Devarim II - Moshe said it on his own

This is the beginning of the presentation of sources regarding who wrote Devarim. The most important text is the following gemora in Megilla which makes a halachic distinction between Devarim and Vayikra. The Malbim cited offers a solution as to how the whole Torah is Divine i Moshe wrote part of it.

Megila(31b): On fast days the portion of blessings and curses is read and there must not be any break in the reading of the curses. What is source of this rule? R’ Chiya ben Gamda said in the name of R’ Assi said that it is because it says “My son, don’t despise G‑d’s chastisement” – so don’t act as if you don’t want to continue with the reading. Reish Lakish said it is because the beracha on the Torah should not be said on misfortune. So what is the Torah reader to do? A Tanna taught that when the reader starts he should begin the reading with a verse before the curses and when he finishes he should end with a verse after the curses. Abaye said that this rule of not interrupting the reading of the curses only applies to the curses found in Vayikra. However it is permitted to interrupt the reading of the curses found in Devarim. What is the reason for this distinction? Concerning the curses in Vayikra, the Jewish people are addressed in the plural form and Moshe said them at G‑d’s command. In contrast the curses said in Devarim are expressed in the singular form and Moshe said them on his own initiative. Levi bar Buti was once reading the curses in Devarim in a hesitating manner in the presence of R’ Huna. Rav Huna said to him that he could interrupt if he wanted. He explained that the prohibition of interrupting the reading only applied to the curses in Vayikra while it is permitted to interrupt for the curses in Devarim.

Malbim(Devarim 1:3): And it was in the fortieth year – In other words these are matters which Moshe spoke on his own initiative on various occasions in the manner of a preacher who gives chastisement. However he did not have permission to write these words in a sefer and even if he had written them in a sefer they would not have had the sanctity of a Torah scroll. Rather they would be simply considered a collection of his sermons that he said based on his human understanding or as words spoke by a man with ruach hakodesh. However after 40 years G‑d commanded that they be said again to the Jewish people as specific command from G‑d. That is why the verse say, G‑d commanded Moshe to speak to the Jewish people saying.” Similarly G‑d commanded him to writes these words in a sefer at the command of G‑d. Furthermore G‑d said that they should be said and written in a different order than they were originally said in the 11 places but rather in the order that G‑d commanded…. Thus all of Moshe’s words were written by G‑d’s command and he didn’t write them on his own initiative even the point of the smallest letter. Consequently since all the words in Devarim were written at G‑d’s command they have the same halachic status as the rest of the Torah which was written from G‑d’s mouth…

Chabad - The Rebbe had the status of a prophet?

LazerA's comment to "Chabad II - The apologetics arent' satisfying":

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...
"...it is indeed true that based on a clear sicha of the Rebbe, I believe him to have the status of a prophet. Indeed, someone who learns that sicha inside (Shoftim 5750) will see that the Rebbe says that all the Rebbeim of Chabad had that status (I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to others too), because they gave advice in matters of gashmiyus, as based on the Rebbe's explanation of Tanya p. 267."

Actually, the LLR goes a bit further in the sicha (which can be found at ).

He refers to himself as "the leader of our generation -- the judge, adviser and prophet of our generation" and "G-d has chosen and appointed a person who of himself is far greater than the people of his generation, to serve as a judge, adviser, and prophet to the generation."

And, for clarification, he wasn't engaging in hyperbole, he was explicitly claiming the full halachic status of a navi whose word is binding on all Jews.

As I explained in a previous comment, his halachic justification [seems problematic].

To repeat the essence of my previous comment:

The LLR's claim is based on the halacha that if an established prophet testifies that another individual is a prophet, that second individual is immediately muchzak as a navi and requires no testing.

The assumption in the LLR's sicha is that, at some point in time, an established navi testified that the previous rebbe was a navi, and then the previous rebbe testified that "his disciples" were neviim.

Ok, so what are we left with? An individual claims to be a prophet. Now, normally, a prophet needs to be tested. Nope! Because, he tells us, another individual, who never publicly claimed to be a prophet, testified (in front of whom?) that he is a prophet! Did anyone hear this testimony? In fact, did anyone know that the first one was a prophet? Who established him?

All of the sudden we have a whole history of "hidden prophets" (an oxymoron - people with the halachic status of prophets are, by definition, publicly known) that we must accept because this person tells us to.

Ultimately, we have nothing to support any of this except [his assertion][...]

