Giving An Ear To Loshon Hara Kabalas Loshon Hara

Transcription

1 Giving An Ear To Loshon Hara Kabalas Loshon Hara Note: This is the second essay in the Loshon Hara Series. It is assumed that the reader has seen the first of the series; The Gossiper & The Slandering Tongue - Loshon Hara & Rechilus. The terms that were defined there as well as the main theme of that essay, i.e. the lowliness of Rechilus and Loshon Hara, will be referenced here often. Introduction We have seen the inherent evil in Rechilus and Loshon Hara. We saw how the Torah views those who engage in gossip as a subculture of sorts. We saw that the Torah uses sarcasm to depict the despicability of speaking Rechilus and to impart upon us a very vivid picture of the need to distance ourselves from such behavior. It is absolutely unacceptable to load up on hate mongering information and go spreading it around town. We then saw that the Rambam takes this understanding a step further. He writes that Loshon Hara is even worse than Rechilus, in that Loshon Hara is not only a spreading of information that should never have been said, but it is a faulty outlook altogether. Similarly we saw in the Rabbeinu Yona that Loshon Hara, in its very essence, is a choice to focus on negativity. That choice is a corruptive force within man, and is ultimately more than a sin against G-d and one s fellow man but it is also a sin against one s self! Now we are moving on to the next player in the Loshon Hara club. Now we will spend some time discussing the person to whom the Loshon Hara is being spoken - the silent partner in the Loshon Hara tango. Kabalas Loshon Hara is the passive acceptance of Loshon Hara and is violated even if the listener said nothing at all. What s wrong with Kabalas Loshon Hara? you may wonder. How can sitting there passively incur guilt when the other guy is the one spewing out the negativity? What did I do? Plenty! Discussion Point: Depending on the type and size of the audience, you may want to throw this out as a question for discussion and see what people think. Is there anything wrong with just listening to gossip (Rechilus) or slander (Loshon Hara)? Could it possibly be worse than actually speaking it? Let s take a look at the Pasuk that is the source of Kabalas Loshon Hara (among other things), as well as the various explanations of the commentators and thereby get a better look at what it is that we are dealing with.

2 The Verse and Its Implied Prohibitions The Pasuk says, Do not carry a vain report (Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv), nor extend your hand with the wicked one to be a violent witness (- Shmos 23:1). We will see a few different approaches to the first half of this Pasuk; Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv. Rashi there explains based on the Targum that the Torah is telling us not to accept false information. As to exactly what that means, Rashi brings two different explanations: 1. Do not accept Loshon Hara! 2. As a judge, do not listen to one litigant in the absence of the other. a Both of these are a violation of carrying or elevating false information. The second example is relatively clear; listening to one litigant in the absence of the other litigant leaves a great deal of room for the first one to stretch the facts a bit. He would be given free reign to paint a very biased picture, in that no one is there to contradict his perception of the case at hand. For a judge to naively accept such a report would be a violation of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv. What about the first example? How is accepting Loshon Hara an elevating of false/vain information? Before we explore Kabalas Loshon Hara in more detail and see what it means and how it relates to falsehood, let s take a look at a few more prohibitions that Chazal learn out of the Pasuk of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv. First of all there is the Gemora in P sachim. 1 The Gemora there, over and above the prohibition of Kabalas Loshon Hara, adds the prohibition of speaking Loshon Hara and the prohibition of giving false testimony. These two prohibitions do not involve accepting false information, but rather causing others to accept such information. The Gemora notes that nevertheless they are learned out from the Pasuk of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv, due to the fact that the word Sisa could be read as Sasee do not cause to be elevated (i.e. by others). b Affording others the opportunity to validate false information (by speaking such falsehood), is a violation of this other reading of the verse Do not cause false information to be elevated. Then we have the Gemora in Sanhedrin. There the Gemora adds the prohibition for the litigant himself to speak to the judge before the other side arrives as well as the other prohibition that we saw earlier in Rashi for the judge to hear that litigant. So there is a prohibition for the litigant to speak as well as the judge to hear before the other side is present. The prohibition to speak is based on Lo Sasee while the prohibition for the judge to a This fits very nicely with the second half of the Pasuk in that the second half of the Pasuk is clearly referring to a judicial context. b It should be noted that the Rashbam to the Gemora there takes out the line of text that notes that Lo Sisa could be read as Lo Sasee. The Rashbam holds that the very speaking of false information is itself an elevation of that information. It seems that the text that we have [which is the text that appears in another similar Gemora (Sanhedrin 7b) and Mechilta (Shmos 23:1)], understands that elevating falseness is specifically the domain of the listener. The speaker just creates that opportunity while it is up to the listener to truly give the falseness validity.

