Author: Acquire@pos

In the previous segment, we learned that when negative information needs to be related l’toeles (for a constructive purpose) and rebuke is not possible, then the report must be said in the presence of at least three people.

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim tells us that there is an exception to this rule: When the speaker is respected as a man of truth and a straightforward individual who would not say anything behind someone’s back that he would not say in his presence, then he can relate the information privately and does not need to speak in front of three people.

As explained in the previous segment, three people are needed when there is a possibility that the speaker will be suspected of lying or trying to speak badly of someone without that person finding out. As a public forum, the group of three gives credibility to both the speaker and his report. However, when the speaker is respected as being a man of absolute integrity, he will not be suspected of lying or of improper motives. Therefore, there is no need for a group of three.

The Chofetz Chaim concludes this segment by pointing out a difference between a report involving a sin between man and his fellow and one involving a sin between man and Hashem. In the latter case, such information can be related l’toeles only if the person has intentionally committed this sin numerous times, and only if it is something which we would expect the average religious Jew to recognize as a sin.

We have learned that one of the seven conditions for speaking loshon hora l’toeles (for constructive purpose) is that the speaker first rebuke the guilty person privately in the hope that he will correct whatever it is that he has done wrong.

if it is clear that this person will ignore any rebuke? The Chofetz Chaim informs us that in such a case, one can bypass this condition and go directly to those who he feels should know this information.

However, if this is the situation, then a new condition needs to be fulfilled. The negative information must be related in the presence of at least three people. The Chofetz Chaim explains why:

If the speaker does not rebuke the perpetrator and relates the information (l’toeles) to only one or two people, he will be defeating his purpose. He appears to be revealing the information in a secretive way so that the subject will never know of his report and will remain his friend. His listeners, therefore, will suspect him of lying, of fabricating the report to make that person look bad while keeping it a secret from him.

This is not the case when he reveals it before three people. We have already learned (Days 29- 31) that a group of three or more is considered a public forum, and whatever is said in such a setting is virtually certain to become publicized. Therefore, by speaking in front of three, the person is making it clear that his intentions are pure. He knows that eventually his report will reach the ears of the subject. Nevertheless, he is relating the information for the constructive purpose which he has explained to his listeners.

The Chofetz Chaim notes that though the listeners can act upon the information, they are permitted only to consider that it might be true, but they cannot conclude that it is true. They must allow for the possibility that the speaker may have overlooked a critical point which would change the nature of the report significantly.

Therefore, says the Chofetz Chaim, it is forbidden for the listeners to lower their opinion of the subject without verifying the report. Once again, this may seem like a difficult approach to take, but if Hashem requires it of us, we can be sure that it is within our power to accomplish.

The Chofetz Chaim has been discussing the rules of toeles, loshon hora spoken for a constructive purpose. In this segment, he tells us of a case where such speech is forbidden.

Reuven has spoken loshon hora about Shimon for no constructive reason. You approach Reuven and gently rebuke him, but he is not interested in your “pious lecturing.” As far as he’s concerned, there is no sin called “loshon hora.” Now you wish to tell others of Reuven’s sin, in the hope that this will induce him to mend his ways. But there is one problem: Shimon has no idea that Reuven has spoken about him. If you tell others about it, Shimon is likely to find out. This would cause Shimon to have ill feelings toward Reuven. In such a case, you would be guilty of speaking rechilus. The fact that your intentions were l’toeles would not make this permissible.

However, the Chofetz Chaim says, there is an exception to the rule in the scenario which we have presented. If you happen to know that Reuven is the type of person who once he has a grievance against someone, is likely to repeat it to everyone he meets, then you are allowed to do what is necessary to preempt his “loshon hora attack.”

In his explanation of this halachah, the Chofetz Chaim offers us some psychological insight. People generally believe the first thing they hear. If one hears that someone did something wrong, and then is told that the report is false, it is difficult to erase the first impression. On the other hand, if that report had been preceded by, “Reuven is so bitter, he’s spreading loshon hora about Shimon; but don’t believe a word of it,” then it would have been easy for the listener to dismiss the report as false. Furthermore, having been forewarned to expect this wicked report, the listener might rebuke Reuven for attempting to degrade a fellow Jew. When Reuven sees that people are not accepting his loshon hora, and that they perceive him as a sinful, bitter person, he may decide to cease speaking loshon hora.

The Chofetz Chaim says that use of loshon hora as a “preemptive strike” is certainly in the category of toeles. Obviously, here too, all seven conditions of toeles must be met.

The preemptive strike, though a delicate maneuver, can reap great benefits. The subject of the loshon hora will be saved the embarrassment which the loshon hora would have caused him. The listeners will be saved from the sin of accepting loshon hora. The speaker of the loshon hora might be saved from speaking loshon hora in the future. And the obligation to rebuke our fellow Jew will have been fulfilled.

In this halachah, we see how crucial a role one’s intentions play in determining whether our actions or statements are praiseworthy. The Chofetz Chaim informs us that derogatory information may be spoken for a constructive purpose only if the speaker is not guilty of the very sin that he is exposing. One who does suffer from the same fault he wishes to expose must remain silent on this matter.

The source for this halachah is the episode in Scripture where King Yeihu was held accountable by Hashem for murdering King Achav’s household, though he was fulfilling a Divine prophecy that Achav’s family would be destroyed because of its idol worship. Because Yeihu, too, was guilty of a degree of idol worship, he had no right to punish those who were guilty of this sin. Therefore Hashem decreed, “And I shall bring to account the blood of [Achav who was killed in] Yizrael upon the house of Yeihu” (Hoshea 1:4).

Why should this factor be significant? If one witnesses a misdeed and can have it rectified by reporting it, why should his own lapses matter? The Chofetz Chaim answers, “This person’s intention in revealing this hidden matter is not for the good, out of fear of Hashem. Rather, he wants to shame his fellow and rejoice over his misfortune.” In other words, it is inconceivable that such a person would reveal this information with pure intentions.

For example, if someone cheats in business, it is impossible that his motivation would be pure in talking about someone else’s business lapses. His true motivation, says the Chofetz Chaim, is a desire to ridicule the wrongdoer. (If the businessman sincerely wishes to save others from this person’s lapses, he should discuss the matter with a rav.)

There is a message here. Our Sages tell us (Kiddushin 70a) that one who degrades another person often does so regarding the very fault which he himself possesses. Sometimes, we notice faults in others because we have them within ourselves. The Torah, in the laws of loshon hora, recognizes this principle and tells us that before we speak against others, we must first correct ourselves.

In the previous segment, we learned that it is forbidden for a person to expose someone’s faults if he himself is guilty of the same. In this segment, we learn that it is forbidden to expose a sin, even for a constructive purpose, to people who often commit the same sin and do not see anything wrong with it. The reason for this is obvious. Their sympathy will most likely rest with the wrongdoer, and in fact, they may report what was said to the subject of the criticism and thereby be guilty of rechilus (gossipmongering). This could lead to a full-scale feud and even to one Jew informing on another, if the people are of low morals.

The Chofetz Chaim also focuses on a situation where someone rushes to the aid of a close relative. For example: Your brother tells you that someone wronged him in business and he wants your help in getting back his money. The fact that he is your brother does not change the laws of shmiras haloshon. If the seven requirements of toeles (constructive speech) have been fulfilled, then you can speak on behalf of anyone. If the seven requirements are not fulfilled, then even if your father asks you to enter the fray, you are forbidden to get involved.

And this, the Chofetz Chaim says, is where many people stumble. If they hear that a family member is involved in a dispute, they rush to his defense without verifying the truth of the claims or the situation. They immediately “declare war,” thinking that this is a mitzvah.

