The chapter of the meraglim, spies, follows immediately after the closing chapter of the previous parshah, which details the incident of Miriam Ha’Neviayah’s criticizing Moshe Rabbeinu and the consequential punishment which she experienced. Despite the fact that the spying incident took place shortly after Miriam’s debacle, the spies did not learn a lesson concerning the gravity of malicious gossip. They saw what happened to Miriam, yet they still had no compunction whatsoever about slandering Eretz Yisrael. The commentators question this exposition (Midrash Rabbah 16:6; cited by Rashi). They quote Chazal in the Talmud Arachin 16a, who deplore the speaking of lashon hora, applying a kal v’chomer, a priori logic. The spies spoke only against stone and wood (trees and rocks of Eretz Yisrael); they did not slander people. Yet, they were gravely punished. How much more so should one take extreme care not to spread anything negative about a fellow Jew? It is an interesting kal v’chomer, but, if this is the case, how could the meraglim have derived any lesson from Miriam? She spoke against a person of the highest caliber. They spoke only against inanimate wood and stone.
Horav Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal, zl, offers an enlightening explanation concerning the juxtaposition of the incident of the meraglim upon the incident of Miriam, thereby illuminating for us a new perspective on the evil of lashon hora. The Talmud Arachin 15a posits that teshuvah, repentance, is not an option for one who has spoken lashon hora. While Torah study can serve as a preventive measure, once the evil has exited his mouth he is beyond repair. This, in and of itself, is difficult to understand. It is accepted that nothing stands in the way of teshuvah. Why is it that no option of teshuvah is available in the sin of lashon hora?
The Shem MiShmuel explains (based upon a statement in the Talmud Bava Metzia 58b) that, when one publicly humiliates someone, he (the one who does the humiliating) receives all of the sins of the one whom he has humiliated. Thus, Rav Teichtal suggests that he who slanders his fellow is no different than the malbin pnei chaveiro, he who shames his friend. He, too, will receive all of the aveiros, sins, of the subject of his slander. Accordingly, one who speaks lashon hora against his fellow has a serious problem with regard to his teshuvah. One can only repent for those sins of which he is aware. Now that he has “taken on” new sins, which originally were held against the man whom he slandered, he has a new cache of sins of which he is unaware, and for which he cannot repent. One can only repent for his personal transgressions; he cannot repent for those sins, which are committed by others.
Having said this, we must acknowledge a new level of stringency concerning the aveirah of lashon hora. One who speaks lashon hora loses the option of teshuvah. His sin is irreparable. The meraglim spoke lashon hora against the Holy Land – or wood and stone. The Talmud considers speaking against inanimate rock and wood to be secondary to speaking against a human being. Is speaking against the Holy Land, which Hashem praises so much, something to belittle? Imagine, Hashem praises Eretz Yisrael with the greatest accolades, and the meraglim blast the country, undermining what Hashem said about it – and this is to be considered less critical than speaking against a person. Why?
Considering the above hypothesis, which delineates the harshness of lashon hora, we understand that, when speaking against wood and stone, one still retains the benefit of teshuvah as an option to repair his sin, while for lashon hora against people, this option does not exist.
Since we have established the primary severity of lashon hora, we understand that the slanderer does not have the ability to perform teshuvah; thus, when one slanders a holy, virtuous man who is “sin-free,” someone of the caliber of Moshe Rabbeinu, our quintessential Rebbe and leader, the option for teshuvah exists – since no sin is transferred from the subject to the slanderer! We now understand why the meraglim could have derived a lesson from Miriam who spoke against a person, when they only spoke against wood and stone. In this regard, both the person against whom Miriam spoke and the wood and stone against which the meraglim spoke have one thing in common: neither has sinned, allowing for the slander against them to be “teshuvah-receptive.”
Nonetheless, we can hardly compare lashon hora against a human being to its counterpart against inanimate objects. The meraglim should have learned their lesson. Sadly, they did not, and that is what precipitated the reaction of Klal Yisrael, which became the catalyst for our eventual national day of mourning, Tishah B’Av. It all started when the people ignored the lesson they could have derived from Miriam.
