Shalom

[muman613]

http://torah.org/learning/halashon/review3.html

Hilchot Lashon Hara Review: Part 3

I. Circumstances Under Which Speaking Lashon Hara is Permitted

In "Chafetz Chaim: A Lesson a Day" p. 132, Rabbi Yitzchak Berkowitz lists the major categories of constructive purposes for which Lashon Hara may be spoken:
To influence the subject to improve by discussing his faults with someone who can help him.
To prevent someone from being harmed by the subject, or help someone who was already harmed by the subject.
To help end a dispute between individuals which could escalate to the community level.
To help others learn from the subject's mistakes.


II. The Seven Conditions

Before speaking Lashon Hara for a constructive purpose, the following seven conditions must be met:
The information spoken must be completely true and witnessed or verified by the speaker. If it is impossible to verify the information yet necessary that it be passed on, the speaker must preface his remarks with a warning that the information is only hearsay and not definitely true.
The issue must be a problem (e.g. transgression, relevant character flaw or bad behavior) from an objective viewpoint, not merely a preference or sensitivity. (For example, if a store openly encourages shoppers to sample the new grape shipment, and someone takes a few grapes rather than exactly one, it would be incorrect to consider him "greedy" or "a thief.")
The speaker must first rebuke the subject directly, in a kind and gentle way which is likely to have an influence. (If the subject will not listen to any rebuke, or if trying to rebuke him can make the Lashon Hara ineffective, refer to ch. 10 in Hilchot Lashon Hara and ch. 9 in Hilchot Rechilut for the Chafetz Chaim's treatment of the subject.)
The information cannot be exaggerated or embellished, even if it's the only way to get the listener to heed the information.
The intention of the speaker must be purely to help in the situation, not to degrade the subject or cause him shame.
If the constructive purpose intended by the speaker can be achieved in a way other than speaking Lashon Hara, the speaker should resort to that other method.
Any damage that is caused to the subject as a result of the Lashon Hara should not exceed that which would be decreed by a Beit Din (Jewish court) if the case were reviewed there. This is difficult to evaluate, so that situations that impact the livelihood or other areas of the subject should be referred to a Beit Din.
When someone either speaks or requests Lashon Hara for constructive purposes, they should state the constructive purpose. Otherwise, the other party in the conversation will think they are speaking Lashon Hara without any halachic justification.
Also, it would be foolish to include the subject's enemies in a constructive discussion. Not only would they be unlikely to have truly constructive intentions in handling the information, but hey might also add false or exaggerated information to the con versation due to their strong feelings against the subject.

Finally, it is important to think about the listener of the Lashon Hara. It is forbidden for the listener to believe or accept the information as true; they can only suspect the information in order to take proper precautions or to bring the issue to a Beit Din for resolution. Also, it would be forbidden for the listener to carelessly circulate the Lashon Hara out of anger or disgust, since that would violate condition (5) above. When possible, the speaker should preface his remarks with instructions reflecting these concerns; if the listener would not heed such instructions, the speaker should consult his Rabbinic authority before relating the Lashon Hara.

III. Additional Guidelines for Speaking Lashon Hara

When someone either speaks or requests Lashon Hara for constructive purposes, they should state the constructive purpose. Otherwise, the other party in the conversation will think they are speaking Lashon Hara without any halachic justification.
Also, it would be foolish to include the subject's enemies in a constructive discussion. Not only would they be unlikely to have truly constructive intentions in handling the information, but hey might also add false or exaggerated information to the con versation due to their strong feelings against the subject.

Finally, it is important to think about the listener of the Lashon Hara. It is forbidden for the listener to believe or accept the information as true; they can only suspect the information in order to take proper precautions or to bring the issue to a Beit Din for resolution. Also, it would be forbidden for the listener to carelessly circulate the Lashon Hara out of anger or disgust, since that would violate condition 5, to have purely constructive intent. When possible, the speaker should preface his remarks with instructions reflecting these concerns; if the listener would not heed such instructions, the speaker should consult a Rabbi.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I didn't make up anything and I didn't slander anyone.

The woman whose video you promoted did.   I don't think it was clear whether you were divorcing yourself from her claims or not.    Are you willing to make that clear?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I didn't make that up, I just thought it was an interesting question, and wouldn't have been surprised if it was true.

To say you're "not surprised if it was true" is a way of slandering Rabbi Luria, because you are saying you deem that possible about him (based on what, I have no idea, but that's your suggestion).

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Actually this isn't Lashon Hara, its just wierd conspiracy stuff that is not true. We need to know what Lashon Hara actually is and not throw it around every time we have a disagreement with someone. Speaking out against Kefira is not Lashon Hara.

