Now up to this point we have discussed many areas of forbidden speech which sometimes change in din [i.e., forbidden or permitted] according to the circumstances. And now in these sections, we shall speak of the greater part of its components, where there is nothing to say on behalf of the speaker, when he intends no benefit, but only to speak demeaningly of his friend. The stumbling-block here is more prevalent, almost everybody stumbling into it — and only because of insufficiency of knowledge. I shall, therefore, ask that it not be cause for wonder in the eyes of the reader that I expatiate upon it and mention every detail explicitly. For I [venture to] think that perhaps the L–rd will grant that through this, part of this great stumbling-block will be removed.
And I shall begin by saying that it is forbidden to shame one's friend for an insufficiency in what he possesses — whether in wisdom, strength, wealth, or the like. I shall explain my meaning in all of its details: "wisdom" — telling people that Ploni is not wise. And there is no difference here as to whether it is false or partially true and he exaggerates the actuality. — This is certainly a great sin, in the order of "spreading an evil report." For he demeans his friend by his falsehoods. — But even if it is the absolute truth, have not all the Rishonim "rooted it within us" that lashon hara [is forbidden] even if true! (See Principle I.) And this thing, negating one's possession of a certain eminence, is certainly also in the category of lashon hara. For did the Rambam not write (Avoth 1:17): "Lashon hara is relating one's evils and his blemishes and demeaning a Jew in any way, even if the demeaned one were [indeed] deficient, etc." As he expatiates there, it is called lashon hara if what he says about him is true. (See also what the Rambam has written in Hilchoth Deoth 7:5 to the effect that lashon hara is something, which when it becomes known to men, causes someone to be harmed in his body or in his money or to aggrieve him or to frighten him.) It seems clear, then, that negating one's possession of a certain eminence is absolute lashon hara according to the Torah. For upon reflection we find that this can result in monetary loss or grief, etc.
First we shall explain what we are dealing with now, one's saying about another that he is not wise. For, in truth, there is no [attribution of] deficiency greater than this. For if he were not yet married, if this [lashon hara] were known to people, no one would be found who would want to make a match with him. And if he had an occupation, then whatever occupation he had, whether he were a craftsman or a teacher, who would want to join him in his affairs? And especially if he were a teacher of Law in Israel [i.e., a posek] and one said about him to people that he were not wise, then aside from this being an issur of lashon hara according to the Torah (for certainly, if this were accepted by the hearers and publicized in the city, he would be caused a monetary loss, for no one would want to go to him for din or pesharah [compromise), [aside from this],
even something worse could happen — that by being demeaned before the men of the city, he would, in the end, be removed from his place, and his blood and the blood of his children would be on the head of the speaker; for through his lashon hara, he would have descended to [the taking of] his very livelihood. In addition to this, he greatly demeans thereby the honor of the Torah and its learners and is called "the shamer of a Torah scholar," about which Chazal have said that "there is no healing for his wound." And through this [lashon hara] there will greatly decline the fulfillment of Torah; for if the Rabbi exhorts them thereafter concerning a certain mitzvah in the Torah, they will pay no attention to his words, his having already been publicized in their eyes by the men of lashon hara as a man who is not wise.
וְהִנִּה עַד כֹּה הִצַּעְנוּ מֵעִנְיְנִי דִּבּוּר הָאִסוּר הַרְבֵּה דְּבָרִים, שֶׁהֵם מִשְׁתַּנִּים לִפְעָמִים בְּדִינָא לְפִי הָעִנְיָן. וְעַתָּה בַּסְעִיפִים הַלָּלוּ נְדַבֵּר בַּחֵלֶק הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּחֲלָקָיו, מִפְּנִי שֶׁאֵין שׁוּם צַד זְכוּת עַל הַמְסַפֵּר, כִּי אֵינֶנּוּ מְכַוֵּן לְשׁוּם תּוֹעֶלֶת, רַק לְסַפֵּר בִּגְנוּת חֲבֵרוֹ, וְהַמַּכְשֵׁלָה בּוֹ יוֹתֵר מָצּוּי, שֶׁנִּכְשָׁלִין בּוֹ כִּמְעַט רֹב הָעוֹלָם וְרַק מִצַּד חֶסְרוֹן יְדִיעָה. וְלָכֵן אֲבַקֵּשׁ, שֶׁאַל יִהְיֶה לְפֶלֶא בְּעֵינִי הַקּוֹרֵא בַּמֶּה שֶּׁאַאֲרִיךְ בּוֹ וְאַצִּיעַ כָּל פְּרָט בְּפֵרוּשׁ, כִּי אֶחְשֹׁב, אוּלַי יִתֵּן ה', שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה תָּסוּר מְעַט מֵהַמַּכְשֵׁלָה הַגְּדוֹלָה הַזּוֹ.