In giving us these guidelines, the Chofetz Chaim identifies the origin of many disputes:

1. Someone takes a side in an argument without questioning it, usually out of loyalty to a close friend or family member.
2. His anger is fueled by indignation that the friend or family member was wronged.
3. He fails to fulfill the conditions of loshon hora l’toeles.

Following the laws of toeles faithfully will eliminate unnecessary disputes and the baseless hatred which is their natural byproduct.

Earlier in this volume, we referred to 7 conditions which must be fulfilled before one is permitted to relate loshon hora l’toeles, for a constructive purpose. These are:
1. One must be absolutely certain that the information is accurate. Either one had to have witnessed the incident himself, or he investigated the report and found it to be accurate. If one has second-hand negative information which he wishes to relate for a constructive purpose, he must make it clear that his words are based on hearsay.

2. One must think the matter through and be sure that a wrong has actually been committed. Sometimes, what one may think is a misdeed may in fact be permitted by halachah. One must be certain that his information and his interpretation of the information are correct before the information can be related.

3. One must first approach the wrongdoer and attempt to persuade him to rectify his behavior. For example: A storekeeper was seen cheating a customer. The first step would be to speak to the storekeeper and try to persuade him to return the money. Only after this fails should one consider informing the customer that he was cheated.

4. One is not permitted to exaggerate in any way. This can be especially difficult in a situation where one is relating information regarding an emotional issue.

5. One’s intention must be solely to help the person who is being victimized. If one harbors any ill will toward the subject of the report, then he is not permitted to relate it for a constructive reason. (Of course, one should make every effort to rid oneself of such ill will.) For example, for a storekeeper to tell a potential customer about his competitor’s wrongdoing would have the likely effect of drawing this customer into his own store. In that case, the discussion would be forbidden. In a case where one has constructive negative information to relate but feels that he has a personal interest in the matter, it would be advisable for him to consult a rav (rabbi).

6. If one can effect the same result without speaking loshon hora, then he must use that option. If one wants to warn a friend not to shop in a certain store because of the proprietor’s dishonesty, and there is a way to convince him to shop elsewhere without speaking badly of the proprietor, then that option must be used.

7. One is not allowed to convey the information if this will result in the subject suffering a greater loss than the halachah allows.

We have learned that a person is required to exercise his influence on members of his household so that they will avoid the sin of loshon hora. In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim explains why it is especially important to train children to guard their tongues.

He quotes the Vilna Gaon, who says that proper speech and good character are acquired through practice — lots of practice. If a child is trained to avoid speaking negatively of others, then he will carry this training into adulthood. He will have the necessary control to choose his words carefully.

The Chofetz Chaim maintains that the reason why loshon hora was so widespread in his generation is that people had been accustomed from their youth to speaking whatever they pleased, without anyone ever telling them that there exists a concept called shmiras haloshon. Thus, people did not even consider the possibility that their words involved any sort of transgression.

The situation, says the Chofetz Chaim, would be different if children were trained from their early youth to watch their words. If children were taught to consider the impact of their words before they speak, they would have the “basic training” they need to avoid loshon hora, ona’as devarim (hurtful words), and other forbidden speech. And shmiras haloshon would be considered as integral to Jewish life as kashrus and tefillin.

The Chofetz Chaim provides us with all the motivation we need to educate our children in this way. He assures us that our efforts to help our children observe shmiras haloshon will make it easy for them to “safeguard themselves with regard to this sacred quality.” And he assures us that through this, they will merit a beautiful portion in the World to Come and all the blessings of life in this world as well.

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim cites another example of praise which should be avoided. That is when someone publicizes the fact that a person has done an outstanding act of kindness on his behalf, or has presented him with a generous donation or loan. For example, a person announces, “Mr. Rosen welcomed me into his home and treated me like a king!” or, “Mr. Rosen lent me $10,000 just when I needed it desperately!” The result may be a great disservice to Mr. Rosen because he may become swamped with requests, from honest people and from other types, who want to benefit from his generosity.

The Chofetz Chaim also informs us that it is forbidden to live among people who habitually speak loshon hora. He adds that it is certainly forbidden to sit among such people, even if one does not intend to listen to their conversations. He goes so far as to advise Torah teachers that if one of their students is a baal loshon hora, someone who habitually speaks loshon hora, and the teacher feels that he cannot influence this student to change, then he is required to cease teaching that student. (The Chofetz Chaim bases this law on an incident in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 31b) where the student was an adult.)

If by chance one finds himself in the company of baalei loshon hora, he is required to rebuke them for speaking loshon hora and ask them to stop. However, one should first give some thought to whom he is rebuking; if they are likely to respond by increasing their loshon hora, then rebuke should not be given.

If it appears that rebuke might fail to stop the loshon hora but it will not cause it to increase, then one is required to rebuke.

Rebuking is not easy. Often, it seems like an embarrassing, self-righteous thing to do. But the Chofetz Chaim says that we must do it when required, because otherwise we become accomplices in the crime. The Chofetz Chaim offers us an option in cases where rebuke seems doomed to failure—we should change the topic. In many cases that is much easier than one would think. And it accomplishes the goal of moving the person or group away from loshon hora.

Another option is to strongly defend the person being maligned. If one takes control of the conversation and points out that the speaker cannot possibly know the whole story, that his comments are based on hearsay, then even without direct rebuke, one will make his point and raise a reasonable doubt in the listeners’ minds.

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim begins addressing the subject of avak loshon hora (lit. the dust of loshon hora), statements which are not actual loshon hora but which are nonetheless forbidden.

The mere concept of avak loshon hora underscores the severity of loshon hora. This sin is so dangerous that an entire chapter of Sefer Chofetz Chaim is devoted to statements which are forbidden because they hint at loshon hora or because they can lead to loshon hora.

A particle of dust is so miniscule that one has to look very carefully to see it at all. It is often the same with avak loshon hora. One may be dealing with words which seem quite innocuous. In the Chofetz Chaim’s first example, someone comments about a certain person, “It’s amazing how far he’s come.” On the surface, it appears that the speaker has not spoken derogatorily about his subject, nor caused him any harm. But if we probe a bit further, we can expand the statement to mean, “It’s amazing how far he’s come, considering the fact that he has an unsavory past,” or “… considering the fact that he’s not that bright.” In all probability, the speaker’s intention was entirely complimentary. Nevertheless, people may lose respect for the person, no matter what his current status, if they find out that he had a troubled past or if they perceive him as lacking in intelligence.

Perhaps the most famous case of avak loshon hora is when the statement is pure praise of an individual. On the surface, this would seem to pose no problem. What could be wrong with praising someone? To understand the problem we need to examine the dynamics of a conversation. In conversation, each person builds on what the other person has just said. The halachah identifies certain conversations as being likely to lead toloshon hora and declares them forbidden.

In certain situations, praising an individual can lead listeners to focus on the flaws of the person being praised. One is not allowed to praise someone in front of his enemies. The temptation is overwhelming to rebut praise of one’s enemy with criticism.

We should never praise someone excessively, even to his friends. When the spotlight is directed onto someone and his praises are sung, it is quite possible that someone will say, “Yes, he has many fine qualities — except for the fact that…”

We have been discussing praising someone in front of one person or a few people. One should not praise someone in public, says the Chofetz Chaim. This is because the law of averages dictates that there will be at least one person who either is jealous of the person or has something against him—in which case the praise is sure to set off a negative reaction. The only situation where public praise is allowed is when the subject is renowned as a learned, righteous person. In such a case it is reasonable to assume that even if he has critics, they will be reluctant to speak out publicly against him, because by doing so they would lose their own credibility.

