In this section, the Chofetz Chaim focuses on the players in the sin of loshon hora: the speaker, the listener and the subject. He begins with some important rules about the subject. Contrary to public belief, one is not allowed to speak loshon hora about his or her relatives, including one’s spouse. The Chofetz Chaim says that many people stumble into this type of loshon hora by rationalizing that most negative talk about family members is not intended to malign, but to voice disapproval. This, of course, is not permitted by halachah. When a relative commits a wrong, one has no right to “put the issue on the table” for open discussion.
Of course, there are times when issues may be discussed l’toeles, for a constructive purpose, as when a sibling has done something wrong and this needs to be told to a parent.
However, cautions the Chofetz Chaim, even in such cases, all seven conditions of toeles (which will be discussed later; see Day 77) must be met. One of the conditions is that the speaker bears no ill will towards the subject and is not recounting the loshon hora to denigrate him. Unfortunately, at times this is the motivation of children when they inform their parents of misdeeds of their siblings. This type of loshon hora can be extremely damaging to family unity; the many roadblocks erected by halachah help us to proceed with caution as we approach this dangerous area.
If you have ever been approached by a person involved in a monetary dispute, you have probably found that in his opinion, his opponent is completely in the wrong with no justification at all for his position. Quite possibly, if you spoke to the other party you would encounter a reasonable person whose claims against the first party are equally valid. The fact is that in financial disputes, there often are no villains. Rather, there are misunderstandings and conditions that were never properly clarified from the start. However, it is natural for the disputants to view matters solely from their own perspectives. This fact can lead to major problems when disputants offer what they consider to be obvious proof before a beis din (rabbinical court).
The Chofetz Chaim provides the following rule: A beis din can make use of such proof only if they can personally vouch for the validity of the proof or if two witnesses testified in beis din to the validity of the proof. In such a case beis din is allowed to actually punish the defendant based on the proof provided.
The Chofetz Chaim bemoans the fact that all too often, a party brings his monetary complaints to leaders of his community, offering circumstantial evidence, and the community leaders take action based on his word alone. The Chofetz Chaim stresses that it is absolutely forbidden to take action against any party without firsthand confirmation of the evidence or valid testimony in beis din.
To believe the litigant based on his word alone is to accept loshon hora; to punish the other party based on such loshon hora is an additional sin; to exact corporal punishment would be a grave transgression of a Torah prohibition (see Devarim 25:3).
In the previous segment, the Chofetz Chaim introduced us to the concept of “Devarim Hanikarim” recognizable signs (i.e. circumstantial proof) as a basis for believing certain forms of loshon hora.
There are two major conditions which must be fulfilled before we can apply this principle:
• The evidence must be directly related to the loshon hora and it must be strong, not superficial.
• The listener must recognize firsthand the validity of the evidence.
Chofetz Chaim cautions that even if we have powerful, firsthand evidence which permits us to believe the loshon hora, we are prohibited from sharing this information with others without a constructive reason.
As mentioned above, the source for the rule of Devarim Hanikarim is a Talmudic interpretation of a story in Scripture. In that incident, King David accepted a report that Mefiboshes, the son of King Shaul, was upset over David’s return to the throne after a rebellion had been quelled. When David returned, Mefiboshes went to meet him looking wholly unkempt. His unkempt appearance gave the impression that he was not happy with David’s return. Nevertheless, David did not rely on this evidence until he personally heard a harsh statement from the mouth of Mefiboshes; only then did David accept as fact the report which he had heard.
From here, says the Chofetz Chaim, we learn that only Devarim Hanikarim mamash, definite recognizable signs, can be used as proof regarding loshon hora (see Shabbos 56a with Rashi and Maharsha).
In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim examines the concept of Devarim HaNikarim, recognizable signs, as it applies to the laws of loshon hora. From a Talmudic interpretation of a story in Scripture (Shabbos 56a) we learn that at times loshon hora may be accepted as fact when there is circumstantial proof which supports it.
The Chofetz Chaim addresses the possibility that we might take this to be a blanket allowance for believing negative information about someone whenever we feel that the situation points to his guilt. The Chofetz Chaim notes that this principle applies only to cases of toeles, where there is a constructive purpose being served. An example would be where a father has strong basis to suspect that the bad reports concerning his son’s friend are true. While a parent is permitted to warn his child to avoid bad company without such evidence, he may do so with greater conviction when his suspicions are supported by strong evidence.
The Chofetz Chaim reminds us that this allowance, like the ones which preceded it, does not apply to common loshon hora where people pointlessly discuss misjudgments, mistakes or negative personality traits of others.
