Lashon Horah By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Lashon Horah By Rabbi Yair Hoffman as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 7,477
- Pages: 18
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
Newspapers, Media Sources, and Lashon Horah By Rabbi Yair Hoffman Exclusive To Vosizneias.com Please note that throughout this work the abbreviation of SCC stands for Sefer Chofetz Chaim and the abbreviation BMC stands for Be’er Mayim Chaim, both written by the Chofetz Chaim.
SERIOUS AND COMPLEX LAWS The laws of Lashon Horah are simultaneously both quite serious and complex. Much has been written about this category of Jewish law. The ramifications of a violation can often be very devastating. Entire reputations can be destroyed in a matter of days. Indeed, Shlomo HaMelech - King Solomon wrote (Mishlei 18:21), “Maves veChaim beyad Lashon – Death and Life are in the hands of the tongue” which refers to the terrible consequences of Lashon Horah (Erachin 15b). It is also self-evident that without the proper study of these laws, it is veritably impossible to avoid violating them. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to convey information about another so that protective measures may be taken. One must do so with extreme caution. One misstep can have horrific consequences. It can also be perhaps argued that, in today’s electronic age, the issue is even more pertinent than it was in the time of Chazal or in the time of Tanach. In previous times, the information expressed via a person’s tongue was fleeting and ephemeral – it disappeared instantly, except perhaps in the mind of the listener. Nowadays, in our electronic age, the information is much more permanent. Something that was written or published, even only once in a casual off-handed remark, achieves a sense of complete permanence. It will appear again and again on today’s search engines with devastating consequences. This type of article or statement has and does destroy lives. Marriages can be and have been broken over false information and false allegations. Innocent people lose jobs and cannot find other ones. It must therefore be taken very seriously. The potential for harm to another in today’s instant electronic age is by far much greater than it has ever been. DANGERS OF INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING Page | 1
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
At the same time, an incomplete understanding of these laws could also lead to some dire consequences on the opposite end of the spectrum. When people erroneously forbid information from being disseminated on account of thinking that it is Lashon Horah and that it is absolutely forbidden to pass on the information, people cannot take protective measures. At times this too can be quite devastating. A case in point: Gedaliah Ben Achikam was one of the Gedolei HaDor of his generation. It is a perhaps little known fact, but he was also a Navi1. Indeed the Gemorah (Rosh HaShana 18b) explains that Hashem Himself (Zechariah 8:19) equates the death of this great Tzaddik with the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash! Rarely if ever do we find such testimony as to the stature of any individual. Hashem himself is his character witness. The future of Klal Yisroel was in the hands of this great Tzaddik and Gadol. His decisions were of paramount importance. Notwithstanding his greatness and piety and the fact that he was a prophet of Hashem, Chazal tell us that he made a crucial error in halacha and in its application. Gedaliah refused to take protective measures against Yishmael, when he was warned by Yochanan Ben Korayach of Yishmael Ben Nesanya’s malevolent intent (Yirmiyahu 40:16). The consequences were quite grave indeed. Gedaliah and all his men were brutally murdered (Yirmiyahu 41:2). The Gemorah tells us (Niddah 61a) that Gedaliah Ben Achikam misused the halachic concept of Lashon HaRah and applied it erroneously. It was a tragic error that resulted not only in his death, the scattering of the nation, but also in the loss of Klal Yisroel’s independence as a nation. Indeed, the repercussions of his error are still felt to this day. The repercussions are felt in two ways. Firstly, they are felt in exact ramifications of his miscalculation - that the nation of Israel ceased to be an independent nation. But secondly, we still have not learned from his example. To this day, there are many well-meaning people who misapply the notion of Lashon HaRah in ways that can cause Klal Yisroel to err and err again. The results of Gedaliah’s inaction were so grave that the Mesilas Yesharim (chapter twenty) notes that the Gemorah (Niddah 61a) considers it as if Gedaliah himself had killed all of his people! This is a remarkably thoughtprovoking notion. At times, the sin of incorrectly “sounding the Lashon Horah warning” and ignoring the information is so grave that one who does 1
See Bais Shmuel (Even HoEzer, Shaimos Anashim veNashim Os Ches citing Maharit). Indeed, this is why the name Gedaliah is spelled with a vov at the end in a Get.
Page | 2
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
so is considered the actual perpetrator of the repercussions that have transpired on account of the silence, whether it be theft, molestation or even murder. The conclusions from this are quite clear. There are times that information must be given to ward off potential harm to others, in order that they be able to take self-protective measures. At the same time, there are situations where it is forbidden for people to believe the information, even though they may act upon it to protect themselves. There are also times when the information should not disseminated. No matter what, however, the decision should be made by responsible Talmidei Chachomim attuned to the need to protect others and attuned to the laws of Lashon Horah. It is also clear that the means in which this information is usually disseminated in our times is through the media. Times have changed irrevocably, and the best way to disseminate information rapidly is through the electronic media sources. They are here to stay and are rapidly increasing in significance. IMPORTANCE OF JEWISH MEDIA SOURCES The importance of the media in contemporary society, even in Jewish society, cannot be understated. Rabbeinu Bachya in his commentary on VaYikrah (4:22) discusses the inevitability of leaders sinning. The verse states, “Asher Nasi Yecheta – when a leader will sin..” Rabbeinu Bachya writes, “It does not state, ‘If a leader will sin’ – rather it states ‘When a leader will sin’ - the matter is one of certainty. The reason is that the leader’s heart is filled with conceit and haughtiness.” Rabbeinu Bachya goes on to explain that the Torah (Dvarim 17:20) provides a counterbalance for the haughtiness of a king – he must carry a Sefer Torah with him at all times so that his heart not rise above his brethren. The Nesiim, the leaders of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, were also provided by the Torah with a counter-balance toward their tendency to sin. They were instructed to bring the precious Avnei Shoham stones as a gift (Shmos 22:27). These precious stones were the same type of stones that were found on the breastplate of Aharon HaKohain – the stones that were designed to achieve atonement. The stones thus had a humility-inducing effect to them, according to Rabbeinu Bachya2.
2
The Netziv also interpreted the verse “Asher Nasi yechetah” in the same manner, that the Torah is predicting the absolute certainness of the leader stumbling.
Page | 3
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
In our times, matters are slightly different. We have neither the directive for our leaders to carry with them a Sefer Torah, nor a directive to bring the humility-inducing Avnei Shoham stones. What then will provide the necessary counter-balance to the inevitability of haughtiness and sin? There is no question that the media can and must function in this capacity, as a counter-balance to the corruptive nature of leadership and power. For example, when a powerful institution can erroneously house and protect an indisputably open and present danger3 to Klal Yisroel, a counterbalance must be implemented in order to effectively neutralize that danger. There are a few cases that transpired in recent years, where organizations protected people that presented a clear and present danger to young children, and that the situation was addressed only because the media got involved. The leadership of these organizations, did not make the necessary and proper decisions under these circumstances, and endangered the welfare of numerous children. Surprisingly, it was the Jewish media sources, however, that did make the proper decision in exposing the issue. Another area in which the Jewish media can function is to stop Chilul Hashem, the desecration of the Divine Name. At times, a group of people or an organization will do things that are so wrong and incorrect that it leads to Chillul Hashem. They are so blind to it, that not only do they not realize the consequences of their actions, but they ignore any and every reprimand to cease their activities. Example: A group of Yeshiva students from Yeshiva X goes boating every year on a dangerous river. And each year, the authorities need to rescue them at great expense. The authorities warn them each time not to engage in this activity without proper training or equipment. After a certain point it is time for the media to step in and report what is happening, for the purpose of preventing this group from doing it again. One might, however, object that it is the media source that is contributing to the Chilul Hashem by publicizing it even further. This is an incorrect objection. Imagine a Jewish thief telling everyone to keep quiet about his crimes because of the Chillul Hashem involved. The media source is preventing further Chilul Hashem through the exposure. The fact that Jewish people are being honest and are attempting to ferret out and prevent this type of activity is a Kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of the Divine Name – not a desecration of the Divine Name. Of course, if it is at all possible, it should be stopped through other means.
3
It has been conclusively demonstrated that child molestation has a devastating effect on the psycho-social development of children and adults. See Tzitz Eliezer volume for a ruling on how a psycho-social consequence can impact halacha.
