Daff Ditty Pesachim 3: Refined Speech

Rebecca Meets Isaac by the Way,

James Tissot (c. 1896–1902)

1
2
The Gemara asks: What is the need for the proofs from the two additional verses introduced by
the phrase: And it says? The baraita already proved its point from the verses with regard to zav
and zava.

The Gemara answers: The additional verses are necessary, lest you say: This requirement to use
clean language applies only in the language written in the Torah, but in rabbinic formulations,
no, there is no obligation to use clean language.

To counter this argument, the tanna says, come and hear: And it says: “And you choose the
language of the crafty,” which indicates that this principle extends beyond the language of the
Torah.

And lest you say that this requirement applies only to rabbinic language, but when it comes to
ordinary speech, no, one need not speak euphemistically, the baraita adds: And it says: “And
that which my lips know they shall speak sincerely,” i.e., one must speak euphemistically in
every situation.

3
Likewise, a baraita was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: A person should always
converse euphemistically, as one finds in the following verses. The first: “And whichever saddle
that the zav rides upon shall be ritually impure” (Leviticus 15:9), which discusses the impurity
imparted by a zav to an object on which he sits, calls this action riding. And the verse: “And
anyone who touches anything on which she sat” (Leviticus 15:22), which discusses the parallel
ritual impurity of a woman, a zava, calls the action sitting. Since riding is slightly demeaning for
a woman, as it involves an immodest splaying of the legs, the verse avoids the term riding and opts
to convey the more modest image of sitting. And it says in another verse:

‫ ְלשׁוֹן‬,‫ְוִתְבַחר‬ ;[‫ה ִכּי ְיַאֵלּף ֲﬠ ֹו ְנ[ ִפי‬ 5 For thine iniquity teacheth thy mouth, and thou choosest the
.‫ֲﬠרוִּמים‬ tongue of the crafty.
Job 15:5

meaning that one should be clever when speaking and avoid inappropriate phrases. And it says in
another verse: “My words shall utter the uprightness of my heart; and that which my lips know
they shall speak sincerely” (Job 33:3).

4
With regard to the above baraita taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, the Gemara asks: And
with regard to a woman, is the term riding not written in the Torah? But isn’t it written: “And
Rebecca and her damsels arose and they rode upon camels” (Genesis 24:61)? The Gemara
answers: There, due to fear of camels, that is standard conduct. Since a camel’s back is high
off the ground, a woman cannot sit on it sidesaddle; consequently, she may ride on it without being
considered immodest. The Gemara cites another relevant verse. But isn’t it written: “And Moses
took his wife and his children and rode them upon his donkey” (Exodus 4:20)? The Gemara
answers: There, despite the fact that his wife was also on the donkey, the verse employs the
language of riding.

The Gemara raises another difficulty. But isn’t it written with regard to Abigail: “And it was so,
as she rode on her donkey and came down by the covert of the mountain” (I Samuel 25:20). This
verse employs the language of riding in reference to a woman on a donkey.

The Gemara answers: There, due to the fear of the night, it is standard practice for a woman
to ride and not merely sit on the donkey.

And if you wish, say instead: There is no consideration due to the fear of the night that would
explain why she was permitted to ride in the regular manner; rather, there is a consideration due
to fear of David.

And if you wish, say instead: There is no consideration due to fear of David either; however,
there is a consideration due to the fear of the incline when riding down the mountain.

5
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the word impure written in the Torah? Apparently, the Torah does
not consistently employ euphemisms, and indeed the word impure appears regularly.

Rather, anywhere that two phrases are equal in length, the verse speaks employing a
euphemism. Anywhere that the words of the euphemism are more numerous, requiring a
lengthier description, the Torah speaks employing concise language, in accordance with that
which Rav Huna said that Rav said, and some say it was Rav Huna who said that Rav said in
the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner.

The Gemara asks: And anywhere that the phrases are equal in length, does the verse always
speak employing dignified language?

Aren’t the Hebrew words for rides [rokhevet], spelled: Reish, vav, kaf, beit, tav; and sits [
yoshevet], spelled: Yod, vav, shin, beit, tav, of equal length, and yet the verse states: Rides (I
Samuel 25:20). The Gemara answers:

The Hebrew word for rides is written without a vav in the defective form, rendering it shorter
than the term for sits. Brevity takes precedence over dignified language.

6
The Gemara relates an incident involving the use of appropriate language: There were these two
students who were sitting before Rav and were weary from studying a complex issue. One of
them said: This halakha we are studying is rendering us as tired as a tired [mesankan]
something else, a euphemism for a pig. And the other one said: This halakha is rendering us as
tired as a tired kid. Rav would not speak with that student who made reference to a pig, as one
who speaks inappropriately is undoubtedly flawed in character.

7
8
The Gemara additionally relates that there were these two students who were sitting before
Hillel, and one of them was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. And some say they were sitting
before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and one of them was the amora Rabbi Yoḥanan. One of them
said: Due to what reason need one be careful to harvest grapes in a state of ritual purity, by
insisting on the use of pure vessels, and one need not harvest olives in a state of ritual purity?
And the other one said the same point, only he worded it differently: Due to what reason need
one harvest grapes in a state of ritual purity, but one may harvest olives in a state of ritual
impurity? Their teacher said: I am certain that this first student, who spoke in a clean manner,
will issue halakhic rulings in Israel. The Gemara adds: And it was not even a few days later
that he issued halakhic rulings in Israel.

One should always speak in a refined manner.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

The Gemora notes: The reason the Tanna of our Mishna used the word or and not night is because
the Tanna used a refined expression. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should never speak in
an unrefined manner, as the Torah added eight letters in the verse: from the animals that are tahor
and from the animals that are not tahor. The Torah could have sufficed with the word tamei,
impure, and instead wrote that are not tahor, which is an addition of eight letters, to teach us the
importance of speaking in a refined manner.

Rav Pappa said: it is said: if there be among you a man who is not tahor, [because of] an incident
at night. The Torah could have stated: a man who is tamei, and instead wrote a man who is not
tahor, which is an addition of twelve letters, to teach us that one should speak in a refined manner.

Ravina maintains that the letter vav in the word of tahor is also extra to teach us to speak in a
refined manner.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Pesachim_3.pdf

9
Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: We also find that the Torah added sixteen letters in the verse: because
he said: an incident has occurred; he is not tahor; for he has not been cleansed. The Torah could
have written a tamei incident has occurred, and instead chose to write an incident has occurred; he
is not tahor, which is an addition of sixteen letters, to teach us that one should speak in a refined
manner.

One should always teach his student in an abridged manner.

The Academy of Rabbi Yishmael taught: We derive that one should speak in a refined manner
form a verse that states regarding a zav (a man who has an emission similar but not identical to a
seminal discharge) merkav, riding equipment.

Regarding a zavah (a woman who experiences an irregular bleeding from the uterus), however,
the Torah refers to riding equipment as moshav, a seat.2 Furthermore, it is said in the Book of Iyov:

you should have chosen the language of the wise, and it is said: my lips express refined knowledge.

If one would think that refined language is only required in biblical passages but the Chachamim
were not required to be refined in their language, the verse: you shall choose the language of the
wise, teaches us that even the Chachamim should use refined language. The verse that states: my
lips express refined language, teaches us that even in mundane matters one should use refined
language.

The Gemora asks: But do we not find “riding” written in the torah with respect of a woman, as it
is written: And Rivkah arose with her maidens, and they rode upon the camels?

The Gemora answers: There, it is normal (for them to ride) because of their fright of (being on top
of the) camels.

