6

It would seem to be ethically(1) and Jewishly(2) inadvisable--but is there actually a halacha against speaking loshon hara about non-Jews?

Related: Loshon Hara against public Jewish and non-Jewish figures

(1) Ethically--In terms of Kant's Categorical Imperative, or perhaps the Golden Rule? (2) Jewishly--ahavas haBrios; chillul Hashem; derech Eretz; Jewishly-condoned (chesed, rachamim, hitapkut, hakarat hatov) and discouraged (achzriut, sina) behavioral traits; "all [the Torah's] paths are of peace"/mishum eivah

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
SAH
  • 19,756
  • 4
  • 56
  • 165
  • Merely related, or is it actually a duplicate? – Scimonster Aug 20 '14 at 12:36
  • My question includes non-public figures as well. Also, I think it's directed differently: Bruce James's question is focusing on the "public figures" aspect whereas mine is focusing on Yiddish status – SAH Aug 20 '14 at 12:41
  • @Scimonster - protocol on duplicates - if what you link to has no answer, is it really a duplicate. One of the dupes has a "flagged" answer. Is this discussed in meta? – DanF Aug 20 '14 at 13:02
  • @DanF A duplicate is a duplicate, whether or not the original is answered. See the comments here. – Scimonster Aug 20 '14 at 13:06
  • Collective duplicate: 1+ 2+ 3+ 4 @user3949142 Kind of an ironic comment, no? – WAF Aug 20 '14 at 13:07
  • I'm going to go out on a limb suggest that if it takes 4 other questions to duplicate my question, my question isn't a duplicate. – SAH Aug 20 '14 at 13:31
  • 1
    @SAH This is slightly tangential, so I'm not going to include it in my answer. Whether something is "Jewishly inadvisable" and Halachically forbidden parallel each other. The examples you gave of "Jewishly advisable" (i.e. Ahavas HaBrios, Chillul Hashem, etc.) are not arbitrary and subjective. Rather, those also have Halachic guidelines which define what is permitted and what is forbidden. "Ethically" inadvisable also needs to be within the confines of Halachah, for without that, one could argue, for example, that criticizing forbidden actions (i.e. "lifestyle choices") is "unethical". – Salmononius2 Aug 20 '14 at 16:41
  • @Salmononius2 I don't follow your reductio. Perhaps אין הכי נמי it is unethical? – Double AA Aug 20 '14 at 17:03
  • @DoubleAA Halachah gives guidelines on what is considered ethical. Society occasionally has different guidelines, and considers certain actions "unethical" (i.e. certain countries try to ban circumcision on "ethical" grounds). When the two collide, Halachah wins out. – Salmononius2 Aug 20 '14 at 17:33
  • 1
    @Salmononius2 Was that a response to my comment? I don't see how it did so. I also don't know why your first sentence is true, or what your last sentence means. – Double AA Aug 20 '14 at 17:34
  • @Salmonius2: Thanks for your answer to my question. As for your comment, I disagree with most of it. First of all, ahavos habrios and chillul HaShem may be mitzvos with specific laws attached, but certainly not all the middos/sefiros I listed are that way. So I do think "Jewishly (in)advisable" is different from "halachically (in)correct." As for "ethically inadvisable," that most certainly does NOT need to be within the confines of halacha. I purposely distinguished it from halacha in my phrasing, and indeed it is not always congruent with halacha. – SAH Aug 20 '14 at 22:00
  • 1
    To clarify: Halachically, lashon hara refers to truths that would lower others' opinion of a person/people. In common parlance, LH is used for all three related sins -- rechilus (retelling gossip) and motzi sheim ra (slander) as well. Now motzi sheim ra is trivial -- lying is prohibited even if there were no victim. And @DoubleAA's answer focuses more on rechilus than on lashon hara itself; although the permissibility of rechilus implies that of lashon hara. – Micha Berger Aug 31 '17 at 20:15

2 Answers2

5

One is allowed to speak Lashon Hora about a non-Jew. The Pasuk says "לֹא-תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ" - "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people" (Leviticus 19:16). The words "among thy people" teach you that one is only forbidden to speak Lashon Hora about those who are included within "thy people". This goes so far as to include a Jew who has removed himself from the category of amongst his people (by committing certain sins that classify him as a wicked person; what those sins are is a whole different discussion). This limitation of "עַמֶּיךָ" also excludes non-Jews form the prohibition of Lashon Hora, as they are not included in עַמֶּיךָ.

Of course, as you mentioned in your question and other comments, there might be other considerations with regards to speaking 'Lashon Hora' (note: to simplify things, when I write Lashon Hora in quotations, I'm referring to words that would be considered Lashon Hora if they were said to/about a Jew). You brought up Chillul Hashem, which has it's own separate Halachos as to what it is. If what one says is a Chillul Hashem, it is of course forbidden, even though it might not be a sin of Lashon Hora.

