Kabbalas Loshon Horo

Home Forums Bais Medrash Kabbalas Loshon Horo

Viewing 23 posts - 51 through 73 (of 73 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1257966
    Chortkov
    Participant

    I phrase the question once more (because I think we’ve heard each other’s opinions enough times already): In a case where you hear Loshon Horo revealing a Sakanah coming your way, and you believe it wholeheartedly without a shadow of doubt: Would you categorize the situation Safek Sakanah or Vadai Sakanah?

    #1257997
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “because I think we’ve heard each other’s opinions enough times already”

    Yekke – I don’t understand why you are ignoring the point. You stated that he is not obligated to save his life; he is only permitted to. I brought you a proof from the Chafetz Chaim that he is obligated. If you for some reason disagree with my proof, then I would be more than happy to hear the basis of your disagreement. But don’t just ignore it.

    #1257998
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Regarding your question about safek Sakana vs. vadai sakana, I know nothing about the halachic definitions of these terms or the halachic ramifications. But how is this relevant to the discussion?

    In any case, he is obligated to protect himself in such a case even if he does not believe the l”h.

    Are you saying that someone is only obligated to protect himself in a case of vadai sakana? That doesn’t sound right to me, but like I said, I don’t know anything about these halachos. If that is what you are saying, do you have a source?

    #1258216
    Chortkov
    Participant

    I can’t answer your point until I know your position in my question. The case we are discussing is the one with the askan. I brought in the Sakanah case as a “boundary case” to clarify the questions. Getting stuck in the technicalities of the example is not the point, which is why I asked my final question.

    While you are correct that you must protect yourself from safek sakanah, please believe me that there are big halachic differences between safek and vadai. I don’t have time to check the mareh mekomos up now and I don’t remember them offhand, but I’m sure the Beis Yosef right at the end of Choshen Mishpot (426?) brings one example.

    For arguments sake, please accept that there are differences between Sofek and Vadai. That being true, it is a perfect example for my original question.

    So, would you classify this case as a safak or vafai sakanah? You believe you are in danger, although you are not allowed to believe this – you may only ‘suspect’.

    #1258283
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    I believe you, but I don’t have a position. I can’t possibly “have a position” on a halachic matter that I know nothing about.

    I had thought that you had said that you are not obligated to protect yourself from a safeik sakana. I apologize if I misunderstood.

    While I don’t know anything about the topic, I am wondering if a loshon hora situation could be different from regular situations since it entails this idea of being choshesh without being mekabel which probably wouldn’t occur in any other sakana situation?

    #1258331
    Chortkov
    Participant

    I had thought that you had said that you are not obligated to protect yourself from a safeik sakana. I apologize if I misunderstood.

    I did write that. I didn’t mean it, certainly not in the nature that it was accepted. It was my wording at fault, not your understanding.

    #1258382
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “I can’t answer your point until I know your position in my question. The case we are discussing is the one with the askan. I brought in the Sakanah case as a “boundary case” to clarify the questions. Getting stuck in the technicalities of the example is not the point, which is why I asked my final question.”

    Thank you very much for explaining. The reason I got frustrated is that I have found at times in the CR that when I am engaged in a discussion with someone, they will just keep insisting they are right and I am wrong without even being מתיחס to my arguments at all. And I find that really annoying.

    #1258402
    Chortkov
    Participant

    So do I. When we hit a stalemate, I generally try present a different angle to my point to bring it out differently. Sometimes the aim isn’t ביקוש האמת, and therefore there is no point trying to explain my point more than I already did. But when I think someone is trying to understand my point rather than trying to refute it, I try explain it clearer.

    Sorry if I sound like a broken tape recorder.

    #1258455
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Yekke, I’m not 100% of your point. Did you think there was a stalemate here? I do not see it that way. I think that I made some points that you did not refute.

    “Sometimes the aim isn’t ביקוש האמת, and therefore there is no point trying to explain my point more than I already did.”

