- This topic has 138 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Little Froggie – #4) Read my apology above!! In my case, on my part, as the one speaking (writing) since I didn’t know the boy it wasn’t Motzi Shem Ra and as to Lavender she would have been the only been guilty if she accepted it as Motzi Shem Ra which from her question was not the case.
#5) The condition to do it openly – because otherwise people would suspect you’re only gossiping. People are going to suspect you, and also the objective won’t be realized – for others to take note and do what’s necessary.
I disagree with you, if you are rebuking someone it has to be done privately so as not to embarrass them in public and lose your portion in the next world. I believe that if you rebuke in public (when others are around) the recipient is less likely to accept it as he will lose face amongst his peers, rather it should be done only in private and respectively. Even in a case that was 100% Motzi Shem Ra and you rebuked and you embarrassed your friend publicly, whitening the face of your friend, you MAY have lost your portion in the next world. I maybe wrong but I think the YWN Coffee Room is considered a public forum.
Please Note I am not an expert in this field nor am I trying to criticize anyone but merely trying to understand these laws The above comments are solely my opinion and should not be viewed as Halochah Lemisah, (Jewish Law) nor should that they treated as if they were brought down by Moses from Mount Sinai.
“I disagree with you, if you are rebuking someone it has to be done privately so as not to embarrass them in public and lose your portion in the next world. I believe that if you rebuke in public (when others are around) the recipient is less likely to accept it as he will lose face amongst his peers, rather it should be done only in private and respectively. Even in a case that was 100% Motzi Shem Ra and you rebuked and you embarrassed your friend publicly, whitening the face of your friend, you MAY have lost your portion in the next world. I maybe wrong but I think the YWN Coffee Room is considered a public forum.
Please Note I am not an expert in this field nor am I trying to criticize anyone but merely trying to understand these laws The above comments are solely my opinion and should not be viewed as Halochah Lemisah, (Jewish Law) nor should that they treated as if they were brought down by Moses from Mount Sinai.”
It’s not me you are disagreeing with – it’s the Chofetz Chaim. The Chofetz Chaim clearly states otherwise, as I quoted above. It is assur for you to have an opinion that goes against Halacha, and it certainly is assur for you to publicize an opinion that is contrary to Halacha.
Abba- I don’t understand something. You yourself said that you have not learned the halachos of Loshon Hora, so how can you give an “opinion” regarding the halacha? You claim that you are trying to understand the halacha; I told you what the halacha is and gave you the source. Why don’t you look it up or ask a sheilah instead of continually claiming that you don’t think it’s the halacha (even though you haven’t learned the halachos, and I have and I gave you the source)?
Again, I am sorry that you feel that I embarrassed you. I wish that there was a way to avoid it, but according to halacha, that is what I had to do. If I could have phrased things more sensitively than I did, I apologize and I hope you are moichel me, but to be silent would have been assur.
I do have to say that I am puzzled by the fact that you have not once thanked me for trying to spare you from Gehinnom!!! Aren’t you happy that I let you know that what you said was Motzi Sheim Ra so that you can try to have it deleted and avoid gehinnom?
By the way, according to your theory, it would be assur for you to publicly embarrass me by saying that I have publicly embarrassed you and will c”v lose my cheilik in Olam Haba as a result.
Little Froggie – I am really surprised by you. I am really having trouble understanding why you don’t realize that this was Motzi Shem Ra. Maybe you have been fooling me all this time by pretending to be smarter than you are, but I don’t see how that is possible. I have always respected your intelligent and insight and I can’t imagine that was a front. I think maybe it’s just because you are such a nice person that you can’t imagine that someone did something wrong so you are trying to come up with convuluted reasons to explain how this was not Motzi Shem Ra.
I just reread your post. You wrote as follows:
“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.”
The whole point was that he did say something derogatory. He said that the boy was dating not in order to get married. That is derogatory. That is what made it Motzi Shem Ra. That is what I have been referring to the whole time. Did you miss that? Did you think that I was talking about something else? Also, if you thought that nothing derogatory was said, why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of coming up with far-fetched reasons as to why it’s not MSR (like saying you know for certain that she won’t believe him)?
