Tag: sefer chofetz chaim

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 8 halachos 5,6

The prohibition of lashon hara only applies to someone who is considered “part of your nation” which excludes an apikores. An apikores is someone who denies the entire Torah came from Hashem or even doesn’t believe that one mitzvah or one drasha, like a kal vachomer or gezeila shava comes from Hashem. Now the avos diRebbe Nosson (16:5) says “A person can’t say I only love rabbis but simpletons (am haaratzim) I don’t love. You have to love every Jew besides an apikores and people who convince others to sin, as King David said, ‘Those that Hashem hates I hate’ (Tehillim 139:21).” An apikores is hated by Hashem because he willfully acknowledges Hashem’s Torah and denies it so it is permissible to speak out against him and degrade him to his face and behind his back since the verse says these prohibitions only apply to those who are acting within “your nation” but a non-observant Jew who doesn’t know any better, he’s a simpleton, who doesn’t know or understand the severity of Torah life should be loved by every Jew just like Hashem loves them and one cannot speak lashon hara about them.

One must have heard himself, blasphemous talk coming out of the mouth of the would be apikores to be allowed to speak out against him or if it is known everywhere, at least throughout the city, that a certain person or group is an apikores then it’s permissible to speak out against them, for example Jews for Jesus or, an extreme example, Hitler and Nazis who everyone agrees they were bad. But if you heard secondhand information that someone might be an apikores then you are allowed to take precautions and even tell others to stay easy from him for them until it’s confirmed but you can’t just speak out in public against them until verified.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 8 halachos 2-4

Who can you not speak lashon hara about:

Halacha 2: You can’t speak lashon hara about men or women even your wife because it says, “Don’t be a tale bearer amongst your nation” your wife and all other wives are still part of “your nation”. There is another proof that you cannot say lashon hara about your wife unless there is a productive reason because there is a prohibition of motzi shem ra, if the newly wed husband claims his wife isn’t a virgin so only deserves 100 and not 200 for the kesuba then if he is right that ok but if he is wrong because he can’t prove it then the Torah finds him for saying lashon hara about his wife. The Chofetz Chaim goes on to say that it was unfortunately prevalent in his day that many people spoke lashon hara about their wives or in laws in front of their brothers and father’s house which he said is absolutely forbidden unless there is some constructive purpose.

Halacha 3: sometimes it is forbidden to talk lashon hara about children. For example if the are orphans and speaking out against them might cause physical or emotional harm, for example there foster parents will kick them out of the house or orphans have more sensitive feelings but if they need to be taught a lesson then you can tell on them so that they will be reprimanded but only if you know they won’t be too severely punished. The Chofetz Chaim does say that even though the example he gives is of an orphan child that is the most prevalent of issues with lashon hara about children but if any physical, monetary, or emotional harm would happen to any child then lashon hara shouldn’t be spoken. What he means is that, for example, if a child was caught coloring on the wall most people will just laugh it off, he’s a child, he doesn’t know better he just has to be taught not to do it, he’ll grow up one day. That is why many times there is not an issue of lashon hara with children. If an adult would do such a thing that would be a crime called graffiti. Of course as was said if harm is done by saying the lashon hara of course it should not be said and now a days we have to be cognizant of the fact that emotional stability is very fragile. My Rosh Yeshiva zt”l, Rav Henoch Leibowitz use to say that back in the early 1900s Americans were like cobwebs now a days we are like tissue paper. Halacha 4: If a person is an on ha’aretz, a simpleton, not learned, he is still Jewish and one cannot speak lashon hara about him but certainly if he is a rabbi or sage it is even worse because one must show more respect to the sage, respect to the learned is respect to the Torah but even worse if lashon hara was spoken about the rabbi then people who ask him questions or go to his shiurim might stop and that will cause them to make up their own observance of Torah and ultimately a new religion because they feel they can’t trust there Rabbi who is learned.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 8 Halacha 1

The Chofetz Chaim introduces the 8th chapter with the caveat that anything that sounds simple has to be brought up anyways either because it fits better in the flow or because needs reminders and reiteration so that they won’t make mistakes, in any event their is usually something new that comes out in the end. He begins the chapter with saying that speaking lashon hara applies to both men and women even with relatives and even if you are talking about relatives and they don’t care what you say because we’re all family still it’s lashon hara because you might’ve come to conclusions to quick. This happens to be true about lashon hara on the topic of things done between man and his fellow man, where you can’t come to conclusions you have to question and prove first. But if you saw something wrong being done between man and Hashem then even if you did come to the right conclusion you can’t say it to anyone else because there is no purpose unless you think this is the only way to correct his folly by having someone else go over to him and help him.

