Parashat Vayeshev, December 4, 2004

VAYESHEV 5765 D’VAR TORAH Avi Havivi

I. Gen. 37:2—Joseph brought “bad reports” (dibba ra’a) to Jacob

II. What is dibba? Rare word, other use in Pentateuch is in reference to the spies; from root dbb, to drip, ooze, seep (cf. English metaphor, in which a rumor “spreads like wildfire”)

III. Debate among commentators whether term dibba is neutral, or inherently pejorative (cf. rumor, report)

IV. This is the first mentioned cause of the enmity between Joseph and brothers, prior to coat or dreams

V. Different interpretations by commentators

Laudatory: Joseph saw they were behaving improperly, so he reported this to Jacob, “the great tzaddik of the generation, so that he could pray on their behalf”

VI. But most commentators see his action as negative

S. R. Hirsch: He repeated gossip about them, rather than assuming it wasn’t true

Midrash B’reishit Rabbah, followed by Rashi: He reported to Jacob three bad things they did: Tearing a limb for food from a still-living animal, treating the maidservants’ sons disrespectfully, and sexual immorality (hints in the text: “flocks”, “Bilhah and Zilpah”, “father’s wives”); Joseph punished accordingly for these three acts of dibba: Coat dipped in goat’s blood, sold into slavery, Mrs. Potiphar

VII. Rashbam more narrow than Rashi on p’shat (simple meaning)—only dibba was that they disrespected the maidservants’ sons, calling them “slaves”—based on close reading of text in verse; Rashbam: “’This is how they disrespect the maidservants’ sons, but I honor them and associate with them’; pashtanim acherim lo amdu al ha’ikar (other literal explicators miss the point)”—criticizing his grandfather Rashi for accepting too much of the more fanciful interpretation of the midrash

VIII. Tz’ena Ur’ena draws distinction between spies’ report and Joseph’s: Spies fabricated while Joseph reported accurately (to spread a rumor vs. to bring a rumor--l’hotzi dibba vs. l’havi dibba); also says Joseph erred in his report—he misinterpreted what he saw, and the brothers really were not blameworthy

IX. The important point: Enmity between Joseph and brothers started with his critical gossip

X. Long tradition in Judaism of concern about lashon hara; exemplar was the Chofetz Chayim

XI. Types of lashon hara

Simple lashon hara--reporting or even hearing bad things that are true—a sin to listen whether you believe it true or not

Motzi shem ra—slander—telling something bad that you know isn’t true

R’chilut—tale-bearing—“Do you know what Schwartz is saying about you?”

Avak l’shon hara—“dust” (a trace of) LH—when you don’t actually say anything bad explicitly, but merely hint at it

XII. Some less obvious examples

LH publicly (to a group of minimum three people) worse than to an individual—e.g., being with a group of people and criticizing the d’rash given that day—CC says if you really wanted the darshan to improve, you would speak to him/her privately to give your input

LH during the Torah reading—people in shul frequently start chatting before the reading, and their tales frequently contain LH; then the Torah is taken out of the ark, the individual wants to finish telling his story and as a result ends up telling LH instead of listening to the Torah being read

Type of avak—“Have you seen Schwartz lately? Who would have thought it would come to this!?”

Type of avak—“I had dealings with Schwartz this week—don’t even get me started!”

Type of avak—when you mention someone’s enemy to them (to evoke their LH)—“I saw your “buddy” Schwartz this week

Type of avak—when you talk about someone and praise them too much (because the listener eventually will interrupt to say, “Yes, but s/he also…”)

XIII. Why so much emphasis on LH? Judaism always creates community and depends on it, and LH threatens the fabric of community—our community, any community; cf. example of Jacob’s family—tearing apart begins with Joseph’s dibba; language/speech is meant to connect, communicate—but LH divides people instead

XIV. Anecdote of Chofetz Chayim in the carriage—“Better to talk about horses than to talk about people”

N.B. CC talks at length about instances when it may be permissible to speak about someone’s bad qualitites—e.g., if this is a necessary step in trying to get a sinner to repent, or, trying to prevent a friend from going into business with someone dishonest (a modern application of this might be a job referral)—but, before deciding that an exception to the general rules of LH is o.k., one should consult one’s rabbi!

N.B.B. There is a feminist critique of the laws of LH—forgive me if my paraphrase isn’t perfect—something like, “These rules obviously were written for men by men, who have no idea what the social/communal fabric of women’s lives is like; talking about people serves various vital functions in discourse among women”; someone has told me there was an article about this in Lilith magazine a few years ago—does anyone in the minyan have this?