He said that the boy was dating not in order to get married.
You’re making it sound worse than it is. He said the boy has commitment issues, not that he is stringing people along intentionally.
There’s no way Abba_s could know the real reason. It was obviously, even if worded wrongly, merely speculation.
Ordinarily, motzi shem ra is saying something negative and false as fact. Do you have a source saying that speculation falls under the issur?
DY: ” ‘He said that the boy was dating not in order to get married.’
You’re making it sound worse than it is. He said the boy has commitment issues, not that he is stringing people along intentionally.”
These were his words:
“The guy has commitment issues. He just wants to date not marry.”
One of my main objections was the fact that he said that he was dating not to get married. He could have just stated that he has commitment issues. Based on what we were told, commitment issues was one possibility. But commitment issues does not necessarily mean that someone is dating not to get married, and there was absolutely no reason to assume such a thing.
“There’s no way Abba_s could know the real reason. It was obviously, even if worded wrongly, merely speculation.”
One of the other issues was the fact that he said it as a fact, NOT as a speculation. As I stated previously, he could have (and should have said) “Perhaps…”
“Ordinarily, motzi shem ra is saying something negative and false as fact.”
Which is what he did.
“Do you have a source saying that speculation falls under the issur?”
I think it’s pretty obvious that if you to someone, “Maybe Sara is stupid”, that would be a problem.
I agreed with you that it was worded poorly, but it should be obvious that it was speculation, not fact.
I think that depending in on the context, saying someone may not be intelligent may not be assur.
The fact that you had it worded in an insulting way doesn’t change the halachah if it was not said that way.
Lavender, you might want to consider signing up with Yismach, if you are not already.They are an online shidduch organization which puts you in touch with a bunch of shadchanim. They are based in E”Y, so most (if not all) of the shadchanim are in EY.
They are having “Meet the shadchanim event” on Nov. 14th, but I think you have to be registered on their website in order to attend.
“The fact that you had it worded in an insulting way doesn’t change the halachah if it was not said that way.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Please explain.
“I agreed with you that it was worded poorly, but it should be obvious that it was speculation, not fact.”
Obvious or not, he stated it as a fact. The problem with his words is that they can lead her to think negatively of him. By stating it in this (incorrect) way, it is more likely to lead her to think negatively of him. Even when LH is allowed for toeles, it must be accurate and not exagerrated. Stating it as a fact rather than as a speculation is an exageration.
“I agreed with you that it was worded poorly,..”
When speaking Loshon Hora l’toeles, the wording is CRUCIAL. According to the Halachos of the conditions of something being l’toeles, it must be phrased a very particular way, and if it is not, it is assur.
“I think that depending in on the context, saying someone may not be intelligent may not be assur.”
Maybe, maybe not, I don’t know what context that would be. The point is that it is inherently a derogatory statement and t/f Loshon Hora unless the conditions of toeles are fulfilled.
Here, as well, it is inherently a derogatory statement and t/f it is LH and assur unless the conditions of toeles are fulfilled, which they weren’t as I explained in a previous post.
I think the main problem here is a certain mistake that many people make. Many people mistakenly assume that as long as there is a toeles, LH is muttar, and they don’t realize that there are many conditions for toeles that must be fulfilled in order for it to be muttar. Before a person can speak LH for toeles, he must make sure that he knows and applies the halachos of toeles.
I feel like I keep repeating myself. I would like to respectfully request that before anyone else responds, they first reread my previous post explaining why I don’t think the conditions of toeles were not fulfilled here and how they could have been fulfilled.
The basic point is that things were phrased in a way that could lead Lavender to have a negative impression of the boy. It was not necessary to phrase things this way, as things could have been phrased less negatively. I am reposting my previous post where I explained how things could have been phrased. I would like to request that before any one comments on the topic, they read and reread what I wrote carefully, as I am getting tired of repeating myself. Thank you!!
“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.”
I meant that saying someone is stupid is unnecessarily more insulting than saying someone is not intelligent.
