לקוטי שיחות חלק י׳ - נח ב

Parshas Noach

1. In connection with what is stated in our parshah^[1], "of the pure animals and of the animals that are not pure," our Sages said in the Gemara^[2]: "A person should never utter an unseemly word from his mouth, for the verse went eight letters out of its way rather than utter an unseemly word, as it says, 'of the pure animals and of the animals that are not pure.'" Rashi explains that this is the reason for the length of the verse's wording: "that are not pure" — three words comprising thirteen letters — where it could have been brief and said "the impure" (a word of five letters): "to teach you to seek out clean language."

And just as there is a lesson in our parshah regarding care in speech, so too one can learn from this parshah another lesson — regarding care in seeing. Shem and Yefes took the utmost care not to see "their father's nakedness" — "and they walked backward etc., and their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness"^[3]; and the reward for this care emphasizes its greatness and worth: "Blessed be G‑d, the G‑d of Shem, and let Canaan be etc. May G‑d enlarge Yefes, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem etc."^[4]

2. However, the above narrative requires explanation:

After the verse says that they walked in a manner of "and their faces were turned backward," it is understood from this that they did not see their father's nakedness (since their faces were turned backward) — what do the words "and they did not see their father's nakedness"^[5] add? We must say that with these words the verse introduces something new — a special virtue in the conduct of Shem and Yefes, which we would not have known from the preceding words ("and their faces were turned backward").

3. This will be understood by prefacing the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov^[6] that when a person sees evil in another, this is proof that (the like of) that evil is found in himself^[7]. It is like a person looking in a mirror: "if his face is clean, he sees no blemish in the mirror"^[8], but if he sees dirt and stains in the mirror, it is only because "his face is soiled."

Seemingly: what compels us to say that seeing evil in another is a "likeness" and "reflection" of the evil in the one who sees it — why can there not be a situation in which the evil that is seen truly exists only in his fellow, while he himself is free of it?

The explanation^[9]: every occurrence in the world is by Divine Providence. So too this occurrence (his seeing evil in another) is not by chance, G‑d forbid, but something arranged for him from Above; and since G‑d did not create a single thing in His world in vain^[10], it is impossible to say that he would be brought from Above to see evil in someone for nothing. Rather, there is certainly in this a lesson^[11] and a message, namely: that the evil is found in the one who sees it, and he must rectify it.

And why must the lesson come in such a roundabout way — that he comes to know of his own evil by means of his fellow — and not directly? Because "love covers all transgressions"^[12] (and self-love all the more so), and "a person sees all blemishes except his own"^[13]. Therefore the way to bring a person to awareness of his own shortcomings is by arranging for him to see them in another^[14]. This occasion, when he "sees" (in his fellow) the baseness of the shortcomings and the evil, arouses him to reflect on his own state; and when he reflects well on his own state, "as it truly concerns his own soul," he will come to recognize that the shortcomings he saw are truly his own — that "all the blemishes (that a) person sees (on the) outside (are the result) of his own blemishes."

4. However, one can still ask: the task of a Jew is not only to bring about refinement and elevation in himself, but also to bring this about in his fellow, as it is written, "You shall surely rebuke your fellow" — even a hundred times^[15].

If so, who says that the intent in being shown from Above the evil of another is that he should see and know that the same evil is in him and that he must eliminate it? One could say quite simply that the intent is truly to show him the "evil" of his fellow — so that he, the one who sees, should rebuke him and help him rectify and improve his ways?

Moreover: as has been discussed many times^[16], Jews are not in the category of an "intermediary" through which the Supernal intent is fulfilled in some other matter — i.e., that the ultimate purpose lies in something outside of them (like all other matters of creation, including the higher worlds^[17], which are not themselves the purpose of their creation, but exist "for the sake of Israel and for the sake of the Torah"^[18]). Rather, the Jewish people themselves are the purpose of the intent. And just as this is so regarding the Jewish people as a whole, so it is regarding each one of them individually: it cannot be said that one Jew merely "serves as an intermediary" for his fellow Jew, for the purpose of the intent is in each and every one individually^[19].