Yet in Be’er Mayim Chaim the Chofetz Chaim says that we should avoid sitting amongpeople who are discussing a renowned Torah personality, because there are some people who simply cannot resist offering criticism no matter who the subject is. As we discussed, negative talk about such an individual is a most serious sin, as is listening to and accepting it.

Our sages teach that all Jews are responsible for one another (Shevuos 39b). That responsibility has an impact on the laws of shmiras haloshon as well. The Chofetz Chaim teaches us that to the extent that we can influence others to observe these all-important laws, we are responsible to do so.

He uses the example of a man who stands at the head of his household. His responsibility in the area of shmiras haloshon extends to his wife and children. Certainly a mother, too, must actively educate and correct her family members regarding shmiras haloshon. The Chofetz Chaim cites a Talmudic teaching that one who has the ability to chastise the members of his household, but refrains from doing so, will be held responsible for their deeds (Shabbos 54b). A parent’s responsibility is awesome.

Let no one think, however, that this is the charge of parents alone. Every Jew must seek to eradicate the sin of loshon hora from his surroundings. The Chofetz Chaim states that children should not allow loshon hora spoken by their parents to go unnoticed. Of course, parents must be addressed with sensitivity and great respect. Often, a rav (rabbi) should be consulted regarding the proper approach to use. The Chofetz Chaim stresses that children who choose to turn a blind eye to their parents’ loshon hora will be held responsible, as will their parents.

There is one overriding rule to bear in mind whenever rebuke is in order. Speak gently, says the Chofetz Chaim. To turn our homes into battlefields will only be counterproductive. Gentle reproof is the only formula for achieving positive results.

The Chofetz Chaim has one final piece of advice. As the saying goes, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” Children learn most from observing their parents’ behavior. It is crucial that parents set a good example by avoiding all forms of forbidden speech in conversation. Then, their children will see shmiras haloshon as a way of life.

Our children’s Torah education is our national treasure. Parents make great personal sacrifices to pay for Torah education, driven by the yearning that their children should grow to be Jews who are devoted to Hashem and His Torah. To a great extent, the education of our children takes place within the confines of our homes. If we live according to the Torah’s teachings in all areas of life, then we can expect that our children will follow in our footsteps, in their relationship with Hashem and with their fellow man.

At one time or another, we hear derogatory remarks about Jews. It is tragic enough when such remarks are made by Jews to Jewish listeners. Even more tragic is when they are told by Jews to co-workers or business associates who are not Jewish. The subject of these remarks might be an individual Jew, a specific group of Jews, or Jews in general.

The Chofetz Chaim declares that to speak loshon hora about a Jew when the listener is a gentile is a much greater sin than when the listener is a Jew. One who is guilty of this sin “ disgraces the honor of Israel and desecrates the Name of Heaven.”

There is yet another reason for the particular severity of this sin. When one speaks loshon hora to a fellow Jew, there is a possibility that the listener will not be quick to accept the report as fact—especially if he is someone familiar with the laws of loshon hora. Gentiles, on the other hand, certainly do not have a predisposition towards judging Jews favorably. Upon hearing the derogatory report, the gentile will be quick to believe it and pass the information on to others.

When a Jew denigrates other Jews in the presence of gentiles, he is, in essence, contradicting the purpose of his own existence. Our mission in this world as a people is to spread the honor of Hashem by serving as His representatives before the rest of the world. We say in Shema each day: “V’Ahavta es Hashem Elokecha” And you shall love Hashem, your God (Devarim 6:4). Our Sages teach (Yoma 86a) that we demonstrate our love of Hashem by making His Name beloved in the eyes of others. When a Jew studies Torah, speaks pleasantly to people and deals honestly in business, then people say, “ Praiseworthy is the father who taught him Torah; praiseworthy is the teacher who taught him Torah. See how beautiful and correct are his ways and deeds.”

Thus the damage caused by relating loshon hora to gentiles goes far beyond loshon hora, which is devastating in itself. Instead of using his abilities to increase Hashem’s honor, the speaker has been guilty of chillul Hashem (desecration of Hashem’s Name).

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim discusses several well-known misconceptions concerning loshon hora. To the person who says, “It is not loshon hora because it will never get back to the subject,” the Chofetz Chaim responds: It is forbidden anyway. Even if in reality the report will never get back to the person about whom you are speaking, it is nonetheless loshon hora in the full sense.

The second misconception is one of the primary excuses for speaking loshon hora: “This isn’t loshon hora; if he were here, I would say the exact same thing right to his face.” Unfortunately for the speaker, according to halachah, this excuse is entirely unacceptable. By making such statements in the subject’s presence, the speaker would transgress the additional sin of causing hurt through words (ona’as devarim) and possibly the grievous sin of embarrassment as well.

The Chofetz Chaim writes, however, that there are a few cases of statements where the subject’s reaction is taken into account.

“Miriam’s going to be late for our meeting,” a woman tells her co-worker. The statement seems to do nothing more than convey a simple fact. No judgments have been spoken as to whether or not it is bad that she is late.

The Chofetz Chaim says that whether or not such a statement is permissible would depend on how the subject would react if it was said in her presence. Here, we take into account the manner in which the statement was given over; i.e., the tone of voice, body motions, etc.

If the statement is said derisively, it is obviously forbidden. An example of this would be if the woman speaks in an anger-tinged tone that is filled with frustration: “Miriam’s going to be late for our meeting!” and then rolls her eyes upward, to complete the message of displeasure.

The ultimate loshon hora barometer is one simple criterion: If the statement comes across as derogatory, then the Torah demands restraint.

The Chofetz Chaim now turns his focus in a different direction —to whom am I forbidden to relate loshon hora? He answers, “ There is no difference regarding this prohibition, whether the listener is one’s relative or someone distant, or even one’s own wife — unless it is something of which he must inform her for a constructive purpose.”

The Chofetz Chaim focuses on a very typical situation. A husband comes home and his wife asks, “ How was your day?” or, “ What’s new in shul (synagogue)?” The Chofetz Chaim cautions us strongly against using such questions as a forum for telling one’s wife of any arguments or other unpleasant encounters which he had during the course of the day. Not only is this loshon hora, but it does further damage, since the wife, out of loyalty to her husband, is likely to harbor animosity towards the person whom the husband feels has wronged him. This may lead to her finding the opportunity to castigate the man or his family members, so that a situation which could have been resolved will instead become a full-scale feud between families.

The Chofetz Chaim adds a bit of marital advice. He says that if a husband habitually complains to his wife about the slights and indignities which he perceives have been heaped upon him, then he actually lowers himself in her eyes. She begins to believe that others do not respect him, and that perhaps he is not really worthy of respect. The Chofetz Chaim quotes Avos D’Rabbi Nassan (7:3) which explains the words of the Mishnah, “ Do not speak excessively with a woman,” as making exactly this point; excessive complaining to his wife lowers a man’s esteem in her eyes.

The Chofetz Chaim points out that there are clearly cases of toeles (constructive purpose) where spouses are allowed to, and ought to, share information. This applies to business partnerships, as well. Certainly one partner can warn the other about problems with a potential vendor or customer. However, one must be careful to release only that negative information which is absolutely essential.

If it is possible to solve the problem without saying anything negative, then that is the strategy required. For example, your wife says, “ Mrs. Klein invited us to dinner next week.” But you have reason to believe that the kashrus level in the Klein’s house does not meet your standards. To avoid speaking loshon hora you should think of some benign reason for declining the invitation. If your wife finds your excuse unreasonable and is upset, then you may tell her your real reason.