The fact that you used that example suggests that in an equivalent example to what Abba_s said, you would not seem correct, so you exaggerated.
It was l’toeles, because his explanation was more reasonable than yours.
When someone has commitment issues, they are not dating for marriage purposes, although they often think they are. Perhaps Abba_s should have made that more clear, as well as making it more clear that he was speculating. Personally, I think it was obvious, and his statement was not motzi shem ra.
“I meant that saying someone is stupid is unnecessarily more insulting than saying someone is not intelligent.
The fact that you used that example suggests that in an equivalent example to what Abba_s said, you would not seem correct, so you exaggerated.”
That is not true and is irrelevant. You had said that you didn’t think that a speculation could be considered LH. I was giving an example of a speculation that is clearly LH in order to show you that a speculation could be LH. I said “stupid” as opposed to “not intelligent” because it never would have occurred to me to say “not intelligent” instead of “stupid”. (although perhaps if I had chazered the Parsha this week, I would have.)
“When someone has commitment issues, they are not dating for marriage purposes, although they often think they are.”
1. Now, you phrased things very differently than he did. You said that they are not dating for marriage purposes, although they think they are.
That is very different from what he said.
2.”It was l’toeles, because his explanation was more reasonable than yours.”
I had already included this explanation as a possibility, but I said it in the least negative way possible, and made sure to mention that it is only one possibility and that there are many others. Which there are.
“Perhaps Abba_s should have made that more clear, as well as making it more clear that he was speculating.”
That was the main issue I had with his statement as I originally said.
To my detractors – It seems we are at an impasse, I think you should contact a competent Rabbi in your neighborhood with the following questions:
A) Is this a case of Motzi Shem Ra?
B) Is this a case of ” Chusid BeKasheruim Loke Begofo.” one who false accuses someone is hit on his body?
C) Is this a case of “Malbin Penay Chavero Ain Lo Chalek Li Olam Haba” One who public embarrasses his friend loses his portion in the next world?
D) Is this a case of Chota oh Machta as Harabim a sinner who gets others to sin by getting other to follow her ways?
As to why I am allowed to respond to your accusations and not be guilty of public embarrassing you. They are:
A) I am allowed to respond to False allegations in the manner they were presented to me.
B) I never refereed to you by name at any time just like I am not accusing you now. You on the other hand name me.
C) I put a disclaimer stating that this is only my opinion and MAY NOT be Jewish Law so perhaps you didn’t sin and so can’t claim that I embarrassed you. You on the other hand claim I have sinned and did embarrass me.
The Rabbi maybe able to explain the error of my ways with citation as to why I am wrong, which you can post so that I will know. On the other hand he maybe able to explain the error of your ways.I don’t understand what you get to gain. If I am right you lose your portion in the next world and are punished in this world also. If you are right the only thing you get is the satisfaction of knowing your right. Is it worth the risk?
1. We are not an impasse. I already proved to you that it was Motzi Shem Ra, and you have not been able to counteract my proofs.
2. I never referred to you by name. I do not know your real name. Regarding usernames which are not real names in any case, it makes no difference whether or not someone uses a username if everyone knows who they are referring to.
3. In terms of your being allowed to respond to “false allegations”, that is exactly why I was allowed to respond to you. You accused me falsely (since “kol yisrael areivim zeh lazeh”), and I was very offended, and responded to your allegations. I was really hurt, and you haven’t once apologized although I apologized to you many times.
4. They were not “false allegations” as I already explained to you. You have not yet provided any evidence to the contrary.
5. As I already pointed out to you many times, I had a chiyuv to say something to you.
6. If you don’t know that I sinned, you are certainly not allowed to accuse me of such.
7. As for a competent Rabbi with citations, you already have it from a competent Rebbetzin with citations, but if you want, I will try to find someone more learned than I am in Hilchos Loshon Hora and ask them. As soon as I find someone and ask them, I will let you know.
You have not provided citations for this case. Your citations are very possibly not applicable here.
I gave many citations. No one has been able to show why they do not apply here.
