- This topic has 56 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
It is assur to believe LH you hear about somebody when it is not l’Toieles.
I was once present when an ‘askan’ publicly and deliberately degraded a Choshuve Talmid Chochom and Marbitz Torah. I went over and was mocheh (calmly, verbally) to the asken against his actions. There were over 300 people present at the event, and nobody else said anything. I felt it was necessary to make a protest. I discussed it with a Rav afterwards, who told me that i was right for making a stand, and if it would happen again, I would have to react again.
However, to the naked eye, the askan did nothing at all. You needed some backstory to notice the degradation. The askan had been involved in a two year fight against the Talmid Chochom, had distributed letters slandering him, etc. The degradation was a third time offence. If you knew about the controversy, about the history, you could clearly see the degradation. And the whole room was buzzing about it; everyone noticed.
I had never met this man before, although I had heard plenty about him. If I would not have been mekabel that (a) this man is *********, (b) ******** had a big fight with the Mashgiach, and (c) ******** has repeatedly attempted to publicly embarrass the Mashgiach in the same manner that he did at this event, I would not have known anything to be out of the ordinary.
I did believe the story. I heard about it from numerous extremely reliable sources, including some of the Chashuvei HaIr. I was not allowed to believe it, I tried not to at one point, but I did actually believe it.
Now that I believed that backstory, I witnessed firsthand the degradation, and had a licence/obligation to go and protest. But what I saw only meant anything because I believed something I had no licence to believe.
Do I say that על פי תורה, this knowledge is forbidden, and for all intents and purposes, I do not know this, or do we say that I was עובר the איסור – but now that I know it to be true, I witnessed a degradation of a Talmid Chochom?
That’s a great question! I have to look into the halachos of being mekabel loshon hora before I can even attempt an answer, because I realized when I read your post that I am not clear on some of those halachos. Maybe that will be my “Pesach homework”. Thank you for giving me something (important) to learn over Pesach.
Something just occurred to me. As I wrote before, I am unsure of the halachos of being mekabel L”H and I have to look into that.
But let’s say you weren’t mekabel the LH. It sounds like you should have considered the guy to have been speaking LH anyhow even without being mekabel the LH. The fact is that the LH had been spread and people were mekabel it. In light of that, the people listening to him speak were hearing his words in that context, rendering the words loshon hora.
As you wrote, everyone considered the Talmid Chacham to have been degredated by his words. Even if the whole story was completely untrue, l’maaseh since it was spread and accepted, the Talmid Chacham was in fact degradated by his words, so his words remain LH, intentional or not.
At least that is how it sounds to me. I may not be understanding the case correctly since it is a bit hard to understand without the details. Does what I am saying make sense to you?
btw, I am extremely impressed that you had the guts to do that!! I don’t think I would have.
yekke – without reading everything i do know that if the askan publicly humiliated the talmid chocham, someone who witnessed it was allowed to tell you about it. When someone does aveiros in public their status changes.
Secondly, if someone tells you that a person wants to kill you (or cheat you or rob you etc) you are NOT allowed to be mekabel but you ARE obligated to be cautious, and look for signs with the understanding that it might be for no reason but that it might be true.
Yekke – thank you for clarifying. The thing is that if l’maaseh the fact is the people present “knew” about the background (whether or not it was in fact true), they were in fact “hearing” him be mevazeh a Talmid Chacham. It would seem to me that that MIGHT make his words problematic. (emphasis on might – I don’t want to be guilty of motzi shem ra, since you know the person you are speaking of, so it would be assur for me to say he did something wrong, since it’s possible he didn’t – I am merely raising a possibility – DON’T BE MEKABEL as a fact – I am just trying to figure out what the halacha could be in such a situation).
In any case, this doesn’t mean he actually did something wrong, since his intention was not to be mevazeh a Talmid Chacham, but it would make sense to point out to him respectfully that his words COULD be taken that way.
