At the time of the year most
appropriate for introspection, it may seem that 98% of genuine Torah-adhering
Jews can be split into two groups. There are those who have given up on keeping
the laws of lashon hara, instead looking for other area to improve in. And
there are those who kid themselves that this year will be different.
My aim in this post is to make
this picture slightly more accurate, and to examine what can be done to improve
the situation. I will start by giving some historical background.
Responding to the needs of the
time
The gemara quotes a statement
that all Jews are guilty of lashon hara, and immediately objects that it is not
possible to say such a thing. Rather, the meaning must be that all Jews are
guilty of avak lashon hara (literally the dust of lashon hara).[1] In
the same vein, the gemara also lists this as one of the aveiros that people do
not manage to avoid on a daily basis.[2]
To summarise, the gemara tells us
that the main prohibition of lashon hara is something that people can and do
adhere to, but all fall in to the trap of speaking in a way that is incorrectly
perceived as being ok. Clearly one of the first things that needs to be done to
help this situation is to learn the rules in detail.
With this in mind it seems very
surprising that the Shulchan Aruch does not discuss these laws.[3] It is
quite likely that this omission further added to the ignorance in this matter,
compounding the problem.
The Chafetz Chaim was atune to
all of this, and decided that the sefer that Am Yisrael needed the most was a
compendium of the laws of lashon hara. The other sefarim that he went on to
write also dealt with issues he felt that the generation needed, in contrast to
most of the sefarim that we have where the topic was chosen primarily based on
the interests of the author.
Very few sefarim have as big an
impact as the sefer Chafetz Chaim. For many years there has not been a child
with a Jewish education who is not aware of the prohibition of lashon hara, and
even many of the detailed laws that appear in the sefer are well known. Without
detailed knowledge of the situation before the sefer was published it is hard
to gauge what improvement was caused, but it is safe to assume that it was
significant.
The situation today
As stated before, despite the
best efforts of the Chafetz Chaim there is much more that needs to be done. One
thing is clear to me- simply teaching the code of the Chafetz Chaim is not
enough. This method has already been implemented for years, and all we can hope
to achieve by it is preservation of the status quo.
In my view, today’s challenge is
very different to that of the generation of the Chafetz Chaim. At a time when
ignorance of the basic concepts of lashon hara was prevalent, the most
important thing was to publicise the extent of the prohibition as much as
possible, which the Chafetz Chaim did by writing a relatively long and
stringent sefer. Nowadays, what is needed is a deeper understanding of the same
basic concepts.
How can we achieve this better
understanding? The more learned can go through the words of the Chafetz Chaim
together with his explanations and derivations in the Be’er Mayim Chayim. His
sources can be learned in detail, and this way the laws can be understood
better. On occasion it may also be possible to understand these sources
differently to the Chafetz Chaim.
For those who are not yet
comfortable enough at their ability to do this, there is another option. There
is another compilation that includes the laws of lashon hara, in a clear,
precise and concise language. The Mishne Torah of the Rambam is the only known
complete compilation of all the halachos of Chazal, with no exceptions[4] (at
least in his view).
The Rambam sums up all the rules
of lashon hara in six paragraphs, at the beginning of the seventh perek of
Hilchos De’os. Many years ago I heard an idea from R’ Zevi Friedlander (thank
you wherever you are) that for those who find the Chafetz Chaim too much to
take on, studying and trying to adhere to the Rambam’s laws is something more
realistic. I believe that in addition to this it also helps to add clarity.
Some examples
The gemara tells us that after lashon
hara has been said in the presence of three people (‘Apei Tlasa’) there is no
prohibition.[5] The Rambam
quotes this leniency, clarifies and adds a condition:
אחד המספר בלשון הרע בפני חברו או שלא בפניו, והמספר דברים
שגורמים אם נשמעו איש מפי איש להזיק חבירו בגופו או בממונו ואפילו להצר לו או
להפחידו, הרי זה לשון הרע. ואם נאמרו דברים אלו בפני שלשה כבר נשמע הדבר ונודע,
ואם סיפר הדבר אחד מן השלשה פעם אחרת אין בו משום לשון הרע. והוא שלא יתכוין
להעביר הקול ולגלותו יותר.
(דעות ז, ה)
Whether one tells lashon hara in
the presence of his friend or not, or if he relates things that could cause physical
or property damage or even to cause him distress or to scare him if it is
passed on by word of mouth, this is considered lashon hara. But if these words
were already said in the presence of three, the matter has already been heard
and become known. Accordingly, if one of these three related the matter on
another occasion, there is no issue of lashon hara provided that he does not
intend to spread the rumour and reveal it further.
