The Laws of Lashon Hara

Lashon Hara About Oneself

A person is permitted to say derogatory things about himself, and this does not involve the prohibition of lashon hara (see Midrash Shir HaShirim Rabbah, chapter 1: “about yourself you are permitted to speak,” and so it is explained in Chafetz Chaim, rule 7, section 6).

However, a person is not permitted to publicize sins he has committed (see Orach Chaim, siman 607, section 2), nor should he speak about his own congenital defects; for example, one should not say about himself, “I am ugly” (see Ta’anit 20b).

Likewise, a person should not say about himself that he has bad character traits. But he may say about himself that he had bad character traits and worked to correct them, and this is not considered lashon hara.

Lashon Hara About a Person One Does Not Know

It is forbidden to relate lashon hara about a certain person — even without mentioning his name — in a way that the details of the story allow one to understand who that “certain person” is.

However, if it is not possible to understand whom the story concerns, and in addition there is no chance that in the future the listener will understand whom it concerns, it is permitted to tell it (Chafetz Chaim, rule 3, section 4; see Be’er Mayim Chaim, rule 10, s.v. sof davar).

But it is forbidden to speak about a specific person even if the listener does not know him, because usually it is possible to investigate and find out who he is. However, if the listener will never come to know him and will not know whom the matter concerns, it is permitted.

Repentance for Lashon Hara: Between Man and His Fellow or Between Man and God

At times the prohibition of lashon hara is a matter between man and God, and at times it is a matter between man and his fellow. If the listener did not accept the words, then repentance is sufficient, like repentance for other sins between man and God. But if one’s fellow was disgraced in the eyes of the listener, and he suffered harm or distress, whether bodily or financial, one must also ask forgiveness from the person who was harmed (Chafetz Chaim, rule 4, section 12).

There is room to discuss the law in a case where one related something derogatory, and the listener accepted it, but no harm or distress at all was caused to the person spoken about. Must one also ask forgiveness from the person harmed, as in the law of sins between man and his fellow?

From the words of the Chafetz Chaim (rule 4, beginning of section 12) it appears that the very fact that he was disgraced in the eyes of the listeners is considered a sin between man and his fellow. But at the end of his words there, and also in Be’er Mayim Chaim (there, note 48), it appears that if he was not harmed and did not suffer distress, repentance between man and God is sufficient.

A person who related something derogatory and then went to the listener and explained his story in a way that contains no disgrace has corrected the transgression between man and his fellow.

Accordingly, it seems that even if we say that disgrace in the eyes of the listeners is considered a sin between man and his fellow and requires asking him for forgiveness, if he changes the explanation of the matter so that it will not be understood as derogatory, it seems that he will not need to ask him for forgiveness; nevertheless, he must repent between man and God. And if he corrects his words immediately, within the same utterance, he does not even need to repent between man and God.

The Path of Repentance for One Who Heard Lashon Hara

He should decide to remove the matter from his heart and not believe it [for example, by finding a favorable interpretation for the person], and he should repent between man and God by confessing and accepting upon himself not to believe any lashon hara.

Advice for Avoiding the Prohibition of Speaking and Hearing Lashon Hara

One should always accustom himself to judge his fellow favorably, and as a result he will not speak or listen to negative things.

The Transfer of Merits and Sins in the Case of a Habitual Speaker of Lashon Hara

It is explained in the book Chovot HaLevavot that the sins and merits of one who habitually speaks lashon hara pass from one person to another. This is its wording (Sha’ar HaKeni’ah, end of chapter 7): “One of the pious men said: Many people will come to the Day of Reckoning, and when their deeds are shown to them, they will find in the book of their merits merits that they did not perform. They will say: We did not do them. They will be told: The one who spoke about you and told of your disgrace did them. And likewise, when merits are missing from the number of merits of those who spoke disgracefully about them, they will seek them at that time, and they will be told: They were lost from you when you spoke about so-and-so and so-and-so. And likewise, some of them will find in the book of their liabilities liabilities that they did not perform; and when they say: We did not do them, they will be told: They were added to you because of so-and-so and so-and-so about whom you spoke.”