The Chofetz Chaim also tells us that one is guilty of listening to loshon hora merely by turning his attention to hear someone degrade a person for having faults which the listener knows personally to be true. Consider the following:
A particularly unpleasant person works in your office — someone who is never friendly and is always ready to instigate trouble. You have witnessed these traits personally dozens of times, suffered through his tirades, and now possess all the evidence you need to form your opinion of him. If you walk by a group standing at the water cooler and the topic of the day is this person’s awful behavior, the Chofetz Chaim warns: “Don’t bend your ear to listen!” The fact that you have evidence which confirms their loshon hora is meaningless. This is not a case of toeles; therefore, their words are forbidden, as is listening to them.
The Chofetz Chaim says that a Jew should have no interest in hearing his fellow man being degraded. Rather, he should live by the words of Rabbeinu Yonah: “The correct path is to conceal the sins [of others] and to praise a person for the good which can be found in him. It is the way of fools to seek out the blemishes and mistakes of others and to criticize them; they never speak others’ praises or find the good in them” (Sha’arei Teshuvah §217).
The concept in halachah of Mesiach L’fi Tumo accords a casual remark made in conversation the status of testimony in beis din (rabbinical court). The classic case where this rule is applied is when a man goes overseas and does not return and someone casually mentions that he saw the man’s dead body. In certain specific situations, such remarks may be used to allow the missing man’s wife to remarry. The reasoning is that since the speaker apparently had no motive in mind when making the remark, we therefore assume that it is true.
However, in reference to accepting loshon hora, the Chofetz Chaim states that this halachic principle carries no weight. If in the course of conversation someone innocently mentions some negative information, we are not permitted to believe it. If the speaker mentions a situation in which someone is seen in an unfavorable light, we are required to seek a different understanding of what may have happened, thereby judging the person favorably. In general, whenever we glean negative information from someone’s innocent comments, we are required to disregard it.
The Talmud (Bava Metzia 58b) tells us that it is worse to insult someone than to hurt him financially. The Talmud explains: “This (hurtful words) affects his very self, whereas this (monetary wrongdoing) affects only his money”; “with this (monetary wrongdoing) restitution is possible, but with this (hurtful words), restitution is not possible.”
The halachah does not use the principle of Mesiach L’fi Tumo to award someone a monetary claim based on a casual remark. It follows, then, that using such comments as the grounds for insulting someone would be all the more forbidden.
In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim begins discussing three situations where seemingly there is reason to allow the listener to accept loshon hora as fact. These situations are:
1. Where the speaker’s integrity is, to your mind, beyond reproach, to the point where his word alone is equivalent (in your eyes) to that of two men testifying in court.
2. Where the derogatory information is inferred from an innocent remark which was not spoken with the intent of conveying negative information.
3. Where there is strong evidence indicating that the derogatory information is true.
The Chofetz Chaim devotes the remainder of this segment to a discussion of the first of these situations. Earlier (Day 42), we discussed a case where a person witnessed an act of sin, but knew that the sinner would ignore his words of rebuke. In this case, if it is likely the person will repeat the offense, then the witness would be allowed to relate the information to the sinner’s rav or someone else who is in a position to offer rebuke. One of the three conditions which make this permissible is that the rav or parent knows the witness and trusts his word as he would the testimony of two witnesses.
Here, the Chofetz Chaim points out that for the witness to be permitted to relate what he has seen, it would have to have been an act which was an intentional violation of a well-known halachah. However, in a situation where the perpetrator may have acted out of ignorance or unwittingly, the witness would be required to give him the benefit of the doubt. He would not be allowed to report the incident in a derogatory way to the person’s rav; if he did report it, the rav would not be permitted to accept the witness’s interpretation. The same applies in any situation where it is not clear that the subject has intentionally violated a mitzvah.
For instance, a local charity is seeking a donation from a successful young businessman in the community. The young man refuses to contribute. While giving charity is certainly required by the Torah, refusing a particular request is not a violation of that law. Perhaps the young man has given his share elsewhere, or has less to give than others think. In this example, even if the fundraiser feels that the young man is being stingy, he is not allowed to approach the young man’s rav and ask that he rebuke his congregant for his stinginess.
Similarly, even when the speaker is a person whom the listener trusts implicitly, he would not be permitted to accept any sort of report which the speaker is forbidden to discuss; for example, that the subject lacks intelligence, that he has a shameful family history, etc.
The Chofetz Chaim states that in cases where the information does pertain to an obvious sin, the listener cannot accept the report (from someone whom he trusts like two witnesses) for the purpose of rebuking unless the speaker himself witnessed the incident. Furthermore, the listener, may not repeat the information to others unless there is a constructive purpose (and all 7 conditions are met — see Day 77). Obviously, the listener may not cause the perpetrator physical or monetary harm as a result of the report.
It is important to bear in mind that when one approaches a rav or parent to exercise their positive influence on someone, a potentially volatile situation has been created. This is especially true regarding parents; many parents resent hearing negative reports about their children and when they are approached with such reports their defense mechanisms shift into high gear. In such cases, extreme care and caution should be exercised so that the negative words which are spoken can achieve their intended purpose.