Maybe that is the answer – don’t be mekabel the LH and don’t think he was intentionally being mezazeh a Talmid Chacham, but simply point out to him respectfully that his words could be heard that way even if he didn’t mean it that way.
Would that have worked in this situation?
“I am aware of the “Respect him, Suspect him” clause. But does this only apply when the person tells you means it l’toeles?”
That’s a good question, and I want to look into it over Shabbos or Yomtov.
But there’s something else here. Even if you are allowed to “respect him, suspect him” in such a case (and I’m not sure what the halacha is), I would think that would only apply in a case in which there was toeles on your part. Was there “toeles” on your part when you heard the Loshon Hora?
If not, according to halacha, does it help if there is toeles later?
Also, part of the problem here seems to be that even if you are allowed to be “choshesh”, I am not sure if you are ever allowed to be “mekabel”. I am not sure about that though, so that is one of the things I want to look into.
If you were in fact not allowed to be “mekabel” but only to be “choshesh”, it would seem that perhaps the proper approach would be what I wrote above – don’t suspect or accuse him of something wrong – simply point out to him that his words could be understood that way, so he should be careful about what he says. I would think that could be a more effective approach in any case. Although I don’t know the person, so I could be wrong.
Does that make sense to you? And would it have been possible and effective?
Yekke, my experience is that protesting has no effect, even with talmidei chachamim. Once a certain rabbi claimed that he heard negative info about the talmidim in a certain yeshiva form their barman. When I told him that that is LR he angrily told me that he knows the halacha. On other occasions (regarding learning during Chazarat HaShatz – see Mishna Berura 124:7) they made excuses (each was chozer b’teshuva that “proved” that they were right LOL). For that matter I know a talmid chacham who mimics the accents of gedolim. From various things he has said I gather that he has a poor self-image (he also enjoys making racist comments about various Jewish and nonJewish groups) so I try to ignore these actions.
When deciding when to protest or to keep quiet, you have to have some idea before hand who the person is . At least you will get an idea if saying something will work or backfire.
I know cases where saying something worked and I know other cases where it backfired
I thought about it a lot over Shabbos and looked into some of the relevant halachos. I definitely don’t know nearly enough to have any kind of definite opinon on the matter, but I came up with reasons why (impressive as your actions were) it is possible that your father is right
I don’t know if I will have time to explain more before Pesach and I would want to think about it more in any case. I think some of them were points that you yourself made. B”n, I might try to write more either during Chol hamoed or after Pesach.
But in any case, I definitely think you should ask a sheilah about it, since I am sure you would want to know if you should be doing teshuva and/or asking mechila from him and you might not be allowed to do that if your actions were correct. Also, I’m sure you would like to have closure either way.
It is very important when it comes to something like this that you make sure to ask the right person. Obviously whenever you ask a sheilah, you need to ask someone competent.
But when it comes to hilchos LH, I find it is particularly important. There are many people who are qualified to answer questions in other topics but not necessarily in hilchos l”h. In addition to knowing the halachos very well, you also have to be unusually perceptive, and of course a person who is himself very makpid on hilchos l”h.
Personally, I think this is a sheilah that may need to be asked to a Gadol.
I do think it’s a good idea to think it through as thoroughly as possible first so that when you present it to the Rav you can make sure to present all the relevant factors and halachos. I find that sometimes when I ask a sheilah, there are halachos or factors that I knew that the Rav was not aware of, and once I presented these facts or halachos it changed the way he answered me.
“It is assur to believe LH you hear about somebody when it is not l’Toieles.”
I think this statement may be misleading. You are never allowed to believe Loshon Hora even when all the conditions of toeles are fulfilled. You are merely allowed to listen to it and to act on it as needed but without actually believing it. (Sefer Chofetz Chaim, Hilchos Loshon Hora, Klal 6, Seif 2)
I know you that you know that Yekke, but I just wanted to make sure that people reading this don’t mistakenly think that it is permitted to believe loshon hora when the conditions of toeles are fulfilled.
“In cases of public Bizayon HaTorah, everyone remaining silent is “backfiring”. Somebody has to make a statement.”
+1,000!
“I wouldn’t have expected it of myself either. I am a very non-confrontational person by nature, unless it is in learning. I shy away from hostile situations.”
I’d noticed that. That is precisely what makes it impressive.
btw, my last four posts were posted in reverse order of how they were written.
“The story gets more complicated. If he called up afterwards to apologize, he was self-admittedly wrong. And the Talmid Chochom who was humiliated came over to me to tell me that the other person had apologized – he wanted to thank me and to warn me from continuing any action against the askan, who he had been moichel.”
I don’t think that would be a deciding factor in determining if YOUR actions were halachically correct.
Although obviously it’s good to know that Hashgacha worked it out that it should turn out okay.
And I don’t know that your actions were necessarily wrong, but it seems to me like a complex sheilah and one it’s kidai to ask.
I am impressed that you thought it through enough to realize that it’s not so simple. I think that most people in your situation would have assumed it was the right thing to do, especially once they saw the results.
“Thank you for your reply. It seems like you spent a long time over it”
From an intellectual perspective, it’s definitely a fascinating sheilah, and I am curious to know the answer myself.
Yekke, it my be a cultural thing. However, I interpret mimicking as a snide way of saying that the person does not speak properly. This may be true but LR is davka true.
Mimicking a Talmid Chochom is decidedly distinct from ch’vsh being mevazeh one. Of course, each case is difference, and one person’s harmless Purim shpiel is another’s spilling blood. But the tradition of mimicking one’s rebbeim, especially on Purim, in a fond, non offensive manner, is well established. Although of course due caution should be taken with so serious a risk. And copying and making fun of are two different things.
On a minor further note, by a happy coincidence I was present at the event mentioned in the OP. Yekke2 has done well to camouflage some of the details and ensure anonymity for all involved. but as a witness, I personally cannot really understand yekke2’s quandary, as by all accounts his actions were suitable to the occasion, and to the to my eyes undoubted slight against the Talmid Chochom concerned. But I would have to read through the thread more thoroughly before I could profess anything other than almost complete ignorance.
Yekke, why is it muttar to mimic non-talmidei chachamim in a derogatory manner.
NeutiquamErro, Rav Ovadia very strongly opposed those Purim shpiels (Yehvaeh Deah 5,50) as is Rav Shteinman. Some say that Rav Shimon Sofer waqs so hurt by the disgrace that he died (he was niftar on 17 Adar). You are correct that many copy their rabbanim but that is because they think that they have to do and be everything he isץ IMHO this is also a sign of a poor self-image. The person does not want to be himself but someone else.
“I don’t think that would be a deciding factor in determining if YOUR actions were halachically correct.”
“No. But it may be a deciding factor whether I need to ask him mechilah.”
Possibly, but not necessarily.
For one thing, if you acted incorrectedly, I would think that you might still be requird to ask him mechila.Second of all, you would certainly still need to do teshuva.
Third of all, I’m not sure that he fact that he asked mechila proves that he was wrong. Sometimes people ask mechila even when they are not wrong.
Fourth of all, you don’t have first-hand knowledge that he apologized (or at least that was my impression), so perhaps you are not allowed to be “mekabel” the fact that he apologized especially if you see that as proof that he really was guilty. If it’s proof that he’s guilty, then perhaps it was loshon hora in which case you would not be able to be mekabel, even if it fulfilled the toeles requirements.
Please note: I trust it is clear to you that I am not writing any of this to make you feel bad. It is quite possible that there was no issue of LH here and what you did was in fact a very big Mitzvah. I am just raising the possible issues involved.
In any case, you certainly don’t need to feel bad. Your intentions were certainly very admirable, and you did something that sounds like it was very difficult for you just because you were considered about kavod HaTorah, and it is very admirable that you are analyzing your actions to this extent, especially since most people probably wouldn’t even have thought of the fact that there could have been a problem of kabbalas LH involved.
