He broke up and I don't understand why? Guys, can you explain this behavior?

“If this interpretation is incorrect or the guy actually does have commitment issues then my accusers are guilty of Motzie Shem Ra.”

I doubt that’s true.

I don’t know the halachos very well, but I can imagine that if you just make up a story about someone, that’s motzi shem ra, even if by chance the story turns out to be true.

“If this interpretation is incorrect or the guy actually does have commitment issues then my accusers are guilty of Motzie Shem Ra.”

Meno: “I doubt that’s true.

I don’t know the halachos very well, but I can imagine that if you just make up a story about someone, that’s motzi shem ra, even if by chance the story turns out to be true.”

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/hilchos-shmiras-haloshon#post-631923

“This may be difficult to hear but there are other opinions besides yours that we abide by. I appreciate your confidence, however I cannot rely on you for direction.”

According to Halacha, Motzi Shem Ra refers to saying something about someone that is: 1. not true (or not known to be true) and 2. negative.

The statement that this guy does not date to get married is 1. not true (since we do not know it to be so) and 2. negative.

It is assur to say Motzi Shem Ra even for Toeles.

You (the moderators) seem to be very confident that the statement was not Motzi Shem Ra. I am very interested in hearing why you think so. I would respectfully like to ask that you share your reasoning. Thank you very much in advance.

LuL:

Very plain. Because the people wagging their tongues here have no idea who and what they’re talking about. They don’t know any of the subjects here. So obviously THEY are not talking about anyone specific. And the only one who does know, Lavender, knows that anyone else cannot know anything here, so of course she rejects any hogwash offered here!!! Because she’s the only one who DOES know anything.

Suppose I told you “The man you waited with at the bus stop this morning slipped a thirty dollar bill out of you purse while you weren’t looking”. Is that motzi shem ra? (well the mere fact I chose to do so…)

Thank you

LF- Lavender knows who the guy is, and you can’t assume that she is not being “mekabel” at all. The whole danger of LH and Motzi Shem Ra is that people are very affected by EVERYTHING they hear. Many people in her situation would start to have a negative attitude towards the boy and it would affect how they think about him, even if only a minuscule level.

In regards to your saying that she knows that what is being said is not true, that would only be the case if we were talking about something clear-cut. If someone said that he has purple hair, you could say it’s not Motzi Shem Ra because she KNOWS it’s not true. However, we are talking about something that she DOES NOT KNOW one way or another. It might be that he has commitment issues or it might be something else.

She has a chiyuv to try to assume that his breaking up with her does NOT reflect on him negatively (to the extent that she can do so w/o feeling bad about herself), and we are not allowed to say things that will make it harder for her to do and put negative ideas about him in her head.

LuL:

“She has a chiyuv to..”

In my humble opinion: She has a chiyuv to forget about him. That’s it.

Actually so very true. If they parted ways, both have a chiyuv to forget about each other. Sometimes it’s not easy, it takes time, but that’s what ultimately must be done.

LF: “In my humble opinion: She has a chiyuv to forget about him. That’s it.”

True, but like you said, not easy and it takes time. Meanwhile, she at least has to try to not think badly of him, and others have a chiyuv not to speak badly of him.

“In my humble opinion: She has a chiyuv to forget about him.”

Which does not take away from her chiyuv to try not to think badly of him. And it certainly does not take away from everyone else’s chiyuv not to speak bad of him.

I have been accused of Motzi Shem Ra for posting in this thread that the guy may have commitment issues and the YWN has censored all of my posts defending my action. The reason I believe that it’s not Motzi Shem Ra are : a) Neither I nor anyone else know who the guy is, which is a requirement for Motzi Shem Ra b) In order to be guilty of Motzi Shem Ra it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the comments are false. The mere fact that there maybe other reason for the guy actions does not prove that my comment was false. C) There has to be intent to defame the victim, in this case I was only trying to explain his actions.

Is the YWN guilty of media bias and libel? Only the courts will tell.

