Parshas Beha'alosechah - why was Miriam's criticism of Moshe considered to be lashon hara?

The gemara says in Shabbos (דף פ"ז ע"א)

ג' דברים עשה משה מדעתו והסכים הקב"ה עמו וכו' ופירש מן האשה וכו'

“Three things Moshe did on his own initiative and Hashem subsequently agreed with him... he separated from his wife [and Hashem subsequently agreed with him].”

Tosafos says

וא"ת מנלן דפירש משה מדעתו קודם ושוב הסכים הקב"ה על ידו שמא זה הוא צווי גמור שצוה לו לפרוש, ותירץ ר"ת דאם איתא דמחמת צווי הקב"ה פירש ולא מדעתו היאך היה מערער אהרן ומרים דכתיב ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה, אלא ודאי מתחלה פירש ממנה לגמרי משה מדעתו, ואע"ג דהסכים הקב"ה על ידו מ"מ נתרעמו עליו לפי שאילו לא פירש מדעתו לא היה הקב"ה מסכים, דבדרך שאדם הולך בה מוליכין אותו

“How do we know that Moshe separated from צפורה initially on his own initiative and only then did Hashem agree with him? Maybe it was just a direct mitzva from Hashem to Moshe that he should separate from צפורה? Rabbeinu Tam explains that had this been a categorical mitzva initially from Hashem, then Aharon and Miriam would not have criticised Moshe for this.

However, this is still difficult to understand, if Hashem agreed with Moshe that he was right, how could Aharon and Miriam say that Moshe was wrong?

Rabbeinu Tam explains that we have a general principle – בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך, בה מולילכין אותו – Hashem leads a person in the way that they want to go. Therefore, Moshe and Miriam said that there is no proof from the fact that Hashem agreed with Moshe that Moshe was right, because Hashem only agreed with Moshe because that was the way that Moshe wanted to go in of his own initiative. Had Moshe decided to remain with צפורה, then Hashem would never have commanded him to separate himself. Therefore Moshe was responsible for causing distress to צפורה, according to Aharon and Miriam who did not know that Moshe’s nevuah was on a higher madregah than theirs.”

It would appear that Tosafos is difficult to understand, regardless of whether Moshe was מתנבא באספקלריא מאירה or Moshe was מתנבא באספקלריא שאינה מאירה, that which he was פירש מאשתו was מדעתו, and Hashem was only later מסכים על ידו.

• If so, had Moshe not been פירש מאשתו then Hashem would not have been מסכים על ידו, even though he was מתנבא באספקלריא המאירה, so Aharon and Miriam’s criticism was correct regardless of the fact that they did not understand Moshe’s madregah?

The ספר משען המים brings a medrash which says as follows

הרוצה לידע תחיית המתים מן התורה יראה והנה מרים מצורעת כשלג

“Someone who wants to understand how we see from the Torah that there will be תחיית המתים should look at the passuk that says והנה מרים מצורעת כשלג.”

• What is the connection between מרים receiving צרעת as an עונש for talking לשון הרע and תחיית המתים?

The ספר משען המים explains as follows:

It is only possible to speak לשון הרע if the person speaking לשון הרע was first דן לכף חוב the person that they are speaking לשון הרע about, and it is only possible for a person to be דן לכף חוב if they do not understand the person they are being דן לכף חוב. If the מספר לשון הרע really understood the person about whom they are talking לשון הרע, then they would never have been דן לכף חוב.

This is why when the mishna in Pirkei Avos (1:6) says there is an obligation to be דן לכף זכות, the mishna does not say

והוי דן את כל אדם לכף זכות

“Judge every man favourably”.

Rather the mishna says

והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות

“You should judge the whole man favourably.”

The mishna means to say, that if you understand the entirety of the person, you can then be דן לכף זכות.

One of the tasks of a נביא is to understand the motivations of other people, this is why, when אלי judged Channah לכף חוב, Channah told him that he must have lost his רוח הקודש, since he was no longer able to understand her situation (Berachos 31:2)

ותען חנה ותאמר לא אדני, אמר עולא ואיתימא רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמרה ליה, לא אדון אתה בדבר זה ולא רוח הקודש שורה עליך שאתה חושדני בדבר זה

Regarding the words: “No, my master,” Ulla, and some say Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina, said that she said to him, in an allusion: With regard to this matter, you are not my master, and רוח הקודש does not rest upon you, as you falsely suspect me of this.

Miriam and Aharon were neviim, and we never find that Miriam and Aharon were told that they had lost their רוח הקודש, therefore it must be that even someone who has רוח הקודש would be unable to understand משה according to his madregah. Since רוח הקודש gives the נביא the ability to fully understand another person’s life, it must be that the רוח החיים of משה was of a higher madregah than is accessible to people generally. Hence Aharon and Miriam were unable to understand משה’s motivation in the way that he conducted himself.

It is therefore evident that there exists a higher madregah of חיים than is normally accessible in עולם הזה, from which we can understand that even if someone’s life ended in עולם הזה, their life can continue on the higher madregah of life which was evident in Moshe even when he was alive, and that ultimately this life can then re-continue in עולם הזה at תחיית המתים.

Subsequently we can understand that the reason that Miriam and Aharon were incorrect for assessing whether or not Moshe should have been פירש מאשתו was because they had no idea altogether of the way in which Moshe lived and of madregah of ruchniyos that he was on.

Since they had no understanding of the decisions which are appropriate to be made in the life of someone who is at the level of נבואה באספקלריא המאירה, it was not relevant for them discuss the decision that Moshe had made, or to assess the practical ramifications of that decision. Therefore their criticism of Moshe was לשון הרע.