לא תלך רכיל בעמך אומר אני, על שם שכל משלחי מדנים ומספרי לשון הרע הולכים בבית ריעיהם לרגל מה יראו רע או מה ישמעו רע לספר בשוק, נקראים "הולכי רכיל", "הולכי רגילה" וכו'. וכן תרגם אונקלוס (תרגום אונקלוס על ויקרא י״ט:ט״ז): "לא תיכול קורצין", (דניאל ג ח): "אכלו קרציהון דיהודאי", (בבא מציעא פו א): "אכלו קורצא בי מלכא". נראה בעיני שהיה משפטם לאכול בבית המקבל דבריהם שום הלעטה, והוא גמר חזוק, שדבריו מקויימים ויעמידם על האמת. ואותה הלעטה נקראת אכילת קורצין, לשון (משלי ו יג): "קורץ בעיניו", שכן דרך הולך רכיל לקרוץ בעיניו ולרמוז דברי רכילות שלא יבינו השומעים; כל זה לשון הרב. ואין במה שפירש בתרגום הזה טעם או ריח, כי השומע מן הרכיל לא ישבע לו שיאמין דבריו ולא יתן לו אות ומופת, גם המלשין עבד אל אדוניו לא יבטיחנו האדון שישמע אליו, ומה טעם לאכילה הזאת? ונבוכדנאצר, בהודאת הצדיקים עשה מה שעשה, לא האכילם למלשינים ולא נשבע להם וגם לא האמין להם, אבל שאל (דניאל ג יד): "הצדא שדרך מישך וגו'", וציווה שישתחוו מכאן ואילך, והיה מעביר על מה שעברו. ודריוש לא היה מאכיל לו למלשיני דניאל רק לענה וראש, וכתוב בהן (דניאל ו׳:כ״ה): "די אכלו קרצוהי די דניאל". ואפילו אם אמת הדבר שיעשה כן בזמנים ההם, אחר שהכתוב אמר "לא תלך רכיל בעמך", למה יזכיר אונקלוס מנהג השטות ההוא ואין לאזהרה ענין בו? אבל עיקר לשון הארמית בכאן איננו אלא לשון השמעת קול, והוא מורגל בדברי חכמים (בבא בתרא ה א): "ועיזא לאו אכלויי מכלו ליה ולאו גברא בעי לאכלויי", ותרגם יונתן: (ישעיהו נח א): "קרא בגרון" - "אכלי", (ישעיהו ה כו): "ושרק לו מקצה הארץ" - "ויכלי ליה", (ישעיהו ה ל): "וינהום עליו כנהמת ים" - "ויכלי עליהון", וכן במקומות רבים. והנה הוא לשון כל משמיע קול שיודיע חפצו בלא חתוך מלות, ולכן יאמר כן (בגמ' שם) בצועק לעזים הנכנסות בשדה, ויתרגם כן השורק והנוהם והצועק. ודרך הרכילים לבא ברבים או לפני המושל, וינהמו בגרונם ויקרצו בעיניהם לרמוז כי שמעו דברים עד שיפצרו בהם ויגידו אותן, על כן נקראים "אוכלי קורצין", נוהמים ברמזים. ואונקלוס תרגם רכילות ענינו וכן שמו בלשון הארמית, ולא חשש לפרש לשון הכתוב, וכן דרכו תמיד, כי להבין הענין הוא מתכוין. אבל בלשון הקודש היו קורין אותם "הולכי רכיל", מן (שיר השירים ג ו): "אבקת רוכל", (יחזקאל כו יב): "רכלתך", כי הרוכל הולך כל היום קונה מכאן ומכאן והולך ומוכר במקומות אחרים בכאן ובכאן כמו שמזכירין חכמים (משנה מעשרות ב ג): "רוכלין המחזירין בעיירות". וזה טעם "בעמך", כי הוא הולך ברבים. ולהבדיל בין שניהם היה שם זה "רוכל" פועל ושם זה "רכיל" שם תואר בעצמו, כמו "סריס", "נזיר", ירמוז השם כי בנפשו הוא ועליו תשוב: THOU SHALT NOT ‘THEILEICH RACHIL’ (GO UP AND DOWN AS A TALEBEARER) AMONG THY PEOPLE. “I say that because all those who sow discord [among brethren]65See Proverbs 6:19. and speak slander go into their friends’ houses in order to spy out what evil they can see or hear, so that they may tell it in the street — therefore they are called holchei rachil or holchei regilah (‘those who go about spying’) etc. And so did Onkelos translate [the verse before us]: lo theichul kurtzin [literally: ‘thou shalt not eat kurtzin’, which has the same meaning as], ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ (and they brought accusation against) the Jews;66Daniel 3:8. ‘achlu kurtza (they slandered him) to the king.’67Berachoth 58 a. It appears to me that it was their custom to eat something in the house of him who accepted their slanderous words, this being a sort of final confirmation that the slanderer’s words are well-founded, and that he would stand by them. It was this snack that was called ‘the eating of kurtzin,’ [the word being associated with] the [Hebrew] expression, ‘koreitz’ (he that winketh) with his eyes,68Proverbs 6:13. for such is the manner of all who go about slandering, to wink with their eyes, and to insinuate slanderous matters in order that [others who happen to] hear them should not understand them.” All this is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi].