R' Oliver states additionally that the LLR's claim was "because they gave advice in matters of gashmiyus, as based on the Rebbe's explanation of Tanya p. 267." I don't see anything on this matter in the sicha. Perhaps the LLR said it elsewhere.

In any event, the claim is based on a statement by the Baal HaTanya (Igeres Hakodesh ch. 22) to the effect that it has never been the practice to ask for advice on material matters, for only prophets can give such advice. Even Torah scholars can only advise on matters of Torah. (Some Modern Orthodox have used this passage to claim that the Baal Hatanya rejected the concept of Daas Torah. This is incorrect, but not for now.)

It is clearly a difficult passage (apparently ruling out getting financial advice from your accountant among other things), and one is tempted to argue that it was stated somewhat hyperbolicly, in that it was clearly intended as an expression of humility before the Baal HaTanya proceeds to give mussar to his followers on matters associated with material affairs.

In any event, the Baal HaTanya is clearly not claiming in this passage to be a prophet. It is clear that he is giving his advice despite the fact that he is not a prophet, as evidenced by his following statement:

אך האמת אגיד לשומעים לי כי האהבה מקלקת השורה

"However, I shall tell the truth to those who listen to me for love destroys the measure"
In other words, "Even though, according to what I just said, I have no place giving such advice, I shall anyways because I love you so much."

To use this passage as a basis for a halachic claim of prophecy is [very problematic].

I also want to reiterate what I said previously on this topic. When R' Oliver first mentioned this sicha, I went to look it up. I did not expect to find anything as shocking as I found. I thought I would find something that had been distorted by over-eager talmidim. Sadly, this sicha has convinced me that the late Lubavitcher rebbe was personally engaged in a deliberate campaign [...]

Chabad III - Messianics/Everyone is today?

eliyahu's follow up comment to "Chabad - Messianics - Everyone is today!":

I am glad to see that my words were read, and being that a few important point were raised I would like to address them:

1)it was mentioned a few times what I wrote about the meshechistim being a minority & to this people responded that beis moshiach is read just as much as kfar chabad etc. those who read my words carefully would have noticed that I stressed a number of times that in CHUTZ LAORETZ they are a minority. Unfortunately in Ey they are about half of chabad (or at least what is called chabad – I however do not consider the extreme meshchistem who make the iker of there avoidas hashem publicizing their mistaken beliefs, to be chabad at all. The avoidas hashem of a true chabad chossid is learning chasidus in depth, davening beavoida & having mesirus nefesh for kiyum hatorah vehamitzvos by trying to bring each & every jew closer to it). Another important point: the mishechistim (at least the Israely one's) are like a cult. Therefore each & every one of them see it as a choiv kadosh to read there party's newspaper, come to their gatherings etc., a regular anti meshechist on the other hand, unless he is interested, does not feel any specific need to buy kfar chabad. Another important point: beis moshiach has an english section thus making it more popular.

2)Someone commented on my usage of language “does not CONTINUE to be mashiach”, i'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant to say will not be the moshiach (the “continue” was referring to the fact that before his histalkus it was verry probable that the rebbe zy”a was moshiach, ma shein kein now).

3) A point was made about the kfar chabad magazine not ever writing clearly that the rebbe is not moshiach. This point is something which bothers me very much too, unfortunately the kfar chabad magazine is headed by people who just as much interested in making money as publicizing the true chabad viewpoint – therefore because they want to also attract non extreme meshechist readers they are carefull never to write that the rebbe is not moshiach. I would also like to point out that, contrary to what the kfar chabad write themselves, what is written in their magazine dos in no way represent the veiw points of the rabonim & mashpiem. I myself heard from R' Yoel Kahn Shlit”a that he is very upset about the way the Kfar chabad magazine works that there are no rabbonim who check over what is written there etc.

4)A point was raised about how come the rabbonim don't publicize enough their views about the rebbe not being moshiach. First of all it is important to point out that there was a publication called koivetz moshiach ugeula which gave out a few issues, and the view of many was expressed there (such as R' berell levin, R' baruch obulender rav of chabad in budepest, R' SB weinberg one the prominent shluchim and more) that the rebbe is not moshiach. Nevertheless I do agree agree that the rabonim should be doing more to spread their views. However 2 possible reasons can be made why they are not doing so: a) they feel that the ikar is to stop the people who are making a big deal of the rebbe being moshiach thus forming themselves into a new religion (as explained in my previous post), and it less important to stop people from making a stupid mistake, therefore they feel that by not so much stressing the issue of the rebbe being moshiach they will have a greater hashpoa on the people who are making a big deal of the rebbe being moshiach trying to get them out of there dangerous derech. b) in some cases there are people that will lose there jobs because of the influence of extreme meshechistim if they publicly & repeatability state that the rebbe is not moshiach (an example of this is R' Shmuel Zayintz who now works as a Magid shiur in the chabad yeshiva in morristown, who lost his job in another yeshiva because of certain meshistim who had an strong influence & were upset about him trying to convince certain bocharim that the rebbe is not moshiach).
Some writers questioned some of the names I brought of rabonim who don't believe that the rebbe is moshiach. I would like to respond to these Tanos:

