- This topic has 69 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
It’s well known that Rabbeinu Gershom banned reading others’ private mail. Are we allowed to read Wikileaks?
1) R”G only is applicable for Ashkenazim.
2) Even for Ashkenazim R”G doesn’t apply to activities of gentiles.
I read wikileaks all the time, and so do my wives.
Sfardim are allowed to read other people’s mail?
Before Rabbeinu Gershom came along, was it really muttar to read other people’s mail?
Did Rabbeinu Gershom only assur opening mail? What if a letter is lying around?
“Even for Ashkenazim R”G doesn’t apply to activities of gentiles.”
If they are Jewish, it would be a problem.
Governments aren’t Jewish, let alone frum Jews.
“Governments aren’t Jewish, let alone frum Jews.”
I actually have no idea what Wikileaks is. I assumed it was about people. Jews are Jews whether or not they are Frum.
Maybe if it is public knowledge it would be muttar, B’apei tilata.
Wikileaks publishes classified government documents and files. Additionally non-frum Jews aren’t protected as frum Jews are by Jewish law. For many protections they fall under the same category as gentiles.
MDG – public knowledge does not make it muttar. See my thread on Shmiras Halashon. For more details, see the “Chofetz Chaim”. The Chofetz Chaim basically rejects the idea that public knowledge makes it muttar, since there are so many conditions required that are basically impossible to fulfill.
Wikileaks is a constant reminder that some day all of our own personal classified files that we were so careful to hide out of sight will be opened up and studied.
Vai lanu de’oisa busha !
Golfer – nice! good reminder!
I am wondering about the premise of the OP’s question- i assume you are referring to emails made public. Is it a question of to whom the email belongs to, Jew vs non-Jew, or is the question whether an email is considered private mail? Does it matter what server it was on?
These emails where taken from government or corporate servers and are not protected by this prohibition. If you don’t want to read them then I guess you don’t read newspapers either for fear of hearing gossip or slander.
No one cares that DaasYochid has more than one wife?
“If you don’t want to read them then I guess you don’t read newspapers either for fear of hearing gossip or slander.”
There is a halachic problem with reading newspapers since they usually contain Loshon Hora about Jews (see my Shmiras Halashon thread).
yehudayona Abba_S, are you claiming that emails are not protected by Rabbeinu Gershom’s ruling? Rav Scheinberg ZTL disagreed with you.
As I said these emails were on government servers which means there is public knowledge, Rabbeinu Gershom’s ruling was regarding private correspondence which was only to be known by the two parties. Where and when did Rav Scheinberg ZTL (which one as he probably has a son and likewise had a father )write about reading leaked emails?
YY: Correct. If someone drives on Shabbos he isn’t frum and isn’t protected from being spoken l”h about.
See Sh”utz Oz Nidviru 14:60,69.
“lightbrite
Member
No one cares that DaasYochid has more than one wife?
Posted 13 hours ago #”
No, it’s his business; why would anyone be bothered that he follows his minhagim? Perhaps he Teimani (or Sephardic) and that’s his minhag. We wouldn’t care if he’s Sephardic and eats kitniyos on Pesach either.
YY: If someone regularly drives in public on Shabbos or regularly eats cheeseburgers and non-kosher without shame, he’s publicly known to be not frum.
“No one cares that DaasYochid has more than one wife?”
I think that was a joke. Even I realized that, and I usually don’t realize when people are joking. It’s typical of DY’s sense of humor if you’ve seen other things he’s written.
No one cares that DaasYochid has more than one wife?
They’re not too happy about it.
lightbrite: Rabbeinu Gershom is known for the fact that he made a few takanos (decrees) that were instituted as halacha.
I’m not sure how many there were, but two of the most well-known ones were:
1. Not opening other people’s mail
2. Not having more than one wife (which had been permitted until them).
Hence, DY’s joke (which was a joke).
Rabbeinu Gershom’s takanas are only applicable to Ashkenazim.
True, but I doubt that DY has more than one wife. I also suspect that he is Ashkenazi, although I could be wrong.
Anyhow, in America, you would run into “dina d’malchusa dina” issues and chilul Hashem issues.
“Additionally non-frum Jews aren’t protected as frum Jews are by Jewish law. For many protections they fall under the same category as gentiles.”
“If someone regularly drives in public on Shabbos or regularly eats cheeseburgers and non-kosher without shame, he’s publicly known to be not frum.”