The Gemora asks: But it is written: And Moshe took his wife and sons and caused them to ride on
the donkeys?
The Gemora answers: There, it is normal, on account of the sons (but the women did not in fact
ride).

The Gemora asks: But it is written: And it happened that she was riding on a donkey? The Gemora
answers: It was normal either because of the fear of the night, or because of the fear of Dovid, or
because of the fear of the mountain.

The Gemora notes: Although the word tamei is used in the Torah, the rule is as follows: if the
unrefined word and the refined word are equal in length, then theTorah uses the more refined
expression. If the refined expression is longer than the unrefined expression, then the Torah uses
the shorter passage, to teach us that one should always teaches his student in a concise manner.

2
The reason for this discrepancy is because it is not appropriate to refer to a woman who rides, because she must ride with her
legs spread apart.

10
Hillel predicted that a student who spoke in a refined manner would become a great leader
of the Jewish People.

There were two students sitting before Hillel, and one of the students was Rabbi Yochanan ben
Zakkai. Others say that the two students were sitting before Rebbe, and one of the students was
Rabbi Yochanan. One student asked, “Why is one required to harvest grapes with vessels that are
tahor whereas one is not required to harvest olives in vessels that are tahor?” The other student
asked, “why is once required to harvest grapes with vessels that are tahor, whereas one can harvest
olives in vessels that are tamei?” The teacher said that he is certain that the first student, who used
a more refined term of tahor as opposed to using the word tamei, would become a leader who
would render Halachic decisions for Israel. A short time passed and that student indeed rendered
Halachic decisions for Israel.

Refined language

The reason the Tanna of our Mishnah did not use the term night is that he chose to use a more
refined expression. A number of examples of the Torah choosing a more refined expression are
cited as well as the source for the need to speak with refined language. A rule is established for
determining when to use more refined language and when to use more concise language. Three
examples of people employing refined or unrefined language are cited. The Gemara retells the
story of how R’ Yehudah ben Beseira devised a plan to trap an Aramean. Two more incidents are
recorded, one in which a person chose his words wisely and the second case where the person did
not choose his words wisely.

Our Daf discusses the crucial importance of speaking in a refined manner. The Gemara concludes
that the Torah always phrases itself in a refined manner unless it would be wordy to do so, as R’
Huna says in the name of R’ Meir, “A person should always teach his student in a succinct
fashion.”

The Gemara relates that two students of Hillel were discussing the harvesting of olive and grape
crops. One asked, “Why do we harvest grapes in a state of purity and why do we not harvest olives
in a state of purity?” The other said “Why do we harvest grapes in a state of purity and olives in
a state of impurity?” Hillel said “I am certain that he will be a halachic authority of Israel”.

11
Hillels’ statement is ambiguous. Is he referring to the first talmid who used the longer but cleaner
means of expression, or to the second talmid who was more concise, but less refined in his
expression?

Tosfos1 suggests that Hillel was commending the second student. This is based on the reasoning
offered by the Gemara that concise expression is preferable to refined expression. However, the
Ran2 and other Rishonim argue that the first talmid was more praiseworthy, as his choice of
language was more refined. They3 explain that conciseness is preferable only when clarity is not
compromised. In the above case the first talmid’s question is more accurate.3

The Tashbatz4 lists another reason for siding with this approach. The precept of teaching your
student in a succinct fashion is specifically from Rebbe to talmid, so that the talmid should not be
confused by his Rebbe’s wordy explanation. However, the Rebbe, with his greater level of
understanding, will not be confused if his talmid expresses himself in a lengthy fashion! Thus, the
first talmid who spoke in a wordy manner was justified in doing so.

This dispute has practical halachic consequences.

Firstly, according to Tosfos it is better to be concise even at the expense of clarity; the other
Rishonim would say that clarity is preferable.

Secondly, Tosfos would maintain that even a talmid when speaking to his Rebbe should be concise
whereas the Tashbatz would say that there is no need for the Talmid to cut his questions short.

Many Acharonim5 prove the position of the Ran and the Rishonim.

The Maadenei Yomtov- suggests an explanation which would explain their reasoning; conciseness
only has an advantage if the same level of understanding will be conveyed, but if understanding is
impaired then it is better to offer even a lengthy explanation to promote clarity and glorify the
Torah. 4

Notes:

3
The implication of the second talmid’s question is that the harvesting will necessarily take place in a state of impurity which is
incorrect as the harvester may well remain pure.
4
This is stated explicitly in the Gemara Chulin 66.7

12
 5

Our Daf brings proof for this statement from various pesukim in the Torah. Although in a few
places the Torah goes out of its way not to use a, there are many more pesukim where
a word such as ‫ טמא‬is used.

How can this statement be proven from a small minority in the Torah? The Dubno Maggid
explains with a mashal. There lived two wealthy people named Reb Dovid and Reb Avreml. Reb
Dovid, from a prominent family, was renowned as a Talmid Chochom, and Baal Tzedaka. Reb
Avreml had only recently become wealthy and was still called “Avreml the Peasant.”

One day, someone knocked on R’ Dovid’s door asking for directions to R’ Avreml’s house. The
attendant answered and said, “Avreml the Peasant lives that way.” R’ Dovid overheard this and
rebuked his attendant for using language that was unacceptable. When a shidduch was suggested
between R’ Dovid’s son and R’ Avreml’s daughter, R’ Dovid refused saying he would not consider
marrying his son to the daughter of that peasant.

In answer to his attendant’s wonder to this reply after he was rebuked for using the same language
he was told, “For me it was necessary to refer to Avreml as a peasant to explain my refusal of the
match.

But when someone simply asks for directions there was no need to refer to such a negative name.”
In the pesukim used as proof for this Gemara, the Torah is not discussing the specific status of the
object involved but relating different points regarding the object. By not using the term ‫ טמא‬unless
absolutely necessary, the Torah teaches the importance of not using a

CONCISE AND CLEAN SPEECH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:

The Gemara teaches that a person should speak with refined speech. In order to teach this lesson,
the Mishnah expresses the requirement to search for Chametz at night with the words, "Or
l'Arba'ah Asar," rather than with the words, "Leilei Arba'ah Asar." Similarly, in a number of places
the Torah uses the words "Lo Tahor" instead of "Tamei."

Why does the Tana use the word "Or" to mean night specifically in the Mishnah here, when, in
many other Mishnayos, the Tana uses the word "Leil"? In addition, why does the Torah use the
words "Lo Tahor" in some places, while in other places it uses the word "Tamei"?6

5
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20003.pdf
6
RASHI (DH Asher Einenah) explains that the Torah uses the more refined phrase in only a few places in order to teach the lesson
that one should speak with refined speech. Why, though, were these verses in particular chosen to teach this lesson?

13
BA'AL HA'ME'OR explains that only in certain verses can the Torah use the words "Lo Tahor."
In the other verses, the Torah needs to use the word "Tamei," because it is teaching why one must
stay away from the object of Tum'ah.

For example, the Torah must say that one who touches an object of Tum'ah cannot enter the Beis
ha'Mikdash because the object is Tamei. It is the Tum'ah of the object that distances the person
who touches it from places of holiness.

In contrast, when the verse discusses the Tahor and Tamei types of animals that Noach brought
into the ark at the time of the flood, the fact that the animals were Tamei is not relevant to any
Halachah. The Torah there is not teaching a reason to keep away from the animals. Rather, it is
merely categorizing the animals. When the Torah categorizes them, it prefers to use the more
refined wording ("Lo Tahor") in order to avoid a word that has a negative implication.