The famed R’ Yisrael Salanter once said that the “eleventh commandment” is “Don’t be a fool,” which means that the Torah obligates us to use our intelligence and life experience to navigate our lives. So, when someone known to be dishonest attempts to swindle your life’s savings, you are under no obligation to judge him favorably and give him the benefit of the doubt.
The Chofetz Chaim tells us that if someone is a confirmed rasha (wicked person), meaning that he openly and consistently transgresses Torah prohibitions, then one is allowed to accept loshon hora about him. The exact guidelines for classifying someone as a rasha are complex and are beyond the scope of this work. However, one point which has been mentioned earlier bears repeating. Nowadays, most non-observant Jews are people who have never been introduced to the beauty and truth of Torah Judaism. Rambam likens such a person to a “tinok shenishba,” a child who was captured by gentiles and who grew up ignorant of his heritage. Such a person is surely no rasha; we should treat him with love and compassion and surely we should not speak badly of him.
The Chofetz Chaim then discusses the case of a person who recounts a story which reflects poorly on himself and on someone else as well. For example, you are at your twenty-fifth high school reunion and a former classmate is amusing everyone with a story about the time he and a friend — who could not attend the reunion — put maple syrup on the teacher’s chair. While the speaker may find the story funny, his friend might not want to be remembered for such things. And most people would not want their children to discover such stories about them.
The halachah prohibits the listeners from accepting the loshon hora about the second person even though the speaker is incriminating himself as well. At first glance, this halachah seems difficult to observe. How am I to take a story which I heard firsthand and split it into two, believing it only regarding the speaker? The key here is to see halachah as a reality. As the Chofetz Chaim states, I cannot believe the story as far as it concerns the second person, because a Jew has a chezkas kashrus, a presumed status of one who is faithful to Torah and mitzvos — including the Torah’s requirements regarding proper behavior. Therefore, I have no right to believe that the second person has acted improperly unless I know this information firsthand.
A story about the great Torah leader Rabbi Moshe Feinstein bears mentioning. Halachah prohibits a person from walking in front of someone who is praying Shemoneh Esrei. Once, R’ Moshe was on his way to an important meeting when he noticed someone near the doorway praying Shemoneh Esrei. He stopped in his tracks and would go no further. “There is a wall blocking my path,” R’ Moshe explained. The wall, of course, was the strength of the halachah which prohibited him from walking any further. By seeing halachah as a powerful reality, following its requirements becomes relatively easy.
The Chofetz Chaim offers another reason why we should not believe loshon hora which is said in our presence.
When a person speaks loshon hora, he transgresses the negative commandment of “You should not go as a peddler of gossip” (Vayikra19:16), thereby putting himself in the category of a rasha (evil person). As a rasha his words certainly have no credibility, and we may suspect him of lying, exaggerating, and distorting the truth. Furthermore, this wicked individual is telling us negative information about someone who is assumed to be an upstanding, observant Jew! Certainly we should not accept his wicked words as fact.
If we hear the same negative information from two or more people, we may be more inclined to believe it. This is incorrect, says the Chofetz Chaim, because when wicked people speak wicked words, numbers are meaningless. Even if a dozen people are offering the same derogatory information, it should not be accepted.
The Chofetz Chaim adds that this halachah (law) applies even when the two speakers are not deemed reshaim (wicked people). For example, suppose two people approach Levi in the street and inform him that Yehuda is planning to ruin his business. If they are telling the truth, then they are actually doing a mitzvah by warning Levi. Nevertheless, Levi can only protect himself on the chance that the report is true; he cannot accept it as fact.
This is because the testimony of two people has validity only in beis din (rabbinical court). When two people report negative information about someone outside of beis din, they are not restrained by the possibility of being branded as false witnesses, for there can be no such designation outside of beis din. Therefore, their report cannot be accepted as fact.
If a rumor circulates in a city that a Jew committed a crime, one is not allowed to believe it. This applies also to reports in newspapers or other media sources. In this case, too, if the information is relevant for constructive purposes, one should proceed with appropriate caution.
However, there are instances in which one may believe negative reports. When an abundance of reports regarding a certain person circulate over a period of time, telling of various sinful acts which he committed, to the point where he is no longer viewed as an observant Jew, then it would be permissible to believe the reports. As the Chofetz Chaim puts it, we are not required to think that the community has made a mistake again and again regarding the same individual
We have learned that if someone says, “This isn’t loshon hora. I would say it right in front of him!” the Torah still classifies the statement as loshon hora and we are not permitted to believe it.
Now the Chofetz Chaim takes the case one step further. What if the speaker actually does say the loshon hora in front of the other person? For example, Reuven says in Shimon’s presence, “I saw with my own eyes how Shimon cheated on yesterday’s exam.” Shimon responds with silence. Can we interpret his silence as admission of guilt?
