|
The Talmud is replete with the idea that one of the root causes of צרעת is the speaking of לשון הרע. It affords us the opportunity to examine one aspect of this prohibition.
The Rambam in the 7th Perek of הלכות דעות writes as follows:
ועוד אמרו חכמים שלשה לשון הרע הורגת, האומרו והמקבלו וזה שאומרין עליו, והמקבלו יתר מן האומרו
“Our Rabbis teach us that Lashon Hara kills three people: the one who says it, the one who accepts it and the one who is spoken about. And the one who accepts it is more severe than the one who speaks it.”
A quick look in the מפתח of the Frankel Rambam tells us that although there is no gemara that speaks directly to this notion, there are a number of sources within the Talmud that indicates that it’s a graver error to listen to Lashon Hara than speak it, and based on a comment that the Rambam makes in his commentary to the Mishna on Pirkei Avos, it’s clear that the Rambam had a גירסא (text of the gemara) that states this explicitly.
The question now is obvious. Why should this be so? Without this Rambam, left to my own thought process, I would naturally have argued that speaking Lashon Hara is worse than listening. Speaking is active while listening is passive. Throughout the gemara we always find that aveirot that require action is more culpable than aveirot that are accomplished passively.
A consideration….
The gemara in Shabbos after listing the 39 Melachot is bothered by the order of the first two. The Mishna first lists planting and then plowing. Anyone (myself excluded) knows that in the farming process, first you plow the land and then you plant. Shouldn’t the Mishna present the melachot in the correct order? The gemara answers that the land of Israel is so hard that what they would first plow the land once just so that the seeds would collect in the ground and then plow again afterwards so that the ground can be even more fertile environment for the growth of the seed; the double plowing both before and after the laying of the seed creates a rich environment one that promotes growth.
The speaker of Lashon hara needs a receptive audience. When nobody is listening, there is simply never a temptation to speak. The audience lays the fertile ground both before and after the speaker speaks so that the speaker knows that he has a rich environment to plant his Lashon Hara. The peaked interest of the listener invites someone with juicy information to share the goods knowing that he or she has a captivated audience. All this may be an explanation of the Rambam that listening is worse as the listener is the real catalyst to the exchange of information.
And perhaps within this context we can also now understand the prohibition of listening to Lashon Hara a lot better. How can someone be faulted for overhearing Lashon Hara being spoken? Is it my fault that I was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time? And what if someone just blurts out a comment about another without asking first if I was interested in hearing? Am I guilty for listening to Lashon Hara? Based on our explanation, we could argue that these examples do not fall under the category of listening to Lashon Hara. (This last point is not meant as a ruling but a simple analysis of the issue. For a ruling speak to your local Rav.)
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Sugerman
| 
