0

In the 3rd Shaar of Shaarei Teshuvah he gives a passuk in the Torah for each עבירה (sin). If so, why in #214 does he begin explaining Loshon Hora (LH) with the issur of אונאת דברים and an example there of (hurtful but private conversation with the sinner - verbally causing pain) and doesn't give a passuk for LH. He only mentions LH in the 3rd case (PUBLIC defamation w/o the person present) and doesn't bring a passuk.

מן הכת של שקרים. והנה אם יזכיר אדם לחבירו **בינו לבין עצמו **מעשה אבותיו הרעים. הנה הוא עובר על מה שכתוב בתורה (ויקרא כ״ה:י״ז) לא תונו איש את עמיתו. באונאת דברים דבר הכתוב כמו שהקדמנו. ונאמר (יחזקאל י״ח:כ׳) בן לא ישא בעון האב.

For further context in ST211 re: מוציא שם רע he (seems to) bring a passuk (לא תשא שמע שוא), and in ST222 re: Rechilus brings the passuk לא תלך רכיל בעמך. Why nothing for LH (ST214)? and why discuss אונאת דברים it seems to be a non-sequitur. I thought perhaps that RY holds LH to be stemming from אונאת דברים - however in ST187 he lists them separately

Likewise in עליות דרבינו יונה, when describing what prohibition is being allowed in this specific/exceptional case he only mentions לא תונו

שאסור מן התורה לספר במעשים הראשונים שעושה חברו, כדתניא לא תונו איש את עמיתו באונאת דברים הכתוב מדבר. הא כיצד היה בעל תשובה לא יאמר לו זכור מעשיו הראשונים, ותניא כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחו של עולם.

An even stronger proof is from ST219 where he states that it's permitted to embarrass a פורק עול and his proof if that they are excluded from the prohibition of לא תונו. He doesn't mention לא תלך רכיל or LH at all!

ואם החוטא איש אשר איננו ירא מלפני האלהים. כמו הפורק מעליו עול מלכות שמים. ואינו נזהר מעבירה אחת אשר כל שער עמו יודע כי היא עבירה. מותר להכלימו ולספר בגנותו. כך אמרו רבותינו (ויקרא כ״ה:י״ז) אל תונו איש את עמיתו. עם שאתך בתורה ובמצות אל תונהו בדברים. ואשר לא שת לבו אל דבר ה' מותר להכלימו במעלליו ולהודיע תועבותיו ולשפוך בוז עליו. ועוד אמרו מפרסמין את החנפים מפני חלול השם.

However, in ST17 he seperates LH and אונאת דברים

או כי חטא איש לאיש בלשון הרע או באונאת דברים

I'd prefer if you can reference an answer you've seen published in a sefer, but am very open to novel ideas (though please bring textual support for it)

Chaim
  • 745
  • 3
  • 14
  • He doesn’t begin explaining lashon hara in 214. It starts in 200. There he quotes pesukim. In 211 he begins explaining six different possible issues with lashon hara. That goes until the end of the Shaar. In 214 he’s explaining the second one of the issues. – Chatzkel Jul 26 '22 at 02:10
  • @Chatzkel - starting in 200 he discusses (and brings passukim for) the severity of LH, starting in 211 he splits LH into 6 parts (1) Motzei Shem Ra, (2) LH , (3) Rechilus, (4) Avak LH , and 2 others loosely included). In the מוציא שם רע section he brings a passuk (לא תשא שמע שוא) as the source for the issur (in line with what I've seen him do throughout שער ג), likewise re: רכילות he brings the passuk of לא תלך רכיל. However in the 2nd section (on LH) - he only mentions לא תונו – Chaim Jul 26 '22 at 15:27
  • In 200 he mentions many pesukim, including not to curse someone etc – Chatzkel Jul 26 '22 at 15:49
  • שכתוב בתורתו ארור מכה רעהו בסתר, ונאמר (קהלת י׳:י״א) ומה יתרון לבעל הלשון – Chatzkel Jul 26 '22 at 15:52
  • Not every LH is cursing. re: ומה יתרון that is not a commandment not to do it (also not in chumash) – Chaim Jul 26 '22 at 17:15
  • Which passuk would you think he should bring for LH itself? The Chofetz Chaim brings Richilus, and lo sisa, besides for other general ones that apply as well. Which one in particular would you think RY should’ve brought that he didn’t? – Chatzkel Jul 29 '22 at 03:53
  • @Chatzkel - just as you've said - if RY agreed with how the CC learns that לא תלך רכיל applied to LH (על האמת) then he should have brought that. Also note additional proofs I just added in the main post – Chaim Jul 29 '22 at 16:14
  • every LH is either onaas devarim, rechilus, or motzai Shem ra. (And perhaps sheker). There’s also a curse on whoever hurts their friends in private, which he brings as well. Which ADDITIONAL lav should he bring? When he refers to lashon hara it’s a general term that connotes negative speech. But in particular instances, each one has a different lav. – Chatzkel Jul 29 '22 at 17:34
  • @Chatzkel - great answer. However Q1, in ST216-21 he discusses a 2nd component of LH which seems to imply (and thus seems how the CC understood it) to forbid even where no harm is caused (i.e. is LH even though no אונאת דברים, Rechilus, or Motzei Shem Ra). Also Q#2 (weaker Q) - In ST17 - he separates LH and אונאת דברים into 2 categories ("או כי חטא איש לאיש בלשון הרע או באונאת דברים") – Chaim Jul 29 '22 at 17:59
  • In regards to Q1 Onaas Devarim is even if there’s no physical or monetary harm, just embarrassment. So in that case there is Onaas Devarim. As an aside, in 222 he calls rechilus lashon hara. It is clear that lashon hara is a catch all term, and then he specifies different types, of which one is Onaas Devarim and another is rechilus etc – Chatzkel Jul 29 '22 at 19:42
  • re Q1 - sorry when I said harm, I meant to include embarrassment - i.e. there is LH even without any embarrassment – Chaim Jul 29 '22 at 20:38