    Are you talking about this case or making a general statement? If you are referring to this case, my aim is definitely ביקוש האמת

    “But when I think someone is trying to understand my point rather than trying to refute it, I try explain it clearer.”

    I would like to understand what your point is, particularly with regards to safeik sakana and vadai sakana.

    “I can’t answer your point until I know your position in my question”

    Since I answered as best as I could, would you now be able to answer the question?

    Thank you.

    #1258456
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    btw, I responded to you a few days ago on the “obscure Frum music” thread. I would appreciate it if you could read it when you have a chance.

    Thank you.

    #1258474
    Chortkov
    Participant

    My most recent point wasn’t discussing this thread, it was a general response to your frustration about people repeating themselves. “We hit” wasn’t past tense, it was present participle (I think, but not clear on grammar rules).

    I would like to understand what your point is, particularly with regards to safeik sakana and vadai sakana.

    I don’t really know how to explain it better. If you are correct and although one believes it, for all intents and purposes we’ll pretend he doesn’t, then this is safeik sakanah. If my other tzad is right, then because he knows he is in danger, it constitutes vadai sakanah, even if he is not allowed to believe it. (Let’s agree that there are differences between sakeik and vadai, it makes no difference what the differences are.)

    To me, considering it safek sakanah when he believes it wholeheartedly doesn’t sit right. Although I am unsure, like I explained in the opening post to this thread.

    I don’t think extrapolating from there to my ‘Kovod haTorah’ scenario is that difficult.

    #1258865
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “To me, considering it safek sakanah when he believes it wholeheartedly doesn’t sit right. Although I am unsure, like I explained in the opening post to this thread.”

    It seems obvious to me that if you are not allowed to mekabel something, then you can’t act on that “kabala”. And I have been trying to figure out why you are having a hard time accepting that. It occurred to me that the issue might be as follows:

    Perhaps you are looking at it as though he was already mekabel it. But it occurred to me that that is not really the case. The fact is that he is constantly being remekabel it every moment. He was remekabel it immediately after he viewed the event and interpreted it based on his “kabala”.

    After it occurred to me to look at it this way, I saw in the Chofetz Chaim that he writes that as part of the teshuva one must do for being mekabel l”h is to stop believing it (klal 6), which is similar to what I wrote. Even if it’s slightly different, the ramifications are the same.

    The point is that you could have and should have stopped believing it at the moment you saw what you saw, and then what you had seen would have been different.

    “I don’t think extrapolating from there to my ‘Kovod haTorah’ scenario is that difficult.”

    Is Kavod HaTorah in the same category as saving someone’s life and would the same rules apply? You are making assumptions about what is allowed in the case of saving someone’s life and then assuming the same thing applies to “kavod HaTorah”. I’m not saying you are wrong; I just don’t see a proof.

    #1258866
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    There is another point here, and this may perhaps be the real reason why you are unsure about this whole thing. It was something that I have been thinking about from the beginning but deliberately didn’t want to mention right away. You actually kind of alluded to it yourself in one of your later posts.

    You started off with the assumption that you were not allowed to be “mekabel” the loshon hora, so I was basing everything I wrote on that assumption. But perhaps based on the way you heard the l”h and who you heard it from and the type of information it was, you were actually allowed to be “mekabel” it. Granted, we already established the fact that it’s always assur to be “mekabel” l”h, so you were not allowed to be “mekabel” it before the event.

    However, it is possible that you were allowed to have such a strong “chashad” that combined with what you yourself saw at the event, you were then allowed to be mekabel. This would also be taking into account the reaction that you saw from all of the others present.

    That is very different from saying that it is assur to be mekabel but once you are mekabel, you can use that information to embarrass someone publicly. I don’t see how that can possibly be correct.