Abba_S:

1. They posted your comment despite the fact that it was Motzi Shem Ra, so you can’t claim media bias (at least not in the direction that you want to claim it.)

2. They also posted your above post even though it contains sheker about the Torah (as explained in #3).

3. Regarding point B, this is completely false. The halacha is that something is considered Motzi Shem Ra unless it is CLEARLY TRUE. You are not allowed to say anything negative about someone unless you know that it is definitely true. You had stated in your original post that the guy was not dating for marriage. You DO NOT know that; hence, it is motzi shem ra. I provided the source for this Halacha above. You do not have a source for your statement.

4. Regarding point a, I already pointed out to you that there is at least one person who knows who the guy is.

5. There is absolutely no source for point c.

I don’t know who either of you are, but this just wasn’t meant to be. Think of it this way, as a rachmanus. There’s a lo sa’aseh of innui hager. If you fail to honor a ger and love them and be kind to them, you’re being over on an issur d’oraisa. So if you married this guy, chances are that you would have had milchamos and you would have been over on this lo sa’aseh. So it was a rachmanus for you.

LuL:

Just to indulge in technicalities:

Regarding point #1, he’s probably correct, since neither him nor us know who and what. And as far as the girl who does, well she KNOWS not to believe nor trust someone who cannot possibly know anything.

Point #2 he’s probably also right, technically. He’s saying HE cannot be accused of motzi shem ra if it’s not certain there’s a falsehood. (no, of course he is NOT PERMITTED, but he cannot be ACCUSED of motzi shem ra.)

Point #3 is wrong, as you wrote, as stated openly in the Chofetz Chaim.

LF – 1. As pointed out before, you are wrong about point #1. Perhaps if one could be CERTAIN that she wouldn’t believe him, you would have a point. But in this case, there is absolutely no reason to be certain that she would not believe him. Why shouldn’t she believe him?

In any case, he obviously thinks that she could believe him – the whole reason he said this was in order to convince her that it’s true and get her to believe that it’s true!!! So he can’t then turn around and say that he doesn’t really think she will believe him anyhow!

2.You are confusing things. I think that what you are trying to say is that if I am not certain that he is speaking Motzi Shem Ra, I can’t accuse him of speaking Motzi Shem Ra. Even if that is true, that is not the case here. The doubt does not lie in whether or not he is speaking Motzi Shem Ra.

If someone says something that he does not know with certainty that it is true, he has been over on Motzi Shem Ra EVEN if we find out afterwards that it happened to have been true. The fact that he said something that he did not know was certainly true makes it Motzi Shem Ra whether or not it was in fact true.

So he is definitely over on Motzi Shem Ra and I have an OBLIGATION to tell him so (see my Shmiras Halashon thread).

I hope that was clear. I know the grammer was a bit off, but my logic wasn’t. Let me know if you understand what I wrote or not.

Just to indulge in technicalities:

Regarding point #1, he’s probably correct, since neither him nor us know who and what. And as far as the girl who does, well she KNOWS not to believe nor trust someone who cannot possibly know anything. The Heading of this thread clearly states “Guys Please Explain This Behavior and because I gave a possible explanation, I am being vilified by the posters. Is it right?

Point #2 he’s probably also right, technically. He’s saying HE cannot be accused of motzi shem ra if it’s not certain there’s a falsehood. (no, of course he is NOT PERMITTED, but he cannot be ACCUSED of motzi shem ra.) If your standards for motzi shem ra are that you have to know 100% that what is being told is true. Then how are you allowed to ask Shidduch reference questions such as is the boy bipolar. As the only one who would know that is beside the patient and perhaps his guardian is is a medical professional who will lose their license to practice if they reveal any medical information to anyone else. If you asked a neighbor if the boy has mental issues by your standards you would be guilty of motzi shem ra.

Point #3 is wrong, as you wrote, as stated openly in the Chofetz Chaim. While technically you could be guilty of motzi shem ra even if you had no intent, you can not be punished in this world for a corporal or capital offense as you need to be warned to show clear intent. Since most of the prohibitions are negative commandment which are punishable offensives only if intent is shown.