2 Answers2

0

Rabbeinu Yonah uses Lashon Hara more broadly than we do. He uses it as an umbrella term for separate aveiros with their own pesukim, where as we tend to use it for what he calls "rechilus": spreading gossip about people. So the "lomdus" is the same, but the difference is in terminology.

N.T.
  • 8,653
  • 9
  • 32
  • thanks for the response. in Shaarei Teshuvah, RY separates the broad term "loshon hora" term into 6 sections - motzei shem ra, loshon hara, rechilus, etc. re: the 2nd subcategory of LH which he also calls LH. My question is why does it discuss אונאת דברים? It seems like a non-sequitur – Chaim Aug 04 '22 at 22:13
  • אונאת דברים means you talk lashon hara about the person to themselves? – The GRAPKE Jan 02 '23 at 06:18
  • @TheGRAPKE It means speech that inflicts emotional distress on a person. – N.T. Jan 03 '23 at 05:44
  • @N.T. Yes but speech only inflicts emotional distress on a person if they subconsciously believe partially at least what is being stated to them or the negative connotation thereof. – The GRAPKE Jan 03 '23 at 06:24
  • @TheGRAPKE I don't think that is true, but either way it is not relevant to the definition. – N.T. Jan 03 '23 at 07:34
  • @N.T. The definition is sin or damage caused by speech? – The GRAPKE Jan 04 '23 at 06:15
  • @TheGRAPKE The literal translation is "speech that inflicts emotional distress on a person". That is the parameter of the sin – N.T. Jan 05 '23 at 06:58
  • @N.T. So if so if a person speaks lashon hara shelo bephanav then the sin is that thereby he has caused the person emotional distress and the same applies if he speaks lashon hara bephanav, i.e. he insults him? – The GRAPKE Jan 10 '23 at 19:34
0

I saw in the נתיבות חיים sefer on Chofetz Chaim (re: לאוין יג) that he says that something which is אונאת דברים when said privately is LH when said to others. With this, I'm thinking that RY started the section talking about LH with אונאת דברים for this very reason - as you need to understand this connection to אונאת דברים. As such in ST219 and עליות דר"י when explaining why it's permitted to speak PUBLICLY about a פורק עול מלכות שמים b/c they are excluded from אונאת דברים - b/c LH is an extension of it - no אונאת דברים no LH. However, RY goes further and in ST216 says that there are actually 2 components of LH - the harm, pain, etc caused (that he had discussed, i.e. אונאת דברים component) but also a separate component for simply choosing to find flaws in others (which would seem to apply - as the CC understands it - even if not harm, etc is caused). As such, it would seem that this is not derived from אונאת דברים. Although he quotes a passuk in Mishlei אוילים יליץ אשם- I doubt that it is his source. So I've shifted the Q from אונאת דברים to מליץ אשם

Chaim
  • 745
  • 3
  • 14