Three consecutive verses in this chapter address a single question: how should a person conduct himself when drawn into a quarrel? King Solomon does not settle for merely prohibiting dispute; he teaches us a practical calculation: what will the end result be? What will come out of this strife? And if you are nevertheless compelled to quarrel - where are the boundaries drawn? We will go through the verses one by one, with the explanations of the Vilna Gaon, Ralbag, Rashi, and especially the approach of the Malbim.
אַל־תֵּצֵא לָרִב מַהֵר פֶּן מַה־תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּאַחֲרִיתָהּ בְּהַכְלִים אֹתְךָ רֵעֶךָ׃ - Do not go forth rashly to strive, lest what will you do in its end, when your fellow puts you to shame?
First, a grammatical note from the Minchat Shai: several printed editions were corrupted and wrote "לריב" with a yud, but that is not correct. The Gemara and the Pesikta have the reading "לָרִב" - resh with a chirik, without a yud. And because of this, they also expounded the verse in this manner: a person should never run after positions of authority. "Do not go forth rashly to become a master (la-rav)" - do not chase rabbinic office, and do not seek to be appointed. "Lest what will you do in its end" - people will come and ask you questions, and you will be left open-mouthed, throwing your hands up and saying, "I do not know." "When your fellow puts you to shame" - and you will suffer humiliation from it.
In this context, it is worth recalling the story about the author of the Beit HaLevi. When he was appointed rabbi in Brisk, someone came to ask him a question - he answered, "I do not know." A woman came with a chicken to ask a question regarding treifah - he looked at it and said, "I do not know." A third person came - to him as well he said, "I do not know." People began to murmur: "A mistaken transaction! Is this why we chose a rabbi?" The community leaders went to ask the rabbi himself what was going on. He told them: "Everything is fine. I merely wanted, upon my initial arrival here, to let the public know so they would not panic - even a rabbi is allowed to say, 'I do not know.' A rabbi is not obligated to know everything. For if they think he must know everything, then whenever someone comes with a question whose answer he does not know, he will toss out some random answer, because after all, 'I do not know? I am supposed to know everything!' Therefore, I want them to know that they can receive an answer of 'I do not know' from the rabbi. Now bring them back, and I will answer each one according to his matter."
And so it is in truth: sometimes you call a rabbi who is a recognized Talmid Chacham, ask a question, and he tells you, "Call back in ten minutes, I want to look into the matter" - because the question is complex. If you look at the responsa of Rav Ovadia Yosef, you will find that he sometimes writes at length for five, six, seven, or ten pages in Yabia Omer discussing a single question. Could anyone answer such a matter offhand? See how much sharp analysis was needed to arrive at the ruling! And sometimes he writes a responsum, and years later retracts it - he saw new proofs, objections were brought to him, he reexamined the issue, and arrived at a different conclusion. It is not at all simple to be someone who answers every question. Therefore: do not go forth rashly to become a master, lest what will you do in its end, when your fellow puts you to shame.
The Vilna Gaon explains the verse according to its plain meaning: do not be hasty to quarrel even over something you are certain you are right about. For even if to your eyes you are one hundred percent correct, it is very possible that your fellow will come and show you in a single moment that you misunderstood something, that you saw it completely backwards - yet you came shouting at him, and he replies, "No, sir, it happened this way and that." And you say, "Oh, right, excuse me, my mistake, I did not notice, you are right." And you end up in shame and humiliation. Therefore, proceed with patience and caution.
The Vilna Gaon, as is his way, applies this to Torah study as well: do not be hasty to refute your fellow's words and shout with him. Anyone who has studied in a yeshiva knows what "shouting with him" means - during the study seder there is tremendous noise, one shouts and the other responds with the opposite reasoning, fire, the heat of Torah debate (ritcha de-Oraita). In connection with this, Rav Yisrael Salanter once visited a kollel called "Kollel Torat HaMussar," where everything was conducted according to the ways of mussar: a person spoke and was not interrupted mid-sentence, he was allowed to finish his thought, and no one rushed to respond. He saw honor and proper decorum there. They asked him, "What does the rabbi say?" He replied to them: "The kollel is called Torat HaMussar - mussar I saw here, Torah not so much. Torah is not transmitted this way. Torah is given in fire and lightning, with passion and fiery lips. Not in the manner of a formal legal debate - 'Does his honor contend that according to Rava one is liable in this case?' 'I believe that according to the Rashba's understanding, it is more plausible not as Tosafot hold.' That is not how one learns. Study with passion and enthusiasm, and if your fellow says something incorrect - shout at him. That is wonderful indeed.