    However, I don’t know nearly enough about these halachos to be able to say whether or not this new possibility can have any halachic validity. It seems to me that this is a complex question and one that must be asked to a Poseik who is very well-versed in the halachos of Loshon Hora and knows far more than what is written in the Chofetz Chaim. And I am kind of wondering why you posed your question in the CR instead of bringing it to such a Poseik (as interesting as I find it).

    #1258867
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “My most recent point wasn’t discussing this thread, it was a general response to your frustration about people repeating themselves. “We hit” wasn’t past tense, it was present participle (I think, but not clear on grammar rules).”

    Thank you for clarifying. I’m not sure what a present participle is, but your post could have been read either way. I actually read it at first the way that you apparently meant it, but then I started wondering if you could have meant it the other way.

    It was actually only your last line that made me wonder if you were referring to me.(“Sorry if I sound like a broken tape recorder”). If you meant your post in a general way, I’m not sure what place that sentence had there. Unless it was just meant to refer to the previous posts?

    #1258940
    Chortkov
    Participant

    I tried to reply, but the glitch seemed to snatch my post again.

    Is Kavod HaTorah in the same category as saving someone’s life and would the same rules apply?

    I wasn’t comparing Kovod Hatorah to Pikuach Nefesh, I was drawing a parallel between two cases where you are acting on knowledge obtained by transgressing Loshon Horo.

    I fully understand your argument, and I don’t disagree with you. I just see another tzad as well. When I asked my father what he would have done in my situation, his first reaction was like youts, that he would have done nothing, because it was all Loshon Hara.

    But perhaps based on the way you heard the l”h and who you heard it from and the type of information it was, you were actually allowed to be “mekabel” it

    Perhaps. I’m afraid we cannot explore that avenue, because I’d have to give away too many details in order to accurately discuss the possibility.

    It was actually only your last line that made me wonder if you were referring to me

    That line was. It was a reply to your frustration about those who just repeat their argument without responding to yours.

    And I am kind of wondering why you posed your question in the CR instead of bringing it to such a Poseik (as interesting as I find it).

    I have been in the CR for far too long, and definitely for long enough to know not to use this forum in place of legitimate halachic inquiry. I didn’t write the question because I wanted a psak, I posted because I thought it was an interesting question, and was happy to discuss it.

    Actually, the very night the incident took place, I discussed it with [one of] the most distinguished Posek in the UK. He told me unequivocally that if it were to happen again the next morning, I should be moicheh again. However, we were discussing this specific case, and he had been involved in the “backstory” that I shouldn’t have known, and knew firsthand the involvement of this ‘askan’. Therefore, his psak may have been specifically about this case where knew the truth.

    #1259101
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “Actually, the very night the incident took place, I discussed it with [one of] the most distinguished Posek in the UK. He told me unequivocally that if it were to happen again the next morning, I should be moicheh again. However, we were discussing this specific case, and he had been involved in the “backstory” that I shouldn’t have known, and knew firsthand the involvement of this ‘askan’. Therefore, his psak may have been specifically about this case where knew the truth.”

    I’m glad to hear that. You had mentioned speaking to a Rav but since you still had ספקות, I thought that perhaps the “Rav” wasn’t necessarily amongst “the most distinguished Poskim in the UK” and therefore not someone whom you felt completely comfortable trusting with a sheilah of this nature.

    However, I still have a few questions:

    1. If you did ask one of the most distinguished Poskim in the UK, why are you still unsure?

    2. If you did ask one of the most distinguished Poskim in the UK, why did your father still think you did the wrong thing?

    3. Even if he was amongst the most distinguished Poskim in the UK, is it possible that he was נוגע בדבר (since you mentioned that he was involved in the “backstory”)? Would this affect his ability to rule objectively? Is he on such a level that it would be מבזה תלמידי חכמיס for me to suggest that? Is it kidai to ask someone else who was not involved just in case?

    4. In any case, since you still have ספקות, is it kidai to ask someone else in any case?

    5. “I fully understand your argument, and I don’t disagree with you. I just see another tzad as well.”