The Rambam explains that lashon
hara is any passing on of information that could cause any kind of distress to
someone else that he would not have experienced otherwise. It follows that if
the matter is already public knowledge, the prohibition does not exist.
However, as inevitably there are exceptions to the rule that what is known by
three is known by all, the leniency given by the gemara cannot be followed
blindly or used as an excuse for trying to get at someone.
In contrast, the Chafetz Chaim devotes
an entire chapter of thirteen paragraphs to explaining the rules of the
leniency of ‘Apei Tlasa’.[6]
Without meaning any criticism whatsoever, for varying reasons much of this
chapter is hard for people to relate to.
The first major point that the
Chafetz Chaim makes is that only one who heard the lashon hara personally in
the presence of three can use this leniency, otherwise he has no right to
believe someone who told him that it is in fact public knowledge.[7] I
have no argument with this, but in our generation it is (albeit sadly) rarely
relevant. In the age of the internet and social media, most things are public
knowledge virtually instantaneously.[8]
The second restriction added is
that if the three people are God-fearing individuals who keep to the laws of
lashon hara, the leniency does not apply.[9] The
proof to this is from a Mishna which states that a dayan who was in the
minority must not tell the losing litigant that he ruled in his favour,[10] even
if many dayanim were present at the time the verdict was given.
This proof is by no means
inarguable, as it would be logical to demand higher standards from dayanim.
Nevertheless, the logic behind this restriction seems compelling.
However, the Chafetz Chaim adds
that even if one of those present is God-fearing there is no leniency, and possibly
even if he is not God-fearing but is a friend of the person the lashon hara was
said about. This limitation is a stretch, and it seems more probable that the
requirement of three people compensates for the possibility that some of them
will keep the matter to themselves. Certainly, taking on the basic requirements
codified by the Rambam is a better alternative than giving up entirely because
of the stringencies of the Chafetz Chaim.[11]
Where we can really make a
difference
The benefits achieved by taking
on a limited undertaking in this area can be far-reaching. Although I have
argued that nowadays some of the restrictions made by the Chafetz Chaim are
irrelevant, for the same reason the severity of speaking lashon hara that is
genuinely prohibited is often greatly increased. I will bring two examples to
illustrate this.
When it was revealed that a
Knesset member had made inappropriate comments to a woman a long time
previously, there was rightly widespread agreement that he had to resign. Those
entrusted with running the country should be of high moral calibre, and if he
had continued to serve as if there was no problem it would have given off a bad
message.
Less discussed was the issue of
whether it was right for the matter to be revealed in the first place. The
halacha is very clear here- as long as there is no-one in any danger of
suffering further damage it is forbidden to say anything. While it is not for
us to judge the recipient of the inappropriate comments who had to see this
person achieving respect and power, we also cannot excuse what she did. The
public gained nothing significant from the termination of this man’s political
career.
The second case is that of a
high-ranked soldier accused of rape. Here we cannot know whether there is truth
behind the accusations, and therefore we cannot blame the accuser. If it is
true she certainly had the obligation to report the matter to the police in
order to protect others.[12]
However, we must object strongly
to the court allowing the name of the accused to be made public. Whether or not
he is guilty, his career has been destroyed. Just as the court recognised that
the accuser needed protection and has remained nameless, the same protection
should have been given to the accused.
Conclusion
Lashon Hara remains one of the
major destroyers of society. If we can follow the example of the Chafetz Chaim
and stay in tune with the needs of the times, we can go a long way to building
a world that can flourish.
[1] Although it is quite clear
that the gemara is referring to something prohibited, and not merely a
stringency.
[2] Bava
Basra 164b-165a
[3] See
Magen Avraham 156:2 who mentions lashon hara in his list of the omissions of
the Shulchan Aruch. I do not know how the Shulchan Aruch decided what to
include and what not.
[4] See his
introduction to the Mishne Torah.
[5] Arachin
16a. Although Tosfos explain this gemara in an entirely different way, they
surely agree that when there is no doubt that the damage already has been done
and nothing is being added, there can be no prohibition.
[6] Hilchos
Lashon Hara, Klal 2
[7] Ibid.
halacha 4
[8] Similarly,
the stipulation made in halacha 6 that the leniency applies only within the
same city that the lashon hara was heard, is irrelevant in our generation. The
same is true for many other examples.
[9] Halacha 5
[10] Sanhedrin
29a
[11]
Although it is certainly better to refrain from speaking in a derogatory manner
for no positive purpose. See the Rambam’s commentary to Pirkei Avos (1:16)
where he divides speech into five categories, and includes any purposeless
speech in the ‘repulsive’ category.
[12] See
Klal 10 of the Chafetz Chaim for details of this. Admittedly this section is
not clear in the Rambam, although generally one can derive the rules from basic
common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment