No community start suggestion yet.
How could Yosef HaTzadik be guilty of lashon hara when he accurately reported his brothers' misdeeds to help them? The Torah (תורה)'s critique isn't of Yosef's words but of his failure to first build the relationships that would have made such reporting unnecessary. This establishes an extraordinarily high standard: we're responsible not just for our speech, but for creating bonds that prevent the need for negative words.
This shiur explores one of the most perplexing questions in Parshas Vayeishev: How can Yosef HaTzadik be held responsible for lashon hara when reporting his brothers' misdeeds to their father? The speaker begins by noting the apparent contradiction - Yosef is called a tzaddik, yet Chazal teach that lashon hara is worse than the three cardinal sins combined. The Baal HaTurim's observation that 'dibrotam' has the same gematria as 'motzi' (446) suggests Yosef brought spiritual death through his words. The analysis focuses on the precise language of the pasuk: 'vayave Yosef es dibrotam ra'ah el avihem' - he brought their evil reports to their father. The Torah (תורה) uses 'avihem' (their father) rather than 'aviv' (his father), indicating Yosef wasn't seeking to elevate himself in his father's eyes at his brothers' expense. Instead, he was reporting to their father specifically to help them, as a father has unique ability to guide and correct his children. This removes the speech from the category of traditional lashon hara.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Parsha
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Up Next in this Series
Why does the Midrash connect Pharaoh's expulsion of the Jews to the mitzvah of shiluach hakan? The shiur develops a chiddush that Pharaoh's sin wasn't only drowning the children, but the insensitivity of expelling the parents afterward. The deeper analysis reveals that Pharaoh may have valued the Jews greatly and wanted to control them—making his expulsion an act of tremendous cruelty, not liberation.
Why does Moshe respond to the splitting of the sea with shirah rather than praise or thanksgiving? Rashi's use of "al libo" reveals that shirah is an emotional expression—a response of love to love. When Hashem shows personal care, the only adequate response is "I love You too," not mere gratitude or praise, and this principle applies to all relationships.
Parshas Vayeishev 37:2
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
