“לא תלך רכיל בעמיך לא תעמד על דם רעך אני ה'”
רש”י: “לא תלך רכיל – אני אומר על שם שכל משלחי מדנים ומספרי לשון הרע הולכים בבתי רעיהם לרגל מה יראו רע או מה ישמעו רע לספר בשוק נקראים הולכי רכיל, הולכי רגילה …”
(ויקרא י”ט ט”ז)
Rashi: “Do not go talebearing – I explain (the word ‘rechilus’) that because all those who start fights and speak lashon hara go to the homes of their friends in order to spy, to see or hear something negative which they can tell to others at the marketplace, therefore they are called ‘הולכי רכיל’, (similar to) ‘הולכי רגילה’, those who go to spy…”
The actual prohibition of rechilus involves speaking derogatorily of someone, or sharing with the listener information that will cause him to resent another. Yet, according to Rashi, the passuk makes no mention of the issur itself, but speaks rather of what the person does before he commits the aveira. Apparently, the manner in which a person prepares to speak lashon hara or rechilus lies at the heart of the issur itself.
It seems from Rashi that this aveira is not necessarily born out of malice; after all, Rashi specifies that those who speak lashon hara are accustomed to visiting the houses of “רעיהם” – their friends – to “spy”, not of their enemies. Rather, the aveira begins with a mistaken attitude towards life in general, and social life in particular. The offender, instead of simply taking in and appreciating what he observes of his friend, instinctively searches for that which would be interesting to others: a “scoop”. Each interaction, even with friends, is examined through a filter of if and how he can share it with and impress others. Every decision is made with that same question in mind. Rechilus is not only a form of speech; it refers to a twisted approach to life. And as it is indicative of a distorted social fabric, the Torah specifies that it is an aveira “בעמך” – within the nation.
As a mashal, when a maggid shiur learns, he may fall into the trap of learning only the material that he anticipates including in the shiur. Even more, he might neglect the actual understanding of what he is learning, focusing solely on how the shiur will sound to his audience, and whether people will enjoy it. Now, if he always learns like that, it would be a tragedy: all of his Torah would be imprecise and hollow, superficial. Equally tragic is the “רוכל” – he “learns” his friends and all of life in just that way: “what is here that can I share with others?”
͠ ͠ ͠
Rashi ends his commentary here by quoting Onkelos’s translation of our passuk as “לא תיכול קורצין” (taken from Sefer Daniel 3:8), which Rashi explains to be referring to an ancient custom that the informer or slanderer would eat in the house of the person who heard and accepted his slander. The obvious question is why would Onkelos choose to describe rechilus by referring to an obsolete custom? The answer is that this custom illustrates what the רוכל is seeking to accomplish with his rechilus. When the listener gives the slanderer food to eat, he is expressing that he values him and takes his words seriously. As we wrote above, this is the main concern of one who shares rechilus, that he can speak with others and his words will be appreciated and make an impact. This is a natural and potentially positive desire, but when it becomes the center and end all of all of a person’s interactions, he is in danger of becoming a רוכל, ruining the way he experiences life and superficializing his relationships.