3 listen is based on the simple reading, Lo Sisa. Finally, the Mechilta adds, based on Lo Sasee, a prohibition of saying a straight out false claim in court. All in all, we have what would seem to be 6 prohibitions based on Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv. Do not accept Loshon Hara Do not hear one litigant until the other is present Do not speak Loshon Hara Do not present your case before the judge without the other side present Do not give false testimony Do not make a fraudulent claim The last four prohibitions are based on the variant reading of the verse Lo Sasee These different explanations are not at odds with one another but rather are all part of the same basic idea. Thus, the Rambam brings most of these various prohibitions in Sefer Hamitzvos 2 all under the Lav of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv. The basic understanding of the verse after you boil it down to its essence is not only must we avoid accepting false (damaging) reports, but we must not even allow others to accept them. Questions: Again, we have to reiterate the question of why Loshon Hara is so false as to be lumped in there with fraudulent claims, biased presentations, and false testimony? Furthermore, we need to note that the main focus of this verse is the evil of accepting a false report giving falsehood validity - whereas, the prohibitions of presenting falsehood to another is only learned out from a variant way to read the verse. It is not the focus of the verse, but rather a side kick of sorts. Why is the Torah not focusing on the speaker of the falsehood? Isn t he or she the real culprit? Let s take a look at what Kabalas Loshon Hara is, and approach it from its various angles. We will hopefully thereby see how it is false and why the Torah deems it wrong. Kabalas Loshon Hara & Why It Is Evil Believing or Even Listening? From a quick analysis of the Gemora in Niddah 3, it would seem that Kabalas Loshon Hara is not the listening to Loshon Hara but rather the believing of Loshon Hara. The Gemora there notes that the Navi seems to place the death of the many individuals killed by Yishmael ben Netanyahu on Gedalia ben Achikam. Gedalia was appointed by the king of Babylonia to be the governor over the few remaining Jews left after the Babylonians exiled the majority of the Nation from Eretz Yisroel. He was in the midst of trying to rebuild the remnants of the Nation, when he received word that Yishmael ben Netanyahu was planning an assassination. Gedalia felt that the information was false Loshon Hara and dismissed it altogether. He was mistaken! Yishmael, with the help of ten cohorts, indeed carried out his plan and killed Gedalia among tens of other innocent Jews. Yet, as noted, Gedalia is held responsible. Why, asks the

4 Gemora? Because although we should not be Mekabel Loshon Hara, we must nevertheless allow it to raise suspicion in our minds L Maychush Me buy. Loshon Hara may not be believed, but it must not be dismissed forthwith. c Thus, it is clear from this Gemora that Kabalas Loshon Hara is not listening but rather believing. Gedalia was not faulted with the lack of belief in the plot that was correct due to Kabalas Loshon Hara. Rather, Gedalia was held to task for the naivety of not even being the slightest bit suspicious. It is clear from the Rishonim 4 as well, that Kabalas Loshon Hara is the believing of Loshon Hara. Although we saw that for a judge it is forbidden to even listen to one litigant without the other present, by Loshon Hara it would seem to be permitted so long as no belief is involved. That is, the focus of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv is giving validity to falsehood. When a judge hears one side without the other present he is clearly giving it some validity otherwise why is he listening? By Loshon Hara, on the other hand, listening is not necessarily an acceptance and validation of the information. It could just as easily be interpreted as a desire to listen to an entertaining juicy bit of information, even if it is silly. We listen to silly things all the time. It is when one believes the information that he has gone and elevated it. Nevertheless, there is an opinion that over and above the prohibition of believing Loshon Hara, there is a prohibition of listening to Loshon Hara. This is the opinion of the Chareidim 5 and is interestingly enough, the opinion followed by the Chofetz Chaim. Apparently the Chareidim understands that even giving ear to Loshon Hara gives it some validity and is thereby a violation of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv. d The Evils Involved Whether Kabalas Loshon Hara is believing the information or even just listening, it is by definition a validation of falsehood. What is the falsehood of Loshon Hara? Firstly there is the notion that anything that is Ra (evil) is by definition false. Thus, the Yad HaKetana 6 writes that anything that is forbidden, despicable, and loathsome even if it is true is called vain and sheker (false). But there is a more straightforward way of seeing the falsehood in all Loshon Hara, even that which is purportedly true... c The Chofetz Chaim (Klal 6 Hilchos Loshon Hara #10) explains that we may not allow the Loshon Hara to affect our view or actions toward this individual in the slightest. We may only keep it in the back of our minds for the time when it may actually make a difference. Thus, Gedalia should have continued to see Yishmael as a good friend and trustworthy individual, but he should never have allowed himself to be in a room alone with him. This may very well sound impossible. How are we to be suspicious and yet not even feel the slightest bit different about this fellow? The Chazon Ish was reported as saying that it is indeed impossible. He understands that what is required of us is to act no differently based on this information. In our hearts, though, it is inevitable that if we must hold on to the suspicion we will likewise have a lowered estimation of the individual in question. d The Chofetz Chaim rules that the same applies to Rechilus. That is, one may not listen to Rechilus unless there is some possible pertinence. Furthermore, even when the information is pertinent it may not be believed outright. One may only be suspicious of its veracity. (- Hilchos Rechilus Klal 5 #2)

