When Lashon Hara is Required

[muman613]

What a timely article for Arutz Sheva to post. Here is a good explanation, along with the commentary from the scriptural sources, of when 'Lashon Hara' or 'Evil Speech' is permitted, and actually is a commandment. It is according to my existing understanding that it is OK to speak in a derogatory manner if it will save someone from pain and suffering, for instance in cases of Marriage and of danger to life and property.



http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12339#.UIXB7oqPWqo


Educational Series, Orot College: 'Lashon Hara'

When is lashon hara (evil speech) actually a mitzva? What about talking about candidates for election, shidduchim, job applicants, students?
From Rabbi Prof. Neriya Gutel

Many of us are all familiar with the laws of lashon hara (evil speech), rechilut (gossip mongering), kavod habriyot (treating others with respect), and halbanat panim (humiliation). These halakhot are well-known – even if they are not always easy to implement.

But sometimes, not only is lashon hara permitted, it is actually a mitzvah!


After ignoring Yochanan ben Korach’s “rechilut,” Gedaliah ben Achikam was murdered by Yishmael. The Gemara (BT Niddah 61a) discusses this incident – including Gedaliah’s own underlying guilt – and concludes:


"אמר רבא, האי לישנא בישא, אע"פ דלקבולי לא מבעי, מיחש ליה מבעי."

“This lashon hara – although one should not accept it as a fact, one should take note of it.”


Although Gedaliah had no basis to convict Yishmael, he should have gathered intelligence and posted a guard – in case there was some truth to the matter. Moreover, not only did he have license to do so; he was required to do so. And since he did not act on the information, he also bears guilt for his murder, the murder of his people, and the survivors’ exile. Such conduct is unbecoming for any man – and certainly for a leader who is responsible for the entire community.


This same idea is reflected in the Torah’s juxtaposition of two seemingly unrelated commandments:


"לא תלך רכיל בעמך לא תעמוד על דם רעך."

“You shall not go around as a gossipmonger among your people; you shall not stand idly by the blood of your fellow.” (Vayikra 19:16)


What is the connection between the prohibition against rechilut and the mitzvah to save a life? According to the Ohr HaChaim and the Netziv, the latter is meant to curb and check the former. Although one is forbidden to “go around as a gossipmonger among your people,” even this serious prohibition has a limit. Hence:


"אם יודע שאיש אחד רוצה לירד לחייו של אדם אחר, הרי זה מחוייב להודיע ואסור לעמוד

 על דם רעך."

 “If one knows that a certain man wants to take the life of another man, one is obligated to divulge this, and one is forbidden to ‘stand idly by the blood of your fellow.’”

Thus, the Chafetz Chaim (Hilchot Rechilut 9:1-3; Be’er Mayim Chayim - Ibid) ruled:


"אם אחד רואה שחבירו רוצה להשתתף באיזה דבר עם אחר, והוא משער שבודאי יסובב לו על-ידי זה עניין רע, צריך להגיד לו כדי להצילו מן העניין הרע ההוא. כגון שרוצה ליקח אחד לשרת אותו בביתו, וזה מכירו מכבר שהוא גנב...מחוייב מן הדין להגיד לו."

“If one sees that his friend wants to participate in some matter with another, and he surmises that evil will befall him as a result, one must tell him, in order to save him from that evil. For instance, if he wants to hire someone to work in his home, and knows, from previous experience, that he is a thief…he is obligated to tell him.”


Similarly, the Pitchei Teshuvah (Orach Chayim 156) felt deeply about this issue:


"כל ספרי המוסר מרעישים העולם על עוון לשון הרע, ואני מרעיש העולם להיפך – עוון גדול מזה וגם הוא מצוי יותר, והוא מניעת עצמו מלדבר במקום שנצרך להציל עשוק מיד עושקו!"

“All the Mussar (ethics) works rally against the sin of lashon hara, but I am rallying against the opposite - a sin that is even greater and more common: not speaking out when there is a need to save the oppressed from the hand of his oppressor!”


On a practical level, ask yourself how far this should go. For example, consider a man who submits his candidacy for an election. Questions about the style of his moustache or his girth are obviously unjustified because they have no bearing on his suitability for office. However, what about the various scandals and offenses which are unknown to the public? Furthermore, which “offenses” are relevant? Embezzlement or also infidelity? Violent behavior or also “hidden” diseases?


Then there is the subject of shidduchim (matchmaking). When someone asks me about a friend who is “going out,” how much should I tell, and how much should I omit? Should I volunteer information? What is essential and what is trivial and insignificant? Is an event that took place in the distant past still relevant? How about his beliefs and opinions? His accomplishments? What he did during the Disengagement?!


The easy answer: It is lashon hara and rechilut! It is forbidden!


The very easy answer: It is a mitzvah! An obligation! Start talking!


The difficult yet correct answer:

"הלב יודע אם לעקל ואם לעקלקלות."

“The heart knows whether it is for a net [gain] or for perversity.” (BT Sanhedrin 26a)


(The Gemara teaches that one’s heart knows whether one honestly intends to help or whether one is taking advantage of a loophole.)


In other words, no one ever said that these are easy questions…

[muman613]

Here is a translation of the Talmud Niddah 61a:

http://halakhah.com/niddah/niddah_61.html

It was taught: Abba Saul stated, It once happened that a clod at Beth Horon was held in a presumptive state of uncleanness, and the Sages could not properly examine it because its area was extensive.31  But there was an old man in the place32  whose name was R. Joshua b. Hananiah and he said to them, 'Bring me some sheets'. They brought to him sheets and he soaked them in water and then spread them over the clod.33  The clean area34  remained dry while the unclean area35  became moist. And, having examined the latter, they found a large pit full of bones. One taught: That was the pit which Ishmael the son of Nethaniah had filled with slain bodies, as it is written, Now the pit wherein Ishmael cast all the dead bodies of the men whom he had slain by the hand36  of Gedaliah.37  But was it Gedaliah that killed them? Was it not in fact Ishmael that killed them?38  — But owing to the fact that he39  should have taken note of the advice of Johanan the son of Kareah40  and did not do so Scripture regards him as though he had killed them.

Raba observed: As to slander, though one should not believe41  it one should nevertheless take note of it. There were certain Galileans about whom a rumour was spread that they killed a person. They came to R. Tarfon and said to him, 'Will the Master hide us?' 'How', he replied, 'should I act? Should I not hide you, they42  would see you.43  Should I hide you, I would be acting contrary to the statement of the Rabbis,44  "As to slander, though one should not believe45  it, one should take note of it".46  Go you and hide yourselves'.

And the Lord said unto Moses: Fear him not'.47  Consider: Sihon and Og were brothers, for a Master stated, 'Sihon and Og were the sons of Ahijah the son of Shamhazai',48  then why was it that he feared Og while he did not fear Sihon? R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai replied: From the answer that was given49  to50  that righteous man51  you may understand what was in his mind.52  He thought: Peradventure the merit of our father Abraham will stand him53  by, for it is said, And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew,54  in connection with which R. Johanan explained: This refers to Og who escaped the fate of the generation of the flood.55