Rash"i in Kidoshim (19;19) teaches us, that although there are understandable reasons for most Mitzvos... Chukkim, HAVE NO REASONS.
The Ramban, modifies that, by explaining that we were not explicitily informed the reasons for Chukkim, but surely there is a reason, and it is part of Torah to work to uncover the reasons...
The Chinnuch (#159) in Parshas Shmini, seems to agree with the Ramban...
However, Rash"i in Sanhedrin (21b) seemingly in contradiction to his position in Chumash, agrees with those Reshonim, that even Chukkim have a reason??....
For questions or comments please email salmahshleima@gmail.com
I found this on your blog from a few years ago to explain Rashi on לא תלך רכיל
ReplyDeleteKatche-lab • 3 years ago
This is the way I always understood this Rashi:
Rashi doesn't say that this was an indication that the slander was believed, and when he says המקבל' דבריהם' that doesn't necessarily mean 'believed' but it refers to the hearer of the slander as the 'recipient'.
Rashi doesn't say that the food was necessarily supplied by the recipient. The Ramba"n however does understand Rashi to be saying that and it is a point of contention, because he shows that this language is used even when the recipient had no desire to hear, so why would he give food. But in support of Rashi we might say that is not what he meant.
Rashi doesn't say it was a meal. he calls it 'שום 'הלעטה which is a derogatory term which doesn't imply a formal nice meal but rather seems more to indicate a consumption of any food item in a crude sense.
Rashi doesn't say that it was a 'minhag'. He says 'שהי' 'משפטם. That means it was the practice, meaning that it was the style of presentation.
It seems that Rashi is portraying the style of the slanderer as one of conceit and complete comfort and self confidence. The slanderer would be feeding himself as means to portray this image. (We find that this is a form of Gaava ברכות דף י: כל האוכל ושותה ואח"כ מתפלל, עליו הכתוב אומר ואותי השלכת אחרי גויך אל תקרי גויך אלא גיאך אמר הקב"ה לאחר שנתגאה זה)
This gave a general feeling and experience that "I'm on top of the situation and I know what I'm talking about." So by this explanation the Torah refers to Loshon Hora in this way which isn't merely an unimportant aspect of the Loshon Horah but rather an explicit identification of the act and of the experience.