5 There is a Mitzva in the Torah known as Betzedek Tishpot judge one another fairly. In a different essay, we note that the foundation of that Mitzva is to try and see the entire picture. When we ignore context and we ignore the players, we are not really seeing a full picture. Our assessment of such a situation will necessarily be off. Here we are talking about something that is a step further from reality. We are not only very likely ignoring context, we are also relying on someone else s interpretation. How can we expect to get the real truth out of another person s assessment? If the Torah tells us Betzedek Tishpot use every bit of brainpower you have to come up with a balanced and fair understanding of what happened, how could we hope to do that when we are relying on second hand information. Maybe this fellow who is reporting the slander misunderstood the situation! Maybe he is just out to get the guy, and therefore made the whole thing up! How can we know for sure? The one thing we can know for sure is that it is very unlikely that this fellow s report is 100% accurate. Therefore it is false, and believing it is giving validity and elevating falsehood & vanity. So the focus of the Mitzva of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv is to not just go about naively accepting Sheker (falsehood) at the expense of others. e The focus of this commandment is to be noble and discerning, and not naively wicked! We asked earlier, Why is the Torah not focusing on the speaker of the falsehood? Isn t he or she the real culprit? The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of other commandments that focus on the speaker of falsehood - be it within or outside of the court. Here the Torah changes focus. Here the Torah wants to note that there is an evil that only the passive listener can really accomplish. The elevation of falsehood is his choice to make and if he indeed gives it validity he has ignored the Lav of Lo Sisa. As an adjunct to this specific evil there is the fact that the listener had an accomplice. There is of course the speaker. However, since the focus of this verse is the validation of Shuv, the speaker only serves an auxiliary function. His prohibition is just learned out from the variant reading. Discussion Point: One may want to take an opportunity here to share an example how information heard through another party is often distorted, and to allow others to share their examples. Speaker Focused Kabalas Loshon Hara There would seem to be another angle with which we could approach the prohibition of Kabalas Loshon Hara that would make the speaker the main culprit. When we learned the basic prohibitions of Rechilus and Loshon Hara in the previous essay in this series, we saw that the Torah viewed the gossiper, and by extension the slanderer, as part of a subversive club. They were viewed as deviants to the norms of society in that the hatred and negativity that they bred caused for antisocial outcomes. e Being naïve and believing something false and/or silly is not always a violation of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv. If you want to believe that the local tabloid newspaper is accurate and professional reporting, you are naïve not wicked. When you want to believe a false report that slanders a fellow person, that is unfair and wrong.

