Bamidbar 19
Writing and teaching while I am traveling poses the challenge of discovering new insights with very limited resources by way ofsefarim. That’s not a bad thing: it makes me realize how dependent we are on the giants of Torah, both to stimulate our own thought processes and to verify them. When we don’t have access to the array of sefarim normally available (and I still haven’t got used to using the internet as a substitute,) we are left to our own resources. We are compelled to go deep inside ourselves to verify the truth of a thought or insight. I for one, certainly feel more secure with supporting quotes, but there is something satisfying about an idea that resonates deeply even without the quote. Today’s thought is one of those.
The Midrash at the beginning of Chukat [1] repeats its comment fromEmor [2] that to avoid uttering a word of tum’ah, the Torah rather uses extra words and letters to be indirect. Instead of talking abouttameh (impure, unfit for kosher consumption) animals, it talks about animals that are not tahor (pure, fit for kosher consumption). We learn from this, says the midrash, how careful G-d is, and so should we be, not to utter unclean words.
This midrash is positioned in the strangest place in the Torah: in the opening chapter of Chukat, the very chapter on which the midrashmakes its comment, the word tameh appears no less than eighteen times! Clearly the Torah sees nothing aesthetically or ethically wrong with using the word “tameh”. So what is the meaning of the midrash’scomment, and why in fact does G-d refer to tameh as “non-tahor” in other places?
The difference is between a parsha such as Chukat, that discusses the halachot (laws) of tum’ah ve’tahara as opposed to one that usestumah ve’tahara as a description of various animals (such as theparsha in Noach and Emor). In the latter cases the animals are the subject of discussion, not the laws of tum’ahve‘tahara.
There are times when we need to make reference to negative attributes. Those times are when the subject of our conversation are those very attributes. We may talk about arrogance, deceit, or spitefulness. However when we are describing a person, we should find ways to do so that avoid direct mention of the negative. Instead of saying that an individual is a liar, we might say he is not always honest!
But we can take this idea further and apply it to the way we talk about ourselves (often to ourselves!). Have you ever said things like, “I am such an idiot!”?; or “I always mess up!” Don’t. Phrase it differently if you need to articulate it at all: “I acted in a way that wasn’t very bright” or “So often I do not get this right”. Just semantics? No! The subconscious listens to the words we use even when used half in jest to describe ourselves. Words are a form of energy, their impact is never lost. We begin to function differently when we take the trouble to rephrase our thoughts in ways that are not destructive.
And if that is so about ourselves, how much more so in the way we talk to our children. Telling a child that they are clumsy, or an idiot, is an act of serious sabotage of the child’s personality. Abusive phrases stick indelibly in the child’s subconscious. Sticks and stones can at worst only break my bones, but words can kill the force within me. G-d avoids negative descriptions of animals, to teach us with kal vachomer (“how much more so”) that we should avoid negative descriptions both of others and of ourselves. Just as words express thoughts, they also create thoughts. Always build positive thoughts, generate positive energy: choose positive words.
[1] Bmdb”R, 19:2
[2] Vyk”R:26:1