As far as why this Mishnah in particular uses the word "Or" and not "Leil," the Ba'al ha'Me'or
paraphrases the words of the RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos) who says that the Mishnah here
says "Or" because it is the first word of the Maseches.

The Tana wanted to start the Maseches with a word that has positive connotations, and not with a
word that connotes a negative quality, such as "night."

In other cases, when the Mishnah is not at the beginning of a Maseches, the Mishnah uses the
simpler word, "Leil." Since the Beraisa of d'Vei Shmuel (which does say "Leil Arba'ah Asar") is
not the beginning of his teachings, there was no need for him to use the word "Or."

RA'AVAD disagrees with the Ba'al ha'Me'or's explanation for why some Mishnayos use the word
"Or" while others use the word "Leil." The Ra'avad points out that there are several other
Mishnayos that use the word "Or," even though they are not at the beginning of a Maseches or a
chapter.

Instead, he explains that "Or l'Arba'ah Asar," as opposed to "Leil Arba'ah Asar," denotes the very
beginning of the evening. It refers to the moments that immediately follow sunset, when there is
still some light left in the sky, before the sky becomes entirely dark.

Since Bedikah must be done at the beginning of the night as the Gemara (4a) teaches, the Mishnah
says "Or l'Arba'ah Asar" -- at the very beginning of the night of the fourteenth. (The Beraisa of
d'Vei Shmuel uses the word "Leil" because its intention is to explain the word "Or" in the
Mishnah.)

In every other Mishnah where the word "Or" is used (as cited by the Gemara on 3a), the
Mishnah also refers to the beginning of the night. The intention of the Mishnah in each case is
that the beginning of the night is not considered part of the previous day, but rather part of the
coming day.

14
WHY IS THE NIGHT OF PESACH CALLED "LIGHT"

The Mishnah (2a) refers to the night of the fourteenth of Nisan (the night of Bedikas Chametz) as
"Or l'Arba'ah Asar." The Gemara explains that although the Mishnah means to say the night of
the fourteenth and not the day, it uses the word "Or" (which literally means "light") because that
it is a more refined expression.

What is more refined about using the word "light" to refer to night, and why is that word not used
except in the beginning of Pesachim (and in Kerisus 1:6)?

RAV YITZCHAK HUTNER zt'l explains the choice of words in the Mishnah as follows.

The quality of the Yom Tov of Pesach is that it has the power to reveal the light that is hidden in
the darkness of night. That is, even in a time of Galus, when Hashem-m's presence is less apparent,
by reliving the miracles of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim we attain the ability to see more clearly the guiding
hand of Hashem-m in this world and during the era of Galus. Both this world (Olam ha'Zeh) and
Galus are compared to night. This is why Maseches Pesachim begins by calling the night, "Or."

The source for Rav Hutner's suggestion may be found in a comment of the VILNA GA'ON in his
commentary to the Hagadah. In the Hagadah, we ask "Mah Nishtanah" -- "Why is this night
(ha'Lailah ha'Zeh) different from all other nights?" In Hebrew, nouns are classified as either
masculine or feminine. Masculine nouns are modified by masculine adjectives and pronouns,
while feminine nouns are modified by feminine adjectives and pronouns. Although there is no
fixed rule to determine the gender of a particular noun, there is one principle that is consistent:
When a noun ends with the vowel "Kamatz" followed by the silent letter "Heh," that word is of
feminine gender. Accordingly, the word "Lailah" (night) should be a feminine noun. Why, then,
are masculine modifiers (such as "ha'Zeh") always used with the word "Lailah"?

The Vilna Ga'on explains that this phenomenon is actually the subject of the question of "Mah
Nishtanah ha'Lailah ha'Zeh": Why is "Lailah" (night), a feminine noun, modified by the word
"Zeh," a masculine pronoun? It should be referred to as "ha'Lailah ha'Zos," with the feminine
pronoun.

The Vilna Ga'on adds than not only would it be grammatically consistent for "Lailah" to be
feminine, it would also be logically consistent. Night is feminine in its essence. Many positive
commandments must be performed exclusively during the daytime (such as the Mitzvah of Shofar
on Rosh Hashemanah, Arba'as ha'Minim on Sukos, Tzitzis and Tefilin, and many others).

This is in accordance with the "feminine" nature of the night. Just as women are exempt from
fulfilling these positive commandments (see Mishnah in Kidushin 29a), so, too, the night, with its
feminine element, is "exempt" from these Mitzvos.7

7
The source for the Vilna Ga'on's comment that night is "feminine" may be found in the Zohar (Bereishis 20b). The Zohar states
that daytime is when man actively provides for his family's livelihood, as the verse says, "The sun shines... and men go out to do
their work until evening" (Tehilim 104:22-23). The woman, on the other hand, provides for her family at night, as the verse says,
"She arises while it is still night, and she prepares sustenance for her household..." (Mishlei 31:15). In the words of the Zohar, the
man "rules" during the daytime and the woman "rules" during the nighttime.

15
Based on this approach, the Vilna Ga'on suggests an even deeper meaning to the Hagadah's
question. Although time related Mitzvos Aseh normally apply only during the day, there are a few
exceptions.

These exceptions are the Mitzvos performed on the Seder night: the eating of Matzah, Maror, and
the Korban Pesach (in the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash), and the Mitzvah of relating the story of
the Exodus. The Torah specifically commands that these Mitzvos be performed exclusively at
night.

The question of "Mah Nishtanah" is why the night of Pesach is more "masculine" ("ha'Zeh") than
other nights, in that it is laden with positive Mitzvos.8

It seems evident that this night's masculine character must be related in some way to the broader
question mentioned above: Why does the word "Lailah," in general, display a duality of meaning?
Although it has the feminine "Kamatz-Heh" ending, it is consistently described with masculine
modifiers.

If this is the intention of the Hagadah's question, then what is the answer to this question? The
Vilna Ga'on does not elaborate on this, but the answer may be explained as follows (based on the
words of the Shelah and Gan Raveh mentioned above):

The trials and tribulations of this world are compared to the night because, in the present world,
we are often blind to Hashem's presence in, and control of, the world. The radiant, joyful period
of the world of the future in times of Mashi'ach is compared to the day, because then Hashem-m
will make His majesty clear for all to see. In retrospect, all events that occurred in this world will
be seen to have been clearly for the best. This is the meaning of the Midrash (Shemos Rabah 18:11)
that states that during our future redemption the night will be lit up like the day.

This means that at the dawn of the era of Mashi'ach, it will become abundantly evident that even
when we do not "notice" Hashem's presence during the "night" of Olam ha'Zeh, it is there no less.
When one sees the world with the proper perspective, the guiding Hand of Hashem-m is "as clear
as day." Femininity denotes modesty, privacy, hidden-ness.9

Night might "look" feminine (as denoted by the "Kamatz-Heh" ending), but it is in fact masculine
in nature. Hashem-m's hand can be seen if one looks with the proper perspective, the perspective
of one who has witnessed Yetzi'as Mitzrayim: "Anochi Hashem... Asher Hotzeisicha me'Eretz
Mitzrayim." This explains the duality of the word "Lailah."

The Zohar (2:38a) teaches that the night of the redemption from Mitzrayim was lit up as bright as
day. During that time of miraculous redemption, night "became day." The reason why the night of

8
According to this interpretation, the four questions correspond to the four positive Mitzvos of Pesach night; see the Mishnah's
version of the four questions in Pesachim 116a. See also SHELAH in his commentary "Matzah Shemurah" on the Hagadah, who
makes a similar point in his analysis of the words, "Kol Oso ha'Lailah," and see GAN RAVEH to Shemos 12:42.
9
Since it is characteristic of women to be less conspicuous than men; see Yevamos 77a (sic)

16
Pesach is imbued with such a masculine character is because it commemorates the night of the
Exodus, during which Hashem-m's presence was "as clear to us as day." This is why the Torah,
which usually assigns positive Mitzvos to the daytime hours, makes an exception for the Mitzvos
of Pesach. For the time that commemorates Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, the Torah designates the night for
the performance of the Mitzvos.