The Chofetz Chaim says that we cannot surmise that the information is true, because there can be a host of reasons why Shimon would stay quiet in such a situation, even if the information were not true. For example, Shimon might reason that people are more likely to believe Reuven’s words which were said about him in his presence, than to believe his denial. Or, he might be silent simply because he wants to avoid conflict.
The Chofetz Chaim suggests that the person may have chosen to be counted among the “those who suffer insult.” He is alluding to an important Talmudic teaching (Shabbos 88b):
“Those who suffer insult but do not insult (in response), who hear their disgrace but do not reply, who perform (God’s will) out of love and are happy in suffering, regarding them the verse states ‘But they who love Him (God) shall be as the sun going forth in its might’ ” (Shoftim 5:31). As the commentators explain, this means that those who bear insult in silence will not be diminished because of this1, while their antagonists will be humbled in the end.
The Torah demands that we never jump to conclusions, even when matters seem as clear as day. The case of one who is silent in the face of insult is an excellent illustration of this truth.
As the Talmud relates (Chullin 60b), at the time of Creation the moon was as large as the sun but was diminished when it complained that it was not fitting for two luminaries to reign together. The sun, which did not respond to the moon’s complaint, remained unchanged.
The Chofetz Chaim begins this segment by stressing that many people react incorrectly in cases of negative reports, where the listener needs to reckon with the report and protect himself. While the rules of such cases are complex, the Chofetz Chaim reiterates the basic rule: The Torah allows us only to protect ourselves on the possibility that the information is accurate. Never does the Torah give a person the right to use such information to act against the subject or to cause him a monetary loss. And because the information cannot be accepted as fact (without personal verification), it is absolutely forbidden to harbor any hatred toward that person. Finally, one cannot use the report as an excuse to cancel any obligations toward that person.
The Chofetz Chaim illustrates this last point: A person with an established reputation of being poor is circulating in shul (synagogue) collecting tzedakah (charity) for himself. Your neighbor turns to you and says, “This fellow’s a faker; I hear that he makes more money than we do.” The Chofetz Chaim says that if you decide not to give this man money (without investigation), or to give him less than you normally would, then you are in the category of one who believes loshon hora. For until the man is proven to be a fraud, you have to accord him his original status — that of a poor, upstanding Jew — and to treat him as such.
This is just one small example, says the Chofetz Chaim, of the consequences of accepting loshon hora.
The Chofetz Chaim also deals with a situation where the listener has transgressed by accepting the loshon hora as fact. Now, he regrets his sin. What should he do to rectify it?
The Chofetz Chaim offers a three-point plan:
1. He should strengthen himself and uproot this information from his mind to the point where he no longer believes it.
2. He should accept upon himself to be careful in the future not to accept loshon hora.
3. He should confess his sin (viduy) before Hashem.
The last two of these steps are common to the teshuvah process for any sin. But the requirement that we actually uproot information which we already believe to be true — this seems difficult to navigate.
Rabbi Avraham Pam, z”l, explained how it can be done. He says we must immerse our hearts in the mitzvah of judging people favorably. If you heard that the subject caused hurt to your friend, tell yourself, “I’m sure it didn’t happen exactly as it was reported.” Or, “Perhaps he is going through some personal difficulties. Who knows what I would do in the same situation?” Keep your mind focused like a laser beam on these favorable interpretations and review them again and again. If you flood your thoughts with favorable judgments, you will be amazed to find a gradual change in your thinking take place, as anger gives way to love for your fellow Jew.
We have been learning about kaballas loshon hora, the prohibition against believing loshon hora which is related in one’s presence. The Chofetz Chaim states that this prohibition applies not only to a report of current improper behavior, but to any information which we are forbidden to repeat. For example, if we were to hear that the father of a respected community member had a controversial past, we would not be permitted to believe it. We are also forbidden to believe a negative assessment of someone’s intelligence or physical abilities.
The Chofetz Chaim returns to the subject of listening to negative information l’toeles, for a constructive purpose. If someone is considering taking a partner into his business and then receives derogatory information concerning him, he is permitted to suspect that the information is true and to act on that suspicion. However, he is not permitted to believe it (without further investigation) or to take aggressive action against the person in question. Similarly, if one hears that a storekeeper cheats people, he can protect himself, but he may not attempt to harm the person’s reputation based on this information.
(Whether he can warn others is a complex issue which needs additional study. For further details see Sefer Chofetz Chaim, hilchos rechilus, klal tes.)
Furthermore, he must act toward the person with the same friendliness and kindness that he showed before hearing the report.
To take action upon hearing information but not to believe it may seem a very difficult challenge. However, as the Chofetz Chaim himself is reported to have said, “If it were impossible to keep the laws of loshon hora, Hashem would never have written them in His Torah.” We are, in fact, quite capable of acting based on mere suspicion or remote possibility. We engage in such action every time we enter a car and buckle the seat belt. The chances of a crash or even a short stop are remote, yet we safeguard ourselves.