Another reason to avoid speaking 'Lashon Hora' about non-Jews is because it creates a bad habit. We humans are creatures of habit, and if we get in the habit of speaking 'Lashon Hora' when it is permitted, we might accidentally start speaking Lashon Hora when it is forbidden.

This does have a few important practical applications. For example, if your Jewish coworkers are badmouthing your Jewish boss (even without you joining in, just listening), you might have an obligation to protest the Lashon Hora in some manner. If he were non-Jewish, you would likely not need to make a protest over the 'Lashon Hora' (as there is no prohibition of Loshon Hara). (You may need to protest due to other factors such as Chillul Hashem depending on the situation, but this answer is just focusing on the Loshon Hara aspect.)

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
Salmononius2
  • 6,791
  • 20
  • 39
  • If you say there are reasons not to do it, then why not protest for those reasons? – Double AA Aug 20 '14 at 17:02
  • 1
    There are different Halachos governing how and when one should protest. If the action being done isn't forbidden, then one might not have the obligation to rebuke a fellow Jew (and arguably, it might be forbidden to rebuke in that case). To address your second comment, as politically incorrect as this might sound, non-Jews are not included amongst "עַמֶּיךָ" - your people. That does not mean they are bad people; they could be the most righteous, nicest people, but they are still in a category other than "עַמֶּיךָ", and that has Halachic ramifications. – Salmononius2 Aug 20 '14 at 17:10
  • 1
    @DoubleAA Why is that a false statement? Also, I disagree with your edit to my answer (specifically the last line). Your edit implies that one might need to consider protesting 'Lashon Hora' said about non-Jews, while I said that one does NOT need to protest, and it might even be forbidden to protest. With regards to the "habit forming" consideration, I don't believe that would give someone the right to protest what he's saying. And with regards to Chillul Hashem, that is a different Issur, as I mentioned. The answer is talking about 'Lashon Hora'. – Salmononius2 Aug 20 '14 at 17:24
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Salmononius2 Aug 20 '14 at 17:34
  • It is still a chilul Hashem no matter how you look at it – Dovid Benizri Aug 20 '14 at 17:39
  • @Salmononius2 Your last comment here is disgusting and probably a Chillul Hashem just by sitting out on the internet. Did you even read the question? What are we, Nevalim Birshus HaTorah?? "Oh it's not a technical halachik violation? Great! I'm going to go be a terrible person." – Double AA Aug 20 '14 at 18:02
  • @Salmononius2 Why can't there be Chillul Hashem in front of other Jews? This fits perfectly in the Rambam's definition in Yesodei Hatorah 5:15 "או שדבורו עם הבריות אינו בנחת ואינו מקבלן בסבר פנים יפות אלא בעל קטטה וכעס." Sounds like a classic Chillul Hashem. – Double AA Aug 20 '14 at 18:11
  • The question asked if there was a specific Issur of Lashon Hora (it specifically excluded factors of Chillul Hashem). The answer is no, there is not. Additionally, certain things fall under the Issur of Lashon Hora which isn't what many people would consider a 'bad thing to say' (i.e. Avak Lashon Hara). Even if it was, it might not be a Chillul Hashem for them to say it amongst themselves. The source from the Rambam you quoted is referring to an "אדם גדול" who, for him, acting beyond the letter of the law becomes an obligation. For the rest of us, it's not. And the new edits seem fair. – Salmononius2 Aug 20 '14 at 19:31
  • 1
    There are logics pro and anti speaking ill about non jews. The pros would be to give motivation to jews not to behave like them and to show how their different. The Torah doesn't assur it for a reason. God chose to use the word in "your nation" for a reason. God could have said not to speak ill about people. – Shlomy Aug 21 '14 at 04:32
  • 1
    I'm surprised everybody left out the issue of causing damage to non-Jews, which is forbidden according to Jewish and secular law. Many forms of slander can lead to people being damaged by others (e.g. ruining reputation at work or online) – Emet v'Shalom Feb 16 '15 at 15:15
  • 1
    @Emetv'Shalom: The question is whether we're discussing the specific prohibition of lashon hara, or LH in the colloquial sense. If we're talking specifically, then we mean true negative information, as opposed to motzi sheim ra -- slander. Is it really prohibited to harm a non-Jew by not keeping their secrets and letting people know the truth about them? Maybe as a hilkhos dei'os issue, but in terms of the prohibition of damage, I'm not so sure. – Micha Berger Aug 31 '17 at 23:15
3

In one the hayom yoms it says that it is even worse to speak lashon horo about a goy because it can also be a chilul Hashem

Dovid Benizri
  • 783
  • 5
  • 14