And in Orchot Tzaddikim (Sha’ar HaAnavah, in the third section) it is written as follows: “On the Day of Judgment, many people are shown mitzvot that they did not perform, and they will say: But we did not do this. They will answer them: Those who spoke badly about you performed these mitzvot, and they are taken from them and given to you. And likewise, wicked people are shown sins that they did not commit; and when they say: But we did not do them, they will answer them: These sins were committed by those about whom you spoke lashon hara, and they were taken from them and added to you.”

So too it is explained in the Gemara (Chagigah 15a): “If the righteous man merited, he took his portion and his fellow’s portion in Gan Eden; if the wicked man became liable, he took his portion and his fellow’s portion in Gehinnom,” see there; see also Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Vayakhel.

There is room to discuss whether all the mitzvot transfer or only some of them; examine carefully the above formulations, and see Chatam Sofer (Derashot Chatam Sofer, vol. 1, derashah for the 7th of Adar, year 5596, s.v. BeRambam).

However, it seems that all this applies only to a ba’al lashon hara [one who is accustomed to speaking lashon hara], but if he spoke only once, they do not transfer.

Likewise, it seems that if he repents, the merits and sins return.

The Heter of “Apei Tlata” — the Views of the Rishonim

It is explained in the Gemara, Bava Batra (39b): “Any matter that is said in the presence of three does not involve evil speech.” The Rambam wrote (chapter 7 of Hilchot De’ot, halachah 5): “If these matters were said in the presence of three, the matter has already been heard and become known; and if one of the three tells the matter another time, it does not involve lashon hara, provided that he does not intend to spread the rumor and reveal it further.”

However, the other Rishonim disagree with him (Bava Batra there; Arachin 16a) and explain the sugya differently, and they do not accept this leniency, as the Chafetz Chaim discusses at length (rule 2, Be’er Mayim Chaim, note 3).

In practice, the Chafetz Chaim (there) wrote that one should distance oneself from this leniency, and whoever guards his soul should distance himself from it.

Even according to the Rambam’s view, the Chafetz Chaim (rule 2) wrote several conditions, only if all of them are fulfilled is it permitted according to his opinion:

• The telling must be incidental, not with intent to publicize.
• Only the first listener who heard it in the presence of three may repeat it; but one who heard it from someone who heard it may not tell it, since he does not know with certainty that it was said in the presence of three.
• If the story was told in the presence of God-fearing people who are careful about lashon hara, it is forbidden to tell it, since it is not destined to become known.
• If one of the three is a relative or friend of the person spoken about, there is no permission.
• It may be told only in the same city, but not in another city.
• If the speaker warned not to reveal it, it is forbidden.
• If he knows that the listener will accept his words as true, and not merely take them into account, it is forbidden to tell it.
• It is forbidden to add to or emphasize the story before the listener more than it sounded before the three.

The Heter of “Apei Tlata” in Newspapers

If the newspaper is the first source of publication, the permission of “in the presence of three” does not apply, because it is the first to publicize it.

If the newspaper publishes something that has already become public, it was explained above that one of the conditions for the permission is that the telling be incidental and not intentional; here, however, the very purpose of the newspaper is to publicize the matter.

Nevertheless, one may say that since the matter is truly publicized throughout the world, it is permitted to tell it even if not all the conditions are fulfilled.

And one may also say that even according to the other Rishonim who disagree with this leniency, if the matter is truly public knowledge, it is permitted to tell it according to all opinions (see Be’er Mayim Chaim, Hilchot Lashon Hara, rule 4, note 41).

But all this applies only when he has no intention to degrade the other person; if his intention is to disgrace and humiliate his fellow, this constitutes lashon hara.

Lashon Hara About One Who Does Not Observe Torah and Mitzvot

Regarding a mumar le-te’avon, one who sins out of appetite or desire, it is permitted to relate his wrongdoings if one does not exaggerate the wrongdoing beyond what it was and if one intends a constructive purpose.