If however you use my standards which is, if it is true it is Loshon Horah and if it’s false it’s Motzi Hhem Ra then intent maybe a factor. As R” Silber ZTL states in Oz Nidbaro vol 14 question 60, in a case of Loshon Horah where there is a Toeeles (reason) for Loshon Horah and would be permitted , if the intent is to embarrass or make fun of the victim them it is not permitted.

Maybe he was interested ,but less than you wish to believe

“Love for a male, but a thing apart

for a woman it’s her whole existence”

Even if I am guilty of Motzi Shem Ra it can be atoned by Repentance and or Yom Kippur and or death and will have a portion in the next world. However those who embarrass their friends loses their portion in the next world. Accusing someone of Motzi Shem Ra surely qualifies as one who whitens his friends face (embarrassing a friend) and so loses their place in the next world. There are those who hold their portion is forfeited to the victim, while others hold that it reverts back to Hashem. In any case is accussing someone of Motzi Shem Ra worth the risk of losing you portion to the next world?

Little Froggie- L’toeles in itself does not make it permissible, there needs to be 5 – 7 conditions met. What are the conditions?

Lavender – I am happy that you are moving on and are not bitter about this. I hope and pray that you find your true love quickly.

Little Froggie – Please for give me if I come across as criticizing you. it has been 30-40 years since I was in Bais Medrash and learning the laws of loshon horah. Now a days I learn the Daf and work and go to a gemarah shuir at night.

The conditions for permissible Lashon Hara (bein adam lamakom)

1)Firsthand knowledge Does this mean you actually saw or heard it, or is hearsay included.

2)Examine if it’s really wrong Does this mean you analyze the case and review the laws to insure that a sin has been committed.

3)Not to talk out of hatred This is intent which I think you wrote Point #3 is wrong, as you wrote, as stated openly in the Chofetz Chaim. It should also be noted that there shouldn’t be intent to embarrass or make fun of the person you are talking about.

4)Not to exaggerate the son Is this only regarding son but it’s okay to exaggerate about daughters? In my opinion an exaggeration that is sociable acceptable such as he is one of the best boys in the yeshiva is okay while he knows the whole perek of gemorah when he doesn’t isn’t.

5)Not to speak secretly I don’t understand. You are suppose to publicize it, that is tattletaling which is also prohibited.

Please Note I am not trying to criticize anyone but merely to learn the laws and the comments are solely my opinion and should not be viewed as Halochah Lemisah, as legal according to Jewish law.

GOSH!!!

What a misspelling. #4 should read “Not to exaggerate the sin”

I apologize, I’m at times so careless at my writing…

Abba_S & Little Froggie – as Little Froggie pointed out, it has to be first-hand knowledge. You have to KNOW that it is true. That is why the fact that it might turn out to be true does not make it permissible. The fact is that you still said something that you did not KNOW to be true, and certainly did not have first-hand knowledge of.

Abba_S: I’m sorry that you feel hurt that I accused you of Motzi Shem Ra. I did so only because according to halacha, on is REQUIRED to tell someone if they are speaking Loshon Hora or Motzi Shem Ra and to try to stop them. One does not lose his cheilik in Olam Haba for doing so, and in fact I would have gone to gehinnom if I didn’t do so. I also was trying to spare you from gehinnom.

Again, I apologize if I didn’t express myself the best way possible. But I did have a chiyuv to say something.

“PRECONDITIONS

The fact that a situation falls under one of the previously listed categories does not necessarily mean that discussing it constitutes constructive speech. Several conditions must be met.

The first set of conditions deals with verification of facts. It is absolutely forbidden to make any critical statement about a person on the basis of informations obtained through hearsay. Only through first-hand information may one assume tht a Jew’s character or behavior is wanting.