It is understood from this (also in the personal service of each individual) that it is likewise impossible to say that the shortcomings of one person are shown from Above solely for the benefit of the other (the one who sees) — unless a benefit will come from this for the "owner of the shortcoming" himself^[20]; that is, by the first one rebuking him and endeavoring to rectify him and to eliminate the evil within him.

And since this is so — that in any case one must say that the purpose of his being shown the evil of another is that he should rectify him — what proof is there that seeing the evil is nothing but looking "in a mirror," where he is shown his own evil in the "likeness" of his fellow?

5. To understand this, we must first explain a matter that is not understood in the continuation of the Gemara's statement cited above (section 1), "A person should never utter an unseemly word from his mouth… as it says… 'and of the animals that are not pure'":

In continuation of this statement another similar rule is stated there: "A person should always speak in clean language, for regarding a zav [Scripture] called it 'riding' and regarding a woman it called it 'sitting'" (the reason for the change of wording in the verses about a zavah and a zav — regarding a woman, "or on the vessel on which she sits"^[21], and not "rides" on it, as with a man, "and any saddle on which he rides"^[22] — is "because it is not fitting to mention riding and spreading of the legs regarding a woman"^[23]). On this rule the Gemara there raises a difficulty from three verses in which the term "riding" is written regarding a woman; and after the answer to the third comes the question: "But is 'impure' (tamei) not written in the Torah?"

This is not at all understood. The word "tamei" is written in the Torah more than a hundred times — if so, reason dictates that the Gemara should first have raised the question from the word "tamei," which recurs many times, and only afterward from the term "riding" regarding a woman, which appears only a few times. Why then do the questions come in reverse order?

Also to be understood: what does the Gemara mean by "Is tamei not written?" phrased as a wondering question — as if the information that "tamei" is written were something novel that resolves a possible doubt — when it would be more fitting to say, "But tamei is written in the Torah" (or the like)?

6. The explanation: when the matter at hand is wording that comes as a halachic ruling, the "ruling" must be stated in the clearest language — even if that language is an "unseemly word" — so that the halachah will be decided and entirely clear. Accordingly, it is understood why in most places in the Torah the word "tamei" is used — even though speaking "in brief language" is not superior (according to the Maharsha) to speaking "in clean language" — because only in the narratives of the Torah is it possible for the matter of impurity (and the like) to be written in the manner of "the verse went out of its way" (in a roundabout and veiled manner, not directly and openly)^[24]; and there (in the Torah's narratives), "long and clean language" is found no less than "short and unseemly language," since "short and unseemly language and long and clean language are equal."

Whereas in those (most) places in the Torah whose subject is a halachic ruling, the verse must necessarily use the word "tamei" (not because of its virtue "as brief language," but) because halachah must be stated as a clear ruling. Accordingly, it is understood why the Gemara held (in its initial assumption) that even "where it takes more words" the verse speaks in clean language — even though the word "tamei" appears many times in the Torah — because, as stated, in most places the word "tamei" comes in connection with halachah, and therefore this is no contradiction to the rule "A person should never… from his mouth," even according to the initial assumption that it applies even "where it takes more words."

And in the Gemara's question, "But is tamei not written in the Torah?" the intent is to ask: do we not find in the Torah the term "tamei" even where it is possible "to go out of the way" — in its narratives? It is found in them at least a few times! Therefore there is also no wonder that this question in the Gemara from the word "tamei" is not given precedence over the question from the term "riding," since in the narratives of the Torah this word appears in only a number of places.

7. As stated: although when one must rule on a halachah concerning (some thing, or even) some person, one is obligated to state it in a clear manner and language — "he is impure," and the like — nevertheless, when his impurity is being discussed not as a halachic ruling on it, one must refrain from uttering an "unseemly word," since this is the narrative part of the halachah.

Proof of this: the command "If there be among you a man who will not be pure etc., he shall go outside the camp"^[25] — although the verse comes to make known the law of this person, since the verse is not dealing with his law to establish that he is impure, but rather that he must go "outside the camp" (for it is already known that he is impure), therefore "the verse went out of its way," and instead of "impure" it lengthens and says "who will not be pure."