Page | 4
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
There is a fascinating Yerushalmi in the fourth chapter of Kiddushin (page 65): Rabbi Hoshiya says “Gadol hu Kiddush Hashem michilul Hashem – a sanctification of the Divine Name is greater than a desecration of the Divine Name.” The reason why this Yerushalmi is so fascinating is that the statement is patently obvious. Of course this is true! Indeed, it is so obvious that one must question what the need is to state it. The answer is that the Yerushalmi is discussing a situation where there is both Kiddush Hashem and Chilul Hashem at the same time. In such a situation, the Yerushalmi is telling us that the Kiddush Hashem outweighs the Chillul Hashem. The counterbalance of the Jewish media can and does prevent people and organizations from repeated Chilul Hashem . Often, it is the only means. Some readers may object that we do not find precedent for this “counterbalance of media” in Torah sources. That is true. However, we do find that the Torah loves justice and disdains Chilul Hashem. And as long as one is in full compliance with halacha, one should actively pursue and seek a remedy to injustices. The Chofetz Chaim clearly delineated the parameters when information should be disseminated. At times, as the Chofetz Chaim points out, the mere dissemination of the information is enough to create a change. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” was a concept that Chazal knew long ago. Another example: A Yeshiva moves onto your block and opens up an illegal wedding and catering facility. They do not ask your permission. They just do it. Cars and noise disturb until two or three each morning. You speak to them and you get nowhere. They laugh in your face. They are violating both halacha and the law. They ignore all authority. Is it Lashon Horah to publicize what they are doing? Or does the exposure stop the Chilul Hashem and the injustice? Excessive piety under these circumstances, especially when it involves serious danger, can be wrong and often destructive. The Gemorah (Gittin 56a) concludes that the Bais HaMikdash itself was destroyed because of excessive piety in how the Rabbis dealt with Bar Kamtza4.
4
Initially, some Rabbis [correctly] thought to allow a dispensation to bring an imperfect sacrifice because of the serious circumstances. The excessive piety of Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos prevented that, because he feared that people will erroneously conclude that one is permitted to bring imperfect sacrifices. It was next [correctly suggested] that Bar Kamtza be killed on account to prevent his further traitorous and destructive actions. Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos prevented it saying that people will think that the punishment for one who damages a sacrifice is death. Rabbi Yochanan concluded that Rabbi Zecharya’s excessive piety caused the destruction of the Temple, the burning of the Haichal and our exile.
Page | 5
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
The Mesilas Yesharim (Chapter twenty, “Harei Lecha”) concludes that in regard to these issues one cannot blindly adhere to the one side. Rather, Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto states, “all factors must be weighed carefully on both sides as far as a man can determine – to see which is the proper way to act – the doing or the refraining from doing.” The media must perform both of these tasks, as a counterbalance and as a warning siren to the public, in a responsible manner, within the framework of the Torah’s guidelines. The media must also be aware that a false accusation can utterly destroy a person. Even in our own community, heaven help us, there are disgruntled people that can rationalize to themselves the horrific notion of making a completely false accusation, merely to get back at an individual or institution. False accusations are often likely to be found in cases of wounded pride such as bitter divorces, fired employees, and in cases involving individuals with unstable personalities. The media should be aware of this and take particular caution to ensure that they not enable this type of activity. THE JEWISH MEDIA AND LASHON HORAH The question thus arises as to how a Jewish media source can fulfill its mission to bring pertinent and important information to its readership, while at the same time ensure that it not violate the very serious laws of Lashon HaRah? It is the premise of this short monograph that the Laws of Lashon HaRah are, in fact, not a contradiction to the idea of taking self-protective measurements. Indeed, the very opposite is the case. The Torah (VaYikrah 18:5) tells us the notion of “VeChai Bahem” which means that the laws of the Torah are designed neither to be obstructive nor destructive to those who observe them. Indeed, the words imply quite the opposite according to the Ramban on this verse. The laws of the Torah enable man to live in a safe environment. It is clear that Gedaliah Ben Achikan erred and erred gravely, from a halachic perspective. And yet we find that Gedaliah Ben Achikam was one of the greatest leaders of the generation, where Hashem Himself testifies to his sterling character. By the same token, it is also clear that our organizational leadership has, at times, failed to take the necessary steps to protect future innocent victims of known offenders. AVOIDING A LASHON HORAH REPUTATION There is another important factor of which most people are not aware. It is wrong to have a reputation of being a disseminator of Lashon Horah, even if what one is disseminating is not, in fact, Lashon Horah (SCC 9:3). While the Page | 6
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
reasons why it might be necessary to disseminate this information are so strong that the media source may feel that it is necessary to disseminate anyway, why not clarify the situation as much as possible? In other words, there are many situations where it would be preferable to dispel the erroneous notion that the material is Lashon Horah rather than to remain silent about a potential danger. The conclusion is that due to the prevalent thinking that all Jewish media contains Lashon Horah, every media source must address the underlying issue of why the information they are disseminating would not be considered Lashon Horah, and they must print a disclaimer on any potentially negative article where it would be applicable. It is also true that many people view almost every newspaper and Jewish media source as disseminators of Lashon Horah. However, unless there is a concerted effort by the media to avoid Lashon Horah and to train staff appropriately as to how to handle issues that need to be disseminated, it is extremely unlikely that Lashon Horah can be avoided. One should not look at the occasional need to disseminate critical information as blanket permission to print Lashon Horah. Some Jewish media sources erroneously think that if the subject is not named then it does not constitute Lashon Horah. The Chofetz Chaim clearly states (SCC 3:4) that it is still Lashon Horah if the person can identify who the subject is. The Maharal in Nesivos Olam (Nesiv HaLashon 7:5) writes that one who hints to Lashon Horah is considered a speaker of Lashon Horah in all matters. According to this Maharal, it is a biblical violation. The Chofetz Chaim, however, added a footnote (BMC 3:5) to his comment section which indicates his view that this would only be Rabbinic Lashon Horah [Avak Lashon Horah]. Either way it is forbidden, but according to the Chofetz Chaim it may lessen the severity of the Lashon Horah to that of a Rabbinic prohibition. THE DISCLAIMER Perhaps the most important tool available to a Jewish media source is a Lashon Horah disclaimer. It is of paramount importance that each and every media source that is concerned about Jewish law and will be disseminating information that may contain negative information about another prominently display a disclaimer that will stress and bring home to the reader that the information may be incorrect and wrong and should not be believed. The information is there solely for precautionary purposes. “The material in this article is solely for the purposes of taking precautionary protective measures. It is forbidden by Torah law to believe the information contained in these words. It would be Page | 7
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
beneficial to look at it in the following way: Imagine if you own a daycare center and your own child, sibling, or spouse whom you trust implicitly was accused of improper activity. Will you believe the accusation? Probably not. Are you morally obligated to take precautionary measures? Yes. The subject discussed in this article is no different than your own family member and deserves that same presumption of innocence. Halacha, therefore, mandates that you use the information in this article only as a precautionary protective measure.” The disclaimer written here is slightly more elaborate than a typical disclaimer. There is a purpose to this. There is a general tendency for people to ignore disclaimers. This one is much more effective in bringing home the notion that it is forbidden to believe the information because of the imagery. Of course, not every article should contain this particular type of disclaimer. If it is determined that the information should be disseminated because of its truth and because of the nature of who the information is about, then a different disclaimer is appropriate. The second type of disclaimer should, however, contain and state three things. They are: 1] The improper act reported in the article is not exaggerated beyond the information reported. 2] The intent behind the dissemination is done with the proper intentions and motivation for the public good. 3] This dissemination is being made in a public forum. The point is that each article should have the disclaimer particular to its own details. At times the situation will change and the first disclaimer should be used at the beginning, only to be replaced by the second type of disclaimer. VERIFYING INFORMATION We find elsewhere in this monograph that the Chofetz Chaim does allow certain things to be done if one heard the information from another source and it was verified to be true. What is considered a birur, a verification, for these types of purposes? Is a police report and or FBI report considered to be a halachically valid form of verification? The answer to these questions would depend. At times and at some places corruption is so rampant that even government employees and agencies falsify documentation. If there is a significant possibility of this, such Page | 8
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