A) R' berell levin: it was mentioned that since he published his view a few years ago he hasn't done so since. Is it a chiyuv for him to repeat his views every day? His views are already known & he obviously sees no reason to repeat them.
B) R' Leibell shapiro – when I wrote that I heard this from R' chaim Shapiro himself I meant that I also heard about his fathers views from him. With regard to him making his views public, it should be pointed out that even before I heard from R' chaim about his fathers views I already heard from a number of people about R' Leibl's views therefore it must be that he publicly has stated his views before.
C) R' chaim shapiro – it is true that he has not publicly stated his views, but he is not the type to make nay public statements. Anyone who wants however can speak to him himself & he will gladly tell you his views.
D) R' Yosef heller – it is true that his view has never been formally recorded but it is very well known & he has told it to many people & i'm sure if you contact him he'll tell it to you to.
E) R' Yechezkell Sofer – someone wrote that although it is true ehat I wrote about him but he is considered a koifer in the whole lubavitch. This is mamesh a lye, he is asked to farbreng in all none meshechist yeshivos. Just last year he farbregnd as a guest of the Va'ad talmidei hatmimim haoylomy in crown heights for all israely bocharim who were in new york for chidesh tishrei. He was recently interviewed in Kfar chabad magezine etc.
F) R' Chaim rapeport - “You are confusing the people: He does not write that the Rebbe is not the mashiach or that he may not the mashiach. He most importantly argues against david berger and also argues aganst stating that the Rebbe is mashiach presently”, if you'll take a close look at the beginning of his book that he writes quite clearly that his personal belief is that the rebbe will NOT BE MOSHIACH.

Boruch hahsem I was not challenged with regard to R' Ezra Shochat Shlit”a.

5)It was mentioned that what I wrote about the rebbe being moshiach not being an ikar by the anti meshechistim isn't true etc. a cannot help but just repeat what I wrote that I myself learnt in lubavitcher yeshivos, i'll add: most of my chaveirim are lubavitchers, and what I write is poshut what I see as the metzius.

Rav Shach & Prof. Marc Shapiro

A very negative essay about Rav Shach was posted on this blog by shloimie with the assertion that what it says must be true because the author is the well known academic Prof. Marc Shapiro whose erudition is acknowledged by all. Obviously whatever he wrote must be true. Yonah L. responded that the essay could not have been written by Prof. Shapiro because it was replete with so many errors and uncharacteristic intemperate language. Prof. Shapiro would never be guilty of such writing.

The fact is that you are both right. The essay was in fact written by Prof. Marc Shapiro and posted to Mail Jewish in 1993 (Vol 10 #93). It aroused great offense - even amongst the Modern Orthodox participants of that forum despite its ostensibly defense of Rav Soloveitchik against Rav Shach's criticism [Mail Jewish( Vol 10 #95).

For example Mail Jewish (vol 10 #98):

On the other hand, Marc takes Rav Shach to task for various statements and perhaps crosses the line into disrespect. His defense is that Rav Shach, by his behavior, has demonstrated that he is not worthy of Marc's respect. While I do believe that such a line exists (a line beyond which a person is no longer worthy of respect), it seems to me worthwhile to err on the side of caution until it has been authoritatively determined that such a line has been crossed; does Marc have any personal dealing with Rav Shach in which he has been insulted or offended? In the end, Marc sounds as shrill as the statements attributed to Rav Shach and any impact he hopes to
have on the "non-converted" is minimal. Perhaps Marc's point would be underscored by choosing the "derech shalom" instead on engaging in the same level of anger against which he is protesting. Aside from this purely functional aspect of maintaining kavod, this is perhaps a worthwhile halacha to choose to go "l'chumra" with. Marc is unhappy with Rav Shach's attacks on Lubavitch -- but isn't Rav Shach applying the same standard to Chabad that Marc is applying to him? If Rav Shach feels that a person or a movement is heretical, then he should speak out, and in strong terms, as Marc has spoken out against Rav Shach. Whether his assessment of Chabad is correct is another matter entirely.