Being Careful With One’s Words

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:10

As noted on the last daf, the Mishna that opens Massekhet Pesaḥim begins with the
word ohr, which is used to mean “the evening of,” even though that definition is an unusual one.
The Gemara suggests that this term was chosen, rather than simply using leil – “the night of,”
because it is lashon me’alia – “a higher level form of speech.” The attempt to raise the level of
sensitivity to word usage is supported by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s teaching that a person should
always be careful to keep from saying something inappropriate. This is supported by a number of
passages from the Tanakh, all of which prefer to speak in a cumbersome manner, rather than using
a simple, direct word that conveys negative ideas. As an example of this, Rav Aha bar
Ya’akov points to the passage where King Shaul wonders why David did not appear for the Rosh
Hodesh meal (I Shmuel 20:26). Rather than saying “perhaps he was tameh,” the passage records
him saying “perhaps something happened to him and it turned out that he was lo tahor” – that he
was not pure, rather than defiled.

As is commonplace in the Gemara, the technical ruling is followed by a number of illustrations:

There were these three priests in the Temple, each of whom received a portion of the showbread
divided among the priests. Since there were many priests, each one received only a small
amount. One said to them: I received a bean-sized portion. And one said: I received an olive-
bulk. And one said: I received a portion the size of a lizard’s tail. They investigated the
background of the latter priest, who used the imagery of an impure creeping animal, and they
found a trace [shemetz] of disqualification in his background.

Upon hearing the expression that the third kohen used, referring to an unclean animal, the
authorities checked his background information and discovered that he should not have been
participating in the service.

Aside from the Gemara’s issue with the use of this term, it is interesting to examine where such an
expression would come from. The choice of “a lizard’s tail” as an independent measure of size
stems from the fact that oftentimes a lizard will shed his tail if it is caught and will grow another

10
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim3/

17
one. Since a typical desert-dwelling lizard is a small creature, a volume the size of its tail would
be a very small amount.

Speech and Chillul Hashem

Rabbi Yair Hoffman writes:11

What Constitutes Chillul Hashem?

Every Jew is commanded not to desecrate Hashem’s Name, as the pasuk states: “Lo sechalalu es
Shem kodshi.” The mitzvah is listed in the 613 mitzvos of the Rishonim and in the Sefer
HaChinuch (295). If someone causes others to make chillul Hashem, the Shulchan Aruch rules
that he should be put in cherem (Y.D. 334).

Our Daf cites Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: A person should never allow an unseemly word to come
out of his mouth, for the Torah went eight letters out of its way to avoid writing something
unseemly (Bereishis 7:8). The Torah states: “Min ha’beheimah asher einenah tehorah — from the
animal that is not pure” instead of just saying, “ha’beheimah ha’temei’ah — the impure animal.”
Many extra words are used by the Torah to teach us this important lesson — not to sully our
neshamos in this manner.

The Rambam (Yesodei Torah 5:4) explains that chillul Hashem is actually the opposite of kiddush
Hashem. This is a good rule of thumb to follow when one wishes to explore what exactly
constitutes a chillul Hashem. Nonetheless, it is also important to examine what Chazal tell us
specifically. The lack of clarity on the issue has created a situation where it could reasonably be
said that one man’s kiddush Hashem is another man’s chillul Hashem.

11
http://www.5tjt.com/halachic-musings-have-we-lost-our-way/

18
For example, some people think that a show of strength is an example of kiddush Hashem. Others
feel that an abuse of strength is a grave chillul Hashem. It is thus important to see what Chazal and
poskim tell us in order to have a better understanding of the issue. It is not that this examination
will resolve any issues between people who are arguing points between each other. But, hopefully,
it will give a number of us greater insights.

Different Categories

There are a number of different categories of chillul Hashem that are differentiated in some of the
Rishonim. There are aveiros that the pesukim in the Torah call a chillul Hashem. There are
behaviors that, no matter who the Jew actually is, also constitute a chillul Hashem.

It seems that there are three different categories found in the Rishonim.

1. When one is forced to violate one of the three cardinal sins for which we must give up
our lives. If someone did not do so, this is a chillul Hashem according to Sefer
HaMitzvos (#63).
2. Whenever one purposefully does an aveirah out of spite; this, too, is considered a chillul
Hashem (Sefer HaMitzvos, ibid).
3. When an important person does something that causes people to talk, even if it would
generally not be considered an aveirah (Shabbos 51b). This is considered a chillul
Hashem because people will learn from him. The Gemara explains that greater the
person is, the more careful he must be.

According to the Smag #2 and Smak #85, however, category three includes a regular talmid
chacham whose actions cause people to talk; this, too, is chillul Hashem. These authorities also
say that when a Jew does any action that will cause goyim to say, “The Jews have no Torah” it’s
a chillul Hashem.

19
There is a debate as to the reason for the third category. Is it because the important person must
comply with a higher standard? This is what Rabbeinu Yonah (Avos, Mishnah 4:4) and the
Rambam (Ma’amar Kiddush Hashem) write. Others understand it because other people will learn
from him. Other Rishonim hold that it is because the Torah will be lessened in the eyes of others
because of him (Rashi on tractate Shabbos 33a).

This author would venture to say that, nowadays, with the growth of social media, the important
person category can be expanded to include “frum person” too, especially when no rabbi or Torah
leader denounces the behavior.

What are examples of category three?

The Gemara (Yoma 86a) gives us illustrations. Rav gives an example of a talmid chacham who
doesn’t pay the butcher bill right away. Rav Yochanan gives as an example of chillul Hashem of
a talmid chacham that goes without Torah and without tefillin for four amos. Rav Yochanan’s
explanation assumed that the onlooker does not realize that the talmid chacham just had a marathon
session of Torah study and did not have the strength to continue further or the strength of intent to
wear the tefillin properly.

There are some observations that can be made from these illustrations. In regard to chillul Hashem,
according to Rabbi Yochanan, “perception is reality.” According to Rav, we have established the
notion that it also involves a middah, a character trait, or behavior and not just an actual sin.

What the Torah Calls Chillul Hashem

There are specific aveiros that the Torah itself calls chillul Hashem (see, for example, Vayikra
19:12).

20
 • Most of these have to do with falsely swearing (see Rashi Ta’anis 23a), although giving
one’s child to the Molech (Vayikra 18:21) is also called a chillul Hashem by the Torah.
• Abuse of justice by judges is also a grave chillul Hashem.
• The Gemara also provides the idea that certain activities such as going to goyish courts
is a grave chillul Hashem (Gittin 88b).
• Anything having to with avodah zarah (see Rabbeinu Yonah, Avos 4:4 based
on Yechezkel 20:39) is also considered a chillul Hashem.

General Chillul Hashem

Anyone who sins and causes others to sin (choteh u’machti es ha’rabim) is actively being mechalel
shem Hashem (Rashi Yoma 86a).

Another form of chillul Hashem is when it is pointed out to the world that Klal Yisrael are not
doing their job. The Beis Yosef explains (Y.D. 254) that if a poor person needs to be supported
through gentiles, this is a situation of chillul Hashem. It is forbidden for him unless he has nothing
to eat. Regardless, it is forbidden for us, the community, to allow the situation to continue.

