, but rather because of its content. As if the content of that song is virtue, he is obligated to say it - in any language that it my be. But if the intention of that song is vice in any language that it should be, it is forbidden to say it [- in any language that it should be]. I also have what to add to this: When there are two canticles and they express the same content of arousing the power of desire and praise for it and to rejoice the soul with it - and it is vice and it is from the division of disgusting speech since it enthuses and arouses a trait of vice, as is clarified in our words in the fourth chapter - but one of the two canticles is in Hebrew and one is in Arabic or vernacular; listening to the Hebrew and speaking it is more disgusting to the Torah due to the level of the language, as it is only right to use it for virtues. All the more so if they require to put into it a verse from the Torah or from the Song of Songs about that matter - as then, it goes from the division of the disgusting to the division of the forbidden and what is warned against. As the Torah forbade to make the words of prophecy types of song for vice and disgusting things. And since we have mentioned evil speech in the division of forbidden speech, I saw [fit] to elucidate it and to mention a little of what is mentioned about it. As people are in great blindness about it and it is the great sin that is always in people - and all the more so about what the sages said (Bava Batra 164b) that a person does not escape from tangential evil speech on any day. And who would give that we escape from evil speech itself! And evil speech is the recounting of the evils of a man and his blemishes and the disgracing of a man of Israel in whatever side of disgrace that it be - and even if the disgraced was lacking as was spoken. As evil speech is not that he lie about a man and attribute to him that which he does not do, as that is called putting out a bad name on his fellow. However evil speech is that when he disgraces the disgraces of a person, even about his actions that he truly does, [such] that the speaker sins and the one who hears him sins. They said (Arakhin 15b), "There are three that evil speech kills: the one who speaks it, the one who listens to it and the one they are speaking about." And they said, "The one who listens to it more than the one who speaks it." And tangential evil speech is the mention of the blemishes of a man without clarification. Shlomo said about this matter that sometimes one who mentions the blemishes of a person without clarification shows that he does not have knowledge of that which is understood from his words and that he did not intend this, but rather intended another matter - as he said (Proverbs 26:18-19), "Like a madman scattering deadly firebrands, arrows, is one who cheats his fellow and says, 'I was only joking.'" And one of the sages from among the wise ones already praised in a large group the writing of a scribe that he showed him; and the rabbi condemned the act of the praiser and said (Mishnah Arakhin 3:5), "Go and stop your evil speech." [He meant] to say that you are causing his disgrace with your praise of him in the large group. As from them is one who loves him and one who hates him, and his enemy will be forced to mention his blemishes and his evils when he hears his praises. And that is an extreme distancing from evil speech. And the language of the Mishnah (Mishnah Arakhin 3:5) is "the judgment against our ancestors in the wilderness was sealed only because of their evil speech" - meaning to say the matter of the scouts about which it was stated (Numbers 13:32), "And they put out slander of the land." And they, peace be upon them, said (Arakhin 15a), "And if these that only put out a bad name on trees and stones become liable for what they became liable, how much more is it so for someone who speaks about the disgrace of his fellow!" And this is the language of the Tosefta (Talmud Yerushalmi Peah 1:1): For three sins is there retribution to a person in this world and he does not have a share in the world to come - idolatry, sexual immorality and murder; and evil speech corresponds to all of them [together]. And they said in the Gemara (Arakhin 15b) [that] with idolatry comes the expression, 'the big' - and that is its stating (Exodus 32:31), "Alas, this people is guilty of a big sin." And with the sin of sexual immorality also comes the expression, 'the big' - and that is its stating (Genesis 39:9), "and how can I do the big evil, this one." And with the sin of murder also comes the expression, 'the big' - and that is its stating (Genesis 4:13), "Is my sin too big to carry?" But with evil speech comes the expression 'the big ones' (plural)." [It] means to say that it corresponds to the three of them [together] - and that is its stating (Psalms 12:4) "tongue speaking big things.'" And they spoke about this unsettling sin very much. And the end of that which is said is that "Anyone who speaks evil speech denies the fundamental [faith], as it is stated (Psalms 12:5), 'They say, "By our tongues we shall prevail; with lips such as ours, who can be our master?"'" Indeed, I have said a little of what they said about this sin; even though I have written at length, in order that a man distance himself from it with all of his ability and make his intention to be quiet - meaning to say from this division of speech.