In truth, there are many ways to protect a spouse, business associate or oneself from harmful people or situations without resorting to loshon hora. Although it might take a little effort or ingenuity, our Sages assure us that the dividends will surely be well worth our while.

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim discusses the issue of loshon hora as it relates to machlokes (dispute). Specifically, he deals with how and when to speak up regarding a controversy with the intention of quelling the dispute and making peace.

The danger of becoming involved in any dispute is that it is often difficult to know which side is right. What one side sees as a valid complaint, the other may see as nonsense. As the saying goes, “There are two sides to every story.”

How, then, does one handle this kind of situation? The Chofetz Chaim cautions us, “Ponder the matter carefully, in accordance with the laws of the Torah and [only then] decide which side is the baal machlokes (instigator of strife).” Apparently, the Chofetz Chaim is telling us to consult someone whois learned and, with his guidance, sift slowly and carefully through the information to determine if one of the disputants can be classified as a baal machlokes.

This is not an easy task. The Chofetz Chaim says that if, after examining the situation carefully, we cannot determine which side is guilty, then we should refrain from becoming involved.

If, on the other hand, we have determined that one of the parties is a baal machlokes, then the Torah allows us to publicly voice our condemnation of this person as a means of convincing him to end the dispute. We are speaking specifically in a case where the baal machlokes will most likely back away from the battle when he realizes that public opinion is against him. On the other hand, if this person is impervious to public opinion, then there is no constructive purpose in publicly declaring him a baal machlokes, and doing so would constitute speaking loshon hora.

The Chofetz Chaim lists three additional prerequisites before one speaks against a baal machlokes:

1. One must have accurate firsthand information regarding the dispute.

2. One’s intention must be strictly for a constructive purpose and not because he happens to dislike this person. If a previous animosity exists, one is not allowed to become involved. This point will be clarified later in this volume (see Day 83).

3. Obviously, if one can speak privately to the baal machlokes and convince him to desist, then that is the path which one is required to take. However, the Chofetz Chaim recognizes that in the case of the baal machlokes, rebuke may be a double-edged sword. By rebuking him in private one may lose his status as an impartial party and become aligned in the instigator’s mind with his enemies. The instigator may then move quickly to thwart any attempts to rebuke him publicly. If this scenario seems to be a real possibility, then one should not attempt to rebuke the baal machlokes in private.

This segment begins with the Chofetz Chaim informing us of how terrible it is to speak loshon hora about a talmid chacham (Torah scholar).

Obviously, we are obligated to honor Torah scholars, and speaking loshon hora is certainly not according them honor. But there is something even more serious at stake. When one speaks loshon hora about a talmid chacham, the underlying message is that the scholar’s flaw disqualifies him from rendering a sound opinion. The speaker of loshon hora is actually saying, “We don’t have to listen to him.” The influence of his wicked words may cause others to say to themselves: “Why should we seek the opinion of this rav? He’s not great enough to come up with the right answer. We might as well just figure things out for ourselves.”

The Chofetz Chaim gives us a helpful insight into the strategy which the yetzer hara uses to entice someone into speaking against a talmid chacham. “It’s true,” says the yetzer hara, “that you should not shame a talmid chacham, but that’s not a problem nowadays. Only in earlier generations, when a Torah scholar was on an exceedingly high level, was shaming a Torah scholar a serious sin. But nowadays, when scholars know so much less, it’s no longer an issue.”

The Chofetz Chaim informs us that this is patently false; the criteria by which we judge whether someone is to be considered a talmid chacham are based on the level of the generation. Anyone who has attained the status of rav (rabbi), dayan (judge), or posek (one who renders halachic rulings) is certainly in the category of a talmid chacham, and speaking loshon hora of him is a very serious sin.

Of course, we are forbidden to speak loshon hora even about an am ha’aretz, someone devoid of Torah knowledge. It is only regarding an apikoros (heretic) that we are permitted to speak loshon hora. This will be discussed in the next segment.

The laws of shmiras haloshon underscore the profound impact which our words have on our relationships with family, neighbors and friends, and the respect which our rabbis and Torah teachers should enjoy within the community. This realization should inspire us to conduct all our dealings and conversations with the care and concern which the Torah requires of us. If we accomplish this, we will serve as a catalyst for elevating our society, and as the “light unto the nations” which Hashem has chosen us to be.

The Chofetz Chaim writes that it is permitted, and at times even a mitzvah, to speak loshon hora about an apikoros. The Chofetz Chaim defines apikoros as someone “who denies the Torah or the prophecies of Israel, either the written Torah or the Oral Torah, even if he says that he believes in the entire Torah except for one verse or one law which is derived from the Torah through the principles transmitted at Sinai.”

In our day, it is difficult to relate to this halachah. This is because the typical non-observant Jew today is a far different personality from the nonobservant Jew of Europe a century or two ago. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when the vast majority of Jews were observant of every point of halachah. The winds of change, which were first felt in Germany some two centuries ago, led to the so-called “Enlightenment,” from which later developed Reform Judaism, Jewish Socialism and Communism, and other movements which sought to uproot authentic observance of Judaism. It was in this heretical climate that many, including young men and women who had been raised in observant homes, were swept up by the awful momentum of the time and abandoned the ways of their forebears.

It is a mitzvah to speak derogatorily of an apikoros to publicize his wickedness so that the innocent will know to keep their distance from him and not fall prey to his influence. However, as we have mentioned previously, the average non-observant Jew in our day has the status of a tinok shenishbah (a child who was captured by gentiles) and it is forbidden to speak loshon hora about him.

The Chofetz Chaim stresses that we cannot assume that someone is an apikoros based on hearsay. We can consider someone an apikoros if we personally heard him make heretical statements, or if there are consistent reports throughout the community that the person’s statements and behavior place him in this category.

In concluding this segment, the Chofetz Chaim expresses his concern that baalei loshon hora (habitual gossipers) will use this halachah to label innocent people as “heretics,” thereby claming that blatant loshon hora is a mitzvah! These sinners may feel justified in spreading negative information about anyone whom they please and claim that this was sanctioned by the Chofetz Chaim himself!

Nevertheless, the Chofetz Chaim chose to put these laws into print, citing the verse “For the ways of Hashem are straight; the righteous walk in them and sinners will stumble over them” (Hoshea 14:10). The Torah is the Torah of truth, and when it is followed faithfully, it guides a person’s life along the path of truth. But when a person bends the Torah to fit his own will, then the Torah’s power to guide the person is lost, and he is driven strictly by his own desires.

It is forbidden to speak derogatorily about children.* While adults understand that “kids are kids” and their negative behavior is often excused as normal immaturity, if the information casts this particular child in a bad light it should not be spoken or listened to. The Chofetz Chaim stresses that it is also forbidden to mention something about a child which is not derogatory but is harmful. The example offered is where someone mentions something negative about a child in the presence of his foster parents. While the information is not derogatory and may describe behavior common to children, it may make the foster parents unwilling to care for this child. The Chofetz Chaim notes that sometimes children can be punished excessively by their natural parents because of information about their behavior which angered the parent. Therefore, one should exercise caution before relating any such information.

From their end, parents and teachers should be careful not to discipline children based on negative reports without following the basic rule for acceptance of loshon hora: the parent or teacher must first investigate the report and determine that it is accurate. Only then can he or she take action.

Rabbi Avraham Pam z”l, used to tell the story of a young child who was punished when an item was found in his knapsack which a fellow classmate had been missing. The apparent culprit insisted that he had not stolen the item and that he had no idea how it had gotten into his knapsack. The teacher refused to believe him and punished him by having him wear a sign which read, “I am a thief.” A long time passed before another boy came along and admitted that he had stolen the item. He had wanted to return it but was too ashamed to admit his guilt, so he stuffed the item into another boy’s knapsack.