Abba, In order to ask a sheilah, I need to know what the sheilah is. You claimed that your statement was not Motzi Shem Ra as there was a toeles. I explained to you that the fact that there is a toeles does not make something mutter as there are many conditions. I explained what those conditions are and how they were not fulfilled here. So what is your question?
Regarding my “embarrassing you in public”, I also explained to you why that was both muttar and required. So what is your question?
If you have a question, I would be happy to ask. So please explain what it is.
Little Froggie, I am very curious as to when you changed your mind and why. You started off with this comment:
“Toeles does NOT automatically remove the prohibition. There are a lot of other criteria to satisfy. One and one of the main is to know for certain that it’s true. WHICH YOU MOST CERTAINLY DON’T. (unless you’re the ‘him’!!!) Do YOU know there’s no Rabbi?!? Do YOU know the underlying issue?!?
And pray tell what is your toeles. Do you think by joining the badwagan and automatically condemning, besmirching the one party, that the other will be mollified, comforted??”
That was way stronger than anything I said! And then suddenly you are arguing against my saying that it was Motzi Shem Ra? Why the sudden change without any explanation? And if you weren’t convinced that it was LH/MSR in the first place, why would you have spoken so harshly?
LuL:
WOW!! So much English to read!! I really cannot read so much and go through each kasha, terutz, hava amina and maskana. Lately I have come aware of a life outside the CR (GASP!!!)
As to your question, why I changed my mind. I thought it over. While it was true that toeles in itself is not sufficient, I highly doubt this form of conversation ???? constitutes LH or MSR, for the reason I’ve written (the subject being anonymous). But I will bli neder ask a shaaloh.
The author of the thread asked ” Guys please explain this behavior”. Guy are usually males which I am. I theorized that the boy has commitment problems based on the facts presented and was falsely accused of Motzi Shem Ra. I believe the charge is false for the following reasons:
A)In order to be guilty of Motzi Shem Ra you have to know and be speaking about a specific person. In this case there is no way I or anyone else knows who the boy is.
B)In order to be guilty of Motzi Shem Ra you have to state a derogatory fact. In this case the only way I could know if the boy actually has commitment problem is if I had Ruach Hakodish or unless they are accusing me of being a False Prophet which is a capital offence.
C)In order to be guilty of Motzi Shem Ra you have to state a derogatory comment. I don’t see this being a derogatory comment. The boy/man may not even realize he has a commitment problem. He feels pressured to make a decision as to marriage is unsure and in error decides to find someone else who maybe his true love.
I know this wouldn’t change the minds of my hard core detractors and is only meant to dissuade the undecided who may think it’s a Mitzvah to accuse someone in a similar situation and lose their portion in the world to come.
Abba_S:
As I wrote, I’m totally with you.
I also do want to point out that I already responded to everything you said here if you read my previous posts.
Little Froggie- I am also very upset with you as well. It is really not like you to offend others like that, and I am very surprised.
Little Froggie Thank you for your support. I realize I can’t convince my detractors.
Regarding the Guys explain this behavior, was she interested in girls opinions also or only guys opinions?
I also theorize that one of the reason for the couple’s breakup was that there was too much calling and texting between them. The boy/man felt pressured into getting married. He asked his Rabbi and was probably told if he had any doubts break it off. It’s not fair to date when you have doubts rather let your partner date while you resolve the problem. This may explain why the boy does not want her to call the Rabbi as the Rabbi can’t really tell her anything as to why they broke up. If it is meant to be the couple will be setup again. Husbands are like fish you have to reel them in slowly otherwise they fight and run away. But unlike fishing the girl needs to go slowly and convince the boy (the fish)that he is actually reeling her in. Boys don’t like it when beautiful and intelligent girls try to pressure them to marry them.
I also doubt Lavender will read this post but it may help explain her situation. As this is the only explanation which doesn’t accuse the boy of having a physical or mental problems preventing from marrying.
I hope all the singles in the coffee room get married this year 5777 and build a true house in the nation of Israel.
I gave many citations. No one has been able to show why they do not apply here.
Yes, I did. It was quite obviously speculation, and you have only provided sources for something stated as fact.
