SBHC Lunch and Learn: Journalism and Halacha

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that they disagree with regard to the halakha of Rabba bar Rav Huna? As Rabba bar Rav Huna says: Any matter that is said in the presence of three people

is not subject to the prohibition of malicious speech, as it is already public knowledge. The Gemara elaborates on the suggestion that the dispute hinges upon this point: The one who says that a protest can be lodged in the presence of two people is not of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna and holds that even if only two people hear of a matter it will become a matter of public knowledge. Therefore, it is sufficient to protest in the presence of two witnesses. And the one who says that a protest must be lodged in the presence of three people is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna.

Furthermore, they said: One exposes the hypocrites due to the desecration of God’s name, so others will not think that they are truly righteous and that their deeds bear imitating, as it is stated: “When a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, I will lay a stumbling block before him” (Ezekiel 3:20). That is, when people do not know that someone is wicked to the core, he causes other people to err and this desecrates the name of God when it is revealed. The repentance of utterly wicked people prevents suffering from coming upon them. And although the sentence of judgment has already been signed against them for suffering, their repentance prevents them from being punished.

It is forbidden to speak demeaningly of one's friend, even if it be absolute truth. And this is termed everywhere by Chazal "lashon hara." (For if there were in his words an admixture of falsehood, by which his friend is demeaned even more, this is in the category of "motzi shem ra" [spreading a false report], in which his sin is far greater). And the speaker [of lashon hara] transgresses a negative commandment, viz. (Vayikra 19:16): "Do not go talebearing among your people." And this [lashon hara] is also in the category of rechiluth.

This negative commandment which we adduced is what the Torah stated explicitly for this issur of lashon hara and rechiluth. But aside from this, there are many other negative and positive commandments that one transgresses by speaking lashon hara, as explained above in the preceding introduction.

Chazal have said: For three transgressions punishment is exacted of a man in this world, and he has no share in the world to come: idolatry, illicit relations, and blood-spilling — and lashon hara over and above all. Chazal have proved this from Scripture. And the Rishonim have explained that the reference is to those who are habituated to this sin [lashon hara] and who do not take it upon themselves to guard themselves against it, the thing having become "permitted" to them.

If a man saw someone harming his friend, whether robbing him, wronging him, or causing him damage, whether the one robbed or caused damage knew of it or not — or if he shamed him or aggrieved him, or wronged him with words — and it became known to him clearly that he did not return the theft or reimburse him for the damage and did not beseech him to forgive his transgression — even if he saw this thing by himself, he can relate it to others in order to help the one who was wronged and to condemn these evil deeds before men; but he must take care that there not be lacking the following seven details which we shall now explain:

Regardless of whether the slander is spoken in the presence of his fellow, or in his absence, or if the slander spread from mouth to mouth cause harm to his fellow, to his body, or property, even to cause him anguish, or fear to his soul, behold this is the iniquity of an evil tongue. If such evil be spoken in the presence of three persons, the matter is thereby considered public. Thus, if one of the three who heard it repeat it to others no sin of an evil tongue is found therein, provided that in re-telling it he had no intention to spread the rumor and advertise it still more.⁷Arakin, 16b. C. G.

And, therefore, one must take great heed, even if a man is known to have had a certain fault in his youth, but from then until now he has been conducting himself correctly; or if it is known about his forbears that they did not conduct themselves correctly at all, but he does not hold on to their ways, and all such things, where, in truth, he is not open to aspersion, it is forbidden to demean him or to shame him before his friends because of this [early fault]. And one who transgresses and speaks about these things before others, even if not in his presence, in order to shame him in the eyes of his people, even if he adds nothing to the truth, is in the class of the speakers of lashon hara, who do not behold the Divine Presence, as stated in Sha'arei Teshuvah 214. And the heter of apei telata does not apply in such an instance, even if the thing is known to all, since, in truth, he [the object of this report] bears no blemish in this, as written in Yechezkel (18:20-22): "The son shall not bear the sin of the father. And the wicked one, when he turns from all his sins which he has done… All of the sins which he has done shall not be reckoned unto him in his righteousness. In the righteousness which he has done shall he live." And he [who does bring these things up to him] renders him a mockery in the mouths of men.