Motzi Shem Ra versus Lashon Hara
Morris Goodman
whereas Lashon Hara is gossip. In other words, the former is based on
untruths while the latter is based on truths. Is this correct?
Let's suppose that someone on this newsgroup is accused of lying in
regard to a posted statement, isn't lying but is unable (for whatever
reason) to provide cites to substantiate his statements.
Which one of these, if either, applies?
cindys
Well, if he can't provide the proof, then he may very well be lying.
And if his claim is over-the-edge preposterous, and the poster is
unable to provide a cite to substantiate his claim, then I think it's
fairly safe to assume the poster just made it up.
> Which one of these, if either, applies?
I think the one who is making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims
(that he is unable to back up with any proof) is probably guilty of
motzi shem ra.
And how about if a poster states that a weblinked article makes a
certain claim, the other readers read the cited article and see that
no such claim is made. What would you call that?
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
Micha Berger
> My understanding of these terms is that Motzi Shem Ra is defamation,
Rechilus is gossip, ie repeating things 2nd or third hand.
Motzi sheim ra is libel -- the negative claim isn't true. The source
verse is about a groom who lies, claiming the virgin he thought he
married wasn't one -- when she really was. Deut 22:13-14:
If a man takes a wife and goes to her [ie has relations] and hates her
and places upon her slanderous ideas, *vehozri aleha sheim ra* -- and
takes out upon her a bad reputation, and says "I took this woman, and
when I came close to her, I did not find that she had her virginity."
Lashon Hara in the narrow sense is when the negative information is true,
but there is nothing constructive in repeating it.
LH in the colloquial sense is used as a broad term for all of the above.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller
Morris Goodman
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 10:27 am, Morris Goodman <goodman...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My understanding of these terms is that Motzi Shem Ra is defamation,
>> whereas Lashon Hara is gossip. In other words, the former is based on
>> untruths while the latter is based on truths. Is this correct?
>>
>> Let's suppose that someone on this newsgroup is accused of lying in
>> regard to a posted statement, isn't lying but is unable (for whatever
>> reason) to provide cites to substantiate his statements.
>
>Well, if he can't provide the proof, then he may very well be lying.
>And if his claim is over-the-edge preposterous, and the poster is
>unable to provide a cite to substantiate his claim, then I think it's
>fairly safe to assume the poster just made it up.
It's not "fairly safe" to do so at all. In a newsgroup such as this
there could be a thousand reasons for a rebuttal not to appear.
A rebuttal could, of course, be sent by email, but there is no
guarantee that the recipient will read it. And, of course, since no
information is provided to the group, the defamation remains.
>> Which one of these, if either, applies?
>
>I think the one who is making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims
>(that he is unable to back up with any proof) is probably guilty of
>motzi shem ra.
Probably guilty? Really? Who exactly is he defaming, then? Please
be specific.
My understanding is that Motzi Shem Ra can only apply to an individual
or a specific number of individuals, not to an unspecified class of
individuals. If you know otherwise, please clarify.
>And how about if a poster states that a weblinked article makes a
>certain claim, the other readers read the cited article and see that
>no such claim is made. What would you call that?
Then how about if a poster misunderstands the original poster's
submission to mean that the cited article validates the original
poster's claim whereas in fact the cited article was intended to
provide just one example of what the original poster was referring to?
Morris Goodman
Berger) wrote:
>Morris Goodman <goodm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My understanding of these terms is that Motzi Shem Ra is defamation,
>> whereas Lashon Hara is gossip...
>
>Rechilus is gossip, ie repeating things 2nd or third hand.
>
>Motzi sheim ra is libel -- the negative claim isn't true. The source
>verse is about a groom who lies, claiming the virgin he thought he
>married wasn't one -- when she really was. Deut 22:13-14:
>
> If a man takes a wife and goes to her [ie has relations] and hates her
>
> and places upon her slanderous ideas, *vehozri aleha sheim ra* -- and
> takes out upon her a bad reputation, and says "I took this woman, and
> when I came close to her, I did not find that she had her virginity."
