Everybody, welcome back. Torah Tuesday continues. We have Daf Yomi (daily page) every morning on the same Zoom number, starting at 5 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. On Tuesdays at 10.30, we have a session on Chovot HaLevavot (Duties of the Heart) as part of Mussar Classics. We've been in that Sefer for about a year, doing a few paragraphs each week. At 11.45 every Tuesday, religion permitting, we learn about proper speech.
Today is Dalet (fourth) Nisan, or today is He (fifth) Nisan. On Dalet and He, yesterday and today, according to the calendar developed by Rav Segal, we're going to learn the laws of Lashon Hara (speak negatively), the 8th chapter, or the 8th Klal (rule), the first four paragraphs. In this section, the Chafetz Chaim focuses on who's involved in the sin of Lashon Hara. You have the speaker, the listener, and what we call the victim, or the subject. So those three are involved. There are certain rules you have to know about the subject.
Contrary to popular belief, it's a very big misconception: you're not allowed to speak Lashon Hara about your spouse or any other relative. Just because you're related is not a heter (permission). He says many people stumble into this type of Lashon Hara by saying, “Look, most times that we speak negatively about anybody in the family, it's not me. It's not me. It's not for men to malign them or to harm them. Maybe just to express disapproval.” But it's not permitted by halakha (Jewish law). A relative commits a wrong, and one has no right to put it on the table, even if you know about it and it's true. It's not for open discussion just because it's a relative.
Of course, there are always exceptions. There's a thing called to'elet, which means for constructive purpose. We'll probably study it next week or the week after; it's coming up. A parent should know that your sibling did something wrong that could be damaging or harmful, or that they would not approve of. But when transferring that information to a parent, a brother, or a disciplinarian for constructive purpose, it still needs to meet the restrictions of constructive speech.
Now, when the speech is constructive, it doesn't mean it's not Lashon Hara. It is in fact Lashon Hara. The fact that it is Lashon Hara means to say that, yes, it's Lashon Hara, but it's not a sin. In other words, it falls in the category of Lashon Hara, but it has fulfilled seven different details and requirements of to'elet, and it falls into the category of Lashon Hara. It is not a sin in this context.
Now, the Chafetz Chaim cautions us: you have to keep all seven. One of the conditions is that there's no hard feelings. There's no dislike. There's no intent to take revenge. He's not doing it to denigrate the person. Unfortunately, people are people: men and men, ladies and ladies, children and children, business partners, business relations. The motivation of children when they tell their parents about what somebody else did wrong might involve wanting to get them back. This type of Lashon Hara can ruin the unity in the family, and there are many halachic roadblocks to prevent you from speaking in such a way about children.
So let's look at children for a minute as a separate subject. In Klal Chet (8th chapter), Se'if Gimel and Dalet (sections three and four), he says it's forbidden to speak in a negative fashion about children. Now, adults understand that kids are kids, and their negative behavior is often excused because of immaturity or lack of training yet. They're not children. They're not children. They're not grown-ups. If the information casts the child in a bad light, it should not be spoken or listened to. It should not be spoken by the speaker or listened to by the listener.
The Chafetz Chaim goes out of his way to stress that it's forbidden to mention something about a child that may not be derogatory but may be harmful. The example he brings is someone mentioning a negative statement in front of a foster parent. It's not the mother; it's not the father; it's a foster parent—somebody taking care of a child who was brought into the world by somebody else. Now, the information may not be out-and-out derogatory, but it may describe behavior that would make the foster parents not want to take the obligation or put in the time and effort to raise this child. Sometimes children can be punished excessively by their natural parents because information about their behavior angered them. So one has to be careful. There may be reports about their behavior. Exercise caution before relating any of that type of information to the powers that be.
From there on, parents and teachers should be careful. There's an amazing story you're going to hear. Parents and teachers should be careful not to discipline children based on negative reports. I say “report” because you have an obligation, when you hear it, to take action if the report is accurate, not exaggerated, without any animosity, could be harmful, etc.—whatever the seven things are. But you should be careful not to discipline based on the comment. Once you verify, once you've looked into it and you're not relying solely on the information you heard, then, if proper action is in place for the good of the child, you can do it.
Now, Rav Avraham Pam, the gadol (great) of America, tells a story about a young child who was punished. Why was he punished? An item was found in his knapsack. Now, what was this item? I don't know. Was it a watch? Was it a pen? Was it a toy? I don't know. But I do know a boy claimed that his particular property, his item, was missing. They searched and found it in the backpack of this other classmate. The apparent culprit insisted he had nothing to do with it. He said, “I did not take it. I don't know about it. I never saw it, and I certainly didn't put it in my backpack.” But nobody believed him. Based on the report and the evidence, he was punished.
A long time passed, quite a long time passed, before another boy came along and admitted that he had taken the item—he had stolen it. He felt remorse and wanted to return it, but was afraid to, so he shoved it in this boy's backpack. The innocent child was humiliated because his teacher immediately accepted the evidence and ignored the child's protests. “Sure, he didn't take it, but how come it's here?” If this could happen in a case where the evidence seemed so convincing, how careful must we be not to take action based on reports without first investigating the accuracy, the validity, and the details of what you heard?