In a similar way, when hearing loshon hora which may affect us if proven true, we must train ourselves to believe that in all probability the information is false. Nevertheless, we “buckle up for safety,” and take all necessary precautions.
In the course of a day, the average person hears hundreds of pieces of information. As each one is digested, we are left to decide whether or not we choose to accept it as fact. And when it comes to loshon hora, many people find themselves inclined to believe what they hear.
In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim discusses a case where the listener knows firsthand that the facts which the speaker is relating are all true. The problem is that the speaker has chosen to interpret these facts in a negative way. Here the listener is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of “Judge your fellow with righteousness” (Vayikra 19:15), and to interpret the facts in a positive light. If he fails to do so, then he has transgressed the mitzvah to judge others favorably, in addition to being guilty of accepting loshon hora.
The Chofetz Chaim offers the following example:
Reuven is walking down the street when he meets Shimon emerging from the local beis din (rabbinical court). Shimon is terribly agitated; he has just lost a din Torah (court case) involving a monetary dispute with Levi. Shimon waves the psak din (court ruling) at Reuven. “Did you ever hear something so ridiculous in all your life?” he shouts. “It was obvious that I deserved to win! These dayanim (judges) don’t know what they’re doing! Any other beis din would have seen things my way!”
If Reuven agrees with Shimon, he is guilty of not judging favorably and of accepting loshon hora. In this case, his sins are compounded by the fact that we are dealing with dayanim, who are accomplished Torah scholars.
What Reuven should do is try to convince Shimon that the dayanim have surely done their best to judge fairly and honestly. Furthermore, if in truth Shimon is correct and Levi has cheated him, then he should rest assured that Hashem has infinite methods at His disposal to make up the loss to him.
And what should Reuven tell himself if it appears to him that Shimon is right and the judges have erred? He should realize that without having been present at the din Torah, he cannot possibly know the full story. As such, it should not be too difficult for him to give the dayanim the benefit of the doubt.
The Chofetz Chaim introduces us to a situation with which we are all familiar:
You are sitting at someone’s Shabbos table or at a wedding, and several people start speaking loshon hora. What do you do? As we have just learned, listening to loshon hora is forbidden; how, then, can you avoid transgression?
The Chofetz Chaim discusses your options.
1. You can rebuke the gossipers (making sure, of course, to do it in a respectful way). You can remind them that this is a Torah prohibition, halachically equivalent to munching on shrimp or bacon.
2. If you know that they will not listen to rebuke, then “it is a great mitzvah,” writes the Chofetz Chaim, to get up and leave table.
3. If you find this impossible, then you should prepare yourself to stand firm so that you will not be guilty of any sin. Make sure to fulfill the following requirements:
a. Decide firmly in your mind that you will refuse to believe any loshon hora.
b. Make sure that your facial expression does not convey any hint of approval of what is being said. At the very least, you should sit stone-faced; if possible, your expression should convey strong disapproval.
The above applies if one is innocently sitting at one’s place when the loshon hora conversation begins. However, if someone strolls through an area where he overhears such a conversation and stops to listen, or if he passes by a group known to be gossipers and stops to listen to their conversation, then, says the Chofetz Chaim, he is considered a willful sinner, even if he takes no part in the conversation and does not approve of it.
The Chofetz Chaim continues that if one associates with such a group with the intention of hearing what they have to say, then he will be inscribed in Heaven as a baal loshon hora (a habitual speaker of loshon hora) and “his sin is too great to bear.”
In a famous incident, the Chofetz Chaim was traveling when he found himself in the company of a group of traders who were deeply engrossed in conversation. The Chofetz Chaim approached them and said, “And what, may I ask, are we talking about? If it’s horses count me in, but if it’s people count me out!”
How did he do it? How did the Chofetz Chaim have the courage to approach mere strangers and tell them, “If it’s people [you’re talking about], count me out”? The answer is that the Chofetz Chaim understood precisely what was at stake. He knew that our Sages teach that one will be inscribed in Heaven as a baal loshon hora for willfully joining a group of gossipers. To the Chofetz Chaim, confronting these men with his question was a small sacrifice, when the stakes were so very high.
In the previous segment, we learned that we are permitted to listen to loshon hora (without accepting it as fact) if there is something constructive to be gained. The Chofetz Chaim now poses an obvious question: How is this halachah applied in reality? How are you to know, before listening to a report, if the information can be used constructively?
The Chofetz Chaim offers the following guideline: If it is apparent that the speaker is about to say something negative about someone, then you should interrupt him and ask whether he thinks that there is something constructive to be gained from your hearing this information. If, for example, the person were to reply that the report could be valuable to the success of a business venture on which you are embarking, then you would be permitted to listen (provided that you do not accept it as fact). If it becomes clear that there is no toeless (constructive purpose) in listening, then it is forbidden to hear the report.