“However, one who sins out of ignorance or temptation is in the category of amecha and it is forbidden to speak loshon hora about him” (Chofetz Chaim, A Lesson A day by Rav Shimon Finkelman and Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz, Day 14).
Nearly all (if not all) not-Frum Jews today fall under this category.
Not correct. See Sh”utz Oz Nidviru 14:60,69. Non-frum may have l”h spoken of them.
There’s no dina d’malchusa or c”H problem as long as you don’t file for a second civil marriage license. Furthermore, recent US court decisions have found even the generally unenforced bigamy prohibitions unconstitutional.
yehudayona I think everyone will agree that you are not allowed to hack into someone email even if they are the government. Wikki hacked into the emails and gave them to others who then published them and you are viewing it from them. This is similar to the following case, if you bought you Esrog from a thief it wouldn’t be kosher, but if you bought from someone who bought from the thief it would be kosher because of the change of ownership.
I looked up Rav Finkelman & Rav Berkowitz’s source. They are quoting from “Sefer Chofetz Chaim” klal 4, Seif 7, B’eer Mayim Chaim 4 where he says that you are only allowed to speak Loshon Hora about such a person if it is l’toeles (the same as any Jew).
What is Shu”tz Oz Nidviru? Who is it by and where would I find it? btw, I still haven’t find the Kovetz Tshuvos. I asked 5 people (all people who have tons of Sefarim) and none of them had it.
“A ???? ?????? (lit. rebel due to temptation) is someone who regularly submits to temptation in violating a specific mitzvah. While the prohibition against gossipmongering does apply with regard to speaking about him (as he is not a heretic), his situation differs drastically from one who occasionally transgresses a given mitzvah but basically is commeitted to its obsrvance.
As we have learned, the primary prohibition against speaking loshon hora is ?? ??? ????? ????? (Do not go as a gossipmonger among your people Vayikra 19:16). One who embarrasses his fellow Jew transgresses the prohibition ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? (A man shall not aggrieve his fellow man Vayikra 25:17)
Our Sages interpret the term “Amecha”, your people, in the first prohibition as excluding only a “mumar l’hachis” (lit. rebel whose intent is to spite), one whose lack of regard for a given prohibition causes him to regularly transgress it. However, the term “amito”, his fellow, in the second prohibiton, excludes even the “mumar ???? ??????. thus it is forbidden to speak loshon hora about a ???? ?????? bu it is permissible to exert social pressure on him in order to induce him to mend his sinful ways.
It is permissible to publicize that a Jew regularly violates a particular halacha if it is clear that he is aware of the halachah and has chosen to ignore it, and it stands to reason that publicizing his beharvior will induce him to change. This applies even if he transgresses the law out of temptation. HOWEVER, ONE MUST BE CERTAIN THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS OF TOELES, CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH, INCLUDING PURITY OF INTENT AND LACK OF AN ALTERNATIVE, APPLY” (ibid, Day 55).
Oz Nidviru is the shailos u’teshuvos Sefer by HaGaon HaRav Binyomin Zilber zt’l. Kovetz Teshuvos, being from Rav Elyashiv zt’l, is widely available.
You’re extrapolating from a sefer that is extrapolating from the CC, and you’re assuming this discussed scenario with non-frum Jews fits within the parameters of the listed criteria. But that’s your assumption not the sefers saying. I, on there other hand, am citing a direct and specific psak that it is permissible to speak l”h about the non-frum.
LOSHON HORA AND THE NON-OBSERVANT:
“Based on the rules we have just studied, the rules of loshon hora vis-a-vis the totally non-observant Jew become clear.
1) The average non-observant Jew today has been deprived of a meaningful Jewish education. Whether or not he has been exposed to Orthodox Jewish life, society has prevented him from taking Torah seriously. Rambam compares such a person to a tinok shenishbah, a kidnapped Jewish child whose kidnappers reared him with non-Torah ideals, and whose transgressions are committed out of ignorance. Such a person may be in the category of both ???? your people and ?????, his fellow. It is our obligation to educate him with love, care, and sensitivity and IT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to speak loshon hora against him.
2) A non-observant Jew who did receive a meaningful Jewish education, has been taught Torah values and knows that what he is doing is wrong, but claims that observance is too difficult, is a rebel due to temptation. He is considered part of ????, your people, which means that loshon hora may be spoken of him only if it is for a constructive purpose.