Now up to this point we have discussed many areas of forbidden speech which sometimes change in din [i.e., forbidden or permitted] according to the circumstances. And now in these sections, we shall speak of the greater part of its components, where there is nothing to say on behalf of the speaker, when he intends no benefit, but only to speak demeaningly of his friend. The stumbling-block here is more prevalent, almost everybody stumbling into it — and only because of insufficiency of knowledge. I shall, therefore, ask that it not be cause for wonder in the eyes of the reader that I expatiate upon it and mention every detail explicitly. For I [venture to] think that perhaps the L–rd will grant that through this, part of this great stumbling-block will be removed.
וָאַעֵן וָאֹמַר, אָסוּר לְבַזּוֹת אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ מִצַּד חֶסְרוֹן שְׁלֵמוּת הַמַּעֲלוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ, הֵן בְּחָכְמָה, הֵן בִּגְבוּרָה, הֵן בְּעֹשֶׁר וְכָל כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא {וכל כיוצא בזה}. וַאֲפָרֵשׁ אֶת דְּבָרַי בְּכָל הַפְּרָטִים. הֵן בְּחָכְמָה, כְּגוֹן לְהַצִּיעַ לִפְנִי אֲנָשִׁים, אֵיךְ שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי אֵינְנּוּ חָכָם, וְלֹא מִבָּעֵי אִם הוּא דְּבַר שֶׁקֶר אוֹ הוּא אֱמֶת בְּמִקְצָתוֹ, וְהוּא מְגַזֵּם אֶת הַדָּבָר יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁהוּא, בְּוַדַּאי עָוֹן גָּדוֹל הוּא עַד מְאֹד, וְהוּא יוֹתֵר חָמוּר מִסְתַם לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְהוּא בִּכְלַל מוֹצִּיא שֵׁם רָע, כִּי הוּא מַשְׁפִּיל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁקָרָיו. אַךְ אֲפִלּוּ הוּא אֱמֶת גָּמוּר, הֲלֹא כְּבָר הִשְׁרִישׁוּנוּ כָּל הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְכַנַּ"ל בִּכְלָל א', דְּלָשׁוֹן הָרָע הוּא אֲפִלּוּ עַל אֱמֶת. וְדָבָר זֶה, דְּהַיְנוּ, מַה שֶּׁשּׁוֹלֵל מִמֶּנּוּ הַמַּעֲלוֹת בְּוַדַּאי גַּם כֵּן בִּכְלַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע הוּא, דַּהֲלֹא כָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם בְּפֶרֶק א' דְּאָבוֹת (מי"ז) וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ שָׁם: וְלָשׁוֹן הָרָע הוּא סִפּוּר רָעוֹת הָאָדָם וּמוּמָיו וּלְגַנּוֹתוֹ בְּאֵיזֶה צַּד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִן הַגְּנוּת, וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם יִהְיֶה הַמְגֻנֶּה חָסֵר וְכוּ'. וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהֶאֱרִיךְ שָׁם דְּלָשׁוֹן הָרָע נִקְרָא אִם הוּא אֱמֶת מַה שֶּׁדִּבֵּר עָלָיו, עַיֵּן שָׁם. וְגַם מִמַּה שֶּׁכָּתַב בְּפֶרֶק ז' מֵהִלְכוֹת דֵּעוֹת {הלכה ה'}, שֶׁלָּשׁוֹן הָרָע נִקְרָא דָּבָר שֶׁגּוֹרֵם, אִם יִתְוַדַּע זֶה לַאֲנָשִׁים, לְהַזִּיק לוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ אוֹ בְּמָמּוֹנוֹ אוֹ לְהָצֵּר לוֹ אוֹ לְהַפְחִידוֹ, נִרְאֶה בָּרוּר, שֶׁחֶסְרוֹן שְׁלִילַת הַמַּעֲלוֹת לָשׁוֹן הָרָע גְּמוּרָה הוּא מִן הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁאִם נִתְבּוֹנִן הֵיטֵב נִמְצָא, שֶׁיּוּכַל לִהְיוֹת שֶׁיְּסֻבַּב עַל יְדֵי זֶה הֶזֵּק בְּמָמוֹנוֹ אוֹ לְהָצֵּר לוֹ וְכוּ'.
And I shall begin by saying that it is forbidden to shame one's friend for an insufficiency in what he possesses — whether in wisdom, strength, wealth, or the like. I shall explain my meaning in all of its details: "wisdom" — telling people that Ploni is not wise. And there is no difference here as to whether it is false or partially true and he exaggerates the actuality. — This is certainly a great sin, in the order of "spreading an evil report." For he demeans his friend by his falsehoods. — But even if it is the absolute truth, have not all the Rishonim "rooted it within us" that lashon hara [is forbidden] even if true! (See Principle I.) And this thing, negating one's possession of a certain eminence, is certainly also in the category of lashon hara. For did the Rambam not write (Avoth 1:17): "Lashon hara is relating one's evils and his blemishes and demeaning a Jew in any way, even if the demeaned one were [indeed] deficient, etc." As he expatiates there, it is called lashon hara if what he says about him is true. (See also what the Rambam has written in Hilchoth Deoth 7:5 to the effect that lashon hara is something, which when it becomes known to men, causes someone to be harmed in his body or in his money or to aggrieve him or to frighten him.) It seems clear, then, that negating one's possession of a certain eminence is absolute lashon hara according to the Torah. For upon reflection we find that this can result in monetary loss or grief, etc.