verification would certainly be considered unreliable, and may not be used as a Birur, verification. How about other forms of corroboration? It is highly likely that if a number of sources independently tell us the same story and it would be impossible to assume collusion then that would be considered a form of verification. This is true even if they would not be considered as kosher witnesses in a Bais Din otherwise. NATURE OF THE INFORMATION When dealing with this type of subject, of course, a quite varied response will be heard. People are very different and hold very different viewpoints. There will be those who say that it would be completely forbidden to read any newspaper or Jewish media source. How so? The Chofetz Chaim, as is known to those who have read him, does forbid speaking positively about a person when it is likely that it will evoke a negative reaction from the listener (SCC 3:4). If this were applied to newspapers or Jewish media sources, it would be impossible to print the biography of any person – even when only positive things are being said. There is not a single public Torah figure who did not make some sort of enemy of people in his lifetime. If a newspaper does a profile of a particular Rebbe, adherents of an opposing Rebbe might and often respond negatively. It cannot be that the Torah forbids all of this. It would seem, therefore ,that perhaps the explanation is that one cannot take into consideration the reactions of extreme individuals under such circumstances. When the Chofetz Chaim limited this type of expression perhaps he meant to limit it only in terms of conversations with a few individuals. What then should be the criterion that is used when publishing for the masses? It would seem rather, that the same yardstick applied by many Poskim to the laws of Lifnei Iver should be applied to the Laws of Lashon Horah. According to many Poskim, the criterion for Lifnei Iver is determined by what the stronger likelihood of the reaction would be (See Ain Yitzchok by Rav Yitzchok Elchonon Spector OC #13 and HaGaos Tosfos Anshei Shaim on Shviis 5:7). Perhaps the same halachic parameters of what constitutes Lifnei Iver should guide us as to what constitutes Lashon Horah. It is also a fact that one person’s model behavior is another person’s horrendous behavior (SCC 5:6). This creates another quandary for us. When facing a large audience of eclectic and diverse individuals it would be Page | 9
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
impossible to say anything at all, because invariably someone in that audience may view the information negatively. It would seem, therefore, that the criterion for what would constitute Lashon Horah should be what the stronger likelihood of the reaction might be. If this is not the case, then it would be prohibited to print every positive article or biography of any Torah giant. Another issue that media sources face has to do with information that the person’s family might find to be Lashon Horah, while the subject himself would be perfectly fine with. For example, let’s say there was a story of a Hasidic basketball player who keeps Shabbos and davens three times per day with minyanim. His more observant family might be quite upset over the situation and be figuratively ripping Kriyah on the situation. On the other hand, both he and many others, including a media source’s readership base, might be quite proud of the story and find it quite inspirational. Although each media source should consult with their own Posaik, it would seem likely that as long as the subject himself is not disturbed by it, a cost benefit analysis should be done on each type of case. A CONTROVERSIAL LENIENCY – APAY TLASA It is well known that there are two types of Lashon Horah – Type A - speaking negatively about another party (SCC 1:1) and Type B - imparting information about another party that could bring about harm to him or her (BMC 2:14). There is a debate among the authorities as to how to understand the leniency found in the Talmud of Apay Tlasa – when the information was said in front of three people. Some limit the leniency to only neutral information that is not negative. The bottom line is that there is a debate whether the laws of Lashon HaRah apply to a situation where the information is already known to a significant number of people. Since it is a point of contention in Halacha, the Chofetz Chaim rules that it is preferable not to rely upon the opinion that rules leniently (SCC 2:10). It would seem that one should generally follow this advice unless there are extremely pressing reasons for printing the article. When dealing with news article it would help us to know that there are generally two types of news articles – there is a “scoop” article in which the negative information is not known to other sources. There is also a referenced information article, where the negative information is already known and has been printed elsewhere. If it is a scoop article, this leniency will certainly not be applicable, unless it can be argued that a significant number of people knew the information anyway. If it is a referenced information article then the issue is subject to the debate mentioned above. Page | 10
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
There are authorities5, however, who differ from the Chofetz Chaim, and learn that the leniency of Apay Tlasa only applies to Type B Lashon Horah – imparting information that could bring harm to the other party. According to these authorities, the leniency of Apay Tlasa would not be in dispute. A good argument can thus be made that if the editor’s intent in printing the article was not malicious, the fact that the article was merely that of referenced information, would negate the issue of Lashon Horah. While the Chofetz Chaim would not necessarily have agreed, the prohibition was not an outright prohibition in his view either. The Chofetz Chaim does mention seven requirements that must be met in order to use the leniency of Apay Tlasa. The requirements that are applicable to a news media source are: 1] The intent cannot be to purposefully disseminate the information. The information may only be revealed casually (SCC 2:3 BMC 2:3) in the article. 2] The article may not embellish any of the facts (SCC 2:9 BMC 2:25). He must also leave out additional adjectives that further embellish the facts. 3] If the article involves referenced information, but would have been limited to a small group of people or location and not picked up by other news media – the article may not be disseminated to a larger audience. If the original source of the information is a large group of people, the Chofetz Chaim would maintain (BMC 2:14) that it is perhaps possible that it would be permitted to disseminate the information. If the information is of such interest that the information would have been spread anyway, it would be permitted to disseminate. 4] The Chofetz Chaim has another requirement (SCC 2:10) that the listening audience should not be of the temperament that they accept what is being said as the truth. But if the audience will a] accept it as truth and b] will possibly add to the information then it is forbidden. Of all the above restrictions to the leniency of Apay Tlasa – this one is the most limiting. It is possible that a disclaimer referred to earlier could address the issue, however there is always the chance that a person might ignore the disclaimer. This is a component that must be carefully weighed, based upon the benefits and need to disclose the information and the potential harm (See BMC 10:18). As far as possibly adding to the information, it could be that the fact that anyone could easily look up what the original article said would discourage anyone from adding to what was originally said. Most of these restrictions deal with information that is obtained from one of the three people who were originally told the information. In our case, the 5
Yad HaKetana and Avodas HaMelech on Rambam Hilchos Dayos 9:19
Page | 11
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
material is so universally dispersed that some of the seven requirements are not applicable. LENIENCY OF MUCHZAK LERASHA If the subject of the negative information being disseminated has been classified and categorized as a bone fide evil-doer without doubt and constantly violates prohibitions that are well known to all as Torah violations, the restrictions of Lashon Horah are not applicable (SCC 8:7). There are three caveats to this, however. 1] The improper act reported in the article may not exaggerated beyond the information reported. 2] The intent behind the dissemination must be done with the proper intentions and motivation for the public good, and 3] The dissemination must be made publicly. For this leniency there is no need to reprimand the subject before the article is printed (BMC 7:10) although it would be a nice and proper thing to do (BMC 10:30) if there is a chance that he will accept the reproach and correct his behavior. LENIENCY OF ARGUMENTATIVE PEOPLE There is an opinion (See SCC 8:8) that it is permitted to report negative information on argumentative people that cause Machlokes. This is only permitted if the information will assist in quelling the argument. If it will not quell the argument it is not permitted. There are five other requirements: 1. The information must be disseminated solely with the proper intentions. 2. There may not be any motivation of hate. 3. It is only permitted if the disseminator believes there is no other feasible method of quelling the argument. 4. The information must either be known personally to the disseminator or he must have verified the information to be accurate if he heard it from others 5. The disseminator must think hard to determine if, in fact, this party is really the argumentative one. If it cannot be determined then the information should not be disseminated. Some authorities feel that it is preferable not to use this leniency since not only is it the subject of debate among Rishonim6, but the entire leniency 6
This leniency is a Yerushalmi (Peah chapter one) and is cited by the SMaG, Hagaos Maimoni, SMaK and Sefer Chasidim (631). The Rif, Rosh and Rambam do not cite this leniency. Page | 12
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
perforce involves another reason that would have allowed the information to be revealed. The source of the argumentative people leniency is based upon the prophet Nathan’s having informed King David of Adoninahu’s attempted coup. The attempted coup would have invariably led to Shlomo’s murder and to his loss of his kingdom. Certainly it would have been permitted for Nathan to have revealed it to King David for these danger issues alone. The basis of argumentative people being a leniency in and of itself is questionable. On the other hand, other authorities feel that the Rishonim who do not list the leniency do not disagree with it, but just chose not to list it. These authorities feel that it is a fully accepted leniency. LENIENCY OF CHILDREN AND STUDENTS There exists another leniency in warning one’s children and students to stay away from a particular person or group of people (SCC 4:10) who demonstrate improper character traits such as haughtiness, anger, etc. Indeed, this is also characterized as a Mitzvah. The reason is to warn one’s students and children so that they not befriend them and adopt these improper traits. The intent of the disseminator must be for the sake of heaven. If the disseminator witnessed it himself, he may state it outright. If he only heard it from others he may say, “I heard from this source that Shimon did such and such.” For this leniency, there is no need to adhere to the seven conditions referred to earlier. It must be stressed, however, that this is only permitted to one’s students and children. It can be assumed that grandchildren would be included in this leniency too. Employees and friends are perhaps to broad to be included in this leniency. The Chofetz Chaim indicates that the broader public, such as a readership base, would not be included in this leniency. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION The directors or editor of the Jewish News media source should realize that, according to Halacha, there are four different categories of news stories that involve negative or potentially negative information toward people who may have harmed or damaged others and may still harm or damage others: •
Category One – This category involves negative stories that should not be printed at all. These stories are either of doubtful veracity or serve no critical purpose to the reading public. Printing these stories constitutes Lashon HaRah and should be avoided at all costs.