An innocent child was humiliated publicly because his teacher immediately accepted the evidence and ignored the child’s protests. If this could happen in a case where the evidence seemed so convincing, how careful must we be not to take action based on reports without first investigating the matter.

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 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).

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 Hanikarimmamash, definite recognizable signs, can be used as proof regarding loshon hora (see Shabbos 56a with Rashi and Maharsha).

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim begins discussing three situations where seemingly there is reason to allow the listener to acceptloshon 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 confirmedrasha (wicked person), meaning that he openly and consistently transgresses Torah prohibitions, then one is allowed to accept loshonhora 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 chezkaskashrus, 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 seeinghalachah 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.

1. 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 loshonhora.

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 inthe mitzvah of judging people favorably. If youheard that the subject caused hurt to your friend,tell yourself, “I’m sure it didn’t happen exactly as itwas reported.” Or, “Perhaps he is going throughsome personal difficulties. Who knows what I would do in thesame situation?” Keep your mind focused like a laser beam onthese favorable interpretations and review them again and again.If you flood your thoughts with favorable judgments, you will beamazed to find a gradual change in your thinking take place, asanger gives way to love for your fellow Jew.

We have been learning about kaballas loshon hora, the prohibition against believingloshon hora which is related in one’s presence. The Chofetz Chaim states that this prohibition appliesnot only to a report of current improper behavior,but to any information which we are forbiddento repeat. For example, if we were to hear that thefather of a respected community member hada controversial past, we would not be permittedto believe it. We are also forbidden to believe anegative assessment of someone’s intelligence orphysical 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 maynot 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 trainourselves to believe that in all probability the informationis false. Nevertheless, we “buckle up forsafety,” 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 mitzvahto 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 thepsakdin (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 hismistake by quickly finding a merit for the personwho is being maligned and authoritatively telling it to the speaker. In this way, the listener may succeedin convincing the speaker that he is guilty of misjudgment and that he has no reason to feel illwill 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 interactionof two people — the speaker and the listener.Until now, the Chofetz Chaim has been dealingwith the speaker’s role. In this section, he puts thelistener under halachic examination, and states:It is forbidden to believe loshon hora. One whodoes 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 forspeaking 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 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 derogatoryand 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 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 loshonhora?” 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.

One of the greatest gifts Hashem has given the Jewish People is the ability to cleanse ourselves of our sins through teshuvah (repentance). This gift is especially precious when one has been guilty of speaking loshon hora.

We have learned that when we speak loshon hora, we cause untold damage to ourselves, to our listeners and to the subject(s) of our words. The Chofetz Chaim has chronicled in detail the many sins which can be transgressed through loshon hora. Yet regardless of how grievously we have sinned, Hashem extends to us the gift of teshuvah, enabling us to repair the damage, at least to some degree.

The Chofetz Chaim discusses the parameters of teshuvah as it applies to loshon hora. If one has spoken loshon hora but his listeners did not believe what was said, then the sin is one between man and Hashem. Teshuvah in such a case requires that the person regret his sin, confess it before Hashem, and accept upon himself never to repeat it.

If, on the other hand, the loshon hora was accepted as fact and it resulted in harm, then more is required. For example:

A person lost an opportunity for a promotion because someone provided unnecessary or inaccurate, negative information about him. This constitutes real damage, both monetary and emotional. In this case, the three-part teshuvah outlined above would not be sufficient. One would also have to approach the victim and ask forgiveness for having spoken against him and caused him harm.

Certainly, this is a very difficult thing to do, especially if the victim had been unaware that he was being considered for a promotion. Nevertheless, the Chofetz Chaim informs us that neither Yom Kippur, nor death itself, can erase a sin between man and his fellow man unless sincere forgiveness is sought and it is granted.

(The legendary founder of the Mussar Movement, Rav Yisrael Salanter, found difficulty with the above law. From a Mussar perspective, he suggested that if by telling a person that we spoke loshon hora about him, we will cause additional pain and distress, then perhaps it is better not to inform him).

The Chofetz Chaim sees this as one of the major pitfalls of speaking loshon hora. Often, people forget about whom they have spoken, or are unaware of the damage their words have caused. In such cases, warns the Chofetz Chaim, they will never have the opportunity to achieve complete teshuvah.

The Chofetz Chaim further cautions that we should be exceedingly careful not to malign entire families. This kind of loshon hora can create a bad reputation for the family which can last for generations and cause untold hardship.

The Chofetz Chaim once suggested the following for a person who wanted to repent for having spoken loshon hora, but could not remember about whom he had spoken: Such a person should become involved in spreading the teaching of shmiras haloshon. In this way, he will atone, to some degree, for the harm which his own words have caused.

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim focuses on the mitzvah to extend loans to a fellow Jew. As the Torah states:” … When youlend 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 there is 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 loshonhora involving a person’s faults bein adaml’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.

One of the beautiful aspects of shmiras haloshon is that it demonstrates how Torah is all encompassing. While the Torah prohibits most forms of negative speech, it provides for the release of necessary information without causing unnecessary damage.

In situations such as a prospective shidduch (marriage match), job possibility or business relationship, the Chofetz Chaim says it is perfectly correct to inquire about someone in order to prevent future harm or dispute.

As we study this topic, we will find 7 requirements that need to be fulfilled before we can request or supply information for a constructive purpose. The Chofetz Chaim offers two preliminary conditions. The first is that we must convey clearly the purpose of our inquiry before seeking information. If we do not tell the person that our inquiry is l’toeles, for a constructive purpose, then we place him in a situation where he will transgress the laws against loshon hora by providing the information. By not informing him of a constructive need for the information, we have caused him to sin by speaking loshon hora, and thus we transgress the commandment “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Vayikra 19:14).

The person who provides the information must do it solely for the constructive purpose of helping to protect us from future harm. He is not permitted to speak if his true purpose is to degrade the subject of the inquiry. If he does have this in mind, then he is guilty of speaking loshon hora.

The second condition which the Chofetz Chaim lists here is that the person providing the information must be exceedingly careful not to exaggerate. Unfortunately, human nature often causes people to exaggerate in order to sound convincing, and this can cause enormous damage.

The Chofetz Chaim alludes to a case where a person exaggerated someone’s negative points when asked for information concerning a shidduch. On that basis, the inquiring party chose not to pursue it any further. As in most cases of loshon hora, the speaker has committed a sin between man and Hashem and also between man and his fellow. He must engage in teshuvah (repentance) on both accounts, and must seek the forgiveness of the subject of his evil words.

As mentioned, there are five additional conditions that must be met which allow a person to release negative information for a constructive purpose. These will be discussed later.

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim reflects on the attitude of a certain type of individual, a sincerely observant person who acts as if he has either missed a very important piece of information, or he has forgotten that it exists. We are speaking of an observant Jew who frequently transgresses a specific commandment in the Torah. Though he displays this behavior on a regular basis, we are not allowed to relate this information to others because the person may not realize the severity of the transgression involved. As the Chofetz Chaim explains, there are, for example, observant Jews who have a permissive attitude towards certain bad character traits because they consider avoidance of such traits “recommended behavior” and fail to realize that many negative traits (such as the desire for revenge) are prohibited by the Torah. The Chofetz Chaim tells us not to consider these people reshaim (evil people); rather, they are good people who are in need of reproof.