“However, we have learned that one may not act on hearsay, which would mean that one cannot possibly offer reproof unless he personally witnessed the transgression. Consequently, it would be one’s responsibility to find an effective means of reproving himself, or to ask the rav to either personally investigate the situation or tactfully discuss the matter with that individual without making accusations. (Chofetz Chaim, A Lesson A Day by Rav Shimon Finkelman & Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz, Day 53)”.
It seems to me that according to this, perhaps you would only have been allowed to “discuss the matter with that individual without making accusations.” Even though you witnessed the action, it was not a bad action without the information that you were not permitted to accept. So it would seem that you were not really a first-hand witness.
I am not clear on what exactly you did – I am not sure if you spoke to him privately or embarrassed him publicly. It seems to me that embarrassing him publicly could possibly have been a problem. And even speaking to him privately might have been a problem if it took the form of an accusation.
Again, I don’t know what the halacha is; I am just pointing out the possible arguments for saying that it was a problem. I would like to hear what you think.
If you DO believe but shouldn’t, is that enough to be a firsthand witness?
No, I wouldn’t think so.
I think you (and I) had originally thought the issue (or one of the issues) was whether or not you’re allowed to be mekabel something even if it’s not l’toeles at the time but it becomes l’toeles later on. But I realized afterwards that you’re never allowed to be “mekabel” even if it’s l’toeles, so it seems like it would be a problem in any case.
Another problem is that it only became a toeles AFTER (and as a result of) you were mekabel. So you can’t say you were allowed to be mekabel for the sake of toeles.
Does that make sense to you?
btw, I’m still super-impressed that you are self-aware and introspective enough to realize that the question exists. Most people would have assumed that they were a first-hand witness and wouldn’t even have realized that they only viewed things the way they did because they were mekabel l”h.
That is one of the biggest dangers of l”h. I myself have been a victim of that. Someone had been mekabel motzi shem ra about me, and then interpreted something I said in light of the motzi shem ra he had been mekabel about me and didn’t even realize it. (I didn’t know about the motzi shem ra until afterwards and by then I was unable to get him to understand that he had misunderstood me because he had been mekabel MSR about me).
“Do I say that על פי תורה, this knowledge is forbidden, and for all intents and purposes, I do not know this”
It seems pretty clear to me that the answer is yes. You are not allowed to be mekabel the loshon hora (or to have heard it in the first place), so as far as you are concerned the information is completely false and meaningless.
Therefore, you did not witness the degradation of a Talmid Chacham (and neither did anyone else, if they were in the same situation as you).
“[I instinctively think that I would be mechuyav to save myself from danger, yet in my own case I am not convinced, although I cannot pinpoint the difference.]”
There’s a very big difference – there is no danger here! The only reason you are making the assumption that in that case, it would be mutar is because it’s to save your life, so you know that it must be permitted. That is not the case here.
There is also a second difference. Even in a situation in which your life is in danger, you are only allowed to protect yourself. You are not allowed to harm the person. By embarrasing the askan, you are harming him.
A third difference is that you are only allowed to be “choshesh”, but not to be “mekabel”. By protecting yourself, you are only being “choshesh”. In your situation, you weren’t just “choshesh”; you were “mekabel”.
Since my replies are awaiting moderation, I am not sure if I already made the following point, but in any case, I am sure that I did not make it as strongly as I should have, and it seems to me that this may be the crux of the issue:
You wrote in your second to last post: “but now that I know it to be true”
The point is: You do NOT know it to be true. In fact, you know that it is false. According to halacha, we are not allowed to believe any L”H that we hear (EVEN if it was said l’toeles, which was apparently not the case here).
Halacha is reality. There IS no reality outside of halacha. If the halacha says you can’t believe it, that means it is NOT true. You have no more reason to think it happened than you did before someone told you it did. So it is just a random story that you made up.
Yekke, if the halacha is that you are not believe it, then you are not allowed to believe it, period. In a discussion with a friend once, I made the comment that I don’t see how it’s possible to not believe l”h. She pointed out that if it’s the halacha, it must be possible even it’s very hard.