•
Category Two – are stories in which there is a very strong purpose in printing them. However, they should only be printed after the information was verified and the news media source had contacted the subject of the
Page | 13
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
news story if possible and attempted to redirect or correct the behavior. While it may seem bizarre to obligate a news media source to engage in such behavior, this is the obligation of every individual Jew. There is a concept in halacha known as Arvus and each Jew is responsible for one another. If the subject refuses to consider the redirection, then the news media source may print the story provided that seven conditions (enumerated below in the expanded section on Category Two) are met. •
Category Three- comprises stories that one must be concerned about, but must not believe. These stories may be printed but only with a disclaimer prominently attached to the front of the story indicating that the information contained within may not be believed, but may only be used for purposes of self-protection. We may act on this information for selfprotective purposes just in case it is true, but we may not believe it and we may not act in a manner that is harmful to the person the story is about.
•
Category Four – involves people who have willfully acted incorrectly and refuse to redirect or correct their actions whatsoever. There is no possibility in which their actions may be judged favorably. Under such circumstances it is in fact a Mitzvah to publicize, reveal and disseminate the information.
The editor and or directors should also realize that someone must either be retrained or hired in order to look over the information to be posted. The hired employee, of course, must be trained to identify two different type of news articles: 1] Articles that can clearly be placed into one of the four categories. 2] Articles that are gray areas and a consultation with the Media Sources Posek is warranted. The job of looking over every article is extremely important. Imagine, if you will a pharmacy that occasionally gets poisoned antibiotic medicine. Should the pharmacy check it? Absolutely. Should it just not stock antibiotics anymore? Absolutely not. The pharmacy and the media source provide a vital function that must be preserved. We will now expound slightly upon each of these four categories. Category One- Stories, posts and comments that may not be printed. Every Jewish media source should review the material in each of its stories to ensure that no Category One story or statement is posted on its site or comment section. It would be wrong to expose one’s readership to a Category One story or comment. If the Jewish media source does not have the financial resources to Page | 14
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
review the comment section before allowing a comment to be posted then it should not be posted. Automatic posting should be discontinued because of the potential Lashon Horah that it enables. Category Two – Once again these are stories in which there is a very strong purpose in printing them. In order to print the story there must be 1] a strong reason or need to print it, 2] the information must have been verified for accuracy and 3] an attempt must have been made to redirect or correct the behavior or it is ascertained that the subject will ignore all efforts to redirect or correct the behavior. Even still, there are seven requirements that must be met (See Sefer Chofetz Chaim, 10:2). 1. The editor must know that the information accurate. Accuracy can be determined either because he knows the information firsthand or if he heard it from others and verified that the information was true. It is clear from the words of the Chofetz Chaim that it is possible to look at the evidence and determine whether something was true or not. There is a concept that generally speaking professionals do their jobs properly. If police or authorities have gathered evidence and the disseminator has examined that evidence and has determined that there was nothing false or untoward involved then the information can be considered to have been verified. 2. The editor or disseminator of the information must think carefully, as to whether it is, in fact, improper behavior. Perhaps there were other details about the behavior that show that it was not theft. It is rare for someone, for example, to steal or damage an item of someone else (see SCC BMC 10:6). If the subject is generally very observant and a Ben Torah, and there is a possibility that there is more to the story, there is an obligation to speak to him first to ascertain whether he acted correctly. 3. If there is any possibility of the editor redirecting the subject to correct his behavior, he must do so prior to printing the information. If there is no such possibility either because he cannot reasonably get hold of him or he is convinced that he will not accept the redirection – there is no obligation to redirect. 4. The editor must have the correct intentions when he prints (SCC 10:2). He may not print out of hate or spite. There are a number of intentions that may be constituted as proper and correct: a.
Page | 15
If the editor’s thought is to help the victims or potential victims.
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
b. If the editor’s thoughts are to minimize the pain of the victims, and demonstrate that it is not the victim’s fault, this is also considered to be the proper intent (BMC 10:14 10:31note) c. If the editor intends that the readers will force the subject to redirect or correct his actions. Indeed, even if the editor could have corrected the subject himself, but felt that there will be a more effective correction if the readership does it, this is also considered a proper and correct intent. d. If the editor intends that others stay away from this type of activity, when they see that those that do so are denigrated by others (SCC 10:11). However, it may not be printed if there is any possible explanation for the subject’s behavior such as a lack of knowledge that it was, in fact, an incorrect behavior. 5. There can be no other adequate remedy. 6. Greater damage will not come to the subject than he deserves. 7. The editor and or news article may not exaggerate the crime. Category Three – Once again this category comprises stories that one must be concerned about, but may not believe. These stories may be printed but only with a disclaimer prominently attached to the front of the story indicating that the information contained within may not be believed, and may only be used for purposes of self-protection. We may act on this information for self-protective purposes just in case it is true. We may not believe it and we may not act in a manner that is harmful to the person the story is about. One must also be careful not to take a damaging punitive action against the subject such as breaking off a shidduch on account of a “protective measure.” This example is given by the Nachalas Shiva (new response #6; see also Maharik Shoresh #184). There is a proof from the juxtaposition of a statement in the Psiktah Zutrasa (Lekach Tov in BaMidbar Parshas Shlach p. 108b) that discusses the horrific aspects of Lashon Horah, but at the same time states that one must be on guard regarding the information. It seems from there that if one is merely repeating the information or listening to it in order to take protective measures – there is no prohibition of Lashon Horah. Category Four once again involves people who have willfully acted incorrectly and refuse to redirect or correct their actions whatsoever. There is no possibility in which their actions may be judged favorably. Under such circumstances it is
Page | 16
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
in fact a Mitzvah to publicize, reveal and disseminate the information. This is in fact the purpose of a media source to improve the well-being of others. CONCLUSION Authorities and people will differ, of course, about the exact costs and benefits and specifics about disseminating any particular piece of information, and this is to be expected. There are many areas where there are clear cut answers, but at the same time there are many situations where there are no clear cut answers. There are areas where warnings should have been issued when they were not. Ignoring information when it could have prevented harm and tragedy is an enormous responsibility. It is so enormous that Gedaliah Ben Achikam was considered a murderer himself because he ignored important information. He refused to accept the notion that Yishmael could be planning to murder him and others, which Yishmael ultimately did do. There are also areas where innocent people were hurt by entirely false allegations. False allegations hurt the wives and children of innocent people as well. A false allegation can make a person instantly lose his or her Olam HaBah, unless they make their peace with the person whom they have accused. This, of course, rarely happens. On the other hand, if the allegations are true and it is necessary to warn others of what was done, it is the perpetrator of the wrong action that has hurt his own wife and children – not the media. Some media sources will err on the side of too much caution. Others report things prematurely and thus err on the other extreme. We have seen from the information contained in this monograph that the correct way lies somewhere in the middle. The important thing is to ensure that we do our best both at protecting the public and at observing the laws of Lashon Horah. We must ensure that all our actions are done for the sake of Heaven and to recognize that component in others whenever possible. Although this monograph was written specifically for the media source, it is important for the reader to know that the dual responsibilities to avoid Lashon Horah and to heed proper warnings lies with individuals as well. Often, a media source will make a mistake and not post a necessary disclaimer. Often a media source will publish material that should not have been published. There are sometimes leniencies to read material if there is a chance to correct misinformation and or to correct the behavior. But, each person must be honest with themselves and really do it. It should not be used as an excuse to read Lashon Horah. At any rate the information, of course, may not be believed. Page | 17
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
This piece was written for publication on Vosizneias.com. The author may be reached at [email protected]
Page | 18
Newspapers, Media Sources, and Lashon Horah By Rabbi Yair Hoffman Exclusive To Vosizneias.com Please note that throughout this work the abbreviation of SCC stands for Sefer Chofetz Chaim and the abbreviation BMC stands for Be’er Mayim Chaim, both written by the Chofetz Chaim.