And yet, says the Vilna Gaon, do not be hasty to respond. Your fellow said something and you immediately attack - it is very possible he will show you that what you said is no difficulty at all, and at times even a misunderstanding of the text. And then, what will you do in its end when your fellow puts you to shame? It turns out you did not understand at all, and you merely went out shouting for nothing.
The Ralbag explains that a person must distance himself from dispute so that he does not reach a situation where people speak disgraceful words against him or strike him. That is: you might be completely in the right, yet you will still come out the loser. Someone once said: Never argue with a fool. Why? Because a fool has nothing to lose, whereas you do. He has no problem humiliating you, cursing you, or even hitting you. But you, a respectable person, will not stoop to that level, and any reaction of yours will make you look ridiculous. So why enter into a quarrel with him? He will scream and shout and subject you to public humiliation, and you will suffer the shame - you have something to lose, but he does not. This is what is meant by "when your fellow puts you to shame": there are people who will humiliate you, degrade you, slander you, and even strike you. Therefore, think twice before you rush into a fight: whom am I about to argue with?
The Malbim explains that every deed a person performs must be directed toward a purpose - that is, toward the bottom line: will I achieve my objective through this or not? Many people make a mistake here and react from the gut, an impulsive reaction. But stop and think: what will come of this reaction? "I had to put him in his place" - fine, you put him in his place, but what was the benefit? Did you gain anything? Most often, the answer is that only damage resulted. Therefore, always examine: is this action rational or emotional? Will it bring you to your goal, or is it merely blowing off steam? And if it is only meant to blow off steam - do not do it.
And sometimes, says the Malbim, a person sets out to achieve one thing and ends up with the exact opposite: he sought a benefit and produced harm. For example, someone insulted you, so you go out to fight - "Have you no shame? How dare you speak like that! Shame on you!" But since that person may have no self-respect or decency at all, he will now double his insults and disgrace toward you. There is an expression: it is not worth getting tangled up with certain types of people. He said something - if you remain silent, it is over. If you respond, the floodgates open, and who will stop the torrent? Therefore: do not rush out to quarrel. If someone wronged you unjustly and dishonestly - wait a moment and consider whether this is even the kind of person you want to "put in his place." It is very possible that what he did to you until now is nothing compared to what he will do to you from now on, all because you spoke up.
The same applies when one seeks to protest. Someone speaks against a great person, and people say: "We cannot remain silent, we must protest!" But the result of the protest might be that the person says, "Let me tell you even more about him; what I said until now was nothing." Not only did you fail to quiet him down, you poured fuel onto the fire. Therefore, one must be very wise before protesting - whether for one's own honor or for the honor of a great Torah scholar. Consider who this person is: there are people who, if you rebuke them, will say, "You are right, I did not react properly, I apologize," while others will only be provoked further and disgrace you many times over. Then, instead of restoring honor, you have only brought upon yourself additional humiliation and contempt.
רִיבְךָ רִיב אֶת־רֵעֶךָ וְסוֹד אַחֵר אַל־תְּגָל׃ - Debate your cause with your fellow, and do not reveal another's secret.
Rashi explains: If against your will you must dispute and argue with your fellow - "do not reveal another's secret." Do not bring up the flaws of his deceased ancestors, matters that not everyone knows and which you now come and expose. In other words, do not start digging up family history to disgrace him. In modern terms: do not bring parents into it. If you have an argument, stay on topic. Do not try to pull skeletons out of the closet just to humiliate him. That is inappropriate and unfair; that is not how one quarrels, and that is not how one conducts a dispute.