    What is your tzad then? Are you saying that you think that just like in a case of pikuach nefesh, it is possible that one would be allowed to act on his being mekabel information that he wasn’t suppposed to have been mekabel, he would be allowed to for Kavod HaTorah?

    6. If so, why don’t you find out if that is the halacha? Why don’t you ask that Poseik if that was the basis for his psak?

    7. I still don’t think that it’s possible that according to halacha, you would be allowed to act on your being mekabel something that you were not allowed to be mekabel. However, something else occurred to me. In the case of Pikuach Nefesh, perhaps what you are doing is not acting on the fact that you were previously oiver on kabalas L”H. Perhaps, the point is as I already pointed out that being mekabel l”H is something you are continually choosing to do or not do. So even if you hadn’t been mekabel the l”h in the first place, you can still choose to now be mekabel it. Likewise in this case.

    8. Why don’t you ask the Poseik what his psak was based on?

    #1259102
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “I have been in the CR for far too long, and definitely for long enough to know not to use this forum in place of legitimate halachic inquiry”

    I didn’t think you were the type to do so. That was why I asked.

    #1259177
    Chortkov
    Participant

    I didn’t discuss the shailah with him; I told him the story as it was and he told me I did the right thing. He didn’t explain his rationale and I didn’t ask.

    I asked my fathers opinion before I told him that I had discussed it with the Rav. I wanted to hear his reaction, and I didn’t want him to hold it back because of a Rav I had asked. Once I told him the Rav’s psak, he told me that I had nothing to worry about.

    I did discuss this at a later point with a Rosh Yeshiva (a very distinguished Rosh Yeshiva with unparalleled yashrus, and one who gives a weekly shiur on Hilchos Loshon Hara), but I unfortunately do not remember his response. I didn’t tell him the story (I was too embarrassed), I just asked him to clarify a few points which I felt were nogea, and I don’t remember his response.

    Bringing up the shailah to the posek again is something I do not want to do.

    Since I saw what the Chazon Ish writes in Emunah uBitachon about calling a Rav נוגע בדבר, I have abstained from accusing any Moreh Hor’ah of such things, least of all a Rav of this caliber.

    As to Point 7, it is something that has occurred to me a few times. You touched upon this earlier when you wrote about something that wasn’t toieles and subsequently becomes toieles, are you allowed to be ma’amin it.

    #1259206
    Chortkov
    Participant

    I just now asked a Rav:

    If I hear something not in the context of toieles, and it subsequently becomes nogea to something which I would be allowed to be ma’amin (obviously with the parameters of loshon horo l’toieles) if I would have heard in in this context — may I now believe the information i previously was not allowed to be mekabel?

    The answer was Yes.

    #1260492
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “Bringing up the shailah to the posek again is something I do not want to do.”

    I only wrote that because I thought that you sounded unsure. But you do sound like you are sure now.

    “Since I saw what the Chazon Ish writes in Emunah uBitachon about calling a Rav נוגע בדבר, I have abstained from accusing any Moreh Hor’ah of such things, least of all a Rav of this caliber.”

    In that case, I take back what I said and I apologize for any aspersions I may have inadvertantly case on him.

    I haven’t seen the Chazon Ish, but I will take your word for it. I was concerned about writing that, which is why I phrased it the way I did.

    #1260498
    Chortkov
    Participant

    If you’re interested, you can see the חזון איש here.

    #1260512
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Thank you, and thank you for reporting the answer you received to the toeles question.

    #1260559
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “I didn’t write the question because I wanted a psak, I posted because I thought it was an interesting question, and was happy to discuss it.”

    It is. Thank you.

    It also got me to learn some of the halachos of Kabbalas l”h and to realize how serious it is and how careful one must be to try to avoid it.

    Thank you.

Viewing 23 posts - 51 through 73 (of 73 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.