As an example though:
Is saying, "I would not be surprised if Rabbi Isaac Luria was a Vatican plant who purposely sabotaged Judaism and secretly murdered Rabbi Moshe Cordovero"  considered Lashon Hara?    I would think that it is, but I'm really no expert on the laws lashon hara.  What say you?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

As an example though:
Is saying, "I would not be surprised if Rabbi Isaac Luria was a Vatican plant who purposely sabotaged Judaism and secretly murdered Rabbi Moshe Cordovero" 

 I remember the first part, but the rest seems new to me (don't remember reading it here or at all).

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I think we are getting carried away with this whole "Kabbalah" and Arizal etc. thing. In my opinion their are problems with both extremes and the way things are shown and seen and what is believed. Their are those who took these teachings the wrong way (and not that their isn't a Mahloket to begin with) on the other hand some "rationalists" are also taking things wrongly (imo).
 Perhaps some of these teachings are very great teachings. BUT they can be dangerous when understood and teken the wrong way. In the Ben Ish Chai it is brought down that the Ari (I dont remember the details) instructed his students to bury his teachings after his passing because it can be taken the wrong way. Even the Kabbalists like the Arizal etc. said that their are conditions for studying "Kabbalah". And if you look into them they are many and usually hard to fulfill even before starting. I think the point is to be firmly grounded in reality. The problem is when some (or many) just skipp everything and jump into what they call and believe is "Kabbalah" and the "secrets" and that is where problems including potentially idolatry and heresy comes in.And also being the problems with some groups etc. today. 

[muman613]

I think we are getting carried away with this whole "Kabbalah" and Arizal etc. thing. In my opinion their are problems with both extremes and the way things are shown and seen and what is believed. Their are those who took these teachings the wrong way (and not that their isn't a Mahloket to begin with) on the other hand some "rationalists" are also taking things wrongly (imo).
 Perhaps some of these teachings are very great teachings. BUT they can be dangerous when understood and teken the wrong way. In the Ben Ish Chai it is brought down that the Ari (I dont remember the details) instructed his students to bury his teachings after his passing because it can be taken the wrong way. Even the Kabbalists like the Arizal etc. said that their are conditions for studying "Kabbalah". And if you look into them they are many and usually hard to fulfill even before starting. I think the point is to be firmly grounded in reality. The problem is when some (or many) just skipp everything and jump into what they call and believe is "Kabbalah" and the "secrets" and that is where problems including potentially idolatry and heresy comes in.And also being the problems with some groups etc. today.

This I agree with. I don't think Kabbalah is that important for the average Jewish person. It is completely unnecessary for the service of Hashem. But those minds who seek more than just the Tanakh and want to feel like they understand more of Hashems working within the world can learn secrets of Torah from the Kabbalah.

Again I stand against teaching what some schools call Kabbalah to the uneducated Jewish masses as the 'Kabbalah Center' does. What they teach is not Judaism...

[JTFenthusiast2]

I don't go to them for spiritual guidance.  What's going on here is if I find one true video or interesting thing they have to say that is not currently accepted by the majority of Jews, you try to dig up something that they said that doesn't go along with JTF ideology, rendering anything they have to say worthless.  I don't agree with everything this woman says, or everything that Rabbi Asher Meza says.  Putting up one video of theirs is not meant to endorse them as spiritual guides.  But they are right about certain things, such as Lurianic Kabbalah.  Rabbis have written against Lurianic Kabbala.  I don't know if Luria was exactly a Vatican plant, but it is an interesting theory, and it's nice to see there are Orthodox Jews out there fighting against mysticism.

"Rabbi Asher Meza???"  Please tell me you are joking.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

 I remember the first part, but the rest seems new to me (don't remember reading it here or at all).

That's what the video says.   So I'm asking, theoretically, if someone says "that wouldn't surprise me" about that, is it a form of lashon hara?   Or motzi shem ra?     Or something?

[Zelhar]

That's what the video says.   So I'm asking, theoretically, if someone says "that wouldn't surprise me" about that, is it a form of lashon hara?   Or motzi shem ra?     Or something?

From the little check I have made indeed lashon hara in the halachic context is telling something that is true that  is bad or can damage that person. Motzi shem ra is someone who tells lies about another person.

So, the issue here is what if a person is spreading rumors or theories that are unfounded but he believes they are likely or possible. I don't know halacha enough but it makes sense to me to avoid spreading such stories and if one just can't hold it in then at least he should say very clearly that it is pure speculation lacking evidence.