>
>Lashon Hara in the narrow sense is when the negative information is true,
>but there is nothing constructive in repeating it.
There is rarely anything constructive about repeating gossip, which
you refer to as "Rechilus" above.
Micha Berger
>>Lashon Hara in the narrow sense is when the negative information is true,
>>but there is nothing constructive in repeating it.
> There is rarely anything constructive about repeating gossip, which
> you refer to as "Rechilus" above.
But unlike rechilus, LH could be first-hand; something you saw the person
do, or that he did to you.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
mm
<goodm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>My understanding of these terms is that Motzi Shem Ra is defamation,
Yes, in a world where defammation means a false statement. In the law
in English-speaking countries, that is the case.
However, this is made more difficult because English speaking Jews may
use terms for loshon hora such as "slander" which in American law must
be false, but within which they are including true statements which
are loshon hora. There might even be English=speaking non-Jews who
use the word defamation and its synonyms in this way also.
>whereas Lashon Hara is gossip.
Gossip often includes loshon hora. I'm not sure that people who
gossip limit themselves to true statements. They repeat things
others have told them the truth of which they don't know, and surely
some of the time the statements are false. Not only that, one doesn't
know which of the statements are false. But they also include things
they themselves have seen, even if they don't know all of the
background and reasons for what they see. In fact first-hand reports
are probably highly valued by gossips, both for listening and for
repeating. They can also include thigns the person didn't see, but
claims he has. I think the kind of person who would gossip about
someone he knows, who would say negative things about a friend or
acquaintance, would also make up lies to tell aobut him if he had no
juicy true stories.
And for the record a Jew is not allowed to believe such negative
statements about another Jew. While he make take precautions in case
they are true, he's not allowed to believe them. That may sound
impossible, but it's not. It's not even hard, the more one knows
about how much inaccuracy there is in the world.
> In other words, the former is based on
>untruths while the latter is based on truths. Is this correct?
>
>Let's suppose that someone on this newsgroup is accused of lying in
>regard to a posted statement,
Even when someone makes a false statement, it's not lying unless he
knows it's false, or probably, has no reason to think it's true. It's
usually better to critiize the statement as false than the person who
makes it. Even when I think someone knows the statement is false,
there seem to me to be two more possibilities, that the speaker is
crazy (and believes things which are clearly not true), or -- this is
possible in many or most cases -- that he is stupid, so stupid he
doesn't understand the meaning of his words or so stupid he can't tell
that the statement is false. So. often in cases where I go beyond the
statement to the person making it, I give three choices for why he
does.
But there have been a couple, a few cases where I've concluded the
person is not insane and not stupid and must know what he's saying is
false. That he's lying.
> isn't lying but is unable (for whatever
>reason) to provide cites to substantiate his statements.
>Which one of these, if either, applies?
Applies to the accusation that he is a liar, you mean, right?
While motsi shem ra refers to statements that are false and loshon
hora refers to statements that are true, in practice**, both here and
elsewhere, loshon hora is used for both. I think that's because
distinguishing the two a) is sometimes difficult, since people often
don't know what the facts are, b) more importantly, because to do
otherwise, to carefully refer to MSR as MSR and LH as LH would be
equivalent much of the time to speaking LH oneself.
For example, whether they are true or not, unless certain standards
are met, it's prohibited to say negative things*** about someone.
It's hard and rare to meet those standards, so let's assume from now
on that they haven't been met. So, whether it's true or not, if B
said about C that he didn't pay all of his taxes, that's prohibited.
If D wants to let B know that he shouldn't have said it, D doesnt'
want to be in the position of trying to judge whether B was accurate
or not, and even if D *knows* that B was accurate, he doesn't want to
confirm B's negative statement, Just like if B says, "C's a thief",
D doesn't want to say, "That's right, C is a thief". D would be
violating the same law that B violated.