The Chofetz Chaim then discusses another case where one may listen to loshon hora.
Under normal circumstances, it is forbidden to listen to loshon hora spoken by one’s spouse, just as with any other individual. However, if someone has upset your wife very much and she is having difficulty coping, then you are permitted to help her through this situation by allowing her to unburden herself to you. While she is permitted to relate to you what has transpired, you should tell yourself that in her distress, she may be seeing things as worse than they actually are; you may not accept her words as fact. The Chofetz Chaim states that a primary goal in listening to the report should be to try to explain the situation in a positive light so that she will no longer be angry at the other person.
Obviously, this is not a carte blanche for husbands and wives to have free-ranging discussions concerning others. We are talking here about serious problems in which one can help one’s spouse overcome distress and make peace with the situation — and with the other party, if possible.
What if a person mistakenly listens to loshon hora when there is no constructive purpose? Then, says the Chofetz Chaim, he should try to correct his mistake by quickly finding a merit for the person who is being maligned and authoritatively telling it to the speaker. In this way, the listener may succeed in convincing the speaker that he is guilty of misjudgment and that he has no reason to feel ill will towards the subject.
The Chofetz Chaim offers one more case of listening for a constructive purpose. You meet a friend who is angry about an injustice that was done to him. To your innocent question, “How are you?” he responds with a ferocious tirade against the culprit. As a friend, you have two choices. You can agree wholeheartedly with his complaints, so that his anger will continue to rage. Most probably, he will later rant and rave before another friend and then another … thereby causing the loshon hora to spread further. Or you can listen empathetically without showing approval. Then, when his anger had been defused, you can talk softly to him, calm him down and help him see the situation from a more positive perspective.
A baal loshon hora (habitual speaker of loshon hora) in this situation will listen to the tirade and fan the flames of baseless hatred, adding to our source of exile. Those who strive to live by the Torah’s requirements in these matters will use their power of persuasion to uproot ill will, increase understanding and love for one’s fellow Jew, and help bring our Redemption one step closer.
One of the factors which makes loshon hora such a serious sin is that it involves the interaction of two people — the speaker and the listener. Until now, the Chofetz Chaim has been dealing with the speaker’s role. In this section, he puts the listener under halachic examination, and states: It is forbidden to believe loshon hora. One who does so has transgressed a Torah prohibition (see Shemos 23:1 with Rashi). The Chofetz Chaim quotes the teaching that the punishment for accepting loshon hora is greater than the punishment for speaking loshon hora.
The Chofetz Chaim further states that listening to loshon hora is forbidden even if the listener does not intend to accept the information. However, he notes, there is a difference between accepting loshon hora and listening with the intention of not believing what one is about to hear. And with this, we enter the complex issue of toeles, constructive purpose. The Chofetz Chaim examines two common areas in which derogatory information might be required for a constructive purpose—the areas of business decisions and shidduchim (prospective marriage matches). If, for example, one is considering a job offer, a potential business partnership, or a suggested shidduch, he is permitted to listen to relevant negative information. His purpose in such cases is not gossipmongering, but self-protection. However, he must decide in his mind that while he may use negative information to protect himself, he will not accept it as fact.
The Chofetz Chaim is discussing a case where the speaker initiated the conversation. The listener may “tune in” to the conversation l’toeles if either:
— the speaker has already made it clear that he is relating the information l’toeles; or
— The listener arrives when the speaker has already begun relating the information to someone else. This way, the listener is not guilty of causing someone to sin.
The allowance for listening for constructive purposes extends even further, the Chofetz Chaim says. One may listen to important information that applies to his friend to prevent the friend from falling into a bad situation. The listener should first check the accuracy of the information before passing it on to the relevant party. One can also listen to a report that his friend has committed a transgression, if he feels that he is in a position to speak to the person and help him mend his ways.
As mentioned, even when we are allowed to listen to negative information, we are not permitted to accept it as fact without further investigation. This seems to be a difficult demand. If I hear something about someone, and I act upon it, how can I not accept it as fact?
In reality, we do have a natural capacity to reject plausible information as false, and we exercise this capacity in many situations. For instance, imagine if you were to hear a terrible piece of loshon hora about your brother. The inner workings of your mind would immediately label this information as false. “I know my brother, and he wouldn’t have done something like that!” you would tell yourself. Nevertheless, because you care about your brother, you would probably confront him privately and say, “I cannot imagine that it is true, but I heard that...” The Torah requires us to view every Jew as a brother or sister, and extend our natural protective instincts to him or her as well.
In the business world, loshon hora is often spoken as a “marketing tool.” You may have observed this technique when asking a salesman for his opinion about a product and receiving, instead, a thorough denunciation of his competitor’s merchandise. “Well, that’s business,” is an often-heard expression. The Chofetz Chaim informs us, however, that such reasoning is never an excuse for speaking loshon hora.