If Jews are aware that someone Jewish is going to falsely swear in front of gentiles that he does
not owe money, when the gentile knows that he does, this is a situation of chillul Hashem. The
Jews must stop him from swearing falsely and rather must work it out with the gentile. This is a
ruling in the Rema in Shulchan Aruch in the laws of shevuos (Y.D. 239:1).

Generally speaking, we are permitted to take donations from a gentile for a synagogue. However,
if the gentile gave it to something specific in shul, we may not change it for anything else because
of the chillul Hashem aspect of it. One may do so, however, under certain circumstances if the
donation was made by a Jew. (Taz’s explanation of ruling in Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 259:6)

21
The Bach in a responsa (#111, old) cites the Sefer Chassidim (#829) that if it is the custom among
the gentiles to forbid a certain food because a horrible sin was done with it, then Jews should also
refrain from eating it. This is on account of chillul Hashem.

Publicizing a previously performed aveirah that was unknown may also be a form of chillul
Hashem (see Psalm 32:1 from Yoma 86a.) Therefore, when an aveirah is not publicly known, one
should not say a public vidui.

Physical relations with gentiles is also considered a chillul Hashem (Rambam Issurei Biah 12:6).

Whenever it is possible to minimize a chillul Hashem we should do so. This is seen from many
poskim — for example, the Chasam Sofer (O.C. Vol. I #61).

One such illustration can be seen from the following idea: Even though we no longer have the
ability to deal with cases of capital punishment, there are times when a beis din must act out of
migdar milsa, especially regarding chillul Hashem. There was such a case where a person
“blessed” (euphemism) Hashem and was punished most severely because of the chillul Hashem
involved.12

What is shocking about this example is that nowadays we cannot perform capital punishment, and
if we do, it would constitute a capital offense on us as well. And yet, to prevent chillul Hashem,
beis din allowed it in that instance, in order to minimize the chillul Hashem of someone “blessing”
Hashem. The very term for the prohibition “Blessing Hashem” is used in order to avoid further
chillul Hashem. (It should be noted that nowadays this ruling of the Rosh is not applicable at all.)

12
See Teshuvos HaRosh 17:8 cited in Darchei Moshe C.M. 425

22
How Hashem Deals With Chillul Hashem

The Gemara tells us (Kiddushin 40a), “Ein makifin b’chillul Hashem.” This means that Hashem
pays back (in punishment) a chillul Hashem right away. What this means is subject to some
interpretation (two views even being found in the Gemara), but we see from all of this the gravity
of chillul Hashem.

It would seem that if a significant minority of the public would perceive something as a chillul
Hashem, then it is, even if we personally do not think so. But regardless of our perception, it is
clear that every activity or endeavor that is in the public eye should be carefully weighed to ensure
that we do not violate this most fundamental principle. This should be done by asking responsible
rabbanim whose sense of achrayus to the Torah community is unimpeachable. It should not be
done on one’s own authority, no matter how lovable one is perceived to be.

In the public arena the level of discourse has degenerated into cursing and expletives:

Cursing

Gestures Are Forbidden, Too

Let us be perfectly clear. A gesture of nivul peh is also considered nivul peh. This is clear from the
words of Rav Shlomo Luria in his Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kamma 4,11) where he writes, “A
person should be careful in his speech just as in his actions [regarding nivul peh].” The Hebrew
term “ma’asav” thus includes gestures of nivul peh.

Sources:
Lev Rabba 24:7

23
The Midrash attests to this on the verse in Devarim (23:10),

‫ ְו ֨ ִנְשַׁמ ְרָ֔תּ ִמֹ֖כּל ָדָּ֥בר ָֽרע׃‬9‫ִכּ ֽי־ֵתֵ֥צא ַמֲח ֶ֖נה ַﬠל־ֹא ְיֶ֑בי‬
“When you go out to war, guard yourself from every evil matter.” How does the Midrash above,
define evil matter? You guessed it — “unseemly words,” referred to in Hebrew as nivul peh.

A Biblical Prohibition

The Midrash seems to indicate that it is a Biblical prohibition whether in war or not in war — it is
just that it is more common in wartime or in the soldier’s barracks rather than in the typical social
structure or setting to which the Torah generally speaks. The Machzor Vitri (424), one of the
foremost students of Rashi, writes that the prohibition is Biblical.

There may be a different source for a Biblical prohibition, too. The Torah tells us:

(Devarim 23:17), “Lo yireh becha ervas davar—There shall not be seen within you an unseemly
thing…” Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani in Vayikra Rabbah (24:7) rereads the words to say “ervas

24
dibbur” instead of “ervas davar.” The verse now reads “There shall not be seen within you an
unseemly statement — namely “improper speech.”

Not Innocuous

And it seems that it is not just an innocuous, harmless little activity. The Gemara
in Shabbos (33a) tells us that because of the sin of verbal cursing, great problems come to Israel.
Harsh decrees are promulgated, the youth die young, orphans and widows cry out and are not
answered. In other words, the repercussions are rather serious. The Shelah (Osios Shin Shtika 24)
writes that cursing is the avi avos ha’tumah — the ultimate source of impurity.

The neshamah, or soul, reflects the Divine aspects of mankind. In contrast, cursing reflects
the nefesh ha’beheimis, the animalistic aspect of mankind. Interestingly, scientists believe that
there is also cursing in the animal kingdom. Frans de Waal, a professor of primate behavior at
Emory University in Atlanta, explains that when chimpanzees are angry “they will grunt or spit
or make an abrupt, upsweeping gesture that, if a human were to do it, you’d recognize it as
aggressive.”

Such behaviors are threats and can be interpreted as a form of cursing.

Avi Avos HaTumah

The reason cursing is called “avi avos ha’tumah by the Shelah HaKadosh is that such activity
undermines the holiness of Klal Yisrael, both of oneself and of others. The Gemara
in Kesuvos (5b) instructs the others just how they should react. The Gemara states that fingers
were created like straight tent pegs for a reason — so that someone who hears nivul peh can place
his fingers in his ears to blot out the sound.

25
The Midrash tells us that the Jews in Egypt reached the 49th level of impurity, but even then, they
did not succumb so low as to curse (Pesikta Zuta Sh’mos 6:10). They did not change their language
implies, according to the Midrash, that they did not change their manner of speech either. We see
how serious such activity truly is.

Reduces Life

It also reduces our pre-designated life spans. The Gemara in Niddah (16b) states that even if one
had a lifespan of 70 years, nivul peh can turn it around in the wink of an eye.

Surprisingly enough, however, the Taz (Y.D. 124:1) states that the reason the Gemara uses the
wording “one who removes curse words from his mouth,” rather than “one who issues curse words
from his mouth” is to show us that the prohibition is only when one does so intentionally and
willfully. Otherwise, it may not be the most proper thing, but it does not violate the Biblical
prohibition.

It is interesting to note that philosophers are sometimes at a loss in defining why exactly cursing
is wrong. From a Torah perspective, the issue is impurity. Man was created in the Divine Image
and possesses a cheilek Elokah mi’ma’al — a Divine section from Above. Cursing and the uttering
of profane words darkens and sullies that Divine section from Above that we all possess.

Speech and thought: refinement, clarity, context 13

One of the classical principles of scriptural interpretation is that the written Torah is especially
efficient — every word is precise and instructive. Any section which appears to be extraneous or
redundant signals additional information being smuggled into the text. Based on this premise, the

13
https://tjpnews.com/speech-and-thought-refinement-clarity-context/

26
Talmud (Pesachim, 3a) points to an expression in this week’s portion, where instead of the more
logical and succinct term “unclean,” the Torah uses an elaborate phrase. The subtle divergence,
explains the Talmud, provides us with a lesson about the importance of refined communication,
even if it entails being lengthier: “An unrefined word should never pass a person’s lips, for the
Torah goes out of its way and uses eight extra letters to avoid an unpleasant word.”
But choosing delicate language to avoid crude speech is not the only consideration when
expressing oneself. In other places, the importance of clarity and conciseness is stressed regarding
good writing and communication.

