Arakhin 16a

רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִיתְאַמְרָא בְּאַפֵּי תְּלָתָא, לֵית בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם לִישָּׁנָא בִּישָׁא. מַאי טַעְמָא? חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְחַבְרָא דְּחַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.

i.e., Rabba bar Rav Huna says: Any matter that was said in the presence of three people does not have the status of malicious speech if one subsequently repeats it. What is the reason? The reason is that your friend has a friend, and your friend’s friend has a friend. Once the information has been stated in the presence of three people, it can be assumed that it will spread and become public knowledge, as each person will tell someone else.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״מְבָרֵךְ רֵעֵהוּ בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל בַּבּוֹקֶר הַשְׁכֵּם קְלָלָה תֵּחָשֵׁב לוֹ״? כְּגוֹן דְּמִיקְּלַע לְאוּשְׁפִּיזָא וְטָרְחוּ קַמֵּיהּ שַׁפִּיר, לִמְחַר נָפֵיק יָתֵיב בְּשׁוּקָא וְאָמַר: רַחֲמָנָא נִיבָרְכֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא דְּהָכִי טְרַח קַמַּאי, וְשָׁמְעִין אִינָשֵׁי וְאָזְלִין וְאָנְסִין לֵיהּ.

The Gemara continues its discussion of good and bad speech. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He that blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him” (Proverbs 27:14)? For example, when one is invited to a host, and they look after him very well. The following day the guest goes out and sits in the marketplace and says: May the Merciful One bless so-and-so, as this is how well he looked after me. And all the people in the marketplace hear and go to this host and afflict him by expecting him to look after all of them in the same way, and he is compelled to spend his money on them. It turns out that the praise and blessing the guest lavished upon his host brought a curse upon him.

תָּנֵי רַב דִּימִי אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב סָפְרָא: לְעוֹלָם אַל יְסַפֵּר אָדָם בְּטוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ טוֹבָתוֹ בָּא לִידֵי רָעָתוֹ.

Similarly, Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, teaches: A person should never speak about the goodness of another in the presence of others, as through speaking about his goodness he will come to speak about him in a derogatory manner, as he will eventually note the exceptions to his goodness, or his listeners will temper his praise by mentioning that individual’s bad qualities.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַב דִּימִי אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב סָפְרָא חֲלַשׁ, עָל רַב סָפְרָא לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: תֵּיתֵי לִי דְּקַיֵּימִי כֹּל דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא מִי מְקַיְּימַתְּ — לְעוֹלָם אַל יְסַפֵּר אָדָם בְּטוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ טוֹבָתוֹ בָּא לִידֵי גְּנוּתוֹ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא שְׁמִיעָא לִי, וְאִי הֲוָה שְׁמִיעָא לִי — קַיֵּימְתַּהּ.

There are those who say that Rav Dimi did not actually make this statement himself. Rather, the following incident occurred: Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, was ill. Rav Safra went in to inquire about his condition. Rav Dimi said to those present: I have blessing and merit coming to me, as I have fulfilled all of the statements that the Sages say. Rav Safra said to him: But have you fulfilled the instruction of the Sages that a person should never speak about the goodness of another in the presence of others, as through speaking about his goodness he will come to speak about him in a derogatory manner? Rav Dimi said to them: I never heard this statement of the Sages, but had I heard it, I would have fulfilled it.

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַל שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים נְגָעִים בָּאִין — עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְעַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְעַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, וְעַל גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וְעַל גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ, וְעַל הַגָּזֵל, וְעַל צָרוּת הָעַיִן.

§ Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Leprous marks come and afflict a person for seven sinful matters: For malicious speech, for bloodshed, for an oath taken in vain, for forbidden sexual relations, for arrogance, for theft, and for stinginess.

עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע — דִּכְתִיב: ״מְלׇשְׁנִי בַסֵּתֶר רֵעֵהוּ אוֹתוֹ אַצְמִית״.

The Gemara explains the source for the claim that each of these seven sins is punishable with leprosy. For malicious speech one is punished, as it is written: “Whoever defames his neighbor in secret, I will destroy him; whoever is haughty of eye and proud of heart, I will not suffer him” (Psalms 101:5). The Gemara explained above (15b) that this is referring to leprosy.

עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים — דִּכְתִיב ״וְאַל יִכָּרֵת מִבֵּית יוֹאָב זָב וּמְצֹרָע וְגוֹ׳״.

For bloodshed, as it is written about Joab, as punishment for murdering Abner: “A nd let there not fail from the house of Joab a zav , or a leper, or that leans on a staff, or that falls by the sword, or that lacks bread” (II Samuel 3:29).

וְעַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר נַעֲמָן הוֹאֵל קַח כִּכָּרָיִם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְצָרַעַת נַעֲמָן תִּדְבַּק בְּךָ וְגוֹ׳״.

