Bitter Exchange

Kapital 64 begins with the words “Lamenatzeach Mizmor L’Dovid,” a common phrase that in this case introduces a Mizmor with an uncommon purpose. Rashi, citing the Medrash Tehillim, explains that Dovid Hamelech wrote these Pessukim about Daniel, who was his descendant. Dovid knew, through Ruach HaKodesh, that Daniel would be thrown in a Gov HaArayos, the lions’ den, and wrote this Teffilah on his behalf. Sforno offers a different explanation with similar connotations: he explains that Dovid Hamelech wrote these words “Al Tzaras Haman HaRasha…” It is interesting to note that Daniel himself makes an appearance in Megillas Esther, known there as Hasach, and so both according to Rashi and Sforno this Perek was written by Dovid with a mind towards the same time period.

Whether the subject of the Perek is Daniel specifically, or Klal Yisroel generally, the overall message remains the same, with the Pessukim for relief from mortal enemies. This tone is set from the very first Passuk of the actual Mizmor: “Shema Elokim Koli B’Sichi M’Pachad Oyer Tatzor Chayai.”. Similarly, the next Passuk asks that we be saved from those who join forces to our detriment: “Tastireni M’Sod Mireim M’Regishas Po’alei Aven”. Clearly, the Tzaros that we Daven about in this Perek were brought upon us by outsiders

Much of the Perek is dedicated to an extended metaphor, in which the words of these enemies are compared to weapons, both a sword and an arrow, which are wielded with abandon: “L’yiros Bamistarim Tam Pison Yoduhu V’Lo Yeyrau”. Considering the circumstances about which this Perek is written, according to the Meforshei HaPshat, this is not surprising.

The Pessukim in Sefer Daniel tell us that the other officers of Daryavesh were jealous of the favor that Daniel found in the eyes of the king, and they developed a plan to dispose of him. First, they gathered to convince Daryavesh to enact a ban on Teffilah, and then reported on Daniel for violating the edict. As a result, Daniel was thrown into the Gov HaArayos, but when he survived, his enemies replaced him, meeting their end. The threat that Haman posed also came because of the way he spoke to Achashverosh, compelling him to enact the decree against the Yidden.

The Pessukim speak about the destructive nature of these plots: “Yechazku Lamo Davar Rah…Amru Mi Yireh Lamo”. When people band together, speaking about their shared adversaries, they strengthen one another to the point that they consider themselves invincible. They work together, seeking a path to victory, and eventually emerge with plots such as the one Daniel faced or Haman put into play.

The Perek then transitions to a more hopeful tone, reasserting what we all know: “Vayarem Elokim Chetz Pisom”. Our enemies all experience their own downfall. In fact, “VaYashlichuhu Alimo Leshonam”, they are often thwarted by their own devices. This happened both in the case of Daniel, whose enemies perished in the same Gov HaArayos to which they doomed him, and Haman, who was hanged on the gallows intended for Mordechai.

When this happens, the Yad Hashem is made clear, “VAYiru Kol Adam VaYagidu Poal Elokim U’Maasehu Hiskilu”, and those who trusted in Hashem rejoice: “Yismach Tzaddik B’Hashem V’Chasa Bo…”

While the focus and purpose of this Perek is clear, there is one Passuk that requires some explanation.

As we have seen, the Pessukim refer to the words used against us by our foes as weapons, as the Passuk says: “Asher Shanenu K’Cherev Leshonam Darchu Chitzam Davar Mar.” The metaphor is to both a Cherev, a sword, and Chitzim, arrows. Why are both necessary—what is implied by a comparison to Chitzim that is not implied by Cherev? Also, as the Perek continues, it is the comparison to Chitzim that is maintained, as in the words “L’yiros Bamistarim” which refer to shooting. In fact, later on, when the Pessukim speak about the way that HKBH exacts revenge upon them, the Passuk says “Vayarem Elokim Chetz Pisom”, further highlighting the comparison to Chitzim—why? What does this choice of words tell us?

