Musar על ברכות 126:13

[The Gemara (Chullin 89a) continues: "I might think even in respect to Torah study; it is, therefore, written (Psalms, Ibid.): 'righteousness [i.e., Torah] shall you speak.' I might think that [he could do so] even to the point of haughtiness; it is, therefore, written: 'with justness shall you judge the sons of men.'" On the face of it, this is to be wondered at: Why would it occur to us to say that he should be mute to words of Torah? Why was speech created in a man if not to speak in the Torah of the L-rd and of His exalted majesty? And also, the end of the apothegm — "I might think even to the point of haughtiness" — is to be wondered at. For what does this have to do with "muteness"? [The resolution would seem to be as follows:] It is known that one can study Torah in two ways: a) by himself; b) with others. Each way has an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage of learning by oneself is being protected against forbidden speech — for there is no one to speak to. But there is a disadvantage, that the learning lacks the clarification [that comes from an interplay of minds.] And if he learns with others there is the disadvantage that their company sometimes leads to idle talk, lashon hara and levity. But, countering that, there is the great advantage of greater clarification. And this is the intent of the Gemara: "I might think even in respect to Torah study." That is, not that he not speak at all in Torah, but that he utilize the trait of "muteness," (which affords greater protection), even for words of Torah, that he not speak even Torah with other men at all, out of fear that he will be drawn by this in the end to forbidden speech, so that he should study only by himself. And, similarly, with other mitzvoth which involve speech, such as prayer and the like. [I might think that] he should not associate with any man, so as not to come to forbidden speech. And the Gemara answers: "It is, therefore, written: 'Righteousness [Torah] shall you [(plural) speak,' and not 'righteousness shall he speak,'" in the singular, as per the introduction ["eilem"] — to teach us that he should speak in Torah in company [chavurah]. As Chazal have said (Berachoth 63b): "A sword upon the 'loners'" — a sword upon 'the foes of Torah scholars' [a euphemism for 'Torah scholars'] who study Torah by themselves. And, what is more, they stupefy themselves." And the same is true of congregational prayer, viz. (Mishlei 14:28): "The multitude of people glorify the King." According to this, the "complete man" is on that exalted level where he must conduct himself as two opposites. That is, in the affairs of the world he must be like a mute and not speak even what is permitted, but only what is essential. And in the area of Torah and mitzvoth he must "expand" speech as far as he can, to study with many and to converse with them in matters of holiness. But, in any event, he must be on guard not to speak with them on any forbidden matter — wherefore the Gemara concludes: "I might think that [he could do so] even to the point of haughtiness." That is, when he sees others who are completely irresponsible in their speech and who sully their mouths with lashon hara, levity, and other [forms of] forbidden speech, [I might think that] he should hold them to be absolutely wicked, and himself, to he absolutely righteous," it is, therefore, written (Psalms, Ibid.): 'with justness shall you judge the sons of men.'" That is he must judge them equably and in [the scales of] merit, assuming that they do not [really] know what lashon hara is (and the like, with other [forms of] forbidden speech), and also that they do not know the severity of the sin of forbidden speech.]

A rather striking problem in the text is the description of the purifying waters as מד נדה, "waters of a menstruant," surely a very derogatory term in view of the purpose of these waters! And especially, since the Torah on occasion uses clumsy language in order to avoid describing something in derogatory terms (Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,2). It is also unusual that the Torah does not report that "Israel and Eleazar did so," as is the case after similar instructions in the Torah on other occasions. The expression in 19,14, זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל, is unusual, as is the statement of our sages that it teaches that "the words of Torah are fulfilled only on people who are prepared to kill themselves on its behalf" (Berachot 43). How does this comment apply in this connection? Defilement through contact with the dead is usually involuntary!

And you often see people who when they are angry and persist in their wrath, are not conscious of what they are doing and do many things in their anger which they would not do if they were free from anger, for anger draws out the intelligence of a person from within him until his angry deeds multiply and he is plunged into strife and quarrel. Therefore, it is impossible that the wrathful person should be saved from great sins. And so did Elijah say to Rabbi Judah : "Fall not into a passion and you will not sin" (Berakoth 29b). And the Sages said : "By three things is a man known" (Erubin 65b) and one of them is his anger, for when a man is angry his true nature can be recognized. If his wrath is stronger than his wisdom and he does things in the moment of his anger without regard to his wisdom, then you can see the character of his wrath. But if his wisdom is stronger than his anger and he de does not say or do anything when angry that he would not say or do when he is free from anger, then you can see the extent of his wisdom. And the Wise Man said : "Three, the Holy One Blessed be He loves and one of them is he who does not anger" (Pesahim 113b). And our Sages said : "Nor is an impatient person fitted to teach" (Aboth 2:5), for because of his great anger, the pupils fear him too much to ask the things of which they are in doubt lest he be wrathful with them. And even when his pupils do ask the impatient teacher questions he has neither the mind nor the patience to explain to his pupils all that is needed to make the matter clear. Then, too, he will answer questions in anger and thus the pupils will not understand the matter clearly. As for the pupils, it is their duty even when their teacher is angry with them, to ask their questions and listen carefully and not be hurt by the anger of their teacher nor quarrel with him. Concerning such pupils our Sages taught : "So the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife" (Proverbs 30:33). Any pupil whose teacher is angry with him repeatedly but bears the teacher's wrath in silence will merit to discern between civil and criminal law. And a master said : "There is nothing more difficult than civil and criminal Law" (cf. Berakoth 63b).