Halakhah do Przysłów 27:33

You should know that it is not [truly] appropriate to bring up this topic to explain it. For since the words of the Talmud (Makkot 23b) are, "There were 613 commandments stated to Moshe at Sinai," how can we say about something rabbinic, that it is included in the count. However we have been prompted to it because many erred and counted the Chanukah light and the reading of the Megillah (Scroll of Esther) among the positive commandments. And likewise the hundred blessings each day; comforting the mourners; visiting the sick; burying the dead, clothing the naked; calculating the seasons; and the eighteen days in which we complete [the recitation of] Hallel. You can only stare at someone who hears [the Talmud's] statement, "stated to Moshe at Sinai," and yet counts the recitation of Hallel in which David, peace be upon him, praised God, may He be blessed - that Moshe was commanded about it; or the Chanukah light which the Sages established during the Second Temple; or the reading of the Megillah. I cannot see anyone imagine - or it even coming to his mind - that it was nevertheless stated to Moshe at Sinai that he should command us that when, at the end of our monarchy, such and such happens to us with the Greeks, we will be obligated regarding the Chanukah light. And it appears to me that what led them to this is that we make the blessing [on these commandments], "who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us"; and the Talmud's question (Shabbat 23a) - "And where we commanded?" And they said, "From 'you shall not veer'" (Deuteronomy 17:11). But if they counted them from this, they should count everything rabbinic: For everything that the Sages commanded us to do and everything they prohibited to us [would then have] already commanded by Moshe, peace be upon him, at Sinai when he commanded us to do so. And that is his saying (Deuteronomy 17:11), "According to the law that they instruct you, etc." And he prohibited us from violating anything that [the rabbis] ordained or decreed, by saying, "you shall not veer." But if one counts everything rabbinic within the 613 commandments because it all fits into His, may He be blessed, saying "you shall not veer" - why would he count these in particular and not count others besides them? And just like they counted the Chanukah light and the reading of the Megillah, they should also have counted the washing of the hands and the commandment of eruv. For [we also] recite the blessing, "who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us," [on these] - just like we recite the blessings on the reading of the Megillah and the Chanukah light. Yet it is all rabbinic! And in explantion, [the Sages] said (Chullin 106a), "[Washing hands] is a commandment." And they said, "What is the commandment? Abbaye said, 'It is a commandment to listen to the words of the sages.'" This is like what they said about the reading of the Megillah and the Chanukah light, "And where were we commanded? From 'you shall not veer.'" And it is already clear that anything that the Sages and the prophets that arose after our teacher, Moshe ordained is also rabbinic. And in explanation, they said (Eruvin 21b), "At the time that Shlomo ordained [the ordinances of] eruv and of washing hands, a heavenly voice emerged and said (Proverbs 27:11), 'My son, be wise and make My heart glad.'" And they explained in other places that eruv is called rabbinic and washing hands is from the words of the Scribes. Behold that it is clear that everything that they decreed after Moshe is rabbinic. Indeed I am explaining all of this to you so that you not think that since the reading of the Megillah is an ordinance of the prophets, it is considered to be from the Torah. As eruv is rabbinic even though it was ordained by Shlomo and his court. And this was missed by someone besides us - so that they counted clothing the naked, because it is found in Isaiah 58:7, "when you see the naked, you should clothe him." And he did not know that it is included in His, may He be blessed, saying (Deuteronomy 15:8), "enough for his lack that he is lacking." For the content of this command is without a doubt that we feed the hungry, cover the naked, give bedding to one without bedding, give clothing to one without clothing, marry off a single man who does not have the wherewithal to get married and to give a horse to ride upon to one who is habituated to it [but can no longer afford it], as is made famous in the Talmud (Ketubot 67b). For this is all included in His saying, "he is lacking." And the words of the Talmud for them were attached 'to a stammering jargon and an alien tongue.' For otherwise, they would not have counted the reading of the Megillah and that which is similar to it with the commandments that were stated to Moshe on Mount Sinai. And it is stated in the Gemara in Shevuot (Shevuot 39a:10), "And I have only the commandments that were commanded at Mount Sinai. From where do I have commandments that were to be initiated in the future, such as the reading of the Megillah? The verse (Esther 9:27) states, 'they fulfilled and accepted' - they fulfilled what they [already] accepted." And that is that they would believe all of the commandments that the prophets and sages ordained afterwards. But it is a wonder: Why did they count positive rabbinic commandments, as we mentioned, and not also mention negative rabbinic commandments. And just like they counted reading the Megillah, the Chanukah light, the one hundred blessings each day and Hallel among the positive commandments, they should have also counted each and every rabbinic secondary sexual prohibition as a negative Torah commandment! It is as [the Sages] explained it and said (Yevamot 20a), "The secondary sexual prohibitions are from the words of the Scribes." And it has already been explained in the Talmud about the statement of the Mishnah, "the prohibition of a commandment" - referring to secondary sexual prohibitions - saying, "What is the commandment? To listen to the words of the sages." And it should have been lookwise appropriate for them to include the sister of the levirate wife, which is from the words of the Scribes. More generally, if we were to count every positive rabbinic law and every negative rabbinic law, it would add up to many thousands. And that is something clear. But the principle is that anything rabbinic is not counted in the category of the 613 commandments. For this category is completely [comprised of] that which is written in the Torah, such that there is nothing rabbinic in it - as we are explaining. However their counting some things that are rabbinic and leaving out others - according to their choice - is an unacceptable notion, no matter what they say! Behold we have explained this principle and its demonstrations such that there should be no doubt about it at all to anyone.