And just as this is so regarding speech (in clean language), so too regarding seeing:

When one hears that a Jew has done something improper, G‑d forbid, the obligation is to "see" the "practical halachah" in the matter — that is, (only) what pertains to what he (the one who sees) must do to rectify it: to rebuke him (of course, in pleasant ways and in the proper manner^[26]) and to bring him back to the good; at the least, this must be the main thing in the seeing. If, however, when he hears of the bad in another, he "sees" not the practical lesson intended for him, but "sees" the wrongdoing of his fellow (at least — this is what stands out for him) — i.e., he senses (not the necessity on his part to rectify him, but) that there exists evil in the other — this is conclusive proof that "his face is soiled," that the bad he sees in another is a "mirror" of his own bad.

That is to say: since "of all that G‑d created in His world, He did not create a single thing in vain" (as above) — so that in every detail that he "sees" there is a special lesson for him — it is understood that in our case it is a twofold lesson for him:

That he is shown (from Above) that there is (in his fellow) something in need of rectification is a lesson that he must involve himself with him in order to rectify him; and that he is shown a matter of "evil" is a lesson that the evil is found in him, and he must rectify himself. For if he himself were on the level of a tzaddik (at least in this particular respect^[27]), he would not see and emphasize the evil in this, as above.

8. With this it will be understood why the verse adds "and they did not see their father's nakedness," although seemingly this is understood from what was said earlier, "and their faces were turned backward":

The intent is to emphasize that not only did they (Shem and Yefes) not see "their father's nakedness" in the physical sense (since "their faces were turned backward"), but even more: they did not "see" and did not "sense" any "nakedness" or shortcoming in their father. Their attention was focused entirely on what they needed to do — to cover "(the nakedness of) their father." But "their father's nakedness" in and of itself "they did not see."

And with this itself it is understood why Shem and Yefes differed from their third brother, Cham: they "did not see," but of Cham it is said, "and Cham saw" — and this is due to the difference in their nature and level:

"Cham, the father of Canaan" — since the evil was in himself (except that in him it was still in a subtle form)^[28] — for "Cham" signifies heat^[29], from the line of the left^[30] — therefore^[31] he saw in Noach the bad of "and he drank etc. and became drunk etc."^[32], which is also a matter of heat (and although the heat of Cham is of a more subtle form^[33] than the heat that he saw, which was expressed in "and he drank etc." — nevertheless he sensed it, because at least in subtle form it was in him);

whereas Shem and Yefes, who are from the line of the right and the middle line^[30] — in them this evil is absent, not even in a subtle form, nor in the subtlest of subtle forms. And since they themselves are completely clean of this evil, they do not see it in another either — they see and know only the task incumbent upon them in this.

9. And this is the lesson for each one of us:

When we hear or see something not good about a Jew, then besides the fact that it is forbidden to speak and tell of it to others — and not as Cham did, who was not satisfied with having "seen" the evil but also made it known to others: "and he told his two brothers outside"^[28] — but even more than this, one must not even think in one's mind about the evil of another^[34]. One must consider what to do about it, how to rebuke him (as above, in the proper manner) and rectify him; and at the same time also seek counsel and make every effort not to "see" the evil of one's fellow, even while dealing with him.

And when we conduct ourselves and go in this way of Shem and Yefes, we merit the promised blessing: "Blessed be G‑d, the G‑d of Shem, and let Canaan be etc.," and also "May G‑d enlarge Yefes, (but) he shall dwell in the tents of Shem etc." —

we merit to be vessels for Torah^[35] — for the vessel for Torah is peace^[36] — until we merit the indwelling of the Shechinah, which is "in the tents of Shem" (in the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash^[37]), through unity and ahavas Yisrael^[38], speedily and very soon.

(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Bereishis, 5726)

Key Lesson

Shem and Yefes not only kept their eyes away from their father's shame — they did not even register it as shame, because their whole attention was on what they had to do: cover him. When we are shown a fault in another Jew, the practical message is twofold: to help him improve, gently and properly, and to recognize that what stands out to us is a mirror of something within ourselves that needs fixing. Seeing only the task and not the "evil" makes us vessels for Torah, whose vessel is peace, and through such unity and ahavas Yisrael we merit the Third Beis HaMikdash.