Even the way these words are explained raises a question. Rashi, here, defines the words “Darchu Chitzam” as “Leshonam HaRah”. Now, if these words refer to the way our enemies use their words to ensnare us, is there not a more severe term than “Lashon Harah”? The words used by Daniel’s enemies and Haman were not mere slander—they were calculated to be fatal, and in the case of Haman, genocidal. Why does Rashi choose these words to explain the term Darchu Chitzam?

There is, however, a Medrash that speaks about these words, upon which Rashi may have based his Pirush.

The Beraishis Rabbasi, on the words “Gur Aryeh Yehuda” found in Parshas Vayechi, speaks about the story of Daniel in relation to this Perek of Tehillim. The Medrash says that Daniel’s enemies observed him being Mispalell and told “Lashon Harah”. Then, the Medrash says: “Shalosh Marim Hem…Misa…Isha Ra’ah…Lashon Harah.” There are three things defined as “Mar”, bitter, in Tanach. The first is Misa, death, about which Agag said “Achen Sar Mar HaMaves”, the second is a bad wife, as Shlomo says in Mishlei “U’Motzai Ani Mar MiMaves Es HaIsha”, and the last is Lashon Harah, as the Passuk here says “Darchu Chitzam Davar Mar”.

We now perhaps understand why Rashi defines the words “Darchu Chitzam Davar Mar” as referring to Lashon Harah specifically—Chazal seem to do so as well—but the overall question stands: why are the words of Daniel’s enemies defined as “Lashon Harah” and not something more substantial? The fact that the Medrash goes on to include this Passuk as the proof that Lashon Harah is generally “Mar” is further indication that there is no distinction between the type of speech Daniel’s enemies, and Haman, engaged in, and Lashon Harah as we commonly define it. How can we understand this?

In addition, we must understand the definition of Lashon Harah—along with Maves and Isha Ra’ah—as “Mar”, bitter. The Medrash points out that it is the Pessukim that define these things as “Mar”—how can we explain this? What does it mean that they are “Mar” and why does this term apply specifically to Maves, Isha Ra’ah and Lashon Harah? This question applies specifically to this Passuk because the comparison of Lashon Harah to Chtizim does not seem to need the addition of the term “Davar Mar”—why then is it included?

These discussions seem particularly relevant to the Parshios of Tazriah and Metzorah. The Sifri in Parshas Ki Seitzei tells us “Ain Negaim Baim Ela AL Lashon HaRah”, indicating that the Pessukim in these Parshios which speak about Tzaras are, in effect, teaching us about the impact of Lashon Harah. This raises a question: why does the Torah proscribe a punishment that is so obvious, and carries such an arduous process, for the Aveirah of Lashon Harah? What does this teach us about Lashon Harah and its severity?

In addition, there is a Medrash that seems to contradict the Sifri.

The Pessukim at the beginning of Parshas Metzorah describe the Tahara process that a Metzorah undergoes, which includes a pair of birds, one of which is released while the other is slaughtered. The Medrash Rabba on these Pesuskim tell us that the reason one is killed is to teach us that just as the one that undergoes Shechita will never return, the Tzaras will not return if the Metzorah has done Teshuva. The Medrash continues, telling us that as the Metzorah undergoes his Tahara, HKBH speak to the Malachim, telling them that the Metzorah was not punished baselessly. Rather, as the Passuk in Yeshaya says, “B’Avon Bitzo Kafatzti V’Akehu”, HBKH became angry with his thievery and the Metzorah was therefore stricken.

This Medrash seems to indicate that the Negaim came because of theft, “B’Avon Bitzo”, and not Lashon Harah, which would seem to countervene the statement of the Sifir: “Ain Negaim Baim Ela AL Lashon HaRah”. How can we understand this?

The Yishmach Yisroel of Alexander explains this Medrash by focusing on the underlying cause of Lashon Harah.

A person is given the gift of speech, with all of its components and abilities, with one purpose in mind: to serve the Ribbono Shel Olam. There are myriad ways to use this gift appropriately—Torah, Teffilah, offering a kind word to another, and so on—and it is what sets us apart from all other creatures in the Briah. When a person speaks Lashon Harah, however, it shows that he denies not only the purpose of his speech, but its source as well. If one internalizes the reality that speech is not a right, but a privilege given to him by Hashem for specific uses, he will avoid Lashon Harah. If he is not cognizant of this truth, however, than he will allow words of Lashon Harah to escape his lips.

