Home › Forums › Bais Medrash › Loshon Hora shittas different than the Chofetz Chaim
- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by Chortkov.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 19, 2015 3:40 pm at 3:40 pm #615519JosephParticipant
What common shittas on hilchos loshon hora exist that are different, either l’chumra or l’kula or otherwise different in whatever respects, than the Chofetz Chaim’s shittas?
How common is it that the klal, or parts thereof, follow other shittas where it differs from the Chofetz Chaim?
April 19, 2015 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #1134703newbeeMember“How common is it that the klal, or parts thereof, follow other shittas where it differs from the Chofetz Chaim?”
all the time, especially {name censored} from Passaic who talks lashon hara non-stop about {name censored} from Cedahurst how much of a ganaf he is since he stole all that money from that nebuch…..
April 19, 2015 6:48 pm at 6:48 pm #1134704catch yourselfParticipantIn a situation where one is asked for information based on a legitimate need (such as for a shidduch) about a person whom he personally dislikes, the Chofetz Chaim rules that he may not divulge any information which would be considered Lashon Hara unless he can do so without feeling any personal pleasure; otherwise he has committed Lashon Hara.
[His proof to this is that the Mitzriyim were punished even though they fulfilled the Ratzon Hashem of Ger yihyeh zaracha… He argues that they were held responsible because they took pleasure at making the Bnei Yisrael suffer.]
Many Poskim disagree and are of the opinion that although he may not take pleasure at telling the information, he is still required to share it even if he can not help but enjoy telling. This would not be a violation of Lashon Hara, although it is clearly prohibited.
[The Ramban in Chumash says the Mitzriyim were punished because they were not compelled to be the ones to carry out the edict against the Bnei Yisrael.]
April 19, 2015 7:02 pm at 7:02 pm #1134705HaLeiViParticipantMy Shita is very different. I am Meikil. Also, Dina Demalchusa is to be Meikel. And as we’ve learned in the hallowed chat chambers of the CoffeeRoom, nothing trumps that.
April 19, 2015 7:06 pm at 7:06 pm #1134706Jewish ThinkerParticipantJoseph, If you see the Chofetz Chaim’s sefer you see that he leans towards stringency. I once read some of an article showing that the Chofetz Chaim was very stringent when it came to loshon hara.
April 19, 2015 9:59 pm at 9:59 pm #1134707HaLeiViParticipantJT, he might have gotten the cue from Chazal who were stringent about it as well.
April 19, 2015 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #1134708Jewish ThinkerParticipantMaybe in hashkafah/aggadatah. But in halacha, it seems they were quite lenient. Ever heard of the heter of in front of 3? Just from the Gemara, it is very lenient but the medieval commentators limit its application and the Chofetz Chaim takes a pretty stringent shittah in explaining that Gemara which basically renders the leniency basically, practically, inapplicable.
February 3, 2016 2:05 am at 2:05 am #1134709Jewish ThinkerParticipantI disagree with my above post. I think that the Chofetz Chaim is chosesh for the Rambam’s interpretation which is more lenient and not just Tosafos in a certain Masechta (forgot which one)
Please see the sefer Chofetz Chaim
February 3, 2016 2:47 am at 2:47 am #1134710JosephParticipant[not halacha]
February 3, 2016 2:47 am at 2:47 am #1134711JosephParticipant[but]
February 3, 2016 2:48 am at 2:48 am #1134712JosephParticipantRabbeinu Yona (Shaarei Teshuva 3:228): Now it is necessary to think deeply about this matter to understand its root. We have said previously that it is permitted to speak disparagingly about a sinner because of the wrong which is in his hands, if it is known that he has not repented. Thus it is permitted to degrade sinners that steal or rob, or cause damage or oppress, humiliate, embarrass, shame or slander others. This applies also to those who do not return what they stole or do not pay for the damage they have caused or have not asked forgiveness for the harm they have caused others.
[even though the halacha doesn’t require it] [“Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove” Hoshea 4:4]
However there is another reason for chastising the sinner before condemning him. If he fails to chastise first it is possible that the listeners will think that he is lying and that he simply made up all the slander and that is why he didn’t first reveal his claims directly to the sinner but concealed his words from him.
Similarly, if the speaker has an established reputation of not being biased against anyone and not flattering anyone. If he will not talk differently about a person whether he is there or not – meaning that everything he will say when not in the person’s presence is the same as when he is. And furthermore that he is not afraid of any man and he has a reputation for always telling the truth. In such a case he will not be suspected when speaking about another man’s sins – even when the sinner is not present. This idea is alluded by our Sages (Arachin 15b), Rabbi Yossi said,” ‘I never said a thing and turned back”. In other words, “I never said anything about a person when he wasn’t there which I would have suppressed if he had been present. Similarly (Arachin 16a), “Everything which is said in the presence of 3 people is not considered lashon harah.” In other words, “Since I made the statement in public therefore it will become known by the person I am speaking about and therefore it is like I said it in his presence.”
April 16, 2017 8:00 am at 8:00 am #1254499ChortkovParticipantI have heard b’sheim R’ Chaim that he argued with the Chafetz Chaim about discussing public figures – he felt that this like אומן על אומנתו, and you may discuss anything a public figure does in the public arena. Does anyone know a mekor for this?
April 16, 2017 10:14 am at 10:14 am #1254520JosephParticipantWhy would a public figure be different than an average citizen?
I can hear a chilik between an act (by anyone) in the public arena versus a private act.
April 16, 2017 11:57 am at 11:57 am #1254570ChortkovParticipantI don’t know if an act performed publicly is considered “public arena” by somebody whose job isn’t to be public.
If the heter is based on אומן על אומנתו, then that could only be for someone who is a public agent.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.