6 We saw how Rashi paints this picture of a group of people engaging in all sorts of customs and gesticulations with the intent to further their gossip spreading cause. They are an underground club to which the listener (or believer) is clearly a member. It takes two to tango, and the listener here is number two. When the Yad HaKetana (mentioned earlier) describes the prohibition of Kabalas Loshon Hara, he very much focuses on the inherent evil in the spreading of negativity and how the listener is part of that evil. Rabbeinu Yona 7, as well, focuses on the evil of Kabalas Loshon Hara as making oneself the address for everyone s Rechilus and Loshon Hara. These commentators are not focusing on the angle that the above Gemoras seemed to focus on. They are not making the speaker secondary to the listener. One could suggest that they are not focusing on the prohibition of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv, so much as they are noting that there is a wrong committed by accepting Loshon Hara which can be understood from the basic prohibition to speak Loshon Hara. If Loshon Hara is evil and the Torah views it as despicable, it is obviously something that should not be listened to either. Here the main focus is indeed the speaker, while the listener is the guilty accomplice. So we have seen two roots as to the evil of Kabalas Loshon Hara. We saw that there is an evil in believing (or possibly even listening to) false information at another s expense. We also examined at length why it is that Loshon Hara is by definition false. Here the prohibition violated is Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv and the Mekabel is the main culprit. Then we saw that there is an evil in accepting Loshon Hara as a logical outflow of the Torah s disgust with the whole gossip mongering culture. Here the speaker commits the main wrong, but the listener is guilty as well. He is, at the end of the day, part of the club. Note to teacher: The following section is technical in nature. One may want to avoid it if short of time or if the audience is comprised of beginners. So When Can I Accept Loshon Hara? A discussion of Kabalas Loshon Hara would not be complete if it did not include at least a few of the possible exceptions. There may indeed be times when one can believe the Loshon Hara! We have already seen the permissibility of being suspicious when the information spells a possible negative outcome for you or others (like in the story of Gedalia). For example, if someone tells you that you should not accept a personal check from Jake, because he is planning on filing bankruptcy in the near future, you should not accept as fact that Jake is going broke, but you should at least verify that he is not before you accept any checks from him. f f If you decide that it is not worth the trouble to investigate and you would just rather not do business with him, that is acceptable. However, insofar as Jake s financial instability is information that can hurt him if it were to become known, it is Loshon Hara. Therefore it cannot be accepted as is. One may not fully believe it in ones heart.

7 This dispensation that allows for suspicion, in truth is not much of a dispensation. You may still not believe the Loshon Hara. You may only consider it, so as to be weary of its validity in a situation where your interests are at stake. However, there may be situations where the Kabalas Loshon Hara itself is permitted where you can believe. We will focus on two possible allowances for Kabalas Loshon Hara; Nemun K Bay Tray Someone who is as trustable to you as two witnesses. And Devarim HaNikurim Strong outside evidence Nemun K Bay Tray The Gemora 8 discusses the permissibility to hate the sinner. He is the one the Torah calls your enemy, when it exhorts us not to allow our enemy s donkey to buckle under its load but rather to help unload it. The Gemora further notes, that one may not tell the court to punish the sinner, in that as a single witness his testimony would not be accepted. He may only hate the individual, and do so alone. Then the Gemora throws out an interesting question; May you inform your Rebbi so that he may hate the sinner as well g? To which the Gemora answers in the affirmative - if you know that the Rebbi trusts you K bay Tray (i.e. like two witnesses). That is, if you know your Rebbi will believe you, because you are exceedingly trustworthy to him, you may inform him of the enemy s misdeeds. This idea of proven trustworthiness was used by earlier generations in court. h On the basis of the testimony of a single witness tried and tested by the judges to be an upstanding and honest individual, they would decide the case. This is over and above testimony. When one is listening to the report of a trusted friend, he is hearing fact. As the Rambam 9 notes, the custom of courts had always been to rule on monetary issues based on what the judge saw as fact even if the information was not produced by the testimony of two valid witnesses. This system, notes the Rambam, was ultimately done away with. Some time during the Geonic period it seems that due to the preponderance of courts, it was decreed that judges may not rule based on the report of a trusted individual, nor on other information that wasn t technically evidence in the classic sense of the word. A fear developed that judges were taking this idea too liberally, and it takes a truly wise man to know when to make use of this type of information. So using the idea of Nemun K bay Tray fell into disuse. What about outside of the courts? Is Nemun K bay Tray still useable for Kabalas Loshon Hara? Rav Moshe Feinstein made use of the concept in a famous Teshuva (Responsa), in which he ruled that one may trust a person in Kashurus matters whom Halacha would generally view untrustworthy (due to their own disregard of such laws) if one knows the person to be honest. If it is clear to you based on previous encounters, that this individual is so trustworthy that he or she would never go against their word to you, you may trust them. You may trust their Kashurus if they tell you that they cooked it to your personal Halachik g And presumably thereby know to keep a distance from him h See the Gemora in Kesubos (85a) where Rava accepted his wife s distrust of a certain women to thereby disallow that woman to swear in a court case she was having with another individual. Although the woman by normal standards should have sworn and thereby exempted herself of the monetary obligation in question, Rava trusted his wife s assertion and disallowed this woman to swear. A single witness would not have this power in such a case, but his own wife did because to Rava, her testimony was irrefutable fact.