And sometimes we run into a clash of values: Which is more important, more direct or more refined
language?

The commentaries explain a guiding principle regarding when it is preferable to be brief and blunt
for the sake of clarity, or to be lengthier yet delicate to avoid speaking crudely. It depends on the
context:

When it comes to conveying law (practical education or halachic ruling), clarity is primary.

But when the Torah conveys anecdotes, refinement takes precedence.

The broader applications of this distinction are, for example, the need in business transactions or
medical discussions to be precise — a situation where clarity takes precedence over refined
speech. But in conversations, such as when asked about someone’s character, being tactful
overrides the need to be more direct, clear and concise.

Repetition signals lessons

Most ethical commentaries, whether in Torah or other works, deal with ways to refine one’s actions
or speech, like the lesson above. Later in this week’s Torah portion, we find a more subtle
instruction that relates to managing our thoughts.

The passage begins after the story of the flood: “And Noah, the man of the earth, debased himself
and planted a vineyard. He drank wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his
tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.
Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and they walked backward,
and covered their father’s nakedness; their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their
father’s nakedness” (Genesis 9:20-24).

When examining the precise wording in this passage, there is a seeming redundancy in its last
verse (“Their faces were turned backwards, and they did not see their father’s nakedness”). The
immediate question is: Once the reader is informed that “their faces were turned backward,” the
next phrase — “they did not see their father’s nakedness” — is obvious and unnecessary. If so,

27
this apparent extraneousness is communicating a separate idea about Shem and Japheth’s approach
to helping their father.

Even thoughts can be hidden messages

To understand the lesson in this extra phrase, let’s depart to examine two famous teachings.
Stemming from the doctrine of divine (personal) providence, the Baal Shem Tov teaches that
everything one sees and hears offers a lesson; there is no such thing as a random encounter or
meaningless event. This teaching extends even to our own personal reactions and emotions, which
can provide significant lessons.

Furthermore, there are guidelines about how to interpret the waves of thoughts and feelings that
naturally flow inside.

This leads to a second teaching, which discusses how to manage the common occurrence of
noticing flaws in another person. The Baal Shem Tov explains that our perception of the world is
like a mirror through which we see our own reflection. And if a person sees a deficiency in
someone else, it is a sign that he or she must have a similar fault, either outwardly or a more subtle
version — otherwise, that thought would never have come to mind.

(And the reason God uses such an indirect method to send us this message is that while it is easy
to recognize flaws in others, we are naturally more resistant to see flaws in ourselves.)

At first glance, this overarching principle is profound but puzzling. Why can’t one simply notice
another’s flaw without necessarily possessing the same character trait? Indeed, there is a notable
qualification to the Baal Shem Tov’s teaching:

The principle depends on the emotion it provokes. Just as our choice of speech (using precision
vs. refinement) depends on the social context we are in, so too whether seeing flaws signifies a
cause for self-reflection depends on the context.

If, upon noticing a deficiency, one’s reaction is constructive and action-oriented — “maybe I can
help this person” — then not necessarily does the observer have that deficiency. (This benefit of
noticing flaws applies to a great extent in education and parenting, where overlooking deficiencies
can be detrimental; or determining that this is not a good person for me to hire, to do business with,
etc.) But if seeing the flaw results in judgment or intolerance — i.e. being annoyed, focusing on
the negative, disliking the person or branding the person — the statement of the Baal Shem Tov
applies. That disturbing observation is a mirror, a message to look inward.

And sometimes these reactions and lessons (being bothered and gaining constructive insight)
occur simultaneously.

28
To see or not to see?

With this teaching in mind, we can revisit the above verse with Noah’s sons to extract the deeper
lesson in the Torah’s repetitive description of not seeing their father’s nakedness.
Noah’s three sons found him in a demeaning state, but they had very different reactions. Shem and
Japheth averted their eyes; they did not want to see their father’s deficiency or embarrassment. To
signify this virtue, the Torah adds

“and they did not see their father’s nakedness,”

emphasizing that not only did they (physically) refrain from looking at him, they were not thinking
about his missteps — they were only concerned with helping to cover him.

By contrast, Ham, the third brother, focused on his father’s flaws, spoke about it to his brothers,
and thus revealed his own failings. This contrast in characters is reflected in the following verses
encapsulating the reward and legacy to their descendants:

“Blessed be the Lord, God of Shem, and may Canaan be servant to them. May God enlarge Japheth
and may he dwell in the tents of Shem.”

Genesis 9 26-27

Thus, the deeper layer of the story conveys how the same sight or situation can lead one person to
focus on a character deficiency while another person notices the fault only insofar as considering
what can be done to improve the situation.

And the main message in this extra phrase is that, at times, it is wiser to immediately push away
thoughts that pop into the mind, especially when noticing flaws in others. More specifically, in
addition to refraining from speaking about another’s shortcomings, we should only indulge these
observations insofar as it lies within our ability to help improve the situation.

Euphemistic Language

29
 Rachel Scheinerman writes:14

Yesterday we saw that after much argument the rabbis decided that the word or in our mishnah,
which literally means "light," refers (somewhat surprisingly) to nighttime. Today, the Gemara asks
why:

What is the reason that he (i.e. the Mishnah) didn’t explicitly teach: The night of the
fourteenth?
Answer: He employed a euphemism.
This is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said: A person
should never express a crude matter, as the formulation of a verse was distorted by the
addition of eight letters rather than have it express a crude matter, as it is stated: “From the
pure animals and from the animals that are not pure.” (Genesis 7:8)

Night was a dangerous and frightening time in antiquity. (Incidentally, this too is a theme we dealt
with toward the beginning of tractate Berakhot.) Because of the real and perceived dangers of
darkness, it was best not to name it explicitly.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi offers another example of euphemistic language, this one from the
Torah. Rather than stating that Noah took both pure and impure animals into the ark, the text states
that he took animals that are pure and those “that are not pure.” As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi
points out, the word for “impure” has four letters while the expression “that are not pure” (asher
einena tehora) has twelve, so this slight circumlocution costs the Torah an extra eight letters. Since
the rabbis held firm to the idea of economy in the sacred language of the Torah, the longer phrasing
must have had a specific purpose — to avoid the distasteful word "impure."

Soon the Gemara is tackling other creative uses of language. In a story that returns us to the subject
of Passover, we learn of a non-Jew who regularly went to the Temple in Jerusalem and offered a
Paschal sacrifice. Under certain circumstances, a non-Jew sending a sacrifice to the Jewish Temple
might be considered an honor (for example, the Roman emperor does this in Gittin 56a). But in
this case, it is a desecration for two reasons. First, a foreigner is not permitted to penetrate that
deeply into the Temple complex. And second, the Paschal sacrifice is for Jewish consumption
only, as Exodus 12:43states: no foreigner may eat of it. It becomes clear that this foreigner made
no innocent mistake. The miscreant knew what he was doing, and went home to brag about having
tricked the Jews and made a mockery of their sacred rites.