Another comments was:

(If I showed my father, a Rosh Yeshiva in Torah Vodaath, my husband who is presently learning in Lakewood, or my father-in-law who is a retired YU physics professor who learns in Bais Hatalmud, Marc Shaprio's post, they would all probably tell me to stop reading such nonsense.) Marc tells us to listen to Rav Auerbach or Rav Yosef rather than Rav Shach. I wonder what those gedolim would think of his post. Are they some of the Rabbis he consulted before he submitted his post

See also Mail Jewish (vol 10 #100) where Prof. Shapiro acknowledges that he is basically just reporting the views of some people he respects and thus giving voice to an anonymous group of critics of Rav Shach.

I would like to clarify my posting about Rav Shach. In fact I actually hinted to this in my first sentence (if I remember correctly). What I wrote does not actually reflect my personal feelings. That is, I really don't get upset at what Rav Shach says because a lot of people say things I disagree with and it doesn't pay to always get angry. However,
what I posted is a reflection of the anger I have heard from a number of people including some well known rabbis whose names many people on this list would recognize. Since messages are not sent in anonymously I chose to have my name appear and represent all of the people who feel this way. In fact, all of the private mail I received was supportive, although I don't know how many of them are from Lubavitchers.

Finally I contacted Prof. Shapiro himself regarding the article. He was embarrassed to hear that it still existed and acknowledged that it was not something he was proud of. The following is the exchange of emails.

He also acknowledged that he erred in saying that Rav Shach said the Rebbe was a heretic. After careful research he could find not a single quote to that effect.
===================
I wrote:

can I post your response. there were some commentators who
couldn't believe you made such a statement and therefore questioned the integrity of the one who posted it? BTW I just found it in the Mail Jewish archives from 1993 #93,95, 100 where you also retract your tone.

It was bizarre also that you acknowledge that it is not your view but
that you were presenting the view of those who were upset with Rav Shach.
It is so different than all the thoughtful and well researched material which is your hallmark.

Prof. Shapiro said:

You can post if you want (but use the expanded quote below, where I add a few things. You can also mention that as I pointed out, I wanted to see how the community of Mail Jewish readers would respond to what were common sentiments (but never actually formulated in writing -- one exception being the journal Ha-Maor), so the post was a bit of a gambit, which now comes back to haunt me.

My thoughts on R. Shakh are actually found in the Torah in Motion lectures referred to below

"Yes -- when I was much younger and more foolish. In those days
the internet didn't exist and we didn't realize that everything we
wrote would be around until the end of times, to embarrass us . . .

But I have subsequently, in both writing and in speaking said that R. Shach understood some aspects of Chabad a lot better than the rest of us. Now I certainly can criticize much else he said, including some of what he wrote about Chabad, but it would be done with more tact and respect. I never expected this e-mail to live on."

I have three lectures on R. Shakh at

http://www.torahinmotion.org/store/prod_search.asp

My thoughts on him are found there and I don't think even his biggest fans will find much to criticize in them.

Chabad - Some people just don't get it

s. klimowitzer's comment to "Chabad - G-d focused or Rebbe focused?":

Daniel Eidensohn is nothing more than a partisan rosho masquerading as an honest researcher. His carefully framed 'innocent questions' remind one of the "keitzad measrin es hateven" style research. I thought it fair to give the man a chance to show his colors, and he has. He'll print any and every unsubstantiated lie about Chabad and / or the Rebbe, but he will refuse to post simple comments or refutations to the lies he promotes. I seriously doubt whether a dishonest wannabe like Eidensohn will last very long in the blogsphere - too many people will see him for the dreck he is much sooner than he thinks. Some free advive to you, Dannyboy, go back to the yeshiva/hate factory you came from, the limelight is not for you.

Chabad - G-d focused or Rebbe focused?

LazerA's comment to "Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack...":

I'm sorry, I missed Shloime's response. Now it seems that Shloime has clarified that he, like myself, does not approve of the idea of transforming one's rebbe into one's primary focus.

In his earlier response he did NOT deny this, on the contrary, he appeared to defend it, citing sources in its favor. Moreover, other pro-Chabad commenters still appear to support it. This has muddied the waters a great deal.

The fact that Shloime, thus far, appears incapable of carrying on a conversation without insulting those he disagrees with has, of course, not improved matters.

In any case, at this point it seems that we can agree that making one's rebbe into one's primary spiritual focus is wrong and is not supported by any traditional sources, even within the chassidic world.