In any case, even if you feel that it was impossible not to believe it (and I understand why you feel that way – I would also), at least on an intellectual level, you can’t accept it as fact and you can’t then interpret events accordingly.
I hadn’t realized that the askan acknowledged the truth of the statments, but didn’t that happen after you spoke to him? In that case, it would be irrelevant.
“And I deliberately asked about being obligated, not permitted.”
So I should have used the term “obligated” then. Thanks for the correction.
Lilmod: “The only reason you are making the assumption that in that case, it would be mutar is because it’s to save your life, so you know that it must be permitted.
Yekke: “If you are not mekabel, you have no reason to believe yourself in any danger. (Probably doesn’t make a difference, not sure)”
You are never allowed to be mekabel L”H. You are obligated to be “choshesh” (in some cases) and protect yourself. This is despite the fact that you are not allowed to be mekabel! So your statement that if you are mekabel, you have no reason to believe yourself in any danger is not true!
(although I’m not 100% sure about the way you phrased it – maybe you can’t believe yourself in any danger, but you still have to protect yourself. I don’t know, but that’s irrelevant – the issue is whether or not you can take steps to protect yourself, and you certainly are allowed to (in certain cases) even though you are not allowed to be mekabel.)
Bottom line – you are never allowed to be mekabel l”h. It is possible that if your life is in danger, you can take steps to protect yourself but without being mekabel it. But you are not allowed to treat the subject of L”H any differently, according to halacha. All you are allowed to do is to take steps to protect yourself!
We don’t even know for sure that is true (if the l”h was given over in a non-halachic fashion). You are assuming it is, and you may be right. But that has nothing to do with your case.
In your case:
1. no one’s life was in danger.
2. You were mekabel the l”h (which you are never allowed to do)
3. You treated the subject differently which you are never allowed to do.Typo correction on above post:
This sentence:
“So your statement that if you are mekabel, you have no reason to believe yourself in any danger is not true!”
It should really say, “So your statement that if you are not mekabel, you have no reason to believe yourself in any danger is not true!
I just looked it up:
The sources for the above halachos is Chafetz Chaim, Hilchos Loshon Hora, Klal 6, Halachos 10 & 11. Also see the B’eer Mayim Chaim there, footnote #30, especially the second to last and third to last paragraphs.
The Chofetz Chaim there speaks very shtarkly about how if your life or someone else’s life is in danger or someone may be harmed, you are only allowed to be “choshesh”. But you are not allowed to believe it. Not only that , but you are not even allowed to consider it a “safeik”! All you are allowed to do is to protect yourself.
He also says that it is forbidden to relate to the person ANY differently, even in your heart!
In the Be’er Mayim Chaim, the Chofetz Chaim writes that even though you are allowed to give over the information when there is a possibility of someone being harmed, this is only in a case where you know that the listeners will not treat the subject any differently.
He writes there that if they will accept his words as truth and will embarrass them because of it, he is NOT allowed to tell them the l”h! This is despite the fact that someone is in danger of היזק from the subject!
Yekke – I don’t think what you are saying is true at all. He is not allowed to be mekabel it, but he is OBLIGATED to protect himself despite his not being mekabel.
One proof of this is that the only reason why l”h is permitted in this case is so that he can remove himself from the danger.
Another proof is the fact that Gedalyah ben Achikam is criticized for not taking precautions to save himself.
It’s not a matter of opinion. The Chafetz Chaim says it’s an obligation, not just permissible.
He writes in Klal 6, Halacha 11: דמה שאמרו דצריך לחוש ללישנא בישא, הינו רק לענין לשמור את עצמו מהנידון, אבל חם-ושלום לעשות לו שום מעשה, או לגרום לו שום היזק או ביוש עבור זה, גדול או קטן
He writes דצריך. That means that it is an obligation, not just permissible. Also in the B’eer Mayim Chaim both in Halacha יא and Halacha י, he brings the example of Gedaliah and writes that he should have been choshesh for the LH.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.