SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM
?
Day 152 ¨C When Rebuke is not Required
?
We have seen that at times reproof may be counterproductive and is therefore out of place (See Days 45, 72, 143). There are several other factors which must be considered when determining whether or not it is necessary to approach
an individual privately before speaking against him.
?
In a case where an individual has regularly violated a given commandment, and means are being sought to encourage his repentance and to prevent others from following in his ways, the need for reproof as a first step is obvious. There is no justification for
publicizing a person¡¯s negative behavior if a meaningful discussion with him could convince him to change his ways. Even if it is obvious that the person will not respond to rebuke, failure to approach him directly before speaking about him could be misconstrued
by others as insincere chanufah, flattery ¨C an approach where the speaker deliberately exhibits tolerance in the perpetrator¡¯s presence to gain his favor, while speaking negatively of him behind his back (See Day 58).
???????????????????????
If, however, the person being discussed has harmed someone, and the purpose of publicizing his actions is to correct the situation, one need not fear suspicions of insincerity. In such a case, rebuke would not be a prerequisite unless there is reason to believe
it will achieve results.
?
In the case of a prospective business or marriage partnership, where certain aspects of the subject¡¯s history cast doubt on the correctness of the proposed relationship, rebuke would not affect matters and is therefore unnecessary. Even if the person would
pledge to mend his ways, the other party would have to be warned of the possibility that he may return to his previous mode of behavior. However, one should attempt to encourage the person to inform the other party of his past, thus lessening the need for
involvement of a third party.
?
?
SEFER SHMIRAS HALOSHON
?
Torah Study vs. Loshon Hora
?
The Talmud states (Arachin 15b): ¡°R¡¯ Chama bar Chanina said: If one has spoken loshon hora, how can he rectify his sin? If he is a Torah scholar, he should toil in Torah study, as it is written, ¡®A healing for the tongue is a tree of life¡¯ (Mishlei 15:4). Torah
is the ¡®tree of life,¡¯ as it is written (ibid. 3:18), ¡®It is a tree of life to all who grasp it.¡¯ ¡±
?
¡°Death and life are in the power of the tongue¡± (ibid. 18:21). Evil speech can deny one the eternal bliss of the Next World. One who seeks to heal his tongue of this terrible malady should partake of the tree of life that is Torah. At the same time, he must
be on guard to avoid repeating past sins.
?
This can be likened to a person who is being treated for food poisoning. It is not enough to take the necessary medicines; one must also be careful to avoid eating more contaminated food.
?
The Talmud further states that immersion in Torah study is itself a preventive measure against speaking loshon hora. As Scripture states, ¡°For man was born to toil¡± (Iyov 5:7). The Talmud (Sanhedrin 99b) understands ¡°toil¡± as a reference to speech, specifically
the speech of Torah study. The Talmud is teaching us that man¡¯s tongue differs from his other limbs in a very important way. Use of man¡¯s other limbs requires energy. If man is lazy, his limbs will not be put to maximum use. Such is not the case with the tongue.
Man need not overcome any innate laziness to engage in conversation. To the contrary, he is naturally bent toward speech and it is to refrain from speech which requires effort. Thus do the Sages state that ¡°man was born to toil¡± refers to the toil of speech.
?
It is for the toil of Torah study that man was born. However, man has free choice to decide what the nature of his speech will be. If he will not use his natural inclination toward speech for the study of Torah, then inevitably he will speak other matters and
will transgress the laws of forbidden speech.
? |
|
