Understanding Lashon Hara….

B"H

Introduction

The laws of lashon hara—negative speech—are foundational in Jewish ethics, balancing respect for individuals with the need to protect communal integrity. These laws, initially outlined by Rambam in his concise Mishneh Torah, were later expanded by the Chofetz Chaim, who placed emphasis on caution and numerous conditions. Today, these teachings are debated within Orthodoxy, especially around cases of abuse or repetitive harm. Guided by principles from Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch, and modern authorities, this essay examines how lashon hara can serve a constructive purpose (to'eles) in cases where silence might endanger others or tarnish the community’s moral foundation.

Rambam’s Approach to Lashon Hara

Rambam’s treatment of lashon hara, presented in the Mishneh Torah(Hilchot De'ot 6-7), is brief but profound. He warns against speaking negatively about others, considering lashon hara a severe sin, often likened to idol worship, sexual immorality, or even murder. Rambam emphasizes that even true information, if harmful, must not be shared without clear purpose. Yet, he also allows for a critical exception: if a transgressor repeatedly sins in spiritual matters and fails to repent after private admonition, the sin may be publicized. This ruling (6:8) affirms the prophetic tradition of rebuking public sinners, ensuring they are accountable to the community’s moral standards. Rambam’s concise yet powerful framework thus holds individuals to account while guarding against unnecessary harm—a balance crucial to his rationalist approach. By preserving these limited exceptions, Rambam allows communities to prevent destructive influences, showing that sometimes public exposure serves as a necessary corrective in maintaining moral integrity.

The Constructive Purpose (To’eles) and Sefer HaChinuch’s Position

The concept of to'eles, or constructive purpose, allows for speech that might otherwise be prohibited if it serves a clear, beneficial role.

This principle, explored by the Sefer HaChinuch (236),

based on the Mitzvah:

לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא׃

You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kin but incur no guilt on their account.

emphasizes that warning others about harmful individuals is not only permissible but essential if it prevents harm. The Sefer HaChinuch explicitly notes that the intention must be to “remove the threat of damage and resolve a conflict.” This halachic perspective asserts that there are situations where remaining silent is morally untenable, especially if there’s a risk of future harm. Rabbinic authorities also emphasize that the dissemination of this information must be carefully managed to minimize harm while protecting potential victims. The Sefer HaChinuch thus adds nuance to the principle of to'eles, underscoring that harmful information shared for safety is not seen as lashon harabut as a mitzvah, promoting communal protection and personal responsibility.

Perspectives from R. Yisrael Isserlin, Sema, and Shach

R. Yisrael Isser Isserlin, a prominent posek, argues that refraining from necessary disclosure can result in even greater harm. He advocates in Pithei Teshuva (Orach Chaim 156) for speaking out when silence might endanger others, asserting that omitting protective speech is an error. Later authorities such as the Sema (399:30) and Shach(399:45) echo this stance, particularly regarding cases involving abuse.They argue that repetitive abusive behavior (ragil lehakot) demands community intervention. These rabbis collectively rule that mandatory reporting is vital, if it aids in protecting individuals from repeat offenders. Their positions represent a practical application of to’eles, illustrating how halacha supports responsible disclosure to prevent communal harm. For instance, community silence around abuse risks chillul Hashem—desecration of G-d’s name—as it damages trust in religious leadership and observance. Thus, these authorities underscore a duty to protect others through judicious speech, upholding justice in both personal conduct and public accountability.

Modern Perspectives from Rabbi Yitzchak Berkowitz and Contemporary Concerns

Modern rabbis such as Rabbi Yitzchak Berkowitz have expanded on to'elesto address contemporary issues. Rabbi Berkowitz’s guidelines list specific situations where speaking negatively is not only permitted but necessary: to encourage self-improvement, prevent harm, resolve conflicts, and offer lessons to others. Rabbi Berkowitz emphasizes that speaking out against perpetrators protects victims, and can often stop future incidents. His teachings reflect a concern that over-interpretation of lashon hara prohibitions has, at times, enabled abuse to go unchecked, especially within tight-knit communities. This critique resonates with the insights of many Breslov rabbis who, like one of my Rabbis, express concern that the extensive restrictions on lashon hara by the Chofetz Chaim may unintentionally shield wrongdoers by creating a culture of silence. These rabbis underscore that Jewish ethics require speaking up to prevent harm, not hiding behind halachic caution to the detriment of vulnerable individuals. Through this lens, the halachic mandate of lashon hara evolves into a tool for justice and protection, aligning with both classical and contemporary rabbinic thought.

A small lesson from a Great Rabbi

A Breslover:

I have repeatedly voiced my serious concerns about the Chofetz Chaim’s approach to lashon hara. While his intentions were clearly well-meaning—seeing gossip as a profound moral threat—his expansion of these laws has gone far beyond reason. People are now terrified to speak up about anything. Rambam laid out the laws of lashon hara in just eight concise paragraphs. In stark contrast, the Chofetz Chaim inflated this into hundreds, with endless conditions and caveats. Yes, he allows exceptions for the times we must speak out—for exposing predators, con artists, and those who endanger others—but he shackled them with so many restrictions that people feel paralyzed, even when silence means harm. This silence has turned communities into sanctuaries for criminals, predators, and the corrupt, who exploit this fearful silence, knowing they can go unchecked. I am gravely disturbed by this problem. As another great Breslover said, “The most monstrous crimes are committed because people are too afraid of speaking lashon hara to uphold justice.”

Conclusion

The laws of lashon hara guide the Jewish community in balancing ethical speech with the need to protect others. Rambam’s original framework, rooted in concise principles, and the later halachic expansions by R. Yisrael Isserlin, Sema, Shach, and Rabbi Berkowitz, highlight the role of to'eles in halacha.

These rulings emphasize that where harm is imminent, responsible disclosure becomes a moral imperative. The consensus across centuries of rabbinic scholarship affirms that lashon hara laws, while protective of individuals’ reputations, ultimately support justice and community well-being by calling for speech that prevents harm and safeguards moral integrity.