SERIOUS AND COMPLEX LAWS The laws of Lashon Horah are simultaneously both quite serious and complex. Much has been written about this category of Jewish law. The ramifications of a violation can often be very devastating. Entire reputations can be destroyed in a matter of days. Indeed, Shlomo HaMelech - King Solomon wrote (Mishlei 18:21), “Maves veChaim beyad Lashon – Death and Life are in the hands of the tongue” which refers to the terrible consequences of Lashon Horah (Erachin 15b). It is also self-evident that without the proper study of these laws, it is veritably impossible to avoid violating them. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to convey information about another so that protective measures may be taken. One must do so with extreme caution. One misstep can have horrific consequences. It can also be perhaps argued that, in today’s electronic age, the issue is even more pertinent than it was in the time of Chazal or in the time of Tanach. In previous times, the information expressed via a person’s tongue was fleeting and ephemeral – it disappeared instantly, except perhaps in the mind of the listener. Nowadays, in our electronic age, the information is much more permanent. Something that was written or published, even only once in a casual off-handed remark, achieves a sense of complete permanence. It will appear again and again on today’s search engines with devastating consequences. This type of article or statement has and does destroy lives. Marriages can be and have been broken over false information and false allegations. Innocent people lose jobs and cannot find other ones. It must therefore be taken very seriously. The potential for harm to another in today’s instant electronic age is by far much greater than it has ever been. DANGERS OF INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING Page | 1
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
At the same time, an incomplete understanding of these laws could also lead to some dire consequences on the opposite end of the spectrum. When people erroneously forbid information from being disseminated on account of thinking that it is Lashon Horah and that it is absolutely forbidden to pass on the information, people cannot take protective measures. At times this too can be quite devastating. A case in point: Gedaliah Ben Achikam was one of the Gedolei HaDor of his generation. It is a perhaps little known fact, but he was also a Navi1. Indeed the Gemorah (Rosh HaShana 18b) explains that Hashem Himself (Zechariah 8:19) equates the death of this great Tzaddik with the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash! Rarely if ever do we find such testimony as to the stature of any individual. Hashem himself is his character witness. The future of Klal Yisroel was in the hands of this great Tzaddik and Gadol. His decisions were of paramount importance. Notwithstanding his greatness and piety and the fact that he was a prophet of Hashem, Chazal tell us that he made a crucial error in halacha and in its application. Gedaliah refused to take protective measures against Yishmael, when he was warned by Yochanan Ben Korayach of Yishmael Ben Nesanya’s malevolent intent (Yirmiyahu 40:16). The consequences were quite grave indeed. Gedaliah and all his men were brutally murdered (Yirmiyahu 41:2). The Gemorah tells us (Niddah 61a) that Gedaliah Ben Achikam misused the halachic concept of Lashon HaRah and applied it erroneously. It was a tragic error that resulted not only in his death, the scattering of the nation, but also in the loss of Klal Yisroel’s independence as a nation. Indeed, the repercussions of his error are still felt to this day. The repercussions are felt in two ways. Firstly, they are felt in exact ramifications of his miscalculation - that the nation of Israel ceased to be an independent nation. But secondly, we still have not learned from his example. To this day, there are many well-meaning people who misapply the notion of Lashon HaRah in ways that can cause Klal Yisroel to err and err again. The results of Gedaliah’s inaction were so grave that the Mesilas Yesharim (chapter twenty) notes that the Gemorah (Niddah 61a) considers it as if Gedaliah himself had killed all of his people! This is a remarkably thoughtprovoking notion. At times, the sin of incorrectly “sounding the Lashon Horah warning” and ignoring the information is so grave that one who does 1
See Bais Shmuel (Even HoEzer, Shaimos Anashim veNashim Os Ches citing Maharit). Indeed, this is why the name Gedaliah is spelled with a vov at the end in a Get.
Page | 2
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
so is considered the actual perpetrator of the repercussions that have transpired on account of the silence, whether it be theft, molestation or even murder. The conclusions from this are quite clear. There are times that information must be given to ward off potential harm to others, in order that they be able to take self-protective measures. At the same time, there are situations where it is forbidden for people to believe the information, even though they may act upon it to protect themselves. There are also times when the information should not disseminated. No matter what, however, the decision should be made by responsible Talmidei Chachomim attuned to the need to protect others and attuned to the laws of Lashon Horah. It is also clear that the means in which this information is usually disseminated in our times is through the media. Times have changed irrevocably, and the best way to disseminate information rapidly is through the electronic media sources. They are here to stay and are rapidly increasing in significance. IMPORTANCE OF JEWISH MEDIA SOURCES The importance of the media in contemporary society, even in Jewish society, cannot be understated. Rabbeinu Bachya in his commentary on VaYikrah (4:22) discusses the inevitability of leaders sinning. The verse states, “Asher Nasi Yecheta – when a leader will sin..” Rabbeinu Bachya writes, “It does not state, ‘If a leader will sin’ – rather it states ‘When a leader will sin’ - the matter is one of certainty. The reason is that the leader’s heart is filled with conceit and haughtiness.” Rabbeinu Bachya goes on to explain that the Torah (Dvarim 17:20) provides a counterbalance for the haughtiness of a king – he must carry a Sefer Torah with him at all times so that his heart not rise above his brethren. The Nesiim, the leaders of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, were also provided by the Torah with a counter-balance toward their tendency to sin. They were instructed to bring the precious Avnei Shoham stones as a gift (Shmos 22:27). These precious stones were the same type of stones that were found on the breastplate of Aharon HaKohain – the stones that were designed to achieve atonement. The stones thus had a humility-inducing effect to them, according to Rabbeinu Bachya2.
2
The Netziv also interpreted the verse “Asher Nasi yechetah” in the same manner, that the Torah is predicting the absolute certainness of the leader stumbling.
Page | 3
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
In our times, matters are slightly different. We have neither the directive for our leaders to carry with them a Sefer Torah, nor a directive to bring the humility-inducing Avnei Shoham stones. What then will provide the necessary counter-balance to the inevitability of haughtiness and sin? There is no question that the media can and must function in this capacity, as a counter-balance to the corruptive nature of leadership and power. For example, when a powerful institution can erroneously house and protect an indisputably open and present danger3 to Klal Yisroel, a counterbalance must be implemented in order to effectively neutralize that danger. There are a few cases that transpired in recent years, where organizations protected people that presented a clear and present danger to young children, and that the situation was addressed only because the media got involved. The leadership of these organizations, did not make the necessary and proper decisions under these circumstances, and endangered the welfare of numerous children. Surprisingly, it was the Jewish media sources, however, that did make the proper decision in exposing the issue. Another area in which the Jewish media can function is to stop Chilul Hashem, the desecration of the Divine Name. At times, a group of people or an organization will do things that are so wrong and incorrect that it leads to Chillul Hashem. They are so blind to it, that not only do they not realize the consequences of their actions, but they ignore any and every reprimand to cease their activities. Example: A group of Yeshiva students from Yeshiva X goes boating every year on a dangerous river. And each year, the authorities need to rescue them at great expense. The authorities warn them each time not to engage in this activity without proper training or equipment. After a certain point it is time for the media to step in and report what is happening, for the purpose of preventing this group from doing it again. One might, however, object that it is the media source that is contributing to the Chilul Hashem by publicizing it even further. This is an incorrect objection. Imagine a Jewish thief telling everyone to keep quiet about his crimes because of the Chillul Hashem involved. The media source is preventing further Chilul Hashem through the exposure. The fact that Jewish people are being honest and are attempting to ferret out and prevent this type of activity is a Kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of the Divine Name – not a desecration of the Divine Name. Of course, if it is at all possible, it should be stopped through other means.
3
It has been conclusively demonstrated that child molestation has a devastating effect on the psycho-social development of children and adults. See Tzitz Eliezer volume for a ruling on how a psycho-social consequence can impact halacha.