The human mind is a complex machine. At times we may face a serious problem or issue, but our mind does not read it as such and accords it a lower priority than it deserves. This, says the Chofetz Chaim, is often the case with certain forms of negative behavior, where the person simply does not view the matter as a serious sin. But such a person can often be helped. If we approach him respectfully and graphically portray the seriousness of the matter, it is quite possible that he will accept our reproof and change for the better.

On the other hand, the Chofetz Chaim informs us that we should point out this person’s negative behavior to our children or students and caution them not to learn from his misguided ways. As we have already stated, this is not loshon hora because our intention is not to denigrate the person; we are merely concerned that others should not emulate his behavior. However, it is absolutely essential to explain to the children why this is not loshon hora. Otherwise, they may erroneously draw the conclusion that loshon hora can be spoken in other situations.

At times the Torah allows negative information to be related, but only under very specific conditions. Just as the Torah demands of us not to speak loshon hora unnecessarily, so too, does it demand that we not mislead those who need to know the information. They must know that loshon hora is forbidden and that only in this particular case is it permitted to relate negative information.

We can compare loshon hora to toxic waste and the laws of shmiras haloshon to a protective suit worn by people who must handle these wastes. When a responsible person knows that he must deal with dangerous substances he prepares himself properly so that the substance will not cause him — or others — any harm.

If one were to compile a list of Torah leaders of the past few centuries who most symbolized ahavas Yisrael (love of one’s fellow Jew), the Chofetz Chaim would surely be high on the list. From the Chofetz Chaim’s written works, as well as countless stories about him, it is abundantly clear that he loved every Jew of every shade and stripe.

Nevertheless, in this segment the Chofetz Chaim informs us that when a Jew reaches a certain level of wickedness, it is permissible to tell others of his misdeeds. We are speaking here of a Jew who was raised in a religious environment, but has cast off the yoke of Heaven, God forbid.

Whether the person shamelessly sins in public or refuses to obey the rulings of a beis din (rabbinical court), it is clear that his errant behavior is not a temporary lapse but a deliberate rejection of Torah.

The Chofetz Chaim says that you are allowed to repeat the wrongdoings of such a person whether or not he is present. The reasoning is simple: if we allow a rasha (evil person) to rise up unchecked in our midst and we do not take a stand against the rishus (evil), our silence is not counted as righteousness, but as foolishness for allowing a cancer to grow unhindered.

The Chofetz Chaim takes the uncompromising stand that if you see the rasha do something which you are not sure is wrong; you are supposed to judge him as if he definitely sinned.

It is important to note that we are not speaking here of a person who was deprived of a meaningful Jewish education and whose upbringing was devoid of religious observance. Rambam compares such a person to a tinok shenishbah, a kidnapped Jewish child, who sins out of ignorance. Surely it would be wrong to speak of such a person in a derogatory way.

In Be’er Mayim Chaim, the Chofetz Chaim explains that speaking against a defiant sinner is not loshon hora because the intent is not to denigrate, but to steer people away from this person and his behavior. Before speaking, one should be sure that his intentions are honorable; if someone hates this individual for personal reasons, then he should not be the one to publicize the person’s misdeeds.

In Tehillim (Psalms 122:7-9) we read: “May there be peace within your wall, serenity within your palaces. For the sake of my brethren and comrades I shall speak of peace in your midst. For the sake of the House of Hashem, our God, I will request good for you. “

The question has been asked: Why does King David pray for peace twice, and then conclude with a request for “good”? The answer is that while peace is the greatest of blessings, nevertheless, for the “sake of the House of Hashem,” we seek not peace but rather tov, what is good and correct. There are times when we must stand up for what is right and speak out against those whose behavior threatens our moral fabric. In this way, we will ensure that the “House of Hashem” remains intact and its Master, Whose essence is peace, will rest His Presence in our midst.

In the previous segment, the Chofetz Chaim stressed that when rebuking someone, one must be careful to speak gently and with respect. Here the Chofetz Chaim deals with a different situation. What if you are fairly certain that the person will not heed your rebuke? In this case, you are required to seek someone — for example, a rav, dayan (judge) or parent — to whom the subject will listen, and relate the information to that individual. Make sure, however, that the following three conditions are met:

1. The person to whom you are relating the information must be someone who knows you and who will believe your report.

2. You must give over the information in a sensitive manner.

3. The person to whom you are relating the information must be someone who will handle the matter as discreetly as possible.

Given these conditions, it would be advisable to seek advice from a Torah authority before involving someone else in the process of rebuke.

From these laws, we learn how sensitive the Torah is towards the feelings of all people –- including sinners. Here we are dealing with a person who has sinned intentionally and is not receptive to criticism. Nevertheless, the Torah goes to extreme lengths to protect his reputation, to the point where rebuke is prohibited if it cannot be done in a discreet manner.

The underlying message of these laws is: we Jews are responsible for one another; therefore we have to be concerned when another Jew sins. But at the same time, we have to be equally concerned with protecting that Jew’s feelings, dignity and good name.

We should draw a lesson from these laws to be extremely sensitive to the feelings of every Jew and to avoid tarnishing another Jew’s image through words of loshon hora. By treating each other with love and respect, we will fortify our interpersonal relationships in the way which the Torah desires.

As we have already discussed, there is a tendency to denigrate a fellow Jew whom we see transgressing, and thereby achieve a momentary “high.” On the other hand, the Torah has given us instructions on how to view a person we see transgress, so that we may judge him favorably and interpret his behavior in a more positive way. The Chofetz Chaim says: If the subject is an “average” person, which means he generally guards himself from sin but does transgress occasionally, then we should attribute his lapse to one of three things: Either he did it accidentally (such as in the case of a storekeeper who gives you the wrong change), or he did not know it is forbidden (such as in the case of a person who transgressed a Shabbos law), or he mistakenly thought that this particular mitzvah is a midas chasidus, an act of piety reserved for people who want to be especially stringent. This is what we should tell ourselves, even if we see the person transgress several times. We must judge him favorably and it is forbidden to feel animosity towards him because of what we have seen. The halachah is different, however, when we are certain that the person knows that a particular act is forbidden, and we see him transgress purposely and with specific intent— for example, he walked into McDonald’s and ate a hamburger. If we know that such an act is out of character for this person and he probably did it only this one time and it was not done publicly (in the presence of other observant Jews), then it is forbidden to reveal this information. The Torah requires us to consider the possibility that the person has already engaged in teshuvah (repentance) and we will embarrass him unnecessarily by speaking about the incident. However, we should approach the person privately and speak to him concerning his transgression. But the Chofetz Chaim cautions: make sure to speak gently and with respect. People are receptive to criticism only when they are treated with respect and shown genuine concern. Furthermore, the Torah cautions us not to rebuke in a hurtful or insulting way. We are commanded: “You shallsurely reprove your fellow and do not bear a sinbecause of him” (Vayikra 19:17). The latter half of this verse teaches us that it is a serious sin to embarrass someone in public even while offering well-intentioned reproof. All of the above concerns dealing with the average person. If the person we see transgressing is a talmid chacham (Torah scholar) then it would be a great sin to publicize his misdeed because he surely has repented.

It is a law of “loshon hora physics” that when one speaks loshon hora about the spiritual failings of someone else, that loshon hora is most intense and righteously indignant.

Unfortunately, to many people there is nothing more self-satisfying than identifying and disapproving of someone else’s deficiency; e.g., that someone does not help his parents or learn with his children, or does not do some mitzvah that the speaker happens to observe carefully.

