Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What is an etymologist and what is their connection? You are making me very curious, but I guess I shouldn’t be thinking about it and trying to figure out what it is.
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.
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.
Is it acceptable to say it in your part of the world, and if so, can you tell us what it is?
“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.
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.
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).
“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).
“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.
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.
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).
Shadchan in EY – Raizy Kuperwasser in Beit Shemesh. Very sweet and she also organizes singles’ events.
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.
Joe’s Friend – just curious, why is your name Joe’s Friend? Are you a friend of Coffee Room Joseph or some other Joe?
“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.
Except that Mishloach Manos is a Mitzvah which means that it has specific halachos. One of the halachos is that there is not Mitzvah for a Goy to give Mishlaoch Manos.
On the other hand, trick or treating is naurishkeit, which is I assume, why it’s muter to give them candy.
Anyhow, in America, you would run into “dina d’malchusa dina” issues and chilul Hashem issues.
True, but I doubt that DY has more than one wife. I also suspect that he is Ashkenazi, although I could be wrong.
On a personal level, it has happened to me that I vented to a friend about something that someone had said or done to me that I was upset about (which is permitted under certain circumstances). The friend’s reaction was to criticize the person and make negative assumptions about them. It was fairly similar to what was done here. Her comments did affect the way I thought about the person as well as how I related to her.
I realized after that that this friend is probably not someone whom I am allowed to vent to according to Halacha. You are supposed to choose someone who will not be “mekabel” what you say and certainly won’t add to it!
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.
Abba_S: I would like to apologize if I came across too harshly. It is just that I get very upset when people spread Motzi Shem Ra or Loshon Hora about others, but I should express myself less harshly, and I am working on that.
I would also like to clarify the issue. Motzi Shem Ra refers to saying something that is both untrue (which includes anything that is not definitely known to be true) and negative. It is assur to say Motzi Shem Ra even for a toeles.
Saying that this guy is not dating for marriage is a negative statement and untrue (since you have no way of knowing if it is true or not). Therefore it is Motzi Shem Ra and it is assur to say it even for toeles.
“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.
SDD – I think it’s only the words that actually have bad meanings that are considered assur halachically. There are other words that I was always taught are curse words, but they don’t really have bad meanings, and I think they are technically mutar. Frum people don’t usually use those words because they are unrefined and it is appropriate for a Bas Yisrael and a ben Torah to speak in a refined manner, but I think they are not actually assur.
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).
“Is giving in to a threat the right reason?”
If someone held a gun to your head, and said “your money or your life”, would you give him money and why?
In this case, there may be other (perhaps better) reasons for giving, but if someone feels there is no other reason to give, this could be a good one.
ZD- I guess it was both then. I know I read it about Rav Yaakov and not Rav Pam. I read the story years ago before Rav Pam was nifter and people were writing stories about him, and I’d even heard of him.
Sam2 – +1 and if anyone would read the rest of that thread, there are some good explanations there, and I wish someone would copy & paste them here.
But if when you have time, you can bring your own explanations, that would be helpful as well.
This accusation of Motzie Shem Ra is based on the interpretation that because Lavender knows him it’s Motzie Shem Ra which I don’t agree with”
HuH? Interpretation? It’s not an interpretation. According to Halacha, if the people you are speaking to don’t know who you are speaking about and have no way of figuring it out, then it’s not Loshon Hora. If they do, then it is.
What are you trying to say – that something can only be Loshon Hora if the person you’re speaking to does NOT know who the person is?
In any case, even if that were the Halacha (which it’s not) there are people here who don’t know who you are talking about and there is a person here who does know who you are talking about, so either way it is assur.
“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
“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.
When I was a kid, we always gave out treats. I believe I read that Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky Zatsal did the same, so I guess that you and I are in good company.
“Shadchanim should be redting appropriate shidduchim to Yidden who have emotional or mental health issues that wish to get married.”
I guess the key word is “appropriate”.
True. I was focusing more on friends. In terms of shadchanim, it sounds like a big sheilah. On the one hand, as you say, who are they to determine that the person CAN’T get married. But on the other hand, wouldn’t the above halachos apply to them as well?