So frequenntly, maybe even generally, especially on the first
go-round, people don't distinguish between false negative statements
and true negative statements, and they call them all loshon hora.
Now in a way this is backwards, because it seems like they are saying
the negative statements are true (which is just what they want to
avoid) because that's what LH means.
Maybe it would be better if people routinely called such things Motzi
Shem Ra. That has a disadvantage too, at least one that I know of,
because it would mean that D is calling B a spreader of falsehoods, a
liar or a mistaken teller of a falsehood. OTOH, B started it (Unless
C had said something negative about B earlier, that somehow was missed
or forgotten) so shouldn't B bear the risk of looking like a liar,
rather than C who may not have paid his taxes but hadn't spoken
negatively about anyone, it would seem?
I don't know all the reasons, but for one reason or another, the
default name for this is not motzi shem ra but loshon hora. People
should remember that that doesn't mean the negative statements are
true, even though the actual meaning of loshon hora refers to true
statements.
***What negative things are covered, are prohibited, is a topic in
itself. A friend asked me if one was allowed to say that the food at
a restaurant is bad, where the owner is the cook. I didn't know. I
forget exactly what my rabbi asked me, but it was something like, is
being a bad cook something bad about the person. I guess that means,
is it a moral failing to be a bad cook, when one is trying to be a
good cook. (He also brought up that not everyone agrees on what food
tastes good, or on what good food tastes like, but I think the other
question is more broadly applicable.)
**Except when LH and MSR are the topics of a lesson, where people are
careful to show the difference, where the point is to understand the
difference.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Morris Goodman
Gossip could be first hand too, I've never seen a definition
restricted to 2nd or 3rd hand information. Is "Rechilus" defined
otherwise?
dss...@gmail.com
dss...@gmail.com
Loshan Hara refers to true remarks,especially if not widely known, but not specifically said to hurt someone (spite).
Motzi Shem Ra (Hotzaat Diba, Hotzaat Shem Ra) refers to untrue remarks, slander in English. The intention here is to damage.
Because the latter is consciously and intentionalty said to create harm, it is a more serious sin than Loshan Hara.
Rechillus is gossip. It is a sin 3 times over. It is a sin to say, a sin to stop and listen,and a sin to repeat.
I hope that this clears it all up. Intention is the key.
mm
P&M because you don't post much. Please reply in the newsgroup.
>On Wednesday, 29 December 2010 13:25:41 UTC-5, Morris Goodman wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 03:59:09 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
>> Berger) wrote:
>>
>> >Morris Goodman <goodm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>Lashon Hara in the narrow sense is when the negative information is true,
>> >>>but there is nothing constructive in repeating it.
needs not just a constructive purpose but to fulfill 7 conditions before
repeating such things,
Plus, in popular use, loshon hora -- as I pronounce it, but lashon hara
is fine too -- is used for statements which are false also. More about
this below.
>> >> There is rarely anything constructive about repeating gossip, which
>> >> you refer to as "Rechilus" above.
>> >
>> >But unlike rechilus, LH could be first-hand; something you saw the person
>> >do, or that he did to you.
>>
>> Gossip could be first hand too, I've never seen a definition
>> restricted to 2nd or 3rd hand information. Is "Rechilus" defined
>> otherwise?
telling someone "that an individual: did something to harm him; spoke
loshon hora against him; doesn’t like him; or doesn’t respect him, since
such statements would, in all probability, cause the listener to feel
ill will towards that individual." In other words, it's not telling a
3rd party but telling the person who is the topic of the negative
information that makes it rechilus.
That excludes most or all gossip in the usage of the word as I'm
acquainted with it. People gossip about B to D and E, not to B himself.
If they tell B what bad things people are saying about him, I would say
that's called in English "repeating gossip", but not gossiping. Maybe
there's another term for it that I don't know.
But it's a mistake to use the word gossip about any of this stuff,
except to say "it's related to gossip". Staying tied to an English
word, especially one that different people attach different meanings to,
will just lead to uncertainty or confusion in discussing Jewish rules.