The Vilna Gaon (Gra) explains that this is a direct continuation of the previous verse. There, the verse said: do not rush into a dispute, lest you are entirely mistaken and suffer humiliation. Here, it adds: even if, after careful deliberation, you see that you are one hundred percent right and that this is indeed something worth disputing, there are boundaries to how you conduct yourself. How so? You are arguing with your opponent and proving that he is wrong, and he answers you: "Know that I am not saying this on my own authority - I asked such-and-such Dayan (rabbinic judge) and he told me I am right; I consulted a certain Torah scholar and he agreed with me." In other words, behind the claim that seems completely illogical to you stands a great person. You then seek to belittle that scholar: "Who is he to express an opinion? Is he a great man? Is he a Dayan? Does he understand anything in life? I once saw him do such-and-such; he had a fight with his neighbor over this and that." Says the Gra: you have gone and revealed the secret flaws of another person who is not even a party to your dispute, merely because your fellow mentioned that this scholar agrees with him - this is improper and unjust.
The Malbim explains: Even if you are compelled to dispute, debate only your own cause, and do not reveal another's secret. Frequently, when people argue, tempers flare and the dispute ceases to be substantive. Instead of debating whether something is permitted or forbidden, appropriate or inappropriate, correct or incorrect, the argument turns ad hominem: "Just so you know, you are always like this," or "So-and-so also fought with you and had a dispute, and you spoke just like this then too." What does any of that have to do with the issue at hand? People start dragging in the neighbor's argument about the drainpipe and someone else's dispute over parking. Regarding this, Scripture says: "do not reveal another's secret." Focus strictly on your own dispute with him, and do not drag in the disputes of others or the grievances of others.
פֶּן־יְחַסֶּדְךָ שֹׁמֵעַ וְדִבָּתְךָ לֹא תָשׁוּב׃ - Lest he who hears it disgrace you, and your evil report cannot be recalled.
What does yechasdecha mean? The phrase "I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt" (Yehoshua 5:9) is translated into Aramaic as chisuda d'Mitzra'ei - an expression of disgrace and insult. "Lest one who hears it put you to shame (yechasdecha)": the listener will view you as someone who committed a disgraceful act, as someone deserving condemnation. If you must quarrel with your fellow and you reveal the secrets of others, an onlooker says: this person has no shame; he has an argument, and immediately he drags in skeletons from the closet and unrelated stories. On the contrary, you are the one who will suffer the humiliation. "And your slander (vedibatecha) will not turn back" - he will consider you a defamer. Why are you bringing up the argument that so-and-so had with him? Why are you dredging up another matter where he had an issue? That is defamation. If you want to argue - argue directly to the point about what you are disputing right now.
The Gra continues along his line of interpretation: you heard that there is a Dayan supporting your opponent, or that he consulted a Torah scholar who agreed with him, and you begin to speak abominable things about him - "Who is this Dayan? Is he a scholar? Is he a Rabbi? Let me tell you about him!" Through this, the listeners will consider you an abomination. "And your slander will not turn back" - the lashon hara you spoke cannot be retracted. What has left your mouth can no longer be retrieved. People will look down on you with contempt, viewing you as base: you have a disagreement - do you really need to disparage a scholar? To disparage a Dayan?
Let us briefly recount a story that was once related at length. In Brisk, there was a dispute between the secularists and the observant community over the leadership of the communal council. Elections were held to determine whether the community would have a religious or secular character - the communal schools and everything associated with them. That was the reality in Europe, and to a certain extent it remains so to this day: the religious parties act as the Mezuzah of the state, preserving a measure of spirituality, whereas if power shifts to others - the opposite occurs.
The Brisker Rav was the Rav of everyone, and at a certain point, he realized that this matter struck at the very foundations of Judaism. He arranged for posters to be printed stating his opinion clearly: under no circumstances should secular candidates be elected; only religious representatives who would preserve Torah observance in the community should be chosen. However, he set one condition: that they manage to post the notices well before Shabbat. If it came to a point where they would have to put them up close to Shabbat - he would not agree under any circumstances. They went, drafted the text, brought it to him for review, he approved, and they printed them. They returned to him with the printed posters about an hour before Shabbat. He looked at his watch and said: "No, we do not put them up now." They said, "Honored Rav, we invested so much effort!" He replied: "An hour before Shabbat, one does not go out to post bills; it may lead to chilul Shabbat." He refused to budge. They were deeply disappointed, but they complied.