Maligning competitors’ merchandise is an all-too-common practice. The obvious motivation behind this is a desire to increase one’s sales by minimizing competition. Sometimes there is a second motivation at work: jealousy. Someone with a product to sell finds it difficult to accept the fact that a competitor has better merchandise or better prices. Speaking loshon hora is his attempt at convincing others of what he would like to believe — that his item is superior. (In a later section, the Chofetz Chaim deals with a case where the salesman has only the customer’s benefit in mind.)
The Chofetz Chaim closes this section with an important point. When derogatory information is related by two people, the sin is even greater than if it had been spoken by one person. The reason for this is simple. A report has greater impact when more people give it credence. Think about it: If you hear derogatory information from just one person, you may accept it “with a grain of salt.” You may tell yourself, “I shouldn’t believe everything I hear.” Or you might tell yourself, “This speaker may be biased.”
But when you hear the same information from two people, you perceive it as a widely held notion. The second person has given the report added credibility. The Chofetz Chaim notes that even if one person delivers the initial report on his own and then a second person comes along and concurs with the report, the second person has also committed a grave sin.
In any conversation where loshon hora has been spoken, one may be tempted to add his comments in the belief that the damage has already been done and one more comment will not make a difference. This, too, is a serious mistake. Any additional comment is yet another transgression.
The Chofetz Chaim informs us today that the popular pastime of “armchair financial analysis” is actually a forum for loshon hora. This occurs when a group conjectures about another person’s financial standing. The subject might be a neighbor, family member or wealthy individual in one’s city. Such discussions, without any real toeless (constructive purpose), are forbidden, as they can cause great damage.
Sometimes, the group concludes that, based on their information, the person is actually bankrupt, or at least deeply in debt. Such a conclusion can hurt the person in a concrete way. People who hear of this discussion may shy away from doing business with the person, or they may refuse to lend him money.
Obviously, says the Chofetz Chaim, if there is information that must be conveyed to a certain party to enable him to make a prudent business decision (l’toeles), then one can provide the information if seven conditions (which will be discussed later) are met.
The Chofetz Chaim then discusses the issue of “relative statements.” A given statement might be loshon hora when spoken about one person and high praise when spoken about another.
For example, imagine two people who are discussing the charity habits of some community members. “He’s good for $5,” one comments about a certain individual. If that individual is one of the richest men in town, then the statement would be loshon hora.
If, on the other hand, the subject is a poor person, the statement would not be loshon hora at all.
The Chofetz Chaim offers another example. If someone said of a rabbinical student, “He learns for four hours a day,” the listener would not construe this as praise. Yet if the same statement was said of a businessman with a hectic work schedule, it truly would be exceptional praise.
The Chofetz Chaim concludes by cautioning that, in the above cases, one cannot excuse his derogatory comment concerning the rich man or the rabbinical student by saying, “I wouldn’t mind if they said that about me!” Such rationalization completely misses the point. We have different expectations of different individuals, and what might be complimentary when said about one person could very well be derogatory when said about someone else.
In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim further examines the common practice of discussing other people’s intelligence. He asks the reader to consider the following scenario:
You overhear a conversation in which you are the one who is being evaluated. Everyone involved in the conversation offers his or her own expert opinion, and the group then concludes that you have very little intelligence.
The Chofetz Chaim poses a simple question: “How would you feel?” The Chofetz Chaim answers the question: Your self-image would suffer a terrible blow. You would wonder, “What do they see in me that brings them to this horrible conclusion? Do I really show myself to be a fool?”
And you would conclude that this group’s real intent is evil — to degrade you in the eyes of those who know you. After all, what else could be their motivation?
Yet, as the Chofetz Chaim points out, with most people such conversations do not register even a faint “blip” on the subconscious “radar screen” which alerts God-fearing people when they are becoming involved in loshon hora.
In all probability, such talk will involve greater transgressions than words of loshon hora which are clearly derogatory. When, for example, a speaker attacks someone’s behavior, he may do so out of a sense of conviction. The subject has behaved in a terrible way (at least in the speaker’s opinion) and he wants to register his protest. While the laws of shmiras haloshon do not permit this, at least his intentions were good. By contrast, there is nothing to be gained from discussing someone’s level of intelligence; the only purpose could be to degrade the individual.
Such discussions can be more dangerous than those involving a person’s sins. If someone tells others that a person has sinned, the listeners may tell themselves that perhaps the circumstances were not exactly as had been related; or perhaps the subject had succumbed in a moment of weakness. By contrast, when people hear that someone is lacking intelligence, the natural tendency is to accept this as absolute truth. The listeners look no further. There are no excuses to consider. The person has been labeled, categorized and filed in their minds as “not smart.”
