In Hilchos Deios the Rambam defines a “holech rochil” talebearer, a baal lashon hara, slanderer, as one who maliciously spreads disparaging information about an individual. This applies even if the tale he bears is true. He adds that one who speaks lashon hara as a joke, to poke fun innocuously without malice, is still viewed as “touching” on lashon hara. It is considered avak lashon hara, “dust” of lashon hara. It seems clear from the Rambam, however, that unless one speaks lashon hara maliciously, out of hatred for his victim, he does not transgress the Biblical injunction against lashon hara….
Back to Home -> Beha'alosecha ->
In Hilchos Deios the Rambam defines a “holech rochil” talebearer, a baal lashon hara, slanderer, as one who maliciously spreads disparaging information about an individual. This applies even if the tale he bears is true. He adds that one who speaks lashon hara as a joke, to poke fun innocuously without malice, is still viewed as “touching” on lashon hara. It is considered avak lashon hara, “dust” of lashon hara. It seems clear from the Rambam, however, that unless one speaks lashon hara maliciously, out of hatred for his victim, he does not transgress the Biblical injunction against lashon hara….
In Hilchos Deios the Rambam defines a “holech rochil” talebearer, a baal lashon hara, slanderer, as one who maliciously spreads disparaging information about an individual. This applies even if the tale he bears is true. He adds that one who speaks lashon hara as a joke, to poke fun innocuously without malice, is still viewed as “touching” on lashon hara. It is considered avak lashon hara, “dust” of lashon hara. It seems clear from the Rambam, however, that unless one speaks lashon hara maliciously, out of hatred for his victim, he does not transgress the Biblical injunction against lashon hara….
In Hilchos Deios the Rambam defines a “holech rochil” talebearer, a baal lashon hara, slanderer, as one who maliciously spreads disparaging information about an individual. This applies even if the tale he bears is true. He adds that one who speaks lashon hara as a joke, to poke fun innocuously without malice, is still viewed as “touching” on lashon hara. It is considered avak lashon hara, “dust” of lashon hara. It seems clear from the Rambam, however, that unless one speaks lashon hara maliciously, out of hatred for his victim, he does not transgress the Biblical injunction against lashon hara….
In Hilchos Deios the Rambam defines a “holech rochil” talebearer, a baal lashon hara, slanderer, as one who maliciously spreads disparaging information about an individual. This applies even if the tale he bears is true. He adds that one who speaks lashon hara as a joke, to poke fun innocuously without malice, is still viewed as “touching” on lashon hara. It is considered avak lashon hara, “dust” of lashon hara. It seems clear from the Rambam, however, that unless one speaks lashon hara maliciously, out of hatred for his victim, he does not transgress the Biblical injunction against lashon hara….
At the conclusion of the Nazir’s term he brings a sacrifice. The reason for this korban is enigmatic. Usually a sacrifice of this sort is a sin-offering, but how did the Nazir sin? One would think that at the completion of such a mitzvah, whereby the Nazir dedicates himself to Hashem on such a lofty spiritual plateau, that a Korban Chatas, sin-offering, would certainly not be necessary. Rabbeinu Bachya explains that since it appears that the Nazir is distancing himself from Hashem, he must bring a korban. Actually, he is only returning to his original state, but perception is what…
At the conclusion of the Nazir’s term he brings a sacrifice. The reason for this korban is enigmatic. Usually a sacrifice of this sort is a sin-offering, but how did the Nazir sin? One would think that at the completion of such a mitzvah, whereby the Nazir dedicates himself to Hashem on such a lofty spiritual plateau, that a Korban Chatas, sin-offering, would certainly not be necessary. Rabbeinu Bachya explains that since it appears that the Nazir is distancing himself from Hashem, he must bring a korban. Actually, he is only returning to his original state, but perception is what…
At the conclusion of the Nazir’s term he brings a sacrifice. The reason for this korban is enigmatic. Usually a sacrifice of this sort is a sin-offering, but how did the Nazir sin? One would think that at the completion of such a mitzvah, whereby the Nazir dedicates himself to Hashem on such a lofty spiritual plateau, that a Korban Chatas, sin-offering, would certainly not be necessary. Rabbeinu Bachya explains that since it appears that the Nazir is distancing himself from Hashem, he must bring a korban. Actually, he is only returning to his original state, but perception is what…
At the conclusion of the Nazir’s term he brings a sacrifice. The reason for this korban is enigmatic. Usually a sacrifice of this sort is a sin-offering, but how did the Nazir sin? One would think that at the completion of such a mitzvah, whereby the Nazir dedicates himself to Hashem on such a lofty spiritual plateau, that a Korban Chatas, sin-offering, would certainly not be necessary. Rabbeinu Bachya explains that since it appears that the Nazir is distancing himself from Hashem, he must bring a korban. Actually, he is only returning to his original state, but perception is what…
At the conclusion of the Nazir’s term he brings a sacrifice. The reason for this korban is enigmatic. Usually a sacrifice of this sort is a sin-offering, but how did the Nazir sin? One would think that at the completion of such a mitzvah, whereby the Nazir dedicates himself to Hashem on such a lofty spiritual plateau, that a Korban Chatas, sin-offering, would certainly not be necessary. Rabbeinu Bachya explains that since it appears that the Nazir is distancing himself from Hashem, he must bring a korban. Actually, he is only returning to his original state, but perception is what…