Among the secularists, someone evidently leaked what the Rav had planned. They said, "Oh, really?" and prepared counter-posters in which they mocked and vilified the Rav. Until then, he had been considered neutral and no one spoke against him, but now they portrayed him as partisan, taking the side of the God-fearing, and spoke about him in extremely harsh terms. They drove around and walked on Shabbat itself, plastering the entire city with posters. People came out on Shabbat morning and saw: first, the posters had been put up on Shabbat - which caused outrage. Second, there were insults and slander against the Rav - yet the Rav had said nothing and had not publicly expressed his view at all; what did they want from him? The move completely backfired: only the religious candidates were elected, and the secular ones did not win a single seat. The Rav said to them: "You see? One never loses from observing Shabbat. Had you published our notice and they responded afterward, it would have been a knockout blow against us - people would say the Rav is meddling in politics, and they would have justified their reaction. But here, the Rav said nothing, had no posters at all, and they attacked him unprovoked."
From this, we learn the core principle of the verse: when a person speaks against a great Torah figure, the listeners perceive the speaker himself as disgraceful, as petty. Therefore, says the Gra, one who says, "Who is this Dayan? Who is this scholar? What does he understand?" - and for what, merely to dismiss his words - "Lest one who hears it put you to shame"; they will look at you with contempt, viewing your conduct as disgraceful. And furthermore, "your slander will not turn back" - go try and take those words back.
The Gra applies this verse to Torah matters as well. Two scholars are debating a halachic question, and one produces a work by an earlier sage, showing that he was asked this exact question and ruled this way in practice. The Gra says: even if you know that the law is on your side, do not say, "He was mistaken in this; it contradicts an explicit Gemara." Why? For two reasons. First, "lest one who hears it put you to shame (yechasdecha)" - they will look upon you with revulsion, in the sense of "it is a disgrace (chesed hu)" stated regarding illicit relations (Vayikra 20:17), which means an abomination. People will say: How dare you speak that way about an earlier sage? No matter how great a talmid chacham you consider yourself, how dare you? After all, the Torah giants of Israel, even when they believed earlier authorities had erred, never spoke in a derogatory manner; rather, they used expressions such as ishetamitateih - "an established passage of Talmud eluded him which states such and such," and similar phrasing. They did not say "he made an absolute blunder" or "he showed no regard for his scholarship" and other disparaging remarks. And second, "and your slander will not turn back" - the words of reproach you uttered cannot be taken back.
The Malbim summarizes his approach: this refers to a person who enters a dispute to restore his lost honor, yet his opponent insults him even further. Regarding this, the verse states: "Debate your grievance with your fellow, but do not disclose the secret of another." And why should you not reveal another's secret? Because in addition to the shame and humiliation you suffered initially, and in addition to the humiliation you suffered afterward - for your opponent will not remain silent and will insult you once again - on top of both of these, "lest one who hears it put you to shame": people will say about you that you are a defamer, a talebearer, and a revealer of secrets. Then you will want to take back the defamation, but you will not be able to, and you will bear lasting disgrace. Therefore, the counsel is: "Debate your grievance with your fellow, but do not disclose the secret of another," so that you do not come to this humiliation.
These three verses construct a comprehensive system of caution. "Do not go forth to quarrel hastily" - do not rush into positions of authority nor into dispute, for you may be mistaken, or the opposing party may be someone who has nothing to lose; and according to the Malbim: examine the objective first, and do not act merely to blow off steam. "Debate your grievance with your fellow, but do not disclose the secret of another" - even when you must dispute, keep to the matter at hand: without involving parents, others, or side arguments, and without disparaging the scholar or Dayan who stands behind your fellow's claim. "Lest one who hears it put you to shame, and your slander not turn back" - because in the end, it is you who will appear disgraceful and slanderous in the eyes of onlookers, and what has left your mouth can never be retracted. And as demonstrated in the story from Brisk, sometimes the one who exercises restraint and refuses to be dragged in ultimately emerges victorious.