The Chofetz Chaim in his Be’er Mayim Chaim explains that this halacha is based on the episodes of Yosef and his brothers as well as Miriam talking to Aharon about Moshe. The Sifri says that when Miriam told Aharon about Moshe separating from his wife the purpose was to go over to him and rebuke him. She even praised Moshe granting that he was a greater prophet than them but is he holier than our forefathers who had prophecy and stayed married. She did this for the sake of the mitzvah of having children, totally pure intentions, yet she was punished. Why was she punished? Because she came to conclusions to quickly. Her attitude should not have been Moshe is wrong and we have to rebuke him rather it should have been something doesn’t look right why don’t we ask him what’s wrong and clarify the issue. A change of perspective and attitude could be the difference of Whether it’s lashon hara or not. Also, even though Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t care one iota what was said because he is so humble, he wasn’t insulted in any way, still it is lashon hara.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7, halachos 13, 14

We finished the 7th chapter of Chofetz Chaim laws if lashon hara today. There are times when a court is allowed to take action into their own hands and beat someone to admit to a crime but that is only when it is clear to the victim and the court that this is the would be burglar, for example if the victim runs into court and tells the judges he has circumstantial evidence that so and so stole from him and the court sees the evidence and it makes sense or there are witnesses that the evidence seem to be true then the court can take action in order for the thief to admit guilt. The case we had last week of Mar Zutra hitting his household member in order to admit wrongdoing because he was accused of stealing a silver goblet from a guest because he was caught drying his hands on someone’s clothes was a very special circumstance where he knew it could only have been someone in his household who was the perpetrator and everyone else were not suspicious and had an assumed presumption of honest therefore even though the fact the guy wiped his hand on someone’s shirt is only slight evidence but now that this narrowed down the possibilities it was strong enough evidence to act upon. But in general, to just rely on a claim that a victim has and his suspicions is not allowed because the perpetrator could be anyone in the city so you need clear evidence to act. It is inappropriate for an individual or even the city council or police to act solely on the claim and suspicions of a victim. Concrete evidence must be submitted to the courts and they can take action if needed to force admission to a crime.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7, halachos 11 and 12

 Consequential evidence is only reliable if it is really evident that what he said is true but not if it’s partially recognizable with connecting some obvious dots or if it’s secondhand knowledge even if it seems directly recognizable still it cannot be believed, you can only be concerned and investigate.

However even if it really is clearly evident that what he is saying is true then you can only believe it but you cannot repeat it unless the person spoken about is known to be a bad person or if the issue could be a threat to others and you have an obligation to help them like a burglar or a swindler in business and you have clear evidence that this person is up to no good so you have an obligation to help other defend themselves. However, you cannot actively cause a monetary loss or physically hurt the person spoken about even if you know he did something wrong. It would seem you can boycott him, a passive monetary loss but you need witnesses and if you know someone swindled you in business you can’t just take money away from him you have to take him to court. The Chofetz Chaim says that though you know someone took something of yours you can go and get it because there is a concept of taking things into your own hands (Choshen Mishpat 4:1) but you can’t forcefully get it away from like hitting him to get it back, (though the Shulchan Aruch there seems to say you can, this needs further investigation.)

There is a case in Bava Metzia 24a where Mar Zutra Chasida hit his student or servant to convince him to admit to stealing a silver goblet from a guest which he figured out must have been him because the guy washed his hands and dried them on someone’s shirt so there was clear indication that because he doesn’t care about other’s property he must be a thief and the guy admitted. However, the Chofetz Chaim says Mar Zutra Chasida was allowed to beat him to admit though it was only based on circumstantial evidence Not two witnesses because he was a judge, judging this case and this was a special circumstance where a lesson had to be made so he was allowed to as a court in emergency purpose hit the guy to admit guilt.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7 halacha 10

Another indication that lashon hara is true is circumstantial evidence, divarim nikarim, it definitely makes the lashon hara compellingly true however if it’s possible to judge the person talked about or the situation favorably then you should and not come to conclusions immediately even if there seems to be clear guilty evidence like video footage etc. The Chofetz Chaim says in a note that you should first investigate 7 times before drawing conclusions even If it seems true because the yetzer hara is very strong and quick to try to ensnare you in the trap of accepting lashon hara. No matter how clear and obvious the evidence looks, still be very diligent, 7 times, before deciding what you heard is true. After investigating if you still think it’s true then it can be accepted as truth and fact if there is no other way to judge it favorably. 