The Yismach Yisroel continues, pointing out that while we think of Gezel as a physical act, it can apply to Ruchnias as well: if one eats without making a Bracha, he is called a Gazlen, even though the food belongs to hm materially. So too, if one uses his talents and abilities for the wrong purposes, in ways that are contrary to the reasons that Hashem gave them to him in the first place, he is a Gazlan, stealing, as it were, from HKBH.

We can now understand the Medrash Rabba: the words “B’Avon Bitzo Kafatzti V’Akehu” do not apply to actual material theft, but to one who uses his mouth for Lashon Harah instead of Devarim Shebekedusha. When he speaks Lashon Harah, a person steals from Hashem for he is using the gift bestowed upon him in violation of its terms and conditions. In doing so, he exhibits not only a lack of sensitivity to Shemiras Halashon, but a lack of awareness as to the source of his abilities. This is, in a way, akin to rejecting the Hashgachas Hashem, explaining the severity of the punishment received, as we see in these Parshios.

Perhaps we can explain the statement of the Berashis Rabasi based on this idea.

The first item listed as “Mar” is Misa, which the Medrash learns from a Passuk in Sefer Shmuel. Agag, the king of Amalek, escaped death at the hands of Shaul, and was held prisoner instead. Shmuel Hanavi, however, understood that the Mitzvah to wipe out Amalek applied to the king as well, and ordered Agag brought before him. At that moment, Agag said “Achen Sar Mar HaMaves”, anticipating that his demise was at hand. Malbim, there, explains his words: Agag had been held captive in lieu of facing death, but that opportunity was now lost. The word “Mar”, explains Malbim, connotes a change or switch, as in Temurah, and Agag was expressing that the “Mar HaMaves”, that which he had traded for death, was now being removed.

With this in mind, we can identify a nuanced connotation of the word Mar: it does not only mean “bitterness” but specifically when something otherwise pleasant or positive is replaced with a less attractive alternative. Misa, the opposite of Chaim, is certainly “Mar”: a person's ability to serve HKBH and grow is ended with Misa, his vitality replaced. An Isha Rah can also be seen as “Mar”: the bliss of a healthy relationship, and the Bracha that is brought by Shalom Bein Ish L’Ishto, is replaced by strife and Ketatah, resulting not only in displeasure, but an existence of “Mar”.

The same is true of Lashon Harah: when one speaks Lason Hara rather than using one's speech for the Kedusha for which it was meant, he replaces Tov with Ra’ah, and in that way creates a situation of “Mar”. Understanding Gezel of Lashon Harah reveals the depths of its roots, and the words “Shalosh Marim Hem…Misa…Isha Ra’ah…Lashon Harah” are now understood.

We can understand the Pessukim in Tehillim based on these ideas as well.

The Passuk refers to the words of our enemies as a Cherev, a sword, and Chitzim, arrows, but there is a key difference between the two: a sword is effective because of its blade more so than he who weilds it, while an arrow can only travel a distance if its archer is skilled, his muscles well honed. In this sense, the Chetz is a weapon which relies on a person's abilities; therefore, if it is shot for the wrong purposes, the person has abused that which HKBH has gifted him. This is the comparison of the Chetz, specifically, to Lashon Hara, as Rashi explained. Just as one who shoots an arrow for the wrong reason has misused his strength, one who speaks Lashon Harah has misused his mouth.

Because Lashon Harah exhibits a lack of awareness, or a refusal to respect, the grantor of one's gifts, we can understand why this term applies to the words of Daniel’s enemies or even Haman. If one uses his speech for the sole purpose of Chilul Shem Shamayim, as those Reshaim each did in their times, then he has committed the ultimate Gezel and spoken the purest form of Lashon Harah. Not only did he use his gifts contrary to their intention, but in fact contrary to He who had granted them. It is this behavior that leads to the demise of our enemies, as Hashem certainly says “B’Avon Bitzo Kafatzti V’Akehu”, allowing those who stand with Hashem to experience the reality of “Yismach Tzaddik B’Hahsem…V’Yishallelu Kol Yishrei Lev”.