But his explanation of this rendition of Onkelos has neither rhyme nor reason.69See in Volume I, p. 100, for a similar remark. For one who listens to a slanderer does not swear to him that he will believe his words, and [therefore the slanderer] need not give him a sign or token [to believe him]! Even when one slanders a servant to his master,70See Proverbs 30:10: Slander not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty. Ramban’s intention is therefore as follows: Even in slandering a slave, where the slanderer runs the risk of incurring his curse, the master nonetheless gives the slanderer no assurance that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” on the part of the slanderer which Rashi mentioned? the master does not assure him that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” [by the slanderer, as Rashi mentioned]? And Nebuchadnezzar did what he decided to do on the basis of his own decision about the righteous ones,71This refers back to the proof Rashi mentioned above from the Book of Daniel 3:8, where it is said ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews, and it is told that certain slanderers came and informed Nebuchadnezzar that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were not bowing to his image of gold. As a result he called them and asked them if it was true. When they told him that they had no intention ever of bowing to his image of gold, he had them thrown into a burning furnace. But when they were saved by an act of G-d from the fiery furnace, the king had it proclaimed that no one must henceforth speak against the G-d of these righteous ones. — Ramban now points out that when accepting the words of the slanderers, we find no reference to the king’s offering them any food, a custom which Rashi mentioned as having been the basis for this expression va’achalu kartzeihon. Furthermore, as is evidenced from the story, he did not even believe them at first, for he called Hananiah etc. and asked about it. And yet Scripture says ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews, which shows that this whole interpretation of Rashi in Onkelos’ translation of the verse is not borne out by Scripture. and He did not offer food to the slanderers [to establish the veracity of their report], neither did he swear to them [that he would believe them], nor did he in fact believe them. Instead, he asked [of the righteous ones], Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego etc.,72Daniel 3:14. Shadrach, Meshach, etc. were the Babylonian names that the chief of officers gave to Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (ibid., 1:7). and he commanded that if henceforth they were to bow to the image of gold that he had made, he would forgive them for their transgressions in the past! [All this shows that va’achalu kartzeihon does not refer to a meal eaten by the slanderers, to serve as the final confirmation that their slander was well-grounded, since in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, where this expression occurs, the king did not accept their report!] Nor did King Darius offer food to the slanderers of Daniel,73Ibid., 6:12-14. except for the wormwood and the gall,74Lamentations 3:19. In other words, he had the slanderers thrown into the lions’ den (Daniel 6:25.). and yet it is written of them, those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel!75In other words, in the same verse where their punishment is mentioned (ibid.,) it refers to them as those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel, which shows that it was not a meal that the king offered them, but quite the contrary. And even if it is true that it was so done in those [later] times, but since Scripture states thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people, why should Onkelos have mentioned this foolish custom [of the slanderer eating a little snack in the house of him who listened to his slanderous words], when it does not affect the admonition itself? Instead, the essential meaning of the Aramaic expression here [i.e., lo theichul kurtzin, is not a prohibition against “eating kurtzin,” but] is only a term for the act of making a sound, this usage being common in the language of the Sages:76Baba Bathra 5 a. The story there is told that Ravina had land on all four sides of a field belonging to a man called Runya. When Ravina put up a fence on all four sides separating his fields from that of Runya, the latter refused to pay his share of the expense. Thereupon Ravina at the time of the harvest said to his field laborer, “Bring me a cluster of grapes from Runya’s field when he is present there.” When he was about to do it Runya rebuked him, shouting, “Put it back.” Ravina then said to Runya: “Now you have shown that you are satisfied with the fence I have made. Even if only goats came into your field, would you not need to shout at them? Would you not need to hire a person to shout at them? [Hence you must share in the expense of the fence].” “And even if it were but goats, would they not achluyei michlulei (have to be shouted at)? And would you not have [to hire] a person l’achluyei (to shout) at them?” Jonathan [ben Uziel] translated: Cry aloud77Isaiah 58:1. — ‘achlei;’ and ‘He will hiss’ unto them from the end of the earth78Ibid., 5:26. — ‘v’yachlilei;’ ‘and they shall roar’ against them like the roaring of the sea79Ibid., 5:30. — ‘v’yachlei’ against them. Similarly [Jonathan has translated] in many places. Thus the term achal [in Aramaic] denotes every form of making sound, whereby one makes his wish known without uttering words. Therefore this term was used [by the Sages, as mentioned above] to describe one who shouts at goats that enter a field, and [Jonathan used the same term in translating the Hebrew for] hissing,78Ibid., 5:26. roaring79Ibid., 5:30. and crying aloud.77Isaiah 58:1. Now the way of talebearers is to come amongst a multitude of people, or before a ruler, and utter sounds in a guttural manner, and wink with their eyes, in order to hint that they have heard certain important matters until they press upon them that they tell them. This is why [talebearers in Aramaic] are called ochlei kurtzin, meaning “those who roar with hints.” And Onkelos who translated [the Hebrew] rechiluth (talebearing) [as theichul kurtzin — muttering hints], rendered into Aramaic the idea of the Hebrew, and was not particular to explain the precise meaning of the Scriptural expression. Such is always his style, since his intention is to make the subject understandable [and not necessarily to translate literally]. But in the Sacred Language talebearers are called holchei rachil, from the expressions, all powders of the ‘rachil’ (merchant);80Song of Songs 3:6. ‘rechulatheich’ (thy merchandise).81Ezekiel 26:12. For the rocheil (peddler) goes about the whole day, buying merchandise in various other places, just as the Sages mention,82Maasroth 2:3. “peddlers that go around from town to town,” [and similarly the holchei rachil carry tales as if they were merchandise, from place to place]. And this is the sense of the word b’amecha (among thy people) — Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer ‘among thy people’ — since the talebearer walks among many people. To differentiate between the two [the talebearer and the peddler], the talebearer was called rocheil, in a verbal form, [as the term rocheil can also signify the act of talebearing], while the peddler was called rachil, which is an adjectival noun denoting the person himself, just like saris (chief), nazir (a Nazirite), the name rachil thus hinting that peddling is of his essence, and is an act which reflects upon his person.
19:16
1