The Chofetz Chaim informs us that it is loshon hora to say that a person has transgressed a positive or negative commandment, whether the mitzvah observance is one generally performed carefully, or one that is largely overlooked. Even if the criticism is only that the person does not do the mitzvah in the optimum manner — for example, he does not spend as much as he should on items for Shabbos — it is forbidden to relate it.

Obviously there are times when mention of someone’s laxity in mitzvah observance might be necessary. At times, one needs to warn a child to stay away from someone who is a bad influence. In such cases, it is worthwhile to ask a posek (halachic authority) how to relate the information in a way that is permitted by halachah and does not create unnecessary harm.

R’ Shamshon Raphael Hirsch once commented on the common urge to speak loshon hora about a fellow Jew’s laxity in mitzvah observance. He said that the soul’s natural tendency is to strive ever higher. If a person is actively involved in Torah and mitzvos, then he is growing spiritually and his soul is content. But if a person is lazy and his actions are not helping his soul to move upward, then he feels inner discontent. He seeks to satisfy this discontent by appearing to be growing spiritually. And how does he accomplish this? By making everyone around him appear smaller. His thinking goes something like this: “If my fellow Jew doesn’t give enough tzedakah (charity) or do some other mitzvah that I am careful to do, then by focusing on his deficiencies, I will feel as if I am higher.”

This type of loshon hora works much like a drug for the soul. When the person makes use of it, he feels righteous and holy. But as soon as its effect wears off, he realizes that he is no higher than before. If anything, he is lower.

The Torah does not want us to find fault with our fellow Jews’ mitzvah observance. When we denigrate Jews, we not only do something lowly, but we also lull ourselves into a false sense of complacency. Nothing good comes from fooling ourselves, from being content with a false sense of spiritual achievement. Hashem wants us to strive for holiness in our lives, to make spiritual gains which are real and meaningful. The way to do this is by viewing ourselves in an honest, critical way, while seeing others in a positive light.

Imagine if there existed a spiritual secret which would ensure that all your actions would be viewed in Heaven in a positive light. Heavenly angels would come to your defense and would work strenuously to find excuses for your sins. Amazingly, whatever excuse they would offer would gain favor in the Heavenly Court. Their defense would result in your acquittal in many instances and even when the verdict was “Guilty!” you would be dealt with mercifully.

Surely you would be anxious to hire a legal team and even pay millions of dollars to receive this sort of defense. In truth, anyone can obtain these celestial defense lawyers at no charge whatsoever.

It is really quite simple. If we judge our fellow man favorably, then in Heaven we are judged favorably. To the extent that we seek to find excuses for our fellow man’s behavior, the Heavenly angels will seek to find excuses for us. This is the primary benefit—but surely not the only one—of judging others favorably.

The positive commandment “With righteousness you shall judge your fellow “(Vayikra 19:15), requires one to judge favorably and see his actions in a positive light. If the circumstances can easily be judged favorably, one is absolutely required to do so. If circumstances lean toward a negative interpretation, nevertheless, says the Chofetz Chaim, it is quite correct to keep an open mind on the matter and not decide that the person is guilty. This is when the person is considered a beinoni (average) in his mitzvah observance. If he is known to be God-fearing, then one is required to judge him favorably even when circumstances lean towards guilt.

There is no question that judging unfavorably is the great engine that drives the “loshon hora machine.” Take the following example:

A person goes to a wedding and tells his friend, “The service was terrible. It really wasn’t worth the money.”

But perhaps the caterer is almost bankrupt and he had to manage three events on the same night just to keep his business afloat and feed his ten children. Awareness of this possibility would certainly impel you to ignore the fact that the roast beef was rather rare and was served a bit late.

The Torah requires us to make allowances for people who don’t live up to our expectations of them. By judging others favorably, says the Chofetz Chaim, we will guarantee ourselves great reward in the World to Come, and our lives in this world will be free of strife and low in anger as we become kinder, more understanding individuals.

One of the basic premises of the prohibition against loshon hora is that loshon hora causes damage. Jobs are lost, prospective shidduchim (marriage matches) are rejected, shalom bayis (harmony within the home) is shattered and friendships are dissolved. But causing damage is far from the only reason that loshon hora is forbidden.

The Chofetz Chaim teaches us that loshon hora which does not cause the slightest bit of damage is still considered 100 percent loshon hora. To focus on the shortcomings of another person is lowly, even when no harm results from it.

In reality, it is almost impossible for us to know for certain that the words we speak never cause damage. Words have a life of their own; once they are released into the world they can travel far and wide, and no one can be sure where they will end up. Many stories are told of information that became known years after the words were originally spoken, and which caused great damage.

Let us consider a piece of fairly harmless information which was discussed at a Shabbos table. David, a friend of one of the children at the table, missed a month of school for unknown reasons. In their curiosity, all six people gathered around the table suggested possible reasons for his absence. In years to come, these six people will find themselves at various other tables, in meetings and involved in random conversations. In some of these situations, David’s family name or David himself might come up in conversation. At one of these conversations, one of these six people might mention the information concerning David’s absence in the most innocuous way. He might add the possible reasons for his absence that he recalls hearing at the Shabbos table years earlier.

As the information is passed from person to person, more theories about why he was absent are spoken about as if they were fact. When David is ready to consider marriage, he finds himself hindered by various “reports” concerning his month-long absence in fifth grade. In fact, the “reports” hold no substance, but they are enough to convince many fathers that their daughters would be better off marrying someone with a “clean” medical history. Yes, words are very, very powerful.

The crucial point about humor is that its enjoyment is dependent upon which side of the joke you are on.

Think back to the last time a group of people laughed at you for some reason, telling you in all sincerity, “It was just a joke!” They may have laughed because you did something foolish, or because your boss jokingly said, “If you don’t get that report in by tomorrow, I guess you are going to be taking a long vacation.” Initially, you may have laughed along so as not to seem like a bad sport. Somehow, though, when you are on the receiving end, the remark is not at all amusing. And sometimes, you may get the feeling that the joke contains at least a kernel of truth.

It is this point that the Chofetz Chaim addresses. To the person who, after speaking loshon hora, says, “I’m joking; come on, I didn’t mean it!” the Chofetz Chaim says, “It is not a joke!” The person’s feelings are hurt. His esteem has been lowered. Words have power even when they are presented as a “joke.” Therefore, if a joke is derogatory in any way, it is forbidden.

In this segment the Chofetz Chaim focuses, once again, on the effect of our words. If one recounts a story and does not mention names, but through other details the listener may come to identify the subject of the story, it is considered loshon hora. Even if the story contains no negative information, but will eventually cause the subject to appear in a bad light, it is still forbidden. Delayed-reaction destruction is also destruction.

As we study the laws of shmiras haloshon in all their detail, we see again and again that Hashem has great displeasure when His children are portrayed in a negative light. Through these laws Hashem is telling us: “All of you are My children; please treat each other with respect and sensitivity.”

If one were to conduct an exit poll at the conclusion of a lecture, he might possibly hear dozens of varying opinions on how well the lecturer spoke. While many of the opinions might be positive, there is a likely chance that at least some would be negative. Criticisms might range from “He doesn’t delve into the subject matter enough,” to “It was so deep, I got lost.”

The Chofetz Chaim teaches us that when leaving a lecture, especially a Torah lecture, there is something we need to realize. Each person judges from his own vantage point. To people who are very knowledgeable, the lecture may not have been deep enough, while to those who lack that depth of knowledge, the lecture might have been too complex. Opinions in such matters are usually subjective. For every complainant about a lecture, there are many people who want exactly that type of delivery. The fact that someone did not enjoy it does not mean that it was not good: it means that the lecture did not suit his particular taste.

