By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
There is a great debate out there as to how we should be looking at certain areas of halacha. Before we get to that debate, however, a brief introduction is in order.
Rav God’l Eisner zatzal was the Mashgiach of the Chidushei HaRim Yeshiva in Eretz Yisroel. In his shiurim on Sefer Mesilas Yesharim, he once explained why many of the ethical aspects of Torah are called midos. He explained that these ethical aspects are not necessarily objectively quantifiable but are more subjective in nature. Rav Eisner provides a moshol that they are likened to a tailor who measures the specific dimensions of a man fitting himself for a suit. Some men are tall – others are short. Some are thin and some are portly. This is why they are called midos – measurements. There are other aspects of Torah, however, that are clearly well-defined objective laws. Hilchos Kashrus and Hilchos Shabbos – fit into the latter category.
THE TWO GROUPS
Some people, even in our own Torah communities, claim that the laws of Lashon Harah were not originally of the latter category, but rather of the former category and it was the Chofetz Chaim who changed them up. Others, however, disagree.
For purposes of clarity, we can name the two groups. The first group we can call the “Only Guidelines Proponents” – henceforth OGP. The latter group we can call the “Guidelines and Specifics Proponents” – henceforth GSP.
The GSP claim that there are objective and clear-cut rules to the ethical dimensions of Torah as well. These objective rules always existed and are and always were part and parcel of our Torah tradition. It is just that just like in other aspects of Torah that were scattered about throughout Shas – they needed to be gathered and clarified as well.
The OGP claim that this is not true and that the Chofetz Chaim took something that was only OGP and changed it up to become GSP. They look at the Chofetz Chaim as going beyond a clarifier of Halacha but rather an innovator – of sorts.
THE RIF
Some of the claims of the OPG are, however, beyond the pale of acceptability. The Rif, who left out the Aggadic sections of the Talmud clearly quantified many of these as halachos – as they are found in his halachic compendium on Shabbos (see daf yud gimel through yud dalet in the Rif). This was in the 11th century – some eight centuries before th Chofetz Chaim.
On the other hand, the OPG try to bring a proof from the fact that they Rambam only includes Lashon Harah halachos in Hilchos Dayos (See 7:1-6) – and not in, say, Sefer Nezikin – that this area of Torah was always subjective and not quantifiable. The response of the GSP camp would be that some things are not so easily quantifiable and that they too are objective laws just like hilchos Shabbos.
IS THERE A THIRD CATEGORY?
This author would like to suggest that the GSP are correct but that there is a third category where there are detailed halachos but there is no maaseh action associated with these halachos – just speech. This is why they are included in Hilchos Dayos. The Chofetz Chaim, just like in other areas of halacha, was a gatherer of specific objective halacha and did not “make up” – so to speak – the laws of Lashon haRah.
It is clear, however, that not all Poskim look at all areas of halacha in the same manner. The Sefer Chasidim’s position on MiDvar Sheker Tirchak is that it falls within the category of Aitzah Tovah rather than an issur in the Torah. Others, however, including the Chofetz Chaim, look at it as clear-cut objective halacha.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
The Chofetz Chaim addresses the issue and the accusation that he made musser into halacha in his introduction to Shemiras Haloshen. He makes it clear that he did not. He gives halchchic sources for everything. He was careful to only give halacha and not musser sources when writing Hilchos Shemiras Haloshen . He made one exception for Rabbainu Yonah because Rabbainu Yonah was so based on Gemara but even then (1)he did not do so unless he knew of clear sources for what Rabbaiunu Yonah was saying and (2) tried very not hard to give Rabbainu Yonah as his ONLY source.
The musser sefer Tnuas Hamusser quotes the Chofetz Chaim as saying that he did not bring down a certain Rambam in Hilchos Deos despite the Rambam being based on a Tosefta because there is no other source in the Rishonim who bring down that Tosefta (He also gave another reason that is not relevant to this conversation) Bottom line is that the CC did not base his sefer on Musser seforim
It depends on the circumstance.
If I’m telling a falsehood then it falls within the category of Aitzah Tovah rather than an issur in the Torah. If the other person is telling a falsehood then it’s definitely an issur in the Torah.
There is Sefer Chofetz Chaim and there is Sefer Shmiras Haloshon – both by the same author – Reb Yisroel Meir Kagan. I believe one is straight up halacha while the other is more ethical midos hashkofa of loshon Harah.
Similarly, there is the Mishna Berura & Biur Halacha & Sha’ar HaTziyyun by same Author, Reb YM Kagan, The Chofetz Chaim.
I believe it is a disservice to Reb YM Kagan and to klal Yisroel to only focus on one or two of his seforim regarding Loshon Horah & Shmiras Haloshon, instead of all his other seforim, especially the Mishna Berura that is clearly written for halacha that many just overlook nowadays and focus on the externality.
I was in a place where there was NO official musar seder, but the Rosh Yeshiva allowed boys to learn mussar. Once when I was alone with the RY, I asked him why isn’t there a real organized mussar seder. His answer is still etched in my brain.
He said, and I quote, “the best mussar is learning a toshpos in great depth”.
I pondered on that a long time. This RY was a very deep person. What he meant was that if a person develops the ability to think deeply, to see the results of his actions, then, he will behave in a manner that is well acceptable to all.
BUT, not all of us are on that level, so therefore we can, and should, learn mussar.
The harsh fact is that the world runs of INFORMATION sometimes good sometimes bad. reputations are made and lost by way of Loshon Horah, without which there would not be such a thing as a reputation, no such a thing a ruined reputations from bad behavior
What doctor to use, which Shiduch to make, what handyman to call, whom to befriend & whom to stay away from, whom to trust and whom to get a contract with every last detail written down. what store to trust, who gives quality and gives you agmes nefesh.
society WITHOUT loshon hora (sadly) has never existed and can reasonably be argued to never be able to function without accurate information as to the character of the people you intend interact with
Chaim Walder, Yehuda Meshi Zahav, and Nechemya Weberman and many more are just one of the tragic side effects of overhyping Loshon horah in cases where it does not apply