This brings us to the widespread perception and criticism of current Chabad that they have done just this.

The radio advertisements announcing that the Lubavitcher rebbe says that Jews should keep various mitzvos are an obvious case in point. The Lubavitcher rebbe is not the reason Jews should do mitzvos!

The widely publicized declarations that the LLR was a prophet whose words are binding on all Jews, and that he is moshiach, are similar obvious examples.

It is well-known examples like these (accompanied by innumerable private such encounters throughout the Jewish world) that have created the, in my opinion convincing, perception that current Chabad has moved from a God-centered religion to Rebbe-centered religion.

I have yet to hear anything from the defenders of Chabad to convince me that this perception is wrong.

As for my demands for proof, I have two brief responses:

A) The main issue for which I was seeking proof was the claim that it is proper to make your rebbe into your primary spiritual focus. My demand for proof in this was justified, as such a claim flies in the face of traditional Torah thought. Now it seems that this claim has been abandoned and proof for it is no longer needed.

B) Being that the concerns being expressed here are widespread throughout the Torah world, it would seem to me that defenders of Chabad would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their falsity. Unfortunately, it seems that some of these concerns are all too justified. (Thus, thanks to R' Oliver's earnest efforts, I have become convinced that the LLR did indeed claim to be a navi without any halachic justification.)

LazerA's comment to "Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack...":

I would like to add one personal note on why I am personally convinced that current Chabad has placed the Rebbe as their primary spiritual focus.

I attended a Camp Gan Yisrael (Midwest) when I was a kid in the very early '80s. (So much for my family's antagonism to Chabad, huh?)

I remember the entire camp singing "leshana haba be770" and "u'va'u haovdim... v'hishtachavu lashem behar hakodesh b'770 - 770 - 770 etc."

We also saluted the rebbe every morning after davening. There was a picture of the rebbe in every bunk's room and we were told by the counselors that the rebbe could see through his pictures.

There was no question in my mind then, and I didn't even realize there was anything wrong with it yet, that this was a religion of the Rebbe.

Another personal tidbit (not entirely relevant but interesting) is that I actually have a personal debt of gratitue to the LLR.

When my father was in Telz yeshiva, he was a beginning student (he didn't come from a Torah background). While in Telz he got involved with a secret Chabad "kiruv" program that was trying to save the poor deluded yeshiva bochurim from their false religion.

At one point my father went to Crown Heights and had yechidus with the rebbe. My father told the rebbe that he wanted to leave Telz and go to a Chabad yeshiva so he could learn chasidus. The rebbe told him to stay in Telz and learn normal Torah.

Most Lubavitcher's accuse my father of lying when he says this story. In any case, I have to be grateful to the rebbe, because if it weren't for him I would have been a Lubavitcher. (As it is, my family remained close to Lubavitch and I have many Chabad minhagim, not the least being the siddur.)

Sinas Chinom - the danger of unexpressed hatred

Anonymous said...

Very appropriate that I came across this blog on tisha BAv. The question I have for you is when you will face Hashem will Hashem say you helped Moshiach come sooner or you were part of the Tishah BAv problem of sinas chinom etc. and delayed the Geula. In your heart I hope you have an honest answer and you will close down this hateful site before it is too late to fix the damage you are doing.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the comment that this is adding to sinas chinom and machlokos. I urge the blogger of "Daas Torah" to realize that this blog is against "Daas Torah".

The above comments need to be addressed. They are accusing me of producing sinas chinom and increasing machlokess. Both of them presuppose that if I didn't have this discussion on my blog there would be more peace and ahavas Yisroel in the world. That Lubavitchers and non-Lubavitchers would have greater love for each other if they didn't communicate with each other.

I strongly disagree with that assertion. In fact it is obvious from the strong feelings on both sides of the this dispute that I did not create any anger - but rather I am allowing the feelings to be expressed.

Is there anything to be gained by allowing feelings to be expressed? Perhaps it is best to keep the disputing parties separate and not encourage communication? From what I have seen on the many posts, I personally feel I have a much greater understanding of the issues than when I started. There have been some truly deep and insightful comments - even in those posts with hostile language.

There seems to be a built in assumption of many in Chabad that there is a genetic predisposition of the rest of us to hate them. They perceive any criticism as proof that they are being hated. What I hope has become obvious is that there is a sincere desire to hear justification for what they are doing. I have detected some awareness of the Chabad posters that they do in fact realize the need to do outreach to their fellow Orthodox Jews and that they are in fact viewed as acting or thinking in ways that arouse fears and concerns. I also hear that some Chabad posters are not fully convinced about the wisdom of the path that the organization has taken.