8 requirements. This is based on the concept of Nemun K bay Tray. But, Rav Moshe noted, one may only rely on this leniency if the circumstance is a pressing one. Thus to apply this to most cases of Kabalas Loshon Hara would be unjustified. Furthermore the Chofetz Chaim, based on the above Rambam, says that nowadays we no longer use Nemun K bay Tray at all. Although the Rambam mentioned only the discontinuation of Nemun K bay Tray within courts, the Chofetz Chaim takes it a step further. i (Rav Moshe, obviously disagrees). So according to the Chofetz Chaim the use of Nemun K bay Tray is never acceptable, and that includes Kabalas Loshon Hara. Devarim HaNikurim Although the idea of Nemun K bay Tray does not end up being much of an allowance to accept Loshon Hara, there is a different idea that indeed does work; Devarim HaNikurim. Devarim HaNikurim is the idea of believing something because there is enough outside evidence that pointed in that direction all along. Thus the Gemora in Shabbos 10 notes a scenario in which David HaMelech seemed to have accepted Loshon Hara, but notes that due to the fact that there was considerable outside evidence that pointed to the veracity of the information contained in the Loshon Hara (Devarim HaNikurim), his Kabalas Loshon Hara was not a violation of Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv. The Rishonim 11 bring this idea of circumstantial evidence together with someone finally telling you that this is indeed what happened as allowing you to believe that it indeed is true. It is not a violation of Kabalas Loshon Hara when there are Devarim HaNikurim to back it up. j Teshuva The way one makes good for past violations of Kabalas Loshon Hara, explains the Chofetz Chaim 12, is to convince oneself that the negativity he heard may in truth not be true. He must say to himself, You never know, the guy may really never have done that negative thing, and I will treat him accordingly going forward. He must also accept upon himself to not be Mekabel Loshon Hara in the future. Summary Kabalas Loshon Hara is unfair and unjust. How can we vilify our fellow man based on someone else s biases and vantage point? The decision to indeed do so is a slap in the face to i The Mechaber clearly does make use of Nemun K bay Tray. He rules (EH 115:7) that if a husband is informed by an individual trustworthy to him that his wife was unfaithful, he must divorce her. (The R ma and Gra there note, this is only when the witness is himself really trustworthy to the husband, and not when the husband believes him because he is anyways a little suspicious.) Here we clearly see the use of Nemun K bay Tray! The Chofetz Chaim explains that use of Nemun K bay Tray as a stringency to distance oneself from possible infringing on that which is forbidden is very much done. In such cases we do indeed invoke Nemun K bay Tray. j We have explained that the basic underlying falsehood of Kabalas Loshon Hara is the fact that it is unlikely that this second hand information has much accuracy. Here though, that is clearly not the case. As for the situation of Nemun K bay Tray, we would have to say that even if we could make use of that Heter, it would only be in a case that was black and white. The evil was either done or it was not done. There is no judgment necessary in this specific instance.

9 a person who is at the very least not as guilty as he was made out to be. Aiding and abetting the validation of Loshon Hara by speaking the Loshon Hara to the acceptor - incurs guilt for this evil as well. Furthermore, just as it is wrong to bring oneself to take part in the lowly activities of Rechilus and Loshon Hara, so too it is wrong to be an accomplice by listening to such negativity. The listener too is part of the club. When the negativity, if true, could spell out damaging consequences for the listener, he may still not believe the information outright. He should, however, keep the information in the back of his mind for those situations where damage may be incurred, and then be concerned that it may be true. If there are Devarim HaNikurim he may believe the Loshon Hara (although he should probably not have been listening in the first place). Ultimately Kabalas Loshon Hara is unfair to the person about whom it was said, and it s a naïve way with which to approach the world. Such conversations should be beneath us, even as the passive listener. Lo Sisa Sheyma Shuv!

10 Sources 1 118a 2 Neg Com # a 4 Yeraim, Rabbeinu Yona Shaarei Teshuva (3:213) et. al. 5 Perek 23 6 Hilchos De os 9:8 7 Sha arei Teshuva 3:225 8 Pesachim 113b 9 Hilchos Sanhedrin 24: a According to the opinion of Shmuel 11 Smag (Neg Com #9), Haguos Maymunus (Hilchos De os Ch. 7 #4) 12 Klal 6 Loshon Hara #12