In soc.culture.jewish.moderated, on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:31:45 +0000
>On Tuesday, 28 December 2010 13:27:11 UTC-5, Morris Goodman wrote:
>> My understanding of these terms is that Motzi Shem Ra is defamation,
>> whereas Lashon Hara is gossip. In other words, the former is based on
>> untruths while the latter is based on truths. Is this correct?
>>
>> Let's suppose that someone on this newsgroup is accused of lying in
>> regard to a posted statement, isn't lying but is unable (for whatever
>> reason) to provide cites to substantiate his statements.
>> Which one of these, if either, applies?
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Loshan Hara refers to true remarks,especially if not widely known, but not specifically said to hurt someone (spite).
>Motzi Shem Ra (Hotzaat Diba, Hotzaat Shem Ra) refers to untrue remarks, slander in English.
USA legal dictum, "Truth is always a defense to a charge of slander
[because if it's true it's not libel or slander in English].) But in
practice, a lot of Jews use "slander" to refer to LH which is true. I
wish they would stop and I'm glad you don't do t hat. But we still
have to be aware of how others use the terms.
Conversely -- and I referred to this above -- in practice, people often
call untrue words loshon hora also. One shouldn't assume that if LH is
the term used that the words are actually true. For one thing, we're
prohibited from believing LH, but also because whether they should or
shouldn't, people use the term LH for words which are false and which
they know are false. I think the reason is that either they're not 100%
sure the statements are false, or they are but either way, they're
unwilling to call the speaker a liar, which is what calling his words
motz shem ra might mean, or seem to mean.
There are times, I think, when an adequate defense of the person about
whom false words are spoken would require calling the words motzi shem
ra, but that's not true all the time. When it's not true, people
seem reluctant to say about someone who is nearby that he's speaking
MSR, and instead just call it LH.
> The intention here is to damage.
>Because the latter is consciously and intentionalty said to create harm, it is a more serious sin than Loshan Hara.
above, although I think what I say above is true) this is the reason
that what I think is MSR is often called LH, because there is no
intention to damage. But maybe you're wrong and the important thing
is that the words are false, and there doesn't have to be any intention
to do damage. While that might be rare, it seems possible to me.
For example, what if the speaker believes the words are true, hates to
say them because he doesn't want to hurt the person he's talking about,
but in fact the speaker is wrong and the words he says are false. Is
this MSR, even though there is no malice, and the only intention is to
set the record straight, even though damage will result?
>Rechillus is gossip.
>It is a sin 3 times over. It is a sin to say, a sin to stop and listen,and a sin to repeat.
>I hope that this clears it all up. Intention is the key.
Meir
malcolm...@btinternet.com
> On Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-8, cindys wrote:
>
> In my opinion, Lashon Hara is contrary to the American tradition
> that holds the truth to be a value above all else.It is contrary
> to the American concept of free speech. In the USA, our laws
> protect the right of free speech even for
> racists and bigots like the KKK and the Neo-Nazis.
>
> One legal scholar put it this way:"One of the prices we pay
> for free speech is the obligation to tolerate speech we may
> find offensive."
>
Traditional Israel and the USA are different cultures> The US
has an emphasis on open, public criticism of political leaders,
in a way that would get you into trouble in most countries.
But there's no direct contradiction between Lashon haRa - some
things are best left unsaid, and political support for freedom
of speech - there must be no government censorship. The
right to spend your entire salary on poker doesn't imply
that anyone approves of that type of financial management.
>
> Ken McVay, the Holocaust scholar who won the Order of British
> Columbia for his work, said it correctly: The way to deal with
> the bigots is to expose their lies in open debate, not by silencing
> them. Silencing them merely gives them the role of martyrs, which
> helps their cause.
>
Censorship acts as a multiplier. When a cause is dying, censorship
pushes it further and faster into extinction. Once it has momentum
behind it, than, as you say, it tends to create publicity.
