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 were 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.”
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.
Important Numbers