I know, you have repeatedly said it was stated as fact, but as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Abba_s does not know the subject, and everyone knows he doesn’t, so it is clear that it is speculation.
I don’t know why you think nobody is allowed to disagree with you.
Abba, your words are very offensive. I let you know that you were speaking Motzi Shem Ra. I even took a lot of time to explain it. If you disagree, you can thank me for taking the time to explain this to you and politely tell me that you disagre and explain why.
LF- Changing your mind is one thing, but don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to have spoken so sharply to Abba and then to tell him that you agree with him that I have no chelek in Olam Haba for pointing out to him that he was speaking MSR (in less harsh terms than you did)?
LuL:
?? ?????, I have no idea what your talking about. I didn’t look, learn and analyze this thread piece by piece. At first I just commented that Toeles in itself is not enough, then I thought it over and realized there’s no SUBJECT here at all. So there’s nothing at all spoken about about a PERSON. And I still stick with that.
What does that have to do about your Chelek in Olam Haba? And, btw, I don’t think they rely on Little Froggie to decide who gets Olam Haba.
LF- You told Abba_S that you are totally with him. You can’t tell someone that you are TOTALLY with them unless you read what they wrote and agree with it.
DY – I never said that no one can disagree with me. I would have no problem with Abba politely telling me that he thinks it is not MSR and giving me a reason why and then his reading my explanation of why I disagree. I don’t have a problem having a polite debate with someone, as I have had with you on several occasions.
Instead, he keeps insisting it is not MSR w/o giving a reason (and w/o reading and responding to my explanations) and keeps putting me down and saying that I have no cheilik in Olam Haba for telling him that he was speaking MSR!
What really upsets me is that many people have “heard” him put me down and not one person has defended me. I am through with this place!!
Little Froggie I think she (LU) thinks that you agree with me that she loses her portion in the next world, when all you agreed to is that this wasn’t a case of Motzi Shem Ra. I am sorry that you had to take that abuse.
“I would have no problem with Abba politely telling me that he thinks it is not MSR and giving me a reason why and then his reading my explanation of why I disagree.”
Sounds like he did just that with his very first post: lilmod ulelamaid _ I am sorry you feel that it’s Motzi Shem Ra. There is a Toyales a purpose for my comment. The fact that someone knows the party does not make the comment False and the fact that there was a purpose removes the prohibition.
LU: “What really upsets me is that many people have “heard” him put me down and not one person has defended me. I am through with this place!!”
You said before thay you got a Heiter to be here only if you are Mochiach when there is Lashon Arah. You’ve kept it quite honourably. However no one likes to be told constantly that they are speaking lashon arah (me included) and so you have been and still are up for some fights.
If that’s any consolation, if you resigned from lashon arah squad, no one would put you down (except the borderline trolls hanging around. They’d still do it)
It wasn’t about defending you or not defending you. There were people who did not agree with your interpretation of the halacha and defended halacha just as you did.
They are not obligated to agree with you and if you keep insisting that they are wrong even though they have brought proofs then you will get an argument. I think people tried to be kind at first but became frustrated at your insistence that they are wrong. It is wrong to consider that a personal attack, or people not defending you.
WOW. Seems like someone pressed the SPIN and AGITATE buttons together!!!
LuL: Again. I didn’t read the whole thing, through and through. I did not, and probably will never agree on a personal attack (except..) I didn’t defend you because I didn’t see anyone was ‘attacking’ you, ?? ?????.
I go away for an hour , what happened? Can’t we all just get along
LF- I realize that you would not agree to a personal attack on me. I realize that you had not read the post to which you were responding.
edited. This has already been addressed, he said he did not see anyone attacking you
.. And I apologize for not reading what the Mod’s won’t let me see above!! (Mod’s I really don’t mind)
“edited. This has already been addressed, he said he did not see anyone attacking you”
According to what he wrote, that was because he had not read the post.
“It is wrong to consider that a personal attack, or people not defending you.”
It is a personal attack for someone to repeatedly insist that you have no cheilik in Olam Haba.
- The topic ‘He broke up and I don't understand why? Guys, can you explain this behavior?’ is closed to new replies.