Finally regarding the accusation that I am not following Daas Torah. What Daas Torah am I not following? The Chofetz Chaim makes an insightful comment concerning the Torah command of not hating your brother in your heart (Vayikra 19:17) which he says is the prohibition of sinas chinom. Hatred which is kept in one's heart because it is not expressed - destroys and ruins the essence of a person. Hitting another effects primarily the external limbs of a person. It is better to express the anger and communicate to the other person that you feel he is doing something wrong.

If these discussion are creating more hatred and upset than existed previously than in fact they are problematic. While some have asserted that any criticism or questioning of their practices is proof of hatred, I hope at this point such an attitude has been attenuated in at least some of the participants. In short, there is a Torah obligation to give tochacha to those we feel are doing something wrong. This forum provides a controlled environment for both sides to fulfill this Torah obligation - and hopefully both sides will be improved by the experience.

ספר אהבת ישראל - פרק א
בו יבואר גודל העון של שנאת חנם:
כתבו הפוסקים על לאו דלא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך וז"ל ספר מצות השם, לאוין קמ"ב - מצות לא תעשה, שלא לשנוא אדם כשר מישראל, שנאמר לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. ולא הזהירה תורה בלאו זה אלא על שנאה שבלב, אבל המכה את חבירו, ומחרפו, אינו עובר בלאו זה וכו'. וכשיחטא איש לאיש, לא ישטמנו בלב וישתוק, אלא מצוה עליו להודיעו ולומר לו (בלשון רכה) למה עשית לי כך וכך, וימחה הדבר מלבו. ונוהג בכל מקום ובכל זמן עכ"ל:
והנה בכלל אחיך, הוא כל אדם מישראל, וכדאיתא באבות דרבי נתן (פרק ט"ז) אאל תאמר לזה ישראל אני אוהב ולזה אני שונא, לאהוב את החכמים ולשנא את עמי הארץ, אלא אהוב את כולם ושנא את המינים, וכן דוד הוא אומר (תהלים קל"ט) הלא משנאיך ה' אשנא וגו'. ומין נקרא, הכופר בתורת ה' ובהשגחתו:
וכאשר נתבונן היטב ונעמיק לחקור תוצאות העון הזה, נראה שהאדם ממשיך על ידי עון זה רוח טומאה על עצמו. דהנה ידוע דכל אבר ואבר שנעשה על ידו איזה מצוה, שורה עליו רוח קדושה, וממילא ע"י קיום כל המצות נתקדש כל גופו של אדם, כדכתיב (במדבר ט"ו) למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלקיכם. ולהפך, ע"י עשיית העבירות נמשכת רוח הטומאה על אותו אבר, וכמו שאחז"ל (כתובות ה' ע"ב) אל ישמיע אדם לאזנו דברים בטלים מפני שהם נכוים תחלה לאיברים, שכונתם, ע"י שמיעתו דברים האסורים ממשיך על' אזניו רוח טומאה ועתידים להיות נכוים תחלה לאיברים, וכן כל אבר ואבר שנעשה על ידו איזה עבירה נמשכת רוח טומאה על אותו האבר, ואין כאן מקום להאריך. לבאר שמצינו ענין זה על כל אברי האדם:

לשנוא אדם כשר מישראל, שנאמר לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. ולא הזהירה תורה בלאו זה אלא על שנאה שבלב,
והנה חוץ מזה שהוא עונש רוחני על האדם, עוד מעותד האדם לבוא ח"ו ע"י עון זה לעונשים גדולים בעולם הזה, כדאיתא בשבת (ל"ב), בעון שנאת חנם, מריבה רבה בתוך ביתו של אדם, ואשתו מפלת נפלים, ובניו ובנותיו מתים כשהם קטנים, הרי רואים אנו כמה רעות גורם האדם לעצמו ע"י העון המר הזה:
והנה אילו יפגע אדם אחד בבנו הקטן להכותו, הלא יתקוטט ויריב עמו וישנאהו שנאת מות, ואילו הוא עצמו שגורם להם סיבת מות אינו חושש לזה כלל, ואינו מתבונן עד היכן עונו מגיע. אוי לו ואוי לנפשו, איה שכלו ואיה דעתו שבעצמו גורם לכל זה:
ועל כן מאד מאד צריך האדם להזהר מעון זה, ובכל רוחו ונפשו יתרחק מעון זה, ויהיה לו טוב בזה ובבא