I suppose it would depend on the nature of the problem. For example, if she knows that the guy is physically abusive, then she probably is not allowed to set him up. A know a girl who went out with someone and then found out that he was being tried for the murder of his first wife. If the shadchan had known about it (and knew there was a good reason for the accusation), she probably would not be allowed to set him up.
“If a person wants to get married a third-party shouldn’t be taking it upon themselves to decide the person who wants to get married shouldn’t.”
That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not YOU should be setting the person up with your friend.
What I have a hard time with is #4 above. Sometimes I want to set someone up with someone else, but I know that one is Frumer than the other, so I’m not sure if it’s a problem to set them up. Usually, one person is Frumer than the other, and when you’re “older”, most people say that you shouldn’t not go out with someone who is more modern than you, which would imply that maybe it is okay to set someone up with someone more modern than them.
But the question is at what point is it a problem? Clearly you shouldn’t set someone up with someone whom you feel will have a negative effect on them ruchnius-wise. But how would one define that? Also, a lot of people would probably say that it is more important to just get married, no matter who you marry.
I had this issue recently when I was debating whether or not to suggest a girl who wears short skirts to a certain boy. I did anyhow, and it turned out he had already gone out with her, so it didn’t matter anyhow.
“..However, the prohibition against misleading one’s fellow requires that one not suggest a shidduch unless:
1. He believes that given what he knows of their personalities, the two could be a good match, andhe is unaware of any reason the relationship should cause pain to either one.
2. In his opinion, there is reason to believe this meeting will ultimately result in a n engagement. (It is wrong to waste a person’s time, energy and emotions!).
3. He is not aware of any medical, emotional, or character deficiency that would render one party unfit for marriage.
4. He does not feel that either party will have a negative influence upon the other.
5. He is not aware that one party lacks something that the other is insistent upon, or has somethign to which the other has explicitly expressed strong objection.
Should there be any doubt as to whether any of these conditions have been met, the counsel of a talmid chacham should be sought. (ibid, Day 85).
“It is absolutely forbidden to suggest someone as a possible employee, business partner or marriage partner if one is aware that:
1. Objectively speaking, it may not be good for the people involved, 0r
2. it does not satisfy the subjecive needs and tastes of both parties.
Not only is it cruel to subject people to situations that are bad for them, it is also wrong to involve the unsuspecting in relationships they would not have wanted had they known the facts.”
“Chofetz Chaim, A Lesson A Day” by Rav Shimon Finkelman and Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz, Day 82.
If their problem is something that renders them “unmarriageable” then you definitely should NOT set them up. There are people who can’t get married. For example, people who are retarded or autistic, etc. usually can’t get married.
That’s a very good question. The other side of it is that there are people with psychological issues who do have good marriages. I can think of at least one person I know like that – someone whom I thought could not possibly get married and would never have considered setting up.
It seems to me that it might be a bigger problem if you are setting this person up with a friend of yours as opposed to if you are an official shadchan setting someone up. When you set up a friend, they are trusting you that you are only setting them up with someone who doesn’t have issues, a quality person whom they would set their own child up with (or go out with themselves). When a shadchan sets you up, you don’t make those assumptions.
“The fact that someone knows the party does not make the comment False”
What makes is false is not the fact that someone knows the party. What makes it false is that you don’t know if it’s true. You stated that the guy is not dating for marriage. You do not know that that is so; therefore it is false, and therefore, it is Motzi Shem Ra.
And please do not say that the fact that he broke up with her is proof that he was not dating for marriage. Many people break up with other people and not for that reason. There can be many, many reasons why people break up with others.
“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.”
1. I am not sure what you mean by other opinions- there is no opinion that Motzi Shem Ra is muttar. 2.Do you have a Rav (who doesn’t work for YWN) whom you have shown this post to and asked if it was muttar? 2. If you consider it to be muttar, would you like to explain why it is mutter to post Motzi Shem Ra? After all, if you are claiming that it is mutter, there must be a reason for it.
I’m right here in the CR (j/k).