The source for this permissibility to accept lashon hara with circumstantial evidence is based on a gemara in Shabbos 56a which discusses the episode of King David supposedly accepting lashon hara from Tziva about Mefiboshes the son of Shaul that he is rebelling against the king. King David told Tziva you can have his possessions, indicating he’s accepting what Tziva said and will punish Mefiboshes. Rav said King David accepted lashon hara but Shmuel said there was indications that Tziva was right. What were the indications? That when Mefiboshes went out to greet King David later he was untidy and dishonorable looking to be in the king’s presense. Though this was a reason to suspect that what Tziva said was true but Mefiboshes rebuffed and pretended to. E friendly so King David told him to split his possessions equally with Tziva. Rav said King David accepted lashon hara because the evidence of Mefiboshes rebelling came after Tziva spoke to King David. How can King David act then upon it? The Chofetz Chaim answered that there was slight evidence that he was rebelling when he did not show up with Tziva upon King David’s request. It was only totally clear afterwards when Mefiboshes came out to greet King David in a disrespectful way. Shmuel held that King David was allowed to accept the lashon hara early because he was sure the real evidence will soon surface as it did but Rav felt that because it didn’t happen yet, the semi evidence isn’t enough and he should not have accepted it. What confounds the issue is that the gemara points out that Tziva is a proven liar in the past so even If there is partial evidence that he’s correct he lost his believability and King David should not have believed him. The Chofetz Chaim in another note said that there was other evidence that Mefiboshes was rebelling because normally he was like part of the family at King David’s table for meals and he had not shown up. This would have been evidence alone that Tziva was right if not for the fact that he proved himself to be a liar. This is why Rav said King David should not have believed him. However Shmuel held that King David listened and acted on Tziva’s advice on condition that he was correct and later saw the circumstantial evidence with his own eyes and that is why it was ok for King David to accept what he heard. What we learn from here is that without real circumstantial evidence it’s forbidden to believe someone speaking lashon hara even if he is not a proven liar until now but with circumstantial evidence even if he did lie some other time it’s permissible to believe him now.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7 halacha 9 footnotes 16, 17

The next more believable reason why one might think he can believe certain lashon hara is if it was told innocently, meaning “masiach lifi tumo”. The Chofetz Chaim comes out that though this is technically true, that it’s believable to be able to hate the guy whose being talked a out in one’s heart, but you certainly still shouldn’t tell others, and act upon it to cause him a physical or monetary loss because it’s still a degradation of your fellow Jew and even if it’s true you should judge favorably. However practically speaking, it’s very farfetched to have a real pure situation of “masiach lifi tumo” where you can trust what you hear to at least hate the guy talked about in your heart because there has to be no agenda whatsoever to the speaker. He had to have been just shouting and randomly a juicy piece of information which is lashon hara slipped out. A random example I had was if a non-Jew was telling over a story how he saw some guy with side locks, a long coat and a furry hat sitting down to eat a cheeseburger in McDonald’s and he was going on about how him and his friends were making fun of this guy for dressing so weird in the middle of the summer and what comes out of you listening to this is that you figure out a chasid you know ate non-kosher, that’s innocently talking. Now if you asked this non-Jew have you seen this guy around which you described as a chasid in those clothes and he said yes, I saw him in McDonald’s then certainly he’s not believed even if he had no intent of getting him into trouble, that not talking innocently anymore. Also, if you figure out that the speaker might have some agenda like to instill fear into you or to trick you and he’s acting like he’s talking casually without any agenda you still can’t believe him because maybe he’s just a good actor. Also, if let say the speaker was known to hate the guy that he is shouting about and he slips information which seems to be innocently said still it can’t be trusted, not even concerned about because we assume he always has an agenda since he’s an enemy. Innocent talk also certainly doesn’t work if it’s secondhand information because who knows if the first person who said it was talking innocently.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7 halacha 8

The case of Tuvia in Pesachim 113b is where Tuvia sinned and Zigud told on him to Rav Pappa and Rav Pappa gave lashes to Zigud for testifying as a single witness against Tuvia for no reason. Even in that case even though Zigud might have been a student of Rav Pappa and was trusted for what he says, that doesn’t mean it can be accepted as fact plainly, only unless there are a combination of two factors can it be accepted.