However, he is not considered ?????, your fellow, and consequently the prohibition of onaas devarim, causing hurt through the spoken word (Vayikra 25:17) will not apply in his case. Social pressure may be used to encourage observance even if he will suffer embarrassment in the process, provided that all the conditions of constructive speech are met. Non-constructinve speech that is either derogatory or harmful would constitute loshon hora.” (ibid, Day 57).
1. I am not extrapolating anything. Everything I said was either straight from Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz’s Sefer or the Chafetz Chaim.
2. Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz is a poseik.
3. The Chofetz Chaim says straight out that you can only speak L”H about such a person if it is l’toeles and meets all of the other conditions of toeles.
4. I have no idea who Rav Binyamin Zilber is (which doesn’t mean that he can’t be very choshuv, but I have never heard of him and don’t know who he is). Whoever he is, his psak does not take precedence over the Chofetz Chaim.
5. You haven’t even brought his psak, so I just have your word for it that even he says that.
“Joseph, I think everyone would agree that your Shabbos-driving cheeseburger eater isn’t frum. But what about someone who watches TV and movies, has an unfiltered smartphone, and doesn’t check vegetables for bugs?”
or someone who wears short skirts or speaks Loshon Hora?
According to the Chofetz Chaim, the issue is someone who deliberately transgresses a Mitzvah that everyone knows about many times. It seems to me that most not-Frum people would not fall in this category since most of them do not know about the Torah and Mitzvos. And it would seem to me that some Frum people would fall in this category since most Frum people know that you are not allowed to wear short skirts or speak Loshon Hora. I wonder though if it would make a difference if you know that the person is working on themselves.
In any case, the Chofetz Chaim clearly states that you are only allowed to speak about them if you fulfill all the conditions of toeles, which is very unlikely.
You would have to know dikduk to know which one is correct. My dikduk is not great, but Oz Nidbiru sounds better to me. The beis is at the beginning of a syllable, following a closed syllable, so I think it might make sense that it should have a dagesh.
I had also googled him and found that as well as some other things. It sounds like he was chashuv, but I still never heard of him and don’t know about him.
The idea that today’s non-frum are tinok shenishba and not mumar lhachis is very far from being universally accepted. It is widely held that they’re not tinok shenishbas if they are exposed to Orthodox/Torah Judaism with even as little as knowing about Orthodox Jews. Rav Berkowitz might hold they’re tinoks but nothing from the Chofetz Chaim supports that notion of tinok shenishba. And HaGaon HaRav Zilber zt’l explicitly paskens as I stated.
The reality is that very most non-frum are not tinok shenishbas. And certainly someone who was frum and R”L became non-frum is considered to be far worse.
1. think the Chazon Ish says that they are Tinok Shinishba if I am not mistaken.
2. I didn’t say the Chofetz Chaim holds they are tinok shinishba. What I said is that he says that you are only allowed to say Loshon Hora about them if you fulfill all the requirements of its being l’toeles (same as by any Jew).
Unless someone is absolutely sure that not-Frum people are not to be considered as tinok shenishba, I think that it is assur to let oneself think of them that way. We have an obligation to love them and think favorably of them as we do any Jew.
Also, I don’t think the terms “frum” and “not-frum” the way we use them today necessarily have any halachic validity. If someone considers herself Frum but ignores the prohibition of wearing short skirts or speaking Loshon Hora, even though she knows they are assur, I would think that she would be considered “not-Frum” technically.
On the other hand, if someone did not grow up Frum, but is trying to grow and do what he/she can, I would think that he would be considered more “Frum” than the person in the first example, and I don’t see why it would be permissible to speak L”H about such a person.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&st=&pgnum=25&hilite=
very proud of myself that I finally figured out how to do that!
Rav Moshe in the Igros Moshe OC I 33 paskens that you can’t consider all non-frum Shabbos violators to be tinok shenishba since many of them have seen or heard about religious Jews or the Torah.
So, l’maaisa, if they know or heard about Orthodox Jews they are NOT a tinok shenishba.
The Pri Megadim in Eishel Avraham 325:22 discussed the possibility that a Shabbos violator might be treated as a gentile in some matters.
Some people try to widen the circle of people they love, and some try to widen the circle of people they hate.
(I wouldn’t comment normally but the moderators said they were counting on people responding to this kind of posts when they allow them)
Rav Chaim Kanievsky in Derech Sicha page 217 says that even a tinok shenishba is not bichlal amisecha for L”H.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.