And for an oath taken in vain, as it is written: “And Naaman said: Be content [ ho’el ], take two talents. And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of garment, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bore them before him” (II Kings 5:23). The Sages maintain that the term ho’el indicates an oath, and that Naaman requested of Gehazi, to whom this was stated, to take an oath that Elisha had sent him to accept gifts, which Elisha had not done, and Gehazi took the oath. When Elisha found out what Gehazi had done he cursed him, and so it is written: “The leprosy of Naaman shall stick to you and to your children forever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow” (II Kings 5:27).

וְעַל גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְנַגַּע ה׳ אֶת פַּרְעֹה נְגָעִים וְגוֹ׳״.

And for forbidden sexual relations, as it is written: “And the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great afflictions because of Sarai, Abram’s wife” (Genesis 12:17).

וְעַל גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְחֶזְקָתוֹ גָּבַהּ לִבּוֹ עַד לְהַשְׁחִית וַיִּמְעוֹל בַּה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״, ״וְהַצָּרַעַת זָרְחָה בְּמִצְחוֹ״.

And for arrogance, as it is written with regard to King Uzziah: “But when he was strong his heart became arrogant so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against the Lord his God; for he went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense” (II Chronicles 26:16). And it states: “Then Uzziah was angry; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was angry with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead” (II Chronicles 26:19).

וְעַל הַגָּזֵל — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְצִוָּה הַכֹּהֵן וּפִנּוּ אֶת הַבַּיִת״. תָּנָא: הוּא כּוֹנֵס מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן וִיפַזֵּר מָמוֹנוֹ.

And for theft, as it is written: “And the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go in to see the mark, that all that is in the house not become impure; and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house” (Leviticus 14:36). In explanation of this verse, the Sages taught: He gathered property that is not his, therefore let the priest come and scatter his property.

וְעַל צָרוּת הָעַיִן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבָא אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַבַּיִת״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִי שֶׁמְיוּחָד בֵּיתוֹ לוֹ.

And for stinginess, as it is written: “Then he that owns the house shall come and tell the priest, saying: There seems to me to be as it were a mark in the house” (Leviticus 14:35). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse calls him the one who owns the house because it is referring to one who was stingy and treated his house as being exclusively his, and did not allow others to share his property.

אִינִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲנָנִי בַּר שָׂשׂוֹן: לָמָּה נִסְמְכָה פָּרָשַׁת בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה לְפָרָשַׁת קׇרְבָּנוֹת? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה קׇרְבָּנוֹת מְכַפְּרִין — אַף בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה מְכַפְּרִין. כְּתוֹנֶת מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶת הַכֻּתֹּנֶת בַּדָּם״. מִכְנָסַיִם מְכַפְּרִים עַל גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַעֲשֵׂה לָהֶם מִכְנְסֵי בָד לְכַסּוֹת בְּשַׂר עֶרְוָה״.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Doesn’t Rabbi Anani bar Sason say: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus 8) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1–7)? To tell you that just as offerings atone, so too the priestly vestments atone. For what does each garment atone? The tunic [ ketonet ] atones for bloodshed, as it is written with regard to Joseph’s brothers after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the coat [ ketonet ] in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is written with regard to the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42).

מִצְנֶפֶת מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל גַּסֵּי הָרוּחַ — כִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: יָבֹא דָּבָר שֶׁבַּגּוֹבַהּ וִיכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה גּוֹבַהּ. אַבְנֵט (מכפרת) [מְכַפֵּר] עַל הִרְהוּר הַלֵּב, אַהֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה עַל לֵב אַהֲרֹן״.

The mitre atones for the arrogant, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the matter of an elevated heart. The belt atones for thought of the heart. The Gemara elaborates: The belt atones for the sins occurring where it is situated, i.e., over the heart, as it is written: “And you shall put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Tummim; and it shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goes in before the Lord; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually” (Exodus 28:30).

חוֹשֶׁן מְכַפֵּר עַל הַדִּינִין — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ חֹשֶׁן מִשְׁפָּט״. אֵפוֹד מְכַפֵּר עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵין אֵפוֹד וּתְרָפִים״. מְעִיל מְכַפֵּר עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יָבֹא דָּבָר שֶׁבַּקּוֹל וִיכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקּוֹל.

The breastplate of the High Priest atones for improper judgments, as it is written: “And you shall make a breastplate of judgment” (Exodus 28:15). The ephod of the High Priest atones for idol worship, as it is written: “And without ephod or teraphim” (Hosea 3:4), that is to say, when there is no ephod, the sin of teraphim, i.e., idol worship, is found. This indicates that if there is an ephod, there is no sin of idol worship. The robe of the High Priest atones for malicious speech, as the Holy One, Blessed be He says: Let an item that produces sound, i.e., the bells of the robe, come and atone for an act of malicious sound, i.e., malicious speech.