Page | 4
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
There is a fascinating Yerushalmi in the fourth chapter of Kiddushin (page 65): Rabbi Hoshiya says “Gadol hu Kiddush Hashem michilul Hashem – a sanctification of the Divine Name is greater than a desecration of the Divine Name.” The reason why this Yerushalmi is so fascinating is that the statement is patently obvious. Of course this is true! Indeed, it is so obvious that one must question what the need is to state it. The answer is that the Yerushalmi is discussing a situation where there is both Kiddush Hashem and Chilul Hashem at the same time. In such a situation, the Yerushalmi is telling us that the Kiddush Hashem outweighs the Chillul Hashem. The counterbalance of the Jewish media can and does prevent people and organizations from repeated Chilul Hashem . Often, it is the only means. Some readers may object that we do not find precedent for this “counterbalance of media” in Torah sources. That is true. However, we do find that the Torah loves justice and disdains Chilul Hashem. And as long as one is in full compliance with halacha, one should actively pursue and seek a remedy to injustices. The Chofetz Chaim clearly delineated the parameters when information should be disseminated. At times, as the Chofetz Chaim points out, the mere dissemination of the information is enough to create a change. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” was a concept that Chazal knew long ago. Another example: A Yeshiva moves onto your block and opens up an illegal wedding and catering facility. They do not ask your permission. They just do it. Cars and noise disturb until two or three each morning. You speak to them and you get nowhere. They laugh in your face. They are violating both halacha and the law. They ignore all authority. Is it Lashon Horah to publicize what they are doing? Or does the exposure stop the Chilul Hashem and the injustice? Excessive piety under these circumstances, especially when it involves serious danger, can be wrong and often destructive. The Gemorah (Gittin 56a) concludes that the Bais HaMikdash itself was destroyed because of excessive piety in how the Rabbis dealt with Bar Kamtza4.
4
Initially, some Rabbis [correctly] thought to allow a dispensation to bring an imperfect sacrifice because of the serious circumstances. The excessive piety of Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos prevented that, because he feared that people will erroneously conclude that one is permitted to bring imperfect sacrifices. It was next [correctly suggested] that Bar Kamtza be killed on account to prevent his further traitorous and destructive actions. Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos prevented it saying that people will think that the punishment for one who damages a sacrifice is death. Rabbi Yochanan concluded that Rabbi Zecharya’s excessive piety caused the destruction of the Temple, the burning of the Haichal and our exile.
Page | 5
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
The Mesilas Yesharim (Chapter twenty, “Harei Lecha”) concludes that in regard to these issues one cannot blindly adhere to the one side. Rather, Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto states, “all factors must be weighed carefully on both sides as far as a man can determine – to see which is the proper way to act – the doing or the refraining from doing.” The media must perform both of these tasks, as a counterbalance and as a warning siren to the public, in a responsible manner, within the framework of the Torah’s guidelines. The media must also be aware that a false accusation can utterly destroy a person. Even in our own community, heaven help us, there are disgruntled people that can rationalize to themselves the horrific notion of making a completely false accusation, merely to get back at an individual or institution. False accusations are often likely to be found in cases of wounded pride such as bitter divorces, fired employees, and in cases involving individuals with unstable personalities. The media should be aware of this and take particular caution to ensure that they not enable this type of activity. THE JEWISH MEDIA AND LASHON HORAH The question thus arises as to how a Jewish media source can fulfill its mission to bring pertinent and important information to its readership, while at the same time ensure that it not violate the very serious laws of Lashon HaRah? It is the premise of this short monograph that the Laws of Lashon HaRah are, in fact, not a contradiction to the idea of taking self-protective measurements. Indeed, the very opposite is the case. The Torah (VaYikrah 18:5) tells us the notion of “VeChai Bahem” which means that the laws of the Torah are designed neither to be obstructive nor destructive to those who observe them. Indeed, the words imply quite the opposite according to the Ramban on this verse. The laws of the Torah enable man to live in a safe environment. It is clear that Gedaliah Ben Achikan erred and erred gravely, from a halachic perspective. And yet we find that Gedaliah Ben Achikam was one of the greatest leaders of the generation, where Hashem Himself testifies to his sterling character. By the same token, it is also clear that our organizational leadership has, at times, failed to take the necessary steps to protect future innocent victims of known offenders. AVOIDING A LASHON HORAH REPUTATION There is another important factor of which most people are not aware. It is wrong to have a reputation of being a disseminator of Lashon Horah, even if what one is disseminating is not, in fact, Lashon Horah (SCC 9:3). While the Page | 6
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
reasons why it might be necessary to disseminate this information are so strong that the media source may feel that it is necessary to disseminate anyway, why not clarify the situation as much as possible? In other words, there are many situations where it would be preferable to dispel the erroneous notion that the material is Lashon Horah rather than to remain silent about a potential danger. The conclusion is that due to the prevalent thinking that all Jewish media contains Lashon Horah, every media source must address the underlying issue of why the information they are disseminating would not be considered Lashon Horah, and they must print a disclaimer on any potentially negative article where it would be applicable. It is also true that many people view almost every newspaper and Jewish media source as disseminators of Lashon Horah. However, unless there is a concerted effort by the media to avoid Lashon Horah and to train staff appropriately as to how to handle issues that need to be disseminated, it is extremely unlikely that Lashon Horah can be avoided. One should not look at the occasional need to disseminate critical information as blanket permission to print Lashon Horah. Some Jewish media sources erroneously think that if the subject is not named then it does not constitute Lashon Horah. The Chofetz Chaim clearly states (SCC 3:4) that it is still Lashon Horah if the person can identify who the subject is. The Maharal in Nesivos Olam (Nesiv HaLashon 7:5) writes that one who hints to Lashon Horah is considered a speaker of Lashon Horah in all matters. According to this Maharal, it is a biblical violation. The Chofetz Chaim, however, added a footnote (BMC 3:5) to his comment section which indicates his view that this would only be Rabbinic Lashon Horah [Avak Lashon Horah]. Either way it is forbidden, but according to the Chofetz Chaim it may lessen the severity of the Lashon Horah to that of a Rabbinic prohibition. THE DISCLAIMER Perhaps the most important tool available to a Jewish media source is a Lashon Horah disclaimer. It is of paramount importance that each and every media source that is concerned about Jewish law and will be disseminating information that may contain negative information about another prominently display a disclaimer that will stress and bring home to the reader that the information may be incorrect and wrong and should not be believed. The information is there solely for precautionary purposes. “The material in this article is solely for the purposes of taking precautionary protective measures. It is forbidden by Torah law to believe the information contained in these words. It would be Page | 7
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
beneficial to look at it in the following way: Imagine if you own a daycare center and your own child, sibling, or spouse whom you trust implicitly was accused of improper activity. Will you believe the accusation? Probably not. Are you morally obligated to take precautionary measures? Yes. The subject discussed in this article is no different than your own family member and deserves that same presumption of innocence. Halacha, therefore, mandates that you use the information in this article only as a precautionary protective measure.” The disclaimer written here is slightly more elaborate than a typical disclaimer. There is a purpose to this. There is a general tendency for people to ignore disclaimers. This one is much more effective in bringing home the notion that it is forbidden to believe the information because of the imagery. Of course, not every article should contain this particular type of disclaimer. If it is determined that the information should be disseminated because of its truth and because of the nature of who the information is about, then a different disclaimer is appropriate. The second type of disclaimer should, however, contain and state three things. They are: 1] The improper act reported in the article is not exaggerated beyond the information reported. 2] The intent behind the dissemination is done with the proper intentions and motivation for the public good. 3] This dissemination is being made in a public forum. The point is that each article should have the disclaimer particular to its own details. At times the situation will change and the first disclaimer should be used at the beginning, only to be replaced by the second type of disclaimer. VERIFYING INFORMATION We find elsewhere in this monograph that the Chofetz Chaim does allow certain things to be done if one heard the information from another source and it was verified to be true. What is considered a birur, a verification, for these types of purposes? Is a police report and or FBI report considered to be a halachically valid form of verification? The answer to these questions would depend. At times and at some places corruption is so rampant that even government employees and agencies falsify documentation. If there is a significant possibility of this, such Page | 8
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
