Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Doctrines

Lashon Hara

Also Known As Lashon ha-ra · evil speechOriginal Term lashon ha-ra (Hebrew, evil tongue)
Religious Law

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

Origin 1873

What makes this body of law distinctive is that truth is no defence. Saying something accurate and damaging about a person to someone who has no need to know it is the offence, and the sources compare it to bloodshed on the grounds that it kills three people at once: the speaker, the listener and the subject. The severity has an obvious cost, since a rule against true damaging speech can shield wrongdoers, and the law addresses this at length: disclosure is permitted and often obligatory where it is needed to prevent harm, provided the speaker has firsthand knowledge, is certain, has no alternative, intends prevention rather than injury, and does not exaggerate. The application of these conditions to reporting abuse has been the subject of intense and public argument in Orthodox communities over the past three decades, with leading authorities ruling clearly that reporting suspected abuse to civil authorities is required and is not evil speech, against a communal instinct that had often treated it as such.

Facts
Status
Status Within the Tradition
Standard teaching, not formally defined 1Tradition: Judaism
A binding prohibition, given its systematic treatment in the Chafetz Chaim
Doctrinal Category
Religious Law 1
Origins
Origin Period
1873 1
Held By
Judaism 1
Learn More
Evil Speech, and Why Truth Is No Defence

Lashon hara, literally "evil tongue", is the prohibition on speech that damages another person's standing. Its distinctive feature, and the reason it is so demanding, is that it applies to true statements. False damaging speech is a separate and graver offence, motzi shem ra, defamation; lashon hara covers the accurate report that harms.

Its scriptural anchor is Leviticus 19:16, "you shall not go about as a talebearer among your people", which sits in a chapter that also forbids hating one's brother in the heart, requires honest rebuke, and commands love of neighbour, a context the commentators treat as defining. The narrative paradigm is Numbers 12, where Miriam speaks against Moses and is stricken, a passage Deuteronomy 24:9 instructs Israel to remember.

Rabbinic literature treats the offence with unusual severity, comparing it to the three cardinal sins together and describing it as killing three people at once: the speaker, the listener and the one spoken about (Arakhin 15b). The classic systematic treatment is Israel Meir Kagan's Hafetz Hayyim (1873), which assembled the scattered rulings into an ordered code and gave its author the name by which he is now universally known; its publication made the observance of these laws a self-conscious movement.

The prohibition is not absolute, and the exceptions are where its real work is done. Disclosure for a constructive purpose, le-to'elet, is permitted, warning someone entering a business partnership or considering a marriage, protecting a person from harm, or seeking counsel, subject to conditions that the tradition specifies tightly: the speaker must know the matter firsthand, the purpose must genuinely be protective rather than punitive, nothing may be exaggerated, no less damaging means may be available, and the harm caused must not exceed what the purpose requires. Contemporary rabbinic writing has applied the category at length to journalism, to political speech and to online communication. In the case of abuse, most contemporary authorities across the denominations have ruled that the obligation to prevent harm to others governs and that reporting is required, rejecting earlier readings that treated disclosure as forbidden speech.

A Taxonomy Finer Than "Gossip"

English lumps a wide range of harmful speech under the single word gossip, but the Chafetz Chaim's systematic treatment distinguishes several related categories, each with its own rules, and the distinctions do real work in practice.

Rechilut, talebearing, is narrower than lashon hara in one respect and broader in another: it specifically covers carrying information from one party to another, telling someone what a third party said or did concerning them, even when the information is not damaging to reputation, since the harm lies in stirring conflict and suspicion between people rather than besmirching a name as such. The classical case is telling someone "so-and-so said this about you," forbidden essentially regardless of accuracy or mildness, because the relayed information's capacity to damage a relationship, not a reputation, is what the prohibition targets.

Avak lashon hara, the dust of evil speech, covers statements that fall short of direct disparagement but create an unfavorable impression through implication, tone or selective emphasis, such as pointedly praising someone's honesty in a way that implies suspicion about a past transaction. The category exists because the Chafetz Chaim held that the prohibition targets the practical effect of speech on another's standing, and effect can be produced by insinuation as reliably as by direct statement.

Motzi shem ra, the graver offense of outright fabrication covered elsewhere, sits at one end of a spectrum the tradition maps in detail: fabricated harm, accurate harm, harm-neutral talebearing, and merely suggestive insinuation are related but legally distinct wrongs, each attracting its own rulings about what constitutes the offense and what, if anything, excuses it.

Cross-Tradition Connections

Belongs to Tradition

Judaism, Religions
Source Encyclopedia of ReligionMircea Eliade (ed.); Lindsay Jones (ed., 2nd ed.)
Sources
1. Chafetz Chaim
Israel Meir Kagan, Vilna, 1873Hilkhot Lashon Hara and Hilkhot Rechilut, including the conditions permitting disclosure
The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)
Anonymous (multiple authors)Leviticus 19:16; Numbers 12; Deuteronomy 24:9View the Source
The Babylonian Talmud
Anonymous (multiple authors), Soncino Press, 1935Arakhin 15b, on evil speech and the three it harmsView the Source
Encyclopedia of Religion
Mircea Eliade (ed.); Lindsay Jones (ed., 2nd ed.), Macmillan Reference, 2005View the Source
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

Choose a year to see this entry's facts and connections as the atlas records them at that moment: what it held then, what it held instead, and what it had not yet adopted. Choose Present for the current record.