צִיץ מְכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה עַזֵּי פָנִים — כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְהָיָה עַל מֵצַח אַהֲרֹן״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וּמֵצַח אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה הָיָה לָךְ״.

Finally, the frontplate of the High Priest atones for an act of brazenness. From where is this derived? Here, with regard to the frontplate, it is written: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead” (Exodus 28:38), and there, with regard to brazenness, it is written: “And you had a prostitute’s forehead” (Jeremiah 3:3). The statement of Rabbi Anani bar Sason indicates that the robe worn by the High Priest atones for malicious speech, which means that one is not punished by leprosy, as claimed by Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani.

לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו, הָא דְּלָא אַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו. אִי אַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו — אָתוּ נְגָעִים עֲלֵיהּ, אִי לָא אַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשָׂיו — מְעִיל מְכַפֵּר.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the statement of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani is referring to a case where his actions were effective and caused damage. There, Rabbi Anani bar Sason is referring to a case where his actions were not effective. If his actions were effective and caused harm or quarrels, leprous marks come upon him as punishment. If his actions were not effective and did not cause any damage, the robe atones for his sin.

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים לֹא מָצִינוּ לָהֶם בַּקׇּרְבָּנוֹת כַּפָּרָה, בְּדָבָר אַחֵר מָצִינוּ לָהֶם כַּפָּרָה, שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים וְלָשׁוֹן הָרָע. שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים בְּעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Simon say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are two matters for which we do not find atonement through offerings, but we find atonement for them through another matter, and they are: Bloodshed and malicious speech. With regard to bloodshed, its atonement comes from the heifer whose neck is broken. This is referring to a case where a murdered body is found but the murderer is unknown. In such an instance, the Torah mandates that the town nearest the body must break the neck of a heifer as atonement for the transgression (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9).

וְלָשׁוֹן הָרָע — בִּקְטֹרֶת, דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לָמַדְנוּ לִקְטֹרֶת שֶׁמְּכַפֶּרֶת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת וַיְכַפֵּר עַל הָעָם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: עַל מָה קְטֹרֶת מְכַפֶּרֶת — עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יָבֹא דָּבָר שֶׁבַּחֲשַׁאי וִיכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה חֲשַׁאי.

And malicious speech is atoned for through incense, as Rabbi Ḥanina taught in a baraita : We have learned that incense atones, as it is written in the incident when the Israelites were afflicted with a plague for speaking slanderously against Moses and Aaron: “And he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people” (Numbers 17:12). And similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what does incense atone? For malicious speech. It is as though the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Let an item that is sacrificed in private, i.e., the incense, which is burnt inside the Sanctuary, come and atone for an action generally performed in private, i.e., malicious speech.

קַשְׁיָא שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, קַשְׁיָא לָשׁוֹן הָרָע אַלָּשׁוֹן הָרָע!

The Gemara notes the apparent contradictions: One statement concerning bloodshed is difficult, as it is contradicted by the other statement about bloodshed: According to Rabbi Anani bar Sason the tunic atones for bloodshed, whereas the baraita states that the heifer whose neck is broken atones for this sin. Furthermore, one statement concerning malicious speech is difficult, as it is contradicted by the other statement about malicious speech: Rabbi Anani bar Sason maintains that the robe atones for malicious speech, whereas according to the baraita it is the incense that atones for this transgression.

שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּידִיעַ מַאן קַטְלֵיהּ, הָא דְּלָא יְדִיעַ מַאן קַטְלֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement about bloodshed and the other statement about bloodshed is not difficult, as this, the tunic, atones for bloodshed in a case where it is known who killed him, and that, the heifer, atones in a case where it is not known who killed him.

דִּידִיעַ מַאן קַטְלֵיהּ בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא! בְּמֵזִיד וְלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ.

The Gemara asks: If it is known who killed him, the murderer is deserving of death, and there is no atonement for the community until he is put to death, as the verse states: “And no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed within it, but by the blood of him that shed it” (Numbers 35:33). The Gemara responds: There are certain instances where it is impossible to put him to death, e.g., if he murdered intentionally but witnesses did not warn him beforehand of the consequences of committing murder. In such a case, the court may not put the murderer to death, as there is no punishment without prior warning.

לָשׁוֹן הָרָע אַלָּשׁוֹן הָרָע לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּצִינְעָא,

The Gemara continues: With regard to the apparent contradiction between one statement dealing with malicious speech and the other statement about malicious speech, it is also not difficult, as this, the incense, atones for malicious speech spoken in private,