  1. The speaker had to have firsthand knowledge that he saw it himself not secondhand knowledge, even if he is believed as two witnesses and the person, he heard it from was believed as two witnesses still the threshold to believe it and take action isn’t there anymore. This is because a person who is honest enough to be believed as two witnesses has within his nature honesty and integrity but that can only be assumed if he is talking about what he saw himself but once it becomes second hand then maybe what he heard was a lie and even if who he heard from is honest but once it’s second hand then this level of trust is one step removed and can’t be trusted anymore to act on.
  2. The other factor is that if he is on the level of being trusted as two witnesses that means you can only distance yourself from the sinner until he repents. Now a days no one has such integrity of being believed as two witnesses anyways so even to be concerned and stay away from the would-be sinner until he repents you can’t do; you have to try to help him, but you certainly can’t take action against him monetarily and physically and certainly you cannot repeat what you have heard no matter how honest the speaker is. This is no different than the Shulchan Aruch in Even HaEzer 115:7 and 178:9 which says that a husband can trust one witness if he wants who says his wife committed adultery to divorce her, but she does not lose her kesuba. Only if there are two witnesses, where we reach the threshold of believability in halacha to take action does she lose her kesuba.
Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7 halacha 6,7

We are continuing with the chapter that talks about compelling reasons to believe lashon hara and whether you are allowed to believe it.

Halacha 6: Even if a person goes over to you and starts talking derogatorily about himself and throws others into the story, for example if a Jew says me and my friends went to McDonald’s to eat, or he says we all got mad at someone and started insulting him, or we are all not so smart, in all these cases and the like you are only allowed to believe the story about the person who is talking but not about his friends. This is based on gemara in Kesubos 23b and though there is the famous story of the Chofetz Chaim traveling by train to some town and the guy who wound up next to him, not knowing what the Chofetz Chaim looked like got into a conversation about where they were going and the guy said he was going to see the Chofetz Chaim in some town and the Chofetz Chaim remarked what so great about the Chofetz Chaim and he belittled himself a bit and the guy got all upset and slapped him. When they got off the train and there was a crowd to meet the Chofetz Chaim the guy was quite embarrassed. People say that based on this story maybe you should not even talk badly about yourself but halachically the Chofetz Chaim says you could believe someone if he admits he made a mistake or is imperfect or the like, just sometimes take it with a grain of salt because people are humble.

In halacha 7 we say that even though some people depending on the person and situation are very honest and trustworthy and can be believed like two witnesses however when it comes to lashon hara that doesn’t make a difference because even if what they are saying is true that is still lashon hara and you must judge favorably the person being talked about. Besides that the Chofetz Chaim says that now a days no one has the level of believability as two witnesses so you should always be concerned of what you hear but if need be you can take proper precautions and investigate the matter when dealing with issues or signs which are not clearly known to be forbidden to all Jews or lacking in fine character and the like.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 7 halacha 3

There are two reasons why you can’t believe slander/lashon hara even if you hear two or more people saying the same thing.

1. Is that if it is said for no good reason then the speakers are bad people and how can you believe what a bad person said verses the person being spoken about who is assumed to be a kosher person.

2. Is that even if what they are saying is to warn others of impending danger that doesn’t give anyone the right to believe what they are saying as truth, only two witnesses in court who are official witnesses are believed unequivocally.

Any other time one can and should only be cautious take the proper precautions to protect yourself and research and investigate the matter to see if it is really true or not.

The Gemara in Pesachim 113b says that a rebbe if he feels he could trust his student as if he is two in order to stay away from someone who is doing inappropriate things according to the student. The Chofetz Chaim explains that this is a special circumstance where the relationship between rabbi and student is so close and trustworthy that this student is like two witnesses testifying in court and is therefore unequivocally believed but in general two people or more are not believed for what they say if it is lashon hara since slander usually leads to, comes with lies or at least leaving out information or exaggerating so in normal circumstances it cannot be believed no matter how many people say it it can only be taken into consideration as a concern, investigated and take proper precautions.