As in any good folk tale, boasting brings about the villain’s downfall. When the clever Rabbi
Yehuda ben Beteira hears of this interloper’s escapades, he takes action:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Did they feed you from the fat tail of the lamb?
The gentile said to him: No.
Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira replied: If so, when you ascend next time, say to them: Feed me
the fat tail.
The next year when he ascended, he said to them: Feed me from the fat tail.
14
myjewishlearning.com

30
They said to him: The fat tail is offered up to God. Who told you to ask for that portion?
He said to them: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.
They said: What is this?
They investigated his background and found that he was a gentile, and they killed him. They
sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Peace unto you, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, as
you are in Netzivin and your net is spread in Jerusalem.

In a familiar folkloric trope, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira tricks the villain by playing to his greed,
suggesting that he ask for the tastier cut of meat. Since the villain is not familiar with the details
of the ritual, he doesn’t realize that this part is not eaten at all (instead, it's offered on the altar).
His request for the sacred portion immediately raises suspicion and it’s soon discovered that he is
not Jewish at all. His punishment is swift and severe.

The point here is not the disrespect and greed of the non-Jew who made a mockery of Jewish
worship, nor the cartoonish punishment he receives, but the clever way that Rabbi Yehuda ben
Beteira used carefully worded language to send a coded message through the bad guy himself.
Such is the power of words.

Civility in public discourse improves decision-making process

Andy Solis writes:15

After a year and a half of serving as Collier County commissioner for District 2, I am more
convinced than ever that civility in public discourse is essential for good governance.

The manner in which elected officials discuss the issues relating to the decisions they make is of
utmost importance. To make the best decisions, elected officials must be able to openly hear and
understand the opposing views. Hearing and understanding another’s viewpoint doesn’t mean that

15
https://www.naplesnews.com/story/opinion/2018/03/03/commentary-civility-public-discourse-improves-decision-making-
process/384658002/

31
one has to agree with the opposing viewpoint or in any way lessen the conviction in one’s own
position.

On the contrary, being able to listen openly and understand an opposing view will many times
bolster one’s own view based upon a mindful and reasoned analysis of the opposing view.
Emotional and disrespectful arguments where neither side listens to the other don’t produce the
best decisions.

We can see evidence of this in the news every day.

Disagreement and debate are also essential to good governance. Elected officials are supposed to
disagree about the issues and reach the best conclusions within the “marketplace of ideas.”

Disagreement and civil discourse are how the proverbial “sausage” of democracy is made. How
elected officials discuss the issues affects that quality of the process. If the process is a good one,
then the public can have more confidence in our government.

Like good manners, maintaining civility in public discourse takes commitment, practice and
constant refinement. As an attorney and now an elected official, I have found the following to be
useful concepts to keep in mind:

• Did I listen to all of the opposing party’s argument? If I stopped listening because I disagreed, I
may have missed something useful or even missed an important flaw in my own argument.

• Am I taking the opposition’s disagreement personally? If so, why? Anger and resentment don’t
help the participants to perform at their best. These lead to overreaction, inefficient dialogue and
wasted time. Just because they disagree doesn’t make the opposition bad people.

• Have I caused the other side to lose face? Uncivil speech will naturally lead to even less civility.
A lack of civility breeds a lack of civility; it is a vicious cycle. Disagreement in a public forum that
causes the opposition to feel humiliated or slighted will generate the same from the opposition. It

32
detracts from the importance of the issues. Disagreeing without being disagreeable ensures the
quality of the decision-making process.

• Did I finish the discussion in a positive way? Did the discussion end with respect, shaking
hands or an acknowledgment of a good debate by my opposition? The greatest of rivals, from
Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neal to Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, always finished their debates
well. Finishing well also requires one to move on in the event of a loss. The greatest athletes,
entrepreneurs and civic leaders understand the need to move on and approach the next challenge
with a fresh view and determination.

Keeping factors like these in mind helps to ensure the quality of the process. We may not agree
that the decision reached by the majority was the best one, but we can still have confidence that
the process by which the decision was reached was a good one. Maintaining and developing civility
in public discourse is a very important step in maintaining confidence in our political process.

A Nineteenth Century notion of Refinement (sic)

Many girls and women dream of living in 19th century England along with Jane Austen’s
characters, being surrounded by the breathtaking views of Prince Edward Island along with Anne
Shirley, or having the storybook romance described in “The Notebook.” Some may dream so much
that they begin to waste away their own lives subsisting on mental fantasies instead of realizing
that their own life is theirs to live, enrich, and make beautiful. My goal in writing this blog is to
encourage & educate every woman, the woman who you are.

33
 This blog was born out of a desire to chronicle my journey toward elegance,
sophistication, and good manners. (sic)

My topics encompass everything that I have learned and experienced over the years in my quest
to become more refined, better educated, happier, and more fulfilled in my life. In some ways, I
am glad that circumstances have left me very average for now, without the inconvenience of
excessive fame, fortune, learning, or opportunities to blind me to the truth of my own character
and inner being. It was my quest for happiness and completeness that started me on the slow
journey of pursuing the finer things in life. At this point, I have mostly begun acquiring inward
qualities and habits, though my growing appreciation for beauty and quality has also begun
spreading into my home.

Refined speech

One of the hallmarks of a well-bred woman is her refined speech. It is one of the foremost
identifiers of a woman’s character as even the slightest interaction with someone usually involves
talking. I am developing certain habits of speech that I believe contribute to my goal of becoming
a well bred woman. Please note that I don’t speak a certain way because I think I’m better than
another. I have heard since childhood that I must think I’m better than other people because of this
way or that way that I acted. And it is true that I was once more judgmental than I hope I am now.

34
However, I’ve trained myself to stop assuming what others are thinking, and I appreciate the same
in turn. The following examples of how I pursue refined speech may be taken as inspiration or
confirmation for your own journey as a well bred woman in progress.

Let’s begin with what refined speech is not: it isn’t a list of little known “fancy” words
that you should add to your vocabulary to appear more sophisticated. In the South, we referred to
such a fake show as being high-falutin’ (high fuh-LOO-tin’), and truthfully, adding more high-
falutin’ words to your vocabulary doesn’t do much more than make you look, well, high-falutin’.
Truly refined speech focuses on tactful subtractions and substitutions in one’s words.

The first category I subtract from my speech is vulgarity, include all words having to do
with cursing, swearing, coarseness, or so-called nice or Christian curse words. I am not going to
type them here but a quick google search of “Christian curse words” covers the gamut of what I
don’t feel comfortable saying (if you must know!).

This is the part where I feel like it’s hard not to cross into “I’m better than you” territory.
All I’m trying to say is that you just don’t have to curse or swear. When I was in college I picked
up many bad habits including using curse words. When I got back home around my church and
family, I found myself biting my tongue a lot, not realizing how pervasive my little slips had
become. When I got married, I quit the vulgarity cold turkey, and although I have occasionally
allowed myself to speak inappropriately over the last 9 years, I know I don’t have to. I never had
to. I always had the tools, as does every woman, to express myself without stooping to vulgarity.
There is strength, albeit a quiet one, in having consistent morals that one abides by, even in the
circumstances that everyone else would be cursing in. That reminds me of my first natural
childbirth eight years ago. My midwife was coaching me through the last painful pushes and she
kept telling me how well I was doing. (I was terrified!) She said, “Most people would be swearing
by now” and I answered “But–I–don’t–swear!!” And she said, “Well, most people who don’t swear
would be swearing by now!”