Yisroel Markov
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:
>On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 5:35:01 AM UTC+1, Alex Nevsky wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-8, cindys wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion, Lashon Hara is contrary to the American tradition
>> that holds the truth to be a value above all else.It is contrary
>> to the American concept of free speech. In the USA, our laws
>> protect the right of free speech even for
>> racists and bigots like the KKK and the Neo-Nazis.
>>
>> One legal scholar put it this way:"One of the prices we pay
>> for free speech is the obligation to tolerate speech we may
>> find offensive."
>>
>Traditional Israel and the USA are different cultures> The US
>has an emphasis on open, public criticism of political leaders,
>in a way that would get you into trouble in most countries.
about personal self-restraint, not government-imposed restrictions.
>But there's no direct contradiction between Lashon haRa - some
>things are best left unsaid, and political support for freedom
>of speech - there must be no government censorship. The
>right to spend your entire salary on poker doesn't imply
>that anyone approves of that type of financial management.
[snip]
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Micky
>On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 5:35:01 AM UTC+1, Alex Nevsky wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 10:48:00 AM UTC-8, cindys wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion, Lashon Hara is contrary to the American tradition
>> that holds the truth to be a value above all else.It is contrary
>> to the American concept of free speech. In the USA, our laws
>> protect the right of free speech even for
>> racists and bigots like the KKK and the Neo-Nazis.
>>
>> One legal scholar put it this way:"One of the prices we pay
>> for free speech is the obligation to tolerate speech we may
>> find offensive."
>>
>Traditional Israel and the USA are different cultures> The US
>has an emphasis on open, public criticism of political leaders,
>in a way that would get you into trouble in most countries.
cultures, the clear implication here is that Israel is not like this.
What a bunch of baloney. No place has more open public criticism of
political leaders than Israel does.
And your last statement is a cliche, beyond your ability to know, and
probably false, that open criticism would get you introuble in most
countries. You know bupkes about most countries. What you know is
about China, Russia, and 5 or 10 other countries in the news where
that is true. There are about 200 countries in the world, Many are
democricies with open discussions. Whatever the numbers, you don't
know about most countries.
>
>But there's no direct contradiction between Lashon haRa - some
politics and loshon hora. You have no business spouting off your
personal nonsense in place of a halachic analysis of what kinds of
presumably political discussion is loshon hora.
Readers should remember that you're not a Jew and you refuse to say
how much Jewish education, if any, you've had. And if you had any,
whether you were day-dreaming or sleeping at the time.
I don't know how anyone can be wrong as often as you are. If only by
chance, I'd think you would do better. Do you try to post incorrect
things, just to be the center of attention, perhaps?
The rest of your post is presented as your opinions, not facts. There
are counter arguments for every thing you say, and there are arguments
in favor of what you say. You can have your opinions even when
they're wrong so I'm not going to comment on them.
>things are best left unsaid, and political support for freedom
>of speech - there must be no government censorship. The
>right to spend your entire salary on poker doesn't imply
>that anyone approves of that type of financial management.
>>
>> Ken McVay, the Holocaust scholar who won the Order of British
>> Columbia for his work, said it correctly: The way to deal with
>> the bigots is to expose their lies in open debate, not by silencing
>> them. Silencing them merely gives them the role of martyrs, which
>> helps their cause.
>>
>Censorship acts as a multiplier. When a cause is dying, censorship
>pushes it further and faster into extinction. Once it has momentum
>behind it, than, as you say, it tends to create publicity.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
malcolm...@btinternet.com
>
> Readers should remember that you're not a Jew and you refuse to say
> how much Jewish education, if any, you've had. And if you had any,
> whether you were day-dreaming or sleeping at the time.
>
mm
you learned about Judaism, how much time you spent and with whom, and
what books you had read, and how much time you spent in Israel, if any,
and you refused to answer.
But you can partially remedy that by telling us now.
**But you continue to make false statements about Judaism, Jews, Jewish
history, and you've added false statements about modern Israel and the
USA too. There are Jews with very little education too, but they
haven't posted all kinds of nonsense, pretending to know what they're
talking about.