One must also take care not to praise his friend with praise that leads to loss, as in a guest's going out to the city square and proclaiming to all how lavishly his host entertained him with food and drink and how many pains he took for him. For through this, "empty" men will gather and converge upon the host and consume his fare. Of one such as this it is written (Mishlei 27:14): "He who blesses his friend in a loud voice early in the morning, it will be accounted a curse to him." And from this it may be derived that the same is true of one who received a loan from his friend and publicized to all his great generosity. For through this many disreputable men will converge upon him and he will not be able to put them off. And one must heed his mouth and his tongue not to be suspect in his words and not to be regarded as a speaker of lashon hara. And if he brings himself to be suspected, this is in the category of the "dust" of lashon hara.

And there are [certain] statements which are milder nuances¹²Literally: dust of lashon hara (slander). of slander. For example, if someone says: "Let's not talk about so and so; I do not want to tell what happened and what transpired," or words to that effect. Likewise, if you tell of someone's virtues in the presence of his enemies, this constitutes a milder nuance of slander, for this will prompt [his enemies] to tell derogatory things about him. Concerning this King Solomon said,¹³Proverbs 27:14. "He that praises his friend with a loud voice when rising early in the morning,¹⁴This phrase alludes to the eagerness with which he sings his friends praises, day after day. (Metsudas David) it will be counted as a curse to him," for [proclaiming] his virtues will cause him harm. Also when a person slanders in a jesting or jocular manner, as if he were not speaking out of hatred, [he is guilty of a milder form of slander]. King Solomon [referred to this] when he said in his wisdom,¹⁵Proverbs 26:18,19. "As a man who pretends to play, and shoots firebrands, arrows, and death [so is this man who deceives his neighbor] and says 'Look, I'm only joking." Equally [guilty] is a person who slanders with slyness, by pretending to speak innocently, [as if he were] unaware that [what he says] is slander, and when he is taken to task for it he says, "I did not know that this was slander" or "so and so [actually] did these things."

The details of the commandment and the great amount of warnings that they, may their memory be blessed, warned us about talebearing and about its partner - evil speech - are explained in scattered locations in the Talmud and in the Midrash (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Human Dispositions 7). And they explicitly said about evil speech (Arakhin 15b), that it kills its speaker and its receiver (listener), (and) that it is said about it, "and the receiver more than all of them [does it kill]." And they warned much about it to the point that they said (Bava Metzia 59b), "One who has someone who was hung in his [family] record, let him not say, 'Hang me a fish [on the grill].'" And they said, (Arakhin 16a), "Within the category of 'the dust of (adjunct)' evil speech is one who praises his friend in front of [his friend's] hater, as it is stated (Proverbs 27:14), 'He who blesses his friend, etc.'"