Even if one has witnessed seemingly unacceptable behavior, he must not hastily pass judgment on has occurred. An incident taken out of context can be terrible misleading, both as a reflection on an individual’s character as well as in determining who is right in a dispute between parties. Circumstances must be carefully investigated before one can be sure that he understands a situation correctly.”

(ibid, Day 43).

Abba, I understand that you were trying to help Lavendar. The basic idea that you were trying to convey was a good and constructive one. But I

think that according to Halacha (as per the above sources) it should have been phrased slightly differently:

1. You stated it as a fact (that he had commitment problems). This is not a fact; it is merely a possibility and should have been stated as a possibility (if mentioned at all).

2. You concluded that he must have been dating not for marriage. There was no basis for such an assumption whatsoever. While the fact that he broke up with her could possibly demostrate commitment issues, there is no basis for assuming that he was dating not for marriage purposes, and that is a very bad thing to assume or say about someone.

3. Even when L”H is allowed for constructive purposes, one of the conditions (as stated above) is that there is NO other way to accomplish the same thing. In this case, there were other ways to do so. In my post to Lavender, I mentioned many possibilities for his actions while attempting to paint the least negative picture of the boy possible.

While I mentioned that his breaking up with her was probably about him and not about her, I made sure to: a) make it clear that I don’t know & b) make it clear that this doesn’t necessarily reflect negatively on him either, as there can be many reasons for his behavior.

In general, I do make a point of trying to refer to loshon hora as motzi shem ra. This was based on a chiddush from my friend’s younger brother (who was around 14 at the time). I never heard this from anyone else, but it makes sense to me. He pointed out that you should always refer to LH as MSR, since you are not allowed to be “mekabel” it, so that means that you must think of it as MSR.

Not being “mekabel” LH is probably the hardest aspect of shmiras halashon, so it seemed to me to be a good aitza as a way of ensuring that you are not mekabel it.

“Point #2 he’s probably also right, technically. He’s saying HE cannot be accused of motzi shem ra if it’s not certain there’s a falsehood. (no, of course he is NOT PERMITTED, but he cannot be ACCUSED of motzi shem ra.) If your standards for motzi shem ra are that you have to know 100% that what is being told is true. Then how are you allowed to ask Shidduch reference questions such as is the boy bipolar. As the only one who would know that is beside the patient and perhaps his guardian is is a medical professional who will lose their license to practice if they reveal any medical information to anyone else. If you asked a neighbor if the boy has mental issues by your standards you would be guilty of motzi shem ra.”

Answer: A similar case to ours would be the following: Reuven asks Shimon to tell him about Levi. Shimon never met Levi, but Reuven knows Levi very well. The only thing that Shimon knows about Levi is what Reuven has told Shimon about Levi. The only thing that Reuven has ever told Shimon about Levi is that one day he was in a bad mood and another day he was in a good mood. So Reuven tells Shimon that Levi definitely has bipolar.

Yes, that is completely assur.

OK, I’m going to try this once more (and then once more..)

I can’t possibly be saying Lashon Hara (or motzi shem ra, whatever you choose to call it) if I don’t know who I’m talking about. As long as I’m not saying anything derogatory “those people are crazy”, there’s no forbidden speech on saying possible theories why someone did what SOMEONE ELSE said he did. And there’s ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NOT to be mekabel.

The one who knows anything, knows what she knows. She knows the facts. And he’s offering possible reasons. Yes, she’s allowed to believe that Abba_s wrote it. And she’s of course allowed to think along those lines. Is she allowed to take it for certain? a) Why in the world would she? b) What’s the difference to her, she’s moving on in life.

And, in your case too, it’s probably permitted. For the same reasons I stated.

and about your friend’s 14 yr old chiddush – no, your not allowed to think it’s motzi shem ra, because you’re suspecting another Jew. Not being Mekabel means just that. Don’t believe (for certain). Nothing more – noting less. Don’t take it for granted.

(which by rote, these aforementioned cases are ALREADY excluded, as explained)

To sum: There is NO ISSUR on offering theories to the report of another anonymous persons actions, whatsoever.