--
Meir
mm
(UTC), Alex Nevsky <anev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>AH! So Lashon Hara is what we Americans call "political correctness."
No, it's not. You mean the rules against Lashon Hara, and they are
not related to what people call politcal correctness.
>It is essentially a list of socially mandated euphemisms that attempt
>to enforce polite speech. The Liberals in America love them. Conservatives like me think they are silly.We don't use them.
>> >
--
Meir
malcolm...@btinternet.com
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated, on Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:53:50 +0000
>
>
> Yes, you have. Absolutely. Just what I said above. I asked you where
> you learned about Judaism, how much time you spent and with whom, and
> what books you had read, and how much time you spent in Israel, if any,
> and you refused to answer.
>
> But you can partially remedy that by telling us now.
>
reading the newsgroup since it was formed. I've read quite a bit
but I couldn't possibly give you an exhaustive list, things like
Rashi's commentaries, the Lord Chief Rabbi's books, scholarly
material (secular scholarship on Ancient Israel). I got up to
Kita Aleph plus in Hebrew and can make myself understood, but I
can't read Hebrew material fluently, though I can sometimes
struggle through it.
None of this is any secret. It's a reasonable level of Jewish
knowledge, but not in any sense a formal qualification.
> **But you continue to make false statements about Judaism, Jews, Jewish
> history, and you've added false statements about modern Israel and the
> USA too. There are Jews with very little education too, but they
> haven't posted all kinds of nonsense, pretending to know what they're
> talking about.
>
of someone claiming that their own tradition is normative when in
fact it's only held by a subset of Jews, considered over space and
time, or if it's a matter of history, a case of swallowing either
the religious or the sceptical secular tradition whole and rejecting
my position that it is necessary to examine both critically.
mm
>On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 9:56:11 PM UTC+1, googy wrote:
>> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated, on Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:53:50 +0000
>>
>> >I've never made any secret about my experience.
>>
>> Yes, you have. Absolutely. Just what I said above. I asked you where
>> you learned about Judaism, how much time you spent and with whom, and
>> what books you had read, and how much time you spent in Israel, if any,
>> and you refused to answer.
>>
>> But you can partially remedy that by telling us now.
>>
>I've spent about four years of my life in total in Israel. I've been
>reading the newsgroup since it was formed.
it. People here and most of the people who left have been reading this
group much longer than the period it has been moderated.
What email address did you use when you started?
>I've read quite a bit
>but I couldn't possibly give you an exhaustive list, things like
>Rashi's commentaries,
Same question about the other things you list.
>the Lord Chief Rabbi's books, scholarly
>material (secular scholarship on Ancient Israel). I got up to
>Kita Aleph plus in Hebrew and can make myself understood, but I
>can't read Hebrew material fluently, though I can sometimes
>struggle through it.
>None of this is any secret.
> It's a reasonable level of Jewish
>knowledge, but not in any sense a formal qualification.
>>
>> **But you continue to make false statements about Judaism, Jews, Jewish
>> history, and you've added false statements about modern Israel and the
>> USA too. There are Jews with very little education too, but they
>> haven't posted all kinds of nonsense, pretending to know what they're
>> talking about.
>>
>I sometimes get things wrong. But not so often.
you're wrong.
I would think someone with your ego would want to take steps to stop
this, instead of just defending your constant making of mistakes.
>Usually it's a case
>of someone claiming that their own tradition is normative when in
>fact it's only held by a subset of Jews, considered over space and
>time, or if it's a matter of history, a case of swallowing either
>the religious or the sceptical secular tradition whole and rejecting
>my position that it is necessary to examine both critically.
wrong, you never try to defend your position (because I think, deep
down, you know you're totally wrong.) but at your conscious level, you
pretend to yourself that your errors are understandable ones like you
describe here. In fact, when I point out your errors you are usually
entirely wrong.
--
Meir