Regarding those who do not observe Torah and mitzvot in our times, there is room for doubt whether their status is like that of a tinok she-nishba among the nations (Shabbat 68b). On the one hand, it seems that their status is like that of mumarim, for only a child captured among the nations who knows nothing at all of the concept of Judaism — as in Russia, which was closed off, where people knew nothing at all about Jews and Judaism — is considered such. But those in our times who do not observe Torah and mitzvot know that there are Jews who observe Torah and mitzvot, yet they do not think this obligates them; perhaps their status is like that of mumarim. On the other hand, one may say that because of the prevalent media today and the like, they think that those who observe Torah and mitzvot are strange people, and therefore they do not try to come closer to them and clarify the truth; consequently, their status is like that of a tinok she-nishba.

The Chazon Ish (Yoreh De’ah, siman 2, subsection 28) ruled in practice that they are considered tinok she-nishba, and according to this it is forbidden to relate ordinary lashon hara about them if there is no constructive purpose in the matter [see Rambam, chapter 3 of Hilchot Mamrim, halachah 3; Yoreh De’ah, siman 159; Orach Chaim, siman 385; see also Responsa Binyan Tzion HaChadashot, siman 23; Responsa Maharsham, vol. 1, siman 121; and Responsa Achiezer, vol. 3, siman 25].

However, if the purpose of the account is to publicize their bad path and distance oneself from them, and also to denounce the bad things they do [as is common in Haredi newspapers], there is no prohibition in this.

The Seven Conditions, When All Are Fulfilled, Under Which It Is Permitted to Speak

1). That he saw it himself and did not hear it from others.
2). That he not decide hastily that the other person acted unlawfully, but carefully consider whether the other person truly committed a wrong. 3). That he first rebuke the sinner gently.
4). That he not exaggerate the wrongdoing beyond what it is.
5). That he intend a constructive purpose, not revenge or hatred.
6). That it is impossible to bring about the constructive result in another way.
7). That no harm come to him beyond what the law warrants. [Chafetz Chaim, rule 10, section 2].
And in somewhat greater detail:

• One must clarify the facts and verify clearly the information about which one is going to speak.
• One must determine that, according to halachah, these facts justify speaking and that they cannot be judged favorably.
  [With an average person, where the side of guilt and the side of merit are equal, one must judge him favorably; with a God-fearing person, one is obligated to judge him favorably even if the act leans toward guilt. With a wicked person, one should judge him unfavorably even if the act leans toward merit.]
• One must speak with the sinner first, because it may be that the “sinner” will prove to him that the law is on his side, and it may also be that he will influence him to change his ways.
• One must state the facts as they are, without any interpretations or additions.
• One must intend the benefit of the person spoken about, or the benefit of people who may be harmed; and there must be no enjoyment, joy, revenge, or jealousy mixed in, and he himself must not be biased in the matter.
  If hatred or the like is mixed in, then if the constructive purpose is to help another person so that he not be harmed, he should speak, but he must make every effort to remove the hatred.
• If there is another way by which the needed result can be achieved without telling it, it is forbidden to tell it. Likewise, if it is possible to tell only part, one must tell only part.
• One must ensure that no harm is caused to the person spoken about beyond what he deserves; if greater harm will be caused to him, it is forbidden to tell it.

However, if the account is necessary so that he will not cause further harm, and it is impossible to save the situation in another way, it is permitted even if greater harm will be caused to him.

Hearing Lashon Hara

It is forbidden to listen to lashon hara even if one does not believe it. If the matter is needed for a constructive purpose, he should tell the speaker that it is needed for a constructive purpose (so that there not be a prohibition of “before the blind”), and if all seven aforementioned conditions are fulfilled, it is permitted to listen and take precautions, but not to believe it (Chafetz Chaim, rule 6, section 2), unless these are evident matters or something that is likely to become known (but in the case of one speaking casually, or a person trusted by him like two witnesses, one should not be lenient: Chafetz Chaim, part 1, rule 7; and part 2, rule 6, sections 7–9).