verification would certainly be considered unreliable, and may not be used as a Birur, verification. How about other forms of corroboration? It is highly likely that if a number of sources independently tell us the same story and it would be impossible to assume collusion then that would be considered a form of verification. This is true even if they would not be considered as kosher witnesses in a Bais Din otherwise. NATURE OF THE INFORMATION When dealing with this type of subject, of course, a quite varied response will be heard. People are very different and hold very different viewpoints. There will be those who say that it would be completely forbidden to read any newspaper or Jewish media source. How so? The Chofetz Chaim, as is known to those who have read him, does forbid speaking positively about a person when it is likely that it will evoke a negative reaction from the listener (SCC 3:4). If this were applied to newspapers or Jewish media sources, it would be impossible to print the biography of any person – even when only positive things are being said. There is not a single public Torah figure who did not make some sort of enemy of people in his lifetime. If a newspaper does a profile of a particular Rebbe, adherents of an opposing Rebbe might and often respond negatively. It cannot be that the Torah forbids all of this. It would seem, therefore ,that perhaps the explanation is that one cannot take into consideration the reactions of extreme individuals under such circumstances. When the Chofetz Chaim limited this type of expression perhaps he meant to limit it only in terms of conversations with a few individuals. What then should be the criterion that is used when publishing for the masses? It would seem rather, that the same yardstick applied by many Poskim to the laws of Lifnei Iver should be applied to the Laws of Lashon Horah. According to many Poskim, the criterion for Lifnei Iver is determined by what the stronger likelihood of the reaction would be (See Ain Yitzchok by Rav Yitzchok Elchonon Spector OC #13 and HaGaos Tosfos Anshei Shaim on Shviis 5:7). Perhaps the same halachic parameters of what constitutes Lifnei Iver should guide us as to what constitutes Lashon Horah. It is also a fact that one person’s model behavior is another person’s horrendous behavior (SCC 5:6). This creates another quandary for us. When facing a large audience of eclectic and diverse individuals it would be Page | 9
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
impossible to say anything at all, because invariably someone in that audience may view the information negatively. It would seem, therefore, that the criterion for what would constitute Lashon Horah should be what the stronger likelihood of the reaction might be. If this is not the case, then it would be prohibited to print every positive article or biography of any Torah giant. Another issue that media sources face has to do with information that the person’s family might find to be Lashon Horah, while the subject himself would be perfectly fine with. For example, let’s say there was a story of a Hasidic basketball player who keeps Shabbos and davens three times per day with minyanim. His more observant family might be quite upset over the situation and be figuratively ripping Kriyah on the situation. On the other hand, both he and many others, including a media source’s readership base, might be quite proud of the story and find it quite inspirational. Although each media source should consult with their own Posaik, it would seem likely that as long as the subject himself is not disturbed by it, a cost benefit analysis should be done on each type of case. A CONTROVERSIAL LENIENCY – APAY TLASA It is well known that there are two types of Lashon Horah – Type A - speaking negatively about another party (SCC 1:1) and Type B - imparting information about another party that could bring about harm to him or her (BMC 2:14). There is a debate among the authorities as to how to understand the leniency found in the Talmud of Apay Tlasa – when the information was said in front of three people. Some limit the leniency to only neutral information that is not negative. The bottom line is that there is a debate whether the laws of Lashon HaRah apply to a situation where the information is already known to a significant number of people. Since it is a point of contention in Halacha, the Chofetz Chaim rules that it is preferable not to rely upon the opinion that rules leniently (SCC 2:10). It would seem that one should generally follow this advice unless there are extremely pressing reasons for printing the article. When dealing with news article it would help us to know that there are generally two types of news articles – there is a “scoop” article in which the negative information is not known to other sources. There is also a referenced information article, where the negative information is already known and has been printed elsewhere. If it is a scoop article, this leniency will certainly not be applicable, unless it can be argued that a significant number of people knew the information anyway. If it is a referenced information article then the issue is subject to the debate mentioned above. Page | 10
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
There are authorities5, however, who differ from the Chofetz Chaim, and learn that the leniency of Apay Tlasa only applies to Type B Lashon Horah – imparting information that could bring harm to the other party. According to these authorities, the leniency of Apay Tlasa would not be in dispute. A good argument can thus be made that if the editor’s intent in printing the article was not malicious, the fact that the article was merely that of referenced information, would negate the issue of Lashon Horah. While the Chofetz Chaim would not necessarily have agreed, the prohibition was not an outright prohibition in his view either. The Chofetz Chaim does mention seven requirements that must be met in order to use the leniency of Apay Tlasa. The requirements that are applicable to a news media source are: 1] The intent cannot be to purposefully disseminate the information. The information may only be revealed casually (SCC 2:3 BMC 2:3) in the article. 2] The article may not embellish any of the facts (SCC 2:9 BMC 2:25). He must also leave out additional adjectives that further embellish the facts. 3] If the article involves referenced information, but would have been limited to a small group of people or location and not picked up by other news media – the article may not be disseminated to a larger audience. If the original source of the information is a large group of people, the Chofetz Chaim would maintain (BMC 2:14) that it is perhaps possible that it would be permitted to disseminate the information. If the information is of such interest that the information would have been spread anyway, it would be permitted to disseminate. 4] The Chofetz Chaim has another requirement (SCC 2:10) that the listening audience should not be of the temperament that they accept what is being said as the truth. But if the audience will a] accept it as truth and b] will possibly add to the information then it is forbidden. Of all the above restrictions to the leniency of Apay Tlasa – this one is the most limiting. It is possible that a disclaimer referred to earlier could address the issue, however there is always the chance that a person might ignore the disclaimer. This is a component that must be carefully weighed, based upon the benefits and need to disclose the information and the potential harm (See BMC 10:18). As far as possibly adding to the information, it could be that the fact that anyone could easily look up what the original article said would discourage anyone from adding to what was originally said. Most of these restrictions deal with information that is obtained from one of the three people who were originally told the information. In our case, the 5
Yad HaKetana and Avodas HaMelech on Rambam Hilchos Dayos 9:19
Page | 11
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
material is so universally dispersed that some of the seven requirements are not applicable. LENIENCY OF MUCHZAK LERASHA If the subject of the negative information being disseminated has been classified and categorized as a bone fide evil-doer without doubt and constantly violates prohibitions that are well known to all as Torah violations, the restrictions of Lashon Horah are not applicable (SCC 8:7). There are three caveats to this, however. 1] The improper act reported in the article may not exaggerated beyond the information reported. 2] The intent behind the dissemination must be done with the proper intentions and motivation for the public good, and 3] The dissemination must be made publicly. For this leniency there is no need to reprimand the subject before the article is printed (BMC 7:10) although it would be a nice and proper thing to do (BMC 10:30) if there is a chance that he will accept the reproach and correct his behavior. LENIENCY OF ARGUMENTATIVE PEOPLE There is an opinion (See SCC 8:8) that it is permitted to report negative information on argumentative people that cause Machlokes. This is only permitted if the information will assist in quelling the argument. If it will not quell the argument it is not permitted. There are five other requirements: 1. The information must be disseminated solely with the proper intentions. 2. There may not be any motivation of hate. 3. It is only permitted if the disseminator believes there is no other feasible method of quelling the argument. 4. The information must either be known personally to the disseminator or he must have verified the information to be accurate if he heard it from others 5. The disseminator must think hard to determine if, in fact, this party is really the argumentative one. If it cannot be determined then the information should not be disseminated. Some authorities feel that it is preferable not to use this leniency since not only is it the subject of debate among Rishonim6, but the entire leniency 6
This leniency is a Yerushalmi (Peah chapter one) and is cited by the SMaG, Hagaos Maimoni, SMaK and Sefer Chasidim (631). The Rif, Rosh and Rambam do not cite this leniency. Page | 12
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
perforce involves another reason that would have allowed the information to be revealed. The source of the argumentative people leniency is based upon the prophet Nathan’s having informed King David of Adoninahu’s attempted coup. The attempted coup would have invariably led to Shlomo’s murder and to his loss of his kingdom. Certainly it would have been permitted for Nathan to have revealed it to King David for these danger issues alone. The basis of argumentative people being a leniency in and of itself is questionable. On the other hand, other authorities feel that the Rishonim who do not list the leniency do not disagree with it, but just chose not to list it. These authorities feel that it is a fully accepted leniency. LENIENCY OF CHILDREN AND STUDENTS There exists another leniency in warning one’s children and students to stay away from a particular person or group of people (SCC 4:10) who demonstrate improper character traits such as haughtiness, anger, etc. Indeed, this is also characterized as a Mitzvah. The reason is to warn one’s students and children so that they not befriend them and adopt these improper traits. The intent of the disseminator must be for the sake of heaven. If the disseminator witnessed it himself, he may state it outright. If he only heard it from others he may say, “I heard from this source that Shimon did such and such.” For this leniency, there is no need to adhere to the seven conditions referred to earlier. It must be stressed, however, that this is only permitted to one’s students and children. It can be assumed that grandchildren would be included in this leniency too. Employees and friends are perhaps to broad to be included in this leniency. The Chofetz Chaim indicates that the broader public, such as a readership base, would not be included in this leniency. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION The directors or editor of the Jewish News media source should realize that, according to Halacha, there are four different categories of news stories that involve negative or potentially negative information toward people who may have harmed or damaged others and may still harm or damage others: •
Category One – This category involves negative stories that should not be printed at all. These stories are either of doubtful veracity or serve no critical purpose to the reading public. Printing these stories constitutes Lashon HaRah and should be avoided at all costs.
