Meiri(Shabbos 33b): Even though lashon harah is the foundation of a number of sins and something which our sages spend much effort in severely attacking – there are two conditions in which lashon harah is permitted 1) This is mentioned in Erchin (15b) that derogatory words which are said in the presence of the one being talked about are not considered lashon harah. The gemora questions this and says that lashon harah said in the presence of the one being criticized is surely impudence and lashon harah? This is explained with a statement of R’ Yose that he never said any words about another person and looked around to make sure the person wasn't there. In other words if the person speaking does not refrain from saying the negative words before the one he is speaking about – there is a leniency and this is not considered lashon harah. For example if the speaker directly complains about the other person or calls him a thief and others such negative statements in his presence – the speaker is not considered speaking lashon harah. That is because he wants the person he is criticizing to hear what he is saying. 2) This is also mentioned in Erchin (16a) that whatever is said in the presence of three people is not considered lashon harah. That is because the speaker is saying the negative things with the full desire that his views reach the person he is speaking about. That is because all matters that are known to three people is not considered concealed or a secret. Therefore the speaker is not considered to be saying lashon harah.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Meiri:If not said in a concealed manner - it is not lashon harah
Meiri(Shabbos 33b): Even though lashon harah is the foundation of a number of sins and something which our sages spend much effort in severely attacking – there are two conditions in which lashon harah is permitted 1) This is mentioned in Erchin (15b) that derogatory words which are said in the presence of the one being talked about are not considered lashon harah. The gemora questions this and says that lashon harah said in the presence of the one being criticized is surely impudence and lashon harah? This is explained with a statement of R’ Yose that he never said any words about another person and looked around to make sure the person wasn't there. In other words if the person speaking does not refrain from saying the negative words before the one he is speaking about – there is a leniency and this is not considered lashon harah. For example if the speaker directly complains about the other person or calls him a thief and others such negative statements in his presence – the speaker is not considered speaking lashon harah. That is because he wants the person he is criticizing to hear what he is saying. 2) This is also mentioned in Erchin (16a) that whatever is said in the presence of three people is not considered lashon harah. That is because the speaker is saying the negative things with the full desire that his views reach the person he is speaking about. That is because all matters that are known to three people is not considered concealed or a secret. Therefore the speaker is not considered to be saying lashon harah.
Yeah, but all that is very clearly not the maskana of the Chafetz Chaim. I'm not so sure there is much to be gained by re-examining his entire approach, which this post is seemingly advocating. We need to maybe tweek the was Sefer Chafetz Chaim is misunderstood vis a vis abuse and some other issues. We do not need to uproot it.
ReplyDeleteActually the Chofetz Chaim makes a blanket assertion that his understanding is that of all rishonim except for the Rambam which he dismisses as a das yachid.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have found is that in fact most rishonim agree with this Meiri.
There is no question that the Chofetz Chaim has a view which puts a strong burden of proof on the one who wants to speak. The majority of rishonim as well as the Maharal and Magen Avraham go the other way.
There are significant practical differences between the two approaches.
Furthermore most people I mention this too are not aware that there is a significant issues here.
This falls under the machlokes Chofetz Chaim and Chazon Ish of whether you can use the Meiri since it was discovered later in geniza.
ReplyDeleteWhat's weird is that the Chofetz Chaim is the one who holds you can use geniza to posken halacha lemayseh.
Did the Chofetz Chaim have access to the Sefer Meiri?
Since many people speak lashon hara anyway (the Gemara even says kulam beavak lashon hara), could you use that to say that Klal Yisroel did not accept the shita of the Chofetz Chaim and it is therefore not binding?
ReplyDeleteGeniza said...
ReplyDeleteDid the Chofetz Chaim have access to the Sefer Meiri?
============
Look at Shaarei Tziyun 633 3 where he says that he has the Meiri in manuscript
So then why would the Chofetz Chaim ignore a source he holds you can posken from?
ReplyDeleteYou should know (being the Mechaber of Yad Moshe) that Rav Moshe Feinstein Ztl held that the seforim found only after the rishonim (eg: the meiri)- can not be used for psak halacha.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why do you suddenly seem to be running to advocate for heterim to speak lashon harah?
observer said...
ReplyDeleteYou should know (being the Mechaber of Yad Moshe) that Rav Moshe Feinstein Ztl held that the seforim found only after the rishonim (eg: the meiri)- can not be used for psak halacha.
Also, why do you suddenly seem to be running to advocate for heterim to speak lashon harah?
===============
The issues of manuscripts is not simple -see R' Bleich's articles on the Chazon Ish and manuscripts.
Regarding your second question it is really a circular argument. What I am saying is that the nature of lashon harah is clearly a machlokes rishonim and achronim. Thus what is lashon harah according to the Chafetz Chaim is not lashon harah according to many other authorities.
A better forumlation of the question is, Is there any legitimacy today of anyone who disagrees with the Chofetz Chaim in defining lashon harah. Especially since the Chofetz Chaim bases himself on two points. One he claims that all rishonim agree with his view. Mishna Berura himself says that if an author relying on rov does not know the actual rov - then you can ascribe to him the actual rov in psak. Secondly he says that he poskens like Tosfos because no one explicitly argues and that means that everyone agree - which is very problematic.
In sum - at this point it is a theoretical question which cuts across many issues.
That it isn't "loshon hara" doesn't mean it isn't onas devarim, motzei shem ra or a violation of v'ahavtah reiecha k'mocha:
ReplyDeleteI hope your shoulder's are broad enough for those who will pasken for themselves based on your post.
Being that you seem to have a close relationship with Rav Sternbuch, why don't you share his opinion- if he thinks it is correct to paskin like shitos that don't go according to the Chofetz Chaim, in what constitutes/are the gederaim of Lashon Harah. Of course we would like to see his response in the form of his ksav yad.
ReplyDelete