The Chofetz Chaim stresses that in any situation, derogatory comments concerning someone’s intelligence can have terrible repercussions. However, when one speaks negatively of the intelligence of a rav, Torah teacher, or of someone’s new son-in-law or daughter-in-law, the ramifications could be devastating.
We can avoid all these pitfalls by remembering the Chofetz Chaim’s question: “How would you feel if you were the one whose intelligence was being attacked?
In a nationwide test on shmiras haloshon for elementary school children, the question was posed: “What could you tell yourself that would help you to refrain from speaking loshon hora?” The most popular answer was, “By asking myself, ’How would I feel if I was in this person’s place?’ “The innocence of children often allows them to see matters more objectively than adults. These children were able on their own to arrive at the advice of the Chofetz Chaim — advice that we should all take to heart.
In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim discusses assessments which people make regarding someone’s physical or mental abilities. It is common for people involved in everyday conversation to offer personal judgments about others which are less than flattering. Such statements can have far reaching consequences, especially in the area of shidduchim (marriage matches).
As the Chofetz Chaim notes, many people are unaware that analyzing a person’s attributes and verbalizing a less than flattering opinion of him is loshon hora. The example he offers is of someone who relates that the person under discussion lacks intelligence. Some might argue, “Wait — that’s not loshon hora. It’s true!” Obviously, these people are unaware of a fact which we have already stressed: A statement which is derogatory and true is loshon hora.
One might also justify the statement by saying, “But it is not derogatory to say that a person isn’t smart!” In truth, Hashem has given each of us the exact combination of attributes we need in order to accomplish our purpose in this world. Unfortunately, however, most people do not consider this truth when they evaluate a person. If they hear that someone is not smart, their esteem for that person is automatically lowered.
The Chofetz Chaim warns us that by casually stating that someone is “not smart,” we may ultimately cause that person harm.
He offers three examples of how this could happen:
1. If the person is single, we will render him less desirable, and this will hurt him in a real sense as he seeks to get married.
2. Whether his livelihood is a craft, business or profession, people will be reluctant to deal with him, since most people like dealing with those whom they consider intelligent.
3. If he’s a rav or posek (halachic authority), then people will be reluctant to seek guidance or a psak (ruling) from him. His stature will be diminished, his feelings and his family members may be hurt, and ultimately, he might lose his position.
You might wonder, is it really possible that all of this can come from one small remark?
There is a famous story about the Chofetz Chaim and another rav, who were traveling together. They stopped at an inn, where the hostess recognized the two prominent rabbanim and ushered them to a table reserved for distinguished guests. After they finished a satisfying meal, the hostess returned to the table and inquired, “Did you enjoy the food?”
The Chofetz Chaim’s companion replied, “It was very good. But the soup could have used a little more salt.”
When the hostess left, the Chofetz Chaim, obviously distressed, informed the rav that his words constituted loshon hora.
“Now the hostess will probably reprimand the cook, who is quite possibly a poor widow who must work to support her family.” The rav, however expressed his doubts that his seemingly benign comment could have such repercussions. The Chofetz Chaim then escorted him to the kitchen, where the two peered through the door and witnessed the hostess speaking harshly to the cook, a poor widow, who was in tears.
The rav hurried into the kitchen and said that the food had been quite good. He apologized to the cook and begged the hostess not to say anything more on account of his careless remark.
The moral is:
Think before you speak. Even a seemingly innocent comment has the potential to cause great harm.
In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim focuses on the mitzvah to extend loans to a fellow Jew. As the Torah states:” … When you lend money to My people …” (Shemos 22:24).
Consider the following situation:
You have a friend who is in need of a loan. He approaches someone you know and asks to borrow some money, but the prospective lender refuses, with the explanation that he cannot afford to extend a loan at this time. However, you happen to know the lender and you know for a fact that he does have the means to extend the loan. You assume that the real reason for his refusal is that he happens to be selfish.
Telling others of the person’s refusal to extend the loan is loshon hora. This is so even in a case where you witnessed the wrongdoing and even if your purpose in telling others is to protest the injustice done.
If the prospective borrower, in a desire to “get even,” tells others what happened, then he also transgresses the negative commandments against taking revenge and bearing a grudge (Vayikra 19:18).
The case of a loan request which was refused is used by the Chofetz Chaim as an example of loshon hora involving a person’s faults bein adam l’chaveiro, between man and his fellow. Similarly, it is forbidden to mention that someone is lacking in any of the interpersonal obligations which the Torah places upon us.
Even if a person were to repeatedly transgress one of these mitzvos—for example, he never extends loans despite the fact that he is fabulously wealthy –— it is forbidden to speak of it. As the Chofetz Chaim explains, we cannot categorize such a person as a rasha (wicked individual) because, unfortunately, many people mistakenly think of such obligations as being voluntary. Thus, they do not see themselves as sinners at all.
Important Numbers