The Chofetz Chaim goes to great lengths to emphasize this because many people have the habit of criticizing lectures, unwittingly causing much damage to the lecturer’s reputation.

The halachah identifies a particular nature of the human psyche. We can express it as follows: If I have listened to a lecture and my friend denigrates it, then even if I enjoyed it, I will subsequently think less of the lecture and by extension, the speaker as well. Although at first dissatisfaction with the lecture was only my friend’s feeling, after he shares it with me, it will influence my opinion as well.

That people are entitled to their opinion is a principle held with near-religious fervor in any democracy. The Chofetz Chaim is not telling us that we should not have our own opinions or that we must enjoy every lecture we hear. What he is saying is that we are not allowed to verbalize our negative opinions without a constructive purpose.

Any salesman can tell you from experience that people are very uncomfortable saying “no.” They will come up with all types of ingenious excuses in order to avoid a flat refusal because they associate some sort of guilt with an outright negative response. If this is true when rejecting a product, it is surely the case when rejecting someone’s candidacy for a position.

The Chofetz Chaim cautions us that when this tendency is manifest after committee meetings, where the fate of an employee, teacher, or new vendor has been decided, the results can be destructive.

When the committee meeting results in a rejection of a potential employee and certainly of an existing employee, the natural human reaction of each member is to shift the blame and avoid taking any responsibility for the rejection. One short sentence accomplishes this:

“I really wanted you, but what could I do? I was outvoted!”

Such a statement is a most dangerous form of loshon hora. Because such meetings may very well decide a person’s future, blaming someone for the decision may, quite possibly, plant the seeds of strife.

Another case in point is when a committee has to judge a dispute, as in a salary disagreement or a din Torah. The desire to avoid being blamed for a negative decision might prompt one to say: “Actually, I wanted to go easy on you, but Mr. Cohen controlled the meeting and he pushed it through.” Or without mentioning names one might say, “Well, I voted for you.” Such statements are forbidden.

It makes no difference, says the Chofetz Chaim, whether the meeting was “closed” or “open”; it is forbidden to disclose information concerning the voting. Even if the person who was rejected were to insult you, and even if you actually voted for him, it is forbidden to reveal anything. Even if the person pressures you intensely, merely to find out who voted in his favor, it is forbidden to reveal anything, because he will learn who voted against him by deduction.

The laws of loshon hora are Hashem’s blueprint for human interaction. By following them faithfully, one will remove the potential for strife, hatred and anger in his or her life. A committee meeting to decide the future of a person’s employment is an atmosphere charged with tension and ripe for strife. Sometimes hurtful decisions need to be made, but if the committee takes a unified stand so that no one is blamed for the decision, then the fallout of these meetings will be kept to a minimum.

If you have ever been present while a group of people discuss someone in depth, you have probably observed the great human impulse toward amateur psychoanalysis. Such discussions usually include not only the subject’s faults and problems, but also an extended analysis of his parents and friends and how they impacted on his personality. When the group is intent on guaranteeing that their “armchair analysis” is complete, they make sure to carefully analyze every member of the subject’s immediate family.

To spare every Jew the “benefit” of such unsolicited analysis, the Torah forbids us to discuss past faults or transgressions of a person or his family.

Generally, there are two variations of this kind of loshon hora. One is clearly derogatory:

“Did you know her mother? I knew her mother. If you knew her mother then you would understand everything about her!”

The other example is what’s commonly called “a backhanded compliment:”

“Look how far she’s come in straightening out her life!”

Even if the person’s less-than-admirable past is widely known, it is forbidden to allude to it if it is degrading to the person. Emphasizing that the person has come “a long way” in his mitzvah observance does not make this permissible, nor does the fact that your intention is to compliment him.

In forthcoming segments, we will discuss what to do when shidduch (suggested marriage match) information is needed. Generally speaking, however, negative information about parents or family should not be reported unless it could have a direct bearing on the party’s marriage (such as health or emotional stability).

The Torah judges statements concerning one’s past according to the impact they will have upon the listener. In the above cases, past information will cause people to lower their opinion of the subject. Often, this is all that is needed to tip the balance against a prospective shidduch or job application. In the Torah’s view, this would be unfortunate and unnecessary. Just as Hashem judges each of us according to our present level, and He does not hold us accountable for our ancestors’ or our own past misdeeds (assuming we have repented), so too, are we expected to evaluate our fellow Jew according to his present level.

Consider the following case:

Someone speaks loshon hora before a crowd of ten people, one of them being yourself. Later, you overhear two of the listeners relating the information. Following the rule of “api tlasa” (which we discussed earlier), it would seem that you should certainly be allowed to mention this information in everyday conversation.

Not necessarily, says the Chofetz Chaim.

If the speaker specifically told his listeners that he does not want the information to go any further, then no one is permitted to repeat it. This applies even if two or more of the listeners have already ignored the instruction.

While the Chofetz Chaim is discussing a case involving loshon hora, it is important to note that any information revealed in confidence should not be repeated.

The reason for this is obvious. Revealing a secret can have the same negative effects as common loshon hora. If a person tells you, “I have a great business idea,” and you pass this information on to others, someone may come along and make use of the idea. So harmful are such leaks that large corporations spend heavily on security to protect their private information.

Another potential fallout of divulging secrets is the risk of creating bad feelings. For example:

Your sister informs you confidentially that she is planning to buy a house. A few days later, you casually mention this to your brother. What you did not anticipate is that your brother feels insulted because your sister did not tell him this piece of news. Just as with rechilus (gossip), information which is related in confidence can cause animosity when passed on to another party.

Generally speaking, when someone is told personal information, he should not repeat it even if the speaker did not mention that it is confidential. This is the only sure way to avoid potential damage. What is seemingly a harmless piece of information may be explosive when repeated to someone else. For example:

If your sister were to tell you that she purchased an expensive painting, this would seem to be a harmless piece of information. However, when such information is repeated to your sister’s close friend, it might have a very negative effect, because your sister has recently refused her friend a loan on the grounds that she has no money to spare.

However, personal information may be repeated when it was said in front of three people (and the speaker did not request that it be held in confidence). By speaking in the presence of three, the speaker has shown that he does not mind if the information goes further.

From these laws we learn that seemingly innocuous statements have the power to cause tremendous harm. Through shmiras haloshon our words will not bring about unintended hurt or animosity among our family and friends.

The Chofetz Chaim continues to outline the limitations to the Rambam’s heter (license) called “Api Tlasa” (in the presence of three).

If the three listeners were sincerely devout Jews who totally refrain from any form of loshon hora, it is almost certain that the information will not spread further. Therefore, api tlasa would not apply. Furthermore, the Chofetz Chaim rules that even if only one of the three is known to avoid any form of loshon hora, there is no longer a group of three poised to circulate the information. We then view the situation as if the information was disclosed to only two people, in which case the license of api tlasa does not apply.

The same applies if one of the three is a relative or close friend of the subject of the loshon hora. Given his loyalty to that person, it is unlikely that he will spread derogatory information about him. In this case, too, there is no basis to allow the others to repeat the information.

The leniency of api tlasa is also limited geographically. Information about someone in a community is likely to spread within his community; it is not likely to be of interest elsewhere. Therefore, only within that community can we assume that the information will become publicized and only there does the license of api tlasa apply. In a case of unusually shocking information, which is of interest even outside the immediate community, the license would extend as far as the information could be expected to circulate.

Given all of these limitations, it is clear that the license of api tlasa is rarely applicable. In addition, it is subject to dispute: many poskim (authorities of Jewish law) disagree with the Rambam’s interpretation. Therefore, the Chofetz Chaim concludes that we should avoid making use of this license altogether.