וְרִאשׁוֹנָה נְבָאֵר אֶת מַה שֶּׁאָנוּ עוֹסְקִים בּוֹ עַתָּה, דְּהַיְנוּ, אִם אָמַר עָלָיו שֶׁאֵינֶנּוּ חָכָם, אֵין חִסָרוֹן גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה עַל פִּי אֱמֶת, כִּי אִם הוּא עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ נָשׂוּי, אִם יִתְפַּרְסֵם זֶה לַאֲנָשִׁים לֹא יִמָּצֵא מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶּה לְהִתְחַתֵּן עִמּוֹ, וְאִם הוּא בַּעַל עֵסֶקּ, אֵיזֶה עֵסֶק שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, הֵן אֻמָּנוּת אוֹ מְלַמְּדוּת, לֹא יִמָּצֵא מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶּה לְהִתְחַבֵּר עִמּוֹ בְּעִנְיָנָיו, וּבִפְרָט אִם הוּא אִישׁ מוֹרֶה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר עָלָיו לַאֲנָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינְנּוּ חָכָם, מִלְּבַד שֶׁהוּא אִסוּר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע מִן הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי אִם יִתְקַבֵּל זֶה לִפְנֵי הַשּׁוֹמְעִים וְיִתְפַּרְסֵם זֶה בָּעִיר, יְסִבַּב לוֹ עַל יְדֵי זֶה הֶפְסֵד בְּמָמוֹנוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה מִּי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לֵילֵךְ אֶצְּלוֹ לְדִין וְלִפְשָׁרָה.
First we shall explain what we are dealing with now, one's saying about another that he is not wise. For, in truth, there is no [attribution of] deficiency greater than this. For if he were not yet married, if this [lashon hara] were known to people, no one would be found who would want to make a match with him. And if he had an occupation, then whatever occupation he had, whether he were a craftsman or a teacher, who would want to join him in his affairs? And especially if he were a teacher of Law in Israel [i.e., a posek] and one said about him to people that he were not wise, then aside from this being an issur of lashon hara according to the Torah (for certainly, if this were accepted by the hearers and publicized in the city, he would be caused a monetary loss, for no one would want to go to him for din or pesharah [compromise), [aside from this],
וְגַם יוּכַל לְהִסָבֵב יוֹתֵר מִזֶּה, שֶׁעל יְדֵי סִבַּת הַשְׁפָּלָתוֹ לִפְנִי אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר, יִסְתַּלֵּק לְבַסוֹף מִמְּקוֹמּוֹ עַל יְדֵי זֶה, וְדָמּוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בְּהַמְסַפֵּר הַזֶּה, כִּי עַל יְדֵי הַלָשׁוֹן הָרָע שֶׁלּוֹ יָרַד עִמּוֹ לְחַיָּיו מַמָּשׁ, עוֹד הוּא מַשְׁפִּיל בָּזֶה מְאֹד אֶת כְּבוֹד הַתּוֹרָה וְלוֹמְדֶיהָ וְנִקְרָא מְבַזֶּה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַזַ"ל, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ רְפוּאָה לְמַכָּתוֹ, וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה יִתְמוֹטֵט, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, מְאֹד מְּאֹד קִיּוּם הַתּוֹרָה, כִּי אַחַר כָּךְ, אִם יַזְהִירֵם הָרַב עַל אֵיזֶה מִצְּוָה מֵהַתּוֹרָה, לֹא יָחוּשׁוּ כְּלָל לִדְבָרָיו, מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְפַּרְסֵם בְּעֵינֵיהֶם עַל יְדֵי בַּעֲלֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע לְאִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָכָם.
even something worse could happen — that by being demeaned before the men of the city, he would, in the end, be removed from his place, and his blood and the blood of his children would be on the head of the speaker; for through his lashon hara, he would have descended to [the taking of] his very livelihood. In addition to this, he greatly demeans thereby the honor of the Torah and its learners and is called "the shamer of a Torah scholar," about which Chazal have said that "there is no healing for his wound." And through this [lashon hara] there will greatly decline the fulfillment of Torah; for if the Rabbi exhorts them thereafter concerning a certain mitzvah in the Torah, they will pay no attention to his words, his having already been publicized in their eyes by the men of lashon hara as a man who is not wise.