אם ירצה ה׳
Previous 3a
Rav Miller ztl Pesachim 3b chiour
Kashya 1: Why does the Gemara (Talmudic text) cite additional pesukim (verses) beyond the initial proof from the Chumash (Pentateuch) for using lashon naki (pure language)?
Terutz 1: The first posuk (verse) is from Torah, so one might think lashon naki applies only to divrei Torah (words of Torah); thus, it adds a posuk about chachamim (sages) to show even their own wisdom requires chosen words.
Terutz 2: Even for chachamim, one might limit it to divrei Torah; hence, another posuk emphasizes that all wisdom, even worldly talk, demands borurim (chosen, pure) expressions to emulate the chachamim.
| Din (Law) | Tzad (Side) | Rayah (Proof) | Chal (Difference) | Pivot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use lashon naki always | In Torah contexts only | Posuk from Ezra on Torah purity | Torah is inherently pure vs. rabbinic halacha (law) | Additional posuk on chachamim's cunning language extends to non-Torah |
| Extend to worldly speech | Rabbinic wisdom only | Posuk on choosing cunning words | Divrei Torah vs. chol (secular) matters | Final posuk on all wisdom requires borurim words, avoiding non-naki |
Sevara (logical reasoning): The principle prioritizes emulation of purity in speech as a moral elevation; just as Torah sets a standard, human wisdom must align to prevent degradation, ensuring even casual words reflect kedusha (holiness) without excess verbosity.
Kashya 2: If women riding camels is expressed as merkavot (riding astride), why avoid it for donkeys when both involve similar posture?
Terutz 1: On a gamal (camel), bhay (fear) of height necessitates secure straddling, making the expression proper; on a chamor (donkey), low height allows side-sitting, so riding implies impropriety.
Terutz 2: In Avigayil's case, layla (night) or har (mountain) descent adds bhay, justifying merkav; without such chal (distinction), sitting is preferred to maintain lashon naki.
| Din (Law) | Tzad (Side) | Rayah (Proof) | Chal (Difference) | Pivot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avoid non-naki for women on animals | Proper when necessary | Posuk on Rivka riding gamal | Height/fear on gamal vs. low/safe on chamor | Bhay justifies expression; absent bhay, choose yoshevet (sitting) |
| Exceptions for context | Night/mountain descent | Posuk on Avigayil merkav at night | Ordinary vs. perilous travel | Pivot to bhay David or har for security, allowing non-naki term |
Sevara: Contextual necessity overrides purity when safety demands it, as improper posture risks life; thus, the expression matches the required action, balancing tzniut (modesty) with pikuach nefesh (saving life) implications.
Kashya 3: The Torah uses brevity (kotzer, shortness) in teaching, yet sometimes lengthens for lashon naki—how reconcile with rule of teaching talmidim (students) b'derech ketzara (brief way)?
Terutz 1: When word counts are equal, choose naki; if naki requires more words, prefer brevity except in rare cases teaching the importance of naki.
Terutz 2: Exceptions like yoshevet emphasize the chiddush (novelty) of prioritizing naki, but general din favors brevity to avoid confusion or waste.
Sevara: Brevity aids clarity and efficiency in limud (study), preventing talmid overload; rare expansions serve as limud zechut (meritorious lesson) on speech ethics, highlighting naki's value without undermining kotzer as default.
Kashya 4: In the talmidim story before Rav, why rebuke the one saying chazir (swine) over g'di (kid goat) for weariness, when both convey the same?
Terutz 1: Chazir is non-kosher, implying non-naki; choosing tamei (impure) imagery shows poor judgment, leading Rav to avoid him.
Terutz 2: Parallels Hillel/Rebbe story where saying tahara (purity) over tuma (impurity) predicts greatness, as naki words reflect inner chochma (wisdom).
| Din (Law) | Tzad (Side) | Rayah (Proof) | Chal (Difference) | Pivot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choose naki metaphors | Animal fatigue examples | Talmid uses chazir vs. iz | Tamei vs. tahor animal | Non-naki reveals character flaw, barring further speech |
| Predict leadership | Word choice in questions | Grapes b'tahara, olives b'tuma vs. b'tamei | Explicit tahara avoids tuma | Pivot to Rebbe's praise: naki ensures hora'ah (teaching authority) in Yisrael |
Sevara: Words mirror the soul; non-naki choices betray laxity in ruchniyut (spirituality), unfit for leadership, as pure speech fosters trust and elevates communal Torah.
Kashya 5: In kohanim (priests) dividing lechem ha-panim (showbread), why investigate the one saying zanav (tail) of sheretz (creeping thing), finding pasul (invalid)?
Terutz 1: Zanav sheretz is non-naki, prompting yichus (lineage) check; though mizbeach (altar) service presumes kosher, his arrogance (ga'avah) allowed investigation.
Terutz 2: Alternate: Not yichus pasul, but character pasul from ga'avah, as non-naki stems from pride; or self-spoiling behavior justified probe.
Sevara: Improper speech signals deeper flaws; mizbeach presumption holds unless behavior invites scrutiny, ensuring avodah (service) purity by weeding out unfit attitudes.
Kashya 6: The Arami goy (gentile) boasts eating korban Pesach (Passover sacrifice), but demands chelev (fat) alya (tail)—why does non-naki lead to his death?
Terutz 1: Boasting exposes deceit; demanding alya, burned to Hashem, reveals ignorance, prompting check that he's mamzer (illegitimate) or goy.
Terutz 2: Letter to Bavel warns of trap; his death and sender's kri'ah (tearing garments) show avoiding bad news, yet non-naki invites ruin.
Sevara: Loose speech invites exposure; korban rules protect sanctity, and boasting breaches boundaries, logically leading to downfall as unchecked words betray true status.
Kashya 7: Messenger avoids saying bad news about chitah (wheat), saying sevurim (barley) instead—why criticize, and what better naki alternative?
Terutz 1: Sevurim is animal food, unsuitable substitute; should say pesholim (lentils) for human consumption, or reference last year's chitah.
Terutz 2: Principle: Avoid unpleasant speech like fool; choose fitting evasion to maintain positivity without falsehood.
Sevara: Evasive speech must align with context for credibility; poor choice undermines intent, teaching precision in naki to preserve harmony and truth.
Kashya 8: Rav hears of parents' death via evasive questions—why brief avelut (mourning) with chalitzah (removing shoes) then merchatz (bathing)?
Terutz 1: Shmuah rechokah (distant report) requires momentary avelut; part of day counts as whole, allowing immediate resumption.
Terutz 2: Halachos: Avel shoeless, no bathing; but rechokah limits to instant, teaching three dinim from incident.
Sevara: Avelut balances grief with life continuity; rechokah minimizes disruption, logically as old news lessens acute pain, prioritizing ongoing mitzvos.
But if brevity trumps naki except in teaching cases, why does the sugya multiply stories on word choice without invoking explicit derashot—might the accumulation itself imply a ⚘ kal va-chomer from Torah to chol, where if Torah lengthens for naki, how much more must we in daily speech?
IYH kindly partner with the Toras Avigdor organization to spread Rav Avigdor HaCohen Miller ztl's Torah to all Yidden on Earth. For Gemarah sponsoring specifically 347-541-8051 or email info@kolavigdor.com