35
 If you are unwilling to give up strong language, perhaps you feel you would be defenseless
or powerless without your strong words. In my experience women who tend to use vulgarity
sparsely but in extreme circumstances do so in the effort to react to the most extreme situation with
equal extremity. However, this is still vulgarity, and although many people do appreciate your not
sprinkling your speech with the “f” word like rain in a spring garden, when you do say it, you still
said it. You went there, and you used harsh, unrefined speech. I feel sad for women who feel like
they have to pull out the occasional curse word to really make a point. You don’t. The people who
respect you and take your words seriously will respect your refined speech and your restraint in
strongly expressing yourself–and there are plenty of creative ways to make a point that don’t
involve four letter words and offensive epitaphs.

Another category I completely avoid are euphemisms for God and Jesus. A euphemism
is a more pleasant way of wording a harsher word or phrase, for example saying “passed away”
instead of “died.” But in the case of saying God’s name carelessly, any lesser form (“g-sh,” “gee,”
etc.) aren’t okay with me. This traces back to my firm Christian upbringing in childhood, but as
an adult I still agree with the mindset behind this speech standard.

Another area I desire to limit is the use of slang words. Of course I can’t think of any
examples right now! I use some slang such as “mom,” “dad,” and “kids,” but most often I try to
use standard words rather than substandard words. This is the area I think I need the most work in
currently.

Additionally, I am learning to avoid remarks that malign people groups, that is, ethnic groups
or religions. Unfortunately growing up in the South I learned some phrases used by people close
to me that I didn’t realize were racist at the time. I am not talking about offensive words for people
groups (not giving examples) but rather phrases that ended up being racist due to the judgmental,
haughty, narrow mindset behind them. For example: “(skin color) neighborhood”; “all (country of
origin) are illegals”; “what did you expect from a _(skin color)_ person?” One needn’t look far on
the web these days to find oneself criticized by those on the anti-racist bandwagon, and that’s a

36
good thing. Racism needs to be eradicated forever in the US, and it starts with each individual’s
speech and actions including mine. As a young child without much exposure to the world and
living in an area of predominately one skin color, I honestly believed my authority figures when
they made general statements about people’s religious practices or ethnic groups. While thinking
critically about other people’s religion is fine, as it’s a personal choice that should involve mental
exertion as well as moral justification, general presuppositions based on fear and rumor are not
fine. And who can choose which family they were born into? Judging someone for that makes the
least sense of all. I began realizing in college that people are just people. What distinguishes us is
our character; it’s all we have, and it’s the thing that is most under our control if we choose to
control it.

I presented the above blog to show just how the image of woman’s refinement is still internalized
despite being a male projection. The Rabbinic notion of womanhood reflects the same. Below is
a rejoinder and brings us up to date.

Disputed Ideals: Ideologies of Domesticity and Feminist Rebellion

Robert Max Jackson writes:16

For at least the past 150 years the popular belief that women and men should have distinctive lives
and identities has strained against the also popular belief that all people should be treated equally.
Always paying heed to the prevailing moral climate, shifting ideals of feminine domesticity have
steadfastly defended women's dependence on men.

Using a simple extension of the republican ideals of equality embraced by the American
Revolution, the ideals of sexual equality (feminism) have recurringly challenged the justice of

16
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jackson/future.of.gender/Readings/DownSoLong--Ideology.pdf

37
women's dependence. Other values and beliefs also have affected people's understanding of gender
and the differential treatment of women and men.

But these two contending ideals stand out because they directly concerned people's most
fundamental assessment of women's roles. The uneven history of these two competing ideals has
exhibited the complex linkages between sex inequality and the ideology of women's place. To a
large degree, the prominent ideas have simply reflected women's contemporary status and the
social conditions that produced it.

Still, these ideas have also played a role in the decline and in the persistence of gender inequality.
Historical comparison shows that the ideology of female domesticity has routinely changed to fit
the conditions of women's subordination.

Once accepted, however, the ideal of female domesticity has increased women's collaboration in
the maintenance of inequality. These ideas made each woman willing to support the conditions
that kept all women disadvantaged. Because women's role has seemed to include some advantages
that mask the impact of its much greater disadvantages, people have often perceived women's
social status as complex and ambiguous.

This ostensible ambiguity of women's circumstances has magnified the influence of ideology on
people's assessment of the sexual division of labor. Moreover, ideology also helped to sustain
women's inferiority by consistently defining socially legitimate household responsibilities for
women.

Countervailing these beliefs, the meritocratic ideals promoted by the bureaucratic economy and
state, have progressively reduced the credibility of ideas legitimating gender inequality.
Furthermore, as women's status has risen, the support for each successive egalitarian or feminist
ideology increased while acceptance of domestic ideologies declined. These egalitarian ideas have
propelled and directed women's efforts to improve their status.

Two unremitting and fundamental conflicts in American society have propelled the histories of
these competing ideologies. Women and men have battled endlessly over their relationships and
their relative social standing. Simultaneously, the economic and political processes that
relentlessly pulled this society toward growth, change and adaptation have fought a constant tug
of war with the institutions and vested interests that mulishly dragged their feet.

The resources and opportunities derived from economic and political organization largely
governed the outcomes of the direct exchanges between the sexes, linking the histories of these
two enduring conflicts. By comparing the histories of these competing ideologies, we will see that
beliefs deserve neither simple blame for the persistence of inequality nor simple praise for its
decline. Not quite cause and not quite effect, each ideology has served as a medium through which
people have identified interests and decided how to act. Thus, although ideology did not cause
inequality's persistence or its decline, neither of these opposing processes would have looked the
same without the mediating role of ideology.

WHAT CAUSED THE IDEOLOGY OF FEMALE DOMESTICITY TO CHANGE?

38
Like the phoenix, the ideals of female domesticity have repeatedly arisen, refreshed, just as they
seemed about to expire. Unlike the bird of the Egyptian myth, however, the ideals themselves did
not ignite the fire that threatened to consume them.

Each new ideology arose after social changes made the old ideal of women's role ill fitting or
ineffective. Repeatedly, industrialization so altered domestic work that it clashed with the old
ideology of woman's place. Repeatedly, women faced changing opportunities outside the
household that the old ideology could not fit.

This failure of an existing ideology stimulated efforts to discover new ideals. Legitimating
Changing Roles. In each of the three transitional periods, changing circumstances induced a
redefinition of middle-class women's roles that the old ideology could not accommodate. These
ideologies had to legitimate women's domesticity successfully to survive. As women's activities
changed and life histories changed, the old ideals lost the capacity to compel belief and guide
behavior.

The first growth of urban capitalism started the cycles of ideological obsolescence. During the
early nineteenth century, middle class men were leaving their homes to work in shops, factories,
and offices. Women became solely responsible for most household tasks. The earlier patriarchal
ideology of wifely help and deference in the family enterprise no longer fit experience.189 The
subsequent ideology of true womanhood, like the horse and buggy, became a symbol of
backwardness in the age of the automobile.

By the end of the nineteenth century, urbanization, secularization of ideology, increased affluence,
increased education of women, and reduced domestic labor obligation had greatly changed middle
class life. Women had fewer children, more education, and a greater capacity to buy commodities
that were formerly fabricated at home.

No longer could the moral prescriptions and the standards of living defined by the ideals of true
womanhood keep women at home. Women simply could not be kept busy trying to achieve the
ideal of true womanhood.190 The domestic science ideal of an enlightened, professional wife and
mother filled the ideological gap.

Yet, by the 1950s, these social changes had progressed even further, so that ever larger numbers
of women forsook domesticity for employment, no matter what the ideology endorsed. Domestic
science proved inadequate. By this time, female domesticity strained any ideological effort.
Indeed, with the advantages of hindsight, the response of the feminine mystique seems to have
been a foredoomed, last ditch effort.

It tried to preserve a form of female domesticity that had already become overwhelmingly
inconsistent with the conditions of both private and public life.

39