•
Category Two – are stories in which there is a very strong purpose in printing them. However, they should only be printed after the information was verified and the news media source had contacted the subject of the
Page | 13
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
news story if possible and attempted to redirect or correct the behavior. While it may seem bizarre to obligate a news media source to engage in such behavior, this is the obligation of every individual Jew. There is a concept in halacha known as Arvus and each Jew is responsible for one another. If the subject refuses to consider the redirection, then the news media source may print the story provided that seven conditions (enumerated below in the expanded section on Category Two) are met. •
Category Three- comprises stories that one must be concerned about, but must not believe. These stories may be printed but only with a disclaimer prominently attached to the front of the story indicating that the information contained within may not be believed, but may only be used for purposes of self-protection. We may act on this information for selfprotective purposes just in case it is true, but we may not believe it and we may not act in a manner that is harmful to the person the story is about.
•
Category Four – involves people who have willfully acted incorrectly and refuse to redirect or correct their actions whatsoever. There is no possibility in which their actions may be judged favorably. Under such circumstances it is in fact a Mitzvah to publicize, reveal and disseminate the information.
The editor and or directors should also realize that someone must either be retrained or hired in order to look over the information to be posted. The hired employee, of course, must be trained to identify two different type of news articles: 1] Articles that can clearly be placed into one of the four categories. 2] Articles that are gray areas and a consultation with the Media Sources Posek is warranted. The job of looking over every article is extremely important. Imagine, if you will a pharmacy that occasionally gets poisoned antibiotic medicine. Should the pharmacy check it? Absolutely. Should it just not stock antibiotics anymore? Absolutely not. The pharmacy and the media source provide a vital function that must be preserved. We will now expound slightly upon each of these four categories. Category One- Stories, posts and comments that may not be printed. Every Jewish media source should review the material in each of its stories to ensure that no Category One story or statement is posted on its site or comment section. It would be wrong to expose one’s readership to a Category One story or comment. If the Jewish media source does not have the financial resources to Page | 14
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
review the comment section before allowing a comment to be posted then it should not be posted. Automatic posting should be discontinued because of the potential Lashon Horah that it enables. Category Two – Once again these are stories in which there is a very strong purpose in printing them. In order to print the story there must be 1] a strong reason or need to print it, 2] the information must have been verified for accuracy and 3] an attempt must have been made to redirect or correct the behavior or it is ascertained that the subject will ignore all efforts to redirect or correct the behavior. Even still, there are seven requirements that must be met (See Sefer Chofetz Chaim, 10:2). 1. The editor must know that the information accurate. Accuracy can be determined either because he knows the information firsthand or if he heard it from others and verified that the information was true. It is clear from the words of the Chofetz Chaim that it is possible to look at the evidence and determine whether something was true or not. There is a concept that generally speaking professionals do their jobs properly. If police or authorities have gathered evidence and the disseminator has examined that evidence and has determined that there was nothing false or untoward involved then the information can be considered to have been verified. 2. The editor or disseminator of the information must think carefully, as to whether it is, in fact, improper behavior. Perhaps there were other details about the behavior that show that it was not theft. It is rare for someone, for example, to steal or damage an item of someone else (see SCC BMC 10:6). If the subject is generally very observant and a Ben Torah, and there is a possibility that there is more to the story, there is an obligation to speak to him first to ascertain whether he acted correctly. 3. If there is any possibility of the editor redirecting the subject to correct his behavior, he must do so prior to printing the information. If there is no such possibility either because he cannot reasonably get hold of him or he is convinced that he will not accept the redirection – there is no obligation to redirect. 4. The editor must have the correct intentions when he prints (SCC 10:2). He may not print out of hate or spite. There are a number of intentions that may be constituted as proper and correct: a.
Page | 15
If the editor’s thought is to help the victims or potential victims.
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
b. If the editor’s thoughts are to minimize the pain of the victims, and demonstrate that it is not the victim’s fault, this is also considered to be the proper intent (BMC 10:14 10:31note) c. If the editor intends that the readers will force the subject to redirect or correct his actions. Indeed, even if the editor could have corrected the subject himself, but felt that there will be a more effective correction if the readership does it, this is also considered a proper and correct intent. d. If the editor intends that others stay away from this type of activity, when they see that those that do so are denigrated by others (SCC 10:11). However, it may not be printed if there is any possible explanation for the subject’s behavior such as a lack of knowledge that it was, in fact, an incorrect behavior. 5. There can be no other adequate remedy. 6. Greater damage will not come to the subject than he deserves. 7. The editor and or news article may not exaggerate the crime. Category Three – Once again this category comprises stories that one must be concerned about, but may not believe. These stories may be printed but only with a disclaimer prominently attached to the front of the story indicating that the information contained within may not be believed, and may only be used for purposes of self-protection. We may act on this information for self-protective purposes just in case it is true. We may not believe it and we may not act in a manner that is harmful to the person the story is about. One must also be careful not to take a damaging punitive action against the subject such as breaking off a shidduch on account of a “protective measure.” This example is given by the Nachalas Shiva (new response #6; see also Maharik Shoresh #184). There is a proof from the juxtaposition of a statement in the Psiktah Zutrasa (Lekach Tov in BaMidbar Parshas Shlach p. 108b) that discusses the horrific aspects of Lashon Horah, but at the same time states that one must be on guard regarding the information. It seems from there that if one is merely repeating the information or listening to it in order to take protective measures – there is no prohibition of Lashon Horah. Category Four once again involves people who have willfully acted incorrectly and refuse to redirect or correct their actions whatsoever. There is no possibility in which their actions may be judged favorably. Under such circumstances it is
Page | 16
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
in fact a Mitzvah to publicize, reveal and disseminate the information. This is in fact the purpose of a media source to improve the well-being of others. CONCLUSION Authorities and people will differ, of course, about the exact costs and benefits and specifics about disseminating any particular piece of information, and this is to be expected. There are many areas where there are clear cut answers, but at the same time there are many situations where there are no clear cut answers. There are areas where warnings should have been issued when they were not. Ignoring information when it could have prevented harm and tragedy is an enormous responsibility. It is so enormous that Gedaliah Ben Achikam was considered a murderer himself because he ignored important information. He refused to accept the notion that Yishmael could be planning to murder him and others, which Yishmael ultimately did do. There are also areas where innocent people were hurt by entirely false allegations. False allegations hurt the wives and children of innocent people as well. A false allegation can make a person instantly lose his or her Olam HaBah, unless they make their peace with the person whom they have accused. This, of course, rarely happens. On the other hand, if the allegations are true and it is necessary to warn others of what was done, it is the perpetrator of the wrong action that has hurt his own wife and children – not the media. Some media sources will err on the side of too much caution. Others report things prematurely and thus err on the other extreme. We have seen from the information contained in this monograph that the correct way lies somewhere in the middle. The important thing is to ensure that we do our best both at protecting the public and at observing the laws of Lashon Horah. We must ensure that all our actions are done for the sake of Heaven and to recognize that component in others whenever possible. Although this monograph was written specifically for the media source, it is important for the reader to know that the dual responsibilities to avoid Lashon Horah and to heed proper warnings lies with individuals as well. Often, a media source will make a mistake and not post a necessary disclaimer. Often a media source will publish material that should not have been published. There are sometimes leniencies to read material if there is a chance to correct misinformation and or to correct the behavior. But, each person must be honest with themselves and really do it. It should not be used as an excuse to read Lashon Horah. At any rate the information, of course, may not be believed. Page | 17
Copyright Yair Hoffman August 2009
This piece was written for publication on Vosizneias.com. The author may be reached at [email protected]
Page | 18
Related Documents
Lashon Horah By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
May 2020 1
Hoffman Slides
November 2019 11
Hoffman Sayd
June 2020 7
Hoffman Horz
June 2020 6
# 12 Lashon Ka Bazar
July 2020 4
More Documents from "Crown Publishing Group"