EFRAT, Israel— “When the cloud left its place over the tent, Miriam was leprous, white like snow” (Numbers 12:10).

Is the prohibition against gossip necessarily referring to a false accusation?
Codifying the laws of gossip and slander, Maimonides, in his Laws of Knowledge, Ch. 7, Law 1, cites the verse “You shall not be a talebearer among your people,” pointing out that the second part of’ the verse, “...you shall not stand upon the blood of your brother” proves ‘gossip can destroy the world’ ” (Maimonides’ language). He cites the example of Do’eg the Edomite, who reported to King Saul that David had been granted hospitality in the priestly city of Nov.  And, indeed, David had been granted hospitality in the priestly city of Nov. Do’eg’s insensitivity to reporting the incident which triggered off Saul’s wrath truly “destroyed the world;” it resulted in the destruction of 85 priests, as well as every man, woman, child, and beast in the city… (I Samuel, Ch. 22). Their rehilut, tale-bearing, refers to reporting a true occurrence.

To be sure, everyone is aware that slander and libel, spreading a false rumor, is universally condemned (Maimonides’ category of the “motzi shem ra”)! But try and tell “a friendly neighbor” or a maga¬zine specializing in gossip that parading unnecessary information about people, even if true, is forbidden as well! Lashon Hara is defined by Maimonides as true information about someone which can be interpreted to his/her detriment.  Maimonides even includes the seemingly innocent detail passed along from one to another which, on the surface, is utterly innocuous. This is what he would call rehilut, or tale bearing. Take, for example, the complimentary com¬ment: “Laura is a wonderful cook.” If said about a woman who is noticeably overweight, it can engender the kind of guffaws which will lead to disparaging comments. This is the tale bearing which the Torah condemns.

From this perspective, let us look at this week’s Biblical reading. In Behalotcha, we read the tale of Miriam’s leprosy— which came as a result of the fact that “Miriam and Aaron begin speaking against Moses because of the dark-skinned (Cushite) woman he married,” (Numbers 12:1)—which may serve as an example of Maimonides’ inno¬cent, but deadly, gossip.

Miriam’s loose tongue results in G-d’s anger. Miriam’s punishment is her skin becoming leprous, “white like snow.”

Our tradition tells us that leprosy is the punishment for slander, the condition and the cause linked linguistically because the word for leper—metzora—and the word for slander—motzi shem ra—echo each other. And, in terms of Maimonides’ definitions motzi shem ra is spreading a false rumor, slander.

However, in analyzing the text itself, we are hard-pressed to come up with a case of slander. All that is revealed is something happened “concerning” (al odot ha’isha 12:1) the Cushite woman whom he (Moses) had taken to wife.  Rashi (loc cit) quotes the Sifri, which brings down the words of R. Natan who explains that Miriam happened to be standing next to Moses’ wife Tziporah when Moses was informed that two men in the camp, Eldad and Medad, had begun to prophesy. Commiserating with the wives of Eldad and Medad, Tziporah shared the possibility that their husbands will leave them as her husband had left her. Presumably Moses, the prophet who spoke to G-d, felt that he could not continue an ordinary husband-wife relationship at the same time that he enjoyed such an intensive prophetic relationship with G-d, and had ceased living with his wife.

Armed with this intimate detail, Miriam pulls along Aaron, and the gossip about Moses gets rolling, though the text merely hints at what transpired. This is why Rashi fills us in with the missing pieces, including the idea that a Cushite woman is synonymous with beauty and goodness. According to Rashi’s reading, the Cushite is Tziporah;  Miriam is merely broadcasting the divorce, subtly adding (with the word “Cushite”) that her brother had divorced a beautiful and good woman, who apparently did not warrant such treatment, although divorce is possible according to Jewish law.

An alternative interpretation by Joseph ben Kaspi understands the verse to be a literal reference to Moses having taken a second wife, a Cushite, and this is why Miriam and Aaron are gossiping; here, too, the Bible allows for more than one wife.

Common to both readings is the simple fact that nowhere is there the remotest sug¬gestion that Miriam and Aaron are spreading untruths; and yet the result of this talk leads to Miriam’s flesh turning leprous, decayed and desiccated, a tragic condition, especially for a woman venerated as a prophetess. This confirms our earlier teaching that even if someone is simply passing on a true occurrence, the message could, in a given circumstance, “destroy the world.”

In the following verse, we read that Miriam and Aaron go on to say, “Is it to Moses exclusively that G-d speaks? Does he not also speak  to us?” (Numbers 12:2). If, indeed, Moses divorced Tzipporah because of his spiritual, prophetic calling, his siblings may well be touting the fact that they too are prophets, and yet they remain married!

In effect, Miriam may be defending her status as a prophet, one who speaks to G-d but who also lives with her husband as man and wife. Weakening Moses’ reputation by subtly criticizing his divorce may well be an attempt to “whiten” her own reputation, another reason why the talebearer suffers leprosy, the disease that makes one’s skin look as white as snow.  The illustration of Rav Yisrael Salanter, founder of the Mussar movement in the 19th century, is apt. He attempted to explain the attraction of slander, why it is such a difficult transgression to overcome: I can appear taller than you either by climbing atop a ladder, or pushing you down onto the floor. And it is always easier to push someone else down than it is to lift oneself up.

G-d’s response would seem to indicate the negative nuance of Miriam’s report, even if true. G-d clarifies the difference between the prophecies of Miriam and the prophecies of Moses: “Listen carefully to my words. If someone among you experiences Divine prophecy, then when I make myself known to him in a vision, I will speak to him in a dream. This is not true with my servant Moses, who is like a trusted servant throughout my house. With him I speak face to face... How can you not be afraid to speak against my servant?” (Numbers 11:6-8).

Noteworthy is that in G-d’s defense of Moses, there is no reference to the Cushite woman. Certainly Miriam had spoken the truth—Moses had either taken a second wife or he had divorced Tziporah. But that isn’t the real issue. What is at stake is the positioning, and the purpose, of the seem¬ingly innocent remark, to the detriment of Moses! And G-d is explaining to Moses’ siblings that, indeed, their younger brother’s contact with G-d is far more intense than theirs’.

The laws of kosher food, what one may or may not allow into one’s mouth, have always been easier to keep than the laws of kosher talk—what one may or may not allow out of one’s mouth. And perhaps this principle is one reason why Maimonides’ classification uses such a strong moral language, quoting the dictum of the Sages, that idol worship, incest and murder remove a person from this world and the next world, and that “lashon hara,” even thought it be true, is equivalent to all three. “Often life or death for an individual depends on the power of someone else’s tongue.”